# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Video: Bill Still.Mises Was Bought And Paid For By Rockefeller.(Sounds Hysterical)

## S.Shorland

Anything that can be printed,will be printed.Bill.I'll keep my metal,you can have your paper.

----------


## osan

COuld not go past the first 5 minutes.  If there was something worth seeing, it took too long to get to it.  Long.  Boring.  Stupid.  He's the one who seems bought and paid for.

----------


## Acala

Fiat money is fiat money is fiat money.

----------


## green73

When does he say it?

----------


## VBRonPaulFan

> When does he say it?


two and a half minutes in.

----------


## S.Shorland

02:10-02:30.



> When does he say it?

----------


## The Goat

Bill still is an idiot. Watch from 6:00-7:00. says Ron is the primary problem for monetary reforms.  completely ignores Ron Paul supporting competing currency. says that the problem is who controls the qunatity of money and we need to take back who controls it. competing currency give the control of money to the free market, where it should be.

IMO Bill Still is a shill for government monopoly controlled monetary policy.

----------


## Acala

> Bill still is an idiot. Watch from 6:00-7:00. says Ron is the primary problem for monetary reforms.  completely ignores Ron Paul supporting competing currency. says that the problem is who controls the qunatity of money and we need to take back who controls it. competing currency give the control of money to the free market, where it should be.
> 
> IMO Bill Still is a shill for government monopoly controlled monetary policy.


Yup.  He posted on this forum a while back.  His proposal is to take the power to create fiat money away from the banks and give it to the treasury.  Presumably because the government, which already has complete control over the Federal Reserve, will, for the first time in its history, act responsibly and with restraint.  Hahahahahahahaha!

----------


## TNforPaul45

Someone needs to get this over to Rockwell/Woods/Murphy ASAP for complete deconstruction of such a fallacious viewpoint. What matters is WHAT and WHO backs and prints the money. If you back the money with tangibles, then you cannot arbitrarily print more of it.

This Bill Still says that the gold standard is not the answer, and bases his argument on the above. Looks like they want to replace the Fed with another Fed, but just call it "we the people Fed."

Idiocy.

P.S. His saying that Rockerfeller bought, shipped, and paid for Mises is a straw man argument. He doesn't offer any proof for that, he doesn't state how that even would effect Mises' viewpoints and opinions, if it were true (not sure if it is or not), and generally blanket-statement-s the whole thing. I have read MUCH of Mises' works, as I am sure all of you have, and there is nothing collectivist or Rocerfeller'ish in any of his works, that I've ever found.

----------


## S.Shorland

A lot of these people will come out of the woodwork after the main crash.He talks about the NDAA and then wants government to issue the money.Also,nobody is going to buy your gold unless it has been ultrasound tested or however else for purity.

----------


## Danke

He seems bitter.  Was he picked on often in school?

----------


## Roy L

> Anything that can be printed,will be printed.Bill.


But of course, that claim is objectively false.  US notes can be printed, and they haven't been.

So you are objectively wrong.

But I predict that having been proved objectively wrong will not stimulate you to reconsider your proved-false beliefs.



> I'll keep my metal,you can have your paper.


<yawn>  Have you checked your metal for tungsten...?

----------


## Roy L

> He seems bitter.  Was he picked on often in school?


You seem cowardly.  Did you often pick on smaller kids in school?

----------


## Roy L

> Fiat money is fiat money is fiat money.


And you can't tell the difference between fiat money and debt money.  No surprises there.

----------


## whippoorwill

" Where does it(the Constitution) say that, Ron?" 

Its say it right here, you illiterate sob. 

*Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1*
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; *emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts*; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

----------


## Danke

> But of course, that claim is objectively false.  US notes can be printed, and they haven't been.


US Notes have been printed, what planet have you been on?

----------


## Danke

Better discussion:

----------


## Roy L

> Bill still is an idiot.


Which explains why you can't refute anything he said...



> Watch from 6:00-7:00. says Ron is the primary problem for monetary reforms.  completely ignores Ron Paul supporting competing currency.


Which is an idiotic policy.



> says that the problem is who controls the qunatity of money and we need to take back who controls it. competing currency give the control of money to the free market, where it should be.


Except that history proves the "free" market cannot create a stable currency.



> IMO Bill Still is a shill for government monopoly controlled monetary policy.


LOL!  Read yer freakin' Constitution, dumpling.

----------


## ctiger2

Love how Ron gets blamed for stuff he's got zero power over. HAHA! It's Ron Paul's fault! He's passed 0 legislation in 30 years. Get him!

----------


## Roy L

> US Notes have been printed, what planet have you been on?


??  Shorland said, "Anything that can be printed, will be printed."  That claim was false, absurd, and dishonest.

US notes can be printed, but haven't been for a very long time.

Shorland is therefore objectively wrong.

Learn to read.  Or think.

----------


## Roy L

> " Where does it(the Constitution) say that, Ron?" 
> 
> Its say it right here, you illiterate sob.


Huh??  No, it most certainly does not, you illiterate S.O.B.



> *Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1*
> No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; *emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts*; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


That paragraph self-evidently and indisputably forbids the individual STATES, not the federal government, to coin money or make anything but gold and silver coin tender in payment of debts.  It self-evidently and indisputably does not thus constrain the federal government, as the first clause proves: the Constitution DOES empower the FEDERAL government to enter into treaties.

Learn to read.  Or think.

----------


## Danke

> ??  Shorland said, "Anything that can be printed, will be printed."  That claim was false, absurd, and dishonest.
> 
> US notes can be printed, but haven't been for a very long time.
> 
> Shorland is therefore objectively wrong.
> 
> Learn to read.  Or think.


Now you are saying they haven't been in a long time, that is different than I was responding to.  

Anyway, they still are, they are just now substituted with FRNs.

----------


## Roy L

> COuld not go past the first 5 minutes.  If there was something worth seeing, it took too long to get to it.  Long.  Boring.  Stupid.  He's the one who seems bought and paid for.


You can't refute a single sentence he said.

Simple.

----------


## whippoorwill

> Huh??  No, it most certainly does not, you illiterate S.O.B.
> 
> That paragraph self-evidently and indisputably forbids the individual STATES, not the federal government, to coin money or make anything but gold and silver coin tender in payment of debts.  It self-evidently and indisputably does not thus constrain the federal government, as the first clause proves: the Constitution DOES empower the FEDERAL government to enter into treaties.
> 
> Learn to read.  Or think.


Psst to get an F.

-Tenth Amendment-
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

----------


## Roy L

> Now you are saying they haven't been in a long time, that is different than I was responding to.


OK, so you admit you were wrong, and were just trying a strawman fallacy.  Good.  



> Anyway, they still are, they are just now substituted with FRNs.


??  That is a flat-out fabrication.  FRNs are debt.  US notes are not.  Your claims are false and absurd.

----------


## Roy L

> Psst to get an F.


