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

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

ive read "road to serfdom", i thought it was a very honest book, there wasnt any ambiguity, in fact, before reading that book i was pretty much opposed to state provided welfare, but it now seems reasonable to me that a "safety net" be provided, so long as it was garunteed to everyone equally as individuals, and that it wasnt getting us into debt. i particularly found Hayeks comments on central planning to be very enlightening and i reccommend people read that book just to understand what central planning really is.

with regards to the argument about currencies that is dominating this thread now, i have no real dispute between either of the options presented, whether that be gold currency or fixed exchange rates, i think in both circumstances the practice of fractional reserve banking and usury in the creation of new money would not exist, so both would be a damn sight better than what weve got!

personally, i would like to see the use of competing currencies, where wealth was converted into currency directly, no middle man, with freedom of choice.

[Revolt426]

ive read "road to serfdom", i thought it was a very honest book, there wasnt any ambiguity, in fact, before reading that book i was pretty much opposed to state provided welfare, but it now seems reasonable to me that a "safety net" be provided, so long as it was garunteed to everyone equally as individuals, and that it wasnt getting us into debt. i particularly found Hayeks comments on central planning to be very enlightening and i reccommend people read that book just to understand what central planning really is.

with regards to the argument about currencies that is dominating this thread now, i have no real dispute between either of the options presented, whether that be gold currency or fixed exchange rates, i think in both circumstances the practice of fractional reserve banking and usury in the creation of new money would not exist, so both would be a damn sight better than what weve got!

personally, i would like to see the use of competing currencies, where wealth was converted into currency directly, no middle man, with freedom of choice.

Of course i obviously agree, there has to be a form of saftey net for the very situation we are currently witnessing ( An incalculable Depresssion that will result in starvation and death if not addressed ). I would agree , it has to be reformed to prevent the massive abuse (Like illegal aliens not paying for it and getting the benefits anyway) , but to call medicaid/medicare "Socialism" is by definition a falsehood and is a big problem because calling a social net, "Socalism" or "Marxism" in this case narrows everyones views to the Preditory Capitalist System VS. the "Socialist" system when infact, you can of course have none of the above if you broaden your perspectives. I see the labeling of all Government activities as "Marxist Socialism" , which the mises website does in nearly all of their articles as a deadly threat to humanity.... which is why i attempt to highlight that "Marxist Socialism" is when the Government Seizes the Means of Production - not when the Government constitutionally provides for the General Welfare of the public. I know you understand this, so do not think i am attacking you here, i am merely highlighting it because i think it's very important.


In regards to both systems being the same, i'd certainly have to disagree with you there.... due to the fact that a fixed exchange rate system would allow the new currency to be pegged to current price levels to avoid the very deflation that an actual domestic gold coin barter standard would result in. That is the major issue here, an International Gold Standard can be pegged to current price levels, but a Domestic Gold Coin standard obviously cannot due to the impossibility of obtaining enough Gold to peg to current price levels..... In addition, a Domestic Gold Coin standard is the use of a commodity as Currency , which i've highlighted as not a "Storage Unit of Wealth" - but a means of exchange valued by a Nations net productive output per capita. So what you have here is using a volatile piece of metal (in the case of Gold) being used as a currency. This means gold mining drives currency levels as opposed to economic expansion - i believe doing this is a grave mistake and a also addressed this in my original post, as Mining for Gold really bears to resemblence to an actual economies expansion rate at all, while Infrastructure infact directly represents an economies expansion rate.

In regards to competeing currency (Specifically for private obligations) i'd also have to disagree , the reality of the situation is that this has indeed been attempted by none other than Andrew Jackson, and the result wiped out the perceived "Weaker" currency, and many families savings were wiped out along with it just because they held state issued notes and not gold convertable notes (Which later imploded the economy anyway)..... so i would also disagree that a competeing currency would help becuase the weaker currency would inevitably be dumped and wiped out. If there were a way to introduce competeing currency without this threat - i perhaps would not be opposed to it, but to my knowledge i simply cannot think of a way for a competeing currency to provide for the General Welfare Clause in any way shape or form.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

Of course i obviously agree, there has to be a form of saftey net for the very situation we are currently witnessing ( An incalculable Depresssion that will result in starvation and death if not addressed ). I would agree , it has to be reformed to prevent the massive abuse (Like illegal aliens not paying for it and getting the benefits anyway) , but to call medicaid/medicare "Socialism" is by definition a falsehood and is a big problem because calling a social net, "Socalism" or "Marxism" in this case narrows everyones views to the Preditory Capitalist System VS. the "Socialist" system when infact, you can of course have none of the above if you broaden your perspectives. I see the labeling of all Government activities as "Marxist Socialism" , which the mises website does in nearly all of their articles as a deadly threat to humanity.... which is why i attempt to highlight that "Marxist Socialism" is when the Government Seizes the Means of Production - not when the Government constitutionally provides for the General Welfare of the public. I know you understand this, so do not think i am attacking you here, i am merely highlighting it because i think it's very important.

maybe its being nitpicky but i disagree that there HAS to be a safety net, that would suggest it is provided no regard to the cost etc.

how is it "providing for the general welfare" to put the nation into debt in doing so? it cannot be, so a safety net should not be provided "no matter what".

i would also hasten to add that the idea of specific targeted social welfare is very much a socialist/communist/collectivist idea, housing benefits, targeted healthcare etc, even what i described as what i would condone as a "safety net" is still a socialist idea, however, if done in the way i described is perfectly compatible with the principles of a free society.

i do agree there is a difference between providing for the GENERAL welfare, as opposed to the Government control of the means of production, however, maybe the best way of describing it could be its the providing FOR the general welfare, as opposed to the providing OF general welfare, there is a difference, and although social welfare can exist in a free society, it is still very much a socialist idea.

In regards to both systems being the same, i'd certainly have to disagree with you there.... due to the fact that a fixed exchange rate system would allow the new currency to be pegged to current price levels to avoid the very deflation that an actual domestic gold coin barter standard would result in. That is the major issue here, an International Gold Standard can be pegged to current price levels, but a Domestic Gold Coin standard obviously cannot due to the impossibility of obtaining enough Gold to peg to current price levels..... In addition, a Domestic Gold Coin standard is the use of a commodity as Currency , which i've highlighted as not a "Storage Unit of Wealth" - but a means of exchange valued by a Nations net productive output per capita. So what you have here is using a volatile piece of metal (in the case of Gold) being used as a currency. This means gold mining drives currency levels as opposed to economic expansion - i believe doing this is a grave mistake and a also addressed this in my original post, as Mining for Gold really bears to resemblence to an actual economies expansion rate at all, while Infrastructure infact directly represents an economies expansion rate.

well, its a good job i didnt say they were the same then, eh?

i said i would not be vehemently opposed to either, i would hold no massive objection to either, as both would eradicate what i see as the main problem, fractional reserve banking and usury in the creation of new money. past that, i am fairly open to different ideas.

