I have remarked here before how that stealth taxation could be avoided: separate money supplies for the government and private sector with free market exchange rates between them, no income tax and no capital gains tax. If the government overspent then the exchange rates for its money would fall. Hence it would need to explicitly raise taxes to maintain purchasing power for its money. If it didn’t then taxes would become EASIER to pay because of a cheaper government money supply.

And as for the welfare state, has it ever occurred to you that the fascism in our system, the government backed counterfeiting cartel, is the cause of the overwhelming majority of it?

If the choice comes down to the current system or a government imposed or favored gold standard, then better the devil we know. The cure for a fascist money system is not more fascism. Neither is socialism but at least socialism cares for the victims somewhat.

The only “good reason” was that governments can’t run a welfare/warfare state when limited by gold money. And that’s a terrible reason in my book.

Most, if not all, of gold’s attributes are obsolete wrt money and have been since 1602 when the common stock company was invented.

Wrt Mises and the other Austrians, I just find it odd that they conflate liberty with a shiny, scarce metal. It’s true that in some cases people have freely chosen gold as money but it is also true in other cases that it was forced on them by government under the influence of private interests. The Colonies before the American Revolution are an example.

I don’t insist you agree with me. I just insist on true liberty in private money creation. Indeed, it would be great fun to see fractional reserves, PMs, and usury revealed as obsolete by a true free market in private money creation.

As for Mises, it’s true I have not read much by him. And I probably won’t since I would rather read Moses, a believing Jew, than Mises an agnostic one. I assume the much more readable Rothbard covers much the same ground anyway and I have read him.

As for history, let’s allow a true free market in private money creation and we might make it. Let’s not just try to repeat history with what is probably an obsolete and oppressive (Crime of 1873 ring a bell?) money form. Has it occurred to you that gold as money was rejected for good reasons?

But to libertarians I ask: Is gold necessary for liberty or is liberty needed for liberty?

Your thinking is completely irrational.

Regarding Von Mises you write, “And with all that brilliance, he still worshiped a shiny metal?”

Worship = an act of religious devotion usually directed to one or more deities.

Worshipping, that’s what you do. You are a blind faith worshipper of a man-made fictitious mythology, a superstition. Interesting that the worst thing you accuse someone else of doing is that which is central to your behaviour- worshipping. Attempting to bring Von Mises down to your level might make you feel better about yourself, but your argument remains invalid as it is both dishonest and irrational. Von Mises’ system of economic thought remains vastly superior to your trivial crankism. A simple comparison of his work with your “contributions” here is evidence which immediately demonstrates that point. Again, what you are engaged in is a half-arsed repackaging some basic economic fallacies and falsehoods, rolling them up into your system of superstition and pretending that somehow the resulting mess is important economic insight.

Von Mises discussed the use of gold as specie not because he worshipped it, as your dishonest smearing is intended to suggest, but because its physical attributes suit its employment for that particular purpose. Additionally he was well aware that gold had been employed for the purpose through history. Again, that is due to its physical attributes suiting its use in that way (as a store of value).

Had you bothered to read what Von Mises wrote, instead of making up lies about him, you’d have discovered what he actually wrote, what he thought, what observations he made and what his reasoning was. Of course, as you have already admitted, you have not done that. Not a whit of, say, “Human Action” have you read and understood. None. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Yet that fact doesn’t stop you from making up random lies whenever it suits your purpose. That is immoral and degenerate.

What is particularly perverse about you is that you make arbitrary nonsense up about subjects in which you are almost completely ignorant- economics being but one example.

Sione

Why thank you! But it only seems perverse to you since I refuse to worship a shiny metal. Rather I esteem liberty. And from my perspective, the cranks are you not me.

and that your method of thought is to rely upon arbitrary blind belief, Sione

Did not Mises himself reject economic history and mathematics in favor of deductive reasoning?

you need to understand that neither approach validates the nonsense you preach. Sione

As for arbitrary blind belief, I find the Bible to be superb wrt economics and money. And while you may not believe, many prominent Austrians do. They cannot dismiss the Bible as you do and if you are of the truth then ultimately you will not be able to either, I would bet.

And with all that brilliance, he still worshiped a shiny metal? Perhaps he should have taken this to heart from the Torah since he was Jewish:

‘They will fling their silver into the streets and their gold will become an abhorrent thing; their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD. They cannot satisfy their appetite nor can they fill their stomachs, for their iniquity has become an occasion of stumbling. Ezekiel 7:19

Not to mention Deuteronomy 23:19-20 (Note that the Hebrews could charge interest to Gentiles.)

Go now and undertake the basic study of that which you should have already accomplished before now. Sione

Actually I find it much more profitable to read the Book that Mises didn’t take seriously enough apparently, the Torah.

But in any case, what I seek to prevent is the enshrinement of gold or any other private money form as legal tender for government debts.