ROTFL!!  *You* just earned yourself a big F in Civics, my friend:



> -Tenth Amendment-
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


<yawn>  Article 1, Section 8:

*"The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..."*

The Constitution *specifically* gives *Congress* the power to issue money.  Which it did, quite responsibly, until it unconstitutionally delegated that power to the Fed, which has since debased the US dollar by 98%.

----------


## whippoorwill

Article 1, Section 8:

[QUOTE]*"The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..."*

The Constitution *specifically* gives *Congress* the power to issue money.  Which it did, quite responsibly, until it unconstitutionally delegated that power to the Fed, which has since debased the US dollar by 98%.[QUOTE]

The right to coin and regulate value is given but it is not explicity given the right to "emit Bills of Credit" at the National level. You should take a hard look at the The Coinage Act of 1792. 

You get an F.

----------


## Roy L

> Yup.  He posted on this forum a while back.  His proposal is to take the power to create fiat money away from the banks and give it to the treasury.


Banks have no power to create fiat money.  They create DEBT money.



> Presumably because the government, which already has complete control over the Federal Reserve, will, for the first time in its history, act responsibly and with restraint.  Hahahahahahahaha!


Your "meeza hatesa gubmint" chant merely proves your ignorance of history.  Read the history of the greenbacks:

"In June 1874, Congress officially capped the Greenback circulation at $382,000,000, and in January 1875, passed the Specie Payment Resumption Act, which authorized a contraction in the circulation of Greenbacks towards a revised limit of $300,000,000, and required the government to redeem them for gold, on demand, after 1 January 1879. As a result, the currency strengthened and _by April 1876, the notes were on par with silver coins_ which then began to re-emerge into circulation.[21] On May 31, 1878, the contraction in the circulation was halted at $346,681,016 -* a level which would be maintained for almost 100 years afterwards.*"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note

----------


## Roy L

> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..."*
> 
> The Constitution *specifically* gives *Congress* the power to issue money.  Which it did, quite responsibly, until it unconstitutionally delegated that power to the Fed, which has since debased the US dollar by 98%.
> ...


OK, so you admit I am right and you are wrong.  Good.



> but it is not explicity given the right to "emit Bills of Credit" at the National level.


So what?  Fiat money is not a bill of credit.  You are just blabbering stupid garbage to avoid knowing the facts that prove you wrong.



> You should take a hard look at the The Coinage Act of 1792.


LOL!  So as I knew was the case, you cannot support your claims, and now resort to asking ME to find arguments for you in the Coinage Act of 1792.  Too funny.



> You get an F.


Nope.  Wrong.  AGAIN.

YOU flunked, dumpling.  Big time.  *You* get an _F_, and I will thank you to remember that.  You FAILED.  You are a FAILURE.

----------


## whippoorwill

F.

----------


## Acala

> Banks have no power to create fiat money.  They create DEBT money.


Any money you are required by law to accept is fiat.  That's what the word means.  Dollars created by banks and dollars created by the treasury are both, as of this writing, fiat, because legal tender laws require you to accept them.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

The original intent in the Constitution is not completely clear to me.




> Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;





> Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


How was the term "coin" defined at the time? Is the only definition to create a metal coin? "Emit bills of Credit" is listed separately, and that would seem to mean paper money.

Now if the Federal government were to create coins that were not silver or gold, could they be used as "a Tender in Payment of Debts" in the States? Seems to be a contradiction there.

----------


## Roy L

> Any money you are required by law to accept is fiat.


Wrong.  By that "logic," gold coins are fiat if they are legal tender.



> That's what the word means.


No, it doesn't, as proved above.



> Dollars created by banks and dollars created by the treasury are both, as of this writing, fiat, because legal tender laws require you to accept them.


Flat false, as proved above.  You really need schooling on the difference between commodity money, fiat money, and debt money.  Three totally different things.  And you can't tell the difference.

----------


## Roy L

> The original intent in the Constitution is not completely clear to me.


It's clear to the Supreme Court, at least on this issue: the federal government can print paper money, states can't.



> How was the term "coin" defined at the time? Is the only definition to create a metal coin?


No.



> "Emit bills of Credit" is listed separately, and that would seem to mean paper money.


No, bills of credit are debts.  Fiat money is ideally debt-free.



> Now if the Federal government were to create coins that were not silver or gold, could they be used as "a Tender in Payment of Debts" in the States?


Yes, and they have been.



> Seems to be a contradiction there.


No, because federal coinage is not a state action.

----------


## Roy L

> F.


You have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished, you know it, and you have no answers.  Simple.

----------


## The Goat

> Which explains why you can't refute anything he said...


I didn't bother to waste my time on a "government solves everthing" idiot.




> Which is an idiotic policy.


refute it then




> Except that history proves the "free" market cannot create a stable currency.


The free market has never been given the opportunity to. Government shuts them down when they threaten the governments monopoly power. And I'm not just talking about US history. 




> LOL!  Read yer freakin' Constitution, dumpling.


I don't need to. I'm an individual and can disagree with the constitution.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It's clear to the Supreme Court, at least on this issue: the federal government can print paper money, states can't.


Well, the Supreme Court is the final word, but not always the correct word.




> Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; *make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts*;


The States can not coin money, this is clear. But then it says that they can not "*make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts*". What does that actually mean?

----------


## The Goat

> Wrong.  By that "logic," gold coins are fiat if they are legal tender.


correct if gold is legal tender the government wouldn't allow you to pay them in another currency.




> No, it doesn't, as proved above.


how does that prove what the word means?




> Flat false, as proved above.  You really need schooling on the difference between commodity money, fiat money, and debt money.  Three totally different things.  And you can't tell the difference.


I think you need to take a chill pill and figure some things out for your self. 

just so you know. I'm not against fiat money as bill still would have it. just as long as private currencies were allowed to compete with it.

----------


## The Goat

> The States can not coin money, this is clear. But then it says that they can not "*make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts*". What does that actually mean?


South Carolina has determined it to mean they can make all gold and silver coins,  even private minted ones, Tender.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> South Carolina has determined it to mean they can make all gold and silver coins,  even private minted ones, Tender.


Yeah, that would seem to be the case (except that the State of South Carolina is explicitly banned from coining anything).

----------


## Acala

> Wrong.  By that "logic," gold coins are fiat if they are legal tender.
> 
> No, it doesn't, as proved above.
> 
> Flat false, as proved above.  You really need schooling on the difference between commodity money, fiat money, and debt money.  Three totally different things.  And you can't tell the difference.


Sorry.  You are wrong.  "Fiat" means an order issued by legal authority.  Anything (including gold, as you correctly point out) that is ORDERED to be money by legal tender laws is fiat money.  So if the government requires that you accept dollars, whether issued by banks or government, it is fiat.  Although nobody has ever needed an order to make them accept gold or silver.  But to accept Still's bills an order will be required.  

But it is really an academic point.  The important point is that government has no business telling me what to use as money and government has always eventually proven irresponsible with the power to create money out of thin air.  And with that, I will let you have the last word.

----------


## Occam's Banana

"Put Roy L on ignore list!" <forehead smack> I *knew* I was forgetting something!

Thanks for reminding me!

