The Austrian School Deception : Austerity , Economic Snake Oil and Genocide

[Revolt426]

I think staying on the Gold Standard in this situation would be equivilent to SUICIDE, No?.

"My investigation convinced me that during the last quarter of a century the average production of gold has been falling off considerably. The gold mines of the world are practically exhausted. There is only about $11,000,000,000 in gold in the world, with the United States owning a little more than four billions. We have more than $100,000,000,000 in debts payable in gold of the present weight and fineness. . . As a practical proposition these contracts cannot be collected in gold for the obvious reason that the gold supply of the entire world is not sufficient to make payment."

-- Congressional Record, Congressman Dies, March 15, 1933.

[aerborne]

I love how you took someone elses quote and inserted into my mouth, as if i typed it - another aspect of trolling. If you go ahead and scroll up, you will realize numerous quotes you made from me, were never typed BY ME, THANK YOU.

That quote was from your essay. Would you like to go back and re-read your first post in the thread?

Afaik i've only quoted you and geolib and i've only used the quote button. If i copy pasted the wrong quote string then my bad. But you're just plain wrong on this one: That quote tunnel is from your original post in this thread. Go back and read it. you did indeed type those words. You're just plain trolling now.

<insert wicked sick pwnage img macro>

[aerborne]

By the way, your argument that "Look i have a chart that says the Gold production expands every year" , somehow eliminated the *FACT* That there is still not enough Gold to use as a currency is a typical remark from your type (The type that de-rail threads with substanceless remarks by accusing the opposing end of "Lying" instead of providing an "Argument").

So I'm going to have to watch the video just so i can confirm my belief that it doesn't answer my questions on how much gold IS needed, how much gold we have, and what velocity would be required to have a "successful" economy. You still haven't defined what success is, just made fear mongering nonsense claims that austrians are genocide.

[aerborne]

We playing a game of jump in with the troll with the same debunked argument?.

Why the hell do you think FDR, Lincoln and even MADISON had to take the dollar OFF the Gold Standard? to collapse the economy , or to FIX the collapse?

As i said, you need to RE-INDUSTRIALIZE a Nation to get out of a Depression with a massive infrastructure deficit - this means you need CURRENCY to exchange for LABOR in the form of infrastructure.

With the GOLD STANDARD you cannot ISSUE CURRENCY IF YOU ARE BANKRUPT.

Because they didn't have enough gold to redeem all the fractional reserve notes they printed. It's called a "run on the banks." or did you forget that little part of history?

[trailhound]

Let me get this straight, you're attacking me as a "liberal". The definition of which you probably got from a DRUG addled fool like rush limbaugh. Then you suggest that we all grow rich by growing pot, because if everyone grows pot, demand will increase and we'll all grow filthy rich selling dirtweed to each other. Then you imply that "successful people" need to be empowered to take control of their lives, by the government no less, in the same sentence condemning liberals for wanting social programs to helping those less fortunate. And all of this superman bootstraps claptrap is coming from a person who stated in the first sentence that they live paycheck to paycheck?

WTF? Your current position couldn't be more ridiculous. You should rethink things. Here's one clue:
Part of the reason why we're in the mess we're in is BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT EMPOWERED SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE TO DO WHATEVER THEY SAW FIT AND THEY STOLE THE MONEY AND ARE STILL STEALING IT.

  Obviously you have no idea the many uses and ways hemp could turn the country's economy around even if nobody smoked any dirt weed. 

 I was merely stating the FACT that even me a joe blow blue collar could climb his way out of the hole quite easily with a little frugality if the govt was not clearly in his way. Ive done the math and lived long enough to know that in my case this is true. Im not blaming the govt for my financial status i blame myself too, i could have sold pot instead of buying it     I just look at what my finances would be if Ron Paul's ideas were put into effect and frankly i think i would have some to give to charity.
 
 Look man when society flops the weight of its fat useless ass on the govt to hold up the whole country is going through the floor and you're going to find yourself standing in line with your hand out. The other hand will be tied behind your back and you will be helpless to control your own life. Have fun with that you're going to get what you want.

 

 

[Revolt426]

Because they didn't have enough gold to redeem all the fractional reserve notes they printed. It's called a "run on the banks." or did you forget that little part of history?

THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY ARGUMENT, A BANKRUPT NATION CANNOT ISSUE CURRENCY NOR REBUILD ITSELF.! Perfecto!