In regards to competeing currency (Specifically for private obligations) i'd also have to disagree , the reality of the situation is that this has indeed been attempted by none other than Andrew Jackson, and the result wiped out the perceived "Weaker" currency, and many families savings were wiped out along with it just because they held state issued notes and not gold convertable notes (Which later imploded the economy anyway)..... so i would also disagree that a competeing currency would help becuase the weaker currency would inevitably be dumped and wiped out. If there were a way to introduce competeing currency without this threat - i perhaps would not be opposed to it, but to my knowledge i simply cannot think of a way for a competeing currency to provide for the General Welfare Clause in any way shape or form.

you have a fair point here, indeed competition would weed out the weaker currency, and yes, i agree that something would have to be done in order to ensure people did not loose out simply because of what they had previously owned.

i would still like to see a broader meaning for legal tender, for instance, i would equate it to a voluntary contract, people could write their own "notes" into existence, and the fair exchange protected from fraud by the government. however, indeed, this would have to be brought about in a way that did not penalise people for what currency they had previously owned.

[Revolt426]

maybe its being nitpicky but i disagree that there HAS to be a safety net, that would suggest it is provided no regard to the cost etc.

how is it "providing for the general welfare" to put the nation into debt in doing so? it cannot be, so a safety net should not be provided "no matter what".

In our current situation the "Not matter what" phrase i used still stands. In my view, saving human lives during a Depression is far more important than deficit spending to "Balance the Budget" , as Mouslini said in his drive towards Corporatism, as Mayor Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzeneggar parroted recently during economic hardships in regards to cutting public programs..... and as Obama is saying to "Cut Medicaid , Medicare" and now, Social Security - if however, we seized the insolvent banks rather then bailing them out and ended our occupation of numerous countries it is my sincere beleif it would not put us into debt, specifically with good monetary reform that increases the nations physical productive capabilities. The point of a social net is not only a moral one to provide health care (I'd suggest reforming and expanding medicare/medicaid) , but one that preserves the nations productive workforce from being wiped out, because without that workforce there is obviously no chance of a recovery.

I'd also emphasize as Webster Tarpley did - no gutting of Social Security during a Depression. We are well aware 401k's/Pensions have been wiped out and with GM/Ford (Our last productive industry)  going down this is going to drastically expand this problem.

As you can see from the following, the powers that be are still to this day parroting the Mousilini "Balance the Budget" during economic hardship stuff, all the while completely dumping every cent of our GDP into bailing bankers out of a black hole......


It's Now Public: After Health Care, Obama Intends to Dismantle Social Security

June 17, 2009 (LPAC)—None other than Mr. Peter Orszag himself took to the pages of today's Financial Times to assure London financiers, that "once health-care reform is in place," Social Security is next on the Obama administration's chopping block. The pledge by President Obama's Office of Management and Budget Director is made in the concluding paragraph of a signed op-ed touting the Obama administration's fascist health-care reforms as "A Medical Plan to Boost America's Fiscal Health;" not to secure human health, but that of the financial system.

In its June 10 report on its annual review of the U.S. economy, the International Monetary Fund reported that it had received similar assurances from Obama administration officials: "We welcome the Administration's intention to work toward developing a political consensus on Social Security reform once health-care reforms are complete," the IMF wrote. This arm of the usurious monetarist system insisted the U.S. must be ready to further bailout Wall Street if necessary, but "substantial further measures will be needed to rein in soaring entitlement costs over the longer term."

Thus, is it again made bare, that the intention of the current fascist controllers of the Obama administration, is to rip up the U.S. Constitution, its General Welfare clause, and the entitlement programs which defend human life. With FDR's life-saving Social Security program still in place, old people in the United States may not "get out of the way" as fast as Prince Philip would like. Deny them health care and Social Security both, in the middle of an economic breakdown crisis, and killings en masse are guaranteed.

[aerborne]

You forgot the post the title of the article you just posted, here i'll do it for you:

Excess Debt And
Deflation = Depression

^ I have been attempting to explain this throughout the entire thread!

excess debt comes from inflation.

You also forgot to mention that Andrew Jackson's Gold based currency disintigrated the " Competeing " State issued currency, which needlessly bankrupted all people who held state issued notes ( I guess they were just too stupid and they deserve to have their currency destroyed right?)

flat out lie, i already posted the number andrew jacksons policies boosted their reserves and banks printed like mad and even increased how far they were leveraged. But i already posted these numbers in one of the other threads, i'll repost them in this one if you'd like.

One more thing you forgot to mention is during the 19th Century the British Empire held a monopoly on Gold Reserves (and they still do till this day) and at a whim could expand or contract (MANIPULATE) the monetary supply. I would consider that worse then the so called "Speculation" Of the Second National Bank of the United States of which the Government had 100% Control over the printing presses via Congressional Vote and Treasury issuence of credit for that bank to even be able to print currency in the first place.

show me.

lastly, that Depression was the worst Depression ever up until that point in U.S. history, and infact - the economy never really recovered (Particularly in the South) which paved the way to the Civil War due to further reliance on Slave Labor to produce raw materials for the plantation owners to capitalize off of (By the way, Andrew Jackson owned Slave Plantation!, isn't that ironic.... he was a Southern Democrat too.)

So the 47% tariffs had nothing to do with it?

[aerborne]

I don't understand what you are attempting to do, but judging by the above posts you have made a complete mockery of yourself and still, you go on "Google" without any knowledge of history and attempt to dig up articles that always turn out to be propaganda.

Everytime you make a mockery of yourself, you go ahead and dig another load of propaganda up, post it , and it is debunked.

What exactly do you think you are accomplishing here other then highlighting that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about and filling the thread with pages full of utter bullshit?. I mean, i know you've seen the REAL history in regards to Lincon's term because i provided numerous links that even the global moderators agreed with - yet you still relentlessly attempt to "Debunk" reality and again, make a complete fool of yourself.

Why can't you just say "Oh, that is interesting" and give up when you are wrong?.

If i posted false historical nonsense and was debunked time and time again - i would probably shut my mouth.... you on the other hand, continue to post the re-written history with no concept of what you are doing.

rofl, pot calling the kettle here, you revised history to say that lincoln put a limit of 450M$ in july of 1864 and don't even know what happened to substantiate that claim, and you attack OTHER people for posting "revised history"

[aerborne]

You continue to make a complete fool of yourself ...... do so at your own demise because i am not wasting my time responding to the repeated postings of utter propaganda FROM the mises website that i have REFUTED in the original post as HOGWASH.

If you want to make a fool of yourself over and over again be my guest, i am going to eat.

you debunked it? where? all I saw were strawmen with no citations, quotations, or links to what you were debunking.

[Revolt426]

Though i refuse to acknowledge people who continiously attempt to de-rail threads whenever a rational debate occurs by bringing up non-existant subjects , making multiple posts to bump the rational debate out of view, putting words into other people's mouths and constantly changing subjects.

For those who are curious about why the Civil War occured and what REALLY happened, you will find information here that is confirmed by none other then the Prison Planet Global Moderators who made this thread as a direct result of Rick Perry threatening to Seceed Texas from the Union to enlighten people about the civil war and why secession would wreck the nation :

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=99961.80

Topic: ***Lord Palmerston's Ghost picks Gov. Rick Perry to lead a new American Genocide 

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=82117.0

LORD PALMERSTON'S MULTICULTURAL HUMAN ZOO

by Webster Tarpley

[trailhound]

Though i refuse to acknowledge people who continiously attempt to de-rail threads

 Read " I dont have a decent rebuttal of your points so im going to just say you are posting propaganda, but I am not." 