----------


## The Goat

> Yeah, that would seem to be the case (except that the State of South Carolina is explicitly banned from coining anything).


They don't need to coin anything. They just state that all gold and silver coin is legal tender. Weather its US coin or private coin, its legal tender in SC.

----------


## RickyJ

Bill Still is very passionate about what he believes in and is consistent in those beliefs. 

I'm not saying I agree with him, but I did really enjoy his documentary "The Money Masters."

----------


## Danan

Mises being bought has to be the most moronic thing anyone has ever said.

That guy was possibly the only man in the history of mankind who was patologically honest and consistent to an higher degree than Ron Paul. And the amount of suffering he went through because of this, the success he gave up for it and the number friendships he was willing to destroy are countless.

He was stubborn and dedicated to what he beliefed was the truth to an extend that I would consider self-destructive.

If you disagree with his work than make your case and tell us why. But to call him a sellout is beyond ridiculous.

----------


## Roy L

> I didn't bother to waste my time on a "government solves everthing" idiot.


Still has never said government solves everything, or anything like it.  He just understands why we have governments, which idiots don't.

There is only one kind of idiot more idiotic than a "government solves everything" idiot, and that is a "meeza hatesa gubmint" idiot.



> refute it then


Competing currencies are contrary to the very concept of money as "what is generally accepted in exchange."  Competition only works if there are losers, and that means issuance of "money" that is NOT generally accepted in exchange.



> The free market has never been given the opportunity to.


Garbage.  The free market gave us cowrie shell money.



> Government shuts them down when they threaten the governments monopoly power. And I'm not just talking about US history.


I'm not either.

----------


## Roy L

> Sorry.  You are wrong.  "Fiat" means an order issued by legal authority.  Anything (including gold, as you correctly point out) that is ORDERED to be money by legal tender laws is fiat money.


No.  You are fallaciously applying a different sense of the word, "fiat," which is an equivocation fallacy, and results in you not being able to tell the difference between gold coins and Zimbabwean toilet paper.

When we talk about different kinds of money, we are talking about what they ARE, not their status under law (see, "chartalism").  Commodity money is a commodity that is generally accepted in exchange, like gold or cowrie shells.  Debt money is debt that is generally accepted in exchange, like the original bank notes of renaissance Italy that had no legal requirement of acceptance.  Fiat MONEY is money that is ISSUED by fiat, not money that is ACCEPTED by fiat.



> So if the government requires that you accept dollars, whether issued by banks or government, it is fiat.


Equivocation fallacy.  



> The important point is that government has no business telling me what to use as money


Wrong _again_.  Government *does* have business telling you what to use as money, for three reasons:

1. Courts have to be able to order payment of awards in standard, generally accepted money.  When you can't resolve your debts on your own, it is very much government's business to ORDER you to make payments to your creditors in money that it and they deem to be money.
2. Government has every right to tell you what money is acceptable in payment of the taxes you owe, which money will then be generally accepted in exchange.
3. If government is going to stop counterfeiting, it can't be responsible for every currency issued by every hole-in-the-wall bankster who wants to make (literally) a quick buck.



> and government has always eventually proven irresponsible with the power to create money out of thin air.


When did the US government do so, hmmmm?  The greenbacks were eventually redeemed in specie at full value.



> And with that, I will let you have the last word.


Wise choice.

----------


## musicmax

> But of course, that claim is objectively false.  US notes can be printed, and they haven't been.


Checked the Fed's balance sheet recently?

----------


## Roy L

> Checked the Fed's balance sheet recently?


Please present your evidence that *US* notes -- not FRNs -- have been printed at any time in the last 40 years.

Thought not.

----------


## The Goat

> Garbage.  The free market gave us cowrie shell money.


can you tell me what is wrong with cowrie shell money? If both parties agreed to the exchange what was the problem? Did animal hides present as much of a problem as the cowrie shell money did? 


I also enjoyed "the money masters" but agree with George Selgin on free banking and competing currency. You might enjoy some of his lectures on youtube, He talks a lot about how monopoly power has controlled money and a few systems that worked better than ours has.

----------


## MrWalker

I would still support RP over Bill Still, even though i think Bill Still is one of the most interesting intellectuals today. Gold has been around for so long that it is a good monetary base. Now gold *would* be a good monetary base providing that the gold is still left in Fort Knox. Now, if it is not, then we would have been cheated...........or?

Anyway, i think that Ron Paul assumes that the gold is still in Fort Knox, when he says that it is a better alternative than Fiat.

----------


## Stallheim

I disagree that the existence of gold in Fort Knox has any bearing on Ron Paul's opinion regarding the suitability of gold as money. He has stated many times that he is NOT a proponent of instituting a gold standard but in allowing the gold to be chosen for use as money freely by the people (presumably along with other items if they wish) and not interfered with by taxing authorities. He has stated that the federal government/reserve/treasury can still issue their own fiat but it is clear that it would not last long when forced to compete on an unhampered market. Ron Paul is trixy and I love it. 





> I would still support RP over Bill Still, even though i think Bill Still is one of the most interesting intellectuals today. Gold has been around for so long that it is a good monetary base. Now gold *would* be a good monetary base providing that the gold is still left in Fort Knox. Now, if it is not, then we would have been cheated...........or?
> 
> Anyway, i think that Ron Paul assumes that the gold is still in Fort Knox, when he says that it is a better alternative than Fiat.

----------


## Danke

> ??  That is a flat-out fabrication.  FRNs are debt.  US notes are not.  Your claims are false and absurd.


In 1983 Congress changed the name of US Notes to US Currency Notes.   They enacted Title 31 into positive law.  Congress eliminated the parity of US Notes with gold, and matched parity of US Notes with FRNs.  If you have a $10 US Note, you can still only buy $10 of groceries with it.  No longer redeemable in gold.  US Notes are now represented by FRNs.

----------


## Roy L

> can you tell me what is wrong with cowrie shell money?


It didn't hold its value, which was dependent on scarcity.  Discoveries of locations where the shells were abundant collapsed their value.



> If both parties agreed to the exchange what was the problem?


It wasn't suitable as money.  Two parties might agree to exchange a house for a woman.  That doesn't make houses or women suitable as money.



> Did animal hides present as much of a problem as the cowrie shell money did?


More.  They were bulkier and less uniform.

Think about it.  You go to all the trouble of shifting to a gold standard, and then some Chinese physicist figures out how to transmute uranium, thorium or tungsten into gold.

Gold worked well as a monetary base for a long time; but you can't get there from here any more, and you probably wouldn't want to even if you could.

----------


## Roy L

> In 1983 Congress changed the name of US Notes to US Currency Notes.   They enacted Title 31 into positive law.  Congress eliminated the parity of US Notes with gold, and matched parity of US Notes with FRNs.  If you have a $10 US Note, you can still only buy $10 of groceries with it.  No longer redeemable in gold.  US Notes are now represented by FRNs.


