[ExI] Monopolies in banking

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Tue Jun 30 04:57:44 UTC 2009

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:17 AM, <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> How long is that?  Even now, with fiat currencies -- that, theoretically, have no upper limit on the amount of inflating -- people accept them.  I'm sure, e.g., Bernanke and his predecessors are paid in dollars.

### Let's say, 10 years. You get paid a 1/1000000th share of GNP ten
years after you start running the Non-Fed. Or maybe 1/100 000th share
of the difference between today's GNP and the GNP of 2019. That takes
care of the temporal aspect of inflation, and directs your attention
to long-term growth.

> I agree about 'knee-jerk support of "democracy",' but the problem with modern central banks is NOT democratic control -- as in the voters selecting the head of central banks or the legislators selecting ditto.  The problem is they are a monopoly -- no matter if they were controlled by the voters (whatever that means; at best, it would mean a majority of the voters, which would likely still be a minority of the people in any real world country today), by the legislature, by the executive, or were actually independent.

### Yes, I agree, being a monopoly is the biggest problem, but a
monopolist rewarded for long-term growth is less bad than a monopolist
controlled by an elected official looking for short term political

Please do remember that I am not advocating this solution as the best
one you can have but rather as something less bad than what we have


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list