= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Benjamin_Lyons comments on The Mystery At The Heart of Central Banking - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (56)
LET'S HOLD OFF ON PROPOSING SOLUTIONS
To all of the people who have offered explanations for why free banking might not be such a great idea and possible rationales for central banking,
Whoa there, cowboy! I haven't even started explaining any economics yet. This introduction was only intended to explain how weird and problematic the unique treatment economists afford central banking is. Free banking is only offered as an alternative because it is the natural starting place and is the salient and obvious alternative--that's just how economics works, except in banking for some reason.
There are in fact all kinds of arguments for central banking, just nobody seems to be able to turn them into the format economists usually require. We'll get to them in time. Yes, I'm merely a self-taught 20 year-old but I've also spent 2 years reading my butt off about this stuff. I know a fair bit more than might be obvious from the introduction.
So apparently this introductory article was really unclear about a lot of things. That's my failure as a writer and hopefully I'll get better. But we haven't even learned any economics yet, so let's hold off on proposing those solutions.
The multi-part articles are not good format for this website.
This may sound ironically, because we have the Sequences, etc. But when you read them, each article in the Sequences has its own point. If often references previous articles. But it does not rely on the future articles to provide its value.
Perhaps the second part will give some additional information. But it does not exist yet. The votes and the comments are about the first part.
When I think about it, the style you used here (and some other people used it in the past too), is the style typically used for books. The first chapter presents a big mystery, to make the reader interested. Then slowly we move to the solution. Like this:
The problem is that the first part does not provide information, only a question. Even at the second, third, and fourth part, the question is still not answered.
This would be the Sequences style:
It's almost the same as the previous, but the introduction is removed. And suddenly each article has its own point. The first article speaks about A. Not about "A as a prerequisite for some future X". Just: about A. Etc. The advantage is that each article can be enjoyed and discussed as it comes.
I want this to be mandatory to read for anyone who tries to post a long series of articles building to a point.