[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
Fanatical endpoint? If a farmer dilutes his milk it is a crime.
If central banks dilutes money and suddenly all the peoples money is worth less, that is theft.
If I break into your house and take away 2% of your money or misteriously transfer it to me by other means the end result is the same.
It is not a crime if a farmer dilutes his milk, it’s called skim milk…
Yes, I know, that isn’t diluting it per se, but the point is important. It’s a crime when there is a misrepresentation about what is being provided.
Again, you ignore the fact that everybody knows about the system and that anybody can buy gold or other tangible assets if they so wish. In fact, many people do just that because of inflation concerns.
Yes, you sound fanatical because you totally discount the fact that everybody is aware of it, it’s a system that was put in place by government action, and that people can take steps to not put their money at risk if they wish.
Real estate is another commonly purchased item that is a tangible asset.
If you could refrain from using such hyperbole you would be taken a lot more seriously than you are… maybe.
You could argue with me if we could afford a little socialism.
Obviously yes.
No, the issue is whether you believe that there are ever appropriate national priorities. Most people do. Most libertarians do.
As long as you are aware that you are using other peoples money that you stole with the help of government to build your socialist endevours…
Fuck buddy, it’s got nothing to do with endeavors that I particularly want. Maybe you could avoid personalizing the issue as it makes it a lot more likely that you’ll provide insult by attaching inappropriate terminology or desires to people.
Have you not stated that you think a national military is an appropriate function of the government?
This is however a moral issue. Once it is established that the state can redistribute money it practically owns you.
Whatever you produce belongs to the government and you only get to keep what the government lets you keep.
In Europe it is never discussed this way, it is allway social responsibility here, social conscience there and of course solidarity,
No, the words are theft and slavery.
Perhaps you missed it when I referred to income tax as percentage slavery?
In any case, whether we serfs like it or not, the monarchy, the country, has always exerted authority over us and our lands. The fact that you don’t like a monetary system has nothing to do with the control that government has over us vassals.
Do I get to keep my own hands work or do I get the crumbs my Master throws me?
Do I work for myself and the government is there to protect my property or do I work for the state grand masterplan?
Who do you think you are arguing with here? The issue at hand is supposed to be the monetary system not particularly the fact that government spends too much and taxes too much. That is a given.
[/quote]
So you see no connection whatsoever between the governments ability to create money out of thin air and the government doing exactly that to “finance” endevours that would never be financed if it meant raising taxes?
I am thinking about wars, wars, wars, S&L bailouts, subsidies, financial help for TBTF banks and enterprises…
[quote]orion wrote:
So you see no connection whatsoever between the governments ability to create money out of thin air and the government doing exactly that to “finance” endevours that would never be financed if it meant raising taxes?
I am thinking about wars, wars, wars, S&L bailouts, subsidies, financial help for TBTF banks and enterprises…
TBTF: Too Big To Fail…[/quote]
Good job. Seriously. Now we’ve gotten to the crux of the matter.
I think the kids in the candy store (i.e. Congress) should get their hands slapped. However, I think the tool is too powerful to eliminate it entirely.
Now, which is a more likely change, eliminating the current monetary system and reverting to a commodity reserve based system or finding a way to curtail abuses with respect to government spending?
Seriously, the world isn’t sitting around thinking that the monetary system is the devil. Maybe some intellectuals, but that isn’t the populace. If these people focused on the perils of deficit spending and worked to make it harder and harder to do so, then there might be a chance to actually get something done.
Most people understand the concept of going over budget and leaving a debt for their children, and they don’t like it. Now, also, because cowboy Bush has gone and gotten himself into an avoidable war, the US is bleeding cash like a stuck pig.
I don’t think you’ll ever be able to eliminate the fact that a government can raise cash in a time of emergency, because if the populace believes it is needed, a war or otherwise, then any and all means will be used to pay for it – no matter what the monetary system in place happens to be.
So, something like serious balanced budget legislation and an ability to understand the difference between a panic attack and a real emergency would be a good idea. It’s not all that hard to curtail the governments use of credit assuming someone is willing to realize it is a problem and will pass legislation.
[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
So you see no connection whatsoever between the governments ability to create money out of thin air and the government doing exactly that to “finance” endevours that would never be financed if it meant raising taxes?
I am thinking about wars, wars, wars, S&L bailouts, subsidies, financial help for TBTF banks and enterprises…
TBTF: Too Big To Fail…
Good job. Seriously. Now we’ve gotten to the crux of the matter.
