If you have a market based interest rate, the wider money supply (including some forms of credit) will be dynamic, but adjust according to the demand for money.
Greenspan is ultra-liberal? That is a new one. An elitist, pretending to not understand money, pretending to not understand the destructive forces of monetarism, pretending that central planning is capitalism, and pretending to not see the absurdity that is the government colluding with big firms. That is how I describe him.
I think that the idea of market based interest rate is worth the thought. It would need to be a solid system that isn't vulnerable to the obvious ways of manipulation.
Greenspan was an ultra-liberal. Todays conspiracy theory generation has demonized the upper class more then they deserve. All of them aren't these evil geniuses with grand conspiracy plans. Most of them are just schmucks who have inherited their money and power by blood. The ratio between clever and numb minded people is about the same in every social class.
Greenspan really thought that he is doing good by giving more liberty to the private sector for putting the money into good use. He played the santa-claus to everyone, without them acknowledging that they are paying their own gifts and with interest. It is an typical behavior for an ignorant schmuck who is mainly after pleasing everyone. These are the Ponzi type schmucks, who really don't have an exit plan, and who are just taking it one day at a time. Everyone else just go into denial and hope for an miracle to make this bubble last. It's like with the majority of the bitcoin community.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting to stop trying, just because we have failed so many times already. Even though I'm sure you've heard about Einsteins famous definition of insanity...
As long as the door is open for the testing of alternatives, which have
never been tried before it's all fine with me. And we do have alternatives which have been unavailable due to insufficient cultural or technological development for most of history. Like Bitcoin. We should keep trying these as well, maybe even with a priority. Just in case electing the right people won't work again, or maybe we come up with some better solutions during the process
I think that the problem isn't in the idea of leadership, but the problem is how people think that they have to choose their leadership. There is no honor left in this process that should involve more honor then any other job position.
I think that the only solution here is to spread realization of this solution to really, really start thinking on who to elect the next leader. Not just choose one from the pack that is offered, but people would really concentrate on the question who among others is the best suitable type. People are illusioned that they don't have the power to change this, but they do.
But delegating that responsibility to a centralized institution and consider it done is just a tiny step from that.
It isn't the best, but it is better then chaos.
Yes we have animal intelligence. But that is not all we have. We seem to have several layers of intelligence going from basic biological survival reflexes, through animal social intelligence, towards symbolic intelligence (ability to manipulate symbols), another layer of moral intelligence (animal intelligence is not sufficient for the level of complexity of our society) and several suspected further levels of intelligence.
The symbolic intelligence, which is the source of scientific breakthrough and technological innovation produces a rapid, exponential accumulation of knowledge and thus potential for change. The moral social intelligence is forever lagging to account for new technology shaping the environment we live in and for new scientific paradigms shaping the way we perceive the world. You could say that while the symbolic intelligence is concerned with interpreting symbols (what things
are), the moral intelligence is concerned with what things
should be - and making rules around that.
This is a roundabout way of saying that we should probably expect to evolve further away from animal-like forms of organizations as time passes.
Enjoying the gentlemanly discussion!
When you are dealing with an group, then there has to be central leadership for the group to be effective. It is so in nature, it is so in war, and it is so in the economy. Put 10 guys who don't know eachother in the same group to preform a task, and soon it will be clear, on who will be listening who, from now on. People just are like that and it's not the best choice to deny these aspects. When you deny this core element in human nature, then you will mostly be blind on who is actually following who.
I agree that technology is changing our very consciousness and we are shifting more into the hive mind environment, where most of the people will be only following 1 source of power while remaining equal to one another. Maybe this day will someday come, but it won't happen anytime soon. For many generations to come, people will still be strongly influences by their animalistic impulses. It's better to accept these impulses and to understand them, then to deny them and have no realization or control over them.
The discussion has been pleasant.
