“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Earn this.
Wait, I thought the Constitution was for idealists and kooks?
[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Wait, I thought the Constitution was for idealists and kooks?[/quote]
No, it clearly dictates that US taxpayers must provide the defense of other nations. We don’t need to have congress specifically declare war. We must live as debtor nation. We must have a central bank and use fiat money. We must have an income tax even in times of peace.
We must pass federal regulations and mandates left and right. We must have the federal government manage national entitlement programs. The patriot is clearly outlined to next to the national Id act. This is no longer open to debate. You’re a kook otherwise.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
Wait, I thought the Constitution was for idealists and kooks?
No, it clearly dictates that US taxpayers must provide the defense of other nations. We don’t need to have congress specifically declare war. We must live as debtor nation. We must have a central bank and use fiat money. We must have an income tax even in times of peace.
We must pass federal regulations and mandates left and right. We must have the federal government manage national entitlement programs. The patriot is clearly outlined to next to the national Id act. This is no longer open to debate. You’re a kook otherwise.[/quote]
The Constitution was formulated by egoists. It is an egoist code of values. The worship of (a) the State (b) the needs of others are ruining it.
We will earn the Constitution on the day when we say: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (Ayn Rand)
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sloth wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
Wait, I thought the Constitution was for idealists and kooks?
No, it clearly dictates that US taxpayers must provide the defense of other nations. We don’t need to have congress specifically declare war. We must live as debtor nation. We must have a central bank and use fiat money. We must have an income tax even in times of peace.
We must pass federal regulations and mandates left and right. We must have the federal government manage national entitlement programs. The patriot is clearly outlined to next to the national Id act. This is no longer open to debate. You’re a kook otherwise.
The Constitution was formulated by egoists. It is an egoist code of values. The worship of (a) the State (b) the needs of others are ruining it.
We will earn the Constitution on the day when we say: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (Ayn Rand)
[/quote]
I think Rand was a bit extreme for my tastes, but the second part of that statement is gold.
mike
[quote]Sloth wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
Wait, I thought the Constitution was for idealists and kooks?
No, it clearly dictates that US taxpayers must provide the defense of other nations. We don’t need to have congress specifically declare war. We must live as debtor nation. We must have a central bank and use fiat money. We must have an income tax even in times of peace.
We must pass federal regulations and mandates left and right. We must have the federal government manage national entitlement programs. The patriot is clearly outlined to next to the national Id act. This is no longer open to debate. You’re a kook otherwise.[/quote]
Remember, it’s living and breathing, and at this point has two heads and five eyes and some extra fingers and stuff.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We must have a central bank and use fiat money.[/quote]
Hey now, hey now.
The 13 colonies had their own fiat currency when gold wouldn’t cut it.
Nothing wrong with a fiat currency when the central bank is owned and controlled by a democratic government by the people, for the people.
ElbowStrike
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We must have a central bank and use fiat money.
Hey now, hey now.
The 13 colonies had their own fiat currency when gold wouldn’t cut it.
Nothing wrong with a fiat currency when the central bank is owned and controlled by a democratic government by the people, for the people.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We must have a central bank and use fiat money.
Hey now, hey now.
The 13 colonies had their own fiat currency when gold wouldn’t cut it.
Nothing wrong with a fiat currency when the central bank is owned and controlled by a democratic government by the people, for the people.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
Every country that ever tried it eventually couldn’t resist the temptation to print more. I guess its the old desire to get something for nothing, or to steal the wealth of others through inflation.
If you have $2 million dollars, and inflation is 5% this year, you will have $100,000 of your wealth taken from you. You’ve still got the paper, but the value of the paper has been reduced.
This sort of system doesn’t rely on an objective value (like gold) but the whims of an electorate. Do you enjoy making contributions of this sort?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Every country that ever tried it eventually couldn’t resist the temptation to print more. I guess its the old desire to get something for nothing, or to steal the wealth of others through inflation.
If you have $2 million dollars, and inflation is 5% this year, you will have $100,000 of your wealth taken from you. You’ve still got the paper, but the value of the paper has been reduced.
This sort of system doesn’t rely on an objective value (like gold) but the whims of an electorate. Do you enjoy making contributions of this sort?
[/quote]
Well, we managed to do it for 40 years with low inflation and low debt. Why the Liberals scrapped the system I have no idea. It appears their top supporters were the “big five” Canadian banks and transferring taxpayer debt to their campaign supporters would be typical Liberal behaviour. But I digress…
Everything worth anything depreciates in value. If you do work on my farm and I pay you in potatoes, those potatoes will eventually rot. If I pay you in gold, somewhere someone is mining more gold and as the total supply of gold increases, the relative value of the gold decreases. If I pay you with a car, the value of that car depreciates.
