_gx90

>Furthermore, I take issue with the emphasis on "property damage" as property is fairly meaningless when you fear for your live or live paycheck-to-paycheck. America has an unhealthy obsession with "property damage" as if it should be the driver for any sort of discussion on societal issues, when in fact, it should not be.

Ah right, so the ends justify the means. It is OK to vandalise and destroy a small business if you feel bad and frustrated, but only if you share the corporate-approved politically correct opinion. Do you not see where this road ends?

Completely ridiculous. If a major corporation in concordance with other entities bans speech that does toe the party line - that is quite literally fascism and something straight out of 1984.

BLM and their like was burning down cities for months with support from these same corporates, and that is suddenly OK and not morally questionable because orange man bad? I'm not defending the Trumpers who stormed the capitol, but the double standards are extremely blatant.

I think companies who are operating in spaces that may be targeted for wrongthink (pornography, arms dealers, even crypto to an extent) should seriously consider contingency plans (avoid vendor/platform lock-in, have a backup progressive web app in case your app gets booted etc.) in the event the leftist/SJW/mainstream media mob targets them and kicks them off large platforms (including infrastructure - AWS/GCP/Azure is NOT safe).

Collateral is the wrong term, apologies for that - what I mean is that expanded bank reserves can be used to back an expansion of credit from the bank in question.

>The central bank have not power to stimulate the economy in this situation, that's the reason central bankers are pushing the governments to spend directly.

Sounds very political for a supposedly independent central banking system!

This system is a disgrace and is governed by unelected technocrats who are able to yield a crazy amount of power over the economy without ever being subject to inquiries from the public, all in the interest of experimenting on the population with highly questionable economic models.

In my opinion we would never have been in this situation in the first place were it not for the artificial credit growth and consequent boom caused by central bankers.

It cannot be repaid, ever, because the interest exceeds the amount of money that is currently in existence, which means they will always have to borrow more money (which is created out of thin air) to service the debt.

>The Fed has doubled (!) the number of assets on its balance sheet by creating new monetary instruments and using some of them to purchase financial assets like treasuries and mortgage backed bonds. In fact, the Fed has created more new monetary assets during the past five months than in 2008-2009, during the worst of the global financial crisis.

This is printing money and it is not inaccurate to say that they have created U.S. Dollars out of thin air to finance their asset-purchases and "lending" (a debt that will never be paid off) to the U.S. government.

Because they are pocketing the difference by arbitraging between the government (who issue the treasuries) and the Fed (who is the ultimate buyer) since the Fed cannot buy treasuries directly from the government. It's just a complicated way for the government to print money and hand it out and in this case banks are able to act as the middleman and earn money on the spread.

It's a disgraceful system that is extremely morally questionable.

They are, the argument that the poster above you put forward is such a tired argument and I really do not understand why people are trying to hide the fact that the Fed is actually creating money out of thin air and buying assets from banks for it. The Fed doesn't technically "print" the Federal Reserve Notes, but for all intents and purposes it is legitimately money that is being created, only digitally. You are entirely correct in your assessment that they are manipulating the market by being an agent with unlimited amounts of cash and can therefore provide options for banks that they otherwise wouldn't have in a free market.

Also bank reserves can be used as collateral for further loans, just because you don't lend out the actual reserves doesn't mean more money isn't being created, it's just done in a roundabout fashion.

I hope I'm not the only one that finds this completely ridiculous. What right does the U.S. Federal Government have to prosecute people who aren't even operating within their jurisdiction? This is nothing but imperialism and a captured government trying to shut down competitors to U.S.-based regulated exchanges from more crypto-friendly countries.

I should qualify that I think the idea of private banks is perfectly fine. I agree that what we have right now is a quasi-governmental centrally planned banking system and that should definitely be dealt with as it was government (through guaranteed mortgages) that largely encouraged the conditions that lead to 2008.

> A free market was the only possible market when society did not have the tools to organize and control resource allocation on the scale its possible today, due to advances in technology and expansion in education. We have better tools today, and we as a society can choose other methods for resource allocation that are now accessible.

Many have thought like you, some have even tried to architect society into something like you are describing, and fortunately those that did failed so spectacularly that they are remembered in the history books with names like the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, and maoist China. They all failed because centrally planned societies, either done through envisioned high-tech computerised/AI systems or through at-the-time high-tech 5-year plans like the Soviet Union, all suffer from the knowledge problem. It is simply impossible for someone to know everything about an economy to be able to plan it efficiently.

Perhaps a more tangible argument for the tech-crowd on HN is the lack of understanding that non-engineer managers in some companies have for the software development process and the disastrous results that follow. Now imagine having a Politburo dictating what every little work group in a country should do from software engineers to janitorial staff and you can see where this leads.

>But we discovered automobiles, trains and all that shebang.

Ironically things that were discovered and developed in the 1800s, the times of almost unrestricted capitalism and market price discovery.

>The free market in my country has produced two banks that provide banking to 80% of the population (6M people).

I don't want to assume where you are from, but almost every developed country has incredibly complex, expensive, and insurmountable bank licensing procedures which make it impossible for startups to compete. That is not a free market, it is a crony capitalist market which shields incumbents.

>Yes, we've had sustained economic growth and wealth generation to a magnitude never seen before in the history of the world (although not equitable, but that's a different policy problem).

There are many ways I'd like to rebut this, but instead I'll just ask for who and how? Technology has improved that is for sure as it is a incredibly deflationary, but what else has improved in your eyes? The vast majority in the U.S. and some parts of Europe while nominally earning more than what they did in the 1960's are in my opinion worse off than before. Minimum wage used to be 40-50 dollars inflation adjusted, and one lower middle-class salary could support an entire family and provide material comforts. I don't see much of that happening now as I and many others believe inflation has completely ravaged the middle-class in the West and is making it increasingly difficult to get ahead.

>What does it mean that its not "natural"? There is nothing "natural" about the "free market"; its a way we decide to organize resource allocation. There are other ways to do so. Central banks have prevented catastrophic economic failures in the past few decades. I think I like this system better than one which results in "natural" destruction of economy and livelihoods like what happened in the Great Depression.

We didn't "choose" to have a free market. A free market is simply the voluntary and spontaneous interaction between free individuals, nothing more, and is entirely natural. Central planning and using coercion to force market outcomes, on the other hand, is definitely not natural.

It is often taught that we have avoided a scenario like the Great Depression almost exclusively due to the enactment of a central bank, but this is outright false and is borderline malicious historical revisionism (in fact many economists, including some at the Fed, believe that the Fed was actually the cause of the credit bubble during the 1920's which eventually burst in 1929). We had periodic recessions before the Fed, but they almost always resolved themselves quite quickly and wasn't near the impact that recessions have today.

Ask yourself this, why is it that recessions seem to get worse and worse and more importantly affect everyone and not just localised sectors in an economy? 2008 was definitely worse than 2001, and the current covid recession is arguably worse than 2008 due to how overleveraged everyone is (a direct consequence of Fed monetary policy).

Hah, now that is something I'd like to see. I don't have my hopes up though because elitist central bankers don't like to be transparent or be subject to public scrutiny - all documents from the Swedish Riksbank in my country are classified with absolute secrecy (same level as military secrets) and cannot be inspected even by members of parliament as that may threaten "monetary stability". This is in a country where everyone's tax returns are public by default.