[ExI] Bank of England

[Dan]

--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Dan<dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How would you distinguish between them?  How would
>> you measure "politically responsibility"?
> 
> Visibility?

Please explain.  As a casual observer of governments, a lot happens out in the open which few see.  For instance, local municipal governments are famous for violating their own and their enabling states rules.  They only worry about this when someone with support complains.  They're not, it seems, worried about getting caught per se -- or they'd go into "executive session."  (They do that often enough too.)

There are also plenty of other tactics used to get the policies they want through.  For instance, schedule public meetings when few will attend -- such as during lunchtime or otherwise during the normal workday.  The meeting is still open to the public; it looks on the up and up.  But the goal is to make sure only supporters show.

> Once more: have you seen Money as Debt?

Not yet.

> Not because it is
> the Gospel
> (in fact, it is even naive on a number of points) but
> because it would
> seem pointless to produce a wordy reiteratation here of
> what is
> explained there with a chart-and-cartoon level of
> simplicity.

Why can't you explain it in 100 words or less?

>> I think the delusion is that there could be public
>> interests and that a monopolist would serve them.  So,
>> government is always a public-seeming entity serving the
>> private interests of the ruling class.  There are no public
>> entities that would do otherwise.  That's the illusion of
>> statism.
> 
> Why then not to entrust monetary control to governments,
> and/or other bodies, such as municipalities?

Because they can coerce and have a proven track record of failure.  (I believe the two are related; once you can use force, you don't have to respond as minutely to economic realities.  You can always shift the costs of your policies and their errors to others.)

Why not just allow each person decide what she or he wants to use as money and not put any restrictions on entry into the money system?  Those who offer up monies of low quality -- such as probably all of today's fiat currencies -- would likely have to change or face not being used by anyone.

Regards,

Dan