[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]

OK, so where's the evidence that a free market in money will fail in a modern global economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) A free market for money has never succeeded beyond the local level.
2) The contemporary world is constituted by national economies.

How many times do I have to ask you to give me evidence for your position? You're the one making the large claims. I just want you to back them up. But every time I ask, your response somehow manages to avoid empirics.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is this definition that includes government intervention?

Wikipedia: "In common usage capitalism refers to an economic system in which all or most of the "means of production" are privately owned and operated and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined mainly in a free market, rather than by the state."

Houghton Mifflin: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Neither of these "contemporary" definitions indicate a needed component of state intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

You originally said that we didn't have capitalist economies because they were influenced by government. I pointed out that this was not part of the definition. If I gave the impression, that I thought having government intervention was part of the definition, then I wrote carelessly. The point is that government intervention is not a definitional dimension, and thus your original argument about contemporary economies not being capitalist is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
So your position is that since a true free market in money has never been alowed to operate unhindered in the contemporary global economy, it's automatically a laughable idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its my position that since a free market for money has never succeeded beyond the local level in the last 700 years, and since the current global financial system is so much more complex than even thirty years ago, that your idea is laughable. Sorry but I don't think anybody who studies or works in the fields of political economy, macroeconomics, or finance would disagree.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not dodging any question, you're just moving the goal posts. You wanted an example of a free market currency in action, I provided one, then you want more. The fact is that gold has been used as an currency for international trade for centuries, long before any government figured out how to pull shenanigans to steal from people without their knowing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You provided one and I asked if you could provide others that extended beyond the local level and existed during the capitalist era. You have consistently dodged that question since.

If you want to know why government-sponsored money is necessary for the efficiency of complex economies, I suggest you start reading about institutional economics and the theory of transaction costs.