I think the kids in the candy store (i.e. Congress) should get their hands slapped. However, I think the tool is too powerful to eliminate it entirely.
Now, which is a more likely change, eliminating the current monetary system and reverting to a commodity reserve based system or finding a way to curtail abuses with respect to government spending?
Seriously, the world isn’t sitting around thinking that the monetary system is the devil. Maybe some intellectuals, but that isn’t the populace. If these people focused on the perils of deficit spending and worked to make it harder and harder to do so, then there might be a chance to actually get something done.
Most people understand the concept of going over budget and leaving a debt for their children, and they don’t like it. Now, also, because cowboy Bush has gone and gotten himself into an avoidable war, the US is bleeding cash like a stuck pig.
I don’t think you’ll ever be able to eliminate the fact that a government can raise cash in a time of emergency, because if the populace believes it is needed, a war or otherwise, then any and all means will be used to pay for it – no matter what the monetary system in place happens to be.
So, something like serious balanced budget legislation and an ability to understand the difference between a panic attack and a real emergency would be a good idea. It’s not all that hard to curtail the governments use of credit assuming someone is willing to realize it is a problem and will pass legislation.[/quote]
What makes you think that a law forbidding debts is more stable than a commodity money? If you can declare the dollar/gold connection null and void per law and outlaw the private possession of gold how difficult is it to ignore a balanced budget ammendment?
The real libertarian dream is not state controlled commodity money but private commodity money.
There is no real reason for only one currency and there is definitely no reason for a government monopoly.
So, if the government really wants to go to war it has to convince the people to fund it. Right now it forces the people to fund it.
“Unfortunately, inflation is the biggest dilemma we are facing as a country–both economically and morally–and it can correctly be attributed to central planning.”
“Please note that the value of the dollar only started slipping since around the 1920s–about the time that the Fed started messing with interest rates.”
Please note that 40% were living at poverty level (and 40% were hovering right above it) when the Fed was created. Ahh, the good old days. Real GDP per person in the US:
Despite the evil existence of the Federal Reserve, Real GDP per person almost doubled between 1913 and 1950 and in the same time frame it went from 5374 to only 7832 in England and 7385 to only 9561 in Australia.
“Oh yeah, the 1929 stock market crash was caused by the Fed too!!”
A little simplistic, but there is plenty of blame to go around and they deserve some of it. For inaction. They failed to add liquidity to the banking system, among other things. George Harrison didn’t have the influence of Benjamin Strong and didn’t have the power to do what had to be done.
“Do a some more research on the subject and you’ll understand a little better why it is important to not mess with money.”
Yes, like when Andrew Jackson broke up the the central bank, the Second Bank, which sent the US into the longest economic depression in the nation’s history. It didn’t hit rock bottom until more than 72 months after it began. Fortunately, hardly anybody had a pot to piss in. Otherwise, it would have made the 1930s seem like a Sunday picnic.
Of course, there are times when intervention works – like when Alexander Hamilton stemmed the panic of 1792 and the Feds actions to stem the panic of 1987 and prevent any long-term damage.
[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
“Unfortunately, inflation is the biggest dilemma we are facing as a country–both economically and morally–and it can correctly be attributed to central planning.”
“Please note that the value of the dollar only started slipping since around the 1920s–about the time that the Fed started messing with interest rates.”
Please note that 40% were living at poverty level (and 40% were hovering right above it) when the Fed was created. Ahh, the good old days. Real GDP per person in the US:
Despite the evil existence of the Federal Reserve, Real GDP per person almost doubled between 1913 and 1950 and in the same time frame it went from 5374 to only 7832 in England and 7385 to only 9561 in Australia.
“Oh yeah, the 1929 stock market crash was caused by the Fed too!!”
A little simplistic, but there is plenty of blame to go around and they deserve some of it. For inaction. They failed to add liquidity to the banking system, among other things. George Harrison didn’t have the influence of Benjamin Strong and didn’t have the power to do what had to be done.
“Do a some more research on the subject and you’ll understand a little better why it is important to not mess with money.”
Yes, like when Andrew Jackson broke up the the central bank, the Second Bank, which sent the US into the longest economic depression in the nation’s history. It didn’t hit rock bottom until more than 72 months after it began. Fortunately, hardly anybody had a pot to piss in. Otherwise, it would have made the 1930s seem like a Sunday picnic.