[Revolt426]

So I'm going to have to watch the video just so i can confirm my belief that it doesn't answer my questions on how much gold IS needed, how much gold we have, and what velocity would be required to have a "successful" economy. You still haven't defined what success is, just made fear mongering nonsense claims that austrians are genocide.

By the way, admitting that you didn't "Watch the video" *Which has EVIDENCE* only destroys your own credibility....... and verifies you are indeed a troll....

How are you going to read an essay and attack it without looking at evidence (and while ignoring the entire section on U.S. history)

[trailhound]

Revolt you are passionate and read on your topics and i would like to say i appreciate and respect your arguments.

Would you mind speaking to this point myself and others have been making that i feel you havent addressed. Maybe you did and i missed it but seems like you avoid this point.

planning4crash wrote

The idiocy of suggesting that gold stops the economy growing!!! Is BEYOND BELIEF. And, as described below, the supply of coinage can grow in sound money, even tho the money supply does not alter.

Because, with a stable money supply, resources are well allocated, and, as supply in the economy grows, prices go down. Then, what we see, is an endless growth in the money supply, but via greater fractions. Like, how a pound (British Sovereign, 0.2354 ounces) was subdivided into 20 Schillings, subdivided into 10 pennies, then you get the tuppenny (half penny) and the threepence (quarter penny). If the economy doubles, we can go for an eighth of a penny, if it doubles again, we can go for a 16th of a penny. So the money supply grows in sound money without reducing its value.

The difference is, that the money supply, with sound money, follows growth in the economy, whilst, in fiat, the money supply grows without any relationship to the economy.  THAT IS THE PROBLEM. If the economy shrinks with sound money, small coinage goes out of use without degrading the value of the coinage, if the economy shrinks in fiat money, they can't get rid of excess liquidity.

[Revolt426]

Revolt you are passionate and read on your topics and i would like to say i appreciate and respect your arguments.

Would you mind speaking to this point myself and others have been making that i feel you havent addressed. Maybe you did and i missed it but seems like you avoid this point.

planning4crash wrote

Sure thing, as i already said ( a few times ) when a Nation is bankrupt and on the Gold Standard , it cannot ISSUE currency, hence it cannot BUILD anything.

I did indeed address it, and in addition - let's add a Dynamic into the situation shall we?

Suppose there is a problem obtaining Gold (like in 1933) where the worlds current Gold Mines are exhuasted, shall we just stop expanding the economy to facilitate the populace JUST BECAUSE of that?

[Revolt426]

It goes back to the point i made in the original post, that the Gold Supply would determine Economic Expansion as opposed to  Population Growth (To Clarify)

[Revolt426]

Because, with a stable money supply, resources are well allocated, and, as supply in the economy grows, prices go down. Then, what we see, is an endless growth in the money supply, but via greater fractions. Like, how a pound (British Sovereign, 0.2354 ounces) was subdivided into 20 Schillings, subdivided into 10 pennies, then you get the tuppenny (half penny) and the threepence (quarter penny). If the economy doubles, we can go for an eighth of a penny, if it doubles again, we can go for a 16th of a penny. So the money supply grows in sound money without reducing its value.

This is another dogma quote by P4C that he already knows is a bold faced lie, since outstanding DEBT would NOT CORRECT in price (If you owe 200,000$ on a mortgage today, is it going to shrink to it's deflated value after a Gold Standard is implimented? No)

[trailhound]

Suppose there is a problem obtaining Gold (like in 1933) where the worlds current Gold Mines are exhuasted, shall we just stop expanding the economy to facilitate the populace JUST BECAUSE of that?

 But as the economy expands the gold is worth more.  If my dollar represented a certain amount of gold, as the economy expanded my dollar would have more purchasing power. I dont see how this results in the travesty you describe.

Because, with a stable money supply, resources are well allocated, and, as supply in the economy grows, prices go down. Then, what we see, is an endless growth in the money supply, but via greater fractions. Like, how a pound (British Sovereign, 0.2354 ounces) was subdivided into 20 Schillings, subdivided into 10 pennies, then you get the tuppenny (half penny) and the threepence (quarter penny). If the economy doubles, we can go for an eighth of a penny, if it doubles again, we can go for a 16th of a penny. So the money supply grows in sound money without reducing its value.

