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
Salerno's point was that the US currently does not have a fractional reserve system. So what's the complaint about, I wonder?
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."
Wilmot of Rochester:No. People that believe in a sound banking system are still in the game; gold bugs, however, are wrong, yes.
To paraphrase something i read in this thread, you can claim gold bugs are wrong all you want. It doen't make it so. Good luck selling it to intelligent economists.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Esuric: Wilmot of Rochester:So... You're saying that if I were a pig farmer and decided to increase my production of hogs because the demand for hogs was high, I'd be doing something illegal because it would take away from the value of my hog farming neighbor's hogs? How the hell did you come to this conclusion? What he's saying is that the money he deposits in his bank, which he assumes is held by the bank, should not be used for a thousand different kinds of financial transactions. Transactions which deleverage the banks, cause trade cycles, and panics. He hopes that at any point in time he can simply go to the bank, get his money, without being told: "I'm sorry, we don't have your money at the moment." If the demand for my pizzas are great, I actually need more dough, cheese, toppings, ect. I can't just create cardboard pizzas and deliver them hoping that no one notices; unfortunately, money is fungible. Are you trolling or what?
Wilmot of Rochester:So... You're saying that if I were a pig farmer and decided to increase my production of hogs because the demand for hogs was high, I'd be doing something illegal because it would take away from the value of my hog farming neighbor's hogs?
How the hell did you come to this conclusion? What he's saying is that the money he deposits in his bank, which he assumes is held by the bank, should not be used for a thousand different kinds of financial transactions. Transactions which deleverage the banks, cause trade cycles, and panics. He hopes that at any point in time he can simply go to the bank, get his money, without being told: "I'm sorry, we don't have your money at the moment." If the demand for my pizzas are great, I actually need more dough, cheese, toppings, ect. I can't just create cardboard pizzas and deliver them hoping that no one notices; unfortunately, money is fungible. Are you trolling or what?
I think you're having trouble understanding his point. The pig example is a very simple way to understand why what you were suggesting is incorrect.
limitgov:I think you're having trouble understanding his point. The pig example is a very simple way to understand why what you were suggesting is incorrect.
wrong, the pig analogy was strawmanning Juan, and is also a false analogy.
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
As someone else has already explained, it is not about just producing more of something, it is about producing more notes that promise they are backed by something, when in reality they are not.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:As someone else has already explained, it is not about just producing more of something, it is about producing more notes that promise they are backed by something, when in reality they are not.
Banks don't have to issue credit they promise is backed by something. People can use banknotes as the commodity they're exchanging instead of as a reciept for the commodity.
nirgrahamUK: limitgov:I think you're having trouble understanding his point. The pig example is a very simple way to understand why what you were suggesting is incorrect. wrong, the pig analogy was strawmanning Juan, and is also a false analogy.
Banks don't have to issue credit they promise is backed by something.
People can use banknotes as the commodity they're exchanging instead of as a reciept for the commodity.
banned:Banks don't have to issue credit they promise is backed by something. People can use banknotes as the commodity they're exchanging instead of as a reciept for the commodity.
Well, anyone can issue notes, in a free society. If they are not backed by something, then no one will accept them, in a free society. So it is really pointless to talk about notes that have no backing.
Juan:So who's going to provide the savings ? Or is this the kind of magical 'credit' backed by no savings ?
Obviously It won't survive on the market, but that's not the point. The point is that there is nothing fraudulent about issuing it.
Juan: Not sure what you are saying there....
In an exchange, one party exchanges a commodity with another party. With backed currency, the exchange is made between a commodity and a reciept for a commodity (a backed banknote). I was saying that the commodity being exchanged could just be the banknote.
banned:Obviously It won't survive on the market, but that's not the point. The point is that there is nothing fraudulent about issuing it.
Juan:No. People that believe in a sound banking system are still in the game; Since you like 'empirical evidence' ... Sound banking eh ? Citi's shares went from $53 to $3 in two years. And then the fraudsters were bailed out by the criminals in government. Sound banking, no doubt.
No. People that believe in a sound banking system are still in the game;
And that's one very extreme instance, but it isn't the statistical mean.
I'm not saying that the current banking system is perfect, but I am saying that it's better than warehouse pipe dreams in Rothbardia.
existence is elsewhere
JackCuyler: Wilmot of Rochester:No. People that believe in a sound banking system are still in the game; gold bugs, however, are wrong, yes. To paraphrase something i read in this thread, you can claim gold bugs are wrong all you want. It doen't make it so. Good luck selling it to intelligent economists.
No problem with that!
Monetarists just never give it a rest.
"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."