Thank you for having the grace to agree that I am right.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Wrong _again_.  Government *does* have business telling you what to use as money, for three reasons:
> 
> 1. Courts have to be able to order payment of awards in standard, generally accepted money.  When you can't resolve your debts on your own, it is very much government's business to ORDER you to make payments to your creditors in money that it and they deem to be money.
> 2. Government has every right to tell you what money is acceptable in payment of the taxes you owe, which money will then be generally accepted in exchange.
> 3. If government is going to stop counterfeiting, it can't be responsible for every currency issued by every hole-in-the-wall bankster who wants to make (literally) a quick buck.


For government affairs, yes. (i.e. paying tariffs,fees, traffic tickets, etc)  In the broadest sense, no.  In the rest of our private exchanges, we have the moral and natural right to use whatever we want as a medium of exchange.  The fact that some governments prohibit this does not nullify this right.  I don't see why you would have a problem with competing currencies.  Europeans still deal in several currencies and don't have major problems with it.

----------


## S.Shorland

Ron finally knocked it on the head that he wants a gold standard.He advocates free exchange rate between the dollar and gold/silver and between gold and silver themselves (I heard that before).01:15 - 02:00

----------


## The Goat

> It didn't hold its value, which was dependent on scarcity.  Discoveries of locations where the shells were abundant collapsed their value.
> 
> It wasn't suitable as money.  Two parties might agree to exchange a house for a woman.  That doesn't make houses or women suitable as money.
> 
> More.  They were bulkier and less uniform.
> 
> Think about it.  You go to all the trouble of shifting to a gold standard, and then some Chinese physicist figures out how to transmute uranium, thorium or tungsten into gold.
> 
> Gold worked well as a monetary base for a long time; but you can't get there from here any more, and you probably wouldn't want to even if you could.



So the argument against them is their value wasn't sustainable. any your in favor of paper notes because their value is sustainable? great logic

What if the competing currency wasn't backed in gold, what if it was backed by the assets that a issuer held? I'm not advocating a gold standard of old, I'm advocating a solution that wouldn't require a central planning structure like the federal reserve. I'm advocating a system that would restrict the size and scope of government. What exactly keeps the US note from being over printed? Your referencing a congress that existed before the time of the "spread the wealth around" neoliberals of today. You seem to want to leave the structure that allows unlimited growth and power of government in place. I wan't to shrink government down so that we can squash if it ever becomes tyrannical again. 

Maybe were just looking for different things in our monetary policy and were not going to agree.

----------


## Roy L

> So the argument against them is their value wasn't sustainable. any your in favor of paper notes because their value is sustainable? great logic


Correct.  The quantity of paper money can be controlled to keep prices stable.  The quantity of cowrie shells cannot.



> What if the competing currency wasn't backed in gold, what if it was backed by the assets that a issuer held?


That's more or less how fiat money works.



> I'm not advocating a gold standard of old, I'm advocating a solution that wouldn't require a central planning structure like the federal reserve.


Then you won't get stability.  Remember, the Fed is not _just_ a planning structure.  It is a system designed to create money as interest-bearing debt.



> I'm advocating a system that would restrict the size and scope of government.


Then you are trying to make your monetary system do too much work, and it will fail.



> What exactly keeps the US note from being over printed?


Democratic accountability.



> Your referencing a congress that existed before the time of the "spread the wealth around" neoliberals of today.


I agree that Congress can't be trusted not to print too much money.  The Mint should be an independent branch of government with one responsibility: issue and deliver to the Treasury enough money to keep prices stable as measured by a commodity price index, not a consumer price index.  The Treasury would spend that money into circulation in place of tax revenue.



> You seem to want to leave the structure that allows unlimited growth and power of government in place.


It is not the function of a monetary system to limit government's size or power.



> I wan't to shrink government down so that we can squash if it ever becomes tyrannical again.


It's already tyrannical, but only a fool would want to "squash" it.

The common feudal libertarian "meeza hatesa gubmint" chant is just childish nonsense that the Founders would rightly have considered asinine.



> Maybe were just looking for different things in our monetary policy and were not going to agree.


Right.

----------


## Roy L

> For government affairs, yes. (i.e. paying tariffs,fees, traffic tickets, etc)  In the broadest sense, no.


I have already explained why that it false.



> In the rest of our private exchanges, we have the moral and natural right to use whatever we want as a medium of exchange.


Sure.  And government has the moral right to decline to enforce contracts denominated in privately issued money.



> I don't see why you would have a problem with competing currencies.


See Stephen Mihm's, _A Nation of Counterfeiters_ .



> Europeans still deal in several currencies and don't have major problems with it.


They created the euro for a reason.

----------


## The Goat

> Correct.  The quantity of paper money can be controlled to keep prices stable.  The quantity of cowrie shells cannot.
> 
> That's more or less how fiat money works.
> 
> Then you won't get stability.  Remember, the Fed is not _just_ a planning structure.  It is a system designed to create money as interest-bearing debt.
> 
> Then you are trying to make your monetary system do too much work, and it will fail.
> 
> Democratic accountability.
> ...


What would happen in your system if someone started up a currency.  they put suggested values in dollars on bi-metal gold and silver coins, they also Issued gold and silver certificates and held full reserves for them. Would this business be shut down?

----------


## Roy L

> What would happen in your system if someone started up a currency.  they put suggested values in dollars on bi-metal gold and silver coins, they also Issued gold and silver certificates and held full reserves for them. Would this business be shut down?


No.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

His statement is no different then the constant unsubstantiated claims on this forum that people are "bought". All claims are wrong unless reasonably proven, of course.

----------


## The Goat

> No.


Then how would you control the quantity of money?

This law is on the books for a reason. 

18 USC § 486 - Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal

    USC-prelim
    US Code
    Notes
    Currency

This preliminary release may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code. Those using the USCPrelim should verify the text against the printed slip laws available from GPO (Government Printing Office), the laws as shown on THOMAS (a legislative service of the Library of Congress), and the final version of the Code when it becomes available.

Current through Pub. L. 112-106. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title  [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

----------


## Roy L

> Then how would you control the quantity of money?


By issuing just enough to maintain price stability.



> This law is on the books for a reason. 
> 
> Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title  [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


Yes, but it's a reason that doesn't apply when you understand money and aren't trying to make it do more than its rightful job.

----------


## The Goat

> By issuing just enough to maintain price stability.
> 
> Yes, but it's a reason that doesn't apply when you understand money and aren't trying to make it do more than its rightful job.


We pretty much agree. you wouldn't shut down competing currencies. You would allow the market to decide between US notes and what ever else emerged.

----------


## Roy L

> We pretty much agree. you wouldn't shut down competing currencies. You would allow the market to decide between US notes and what ever else emerged.


Pretty much.  Nevertheless, I recommend _A Nation of Counterfeiters_ to anyone who thinks competing currencies is such a wonderful idea.

----------


## kylejack

> Presumably because the government, which already has complete control over the Federal Reserve...


Not really, no.

----------


## awake

> Yup.  He posted on this forum a while back.  His proposal is to take the power to create fiat money away from the banks and give it to the treasury.  Presumably because the government, which already has complete control over the Federal Reserve, will, for the first time in its history, act responsibly and with restraint.  Hahahahahahahaha!