 I do agree that perhaps changing to the austrian system would be quite the tumultuous affair; however, im not sure the other options will be any better. In the very long run, imho, i think the austrian model would be best.  I could be sorely mistaken but that is where i am at right now.

[trailhound]

This is another dogma quote by P4C that he already knows is a bold faced lie, since outstanding DEBT would NOT CORRECT in price (If you owe 200,000$ on a mortgage today, is it going to shrink to it's deflated value after a Gold Standard is implimented? No)

 I see your point loud and clear here at least in regards to the falling prices and those of us holding these high mortgages. I would go down too. I hear you, im just not convinced there is an easy way out.

[Revolt426]

I see your point loud and clear here at least in regards to the falling prices and those of us holding these high mortgages. I would go down too. I hear you, im just not convinced there is an easy way out.

Right, so if you owe 200,000$ on a mortgage, installment loan, commercial loan (or one of numerous other loans) , if there is deflation -  you cannot REPAY the loan and you will go bankrupt.

Now, think about how many of these loans are oustanding, and we have a serious problem.

No, there is no easy way out - but instituting a Gold Standard is CERTAINLY not the answer ( and i did not attack the entire Austrian school, just about 3 key issues)..


You may be interested to look at how Germany ended up with hyperinflation (Through the privatized issuence of currency):
The great German hyper-inflation of 1922-1923 is one of the most widely cited examples by those who insist that private bankers, not governments, should control the money system. What is practically unknown about that sordid affair is that it occurred under the auspices of a privately owned and controlled central bank.

Up to then the Reichsbank had a form of private ownership but with substantial public control; the President and Directors were officials of the German government, appointed by the Emperor for life. There was a sharing of the revenue of the central bank between the private shareholders and the government. But shareholders had no power to determine policy.

The Allies' plan for the reconstruction of Germany after WWI came to be known as the Dawes Plan, named after General Charles Gates Dawes, a Chicago banker. The foreign experts delegated by the League of Nations to guide the economic recovery of Germany wanted a more free market orientation for the German central bank.

[Hjalmar] Schacht relates how the Allies had insisted that the Reichsbank be made more independent from the government:

"On May 26, 1922, the law establishing the independence of the Reichsbank and withdrawing from the Chancellor of the Reich any influence on the conduct of the Bank's business was promulgated."

This granting of total private control over the German currency became a key factor in the worst inflation of modern times.

The stage had already been set by the immense reparations payments. That they were payable in foreign currency would place a great continuing pressure on the Reichsmark far into the future.

HOW IS A CURRENCY DESTROYED?

In a sentence, a currency is destroyed by issuing or creating tremendously excessive amounts of it. Not just too much of it but far too much. This excessive issue can happen in several ways, for example by British counterfeiting as occurred with the U.S. Continental Currency, and with the French Assignats. The central bank itself might print too much currency, or the central bank might allow speculators to destroy a currency through excessive short selling of it, similar to short selling a company's shares, in effect allowing speculators to "issue" the currency.

The destruction of an already pressured national currency through speculation is what concerns us in this case. A related process was recently allowed to destroy several Asian currencies, which dropped over 50% against the Dollar in a few months time, in 1997-98, threatening the livelihood of millions.

It works like this: First there is some obvious weakness involved in the currency. In Germany's case it was World War One, and the need for foreign currency for reparations payments. In the case of the Asian countries, they had a need for U.S. dollars in order to repay foreign debts coming due.

Such problems can be solved over time and usually require national contribution toward their solution, in the form of taxes or temporary lowering of living standards. However, because currency speculation on a scale large enough to affect the currency's value is still erroneously viewed as a legitimate activity, private currency speculators can make a weak situation immeasurably worse and take billions of dollars in "profits" out of the situation by selling short the currency in question. This doesn't just involve selling currency that they own but making contracts to sell currency that they don't own -- to sell it short.

If done in large amounts, in a weak situation, such short selling soon has self-fulfilling results, driving down the value of the currency faster and further than it otherwise would have fallen. Then at some point, panic strikes, which causes widespread flight from the currency by those who actually hold it. It drops precipitously. The short selling speculators are then able to buy back the currency that they sold short, and obtain tremendous profits, at the expense of the producers and working people whose lives and enterprises were dependent on that currency.

