1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8782/take-this-money-or-else/

Take this money or else

October 15, 2008 by

More details of the forced cash injection at Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis. Several bankers protested that they did not want a bailout.

{ 5 comments }

Jason October 15, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Man, that is sooooooooo true. I kinda feel the same way sometimes. I am not rich and I refuse to borrow money to hurt my wife and girls. My family on the other hand will borrow for anything and everything. They keep poking and prodding me into borrowing, to buy a house, another car or whatever. They tell me my family will be better of having these nicer things. I am thinking long term though. We will see who is correct 20 years or so from now.

Bruce Koerber October 15, 2008 at 5:08 pm

See if you find the humor in this:

The Job of Government is Simple!

The government could do its job! It could protect and uphold contracts. If it protected contracts agreed upon voluntarily by parties involved in any exchange then it would be a stabilizing entity!

Can you believe it? The stated goal of government is to stabilize things and that can be accomplished if they did what they are supposed to do!

Instead we see government causing massive destabilization because it violates contracts and fails to protect contracts.

How simple is the solution! Even the government union employee can identify with the solution: “I only do specifically what my job is and nothing more!”

Someone tell the government ‘to protect and uphold contracts’ only!

Ohhh Henry October 15, 2008 at 8:41 pm

If the government has a monopoly on forcing other people to obey contracts they have signed then the more contracts which are broken, the more enforcement will be required, and the more money and power the government can claim. It is therefore in the interest of government to create conditions in which as many contracts will be broken as possible.

Hence you have government monetary policy, drug policy, foreign policy, department of “defense”, and so on.

They create chaos in order to drum up more business for their anti-chaos monopoly.

Danny October 15, 2008 at 9:02 pm

This is the same as a tax on savings, which I fear is coming for all savers. The government is forcing the banks to take money and pay 5% for the privilege. If the banks do not lend it out, they will pay an annual 5% tax on savings.

One day we may all be paying a tax on savings, in order to get us to spend and lend everything we have.

Finally, I haven’t seen anything that discusses the liklihood that Banks will use this money to pay off higher cost capital. I have to believe that somehow the government will disallow such a rational scheme (if anything in this mess can be called “rational”).

Frank October 16, 2008 at 12:00 am

We already have a tax on savings; it’s called inflation. With real inflation at 10%, better to spend $5000 now than put it in a savings/CD and earn a “high-yield” of 2.9% APR because doing so results in a net loss 7.1% APR).

So the government (and fed), through inflation taxes savings in order to get us to spend it all.

If the fed stop messing with the interest rates, I’d put every cent I could into savings if it paid market rates. (I’d imagine that with credit so tight, banks could pay higher interest rates to savers.) And if the feds would stop printing money out of thin air to meet the credit demand, I wouldn’t be paying an inflation tax and would be encouraged to spend it all and live check to check.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: