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
scineram:Educate yourself before you talk nonsense.
I don't care about articles which completely misrepresent Mises' and Hayek's positions, read them directly for yourself. Hayek repeatedly trashes the pure mechanical approach to quantity theory, and thoroughly criticizes Fisher in lecture one of Prices and Production.
scineram: Which is what free bankers do too.
"The banks could either keep the demand for real capital within the limits set by the supply of savings, or, keep the price level steady; but they cannot perform both functions at once." (page 218 Prices and production)
So the bankers can either restrict themselves to the supply of savings in order to keep the price of capital accurate, or they can expand the supply of money in order to keep prices the same; but they can't do both. So what the hell are you talking about again? Do you think you're an Austrian?
People need to start reading Austrian literature before they come here and start talking nonsense.
"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."
JackSkylark:I do not agree with a lot of the posters supporting FRB, but I do not think it violates property rights or natural contract law.
Really? So you think if someone promises you that you can withdraw your money at anytime you want to, and then when you go to withdraw it, they do not have it, that that is not fraud? Wow.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Wilmot of Rochester:And being pro-gold isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as he understands that fractional resrve banking is necessary.
How is it necessary? If I want to lend people my money, I do not need a bank to do it...
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: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.
In a free market, those banks would be subject to runs, with no central bank to bail them out. I'm not saying every bank would be 100% reserve, just that the closer the reserve is to 100%, the less likely the bank will be driven out of business. The only bank completely immune from insolvency due to a run is one with 100% reserves.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Wilmot of Rochester:That said, I think Garrison makes a few fundamental errors in his thinking here. One, he frames the debate into two camps, those that want central authority and fiat currency and those that one decentralized authority and gold currency. I, however, want decentralized authority with fiat currency. So where do I fit in? Also, he seems to characterize any other side that rejects the gold standard on the basis of liquidity expansion for the reason that we get it wrong in our terms of defining monetary stability. Well, maybe most economists think that constant price level = monetary stability, but I don't. I think a free market for currency where demand for money adjusts to supply = monetary stability.
Fiat currency is, by definition, impossible in a free market.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat
Spideynw: Wilmot of Rochester:And being pro-gold isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as he understands that fractional resrve banking is necessary. How is it necessary? If I want to lend people my money, I do not need a bank to do it...
I should have elaborated. It is necessary to keep a modern growing economy modern and growing. If you want to live in an agricultural society where people rarely go more than 10 miles in a week, then I suppose full reserves could work.
existence is elsewhere
Esuric: Again, the way he uses the term "neutral" is completely different than the way you're using it. He doesn't mean a stabile price level
Again, the way he uses the term "neutral" is completely different than the way you're using it. He doesn't mean a stabile price level
OK. This is the last time I'm actually going to respond to you because you're beginning to annoy me.
I'm not talking about stable prices. I'm talking about supply and demand. Period.
JackCuyler: In a free market, those banks would be subject to runs, with no central bank to bail them out.
In a free market, those banks would be subject to runs, with no central bank to bail them out.
Then why haven't banks in the Bahamas gone under?
JackCuyler: Fiat currency is, by definition, impossible in a free market.
Not really, we could have a local or business based fiat currency (I don't think this is really viable though). For example, Wal Mart could suddenly decide that their stores would print and only accept 'Waltons' - and if the exchange rate (at least for what you can buy at Wal Mart) was favorable to that of other free market money then it could be in the interest of some person to accept the completely fiat money.
stores often do print 'vouchers'. but people only accept them as gifts, ive never heard of a 'trend' of them being accepted as payment by 3rd parties, traded as currency....
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 we are using differing definitions for fiat, I will retract my previous statement.
Wilmot of Rochester: Spideynw: Wilmot of Rochester:And being pro-gold isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as he understands that fractional resrve banking is necessary. How is it necessary? If I want to lend people my money, I do not need a bank to do it... I should have elaborated. It is necessary to keep a modern growing economy modern and growing. If you want to live in an agricultural society where people rarely go more than 10 miles in a week, then I suppose full reserves could work.
If you want to live in a society with booms and busts, then by all means, FRB is great. But I am sure you will deny reality. If you haven't noticed, the U.S. job market has not grown at all in the last ten years, as of today. I do not believe the stock market has grown for the last ten years either, as of today. But you go on and keep on spouting unjustifiable claims.