Saturday, January 10, 2009
Quote
“It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of rights.” - Ludwig von Mises
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
That's very nice Ludwig, but unfortunately modern production using the metals traditionally used for currency and the incredible increase in population makes those metal usuable as currency mediums.
That's completely false.
Also, your point doesn't prove him wrong. Even hypothetically if there wasn't enough metals, he's not wrong. Another method for a sound currency would to be developed; that there isn't enough metal doesn't mean we need a central bank.
Perhaps you can try to dispute his point.
"That's completely false."
Is that your counter-argument?
"Also, your point doesn't prove him wrong. Even hypothetically if there wasn't enough metals, he's not wrong. Another method for a sound currency would to be developed; that there isn't enough metal doesn't mean we need a central bank.
Perhaps you can try to dispute his point."
True, it doesn't. Fiat currency should be controlled by Congress.
"It's no more federal than federal express". LOL.
"True, it doesn't. Fiat currency should be controlled by Congress."
Good. That's a start.
Well then, we are on the same page in that respect. As far as I'm concerned, the FED is a semi-governmental body that services the capitalists who have government connections. It would be better if printing of money were a Congressional responsiblity. But I guess that's why it was created in the first place: to circumnavigate the power of Congress, of republican-democracy.
"That's completely false."
Is that your counter-argument?
"Is that your counter-argument?"
You're speaking about shortages. In free-markets shortages do not exist. There is scarcity, but no shortages. Therefore there would be no shortage of gold or any other metal to be used for currency. Shortages only occur when government intervenes, and this has proved historically true for gold as well. Rothbard provides evidence of this; I'm still learning.
"You're speaking about shortages. In free-markets shortages do not exist. There is scarcity, but no shortages. Therefore there would be no shortage of gold or any other metal to be used for currency. Shortages only occur when government intervenes, and this has proved historically true for gold as well. Rothbard provides evidence of this; I'm still learning."
Me? I never once used the word "shortage". I said the demand for gold as a coin would drive up the cost of price, because the demand would exceed the supply.
Waiting for your lights to turn on, Josh. Right now, you are merely playing a drum for your favorite Napolean.
Are you saying that gold is easily found? That's obviously false. Rothbard is an idiot in currency philosophy; his only strong point is his presentation of the history of money inflation, but since we already agreed that rulers have been doing this since the beginning, he is saying nothing new.
The scarcity of gold is what assists in maintaining its ability to store wealth. These people aren't arguing for a gold standard simply because they like gold. Its what the market has chosen. So what they're saying is that if left to a free society, they would choose gold as the basis for a currency. If you recognize the damage caused by fiat currencies why do you accept them as inevitable and do not offer an alternative?
"The scarcity of gold is what assists in maintaining its ability to store wealth."
Yeah, store wealth based on gold's inherent value as a decorative commodity and now industrial commodity. This is what will, of course, inflate the real value of goods, because once 6 billion people demand gold as a currency, the real value of gold will increase proportional to that demand, hence causing a currency value independent of the real exchange value of products.
"These people aren't arguing for a gold standard simply because they like gold. Its what the market has chosen."
Yes, gold is pretty, so people like it as a decorative commodity. Already said this.
"So what they're saying is that if left to a free society, they would choose gold as the basis for a currency. If you recognize the damage caused by fiat currencies why do you accept them as inevitable and do not offer an alternative?"
I don't accept them as inevitable. At least, not in their corruptible form. That's you, not me.
Also, how would that free society mint its coinage? Oh yeah, government. Hypocrite.
"This is what will, of course, inflate the real value of goods, because once 6 billion people demand gold as a currency, the real value of gold will increase proportional to that demand, hence causing a currency value independent of the real exchange value of products."
If this is a problem, the free market will determine an alternative.
"on't accept them as inevitable. At least, not in their corruptible form. That's you, not me.
Also, how would that free society mint its coinage? Oh yeah, government. Hypocrite."
So you don't accept a fiat currency as being inevitably corruptible?
From what I understand so far, there are a portion of Austrian economists that would prefer coins to not be minted by the government. Paul supported this because its in the constitution, I haven't read enough yet to determine a position of my own.
"I don't accept them as inevitable."
So what alternative do you offer?
Post a Comment