 

[Revolt426]

 Read " I dont have a decent rebuttal of your points so im going to just say you are posting propaganda, but I am not." 

 

The rebuttal is in the links i just posted, as you already know since i am well aware you read those links over a month ago and conceeded you were wrong in another thread, so why are again attempting to do the same exact thing you did in the other thread is beyond my understanding.

[trailhound]

The rebuttal is in the links i just posted, as you already know since i am well aware you read those links over a month ago and conceeded you were wrong in another thread, so why are again attempting to do the same exact thing you did in the other thread is beyond my understanding.

 I never said i was wrong. I said i could be wrong i dont know everything but neither do you and i find your dodging and personal attacks telling that you will defend your ideology and propaganda no matter what kind of bs it takes. I can see how you came to your conclusions and you make some valid points but the way you brush aside aspects of the topic that dont fit your fantasy makes me think of you as a Peter Joseph type. I will give you credit in that i think you are smarter than P and have more realistic ideas, but you do have that nutcase type of confidence which comes with ideologues.

[Revolt426]

I never said i was wrong. I said i could be wrong i dont know everything but neither do you and i find your dodging and personal attacks telling that you will defend your ideology and propaganda no matter what kind of bs it takes. I can see how you came to your conclusions and you make some valid points but the way you brush aside aspects of the topic that dont fit your fantasy makes me think of you as a Peter Joseph type. I will give you credit in that i think you are smarter than P and have more realistic ideas, but you do have that nutcase type of confidence which comes with ideologues.

I think GeoLibertarian's obersvation of your Freudian Projection is quite accurate in many cases, including this one considering "My Fantasy" has been confirmed by numerous people in the 9-11 Truth Movement and yours has been cofirmed by no one but the Von Mises website and people that parrot the same hogwash spewed on that website. So , perhaps you think of yourself as the "Peter Joseph" type since you wish to ignore the insight of all of these people, and continiously google search and paste propaganda that you already know is false again and again, relentlessly.

News flash: critiquing the Austrian School, not mindlessly praising it, is precisely what this thread is about, so the above pic is more of the usual...

Freudian Projection:

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept."....

"Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest."

-- http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

........Anyway, Lincoln understood the forces underlying both sides and at least saved the Union... Reconstruction would have been a bit different had he lived, and been in control... as it turned out and as Skousen alludes to in his quote printed above...the bankers were now in control of the post war chaos...

Lincoln's plan was clear though...

JTCoyoté

"The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency
and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government
and the buying power of consumers...By the adoption of these
principles, [a Constitutional monetary policy]... the taxpayers will
be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be the
master and become the servant of humanity."
~Abraham Lincoln

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

if however, we seized the insolvent banks rather then bailing them out and ended our occupation of numerous countries it is my sincere beleif it would not put us into debt, specifically with good monetary reform that increases the nations physical productive capabilities. The point of a social net is not only a moral one to provide health care (I'd suggest reforming and expanding medicare/medicaid) , but one that preserves the nations productive workforce from being wiped out, because without that workforce there is obviously no chance of a recovery.

i agree with this, that is what i would like to see, the end of western imperialism, and dealing with the robber barons, im sure as you are, that there would be plenty left over to ensure that we dont have to let down people who have become dependent on the welfare systems. there is no reason why we should have to pull the rug from under them.

and with decent monetary reform, like removing fractional reserve banking and usury, we would have a platform for continued prosperity, real prosperity.

i would stress that i do not agree with social welfare unless it is unconditionally available to all.



on a reflective note, i do not think anyone here would wish to cause suffering to others, and both views expressed in this thread i believe are considered in light of that by their advocates. having said this, fundementally i do agree with free enterprise, and would like to see the number of areas of governmental activity kept to its fewest. things like roads i can understand, water also somewhat, energy less so, and i am also not sure about railways, its a grey area, why not planes too...and ferries...et al.

i like the idea of debt free currency, however, im not sure we can have the private sector competing with the government, never goes well.

and having said that, id still prefer either of the systems proposed in this thread, they are both WAY better than what we've got.

[trailhound]

 There's some truth to what you and oldyoti say i just dont think its the whole truth. Got to work now i will be back later.

[aerborne]

Though i refuse to acknowledge people who continiously attempt to de-rail threads whenever a rational debate occurs by bringing up non-existant subjects , making multiple posts to bump the rational debate out of view, putting words into other people's mouths and constantly changing subjects.

I like how this is the shield you hide behind when i point out the lies and inaccuracies of your copy pasta that you haven't read. I can provide you a link to every single thing you've said that I pointed out was wrong.

Here's the July 1864 post: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=97109.msg601020#msg601020

Here's the 1837 stuff:http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=105934.msg693311#msg693311
and this is the actual numbers that show price inflation based on expansion of banks printing:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=98465.msg600838#msg600838

What words am I putting in your mouth?

[Revolt426]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5658

Notes on a Return to the Gold Standard

by Richard C. Cook
Global Research, May 15, 2007


Within the monetary reform movement there is a raging controversy over whether we should return to the gold standard or whether an effective program of reform could be accomplished through other means.

While the author of this article does not support a return to the gold standard, he is sympathetic to those who want to do just that. When the U.S. went off the gold peg in 1971, it opened the door to the modern era of runaway inflation, dollar hegemony, and the unlimited creation of financial bubbles. Removal of gold altogether from the monetary system is certainly one of the key events which has exposed us to the danger of a major financial crash and worldwide depression.

But throughout history, a gold standard has generally acted as an artificial constriction on the ability of a currency to expand sufficiently to support economic growth. By making currency scarce, the gold standard facilitated the bankers’ control of the economy. It was the bankers who got the governments of the world to go onto the gold standard after 1870 by undermining the utilization of silver. This allowed the bankers to control the world’s monetary supply to the detriment of economic democracy until the 1930s, when gold became only a denominator of international trade, not a backing of domestic currencies.

One of the most destructive periods of U.S. economic history took place during the currency contractions, monetary deflations, and financial ruination of farmers and workers during the late 1800s, when the bankers ruled through gold. It was what led to the founding of the Greenback and Progressive parties and to William Jennings Bryan’s famous speech at the 1900 Democratic national convention where he declared that we should not “crucify mankind on a cross of gold.”

The situation was relieved by the discovery of gold in South Africa and the Yukon and by improved methods for the extraction of gold from ore. But these circumstances also showed that a gold standard favored those nations which controlled gold. A gold standard leads to hoarding, market manipulations, and ultimately warfare over its possession and control.

Also, gold may or may not prevent inflation, because there are many things bankers can do to inflate the currency if they wish to. This happened with the inflation during and after World War I. This was a financial crime by which the bankers deliberately destroyed the value of the remaining paper greenbacks and silver certificates from post-Civil War days.


During the 1920s and 30s, the U.S., acquired much of the world’s gold through having lent bank-generated credit to the European allies so they could pay for having fought World War I. This policy impoverished much of Europe, including Germany, which had to pay war reparations, and contributed to the conditions leading to World War II.

It was the gold standard that led to the bankers wrecking the U.S. economy in 1932 by shipping Treasury gold as a bail-out to England, at the same time the U.S. was trying to recover from the crash of 1929. The 1932 gold and currency contraction was the real cause of the Great Depression. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt removed this danger by eliminating the domestic gold standard in 1933.

