Sunday, 9 January 2011
Countries are always stupid and always wrong even if they are popular
Under Democratic systems, the majority has the right to be aggressive to the rest. If Democratic systems do not have this right, they do not form a Government and they are not malign, then, to take a vote without this aggressive right is nothing more than an opinion poll. Opinion polls are not violent, just because people agree with the ability of the Government to be aggressive doesn't make it justified.
Saturday, 8 January 2011
It is not possible for anything to be better than free trade
Only behaviours which are mutually agreeable to all parties are valid, where all agents have chosen to take part and have not been coerced into the arrangement. If a political action (involving more than one person) is not criminal it must have been mutually chosen by everyone, as with free trade. There is nothing better than free trade, when it comes to engagement with other people.
What happens when you get rid of Parliamentary constituencies
Part of the problem with Westminster politics is that all of the parties must focus their efforts on winning constituency seats. This means that, rather than best serve the electorate, instead their motives are better directed at beating the other main party. Politics would be more broad, and more Democratic if we removed the restriction of constituency seats altogether.
For more on this please read the following further discussion here Complete representation would mean that politicians could have influence according to their popularity...
For more on this please read the following further discussion here Complete representation would mean that politicians could have influence according to their popularity...
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Banks are able to increase the money supply
If banks have deposit insurance, there is nothing to prevent them from increasing the money supply. The existence of deposit insurance means banks are able to (can) increase the money supply.
Monday, 3 January 2011
Under AV parties can offer more than one candidate without splitting the vote
The Alternative Vote system enables individual parties to put forward more than one candidate and not split the vote.
Under First Past the Post (FPtP) people do not have a second and third preference which, normally not important, matters when there is a lack of proportionality. It (having more than one preference) means that, having given their more desired choice, voters can give their insurance party. Due to this absence people must instead choose their first option as their insurance candidate. Knowing this, parties have no reason to offer more than one candidate, if they do it will split the vote. The Alternative Vote system enables parties to give their supporters at least a choice between perhaps two or more candidates, and not split the vote, which they cannot do under FPtP.
Under an Alternative Vote type system of elections, people do not need to give their first preference to their tactical (least worst) choice. Because of this, a party can field more than one candidate in the knowledge that this will not harm them by splitting the vote, that supporters will give all chosen candidates one of their preferences. A party fielding more than one candidate will not suffer from a split vote if supporters give them each one of their preference votes. Under First Past the Post a political party would not want to field more than one candidate because voters cannot endorse both of them. Being able to endorse more than one candidate means that individual parties are able to offer their supporters more choice, and if they don't voters may come to resent being offered a limited selection of candidates.
Under First Past the Post (FPtP) people do not have a second and third preference which, normally not important, matters when there is a lack of proportionality. It (having more than one preference) means that, having given their more desired choice, voters can give their insurance party. Due to this absence people must instead choose their first option as their insurance candidate. Knowing this, parties have no reason to offer more than one candidate, if they do it will split the vote. The Alternative Vote system enables parties to give their supporters at least a choice between perhaps two or more candidates, and not split the vote, which they cannot do under FPtP.
Under an Alternative Vote type system of elections, people do not need to give their first preference to their tactical (least worst) choice. Because of this, a party can field more than one candidate in the knowledge that this will not harm them by splitting the vote, that supporters will give all chosen candidates one of their preferences. A party fielding more than one candidate will not suffer from a split vote if supporters give them each one of their preference votes. Under First Past the Post a political party would not want to field more than one candidate because voters cannot endorse both of them. Being able to endorse more than one candidate means that individual parties are able to offer their supporters more choice, and if they don't voters may come to resent being offered a limited selection of candidates.
Sunday, 2 January 2011
There is no reason to value any form of fiat money
There is no reason to value fiat currencies other than for the reason that the Government values fiat, which is not a very good reason. And since bank credit is not better than legal tender cash, equally there is no reason to value bank credit, either.
Inflation is not necessary for a strong economy
Fractional-reserve banking is bad news for savers and for people who need to pay taxes.
The Government apparently failed to anticipate that with deposit insurance people will be indifferent between cash and bank deposits, suggesting they were not expecting this to cause inflation. Now they are in trouble because the quantity of bank deposits much outnumbers the amount of reserves and the banks are unstable. The banks could have been helpful to the Government by showing restraint in lending, but they were not and they kept loaning the money out which generates more deposits. People hoping to save wealth with fiat currencies are not able to do so because of the banks.
The only way to get rid of Fractional-reserve banking (FRB) is to get rid of the Government which provides the deposit insurance. Without the Government there would be no FRB, it relies on the Government to operate but they don't care because the Government exists. The banks (like the Government) are parasitic because their wealth derives from taxpayer support, they will fall with the Government.
The Government apparently failed to anticipate that with deposit insurance people will be indifferent between cash and bank deposits, suggesting they were not expecting this to cause inflation. Now they are in trouble because the quantity of bank deposits much outnumbers the amount of reserves and the banks are unstable. The banks could have been helpful to the Government by showing restraint in lending, but they were not and they kept loaning the money out which generates more deposits. People hoping to save wealth with fiat currencies are not able to do so because of the banks.
The only way to get rid of Fractional-reserve banking (FRB) is to get rid of the Government which provides the deposit insurance. Without the Government there would be no FRB, it relies on the Government to operate but they don't care because the Government exists. The banks (like the Government) are parasitic because their wealth derives from taxpayer support, they will fall with the Government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
