And where are these results and you can you compare results where only fractional-reserve banking was the difference?
I thought it was just math. It's a what...3-4x multiplier (Depending on reserve %)?
Over time, that's simply going to build a bigger economy, faster...as long as the economy is a relatively good economy. If it were entirely corrupt for example, that would indeed be detrimental. So the question is, if you ensure a relatively good economy, more (to a point), is just going to be better. You'd have to show that a modern economy cannot effectively utilize 4x the money...gonna be tough. But worse, if you allow no regulation, the chances that it CANNOT utilize 4x the money efficiently goes up (as did the risks of riding a car with a jet on the roof). Any such economic plan is self defeating.
Easy libertarian response: what land owner would allow you to do that on their land?
So now to go to work I have to identify the rules and regulations required by each individual landowner of the patchwork of land owners that own the land from point A to point B? Shoot me now because that's certainly not my idea of freedom. Good gods. Maybe they will each charge tolls too. One was an environmental nut and only allows vehicles over a certain MPG. Your easy response is easily reduced to absurdity. You know how long it takes to get thigns patched through just from the house, to senate, to exec? Let's make it 30 power players that have ZERO accountability to the public. You really think anything approaching a practical system could emerge?
Again, no property owner, especially one with kids crossing their land, would allow me to do that.
Sure, they wouldn't allow it because it's absurd to allow it (and see above).
So logically if it's absurd for an individual to not allow it, it's absurd for a public/government to not allow it. So why precisely are you against government regulation (not allowing it) against absurd, harmful, behavior?
What a terrible argument. Going back to the rules and regulations of that time period does not mean that we regress to the level of technological innovation of that time period. Come on, you can do better than that.
Over time, it does. I'm skipping ahead, here's what happens.
EconomyA is funded with 1x money, a relatively good economy.
EconomyB is funded with 4x money supply, a relatively good economy.
Compound that additional funding (and loses), over time, all the additional innovations B takes part in, the cumulative effect of innovations over time (I.e. electricity leading to telecommunications leading to the internet, or vacuum tubes leading to practical computers leading to semiconductors leading to PCs on every desk, etc>), the faster global market share you accumulate, etc. The entire economic growth potential realized at roughly 4x the horsepower.
Do that over 50 years, or a hundred years (we are talking about long term economic ideal policy right?).
Without a doubt, the boostrapped economyA will be further behind in technology and wealth than economyB at the SAME time on the graph. And what if China adopts economyB and we adoptA?
Economic prosperity is essential to freedom when competition exists. I mean, the Amish have their economyA and it runs fine. But they live at the mercy of economyB, lucky for them, we've currently got plenty of land and compassion, and the largest military in the known universe.