But even when paper currency was supposedly convertible to gold, or even gold and silver, the metallic standard always was a fiction. There never was and never could be enough for banks to hand over the requisite quantity to the “bearer on demand” if more than a fraction of the currency in circulation was presented for redemption at the same time.

In fact, during the state banking era prior to the Civil War, banks would destroy their rivals by showing up on their doorstep with quantities of the paper notes of the bank under attack and asking with a smirk for metallic reimbursement. The same thing happened during runs on the banks, resulting in frequent financial panics and bankruptcies.

Actually, those who favor a return to the gold standard tend to confuse the shaky redemption policy with the days when a miner or broker could walk into a U.S. Mint and have the government stamp his gold or silver into coins free of charge. Those really were the “good old days,” but that time is gone forever.

Should we return to the time of a banker-controlled gold standard? Probably not. What should really control the monetary supply is the sovereign power of representative government which must be equipped with the knowledge and authority to balance purchasing power with economic production.

This could be done by a National Dividend system combined with reduced taxation and direct government spending of money into the economy. The system would be overseen by a Monetary Control Board as advocated by the American Monetary Institute in its draft monetary reform legislation. The author describes such a system in his recent article, “Monetary Reform and How A Nation’s Monetary System Should Work.”

At the same time, lending for speculation should be outlawed, as should fractional reserve banking. There would then be no reason why money could not be paper, coinage, or electronic ledger entries. The monetary supply could expand or contract according to the real needs of the producing economy, not a more or less accidental quantity of precious metal. 

For this to work, control of money must be removed entirely from the banks and restored to the people, acting through Congress as the U.S. Constitution requires. And under such a system where the money supply served real human needs instead of bank profiteering, promise of gold redemption would be unnecessary.


Having said all this, the author certainly has no objection to the buying and selling of gold as a commodity. Under certain conditions it might serve as a store of value and a hedge against inflation. But you can’t wear it, eat it, or live in it. What gives value to an economy is its ability to produce goods and services. That ability derives from the skills, education, and spirit of a nation’s population. In the end, money really derives its value from the character of the people and the honesty of government. That is why we should not even try to go back to an era where the monetary system failed in large part because of the gold standard.

[trailhound]

 I think usury should be made illegal. Then wipe away all interest and the debtors only repay the capital.  Then return to a strict limited standard. Even if it was fiat money as long as it was understood to be limited to one figure forever and amen.  Then, with usury being illegal, the only way to increase the value of their holdings would be to loan it to productive people or start businesses themselves. The more productivity the lower the prices and therefore the more purchasing power of each unit of measure.

 By eliminating fractional reserve banking and all forms of ursury we could save ourselves much trouble. As long as there exists more debt than money we are all slaves.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

I think usury should be made illegal. Then wipe away all interest and the debtors only repay the capital.  Then return to a strict limited standard. Even if it was fiat money as long as it was understood to be limited to one figure forever and amen.  Then, with usury being illegal, the only way to increase the value of their holdings would be to loan it to productive people or start businesses themselves. The more productivity the lower the prices and therefore the more purchasing power of each unit of measure.

 By eliminating fractional reserve banking and all forms of ursury we could save ourselves much trouble. As long as there exists more debt than money we are all slaves.

indeed, sometimes we do not need to think up new solutions to our problems, sometimes we need just remove the obsticales that are stopping us from moving forward.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

with regard to the restrictiveness of gold as currency, wouldnt the currency unit just reduce itself, like half-penny, tup-pence, thru-pence, six-pence (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6 etc etc)

inflation is the reason we dont have smaller than a penny.

[Lucian Solaris]

Listen, Everybody, it is settled!




























The Austrian School is correct.

[Geolibertarian]

Listen, Everybody, it is settled!

The Austrian School is correct full of shit.

Fixed.

[Lucian Solaris]

Listen, Everybody, it is settled!

The Austrian School is correct full of shit. correct.

Fixed.

Corrected for errors(PERIOD!)

[Revolt426]

with regard to the restrictiveness of gold as currency, wouldnt the currency unit just reduce itself, like half-penny, tup-pence, thru-pence, six-pence (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6 etc etc)

inflation is the reason we dont have smaller than a penny.

The problem with that reasoning is
A) The outstanding debts cannot possibly correct as they are court enforcable contracts, so if we have deflation everyone would be put into bankruptcy (As i've argued many times but trolls have bumped it out of view and said i am a liar)

B) Prices do not "Magically" Adjust to deflated values overnight (See all Depressions in U.S. History)

Reality is, with an expanding population and expanding economy - the monetary supply must expand also (If the money is ISSUED correctly, not just printed and loaned to speculators)..... the currency "Reducing" Itself is pretty much the biggest load of BS from that particular school because it completely ignores the current price/debt levels , specifically DEBT levels which obviously cannot correct becuase they are contracts.

Suppose the monetary supply contracts, you get deflation and your dollar is stronger , but there are alot less in circulation so rather than getting paid 500 dollars a week you get paid 200 - now, how are you going to pay your loan off that is contracted at a MUCH higher level? (Perhaps a 200,000$ Mortgage?)...... You can't. You go bankrupt along with the remainder of the country and the banks literally get to foreclose on the entire debt holding nation OR you are a debt slave for the rest of your life.

[Lucian Solaris]

Make all loan principles deflate at an agreed upon basis.  Loans would lose their attractiveness as big "money makers" and turn it loaning into more of a charity or philanthropy thing.  With a slow, steadily deflating currency the saver is the winner, the risk taker is at greater risk (no inflation to rely on), and prosperity is at it's fullest as little exists in the way of systemic mal-investment.

Long term debtors get hurt.  Best to be [long term] debt free!

The problem with that reasoning is
A) The outstanding debts cannot possibly correct as they are court enforcable contracts, so if we have deflation everyone would be put into bankruptcy (As i've argued many times but trolls have bumped it out of view and said i am a liar)

B) Prices do not "Magically" Adjust to deflated values overnight (See all Depressions in U.S. History)

Reality is, with an expanding population and expanding economy - the monetary supply must expand also (If the money is ISSUED correctly, not just printed and loaned to speculators)..... the currency "Reducing" Itself is pretty much the biggest load of BS from that particular school because it completely ignores the current price/debt levels , specifically DEBT levels which obviously cannot correct becuase they are contracts.

Suppose the monetary supply contracts, you get deflation and your dollar is stronger , but there are alot less in circulation so rather than getting paid 500 dollars a week you get paid 200 - now, how are you going to pay your loan off that is contracted at a MUCH higher level? (Perhaps a 200,000$ Mortgage?)...... You can't. You go bankrupt along with the remainder of the country and the banks literally get to foreclose on the entire debt holding nation OR you are a debt slave for the rest of your life.

[Revolt426]

Make all loan principles deflate at an agreed upon basis.  Loans would lose their attractiveness as big "money makers" and turn it loaning into more of a charity or philanthropy thing.  With a slow, steadily deflating currency the saver is the winner, the risk taker is at greater risk (no inflation to rely on), and prosperity is at it's fullest as little exists in the way of systemic mal-investment.

Long term debtors get hurt.  Best to be [long term] debt free!

You obviously don't understand the Austrian school *Yet you advocate it, which is absurd* , since they reject ANY INTERVENTION by the Government, and you obviously haven't read a word of the original post have you?.