The free market gang claim that it's all the fault of the government that the currency was weak in the first place. But by what logic does it follow that speculators take this money from those already in trouble? Currency speculation in such large amounts should be viewed as a form of aggression, no less harmful than dropping bombs on the country in question.

Industrialists should realize that when they allow such activity to be included under the umbrella of "business activity," they are making a serious error. They should help isolate such speculation and educate the populace on how destructive it is, so that it can be stopped through law.

Limitations could easily be placed on speculative currency transactions without limiting those that are a normal part of business and trading, while stopping the kind of transactions that are thinly disguised attacks on the country involved. Placing a small tax on such transactions would be a healthy first move.

TOO MANY GERMAN MARKS ISSUED

By July 1922 the German Mark fell to 300 marks for $1; in November it was at 9,000 to $1; by January 1923 it was at 49,000 to $1; by July 1923 it was at 1,100,000 to $1. It reached 2.5 trillion marks to $1 in mid November, 1923, varying from city to city.

In the monetary chaos Hamburg, Bremen and Kiel established private banks to issue money backed by gold and foreign exchange. The private Reichsbank printing presses had been unable to keep up and other private parties were given the authority to issue money. Schacht estimated that about half the money in circulation was private money from other than Reichsbank sources.

CAUSE OF THE FIRST INFLATION: SCHACHT'S FIRST "EXPLANATION"

There is often a false assumption made that the government allowed the mark to fall, in order to more easily pay off the war indemnity. But since the Versailles Treaty required payment in U.S. Dollars and British Pounds, the inflationary disorder actually made it much harder to raise such foreign exchange.

Hjalmar Schacht's 1967 book, The Magic of Money, presents what appears to be a contradictory explanation of the private Reichsbank's role in the inflation disaster.

First, in the hackneyed tradition of economists, he is prepared to let the private Reichsbank off the hook very easily and blame the government's difficult reparations situation instead. He minimized the connection of the private control of the central bank with the inflation as mere co-incidence....

THEN SCHACHT GIVES THE REAL EXPLANATION

Schacht was a lifelong member of the banking fraternity, reaching its highest levels. He may have felt compelled to give his banker peers and their public relations corps something innocuous to quote. But Schacht also had a streak of German nationalism, and more than that, an almost sacred devotion to a stable mark. He had watched helplessly as the hyper-inflation destroyed "his mark."

For whatever reasons, after 44 years he proceeded to let the cat out of the bag, with some truly remarkable admissions, which shatter the "accepted wisdom" the Anglo-American financial community has promulgated on the German hyper-inflation....

SCHACHT'S REVELATION

It was in describing his 1924 battles in stabilizing the Rentenmarks that Schacht made his revelation, giving the private mechanism of the hyper-inflation. Schacht was obviously very upset when the speculators continued to attack the new Rentenmark currency. By the end of the November 1923:

"The dollar reached an exchange rate of 12 trillion Rentenmarks on the free market of the Cologne Bourse. This speculation was not only hostile to the country's economic interests, it was also stupid. In previous years such speculation had been carried on either with loans which the Reichsbank granted lavishly, or with emergency money which one printed oneself, and then exchanged for Reichsmarks.

"Now, however, three things had happened. The emergency money had lost its value. It was no longer possible to exchange it for Reichsmarks. The loans formerly easily obtained from the Reichsbank were no longer granted, and the Rentenmark could not be used abroad. For these reasons the speculators were unable to pay for the dollars they had bought when payment became due (and they) made considerable losses."

Schacht is telling us that the excessive speculation against the mark -- the short selling of the mark -- was financed by lavish loans from the private Reichsbank. The margin requirements that the anti-mark speculators needed and without which they could not have attacked the mark was provided by the private Reichsbank!

This contradicts Schacht's earlier explanation, for there is no way to interpret or justify "lavishly" loaning to anti-mark speculators as "helping to keep the government's head above water." Just the opposite. Schacht was a bright fellow, and he wanted this point to be understood. He waited until he wrote the Magic of Money in 1967. His earlier book, The Stabilization of the Mark (1927), discussed inflation profiteering but did not clearly identify the private Reichsbank itself as financing such speculation, making it so convenient to go short the mark.

Thus it was a privately owned and privately controlled central bank, that made loans to private speculators, enabling them to speculate against the nation's currency. Whatever other pressures the currency faced (and they were substantial), such speculation helped create a one way market down for the Reichsmark. Soon a continuous panic set in, and not just speculators, but everyone else had to do what they could to get out of their marks, further fueling the disaster. This private factor has been largely unknown in America.


-- Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money, pp. 579-87

[trailhound]

I totally agree on the german example. I think the best way to approach economics is to find a way for the market to control the market and let the chips fall where they may. Whether its a private or federal bank the human error element is present.  Banks should just be a service and have no control of the market whatsoever. I guess thats an ideological pipe dream but makes sense to me.

[Revolt426]

I totally agree on the german example. I think the best way to approach economics is to find a way for the market to control the market and let the chips fall where they may. Whether its a private or federal bank the human error element is present.  Banks should just be a service and have no control of the market whatsoever. I guess thats an ideological pipe dream but makes sense to me.

No argument there (Unless there is a catastrophe like a natural disaster) - the essay is entirely focused on how currency is issued, not micro managing the markets.

History has shown that privatized issuence of currency is a very bad thing, and logic shows that a Gold Standard would wreck countless lives....

So, take that however you want, but the essay had absolutely nothing to do with the Government running the economy.... it was in regards to what gives a currency value, and digging it out of the Earth does not 

[trailhound]

So, take that however you want, but the essay had absolutely nothing to do with the Government running the economy.... it was in regards to what gives a currency value, and digging it out of the Earth does not

 Im still waiting for you to send your worthless gold to me though.

[Revolt426]

Im still waiting for you to send your worthless gold to me though.

Well, as i said (Not to go in circles here) Gold may have value - but it has nothing to do with the value of an Economy, so as a currency it has no "intrinsic" value.

To add to that, if fiat money were worthless, it would not be able to purchase Gold (Which was 35$ Per ounce until Kissinger and Nixon collapsed the entire Bretton Woods system to expand the Vietnam War).

But we've been over this already!. No one said you cannot have Gold to hedge against inflation - the argument is soley that Gold does not represent the value of an economy (and actually distorts it) as a currency.

[VALiberaltarian]

 Obviously you have no idea the many uses and ways hemp could turn the country's economy around even if nobody smoked any dirt weed.  

Economically this doesn't matter. If every joe 6 pack grows pot for a living, then the law of supply and demand says that the value of the commodity will plummet and no one gets rich off of it. Narco-economies only generate true wealth due to the scarcity created by illegality. That might be an insight right there to you as to why the legal status of the stuff is the way it is. You can't get stuff this basic wrong and expect to be taken seriously on economics.  
 

I was merely stating the FACT that even me a joe blow blue collar could climb his way out of the hole quite easily with a little frugality if the govt was not clearly in his way. Ive done the math and lived long enough to know that in my case this is true. Im not blaming the govt for my financial status i blame myself too, i could have sold pot instead of buying it     I just look at what my finances would be if Ron Paul's ideas were put into effect and frankly i think i would have some to give to charity.

The good news is that, in theory, that is your theory, you still can pull yourself out of the hole with a little work and frugality. The bad news is that you just won't. Why? Because you allow your economic and political behaviour to be dictated to you by others. Over the past 30 years the blue collar worker has been persuaded to devalue labor and accept credit as income, all the while repeating the same dogma that you are now. In business, the real money is made at the negotiating table, where you don't even have a seat anymore because of the destruction of the unions (the final act of that is being completed now). This is how the hole that you're in right now got dug and you won't get out of it by digging deeper.

 

Look man when society flops the weight of its fat useless ass on the govt to hold up the whole country is going through the floor and you're going to find yourself standing in line with your hand out. The other hand will be tied behind your back and you will be helpless to control your own life. Have fun with that you're going to get what you want.

They call this attitude elitism and it's usually unpopular around these parts. In any case you've yet to explain how an efficient infinitely wise truly free market system is going to emerge from a bunch of people that you describe as lazy useless fat asses. How does that work?

In any case, you can try to paint me how you want but you don't know me from Jack. But you should know that while you were being indoctrinated I was out acquiring and applying useful skills and am used to living below the poverty level so that the scenario you describe is VERY unlikely to apply to me. Why would I be helpless to control my life now when I wasn't in the past?

Do I need to listen to someone who will spend his first government check on pot and smoke it while listening to limbaugh while whining that the self appointed inherently successful people need to be empowered by the government? No I don't.  