If that's his big solution then it is the equivalent of giving the local gang of thieves the keys to your house. From bad to worse.

----------


## whippoorwill

> By issuing just enough to maintain price stability.
> 
> Yes, but it's a reason that doesn't apply when you understand money and aren't trying to make it do more than its rightful job.


Here is the proof that Roy is both a statist and a money crank. Maintaining the money supply is a monopoly power and despotic. Plus, interposing in the market to try and create price stability is destructive to the capital structure along with being ignorant of the subjective dynamic nature of pricing.

You Roy L get an F.

Go back to chasing rainbows.

If anyone wants a soild understanding of economics read 1st. Man, Economy and State with Power and Market then 2nd Human Action.

" The use of money in a market economy is a praxeologically necessary fact. That gold, and not something else, is used as money is merely a historical fact and as such cannot be conceived by catallactics."— Ludwig von Mises, in Human Action

----------


## osan

> Sorry.  You are wrong.  "Fiat" means an order issued by legal authority.  Anything (including gold, as you correctly point out) that is ORDERED to be money by legal tender laws is fiat money.  So if the government requires that you accept dollars, whether issued by banks or government, it is fiat.  Although nobody has ever needed an order to make them accept gold or silver.  But to accept Still's bills an order will be required.


This is precisely correct.  I have no idea where people get the notion that "fiat" means "false".  It also has NOTHING to do with "paper".  Gold coin, ordered by "government" as money, is fiat currency.

The term people should be using, and I have been equally guilty of not doing this I might add, is "colored" money.  In the legal sense, "colored" means false.  E.g., when a government agent (AKA thug, most commonly) acts under color of law it does not mean he operates with the formally legitimate imprimatur (one way of taking "color") but rather under its _falsification._  Any distortion between a law and an act committed under its imprimatur is coloring of that law.

Therefore, un-backed, unredeemable, undisciplined currency is, at best, colored "money".  It's not really money at all, but that is a discussion for another day.




> But it is really an academic point.  The important point is that government has no business telling me what to use as money and government has always eventually proven irresponsible with the power to create money out of thin air.  And with that, I will let you have the last word.


Fiat money is all about taxation.  If people were to start using desiccated chicken feet as money, just how pray tell do we think they would collect their taxes?  Seriously, it would be a monumental problem for them.  That, of course, should not be our concern but armies of men with guns pretty well makes it that.

In order for any arbitrarily constructed subset of a human population that decides to call itself "government" to be able to fleece those over whom they presume to reign, several conditions must be in place.  The most fundamentally important one, of course, is the sword.  Without the credible threat of directed terminal force there is not much to talk about.  Once that is assured, one wants the most efficient means of expropriation possible.  Back in the day in places such as feudal Japan, for example, rice and other such _tangibly valuable_ commodities would be taken in taxation.  For the time it was the best one could do.  Gold was valuable but it was probably not sufficiently plentiful or perhaps not just seen as a means of exchange.  Given the nature of how the people lived their lives at that place and time, taking the rice and fish and other solid commodities worked well.

The Romans used coin and so long as that coin met an expected standard all worked swimmingly well.  Once they departed from that standard by debasement, history clearly shows the result.  But the real point here is that instead of taxing through the labor intensive method of shunting bulk materials hither-thither, they took coin where possible and the other where no coin was available.

Come our "modern age" and the technologies of implementation and scamming developed to the point where "government" no longer needed to accept farmer Al's 125 hens, 5 roosters, 2 pigs and a cow in payment of his taxes.  The shift in technology also brought a shift in _attitude_.  Paying with material commodities was no longer tolerated because government no longer _had to_ tolerate it.  The vast and overwhelming majority of the people had the means of paying cash in satisfaction of the tax bill.  Those who cannot make the cut are now simply foreclosed upon, ironically enough, through the taking of materially bulky commodities such as one's house.

The more one slices into the manky smelling cadaver of government the more profound the insanity discovered there - the utter falseness of it nearly all of it.  It is a scam of proportions the mind can barely contain.

----------


## Roy L

> Here is the proof that Roy is both a statist and a money crank.


Here is the proof that whippoorwill doesn't care if what he says is true or false, sensible or absurd.



> Maintaining the money supply is a monopoly power and despotic.


Infantile "meeza hatesa gubmint" silliness.  See Steven Mihm's _A Nation of Counterfeiters_, about the pre-Civil War free banking era.  Wanting to be free to print as much money as you wish to spend is the morality of the counterfeiter.



> Plus, interposing in the market to try and create price stability is destructive to the capital structure along with being ignorant of the subjective dynamic nature of pricing.


No, that is just more stupid garbage from you: stupid garbage contrary to all economic understanding.  Pricing is not subjective.  You are simply blathering whatever stupid garbage comes into your head.



> You Roy L get an F.


You, whippoorwill, get Fs in everything you have ever done or will ever do.  You *fail*.  You are a _FAILURE_.



> Go back to chasing rainbows.


Go back to soaking in your hot tub full of Distilled Essence of Austrian School Ignorance.



> If anyone wants a soild understanding of economics read 1st. Man, Economy and State with Power and Market then 2nd Human Action


LOL!  These are the ninnies who claim what they say has to be true, regardless of empirical fact to the contrary.



> "The use of money in a market economy is a praxeologically necessary fact. That gold, and not something else, is used as money is merely a historical fact and as such cannot be conceived by catallactics." Ludwig von Mises, in Human Action


<yawn>  That is just typical ahistorical Misesian nonsense.  Gold has in fact rarely been used as money because it is too valuable for most daily transactions.  Cowrie shells were used as money over a longer period than gold, and silver and copper were more widely used.  *That bank debt and fiat currency, and not gold, are used as money is merely a historical fact, and as such cannot be comprehended by Austrian School nincompoops.*

----------


## Roy L

> This is precisely correct.


No; I have already refuted it.



> I have no idea where people get the notion that "fiat" means "false".


Who said that?



> It also has NOTHING to do with "paper".


Fiat money is usually made of paper, though it has also been issued as coins (e.g., Chinese bronze coins).



> Gold coin, ordered by "government" as money, is fiat currency.


Nope.  Wrong.  Flat, outright wrong.  Fiat currency is not defined by whether there are legal tender laws, but by whether it is ISSUED by fiat.  Gold coins CANNOT be issued by fiat, because they require physical gold.



> The term people should be using, and I have been equally guilty of not doing this I might add, is "colored" money.


Silliness.  You just want to remove the actual meanings of terms that prove your beliefs are false.



> Therefore, un-backed, unredeemable, undisciplined currency is, at best, colored "money".  It's not really money at all, but that is a discussion for another day.


Whatever is generally accepted in exchange is money by definition.  All your wailing and foot stamping can't change that.



> Fiat money is all about taxation.


No, it is not.  It is about seigniorage.



> If people were to start using desiccated chicken feet as money, just how pray tell do we think they would collect their taxes?  Seriously, it would be a monumental problem for them.