Do you think that all outstanding debts are going to be re-negotiated? They are COURT ENFORCABLE CONTRACTS, and you are actually speaking out AGAINST the Austrian's right now by demanding we :

Make all loan principles deflate at an agreed upon basis

Because as i said, they will NOT ALLOW any Government intervention AT ALL. Your argument is 100% baseless.

[Revolt426]

I may as well post this here too since certain people are obviously not reading the original post or the other monetary reform thread:

........................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E0UPBtmTb0 (part 1 of 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9FWECWWN5o (part 2 of 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM7D3mnUSI0 (part 3 of 3)

Byron Dale quotes on GOLD SUPPLY [Data from WORLD GOLD COUNCIL]:
"50.8 Billion Ounces of Gold mined world wide" , "24.4 Trillion Grains of gold" DIVIDED BY WORLD POPULATION = 3591 "GRAINS [OF GOLD] PER PERSON" - "How many grains does it take to make a dollar...?" ............. "Some one has to set a standard,....  but they say the market could do that - but how would i know how to value the gold?"

"Exact same process divided by U.S. population... .. "80,207 Grains per person with all the gold in the United States"........ "5259.2 Dollars of Gold per person [If set at Roosevelt's fixed rate]... assuming the U.S. has 100% of Gold EVER MINED".......

1.6 Trillion dollar current monetary supply......... "Trade deficit of 40.4 Billion $ / Month...."...... "It would only take 3.29 years just to pay for the trade deficit in gold"....... "The total money supply of all gold leaves the country for the trade deficit"......."Bringing this stuff [Gold] over in big ships and coming back empty"

"If we are now going to quit using Federal Reserve notes (As opposed to reforming them into a soveriegn currency) , why would anyone want to accept them for GOLD?"....."You want people to just give you the Gold?"...... "The value of gold went up - according to what?".......(HOW DO YOU VALUE GOLD WITHOUT A RELATIVE CURRENCY)

"Today we have alot of debt that is court enforcable......" (Hence, the deflation from a Gold Standard would essentially foreclose on everyone in the country)


[CONTINUED]

^ As anyone can see, there would NEVER be enough Gold to facilitate the population expansion rates combined with the DEBT Obligations. Even if we fixed it at an INSANELY INFLATED RATE (which is absurd to begin with) as the population expanded, there would STILL not be enough, and obviously the "Markets" cannot tell us how much Gold to request for an item - how do we know how much Gold we are going to request without a relative currency?

And if anyone listens to the interview, they will realize it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to impliment this system in the current situation, with the current debt levels and population levels!

END OF DISCUSSION , for more information, please watch the video as i cannot trancsribe the entire video....

[Lucian Solaris]

No, I mean the two parties in a loan contract can agree to a set deflation before the loan contract is signed.  Old loans denominated in FED Dollars would be screwed unless handled in bankruptcy court or through settlement.  Government has nothing to do with it.  My first sentence "Make All..." wasn't worded quite right x.x . 

You obviously don't understand the Austrian school *Yet you advocate it, which is absurd* , since they reject ANY INTERVENTION by the Government, and you obviously haven't read a word of the original post have you?.

Do you think that all outstanding debts are going to be re-negotiated? They are COURT ENFORCABLE CONTRACTS, and you are actually speaking out AGAINST the Austrian's right now by demanding we :Because as i said, they will NOT ALLOW any Government intervention AT ALL. Your argument is 100% baseless.

[Revolt426]

No, I mean the two parties in a loan contract can agree to a set deflation before the loan contract is signed.  Old loans denominated in FED Dollars would be screwed unless handled in bankruptcy court or through settlement.  Government has nothing to do with it.  My first sentence "Make All..." wasn't worded quite right x.x . 

That won't work either - you aren't taking Government debt into account, DERIVATIVE OBLIGATIONS (1.5 QUADRILLION DOLLARS) , or the fact that there are WAY too many loans outstanding and banks could easily just say "No, we are foreclosing on you - f**k off" ........

The entired "Deflation as Liberty" Scheme is 100% Hogwash and impossible to impliment, only in fantasy land could this be done with the real amount of outstanding debt in the world. It's a complete delusion to think the private banks are going to re-negotiate all contracts and that foreign  Governments will do the same........ afterall, there are actually evil people in the world - we don't live in a utopian wonder land!

Regardless, even if you managed to get all outstanding debt re-negotiated (Which is impossible) i just highlighted there is still not enough GOLD to use as a currency - it is 100% impossible both ways.

[Revolt426]

Old loans denominated in FED Dollars would be screwed unless handled in bankruptcy court or through settlement.

By the way, this obviously means the banks (That orchestrated the collapse) can foreclose on everyone with an outstanding mortgage in the country , you agree with that policy as well?.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

The problem with that reasoning is
A) The outstanding debts cannot possibly correct as they are court enforcable contracts, so if we have deflation everyone would be put into bankruptcy (As i've argued many times but trolls have bumped it out of view and said i am a liar)

B) Prices do not "Magically" Adjust to deflated values overnight (See all Depressions in U.S. History)

Reality is, with an expanding population and expanding economy - the monetary supply must expand also (If the money is ISSUED correctly, not just printed and loaned to speculators)..... the currency "Reducing" Itself is pretty much the biggest load of BS from that particular school because it completely ignores the current price/debt levels , specifically DEBT levels which obviously cannot correct becuase they are contracts.

Suppose the monetary supply contracts, you get deflation and your dollar is stronger , but there are alot less in circulation so rather than getting paid 500 dollars a week you get paid 200 - now, how are you going to pay your loan off that is contracted at a MUCH higher level? (Perhaps a 200,000$ Mortgage?)...... You can't. You go bankrupt along with the remainder of the country and the banks literally get to foreclose on the entire debt holding nation OR you are a debt slave for the rest of your life.

i understand your point, and essentially i agree, with debt levels as they are, and with those contracts still due, implementing a hard and fast gold standard would only cause massive suffering and upheaval.

however, i didnt mean to suggest that as a course of action, i was questioning it "in theory", and presumably, in a hypothetical situation where we did not have this debt or debt based structure, the currency "reducing" itself would have the same purpose as "expanding".

in this hypothetical situation, i dont really see how a currency "reducing" itself would cause wages to go down in the sense you are implying, just that it takes less to buy what you did previously, the numbers change, but not the standard of living, if it takes less to buy things and you are paid less, are you less well off? inflation counts on an increase in wages, which relies on the employer passing on the benefit.

just to be clear, in my personal opinion, fractional reserve banking and usury needs to be halted, then the fraud that is derivatives dealt with (many good suggestions for this are here in this thread), the war ended, and a curtailment of needless government infrastructure (dpt of education, energy etc), obviously in a transitional manner, then i would like to see lower taxes, no income tax, to allow people to readjust, then start to introduce sound monetary policy, like fixed exchange rates or similar "backed" currency, then legalise competing currencies with the idea of getting the government out of money with people able to create "contracts" that would be protected from fraud like any other contract, with the result in wealth being directly transferable to currency, no middle man.

and many more things, like legalise drugs etc

revolt, you are indeed right that an abrupt turn to a gold standard in todays conditions would be unwise at best, and if the austrian school promotes this, they are indeed wrong, however, if that may be, calling the austrian school debunk in general would be just as unwise, as no-one is right about everything. i would hope that as passionately as you and geolib feel about this subject, you can admit that, just as i hope the people on the other side of the argument to yours can see some truth in what you say.