Of course, there are times when intervention works – like when Alexander Hamilton stemmed the panic of 1792 and the Feds actions to stem the panic of 1987 and prevent any long-term damage.
[/quote]
Excuse me, but what am I to make of your post except the notion that despite a relatively flawed part a system can still work?
Especially if all your competitors havethe same handicap?
Yes, free markets are amazing and can tolerate quite a lot of abuse.
That makes theft by money dilution somehow ok, um, why?
[quote]orion wrote:
The real libertarian dream is not state controlled commodity money but private commodity money.
There is no real reason for only one currency and there is definitely no reason for a government monopoly.
So, if the government really wants to go to war it has to convince the people to fund it. Right now it forces the people to fund it.
[/quote]
What you seem to miss is that nobody is forced to trade only in dollars. If I want to trade or barter other goods and services I am totally free to do so.
However, once again, the people have spoken. Using “money” is a great convenience. And, if you go back in history, there were a lot of people issuing various notes. So, it became centralized for convenience and security so that people would be able to trust that money was real and not just some bogus note issued by an unrecognized entity.
So, go ahead and start your own currency, just don’t be surprised if nobody will accept it.
Many of the systems we have are not blind creations imposed by governments, they are the end results of thousands of years of user induced changes due to problems with previous systems.
Seriously, you are railing against the best system the world has seen so far. Perhaps there is a better system, but it is not going to be found in the past.
By the way, a constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets would be pretty powerful. In any case, I think you are more trying to argue against “the system” than really find actual flaws with the current process. I think equating the “system” with a “problem” because it does not follow your utopian idiological ideal is flawed.
Again, as a libertarian, there is absolution nothing stopping you from collecting tangible assets so that you can hedge against inflation. There is also nothing stopping you or anybody else from trading in alternate currencies if you so wish.
[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
The real libertarian dream is not state controlled commodity money but private commodity money.
There is no real reason for only one currency and there is definitely no reason for a government monopoly.
So, if the government really wants to go to war it has to convince the people to fund it. Right now it forces the people to fund it.
What you seem to miss is that nobody is forced to trade only in dollars. If I want to trade or barter other goods and services I am totally free to do so.
However, once again, the people have spoken. Using “money” is a great convenience. And, if you go back in history, there were a lot of people issuing various notes. So, it became centralized for convenience and security so that people would be able to trust that money was real and not just some bogus note issued by an unrecognized entity.
So, go ahead and start your own currency, just don’t be surprised if nobody will accept it.
Many of the systems we have are not blind creations imposed by governments, they are the end results of thousands of years of user induced changes due to problems with previous systems.
Seriously, you are railing against the best system the world has seen so far. Perhaps there is a better system, but it is not going to be found in the past.
By the way, a constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets would be pretty powerful. In any case, I think you are more trying to argue against “the system” than really find actual flaws with the current process. I think equating the “system” with a “problem” because it does not follow your utopian idiological ideal is flawed.
Again, as a libertarian, there is absolution nothing stopping you from collecting tangible assets so that you can hedge against inflation. There is also nothing stopping you or anybody else from trading in alternate currencies if you so wish.[/quote]
First of all, the idea that this must be the best of all systems becuase it “evolved” over thousands of years is wrong.
What “evolved” was commodity money, what was forced unto people was a fiat currency.
If a fiat currency is the bestest system ever, why did all fiat currencies fail and why are there examples of commodity money that worked for hundreds of years as long as they were not tampered with?
The central banking system is a product of a time were planned economies were thought of as superior to markets. What else do you think we should have kept from the 20s, 30s in terms of political and economic ideas, since those ideas were obviously so “evolved”?
Those ideas were not the pinnacle of economic theory but a cul-de-sac, a dead end street.
To the rest of your post:
Why question my motives? Who cares? Either I am right and fiat money causes the phenomenons I have mentioned or not.
If you have anything to say about redistribution of wealth via inflation, war-driven socialism financed by fiat money, corporate welfare, entitlement programms and debt made incredibly easy because of fiat money please do so.
The assumption that you do not have to use state cuurency is also wrong. You do have to use it every time you deal with the government.
