<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fiscal Conservatism vs. Economic Conservatism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thri.ca/archives/370/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thri.ca/archives/370</link>
	<description>Veritas Pulchritudo Est</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:40:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: thrica</title>
		<link>http://thri.ca/archives/370/comment-page-1#comment-10234</link>
		<dc:creator>thrica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:50:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrica.com/?p=370#comment-10234</guid>
		<description>Oh good. Yea, you&#039;re definitely right that it would be useless/unsustainable to have competitive fiat
currencies. The reason we don&#039;t operate under a commodity standard anymore is because governments couldn&#039;t inflate and go into debt without majorly screwing things up (which they did). I see that as a benefit, not a detriment (I don&#039;t remember what all I said last time, so forgive me if I repeat myself) - the consequences of fiddling are more immediate, so you get less of it.

Stable exchange rates among the currencies I also see as good and necessary; it&#039;s the stability that competition generates. You&#039;re also right though, that adopting currencies of other national banks would be a terrible idea for exactly those reasons - unless they allow our currency in as well. Then both would have an incentive to keep their currency stable.

The problem now is that we don&#039;t have stable currencies, and that&#039;s the problem that competition fixes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh good. Yea, you&#8217;re definitely right that it would be useless/unsustainable to have competitive fiat<br />
currencies. The reason we don&#8217;t operate under a commodity standard anymore is because governments couldn&#8217;t inflate and go into debt without majorly screwing things up (which they did). I see that as a benefit, not a detriment (I don&#8217;t remember what all I said last time, so forgive me if I repeat myself) &#8211; the consequences of fiddling are more immediate, so you get less of it.</p>
<p>Stable exchange rates among the currencies I also see as good and necessary; it&#8217;s the stability that competition generates. You&#8217;re also right though, that adopting currencies of other national banks would be a terrible idea for exactly those reasons &#8211; unless they allow our currency in as well. Then both would have an incentive to keep their currency stable.</p>
<p>The problem now is that we don&#8217;t have stable currencies, and that&#8217;s the problem that competition fixes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Richmond</title>
		<link>http://thri.ca/archives/370/comment-page-1#comment-10233</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Richmond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:49:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrica.com/?p=370#comment-10233</guid>
		<description>I thought about your competitive monetary system idea btw. However I honestly couldn&#039;t find a real benefit to it, only detractors. Unless you tie the various monetary units to some sort of standard (gold for one, silver for another, etc) it seems to me that it will defeat the point.

You can have a system where a single country has several different currencies that compete against each other but inevitably end up following all of the same waves in the economy because the public WILL demand low transaction costs between the various forms of money, making them virtually indistinguishable from each other aside from name and pictures (assuming they&#039;re physical dollars).

Or you can allow a system where say the Euro is also accepted as a national currency along with the dollar. This sounds like a HORRIBLE idea because now decisions by the European Banks are more directly affecting the US. The various member nations in the EU are already discovering the issues associated with banks in Germany making decisions that affect Italy in an effort to help Spain or France. We wouldn&#039;t even be a member. It&#039;d be a disaster.

I can see it evening out the curve SLIGHTLY in the first system. However I don&#039;t think it would be significant enough to overcome the negatives.

We could tie the currencies to different commodities (one to gold, one to silver, one to platinum) but that would face a whole OTHER world of possible disasters. There&#039;s a reason we don&#039;t operate under the gold standard anymore...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought about your competitive monetary system idea btw. However I honestly couldn&#8217;t find a real benefit to it, only detractors. Unless you tie the various monetary units to some sort of standard (gold for one, silver for another, etc) it seems to me that it will defeat the point.</p>
<p>You can have a system where a single country has several different currencies that compete against each other but inevitably end up following all of the same waves in the economy because the public WILL demand low transaction costs between the various forms of money, making them virtually indistinguishable from each other aside from name and pictures (assuming they&#8217;re physical dollars).</p>
<p>Or you can allow a system where say the Euro is also accepted as a national currency along with the dollar. This sounds like a HORRIBLE idea because now decisions by the European Banks are more directly affecting the US. The various member nations in the EU are already discovering the issues associated with banks in Germany making decisions that affect Italy in an effort to help Spain or France. We wouldn&#8217;t even be a member. It&#8217;d be a disaster.</p>
<p>I can see it evening out the curve SLIGHTLY in the first system. However I don&#8217;t think it would be significant enough to overcome the negatives.</p>
<p>We could tie the currencies to different commodities (one to gold, one to silver, one to platinum) but that would face a whole OTHER world of possible disasters. There&#8217;s a reason we don&#8217;t operate under the gold standard anymore&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thrica</title>
		<link>http://thri.ca/archives/370/comment-page-1#comment-10231</link>
		<dc:creator>thrica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:50:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrica.com/?p=370#comment-10231</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s not to say economic conservatism is necessarily more sophisticated than economic liberalism; only that a fiscal position is easier to take than an economic one.