[Revolt426]

aLLyOuRbAsE - i actually agree and i am against fractional reserve banking (which is being used for Finance Capital aka Derivatives at the moment) and usery in general....

But what has lead to usery? it is the privatized issuence of credit! this was the case in Weimar Germany which allowed Hitler to come to power after the economic blowout and it is certainly the case right now.

I know sometimes i sound a bit nasty in certain responses , but in all honesty i know you were just asking a question , i certainly didn't mean to sound rude if i did ........ i get very frustrated sometimes when people mindlessly worship a certain monetary reform (Not you, you have actually asked logical questions) that would have devestating consiquences on the entire planet and then retort a counter argument with "That is socialism" , or "All fiat currency is theft".... these arguments are absurd in my honest opinion.

As for the Austrian school, they actually have certain reforms that would work - but sadly their foundations , which are
1) The Government must never intervene in the economy or it is "Socialism" and it "Prolongs" "Corrections" (As this is not a correction, but an orchestrated collapse)
2) Gold or similar commodities must be used as a currency
3) All Regulations are BAD for the economy
4) The complete lack of attention to dynamic factors (like derivative bubbles , infrastructure and productive labor) in their views of economics......

The above foundations are argued as "Absolute truths" by many Austrian Economists , and they indeed mislead certain people into believing falsehoods (though i of course admit, many of them do this 100% unwittingly and are really good people) - and that is why i made this thread. Because i am worried that in 4 years, the only alternative to the status quo will be the above mentioned policies that would wreck the nation!. I did this to inform people that there is an alternative that would not result in mayhem, and yes - i do acknowledge the Austrian school has some legitimate policy.

So in closing, i am willing to get a few people mad at me to highlight an alternative monetary policy that would not drastically hurt the world population...to highlight that fiat currency is not the enemy if the system is reformed..... and to highlight the return to a gold system with current debt and population levels would be very very damaging to say the least.

Just as Bill Cooper was willing to get people mad at him (Not sure if you saw his speech where he called the audience sheep to "Get them angry") to highlight our Government has been taken over by a cartel of criminals prior to his death.

[trailhound]

 I think usury should be made illegal. Then wipe away all interest and the debtors only repay the capital.  Then return to a strict limited standard. Then, with usury being illegal, the only way to increase the value of  holdings would be to loan it to productive people or start businesses themselves. The more productivity the lower the prices and therefore the more purchasing power of each unit of measure.

 By eliminating fractional reserve banking and all forms of ursury we could save ourselves much trouble. As long as there exists more debt than money we are all slaves.

 A transition to the austrian system could be made in this way. 1) wipe away the interest of all debts 2) make all forms of usury illegal 3) Return to the gold/silver standard

 .

[Freeski]

Government has nothing to do with it.

Imagine that.

[aerborne]

But throughout history, a gold standard has generally acted as an artificial constriction on the ability of a currency to expand sufficiently to support economic growth. By making currency scarce, the gold standard facilitated the bankers’ control of the economy. It was the bankers who got the governments of the world to go onto the gold standard after 1870 by undermining the utilization of silver. This allowed the bankers to control the world’s monetary supply to the detriment of economic democracy until the 1930s, when gold became only a denominator of international trade, not a backing of domestic currencies.

This is so completely untrue. I've already shown you the amount to which the money supply EXPANDED under fractional reserve banking, you yourself attack fractional reserve on one hand and then pretend it didn't exist in the past and attack gold. This whole thing is a lie, as the money supply only contracted after large periods of expansion.

One of the most destructive periods of U.S. economic history took place during the currency contractions, monetary deflations, and financial ruination of farmers and workers during the late 1800s, when the bankers ruled through gold. It was what led to the founding of the Greenback and Progressive parties and to William Jennings Bryan’s famous speech at the 1900 Democratic national convention where he declared that we should not “crucify mankind on a cross of gold.”

More of you quoting someone else saying something and pretending it's evidence. Can't form your own arguments, or provide your own evidence so you paste the same crap over and over. Once again the only contracts were results of expansions you ignore. More lies like the July 1865 limit lincoln put on the greenback....

It was the gold standard that led to the bankers wrecking the U.S. economy in 1932 by shipping Treasury gold as a bail-out to England, at the same time the U.S. was trying to recover from the crash of 1929. The 1932 gold and currency contraction was the real cause of the Great Depression. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt removed this danger by eliminating the domestic gold standard in 1933.

lol once again you ignore all mechanisms of the economy at the time to make unsubstantiated claims with no evidence. More lies and spin. The period leading up to great depression had an unprecedented amount of inflation from the expansion of credit. You attack the symptom as the cause of the disease and pretend fractional reserve doesn't exist to attack gold.

But even when paper currency was supposedly convertible to gold, or even gold and silver, the metallic standard always was a fiction. There never was and never could be enough for banks to hand over the requisite quantity to the “bearer on demand” if more than a fraction of the currency in circulation was presented for redemption at the same time.

In fact, during the state banking era prior to the Civil War, banks would destroy their rivals by showing up on their doorstep with quantities of the paper notes of the bank under attack and asking with a smirk for metallic reimbursement. The same thing happened during runs on the banks, resulting in frequent financial panics and bankruptcies.

You actually highlighted this specifically to attack gold? Don't you understand what it means? It doesn't mean there's not enough gold. If banks have 10M in gold obligations, and 1M in gold how can they pay their obligations? They can't, and if they managed to get 10M in gold they would just print 100M in obligations. If you took the time to read austrian economists and have even a remote idea of what you're debunking you probably would realize that you're preaching to the choir on this one... Fractional reserve is bad whether it's based on gold, greenbacks, or anything else they can come up with.

Actually, those who favor a return to the gold standard tend to confuse the shaky redemption policy with the days when a miner or broker could walk into a U.S. Mint and have the government stamp his gold or silver into coins free of charge. Those really were the “good old days,” but that time is gone forever.

seems the only one guilty of this mistake is you. Attacking austrians for wanting fractional reserve, rather then... oh i dunno looking into ron pauls free competition in currency and honest money bills where he, for DECADES has been attacking fractional reserve and wanting competition in currency. You've out right proven you have no clue what you're arguing against here.

Should we return to the time of a banker-controlled gold standard? Probably not. What should really control the monetary supply is the sovereign power of representative government which must be equipped with the knowledge and authority to balance purchasing power with economic production.

so we need a benevolent and omniscient government that has the wisdom to centrally plan the economy for the benefit of everyone?

At the same time, lending for speculation should be outlawed, as should fractional reserve banking. There would then be no reason why money could not be paper, coinage, or electronic ledger entries. The monetary supply could expand or contract according to the real needs of the producing economy, not a more or less accidental quantity of precious metal.  

wow you even highlighted it in red. See free competition in currency and honest money act from ron paul.... that austrian economics politician guy that wants to eliminate fractional reserve (since it's fraud). Here you're even admitting that it would be a good thing.