[center]It’s the 1930s All Over Again
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.[/center]
Jittery stock markets, an economy drunk on credit, and politicians calling for varieties of dictatorship: what a sense of deja vu! Let us recall that the world went bonkers for about ten years way back when. The stock market crashed in 1929, thanks to the Federal Reserve, and with it fell the last remnants of the old liberal ideology that government should leave society and economy alone to flourish. After the federal Great Depression hit, there was a general air in the United States and Europe that freedom hadn’t worked. What we needed were strong leaders to manage and plan economies and societies.
And how they were worshipped. On the other side of the world, there were Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini, but in the United States we weren’t in very good shape either. Here we had FDR, who imagined himself capable of astonishing feats of price setting and economy boosting. Of course he used old-fashioned tricks: printing money and threatening people with guns. It was nothing but the ancient despotism brought back in pseudo-scientific garb.
Things didn’t really return to normal until after the war. These “great men” of history keeled over eventually, but look what they left: welfare states, inflationary banking systems, high taxes, massive debt, mandates on business, and regimes with a penchant for meddling at the slightest sign of trouble. They had their way even if their absurd posturing became unfashionable later.
It’s strange to go back and read opinion pieces from those times. It’s as if everyone just assumed that we had to have either fascism or socialism, and that the one option to be ruled out was laissez-faire. People like Mises and Hayek had to fight tooth and nail to get a hearing. The Americans had some journalists who seemed to understand, but they were few and far between.
So what was the excuse for such a shabby period in ideological history? Why did the world go crazy? It was the Great Depression, or so says the usual explanation. People were suffering and looking for answers. They turned to a Strongman to bail them out. There was a fashion for scientific planning, and the suffering economy (caused by the government, of course) seemed to bolster the rationale.
All of which brings me to a strange observation: when it comes to politics, we aren’t that much better off today. It’s true that we don’t have people running for office in ridiculous military suits. They don’t scream at us or give sappy fireside chats or purport to be the embodiment of the social mind. The tune is slightly changed, but the notes and rhythms are the same.
Have you listened carefully to what the Democrats are proposing in the lead-up to the presidential election? It’s just about as disgusting as anything heard in the 1930s: endless government programs to solve all human ills. It’s as if they can’t think in any other way, as if their whole worldview would collapse if they took notice of the fact that government can’t do anything right.
But it also seems like they are living on another planet. The stock market has a long way to fall before it reaches anything we could call low. Mortgage interest rates are creeping along at the lowest possible rates. Unemployment is close to 4%, which is lower than even Keynesians of old could imagine in their wildest dreams.
The private sector is creating a miracle a day, even as the stuff that government attempts is failing left and right. The bureaucracies are as wasteful and useless as they’ve ever been, spending is already insanely high, debt is skyrocketing, and there’s no way that any American believes himself to be under-taxed.
The Democrats, meanwhile, go about their merry business as if the public schools were a model for all of society. Oh, and let us not forget their brilliant idea of shutting down the industrial economy and human prosperity so the government can plan the weather 100 years from now. We can only hope that there are enough serious people left to put a stop to this harebrained idea.
But before we get carried away about the Democrats, let’s say a few words about the bloodthirsty Republicans, who think of war not as something to regret, but rather the very moral life of the nation. For them, justice equals Guantanamo Bay, and public policy means a new war every month, and vast subsidies to the military-industrial complex and such other Republican-friendly firms as the big pharmaceuticals. Sure, they pay lip service to free enterprise, but it’s just a slogan to them, unleashed whenever they fear that they are losing support among the bourgeois merchant class.
So there we have it. Our times are good, and yet we face a choice between two forms of central planning. They are varieties of socialism and fascism, but not overtly: they disguise their ideological convictions so that we won’t recognize that they and their ilk have certain predecessors in the history of political economy.
Into this mix steps Ron Paul, with a message that has stunned millions. He says again and again that government is not the way out. And even though his political life is nothing short of heroic, he doesn’t believe that his candidacy is about him and his personal ambitions. He talks of Bastiat, Hazlitt, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard–in public campaign speeches! And let no one believe that this is just rhetoric. Take a look at his voting record if you doubt it. Even the New York Times is amazed to discover that there is a principled man in politics.
It is impressive how crowds are hard-pressed to disagree with him. How much good is he doing? It is impossible to exaggerate it. He provides hope when we need it most. You see, the American economy may look good on the surface but underneath, the foundation is cracking. The debt is unsustainable. Savings are nearly nonexistent. Money-supply creation is getting scary. The paper-money economy can’t last and won’t last. One senses that the slightest change could cause unforeseen wreckage.
