Quote from: BobK71 on September 13, 2018, 02:50:45 PM

Quote from: Hell-raiser on May 12, 2018, 08:36:55 PM

Quote from: BobK71 on May 08, 2018, 08:28:29 PM

This is a key point. Growth is a function of advances in technology, management, etc. and in its natural state needs have nothing to do with the monetary system. What state-money has done is to create artificially fast growth, during the inflationary phase of the asset bubble. We are incentivized to buy things we don't really need. When the asset bubble eventually crashes, we have economic pain.

I somewhat agree with you that a monetary system should not create an artificial growth, though this is a separate and very complex topic in itself, with arguments both in favor and against such growth. But how does it challenge my point that the elites are also interested in the common good over the long term?

"The elites are interested in the common good over the long term." -- This is true only to the extent that growth and a better organization of society benefit the very top elites (even if true competition causes harm to some rich and powerful people.) This is because growth is the ultimate support for the value of the money and debt issued by the top elites.

The way you can tell if they're truly interested in the common good is to observe what they do after a financial bust.

Actually, no one is particularly interested in the common good as everyone is after their own interests, obviously. And elites are no exception to this rule. You speak of them like they are aliens, while in reality they are essentially the same people only in a position which gives them a feeling or sense of superiority.

In essence, when I said they are interested in the common good over the long term, I meant they are of course interested in their own well-being before anything else. But they also understand (well, at least some of them) that their prosperity is inseparably linked to the prosperity of the whole society as they depend on it more than on anything else and more than everyone else does. The point is that to support their high standards of living, they have to rely on the whole society as their feeding ground, and thus they have to care for it.

Quote from: BobK71 on September 13, 2018, 02:50:45 PM

Over the modern centuries, financial busts were generally followed by a policy of tightening the money supply. This imposed even more pain on the public, on top of the wealth and jobs lost by the bust, and basically put all of the pain from the financial bubble on the shoulders of the public. The excuse for doing this was to protect the peg of the currency against gold or silver, to guard the 'moral honor' of the elites in being able to redeem their paper with gold or silver. (Or the fiat-period equivalent of this argument.)

Does it mean that elites dismantling the gold standard was the good thing for the public as there is no more "'moral honor of the elites" in the form of paper money redemption for gold?

Quote from: BobK71 on September 13, 2018, 02:50:45 PM

But the real reason is to protect their system. If the elites used inflation to lessen the pain to the public, by devaluing currency against gold/silver (or doing the fiat equivalent,) the long-term confidence in their system would be harmed. They benefited most on the way up, but the public suffered on the way down.

You talk of them as if they really were aliens. Seen the V television series? Indeed, they are protecting their personal interests, but so does everyone else. So what's the point? This is not Lalaland.