May God bless you and yours.

Yes, my manner is rough sometimes but I have been treated roughly at this site too. I am a libertarian and I have no patience with fascist poseurs who give the rest of us a bad name.

And all I really insist on is true liberty in private money creation not the hypocritical replacement of paper fiat with golden fiat.

So if I kick over a golden idol or two, I hope you’ll understand my zeal.

Best wishes,

FB

As to your having been refuted or not: I wouldn’t expect you to have felt that your ideas were refuted; as I said, you seem to be honest, but stubborn, and I’m not sure you read others’ comments with empathy.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think that fundamentalist has ever quoted Mises or Rothbard, and I certainly haven’t. Each of us has enough personal failings that there’s no need to project others’ failings onto all of us. Just try to keep in mind that when you argue online, you’re still dealing with a person, a unique child of God, and accusing someone of a fault that they don’t have is *very* off-putting.

Oh, one last thing, keep in mind that most people here consider you to be ‘one of us;’ meaning that you visit, read, and comment on mises.org. You aren’t up against the whole site, you’re a part of it. I probably disagree with everyone on this site on one topic or another, but I also probably agree with any one regular commenter on most topics. If you treat one person disrespectfully, others will notice that and unless it was exceptionally justified, they will cease paying attention to you.

Peace,
Drigan

1) Reading the Bible daily.
2) An Australian lady’s concern about the plight of South African gold miners.
3) The lessons I learned while designing my own ethical money system
4) Reading opposing viewpoints such as Stephen Zarlenga’s “The Lost Science of Money”
5) Numerous on-line debates.

Why are you accusing people of wanting to force a gold standard on anyone? I think the vast majority of people here are free-bankers. I know that’s my stance. Drigan

I have no problem with free banking but I do have a problem with government accepting any money but its own fiat. It is an old trick of bankers to get the government to accept their private money for taxes and fees. Some gold-bugs such as Gary North are attempting the same trick with gold.

I really mean no offense, but I can think of no more polite way to say this: I’ve seen you say things that make it seem like you’re not trying to understand others’ arguments, so I’ve stopped responding to you when you make arguments that appear to have already been refuted. Drigan

I don’t recall ever being refuted here, at least not lately. Some of you cite Mises like his word is Gospel but it isn’t to me. I’ll take Moses over Mises every time.

I will certainly read what you say, and give it a chance, because I believe you to be an honest person . . . but I also think you may be a bit stubborn and unwilling to see what others are trying to say. Drigan

Whatever my personal beliefs are I only insist on true liberty in private money creation. That means the government must only recognize its own fiat as money, not someone’s favorite shiny metal(s).

Why are you accusing people of wanting to force a gold standard on anyone? I think the vast majority of people here are free-bankers. I know that’s my stance.

I really mean no offense, but I can think of no more polite way to say this: I’ve seen you say things that make it seem like you’re not trying to understand others’ arguments, so I’ve stopped responding to you when you make arguments that appear to have already been refuted. I will certainly read what you say, and give it a chance, because I believe you to be an honest person . . . but I also think you may be a bit stubborn and unwilling to see what others are trying to say.

Peace,
Drigan

What you folks may fail to realize is I STARTED where many of you are still stuck. However the difference between me and the agnostic Jews you follow (Mises, Rothbard, etc) is that I read and believe the Torah while they (by definition) did not.

But I am no tyrant. While many of you might wish to force a government gold standard on the rest of us, I believe in true liberty in private money creation where PM bugs could play with their shiny metals and usury to their heart’s content.

The only way I could loan wheat, barley, cattle or silver to someone else is if I saved some. Without fractional banking, all lending comes from savings. So if someone borrows money (wheat, barley, cattle, silver), they have to be able to pay back what they borrow plus interest.

Why would a lender charge interest? Because he gives up the use of what he lends. In economics it’s called opportunity cost. If I loan you a bushel of wheat seeds, I give up use of that bushel of wheat. I could have used it to buy clothing or furniture, or to plant and produce more wheat. You have to compensate me for the loss of the use of that wheat.