[trailhound]

Economically this doesn't matter. If every joe 6 pack grows pot for a living, then the law of supply and demand says that the value of the commodity will plummet and no one gets rich off of it. Narco-economies only generate true wealth due to the scarcity created by illegality. That might be an insight right there to you as to why the legal status of the stuff is the way it is. You can't get stuff this basic wrong and expect to be taken seriously on economics.

 You really should study up on the uses of hemp before sticking your foot farther down your throat. Among the lengthy list are FUEL, PLASTIC that biodegrades, and extremely strong fibers that are stronger and lighter than steel.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html

Henry Ford's hemp car demo


You're out of your element Donnie!

[VALiberaltarian]

You really should study up on the uses of hemp before sticking your foot farther down your throat. Among the lengthy list are FUEL, PLASTIC that biodegrades, and extremely strong fibers that are stronger and lighter than steel.

OH OK..the law of supply and demand has been defeated by goofy web graphics. I like how you cleared all that confusion up. You win.. and you didn't even need to be empowered by the government to do it. Wow.

[trailhound]

They call this attitude elitism and it's usually unpopular around these parts. In any case you've yet to explain how an efficient infinitely wise truly free market system is going to emerge from a bunch of people that you describe as lazy useless fat asses. How does that work?

 You reap what you sow. You dont sow you dont eat, pretty simple really. There are always exceptions but not many. If you reward people for not working then they dont work and we all suffer.

The unions had a time and necessary place but have in most cases outgrown their usefulness. No? Argue with somebody in the auto workers business.

Do I need to listen to someone who will spend his first government check on pot and smoke it while listening to limbaugh while whining that the self appointed inherently successful people need to be empowered by the government? No I don't.

 Ive never received a govt check and i work my ass off for my paycheck and my work only begins with what i get paid for. If you dont think you're being pawned i forgive you your ignorance but its just that. Believe me now or you can believe me later.

 When i made reference to 'successful' people i wasnt referring to those who have accumulated wealth. I was referring to those who take responsibility. I was talking about people who get up in the morning and put their big boy pants on and do what they have to do to care for themselves and their loved ones. Im talking about the people who dont have cant in their vocabulary. Maybe those types arent popular where you are from but around here we call them the salt of the earth. These people would be embarrassed to receive an unearned check. ( well maybe not at this point in the sordid game)   Successful people are people who are self reliant. Sometimes that mean that have good reciprocating relationships with others, but still, a successful person is one who subsides on his/her own power and does not need govt to take care of him/her.
Those of you who think you want the govt to care for you dont know what your getting yourself into. See 1984 by George Orwell or A Brave New World by Alduous Huxley. Big Titty Govt=Big Brother

[trailhound]

OH OK..the law of supply and demand has been defeated by goofy web graphics. I like how you cleared all that confusion up. You win.. and you didn't even need to be empowered by the government to do it. Wow.

 Ok i guess the purdue study i posted for you wasnt enough for you to see my point. Let me break it down for you.  Hemp is an energy source, if you dont see how the economy could be drastically affected by a new cheap energy source...
 Supply and demand, hemp has so many uses that the demand would remain very high even if thats all we grew. Right now seems like all we grow is soy and corn....

also to supplement the economy, along with hemp industries, if we could get current and former administration officials to agree to be waterboarded on a pay per view event by Jesse 'the man' Ventura i think we could pay off the national debt.

[aerborne]

THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY ARGUMENT, A BANKRUPT NATION CANNOT ISSUE CURRENCY NOR REBUILD ITSELF.! Perfecto!

ROFL. That proves you argument? The banks had a fraction reserve ratio (of specie) of 0.11 you mean to tell me that there's not enough gold because banks had 1/10th of the gold needed to fill the notes they printed?

You're comprehension skills are god aweful if you think that probes your case. fractional reserve banking was the problem and you seem to attribute that problem to people who are against fractional reserve. God you're just trying to twist and contort things out of context to prove your case, it's blatantly obvious.

[aerborne]

By the way, admitting that you didn't "Watch the video" *Which has EVIDENCE* only destroys your own credibility....... and verifies you are indeed a troll....

How are you going to read an essay and attack it without looking at evidence (and while ignoring the entire section on U.S. history)

No as I said, It was part of a strawman, and asked if it answered specific questions. It's a 30 minute video. If you want to play who didn't do what. Have you read anything from murray rothbard? I've posted links to history of money which completely refutes all of your nonsense, from the 18437 to the greenback. I've posted links to his monetary proposals which you haven't even tried to argue with because you still *CLEARLY* don't know what austrians propose for monetary reform because you won't read it, because you're a troll who can't even fact check his own lame sources.