Money is meant to represent tradeable goods, which depreciate. If money itself does not depreciate, then it does not properly represent tradeable goods. Inflation mimics this depreciation.
The labour and economic activity which you created in order to gain that $2 million is depreciating in value, and yet your reward retains its value? Hell no. You’ve got to throw that $2 million back into the economy for appreciable returns in one way or another.
Without inflation, we get “dead money”. People hiding cash under their mattresses and the like. Inflation provides an incentive for people to invest their money and keeps the economy going. For the economy to thrive, the cash must flow.
ElbowStrike
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This sort of system doesn’t rely on an objective value (like gold) but the whims of an electorate. Do you enjoy making contributions of this sort?[/quote]
Also, gold does not have an objective value. Nothing has an “objective” value. It’s just a pretty, shiny metal that is subject to the whims of the market just like anything else.
As for “enjoying” making contributions, enjoyment doesn’t factor into it. All the things I have done to benefit the economy are depreciating in value and so is my reward. It’s a fair trade.
Target depreciation this side of the border is 2% (+/-1%). Hardly a significant “contribution” to make. Besides, I have very little cash. My “money” is invested in appreciable investments where it belongs.
ElbowStrike
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Every country that ever tried it eventually couldn’t resist the temptation to print more. I guess its the old desire to get something for nothing, or to steal the wealth of others through inflation.
If you have $2 million dollars, and inflation is 5% this year, you will have $100,000 of your wealth taken from you. You’ve still got the paper, but the value of the paper has been reduced.
This sort of system doesn’t rely on an objective value (like gold) but the whims of an electorate. Do you enjoy making contributions of this sort?
Well, we managed to do it for 40 years with low inflation and low debt. Why the Liberals scrapped the system I have no idea. It appears their top supporters were the “big five” Canadian banks and transferring taxpayer debt to their campaign supporters would be typical Liberal behaviour. But I digress…
Everything worth anything depreciates in value. If you do work on my farm and I pay you in potatoes, those potatoes will eventually rot. If I pay you in gold, somewhere someone is mining more gold and as the total supply of gold increases, the relative value of the gold decreases. If I pay you with a car, the value of that car depreciates.
Money is meant to represent tradeable goods, which depreciate. If money itself does not depreciate, then it does not properly represent tradeable goods. Inflation mimics this depreciation.
The labour and economic activity which you created in order to gain that $2 million is depreciating in value, and yet your reward retains its value? Hell no. You’ve got to throw that $2 million back into the economy for appreciable returns in one way or another.
Without inflation, we get “dead money”. People hiding cash under their mattresses and the like. Inflation provides an incentive for people to invest their money and keeps the economy going. For the economy to thrive, the cash must flow.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
Yup.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Every country that ever tried it eventually couldn’t resist the temptation to print more. I guess its the old desire to get something for nothing, or to steal the wealth of others through inflation.
If you have $2 million dollars, and inflation is 5% this year, you will have $100,000 of your wealth taken from you. You’ve still got the paper, but the value of the paper has been reduced.
This sort of system doesn’t rely on an objective value (like gold) but the whims of an electorate. Do you enjoy making contributions of this sort?
Well, we managed to do it for 40 years with low inflation and low debt. Why the Liberals scrapped the system I have no idea. It appears their top supporters were the “big five” Canadian banks and transferring taxpayer debt to their campaign supporters would be typical Liberal behaviour. But I digress…
Everything worth anything depreciates in value. If you do work on my farm and I pay you in potatoes, those potatoes will eventually rot. If I pay you in gold, somewhere someone is mining more gold and as the total supply of gold increases, the relative value of the gold decreases. If I pay you with a car, the value of that car depreciates.
Money is meant to represent tradeable goods, which depreciate. If money itself does not depreciate, then it does not properly represent tradeable goods. Inflation mimics this depreciation.
The labour and economic activity which you created in order to gain that $2 million is depreciating in value, and yet your reward retains its value? Hell no. You’ve got to throw that $2 million back into the economy for appreciable returns in one way or another.
Without inflation, we get “dead money”. People hiding cash under their mattresses and the like. Inflation provides an incentive for people to invest their money and keeps the economy going. For the economy to thrive, the cash must flow.
