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
nirgrahamUK:and printing and issuing unbacked deeds to homes is entirely justified?
Sure, some people might want to play pretend.
Spideynw:That is like saying building more homes is fraud, because it reduces the value of my home.
"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."
they want to play pretend, with your home ?
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:they want to play pretend, with your home ?
It's unbacked so there's no home to go with it. It's just a deed. If they want to pretend they have my home by owning a fake deed to it, there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, if they actually attempted to use my home against my will, that would be aggression, but I have no problem with someone thinking or pretending in their mind that they own it, at least, not on a libertarian level.
ok, i think we got into a semantic cul-de-sac.
pretending to sell your real house twice (telling your friend bob that you are handing over two deeds to two different people in exchange for money)
is different from
from actually selling a pretend house (actually handing over two deeds to two different people in exchange for money)
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.
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.
And not making anything legal tender.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Well I never said that issuing unbacked notes as if they were backed was legitimate. By "issuing unbacked notes" I was implying that they were being issued as unbacked notes and that their issuance was not a breach of contract.
Some people may want to participate in an inflating unbacked paper currency. In fact, many mainstream economists find such currency preferable to a stagnant one. If they want to make a bad choice based on faulty reasoning, that's their business.
The same goes for selling home deeds. Perhaps someone wants to buy a fake home deed so they can pretend they own a nice home and they can show and impress friends with it. If they want to do that, again, that's their business.
this is undoubtedly true banned, but its a non-sequitor would you not agree.
you were being witty, i salute you :-) but it somewhat misses the point. which is that a lot of peopleon these very forums, believe that it is legitimate to issue unbacked notes as if they were backed notes.
nirgrahamUK: this is undoubtedly true banned, but its a non-sequitor would you not agree. you were being witty, i salute you :-) but it somewhat misses the point. which is that a lot of peopleon these very forums, believe that it is legitimate to issue unbacked notes as if they were backed notes.
I don't think there are many, if any, that think this.
Is it OK to print a note that says it is redeemable for 1 oz of gold at some bank, if it is being issued by the bank, and the bank has the 1oz of gold? Of course. So in this instance, it is completely justifiable to print "more" money. However, is it justifiable for a bank to issue a note that claims it is redeemable for 1oz of gold it does not have? Of course not. That is fraud.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:I don't think there are many, if any, that think this
met Wilmot of Rochester ? maxliberty?
Spideynw:Is it OK to print a note that says it is redeemable for 1 oz of gold at some bank, if it is being issued by the bank, and the bank has the 1oz of gold? Of course. So in this instance, it is completely justifiable to print "more" money. However, is it justifiable for a bank to issue a note that claims it is redeemable for 1oz of gold it does not have? Of course not. That is fraud.
Wow, took long enough.
banned:Some people may want to participate in an inflating unbacked paper currency. In fact, many mainstream economists find such currency preferable to a stagnant one.
Some people may want to participate in an inflating unbacked paper currency.
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."
nirgrahamUK: Spideynw:I don't think there are many, if any, that think this met Wilmot of Rochester ? maxliberty?
That's not entirely what I meant, but ok...
My point was more Hayekian-based, it wasn't about bankers misleading people into believing X is actually Y when X is X - I don't think that's going to be very successful.
However, my point was more of one that fractional reserve banks are just more innovative, more profitable, and generally better than this Rothbard-warehouse concept. I don't think there will be any warehouse usage except for with a very small minority in a niche market - pretty much 98% of the people that come here, plus a brother or two.
I think in a free market, it will be more transparent - though I think it already is pretty transparent - that banks take your money in loans and lend that money out to receive a profit so they can stay in business and pay you for participating.
existence is elsewhere
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.
Esuric:Wow, took long enough.
For someone to explain what your point of view actually was. Maybe you can learn a thing or two.