[aerborne]

I do agree that perhaps changing to the austrian system would be quite the tumultuous affair; however, im not sure the other options will be any better. In the very long run, imho, i think the austrian model would be best.  I could be sorely mistaken but that is where i am at right now.

He doesn't even know what the austrians are proposing for monetary reform. He doesn't even remotely understand it. He thinks they want fractional reserve backed by specie. He's like Popular mechanics trying to debunk pods on the 9/11 planes or FEMA camps on Glen beck. He doesn't know wtf he's talking about.


http://mises.org/story/1829
http://mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp

[Freeski]

He doesn't even know what the austrians are proposing for monetary reform. He doesn't even remotely understand it. He thinks they want fractional reserve backed by specie. He's like Popular mechanics trying to debunk pods on the 9/11 planes or FEMA camps on Glen beck. He doesn't know wtf he's talking about.


http://mises.org/story/1829
http://mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp

But, at least we (all sides of the "Austrian/Libertarian" debate) agree that the smallest possible government is the best, right? That's key. If we're going in THAT direction, then it's all good. We're allies. It will be great to sit down, some day, to work out the arguement as to whether we need ANY government at all. For now, though, freedom lovers of the world unite, join hands!, touch boobs!, end our dependence on The State so we can be free! 

[Revolt426]

But, at least we (all sides of the "Austrian/Libertarian" debate) agree that the smallest possible government is the best, right? That's key. If we're going in THAT direction, then it's all good. We're allies. It will be great to sit down, some day, to work out the arguement as to whether we need ANY government at all. For now, though, freedom lovers of the world unite, join hands!, touch boobs!, end our dependence on The State so we can be free! 

sure thing, anyone that read the essay would notice immediately, that i did not propose the expansion of the Government, but reforming the way it issues currency , and preventing countless people from being thrown on the street when their homes and currency deflates in value (On a Gold Standard) and the actual bubble denominated mortgage (or any loan outstanding, which is a lot of loans) stays the SAME........ Thus proving, the market does NOT correct everything, and is not infallable.....

Anyone in any debt would agree, i mean - do you want to pay off 5 or 10 thousand dollars in debt over the course of 30 years?. I sure don't.

[Freeski]

sure thing, anyone that read the essay would notice immediately, that i did not propose the expansion of the Government, but reforming the way it issues currency , and preventing countless people from being thrown on the street when their homes and currency deflates in value (On a Gold Standard) and the actual bubble denominated mortgage (or any loan outstanding, which is a lot of loans) stays the SAME........ Thus proving, the market does NOT correct everything, and is not infallable.....

Anyone in any debt would agree, i mean - do you want to pay off 5 or 10 thousand dollars in debt over the course of 30 years?. I sure don't.

I'm sure any of us will agree on steps 1-5 right now. The other five steps will get tricky but by then we'll all be in much greater shape, as a society, to plot the next few steps. We can nuke each other later,  , but, we'll achieve great successes in the meantime, just by slashing the size of government!

[Revolt426]

I'm sure any of us will agree on steps 1-5 right now. The other five steps will get tricky but by then we'll all be in much greater shape, as a society, to plot the next few steps. We can nuke each other later,  , but, we'll achieve great successes in the meantime, just by slashing the size of government!

I am in agreement on beuracracies, but during a Depression i do advocate expanding medicaid, medicare and Social Security (Since everyone has lost their Pension/401k's) for the purpose of preventing death (General Welfare Clause).

Other than that - i would like to see a large chunk of the worthless Government Departments dissapear.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

I am in agreement on beuracracies, but during a Depression i do advocate expanding medicaid, medicare and Social Security (Since everyone has lost their Pension/401k's) for the purpose of preventing death (General Welfare Clause).

Other than that - i would like to see a large chunk of the worthless Government Departments dissapear.

out of curiosity, how would you pay for this expansion in social services?

[Freeski]

I am in agreement on beuracracies, but during a Depression i do advocate expanding medicaid, medicare and Social Security (Since everyone has lost their Pension/401k's) for the purpose of preventing death (General Welfare Clause).