ElbowStrike
Yup.[/quote]
No.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This sort of system doesn’t rely on an objective value (like gold) but the whims of an electorate. Do you enjoy making contributions of this sort?
Also, gold does not have an objective value. Nothing has an “objective” value. It’s just a pretty, shiny metal that is subject to the whims of the market just like anything else.
As for “enjoying” making contributions, enjoyment doesn’t factor into it. All the things I have done to benefit the economy are depreciating in value and so is my reward. It’s a fair trade.
Target depreciation this side of the border is 2% (+/-1%). Hardly a significant “contribution” to make. Besides, I have very little cash. My “money” is invested in appreciable investments where it belongs.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
What you do not grasp is that gold isn’t depreciated intentionally, with the purpose of secretly obtaining the wealth of people. It is not produced for the express purpose of confiscation.
I don’t imagine that people who produce consider it rational that they have to run a race to overcome the ‘entropy’ that you voted into office.
You really want to defend legalized looters by claiming it is some sort of entropy? And my fellow T-Nationers think the old HH is nuts…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This sort of system doesn’t rely on an objective value (like gold) but the whims of an electorate. Do you enjoy making contributions of this sort?
Also, gold does not have an objective value. Nothing has an “objective” value. It’s just a pretty, shiny metal that is subject to the whims of the market just like anything else.
As for “enjoying” making contributions, enjoyment doesn’t factor into it. All the things I have done to benefit the economy are depreciating in value and so is my reward. It’s a fair trade.
Target depreciation this side of the border is 2% (+/-1%). Hardly a significant “contribution” to make. Besides, I have very little cash. My “money” is invested in appreciable investments where it belongs.
ElbowStrike
What you do not grasp is that gold isn’t depreciated intentionally, with the purpose of secretly obtaining the wealth of people. It is not produced for the express purpose of confiscation.
I don’t imagine that people who produce consider it rational that they have to run a race to overcome the ‘entropy’ that you voted into office.
You really want to defend legalized looters by claiming it is some sort of entropy? And my fellow T-Nationers think the old HH is nuts…
[/quote]
Not to speak for him but I am sure he is not defending bad economic policy. Nor does he support the gold standard, which is also bad economic policy.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This sort of system doesn’t rely on an objective value (like gold) but the whims of an electorate. Do you enjoy making contributions of this sort?
Also, gold does not have an objective value. Nothing has an “objective” value. It’s just a pretty, shiny metal that is subject to the whims of the market just like anything else.
As for “enjoying” making contributions, enjoyment doesn’t factor into it. All the things I have done to benefit the economy are depreciating in value and so is my reward. It’s a fair trade.
Target depreciation this side of the border is 2% (+/-1%). Hardly a significant “contribution” to make. Besides, I have very little cash. My “money” is invested in appreciable investments where it belongs.
ElbowStrike
What you do not grasp is that gold isn’t depreciated intentionally, with the purpose of secretly obtaining the wealth of people. It is not produced for the express purpose of confiscation.
I don’t imagine that people who produce consider it rational that they have to run a race to overcome the ‘entropy’ that you voted into office.
You really want to defend legalized looters by claiming it is some sort of entropy? And my fellow T-Nationers think the old HH is nuts…
Not to speak for him but I am sure he is not defending bad economic policy. Nor does he support the gold standard, which is also bad economic policy.[/quote]
The question whether inflation means redistribution of wealth (upwards, almost always) is good economic policy is not related to the question if it is theft or not.
Sometimes stealing can be an excellent economic policy.
It is still wrong though and causes investments that would otherwise not happen, which is not a good thing by the way, but a market distortion that will be corrected sooner or later.
As a certain large nation that lives on the Keynesian notion that economic growth can be forced with consumption financed by public and consumer debt is bound to find out.
We should rename recession for what it is: economic blowback.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What you do not grasp is that gold isn’t depreciated intentionally, with the purpose of secretly obtaining the wealth of people. It is not produced for the express purpose of confiscation.
[/quote]
I do grasp the concept very well. I simply don’t agree that the gold standard is a good monetary system.
What you are describing with your theft analogy is the Federal Reserve system.
There is no other way to depreciate a fiat currency without printing more currency. This being a necessary evil, the only appropriate place for the money to be created is into the public treasury for necessary services and infrastructure.
I will never defend any private central banking system. They should all be abolished.
A fiat currency must be owned by the people, and all benefits of artificially-generated inflation must go back to the people via public treasury, accounts which are held in trust for the common good.
