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
Well, you whined about my using only five years so I added some more years.
Uh huh... And if you look at the mean it looks a lot better with those giant rises in the 80's and 90's. Things get off track due to poor policy and financial movements in the 2000's, but that's one extreme instance that will happens very few times. By the way, using one institution isn't a very good model to show an entire markets movement. Maybe you didn't learn confirmation bias.
So, you are seeing the price of the shares of a leading bank in the last 30 years.
Uh huh. One leading bank? So, GM goes under and we should all panic because a company loses out to creative destruction. Nice model.
And you are seeing the price of gold which can be used as a proxy of sorts for the value of the dollar.
Nice red herring to throw in there - if I was arguing about gold prices, which I'm not. Seriously, do they just can these responses for you guys to use? It's so predictable.
I can summarize the entire position of this place in two phrases.
Gold good. Fed bad.
Well congrats, Mr. Rubble.
You can draw some conclusions or just keep on parroting pseudo economics...
Pseudo-economics is a guy on a forum responding to a bunch of red herrings and strawmen. Oh. Ok...
No, you don't understand what a free market is. You can't own IP so trademarks are irrelevant. Both your bank and the people who you call counterfeiters produce the same good - unbacked notes. Yet you want to use violence to suppress competition. That's called monopoly.
I don't call that IP, but if you want to, fine. Leave out the part that is about not being the same thing - trademarked notes - but ok. And yes, trademarks do, in fact, exist in the free market. They're called brands and that's not about intellectual property so much as it is about marketing and brand management. You can issue something that looks like a Rochester note, go ahead. But don't call it a Rochester note; or at least not without expecting consequences.
As far as finance goes, yes. You're the typical right winger who defends the status quo.
I don't like central banks or the federal reserve, I'm not a fan of supply side economics, I don't go in for the hype about the stock markets, and I'm a neocon right-winger - because the two are apparently synonymous now - for finance.
Tell me, do the neocons even have a position on finances?
existence is elsewhere
And if you look at the mean it looks a lot better with those giant rises in the 80's and 90's.
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: Yes, you can average a whole dataset into one meaningless value. Just what a retard would do.
The people who lost and made tons of money on this company didn't think it was so meaningless. And in any case, if you want to talk stocks - they're not a great measure for the economy - loo at the DJIA in the past 100 years. By your measurements of one bank, how does the current path compare? Again, however, quit misconstruing that I'm advocating the current system; I'm not - it has problems, but many fewer than a strait-jacket policy of 100% gold would.
Juan: That's part of the point, yes. A point wholly beyond your comprehension sadly.
That's part of the point, yes. A point wholly beyond your comprehension sadly.
No, I just try to be a little more genuine than repeating the same tired BAAAA! of all the other sheep.
Juan: But go ahead, just keep on making up the Mises-Hayek-Rochester theory of high finance...
Let me guess, in your class for economics all of your references came from the Mises Institute?
Wilmot of Rochester:Let me guess, in your class for economics all of your references came from the Mises Institute?
Keep going bro, everyone's about to give up! Just 17 more pages to go until you finally discredit Austrian economics.
"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."
The people who lost and made tons of money on this company didn't think it was so meaningless. And in any case, if you want to talk stocks - they're not a great measure for the economy
Wilmot of Rochester:But we're talking about one industry of an economy for one century... 20 times five is 100.
The economy has changed in size, direction and capacity greatly in that time. What meaningful comparison can 1915, 1925 or 1935 have with today? You're skewing the data away from the present crisis, to times when the US was on gold, or had a link to gold until 1971, and thereafter was able to print at will, and engage in capital consumption (sunshine capitalism) for nearly 20 years without consequence.
Wilmot of Rochester:Are you saying means aren't important?
I am a fan of Nassim Taleb. I believe that the world we face presents epistemological problems that cannot be solved with statistics. Econometrics and statistical historicism has little interest to me.
Juan: No it is not subjective. If I sell you a "'working car" with no wheels or no motor, I'm a fraudster. If I give you credit which is not backed by savings I'm a fraudster.