“None of you have refuted me.”

Liar! Your ideas have been demolished already. While it is well understood that you have made a considerable intellectual investment in your perverse variety of monetary crankism and that your method of thought is to rely upon arbitrary blind belief, you need to understand that neither approach validates the nonsense you preach.

You have admitted that you have not done your homework when it comes to essential basic readings in economics. This next question confirms a complete pig-ignorance:

“What guarantees that the mining rate of gold shall be equal to the optimum growth rate in the money supply?”

Had you bothered to undertake sufficient study of economics you’d have discovered Von Mises (among others) addressed exactly this non-problem. He discusses whether there is an optimum amount of money (or not), whether the amount of money in an economy is fundamental or merely an abitrary and what effect the quantity may have. He takes pains to establish with great clarity whether this quantity should rise or fall, why and how, what effects that may have and why and whether there is an optimum rate of change. Further he discusses the conceit of those who consider that such “optimums” can be calculated and manipulated and achieved. Looks like you should take the advice you’ve already been given; shut the fuck up and do your homework, fool.

As far as your complete inability to understand what Rothbard is getting at, again you need to engage in learning the basics. It would certainly help if you learnt to crawl before you try to walk and walk before you try to run and jump.

You ask, “Must we all work for those who happen to own and lend gold?”

You seem to revel in the desperate generation of non-issues.

In order to survive one must produce or embody value to other people. For most that requires working productively and trading what one is able to produce in order to survive and thrive. As it happens, the attributes of gold mean it is a good and convenient entity to use to store value for the purposes of accumulating wealth and for trading. Assuming most people work to perform service or produce value for others and that most people trade with others, gold is going to be owned by nearly every participant in the economy. There is no problem.

“Iron sharpens iron” etc.

We’ve already been through this. Basing your entire system of thought upon a fictitious mythology is not a valid approach to economics. It is irrational and leads to falsehood. Indeed, such an approach is immoral. Your on-going crusade is immoral.

Again, this site is for the study and interpretation of matters economic employing the knowledge gained from Von Mises, his predecessors, colleagues, associates and students. It is not the place for F Beard’s continual vomiting forth of superstition, irrationality, lies, nonsense, idiocy and general falsehood. Your objections and “solutions” amount to little more than a half-arsed rearrangement of basic economic fallacies and errors- long since been addressed and dismissed by the likes of L Von Mises, among others. All you have been achieving is to demonstrate that you are ignorant of the basics when it comes to the topic of economics.

The VMI is not the appropriate forum for the regurgitation of your self-delusional silliness. Go now and undertake the basic study of that which you should have already accomplished before now.

Sione

And you are clearly clueless as to my system of thought. It is libertarian. But here is my agenda for all to see:

1) Bailout the entire US population from under the current crooked money system (government backed counterfeiting in exchange for indebtedness).

2) Implement genuine reform in money creation including separate government and private money supplies. Government money shall be pure fiat (since government is force) but only legal tender for government debts (taxes and fees) not private ones. Private monies and private money forms shall not be acceptable for government debts.

Some of you folks are so concerned about the socialists that you fail to realize that you are (unintentional, I hope) fascists.

http://blogs.forbes.com/michaelpollaro/2010/12/20/monetary-watch-december-2010-the-money-supply-a-triple-from-here/

None of you have refuted me. It is the goldbug position that is being demolished and here is one of the wrecking balls:

“What guarantees that the mining rate of gold shall be equal to the optimum growth rate in the money supply?”

Gary North, since he is a believer, might attribute that to Providence. But to what would you attribute it to?

Or you might say, as Rothbard did, that any size money supply is optimum since prices will adjust. In that case, then where shall the interest to pay loans come from? If you say, “from lender spending” then I ask you as a libertarian “Must we all work for those who happen to own and lend gold?”

But hey, I am a libertarian. Let’s let a true free market in private money creation settle these issues. If you object to that, then you are a tyrant. And no “We shouldn’t have government anyway; it is immoral” since we do have government whether you like it or not and must deal with that fact. The question then is “Shall gold and silver (or any other private money form) be granted special privilege from the government?” I say no.

If you simply must continue to promote mad rorts and the like, go start up a web site for the “F Beard Blind Belief Institute for the Promotion of Odd Notions just because it Suits Some to Believe in Funny Business” where you can debase yourself in quackery all you want. Sione

No. Besides, “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:17

My thanks to those here who have sharpened me.

I’d join in but I prefer to subcontract the arguing to the more articulate than me.

You write, “Ever wonder why the Jews have been so successful? Look no further than the Old Testament.”

Here is your racist mumbo jumbo again. This is beneath contempt. As previously stated, your entire system of thought is based on a fictitious mythology. It is clearly collectivist and malevolent.

You write, “Nor am I a silly goldbug either.”