Wrong _again_.  It is a matter of historical fact that taxes were often collected in kind, as a fixed fraction of the harvest, or of herdsmen's flocks, etc.



> In order for any arbitrarily constructed subset of a human population that decides to call itself "government"


You are just spewing stupid garbage.  There has never been a government in the history of the world that was an "arbitrarily constructed subset of a human population."



> to be able to fleece those over whom they presume to reign, several conditions must be in place.  The most fundamentally important one, of course, is the sword.  Without the credible threat of directed terminal force there is not much to talk about.  Once that is assured, one wants the most efficient means of expropriation possible.  Back in the day in places such as feudal Japan, for example, rice and other such _tangibly valuable_ commodities would be taken in taxation.  For the time it was the best one could do.  Gold was valuable but it was probably not sufficiently plentiful or perhaps not just seen as a means of exchange.  Given the nature of how the people lived their lives at that place and time, taking the rice and fish and other solid commodities worked well.


Taxes in kind were also commonplace in feudal Europe, as well as in ancient times.



> Come our "modern age" and the technologies of implementation and scamming developed to the point where "government" no longer needed to accept farmer Al's 125 hens, 5 roosters, 2 pigs and a cow in payment of his taxes.  The shift in technology also brought a shift in _attitude_.  Paying with material commodities was no longer tolerated because government no longer _had to_ tolerate it.  The vast and overwhelming majority of the people had the means of paying cash in satisfaction of the tax bill.


<yawn>



> Those who cannot make the cut are now simply foreclosed upon, ironically enough, through the taking of materially bulky commodities such as one's house.


Only in the case of property taxes, because they are an ongoing fee paid FOR the land the house is sitting on, so it's like repossessing a car.  Other tax liabilities are enforced by liens on bank accounts, garnishing wages, etc., and confiscation of a house is a last resort.



> The more one slices into the manky smelling cadaver of government the more profound the insanity discovered there - the utter falseness of it nearly all of it.


Yet somehow, people with governments are almost always better off -- typically FAR better off -- than people without.



> It is a scam of proportions the mind can barely contain.


"The method by which banks create money is so simple, the mind is repelled." -- J K Galbraith.

----------


## whippoorwill

> Here is the proof that whippoorwill doesn't care if what he says is true or false, sensible or absurd.
> 
> Infantile "meeza hatesa gubmint" silliness.  See Steven Mihm's _A Nation of Counterfeiters_, about the pre-Civil War free banking era.  Wanting to be free to print as much money as you wish to spend is the morality of the counterfeiter.
> 
> No, that is just more stupid garbage from you: stupid garbage contrary to all economic understanding.  Pricing is not subjective.  You are simply blathering whatever stupid garbage comes into your head.
> 
> You, whippoorwill, get Fs in everything you have ever done or will ever do.  You *fail*.  You are a _FAILURE_.
> 
> Go back to soaking in your hot tub full of Distilled Essence of Austrian School Ignorance.
> ...


Non sequitur. You get another F.

----------


## Roy L

> Non sequitur. You get another F.


LOL!  _You_ think you can accuse _ME_ of non sequiturs??  ROTFL! _ Virtually everything you post_ is a non sequitur.  By contrast, I actually identify facts and logic that support my position.

Sorry, but you get an *F* in History.  You FAILED.  You are a FAILURE.

You also get an *F* in Economics.  You FAILED.  You are a FAILURE.

You likewise get an *F* in Logic.  You FAILED.  You are a FAILURE.

Every attempt at argument you have made has failed.  Every claim about history, economics, law, logic, philosophy and morality has also FAILED.

YOU, PERSONALLY, have FAILED.  You, as an individual, are a FAILURE.

I don't know any simpler way to explain that to you.

----------


## SpicyTurkey

It's true you guys. Back then it was a tradition to give money to your enemies.

----------


## Paul_Sheppard

It was Bill Still's "Money Masters" documentary that first led me beyond the MSM and towards the truth. I will always have the deepest respect for that man.

----------


## whippoorwill

> LOL!  _You_ think you can accuse _ME_ of non sequiturs??  ROTFL! _ Virtually everything you post_ is a non sequitur.  By contrast, I actually identify facts and logic that support my position.
> 
> Sorry, but you get an *F* in History.  You FAILED.  You are a FAILURE.
> 
> You also get an *F* in Economics.  You FAILED.  You are a FAILURE.
> 
> You likewise get an *F* in Logic.  You FAILED.  You are a FAILURE.
> 
> Every attempt at argument you have made has failed.  Every claim about history, economics, law, logic, philosophy and morality has also FAILED.
> ...


Statist money cranks get Fs every time.

----------


## RickyJ

> It was Bill Still's "Money Masters" documentary that first led me beyond the MSM and towards the truth. I will always have the deepest respect for that man.


I do too. I can't say I agree with him trusting government with fiat money, but he has well documented the private central banks that have wrecked havoc upon nations for centuries.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They created the euro for a reason.


Yes, but that doesn't make it moral or rational.  Any authority governments claim over money is arbitrary and a taking of natural rights from people to engage in peaceful exchanges as they see fit.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yet somehow, people with governments are almost always better off -- typically FAR better off -- than people without.


This is a subjective statement, and you failed to prove it.  First define what is "good", what it means to be "better off", and why it's good to be "better off".  Many people deliberately abandon the comforts of modernity because they simply don't like it.  (sometimes called "living off the grid")

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> <yawn>  That is just typical ahistorical Misesian nonsense.  Gold has in fact rarely been used as money because it is too valuable for most daily transactions.  Cowrie shells were used as money over a longer period than gold, and silver and copper were more widely used.  *That bank debt and fiat currency, and not gold, are used as money is merely a historical fact, and as such cannot be comprehended by Austrian School nincompoops.*


What Austrian School economist doesn't recognize that?  I do not have a perfect understanding of AE, but it is my understanding that they simply reject state control of money.  The Salamaca school (informed mostly by Mises) certainly comprehend this. (See "Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles" by DeSoto)

----------


## Roy L

> This is a subjective statement,


No, it's not.



> and you failed to prove it.


No, because I know there is no need for me even to try to prove it.  It is self-evident and indisputable.



> First define what is "good", what it means to be "better off", and why it's good to be "better off".


<sigh>  Not this crap again...



> Many people deliberately abandon the comforts of modernity because they simply don't like it.  (sometimes called "living off the grid")


You misspelled, "few."

----------


## Roy L

> Statist money cranks get Fs every time.


Not being either a statist or a money crank, I think you may be onto something.

----------


## Roy L

> What Austrian School economist doesn't recognize that?


Mises himself, in the quote I was responding to.



> I do not have a perfect understanding of AE, but it is my understanding that they simply reject state control of money.  The Salamaca school (informed mostly by Mises) certainly comprehend this. (See "Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles" by DeSoto)


It's the obverse of Zarlenga's radical chartalism, and just as wrong-headed.

----------


## Roy L

> I do too. I can't say I agree with him trusting government with fiat money, but he has well documented the private central banks that have wrecked havoc upon nations for centuries.