And yea, I entirely agree that the bundles of positions usually called nakedly &quot;Liberal&quot; and &quot;Conservative&quot; are pretty incoherent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s not to say economic conservatism is necessarily more sophisticated than economic liberalism; only that a fiscal position is easier to take than an economic one.</p>
<p>And yea, I entirely agree that the bundles of positions usually called nakedly &#8220;Liberal&#8221; and &#8220;Conservative&#8221; are pretty incoherent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Richmond</title>
		<link>http://thri.ca/archives/370/comment-page-1#comment-10230</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Richmond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:40:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrica.com/?p=370#comment-10230</guid>
		<description>None of those things have anything to do with each other yet somehow there are huge groups of people who believe in most or all of them. They pidgen hold themselves so they can be a part of the club. In reality you should have far more people who are anti-gun rights, anti-gay marriage, pro environmental issues, think flag burning should be illegal, economically liberal, etc. There ARE those people, but most people do not fall into the middle like that. 

It&#039;s explained very easily by a girl in high school who I told I was an independent. I told her I was far too moderate for any single party and she rolled her eyes and said, &quot;you&#039;re just a fence sitter, pick a side already!&quot;

While not incredibely helpful in an academic sense, the terms are quite helpful for understanding the masses more informally.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>None of those things have anything to do with each other yet somehow there are huge groups of people who believe in most or all of them. They pidgen hold themselves so they can be a part of the club. In reality you should have far more people who are anti-gun rights, anti-gay marriage, pro environmental issues, think flag burning should be illegal, economically liberal, etc. There ARE those people, but most people do not fall into the middle like that. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s explained very easily by a girl in high school who I told I was an independent. I told her I was far too moderate for any single party and she rolled her eyes and said, &#8220;you&#8217;re just a fence sitter, pick a side already!&#8221;</p>
<p>While not incredibely helpful in an academic sense, the terms are quite helpful for understanding the masses more informally.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Richmond</title>
		<link>http://thri.ca/archives/370/comment-page-1#comment-10229</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Richmond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:35:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrica.com/?p=370#comment-10229</guid>
		<description>1. To announce that being an economic conservative is somehow more &quot;sophisticated&quot; than an economic liberal is rather biased. That&#039;s like saying a Mac is more sophisticated than a PC because fewer people grow up using them. It&#039;s just different, making it difficult for an uneducated person to understand out of the box because they&#039;re so used to their simple way of thinking. However there are those people who DO understand what&#039;s going on and for more complex, &quot;sophisticated&quot; reasons choose a more liberal path.

Also I would say that the naked terms conservative and liberal SHOULD be useless terms, however people have a strong tendency to pigeon hole themselves.

How is it reasonable that there exists so many people that are fiscally conservative, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights, care less about the environment, think flag burning should be illegal, etc. etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1. To announce that being an economic conservative is somehow more &#8220;sophisticated&#8221; than an economic liberal is rather biased. That&#8217;s like saying a Mac is more sophisticated than a PC because fewer people grow up using them. It&#8217;s just different, making it difficult for an uneducated person to understand out of the box because they&#8217;re so used to their simple way of thinking. However there are those people who DO understand what&#8217;s going on and for more complex, &#8220;sophisticated&#8221; reasons choose a more liberal path.</p>
<p>Also I would say that the naked terms conservative and liberal SHOULD be useless terms, however people have a strong tendency to pigeon hole themselves.</p>
<p>How is it reasonable that there exists so many people that are fiscally conservative, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun rights, care less about the environment, think flag burning should be illegal, etc. etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
