-
Some ideas about the practicality realities involved in returning to hard money: Getting to Hard Money As I have mentioned, Ron Paul's honest money ideas have evolved since these early days. In fact, in many ways he is quite a bit closer to Freegold today than he was in the early 80s. He is still stuck to the idea of a fixed price for gold, but
-
In " Return to Honest Money " ( http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2011/05/return-to-honest-money.html ), blogger FOFOA discusses the idea of Freegold in the context of some writings from prominet Austrian School economists, focusing on Mises, Menger, Hayek, and in particular Mises' ideas regression and a "secondary media of exchange."
-
JPM is way naked short. Gold too, along with HSBC. I wonder why. Oh yeah. Gresham's law. Aka an artificial monopolist (like a sovereign issuing fiat currency) has an incentive to depress the value of competing currencies to make their fiat paper look better in reference. I wonder if gold and silver are competing currencies? Yup, the TBTFs are Fed
-
[quote user="Sage"]Good point; I think we're getting somewhere. But before we proceed, can you define the contract between the bank and customer? Also, are you assuming that the demand deposit is a warehouse receipt, or a debt-claim against the bank?[/quote] Its Dr. Block's example. I believe he distinguishes between demand deposits
-
[quote user="Daniel"] He made the exact points I made, but I suppose he said it better. [/quote] Repetition (with appeal to authority) helps it sink in.
-
[quote user="Sage"] As I understand it, the common argument that fractional reserve banking is fraud goes like this: FR banks only hold a fraction of deposits in reserve, while simultaneously promising to redeem all deposits on demand. Thus, because a bank cannot redeem all of its obligations, FRB is inherently fraudulent. But is this reasoning
-
[quote user="Individualist"] I never heard about THC before, though. I wonder why it wasn't mentioned by legalization proponents, like Ron Paul. I also wonder why this wasn't dealt with (in relation to Gonzalez v. Raich ) by Woods and Gutzman in their book Who Killed the Constitution .[/quote] I'm, sorry, what do you mean by being
-
[quote user="Byzantine"] My theory is that Prohibition incentivizes more potent drugs to increase margins and make smuggling easier. [/quote] There is a greater risk of tainted or laced marijuana bought on the black market (although this is a largely non-existent risk for high grade consumers). But the legal cultivation of medicinal marijuana
-
In Gonzalez v. Raich, the US government took the position in oral argument that: “To the extent there is anything beneficial, health-wise, in marijuana, it’s THC, which has been isolated and provided in a pill form.” The essence of the retort is that herbal cannabis contains hundreds of other compounds, and thus pills do not work the
-
Apparently Mr. Lopez's self-verification was thwarted while I was composing the above post.