Project for Philosophical Evaluations of the Economy |
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Getting rid of central banks?
Dialog on a libertarian position between Noah denkt™ and its Alter Ego, first drafted on April 3,
published on June 2, 2009
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Question by Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): Is Noah denkt™ aware of the Austrian School of Economics?
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): Of course! After all, our hero Joseph Schumpeter is somewhat part of that.
AE: Well, if you are familiar with that school’s line of thinking then you probably also know that its proponents (in
particular Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A Hayek) have argued in favor of abolishing central banks?
Nd: Right.
AE: Hence my question: Would it not make sense for the philosophy of capitalistic existentialism to adopt a similar
position? After all, it would be much harder for market players, in particular banks, to follow a reckless greed
strategy if they knew that central bank cavalries weren’t there anymore to bail them out of a mess that they have
created for themselves?
Nd: There is a lot of merit to this argument.
AE: Yes, there is. In fact, your Alter Ego would go even a step further and argue that adopting a central bank-free
position would put your philosophy into a political practice which would make it in turn unnecessary to laboriously
explain your thinking any further.
Nd: In other words, you believe that abolishing central banks would give the economy that existential immediacy
which our philosophy tries so hard to promote.
AE: Exactly.
Nd: Well, you are certainly onto something there.
AE: Would you then be willing to endorse and embrace this position?
Nd: Perhaps not.
AE: Why is that?
Nd: Because, first of all, we are not economists. And so we can not really claim to have thought through all the
economic implications that such a move would entail. More importantly however, we do not want to give anyone,
including ourselves, a pretext to hide behind another systematic or technocratic excuse. After all, adopting a
central bank-free position would make it way too easy for us to from now on simply point towards an unfulfilled
policy demand of ours, in order to explain why we have not been able to embark on an entrepreneurial risk
ourselves so far.
AE: But why would adopting the aforementioned libertarian policy stance prevent you from taking on an existential
risk?
Nd: Because, it would, as you just said, make our Noah denkt™ -project obsolete.
AE: And there is no other area that you could carve out for yourself where you could accept a different
entrepreneurial and pioneering challenge?
Nd: Not at this point. After all, you do not randomly choose your mission, do you?
AE: Of course not. But, at the same time, is it legitimate to refrain from taking a reasonable policy step just
because the latter would inconvenience you.
Nd: Well, as we pointed out before, we do not necessarily consider it reasonable adopting your central bank
position.
AE: And that is because it would question the need for your Noah denkt™-project, right?
Nd: Because of that and because of the fact that we do not feel competent enough to fully weigh the practical
consequences of such a move.
AE: What a self-serving and timid way of seeing things! But let’s not waste time on name calling here! Let’s focus
instead on the second part of your argument. Don’t you think that a blog publisher who views his opinions as
relevant enough to publish them to others has a moral obligation to study the implications of his work to such an
extent that he can truly justify distributing them?
Nd: Sure.
AE: So how then do you reconcile the fact that you consider yourself too incompetent in economic matters to
endorse a central-bank free policy stance when at the same time you have no qualms to talk about that very
same economy that you otherwise deem to be too complicated for you?
Nd: Well, we only talk about those aspects of the economy that we believe have a hold on. And since we never
pretended to have an answer for every issue under the sun, we believe it is quite acceptable for us to only refer
to those issues that we do have an intuition about.
AE: But you also criticize others for not having gotten to the bottom of an issue. Should that not likewise lead you
to investigate our central bank question to the hilt?
Nd: We would have to do that, if in deed it were “our” goal to promote such a central bank-free position. But the
fact of the matter is that it was you, our Alter Ego, who came up with this idea, while we, the Noah denkt™-
figureheads continue to view this as a matter of secondary importance which can be taken up at a later stage in
life.
AE: So can we then at least agree on the fact that this issue should be left on the table for further consideration?
Nd: Yes, we can.
AE: Thank you.
Nd: You’re welcome
Dialog on a libertarian position between Noah denkt™ and its Alter Ego, first drafted on April 3,
published on June 2, 2009
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Question by Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): Is Noah denkt™ aware of the Austrian School of Economics?
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): Of course! After all, our hero Joseph Schumpeter is somewhat part of that.
AE: Well, if you are familiar with that school’s line of thinking then you probably also know that its proponents (in
particular Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A Hayek) have argued in favor of abolishing central banks?
Nd: Right.
