The quote at the end is a good one:
"It is not money, as is sometimes said, but the depreciation of money - the cruel and crafty destruction of money - that is the root of many evils. Inflation destroys individual thrift and self-reliance as it gradually erodes personal savings. Few policies are more calculated to destroy the existing basis of a free society than the debauching of its currency." - Hans F. Sennholz
9 comments:
What a moron. The FED is not in anyway printing as much as post-war Germany did during the Weimar Republic. Nor is "slow inflation" anything to too concerned about, because prices and wages "catch up" with inflation over the long-term. Ron Paul's concerns only float when their are clear Weimar causes afloat. Right now, there are not.
I'll accept this if you promise me in the next 5 years if there is massive inflation in the US you'll accept that Paul, Schiff, etc were right.
Ah, um, I don't simlify my arguments over a bet, Josh.
Good try, though. If I were "a buddy" or a "mac", this sort of crap might work, but you know that I hate that shit.
My point is that, these guys can keep predicting the future and being right, but no matter how right they are, you will never agree with them because they do not line up with the way you think.
"My point is that, these guys can keep predicting the future and being right, but no matter how right they are, you will never agree with them because they do not line up with the way you think."
They have nothing to say about the causes of the defaults, so we disagree on the fundaments, which MEANS: they could be right about everything; inflation, collapse of the dollar, etcetera, but I still wouldn't agree that their "explanations" are the cause of such events.
"They have nothing to say about the causes of the defaults"
Well they don't think the loans would have been made in the first place if there was sound money.
It is hilarious that they can be right, and there school of thought has been right several times over the past century, yet you discard their explanations. Its their explanations that lead them to the correct predictions.
No, they don't seem too concerned about why the loans are defaulting because they know the loans were made only because the Fed enabled such loans to be made.
"Well they don't think the loans would have been made in the first place if there was sound money."
Oooooo, sound money! Have you shifted your argument? I thought it was the FED that was the problem? Now it is "sound money". I think it is clear that if you cut the legs (high income earners) off the table (financial laws and strategy), the table will fall. BUT DONT YOU WORRY! IF ONLY WE HAD SOUND MONEY THE BANKS WOULD NOT TRY AND MAKE A PROFIT BY LENDING MORE ON THEIR GOLD RESERVES THAN THEY HAVE! YUP!
What are you talking about? The FED is the problem, sound money is the cure. That's been my argument. My argument has not changed. The point is that with sound money there would not be as many bad loans, risk would be better able to be managed and calculated.
Banks lending more then what they have in reserves is technically fraud. However, if banks were left independent, banks that lend too much, banks that go bankrupt and lose the trust of its depositors, would go bankrupt. The FED has allowed the banks to collude into one big banking cartel in which there are no competitive or market forces being applied.
"The FED has allowed the banks to collude into one big banking cartel in which there are no competitive or market forces being applied."
No, Josh, the FED is the banks.
Post a Comment