Having said all this, the author certainly has no objection to the buying and selling of gold as a commodity. Under certain conditions it might serve as a store of value and a hedge against inflation. But you can’t wear it, eat it, or live in it. What gives value to an economy is its ability to produce goods and services. That ability derives from the skills, education, and spirit of a nation’s population. In the end, money really derives its value from the character of the people and the honesty of government. That is why we should not even try to go back to an era where the monetary system failed in large part because of the gold standard.

Hah. The only thing you're going to produce with skills, education and spirit, without raw materials, is babies. How many maglevs are you going to build without gold on the circuitry of all those computers? You've pretty much made my argument for me here. You said "There would then be no reason why money could not be coinage" and that money should be tied to production. Here's all the production we get with gold: http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml I guess if you want to tie money to production you have 2 choices: Raw material, or labor paid for by a benevolent, and omniscient government that has the wisdom to centrally plan the economy to the benefit of everyone.... Frankly i think the idea of benevolent and wise government is nonsense.

Your whole post here is one big case for free competition in currency and honest money, maybe you should read up on ron pauls bills and the american liberty dollar before you attack austrian economics for stuff they don't believe in.

[aerborne]

You obviously don't understand the Austrian school

You're the last person who should be accusing someone of that.

[Revolt426]

There is "no other proposition in economics that is as well established" as the proposition that "inflation" occurs only when the "quantity of money" -- even if it's fiat paper money not backed by a commodity or precious metal -- "rises appreciably more rapidly than [economic] output" -Milton Freidman (Free to Choose, p. 254)

To Monetize Wealth, is to print currency in exchange for physical labor that allows "[economic] output" to expand (As Milton Friedman admitted, offsets inflation). Wealth, is the production and sale of physical goods. If the labor is expended on something that allows for further production, be it by driving costs down, increasing efficiency , rapidly speeding up freight shipments etc al. : then there is obviously no inflation. The expansion in manufacturing has offset the inflation, because as we all know production drives an economy, and that is what generates real wealth.

To Monetize Gold Coins, labor is expended merely forging the gold into a coin, this obviously is not very valuable to an economy, as it does not increase the net economic output at all other than people purchasing gold coins.

Now - if you persist on the ludicrous assertion that human beings are too stupid to know if a certain form of infrastructure would allow for expansion, then you would obviously not be capable of comprehending this and you should probably go do something else other then repeatedly making the same childish arguments, in attempts to mislead people into thinking the current expansion of the monetary supply is the same as the advocated monetary reform in which each unit of currency is monetized labor and something is actually built, and not loaned at interest to a bank to do what they please with it (which enables the FED to suck currency out of the economy by creating the principle and not the interest).

In addition, you obviously haven’t even read YOUR OWN source, Murray Rothbard argued against Von Hayek's "Competeing Currency" theory and you are infact bouncing back and forth in between "We need Gold" and "We Need competeing currency". Of course the reality is, neither will work if anyone reads what has been posted in this and other threads in the forum.

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

The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar
by Murray N. Rothbard

Hayek's "Denationalization" of Money

........ People eagerly accept paper tickets marked "dollars" not for their aesthetic value, but because they are sure that they will be able to sell those tickets for the goods and services they desire. They can only be sure in that way when the particular name, "dollar," is already in use as money......

....Hayek and his followers have failed completely to absorb the lesson of Ludwig von Mises' "regression theorem," one of the most important theorems in monetary economics.[6]....

[aerborne]

There is "no other proposition in economics that is as well established" as the proposition that "inflation" occurs only when the "quantity of money" -- even if it's fiat paper money not backed by a commodity or precious metal -- "rises appreciably more rapidly than [economic] output" -Milton Freidman (Free to Choose, p. 254)

To Monetize Wealth, is to print currency in exchange for physical labor that allows "[economic] output" to expand (As Milton Friedman admitted, offsets inflation). Wealth, is the production and sale of physical goods. If the labor is expended on something that allows for further production, be it by driving costs down, increasing efficiency , rapidly speeding up freight shipments etc al. : then there is obviously no inflation. The expansion in manufacturing has offset the inflation, because as we all know production drives an economy, and that is what generates real wealth.

And so we're back to this smokescreen. You have Monetary inflation and deflation, and price inflation and deflation. You've essentially said what you're still unwilling to admit is that you're intending to use monetary inflation to create price deflation to counter act the printing of new money. You refuse to acknowledge stuff and continue to paste the same things over and over without defending your arguments in your own words. Please acknowledge that your proposal here is looking to create inflation and deflation in tandem, and yet, when Austrians describe this process of deflation you attack them saying austrians support the great depression.

To Monetize Gold Coins, labor is expended merely forging the gold into a coin, this obviously is not very valuable to an economy, as it does not increase the net economic output at all other than people purchasing gold coins.

that's just stupid. For one the companies that make gold coins also mine, smelt and sell gold for production as well. They create jobs, and produce raw gold to be used in all those OTHER industries as well, they also pay people for jewelry or other gold sources to smelt and sell as coin, bullion or materials for other industry. This statement is pompous and absurd.

Now - if you persist on the ludicrous assertion that human beings are too stupid to know if a certain form of infrastructure would allow for expansion, then you would obviously not be capable of comprehending this and you should probably go do something else other then repeatedly making the same childish arguments, in attempts to mislead people into thinking the current expansion of the monetary supply is the same as the advocated monetary reform in which each unit of currency is monetized labor and something is actually built, and not loaned at interest to a bank to do what they please with it (which enables the FED to suck currency out of the economy by creating the principle and not the interest).

Just insult me with your sarcastic quip as if making a statement insulting and sarcastic gives it validity. Quite the contrary it doesn't, but here we have your much touted fruedian projection copy and paste in full demonstration, highlighted in bold, as you repeated attack austrian as supporting great depression deflation.

In addition, you obviously haven’t even read YOUR OWN source, Murray Rothbard argued against Von Hayek's "Competeing Currency" theory and you are infact bouncing back and forth in between "We need Gold" and "We Need competeing currency". Of course the reality is, neither will work if anyone reads what has been posted in this and other threads in the forum.

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

The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar
by Murray N. Rothbard

Hayek's "Denationalization" of Money

........ People eagerly accept paper tickets marked "dollars" not for their aesthetic value, but because they are sure that they will be able to sell those tickets for the goods and services they desire. They can only be sure in that way when the particular name, "dollar," is already in use as money......

....Hayek and his followers have failed completely to absorb the lesson of Ludwig von Mises' "regression theorem," one of the most important theorems in monetary economics.[6]....

ROFL. You obviously haven't read the essay yourself, as he was arguing about hayek's idea that any institution could print money from nothing and have it be worth something. Please read the whole thing not the first few lines and paste it. That article, which i've read many times, is about hard money, as is ron pauls free competition in currency and honest money act.

Nice hack job to completely change the meaning of an essay there. that was pathetic.

[trailhound]

http://www.professorfekete.com/articles%5CAEFWhereFriedmanWentWrong.pdf

[Revolt426]

The arguments get more pathetic everytime don't they. At this point, if anyone takes you seriously they certainly deserve your solutions. The paper by Rothbard is in support of a uniform currency....., the title being "The case for a genuine gold dollar" and citisizing Hayek for "De-Nationalizing the dollar"....... showing how the Austrian cultists even fight with each other in their own alleged "School" of economics. It wasn't enough that the amount of Gold in the world could not facilitate the current debt levels, it wasn't enough that the Rothschild family has been dealing in Gold Bullion for 200 years and have vaults full of it, it wasn't enough to ask the simple question "Where is the gold going to come from?", it wasn't enough to ask how you are going to value weights (ie; how much is a dollar worth relative to 10 grams of gold? how are the 'Free Markets' going to tell us these values in regards to a currency based on weights?)........

what he says is clear as day:
Hayek's plan for the denationalization of money is Utopian in the worst sense: not because it is radical, but because it would not and could not work.