AE: Hence my question: Would it not make sense for the philosophy of capitalistic existentialism to adopt a similar
position? After all, it would be much harder for market players, in particular banks, to follow a reckless greed
strategy if they knew that central bank cavalries weren’t there anymore to bail them out of a mess that they have
created for themselves?
Nd: There is a lot of merit to this argument.
AE: Yes, there is. In fact, your Alter Ego would go even a step further and argue that adopting a central bank-free
position would put your philosophy into a political practice which would make it in turn unnecessary to laboriously
explain your thinking any further.
Nd: In other words, you believe that abolishing central banks would give the economy that existential immediacy
which our philosophy tries so hard to promote.
AE: Exactly.
Nd: Well, you are certainly onto something there.
AE: Would you then be willing to endorse and embrace this position?
Nd: Perhaps not.
AE: Why is that?
Nd: Because, first of all, we are not economists. And so we can not really claim to have thought through all the
economic implications that such a move would entail. More importantly however, we do not want to give anyone,
including ourselves, a pretext to hide behind another systematic or technocratic excuse. After all, adopting a
central bank-free position would make it way too easy for us to from now on simply point towards an unfulfilled
policy demand of ours, in order to explain why we have not been able to embark on an entrepreneurial risk
ourselves so far.
AE: But why would adopting the aforementioned libertarian policy stance prevent you from taking on an existential
risk?
Nd: Because, it would, as you just said, make our Noah denkt™ -project obsolete.
AE: And there is no other area that you could carve out for yourself where you could accept a different
entrepreneurial and pioneering challenge?
Nd: Not at this point. After all, you do not randomly choose your mission, do you?
AE: Of course not. But, at the same time, is it legitimate to refrain from taking a reasonable policy step just
because the latter would inconvenience you.
Nd: Well, as we pointed out before, we do not necessarily consider it reasonable adopting your central bank
position.
AE: And that is because it would question the need for your Noah denkt™-project, right?
Nd: Because of that and because of the fact that we do not feel competent enough to fully weigh the practical
consequences of such a move.
AE: What a self-serving and timid way of seeing things! But let’s not waste time on name calling here! Let’s focus
instead on the second part of your argument. Don’t you think that a blog publisher who views his opinions as
relevant enough to publish them to others has a moral obligation to study the implications of his work to such an
extent that he can truly justify distributing them?
Nd: Sure.
AE: So how then do you reconcile the fact that you consider yourself too incompetent in economic matters to
endorse a central-bank free policy stance when at the same time you have no qualms to talk about that very
same economy that you otherwise deem to be too complicated for you?
Nd: Well, we only talk about those aspects of the economy that we believe have a hold on. And since we never
pretended to have an answer for every issue under the sun, we believe it is quite acceptable for us to only refer
to those issues that we do have an intuition about.
AE: But you also criticize others for not having gotten to the bottom of an issue. Should that not likewise lead you
to investigate our central bank question to the hilt?
Nd: We would have to do that, if in deed it were “our” goal to promote such a central bank-free position. But the
fact of the matter is that it was you, our Alter Ego, who came up with this idea, while we, the Noah denkt™-
figureheads continue to view this as a matter of secondary importance which can be taken up at a later stage in
life.
AE: So can we then at least agree on the fact that this issue should be left on the table for further consideration?
Nd: Yes, we can.
AE: Thank you.
Nd: You’re welcome
| © Landei Selbstverlag, owned by Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards, Gerolstein, Germany. All rights reserved. Reminder: Noah denkt™ is a project of Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards and his Landei Selbstverlag (WL & his LSV). Consequently, all rights to the texts that have been published under the Noah denkt™brand name are reserved by WL & his LSV. The commentary and the reasoning that was provided on this page is for informational and/or educational purposes only and it is not intended to provide tax, legal or investment advice. It should therefore not be construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any security or any issuer by WL & his LSV or its Noah denkt™ Project. In fact, WL & his LSV encourage the user to understand that he alone is responsible for determining whether any investment, security or strategy is appropriate or suitable for him. And to leave no doubt as to what this means we urge our user to also note our extended Legal Notice. |
__________________________________________________________________________________________
| Keywords: Austrian School of Economics, abolishing central banks, moral hazard of bail-out, libertarian philosophy, balance in free markets, inadequate interest rate policy, accepting existential risk, avoiding bubbles in financial markets, central bank policy |