You are merely silly.

Again, your position has already been well demolished. Give it up and get sane. Anyway, it’s time for you to avail yourself of the real knowledge of economics available free of charge on the VMI site. Instead of promoting el weirdo funny-money scams and stroking your over-wrought ego, shut the fuck up, quieten down some and do some learning for a change. Try reading Human Action, for example (although, to be fair, given the evidence you’ve presented it is likely you lack the intellectual capacity to understand it). If you simply must continue to promote mad rorts and the like, go start up a web site for the “F Beard Blind Belief Institute for the Promotion of Odd Notions just because it Suits Some to Believe in Funny Business” where you can debase yourself in quackery all you want.

Sione

Really? What if the whole city reservoir was spiked with alcohol? Ponder the moral implications of a “government backed fractional reserve banking cartel using the government enforced monopoly money supply”, I suggest.

You still have not answered to what incentive (outside of liquidation) is there to move capital out of malinvestment (i.e. G.M., AIG etc.) and into sound investment (i.e. current profitable businesses, new technologies, new business models etc.)? Dagny

Who knows which (if any) are genuine malinvestments? Shrink the money supply enough (including velocity) and every business but the most basic will be shown to be “malinvestment”. And in any case, I only advocate bailing out the entire US population, not businesses or banks.

Ever wonder why the Jews have been so successful? Look no further than the Old Testament.

Take note, you certainly are no L Von Mises, no Rockwell, no Polleit, no Shostak, no Reisman, no Rothbard, no Murphy or Riggenbach or Choderov or Barwerk or Nock or Spooner etc. – not a serious student of economics at all really. Sione

Nor am I a silly goldbug either. Talk about primitive!

I admire the fact that you are trying to find a non-painful solution to a painful situation.

I agree what has happened to borrowers (I have friends and family that have been affected) and others (though I have no debt, I’ve lost 70% of my previous salary) are worthy of sympathy. I feel great anger at my gov. for creating a situation that has mislead so many.

But…

I fail to see how the liquidation process is any different then a painful hangover from overdrinking or extreme exhaustion from over-exercise. In both examples, I have exceeded the limits of what my body can handle. Even though I can extend my limits eventually my body requires stasis. The process of regaining stasis may be painful and irritating but no one thinks of it as “ruthless” or “unjust”.

And though it would be nice not to have to experience a hangover or exhaustion (i.e. liquidation) the process actually makes me healthier (and hopefully smarter). It is necessary for my continued existence. (If I go on drinking, I will eventually die from alcohol poisoning or liver failure…)

The economy is no different. To deny the liquidation process is to deny nature.

On another note:

Earlier I said… The main purpose of liquidation is to remove capital from malinvestment and reset asset values to reflect their true market value.

I knew when I wrote that sentence that there was a risk that you or others would focus on the semantics of ‘true market value’ and ignore the inference of my statement. I understand that mkt value is a moving target but…

You still have not answered to what incentive (outside of liquidation) is there to move capital out of malinvestment (i.e. G.M., AIG etc.) and into sound investment (i.e. current profitable businesses, new technologies, new business models etc.)?

That isn’t justice. It’s mumbo jumbo- primitivism and superstition. What you support isn’t just in the slightest, let alone moral. It doesn’t make economic sense either. What you have demonstrated here is that you have a blind belief in a fictious mythology from which your entire system of thought is derived- including your “economics”.

While it is correct that fractional reserve banking destroys the purchasing power of money, cheating savers and reducing the value of loan principle (which is beneficial for many borrowers in case you hadn’t noticed), the funny money ideas you’ve repeated on several threads are no more logical, or just, than fractional reserve banking or unbacked fiat currency. In some ways they are as bad and in some ways much worse. This is not news, as the irrationalities and practical shortcomings inherent within your “economics” have been described to you on several occasions on previous threads by several contributors already. Restating the same mumbo-jumbo and insistences over and over is worthless. Avoid doing it.

If you look at the name of the site you’ll see the name Ludwig Von Mises (look at the top of the page). The site is named for Von Mises, as is the institute that hosts this site. It is not the “F Beard Blind Belief Institute for the Promotion of Odd Notions just because it Suits Some to Believe in Funny Business.” Take note, you certainly are no L Von Mises, no Rockwell, no Polleit, no Shostak, no Reisman, no Rothbard, no Murphy or Riggenbach or Choderov or Barwerk or Nock or Spooner etc. – not a serious student of economics at all really. Take note that the purpose of the site is the study and interpretation of matters economic employing the knowledge gained from Von Mises, his predecessors, colleagues, associates and students.

As it happens, Von Mises wrote a great deal about what economics is, how it is studied and how economies behave. He considered justice at some length. The material is available free of charge right here on this site! Free. All you have to do is down load it and study it. It is noted that you have not yet done this. Make a start.

Sione