On monetary and banking history, you could not do much better than Zarlenga's "The Lost Science of Money."  For a good history specifically of US wildcat private banks issuing their own currencies in the pre-Civil War period, see Mihm's "A Nation of Counterfeiters."

----------


## LiveFree79

It's nice to see someone like Roy L school you idiot Austrian economists.  Bill Still is right on when it comes to monetary reform.  His book No More National Debt is a great read!  Ron Paul has many great ideas and would make a great President.  But his monetary reform ideas are absurd and Ron Paul supporters are so f'ing blinded by their ideology they can't even objectively think about monetary reform without some austrian/von mises verbal diarrhea.  

Seriously, I used to be a huge Ron Paul supporter but his followers are such cow towing morons sometimes.  Ron Paul can do no harm in their eyes.  Like the old fart is god or something.  He's a F'ing politician like all of them. He's not god!  Wake up and think for yourself.  Bill Still would take Paul to town on monetary reform.  IN fact he has challenged Paul to debates several times.  Paul would look like a fool in a debate with Bill Still.  Paul can barely put two sentences together without sounding like an Alzheimer's patient hence why he was a complete embarrassment in most of his debates.

----------


## LiveFree79

Oh and one thing Bill Still mentions ALL THE DAMN time is that for monetary reform to work WE HAVE TO HAVE HONEST GOVERNMENT!  DUH!!!!!  EVERYONE here should agree that no matter what type of monetary reform we have in place as a country it will never work unless we clean up government first.

----------


## LibertyEagle

It sure would be nice to have a discussion about this without all the insults.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh and one thing Bill Still mentions ALL THE DAMN time is that for monetary reform to work WE HAVE TO HAVE HONEST GOVERNMENT!  DUH!!!!!  EVERYONE here should agree that no matter what type of monetary reform we have in place as a country it will never work unless we clean up government first.


Don't you think that is a bit naive?  Wouldn't it be preferable to have a monetary system that doesn't leave so much up to the honesty of government officials?  At least when our currency was backed by gold, the value of the currency was not at the whim of such "goodness".

----------


## Travlyr

> It's nice to see someone like Roy L school you idiot Austrian economists.  Bill Still is right on when it comes to monetary reform.  His book No More National Debt is a great read!  Ron Paul has many great ideas and would make a great President.  But his monetary reform ideas are absurd and Ron Paul supporters are so f'ing blinded by their ideology they can't even objectively think about monetary reform without some austrian/von mises verbal diarrhea.  
> 
> Seriously, I used to be a huge Ron Paul supporter but his followers are such cow towing morons sometimes.  Ron Paul can do no harm in their eyes.  Like the old fart is god or something.  He's a F'ing politician like all of them. He's not god!  Wake up and think for yourself.  Bill Still would take Paul to town on monetary reform.  IN fact he has challenged Paul to debates several times.  Paul would look like a fool in a debate with Bill Still.  Paul can barely put two sentences together without sounding like an Alzheimer's patient hence why he was a complete embarrassment in most of his debates.


There are basically three scenarios. 
Under central banking fiat money private/public partnership of bankers/government control the money supply.Under Bill Still's proposal public officials (governments) control the money supply.Under Austrian school individuals each control their own money supply.
Why do you believe it is better to have public officials control your money supply rather than letting you control your own?

----------


## LiveFree79

> There are basically three scenarios. 
> Under central banking fiat money private/public partnership of bankers/government control the money supply.Under Bill Still's proposal public officials (governments) control the money supply.Under Austrian school individuals each control their own money supply.
> Why do you believe it is better to have public officials control your money supply rather than letting you control your own?


Individuals each control their own money supply?  Yeah right and what prevents the rich from creating a monopoly on this "money supply".  That's the entire problem with any type of commodity/gold/precious metals backed money.  As Bill Still says........money needs to be ubiquitous and valueless.  And why would I be scared of my government to control the money supply?  WE are supposed to be able to control our government through voting and representation.  That is the ENTIRE point!  Our government is no longer answerable to the people.  It's not that Bill Still's form of monetary reform won't work....it's that it requires an honest, representative government.  Voting used to mean something.  We the people used to have power through booting out politicians that didn't represent our interest as citizens.  But our government has been bought and paid for and otherwise hijacked by the same rich, elitist, money changers that would control any type of "competing" currency or gold back monetary system as Paul/Paulites/Misians envision.  The entire point of government is transparency, representation etc.  It's CORRUPTION that has killed government, and the same corruption that has killed the free market and would kill any monetary reform.  It's all about WHO controls the money supply.  What backs money has no bearing in the 21st century.  Money is nothing more than an abstract form of law.

----------


## LibertyEagle

You seem to have a lot of faith in man's goodness.  Even our Founders warned us not to do that.  And that too, is one of the problems with what Still is advocating.

----------


## LiveFree79

Actually if you study monetary histor you would see how wrong you are.  EVERY TIME the US has been put on a gold standard it was an utter failure.  So no it's not a bit naive.  The ENTIRE point of our Constitution and American government is REPRESENTATION and the ability to abolish said government if it becomes tyrannical.  You are saying to hell with that type of power, just let government do whatever it wants even if it is run by a bunch of tyrants?  My god do you even consider yourself an American?

----------


## LiveFree79

> You seem to have a lot of faith in man's goodness.  Even our Founders warned us not to do that.  And that too, is one of the problems with what Still is advocating.


Yes but they also still believed in the necessity of government.  Paulites and libertarians love to throw the baby out with the bath water.  As usual.  There is a delicate balance in which a Constitutional and representative government exists........and it takes a lot of work to maintain that balance.  The American people for the most part have proven they are too lazy and too stupid nowadays.  Hence we have the government we do.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

In the interest of transparency, user LiveFree79 was banned by me and it is a perma ban thus it has no expiration date. The reasons for his/her banning should be obvious if you read his/her posts in this thread.

----------


## whippoorwill

Our Friend Roy L (with cheese) replyed to my statement "interposing in the market to try and create price stability is destructive to the capital structure along with being ignorant of the subjective dynamic nature of pricing" with this zinger.




> No, that is just more stupid garbage from you: stupid garbage contrary to all economic understanding.  Pricing is not subjective.  You are simply blathering whatever stupid garbage comes into your head.


Here is the definiton of *Subjective* for you to concider.
adjective 
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective). 
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. 
4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience. 


Moreover, let me introduce our friend to the The subjective theory of value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

Now lets take an example how it works. Say Bill Still has a book for sell. I like what I've heard from him so I look to buy his book and find that it costs 10 dollars. I reach into my pocket and find that I have 10 dollars. I must now decide which I value more the book or the 10 dollars, notice that they do not have an equal value. I conclude that the book is worth more to me than the 10 Dollars so the vender and I Exchange the 10 dollars for the Book.  

One week later I have read Bill Still's book and think that while Mr. Still's heart may be in the right place he is a statist money crank. Thus the value I now place on any more of his books is reduced, greatly. 

Mr. Bill Still comes to my town one week later selling his new book. It is 10 dollars. I reach into my pocket and find 10 dollars. I decide that his book dose not have more value to me than the 10 dollars. We do not exchange his book for my 10 dollars. 