There is no explicit display of misleading your customer by issuing them unbacked money or selling them a car with no wheels. If a customer wants transparency, they will have to find a firm willing to disclose with them the exact details about the product they're investing in or purchasing. Since transparency is in common demand, this will most likely not be very dificult.
Juan:Let's not start the everything-is-subjective game please ?
Do you disagree that "perfectly good" and "working car" are subjective phrases?
Juan: Reducing the problem to "giving out slips of paper" reduces the discussion to meaninglessness.
But that is precisely what issuing unbacked credit is.
Juan:The point is that the only way to get people to invest in a such a thing is by lying about the nature of the thing. Or by using violence like bankers do today.
No. That's the only way someone could get you to invest in such a thing. People with keynesian or monetarist tendencies would most likely prefer unbacked money, as they would believe it to be the most efficient.
banned:No. That's the only way someone could get you to invest in such a thing. People with keynesian or monetarist tendencies would most likely prefer unbacked money, as they would believe it to be the most efficient.
No they would not prefer it, unless they like to be broke, and I don't know anyone that wants to be poor (not that there are not a few in the world).
So again, it is pointless to discuss something in the free market that the market would never choose willingly.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:So again, it is pointless to discuss something in the free market that the market would never choose willingly.
Presumably, they forsee that It is beneficial to hold unbacked credit, as that is the prevailing opinion of those schools. Not everyone's an Austrian.
banned:Presumably, they forsee that It is beneficial to hold unbacked credit, as that is the prevailing opinion of those schools. Not everyone's an Austrian.
People do not need to understand Austrian economics to choose a good product or reject a bad product.
No one has ever chosen to use paper as currency (unless it is fiat) so there is no reason to believe anyone ever would in a free market, especially given the understanding we have of economics. It degrades quickly and is easily reproduced. The exact opposite of qualities we know people would desire in currency.
Naturally, I believe that people would likely choose sound money. However, that does not entail that unbacked money ought to be prohibited, and that banks that issue such money ought to be prosecuted for fraud. If some people prefer unbacked credit, that option should be permitted.
liberty student: The economy has changed in size, direction and capacity greatly in that time. What meaningful comparison can 1915, 1925 or 1935 have with today? You're skewing the data away from the present crisis, to times when the US was on gold, or had a link to gold until 1971, and thereafter was able to print at will, and engage in capital consumption (sunshine capitalism) for nearly 20 years without consequence.
Which is a fair criticism. I think it is important to look at the past, however, even if it's relatively mid-term or even if you have to keep in mind those contextual facts.
liberty student: I am a fan of Nassim Taleb. I believe that the world we face presents epistemological problems that cannot be solved with statistics. Econometrics and statistical historicism has little interest to me.
I suppose I just come from it different then. I think statistics and econometrics can help greatly, though I do agree that without economic theory to back it up it can be rather meaningless.
Spideynw: banned:No. That's the only way someone could get you to invest in such a thing. People with keynesian or monetarist tendencies would most likely prefer unbacked money, as they would believe it to be the most efficient. No they would not prefer it, unless they like to be broke, and I don't know anyone that wants to be poor (not that there are not a few in the world). So again, it is pointless to discuss something in the free market that the market would never choose willingly.
This is a fine criticism - if it even is one - of the position in favor of fractional reserves. My point with you is, however, that it seems that fractional reserve banks, when used prudently, have been very successful at stemming off the inadequacies some of us see in the system.
For some reason, not all banks that use fractional reserves even without deposit insurance go under, so I think it's a false impression to have when saying that fractional reserve banking is just inferior to gold backed currencies and would be done away with automatically in a free market.
I guess my only gripe with the entire subject comes from my belief that you do not have to be a gold-bug to be appreciative of Mises, Hayek, and the other great economists associated with them.
Wilmot of Rochester:I guess my only gripe with the entire subject comes from my belief that you do not have to be a gold-bug to be appreciative of Mises, Hayek, and the other great economists associated with them.
Indeed you do.
Wilmot of Rochester:Uh huh. One leading bank? So, GM goes under and we should all panic because a company loses out to creative destruction. Nice model.
This is only partially the reason why GM went under; ABCT will fill in the blanks, if you ever get around to reading it.