.....At any rate, whichever of the last two paths is chosen, money and banking would at last be separated from the state, and new currencies, whether "Hayeks" or "ducats," would be free to compete on the market with the gold dollar. I would not advise anyone, however, to bet their life savings on any of these proposed new currencies getting anywhere in this competitive race....... - Murray Rothbard

In addition, he appearently is pushing for the fixing of Gold to the dollar, which you reject and say the "Markets" will tell us:

Furthermore, once selected, the definition, whatever it is, must be fixed permanently. Once chosen, there is no more excuse for changing definitions than there is for altering the length of a standard yard or the weight of a standard pound.

To call for a free market in the price of gold would, in short, be as absurd as calling for a fluctuating market price for dollars in terms of cents. How many cents constitute a dollar is no more subject to daily fluctuation and uncertainty than inches in terms of yards. On the contrary, a truly free market in money will exist only when the dollar is once again strictly defined and therefore redeemable in terms of weights of gold. After that, gold will be exchangeable, at freely fluctuating prices, for the weights of all other goods and services on the market.

To call the re-building of economic infrastructure and the increase in net production "deflation countering inflation" as opposed to simply building economic infrastructure that allows for the expansion of production is just a re-wording of reality, in monetarist terms of course..... just another phrase that a discredited clown who insists upon blatently lying to people for whatever reason remains a mystery.

Either way, it is rather appearent that you are here for the sole purpose of misleading people and wasting peoples time, given your post history. So, again i'll be forced to simply ignore the utter bullshit you continue to spew whenever one of your utopian ideals are put to the test of logic.

[aerborne]

The arguments get more pathetic everytime don't they. At this point, if anyone takes you seriously they certainly deserve your solutions. The paper by Rothbard is in support of a uniform currency....., the title being "The case for a genuine gold dollar" and citisizing Hayek for "De-Nationalizing the dollar"....... showing how the Austrian cultists even fight with each other in their own alleged "School" of economics. It wasn't enough that the amount of Gold in the world could not facilitate the current debt levels, it wasn't enough that the Rothschild family has been dealing in Gold Bullion for 200 years and have vaults full of it, it wasn't enough to ask the simple question "Where is the gold going to come from?", it wasn't enough to ask how you are going to value weights (ie; how much is a dollar worth relative to 10 grams of gold? how are the 'Free Markets' going to tell us these values in regards to a currency based on weights?)........

what he says is clear as day:
Hayek's plan for the denationalization of money is Utopian in the worst sense: not because it is radical, but because it would not and could not work.

.....At any rate, whichever of the last two paths is chosen, money and banking would at last be separated from the state, and new currencies, whether "Hayeks" or "ducats," would be free to compete on the market with the gold dollar. I would not advise anyone, however, to bet their life savings on any of these proposed new currencies getting anywhere in this competitive race....... - Murray Rothbard

In addition, he appearently is pushing for the fixing of Gold to the dollar, which you reject and say the "Markets" will tell us:

Furthermore, once selected, the definition, whatever it is, must be fixed permanently. Once chosen, there is no more excuse for changing definitions than there is for altering the length of a standard yard or the weight of a standard pound.

To call for a free market in the price of gold would, in short, be as absurd as calling for a fluctuating market price for dollars in terms of cents. How many cents constitute a dollar is no more subject to daily fluctuation and uncertainty than inches in terms of yards. On the contrary, a truly free market in money will exist only when the dollar is once again strictly defined and therefore redeemable in terms of weights of gold. After that, gold will be exchangeable, at freely fluctuating prices, for the weights of all other goods and services on the market.

To call the re-building of economic infrastructure and the increase in net production "deflation countering inflation" as opposed to simply building economic infrastructure that allows for the expansion of production is just a re-wording of reality, in monetarist terms of course..... just another phrase that a discredited clown who insists upon blatently lying to people for whatever reason remains a mystery.

Either way, it is rather appearent that you are here for the sole purpose of misleading people and wasting peoples time, given your post history. So, again i'll be forced to simply ignore the utter bullshit you continue to spew whenever one of your utopian ideals are put to the test of logic.

Wow. You really are pathetic. You're just trying to copy paste little sound bites and pretend like the article says something he didn't. You really don't have the courage of your convictions.

The article clearly states.

This brings up an important corollary. The United States, and other governments, have in effect nationalized gold. Even now, when private citizens are allowed to own gold, the great bulk of that metal continues to be sequestered in the vaults of the central banks.[13] If the dollar is redefined in terms of gold, gold as well as the dollar can be jointly denationalized. But if the dollar is not defined as a weight of gold, then how can a denationalization of gold ever take place? Selling the gold stock would be unsatisfactory, since this (1) would imply that the government is entitled to the receipts from the sale and (2) would leave the dollar under the absolute fiat control of the government.

But i'm not going to discuss with you what an article says that you haven't read. Furthermore you want to attack austrians for debating their ideas? That's just even more pathetic. Is that how the AMI works? No room for debate everyone conforms to one idea without question?

Since you bring up post history lets go back to the flagrant lies in your copy pasting that you've posted. lincoln put a limit of 450M$ in july of 1864. Andrew Jackson's gold and silver coinage policy caused deflation. Gold has no "intrinsic" value. remember that one? I believe you said "is it going to grow little gold legs?" and produce things. Just a few posts up you pasted that gold acted as an artificial constriction preventing the economy from expanding, which is patently false, because fractional reserve banking was printing more then they could possibly redeem.... a fact NOTED in your VERY SAME post. And now you're trying to lie AGAIN but copying sound bites out of the case for a geniune gold dollar to try and portray it as supporting a nationalized uniformed currency.

Here's another lie

To call the re-building of economic infrastructure and the increase in net production "deflation countering inflation" as opposed to simply building economic infrastructure that allows for the expansion of production is just a re-wording of reality, in monetarist terms of course..... just another phrase that a discredited clown who insists upon blatently lying to people for whatever reason remains a mystery.

It's economics 101 REGARDLESS of whether you're a friedman, keynes, classical or what have you. Increase supply is decreased demand is decreased prices. You will lie through your teeth, or your ass to cover up this little fact is you want to create price deflation to counter the inflation created by the cost of these infrastructure projeccts. A cost by the way for which you have absolutely NO PROJECTIONS. You're whole thing is based on assumptions, and not actual costs, benefits, and at least SOME sort of projected earnings or savings.

We are to take an enormous amount of assumptions for granted following your plan, like infrastructure magically reduces prices, but  it's not deflation cause deflation is how austrians' want to genocide us, it's a different process. We have to take for granted your assumption that the free market won't build it's OWN infrastructure, even though it has, which is another lie of yours, see James J Hill, among others who made a fortune building *INFRASTRUCTURE* with private funding. Or for that matter see Walmart whose distribution infrastructure has made them one of the top retail stores in the world.