It would seem that using the printing press on currency always leads to trouble ( inflation, assault on savings ect ) , can you ever justify printing money?
Dustin S. Jussila: It would seem that using the printing press on currency always leads to trouble ( inflation, assault on savings ect ) , can you ever justify printing money?
No.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Brainpolice:Thankyou. It seems like a lot of posters on this thread are missing this. The critique of monetary inflation (including those who reject fractional reserves) is not a condemnation of the issue of paper notes altogether, it's just that they have to be backed. There is nothing inherently wrong with token representatives of the commodity - in fact, it's incredibly more efficient then lugging a bunch of gold around with you everywhere. I don't believe Mises and Rothbard ever advocated a metal-coins-only standard.
Important distinction.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
This is not trolling, but both sides have not defined the range of their arguments. I am speaking only in a libertarian legal framework, and thus economics have nothing to do with this argument at all. In a libertarian system of law all violations of property and contracts are 'illegal', whereas everything else is 'legal'. (I am simplifying legality, I know).
Ivanfoofoo: Gold is not money, at least not inherently - as no thing is inherently valuable.
Esuric: Legally, the non-homogeneity of various commodities is inconsequential - as the nature of objects is only defined in relation to contracts and property claims.
DD5: This leads me into your argument for the provision of 'social benefit'. Would we really use the notion of social benefit to determine what to dispense with and what to ban?
My argument: I contend that the inflation of a monetary unit is not fraud nor theft - as you can never hold claim over the value that the rest of a population places on a commodity. It is fraud to inflate commodity redemption (warehouse) receipts without the backing you have promised (although FRB with commodity money can still take place without fraud - although this is still a contractual relationship). This is why commodity money typically has a greater value than fiat money - since the supply of a commodity (like gold) is relatively fixed. If I discover how to create gold by 'snapping my fingers' then I can legally inflate the supply of gold, and in result make gold backed currency worthless. In a free society people are free to choose, meaning that people will demand certain characteristics with money. Personally I believe that most forms of FRB and fiat money will be eliminated by competition from commodity backed currency, but the mere legality of fiat money is non-contestable - all things equal.
Interestingly, Paul Krugman publised a blog post on Saturday on the marginal benefits of fiscal stimulus over marginal costs, and I think I did a fairly good job at a rebutta on my blog. In short, there are no marginal benefits to either "printing money" or creating money ex nihilo through credit expansion.
JackSkylark:This is not trolling, but both sides have not defined the range of their arguments. I am speaking only in a libertarian legal framework, and thus economics have nothing to do with this argument at all. In a libertarian system of law all violations of property and contracts are 'illegal', whereas everything else is 'legal'. (I am simplifying legality, I know).
This is what you want the argument to be. The OP asked, "is it ever a good idea to print money?" The answer is no.
JackSkylark:Esuric: Legally, the non-homogeneity of various commodities is inconsequential - as the nature of objects is only defined in relation to contracts and property claims.
He claimed that money is the same as all other kinds of commodities, and that it's determined by supply and demand. The first part of his statement is simply incorrect, while the latter part is undeniably true.
Esuric:The OP asked, "is it ever a good idea to print money?"
No, he asked if it is ever justifiable. But even if he asked if it is ever a good idea to print money, the answer is most definitely yes. If it is not printed in the first place, then no one could have it!
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
"can you ever justify printing money" . Only when I do it.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Spideynw: If it is not printed in the first place, then no one could have it!
You see? A troll.
Esuric: Spideynw: If it is not printed in the first place, then no one could have it! You see? A troll.
Yes. Everyone's a troll.
existence is elsewhere
Esuric:You see? A troll.
God, I get sick of talking to kids. Do you have anything else to add? Or are you just that intellectually challenged?
JackSkylark:My argument: I contend that the inflation of a monetary unit is not fraud
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: JackSkylark:My argument: I contend that the inflation of a monetary unit is not fraud It is fraud. Unless ALL holders of the currency agree that it can be inflated. And such agreement is of course impossible in practice. And is nonsense from the pint of view of economics/self-interest.
That is like saying building more homes is fraud, because it reduces the value of my home.
no, juan is for accurate printing of receipts to actually stored commodity. he is against excess printing of receipts, in excess of what has been deposited.
just as printing up more deeds for a fixed number of homes, is excessive, and fraudulent.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: no, juan is for accurate printing of receipts to actually stored commodity. he is against excess printing of receipts, in excess of what has been deposited. just as printing up more deeds for a fixed number of homes, is excessive, and fraudulent.
Ah, gotcha. Yes, FRB is fraud.
Esuric:This is what you want the argument to be. The OP asked, "is it ever a good idea to print money?" The answer is no.
No, he asked if you could ever "justify" it. And there is nothing within a libertarian legal system that would prohibit that. So yes, printing and issuing "unbacked" paper notes is entirely justified.
and printing and issuing unbacked deeds to homes is entirely justified?