Silver and any other money are no different. If I’m a farmer, I obtained the silver by selling my wheat to someone who had silver and wanted wheat. People got silver by selling things to silver miners.

The silver that I now have replaced the wheat that I had saved. I wouldn’t have the silver if I had consumed all of my wheat. I now have silver because I saved wheat and exchanged it for silver. I can use that silver for a lot of things. If nothing else, keeping it gives me peace of mind in an uncertain future.

If I loan that silver to someone, I give up all of the benefits and potential uses I could have made of it. I suffer an opportunity cost. I won’t loan you money unless you compensate me for that cost. Interest is the opportunity cost I incur by loaning you my silver.

The money comes from selling the produce that the land produces. The people buying the produce provide the money. fundamentalist

Money does not grow on trees or in the fields. So my question remains – where shall the money for interest come from?

“Usury is problematic from a mathematical view point too since the debt typically grows at an exponential rate greater than the real economy’s.” FB

That’s a problem of fractional reserve banking, not interest. fundamentalist

Both are problematic and fractional reserves is theft besides.

Interest would exist in a barter economy because it originates with time preference. fundamentalist

How? Does “time preference” own a gold mine or a money printing press?

n a barter economy it might work like this: I borrow a bushel of corn seed from you to plant my field. When I harvest, I return a bushel of seed plus 10% as interest. fundamentalist

Yes, that might work because crops grow and produce seed – unlike money which is sterile and produces nothing.

The money comes from selling the produce that the land produces. fundamentalist

Now you have introduced a sterile element – money – which does not reproduce.

The people buying the produce provide the money. fundamentalist

What money? Do they own a gold mine or money printing presses?

“Then why do the non-poor borrow today?”

To invest.

“Where shall that money come from?”

The money comes from selling the produce that the land produces. The people buying the produce provide the money.

“Usury is problematic from a mathematical view point too since the debt typically grows at an exponential rate greater than the real economy’s.”

That’s a problem of fractional reserve banking, not interest. Interest would exist in a barter economy because it originates with time preference.

In a barter economy it might work like this: I borrow a bushel of corn seed from you to plant my field. When I harvest, I return a bushel of seed plus 10% as interest.

Assuming that all money is lent out at all times (Why wouldn’t it be?) then the question is “Where shall the interest come from?”

After all, in Biblical times who would borrow money, except the poor? fundamentalist

Then why do the non-poor borrow today?

Calvin took pretty much the same attitude. fundamentalist

Then Calvin was wrong.

He considered interest on loans to be similar to rent on land. fundamentalist

What if land rents were to be paid with more land? Do you see a problem with that? Yet the rent for money is more money. Where shall that money come from?

Since the Bible did not prohibit rent on land, he assumed it did not prohibit rent on money either. fundamentalist

So much for Calvin’s economics then.

So the prohibitions must refer to oppressing the poor. fundamentalist

Convenient rationalization. Usury is problematic from a mathematical view point too since the debt typically grows at an exponential rate greater than the real economy’s.

A lot of theologians too the prohibitions of usury in the Bible to refer to lending to the poor. After all, in Biblical times who would borrow money, except the poor?

Calvin took pretty much the same attitude. He considered interest on loans to be similar to rent on land. Since the Bible did not prohibit rent on land, he assumed it did not prohibit rent on money either. So the prohibitions must refer to oppressing the poor.

To put all of the above quotes into context for you, simply know that Chesterton was a very orthodox Christian (he helped convert C.S. Lewis), and each of those quotes was meant to show how the Church has triumphed over seemingly impossible odds.

I haven’t read the takeover of England, what’s it called?

Then how many of you Austrians realize that charging interest to a fellow countrymen is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:19-20?

Economically absurd you say? Not at all. Two forms of money require no debt at all, much less usury. These are government fiat for government debts, taxes and fees, and common stock, a private money form.

Not that usury should be outlawed but neither should it be privileged by government either.

Have you read Chesterton’s novel about the Turkish/Muslim takeover of England? It’s hilarious, but scary in its prescience.