What would happen should the bottom fall out? Scary thought. We need ever more public spokesmen for our cause. In many ways, the Mises Institute bears a heavy burden as the world’s leading institutional voice for peace and economic liberty. And we are working in every way possible to make sure that the flame of freedom is not extinguished, even in the face of legions of charlatans and powermongers. Even though the politics of our times is as dark as ever, there are bright lights on the horizon.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Do you think that the bright light is Ron Paul? [/quote]
In rhetorical terms…yes. In actual terms, I think he’s the closest thing this country will see to founding principles which is the direction we need to take–in my opinion.
Live, let live, and be free in both action and consequence.
While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced, it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.
Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.
The statement “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear:, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.
As Washington moves towards it summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.
It is hard to overstate the damage this approach does psychologically, especially to younger people. Of course, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, let alone any capacity to put them to successful use.
To calm fears, Americans accepted the PATRIOT Act and the doctrine of preemptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports, and even limit the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the Twilight Zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.
Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.
Americans must reflect on their irrational fears if we are to turn the tide against the steady erosion of our freedoms. Fear is the enemy. The logically confusing admonition to “fear only fear” does not help; instead, we must battle against irrational fear and the fearmongers who promote it.
It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant of real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In rhetorical terms…yes. In actual terms, I think he’s the closest thing this country will see to founding principles which is the direction we need to take–in my opinion.
Live, let live, and be free in both action and consequence.[/quote]
While I don’t think Ron Paul has any chance of ever being president, and that he is much too isolationist vis-a-vis the rest of the world, he at least has the merit of putting out interesting ideas.
And, if nothing else, the guy knows his Constitution. He also appears to me to be the one candidate who has integrity and his not willing to compromise his principles to special interests and lobby groups. Which is, sadly, why he’ll never make it in your current political system.
[quote]pookie wrote:
While I don’t think Ron Paul has any chance of ever being president, and that he is much too isolationist vis-a-vis the rest of the world, he at least has the merit of putting out interesting ideas.
[/quote]
What is more isolating, alienating the rest of the world and bullying your neighbors or deciding not to intervene in their affairs and opening free and unfettered lines of trade to them instead?
Read the posts I submitted (back 2 pages) written by Ron Paul about Globalism and Isolationism. He is much more efficacious in explaining the issues than I am.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
While I don’t think Ron Paul has any chance of ever being president, and that he is much too isolationist vis-a-vis the rest of the world, he at least has the merit of putting out interesting ideas.
What is more isolating, alienating the rest of the world and bullying your neighbors or deciding not to intervene in their affairs and opening free and unfettered lines of trade to them instead?
Read the posts I submitted (back 2 pages) written by Ron Paul about Globalism and Isolationism. He is much more efficacious in explaining the issues than I am.
[/quote]
If the US was to pull out from “the world,” someone else will step up to fill the vacuum. It’s a bit naive to presume that the US is the only country who is interested in controlling resources across the globe.
Personally, I think that that world could do a lot worse than having the US playing policeman. Would you prefer to see Russia or China in that role?
[quote]pookie wrote:
If the US was to pull out from “the world,” someone else will step up to fill the vacuum. It’s a bit naive to presume that the US is the only country who is interested in controlling resources across the globe.
Personally, I think that that world could do a lot worse than having the US playing policeman. Would you prefer to see Russia or China in that role?
I’ll go check out your post…[/quote]
One must keep in mind that the United States has been able to acquire its overseas empire, via an interventionist foreign policy, due to the enormous economic power Washington D.C. has accrued to itself.
Currently, and in fact no other nation in history, their is a decisive absence of this potential in any other nation. Perhaps just as interestingly, the US government’s “world policeman” status will eventually come to an end. This will likely be sooner as opposed to later considering the unrivaled debt Washington D.C. has built.
Perhaps the most important aspect enabling the extensive tentacles of US interventionism is the dollar’s position as the world reserve currency. Without this key factor, the US government’s foreign policy would prove financially impossible. Unfortunately for the political class in Washington D.C. the dollar is gradually being removed as the world reserve currency. Should the world’s other nations decide to abandon the dollar as their reserves current US foreign policy will become a shell of its current self, regardless of whether one believes in it or not.
Simply put, the US can no longer afford the extreme expense of its actions as “world policeman”.