Other than that - i would like to see a large chunk of the worthless Government Departments dissapear.

As long as you know what you're doing (you sort of sound like you do), AND you promise to cut the scope of government in half within 10 years, I'd vote for you without question!

[Revolt426]

As long as you know what you're doing (you sort of sound like you do), AND you promise to cut the scope of government in half within 10 years, I'd vote for you without question!

Well, there is always a dynamic issue one must deal with in these situations... i mean, you know that there will always be sociopaths, oligarchal criminals and tyrants in the world..... so eliminating Government all together (anarchism) would lead to another Civil War because we would be penetrated, like the civil war :p

So, the issue of keeping the Union in tact is extremely importent..... (And ignored by many reactionary's). Rick Perry is already stirring up trouble by threatening secession....

This is a big deal here, if the U.S. is split in half (The British Empire's dream since 1776) we are done for permanently.

So you sort of have to balance these issues with what is going on in the world... but in regards to things like the Department of Homeland Security, The Department of Education? even the NSA and CIA (Although i do think we need one intelligence agency because like i said, there are indeed always going to be maniacs).

Like i've said, i would advocate the "Freest Markets" and "Smallest Government" possible without threatening to destroy the Union

[Revolt426]

out of curiosity, how would you pay for this expansion in social services?

Deficit spending during an economic collapse is irrelivent,  you pay for it by simoultaniously re-building the Nation.

The issue with this situation is , there is going to be a "GREAT DEPRESSION" - are you going to come out of it in the Stone Age or with a functioning economy?.

You cannot simply ignore a 5 to 7 Trillion dollar infrastructure deficit and the utter bankruptcy of the entire monetary system and allow it to fix itself....

If you want specifics, why not cut the bueracracies i just mentioned?

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

so you would cut spending in other areas to pay for it?

[Revolt426]

so you would cut spending in other areas to pay for it?

Well, as i said.... Deficit spending does not really matter during a Depression since the goal is to re-industrialize the nations productive capabilities, but yes - i would cut departments that are useless if that is what you are asking (If i was President).

The first thing i would do however, is put the entire Federal Reserve system into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Re-Organization and FREEZE all Derivatives , because without doing so, any other actions are pointless.

[EvadingGrid]

I have yet to see a decent reply to the original posts.

I have seen some pathetic Cult / Troll replies, but no serious reply.

[Revolt426]

I have yet to see a decent reply to the original posts.

I have seen some pathetic Cult / Troll replies, but no serious reply.

These things happen sometimes, but that's ok - we are still having a rational debate now (as opposed to earlier)

[trailhound]

He doesn't even know what the austrians are proposing for monetary reform. He doesn't even remotely understand it. He thinks they want fractional reserve backed by specie. He's like Popular mechanics trying to debunk pods on the 9/11 planes or FEMA camps on Glen beck. He doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

  f**k you asshole i never said i or austrians wanted fractional reserve shit.  All i said that i can think you may have gleaned over and not really read is that as the economy expands so does the purchasing power of gold. One need to look no farther than the price of gold today to see my point.  Revolt was arguing that there was not enough gold to represent the modern economy. All i was arguing was that the bigger the economy the more valuable the gold becomes. Say prices come down to where i want to buy a loaf of bread that costs half a coin that fractional notes could be made to represent such small amounts. Like if i wanted to buy something that cost 1/2 of cent wtf am i going to do i cant split the penny in half so as the economy adjusted to the gold standard you could have as many bills necessary to conduct manageable business yet still have the value of the notes pegged to gold and most importantly notes could not be made without gold to back them.

 In a nutshell  all im saying is that the economy would not be prevented from expanding due to scarcity of gold.

 If you know wtf you are talking about why didnt you counter that part of Revolt's argument?  Also if you know wtf you are talking about you need to express it better cause you suck at it.   I guess here's your big chance to lay it out clearly for all of us, What the f**k are you talking about?

[trailhound]

He doesn't even know what the austrians are proposing for monetary reform. He doesn't even remotely understand it. He thinks they want fractional reserve backed by specie. He's like Popular mechanics trying to debunk pods on the 9/11 planes or FEMA camps on Glen beck. He doesn't know wtf he's talking about.


http://mises.org/story/1829
http://mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp

and furthermore your links had nothing to do with what we were talking about so apparently you dont know what the f**k you are talking about. Maybe you should figure it out before taking shots at me.