What is in place in the United States is a private inflation-tax system that steals the wealth of the people and puts it into the hands of a few super-rich banking families.
That is absolutely indefensible.
A publicly-owned and generated fiat currency allows for healthy inflation as well as sufficient money supply for public security, basic infrastructure, and national defense.
Under the gold standard, these services would have to be paid for with taxes, and instead of the peoples’ wealth being transferred to Fed bankers, it would be transferred to gold mining companies who would functionally be doing nothing more than digging a hole and “printing” up new gold currency.
What I see as being the crucial difference between our positions on the issue is that I think you believe that any and all government spending is always a theft from the people.
I don’t see it that way. Things like police, fire, military, roads, and other basic infrastructure for the maintenance of civilization need to be paid for collectively. Yes, people need to be “forced” to pay for it. If someone doesn’t agree, they can apply political pressure to change it, or bloody well leave our civilization’s territory and emigrate elsewhere.
ElbowStrike
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What you do not grasp is that gold isn’t depreciated intentionally, with the purpose of secretly obtaining the wealth of people. It is not produced for the express purpose of confiscation.
I do grasp the concept very well. I simply don’t agree that the gold standard is a good monetary system.
What you are describing with your theft analogy is the Federal Reserve system.
There is no other way to depreciate a fiat currency without printing more currency. This being a necessary evil, the only appropriate place for the money to be created is into the public treasury for necessary services and infrastructure.
You really want to defend legalized looters by claiming it is some sort of entropy?
I will never defend any private central banking system. They should all be abolished.
A fiat currency must be owned by the people, and all benefits of artificially-generated inflation must go back to the people via public treasury, accounts which are held in trust for the common good.
What is in place in the United States is a private inflation-tax system that steals the wealth of the people and puts it into the hands of a few super-rich banking families.
That is absolutely indefensible.
A publicly-owned and generated fiat currency allows for healthy inflation as well as sufficient money supply for public security, basic infrastructure, and national defense.
Under the gold standard, these services would have to be paid for with taxes, and instead of the peoples’ wealth being transferred to Fed bankers, it would be transferred to gold mining companies who would functionally be doing nothing more than digging a hole and “printing” up new gold currency.
What I see as being the crucial difference between our positions on the issue is that I think you believe that any and all government spending is always a theft from the people.
I don’t see it that way. Things like police, fire, military, roads, and other basic infrastructure for the maintenance of civilization need to be paid for collectively. Yes, people need to be “forced” to pay for it. If someone doesn’t agree, they can apply political pressure to change it, or bloody well leave our civilization’s territory and emigrate elsewhere.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
What you’re describing is a very barbaric society, essentially a society of cannibals. If all the cannibals vote that you are tomorrow’s lunch, then it is somehow your job to convince the cannibals to change the system or to flee.
Societies invent fiat money to transfer wealth from one group to another. Whether it be bankers or the swarming herds of unemployables makes no difference, except in which group of cannibals benefits.
Waht happens when you run out of victims?
Now another problem: The hidden premise in all this is the freedoms you grant in a civil society must spell its doom: what if I don’t want to produce anything for parasites? Well, according to you, I’ll be forced. You intend to hand a seedy little bureaucrat a gun, have him point it at me and scream, “Now produce!!” What if I don’t? Will I be sent to the Gulag?
The Soviet Ubion tried exactly what you propose. It failed. Despite your dreams of a peaceful industrial society with plenty for all, it can’t have cannibalism at it’s core. It self-destructs, just like the Soviet Union.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We must have a central bank and use fiat money.
Hey now, hey now.
The 13 colonies had their own fiat currency when gold wouldn’t cut it.
Nothing wrong with a fiat currency when the central bank is owned and controlled by a democratic government by the people, for the people.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
Don’t know if that was true in the past but it certainly isn’t true in modern times.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This sort of system doesn’t rely on an objective value (like gold) but the whims of an electorate. Do you enjoy making contributions of this sort?
Also, gold does not have an objective value. Nothing has an “objective” value. It’s just a pretty, shiny metal that is subject to the whims of the market just like anything else.
As for “enjoying” making contributions, enjoyment doesn’t factor into it. All the things I have done to benefit the economy are depreciating in value and so is my reward. It’s a fair trade.
Target depreciation this side of the border is 2% (+/-1%). Hardly a significant “contribution” to make. Besides, I have very little cash. My “money” is invested in appreciable investments where it belongs.
ElbowStrike[/quote]
However, gold is finite where our money is printed on worhtless paper anytime they want to do so.