I then make haste and go to Mises.org and Download the free PDFs of Lessons for the Young
ECONOMIST, THE BASTIAT COLLECTION, Man, Economy and State with Power and Market, Human Action and many more.

In closing Roy L gets another F and the rest of you get a word from Murray N. Rothbard.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Oh and one thing Bill Still mentions ALL THE DAMN time is that for monetary reform to work WE HAVE TO HAVE HONEST GOVERNMENT!  DUH!!!!!  EVERYONE here should agree that no matter what type of monetary reform we have in place as a country it will never work unless we clean up government first.


And one thing I mention ALL THE DAMN time is that for us to be able to visit the Rings of Saturn whenever we please WE HAVE TO HAVE FLYING UNICORNS THAT CAN PROTECT US FROM EXPOSURE TO THE VACUUM OF SPACE! DUH!!!!! EVERYONE here should agree that no matter what type of mythical beast we use for interplanetary travel it will never work unless we can survive in outer space.

But does anyone listen to me? Nuuuuuuuuuu-UUUOOO-oooooh! Buncha ingrates!!




> In the interest of transparency, user LiveFree79 was banned by me and it is a perma ban thus it has no expiration date. The reasons for his/her banning should be obvious if you read his/her posts in this thread.


+rep! Not for the ban _per se_, but for saving me the trouble of adding this person to my ignore list.

----------


## The Goat

Where are you going to find these angles? start @2:10

----------


## Roy L

> Our Friend Roy L (with cheese) replyed to my statement "interposing in the market to try and create price stability is destructive to the capital structure along with being ignorant of the subjective dynamic nature of pricing" with this zinger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				No, that is just more stupid garbage from you: stupid garbage contrary to all economic understanding. Pricing is not subjective. You are simply blathering whatever stupid garbage comes into your head.
> 			
> 		
> ...


Thank you for posting the proof that I am absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong.



> Moreover, let me introduce our friend to the The subjective theory of value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value


The Subjective Theory of Value is self-contradictory nonsense.



> Now lets take an example how it works. Say Bill Still has a book for sell. I like what I've heard from him so I look to buy his book and find that it costs 10 dollars. I reach into my pocket and find that I have 10 dollars. I must now decide which I value more the book or the 10 dollars, notice that they do not have an equal value. I conclude that the book is worth more to me than the 10 Dollars so the vender and I Exchange the 10 dollars for the Book.  
> 
> One week later I have read Bill Still's book and think that while Mr. Still's heart may be in the right place he is a statist money crank. Thus the value I now place on any more of his books is reduced, greatly. 
> 
> Mr. Bill Still comes to my town one week later selling his new book. It is 10 dollars. I reach into my pocket and find 10 dollars. I decide that his book dose not have more value to me than the 10 dollars. We do not exchange his book for my 10 dollars.


Like the Austrians, you can't distinguish between value and utility.  I suggest consulting your dictionary again.  It seems to be a good one.



> I then make haste and go to Mises.org and Download the free PDFs of Lessons for the Young
> ECONOMIST, THE BASTIAT COLLECTION, Man, Economy and State with Power and Market, Human Action and many more.


<yawn>



> In closing Roy L gets another F


No, I just schooled you again.  You failed.  You are a FAILURE.  It's always amusing to see kindergarteners giving their teachers Fs for being such meanies.



> and the rest of you get a word from Murray N. Rothbard.


Rothbard was unaware that under our debt money system, almost all money is created by private banks, not government.

----------


## The Goat

Roy it really only comes down to we don't believe in the people that will run the printing machine. no matter how well intentioned and good, they are they are human and shouldn't be trusted with the complete control of our money supply. that's where we disagree.

----------


## Roy L

> Roy it really only comes down to we don't believe in the people that will run the printing machine. no matter how well intentioned and good, they are they are human and shouldn't be trusted with the complete control of our money supply. that's where we disagree.


That's why I don't believe in trusting people with control of the money supply.  Make it a matter of following a published algorithm that anyone can check.  Anyone can look at current commodity prices and reconstruct the index.  Anyone can plug the index into a published equation and calculate the amount of money to be printed.  If that's not the amount printed, you know somebody isn't following the algorithm that it is their job to follow.  Fire him.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Rothbard was unaware that under our debt money system, almost all money is created by private banks, not government.


Private banks create credit (which Murray mentions briefly in the video).  Money (as the layman understands it-paper and coins) is created by the government.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's why I don't believe in trusting people with control of the money supply.  Make it a matter of following a published algorithm that anyone can check.  Anyone can look at current commodity prices and reconstruct the index.  Anyone can plug the index into a published equation and calculate the amount of money to be printed.  If that's not the amount printed, you know somebody isn't following the algorithm that it is their job to follow.  Fire him.


That's a quite good solution.  (Except that in government incompetence is more often rewarded or pardoned away than punished) But competing currencies is a necessary check on monetary criminals.

----------


## The Goat

> That's why I don't believe in trusting people with control of the money supply.  Make it a matter of following a published algorithm that anyone can check.  Anyone can look at current commodity prices and reconstruct the index.  Anyone can plug the index into a published equation and calculate the amount of money to be printed.  If that's not the amount printed, you know somebody isn't following the algorithm that it is their job to follow.  Fire him.


So what do you do when the algorithm says to take money out of circulation?

----------


## Roy L

> So what do you do when the algorithm says to take money out of circulation?


Stop printing and let attrition take care of it until the algorithm says to start printing again.

----------


## LawnWake

Roy L won this and I don't even agree with him. The 'lol government' argument reeks of a lack of understanding and he's right about the instability of the gold standard. At present and certainly these past 100 years, I believe a gold standard would've made for more stability, but we're getting dangerously close to point where gold can be synthesized in a laboratory and then watch the price of gold plummet. I'm deontological and I believe that currency needs to be up to the individuals and banks, a government has no place to dictate what I place value on (and Roy L is wrong here -- two people engaging in trade is a market. A currency is not necessary for the market, in fact, it's the product of the market, because the discrepancy of people's supply and demand. Hence individuals decided on a medium they both placed value on).

I also agree  that if you're gonna have government, they need a default standard, much like a single language for the sake of efficiency. But people should be free to use any language they want or any currency they want. How government gets paid could easily be determined by exchange rates.

Oh and Rothbard and Von Mises were paid by the Rockefeller Foundation. I know Rothbard wasn't European, but in the case of Mises, it was likely because he was simply a European intellectual who fled the Nazi regime and the Rockefeller Foundation invested in a lot of intellectuals and research at the time. They were actually pretty important in the advancement of science and an example of how a market is more efficient at funding science than government. 

Hayek tutored David Rockefeller too (who oddly considers himself an Austrian, which we all know he's not) btw.

----------


## whippoorwill

> we're getting dangerously close to point where gold can be synthesized in a laboratory and then watch the price of gold plummet.


It matters not. People would chose another commodity like Platinum, Palladium, Silver or something eles all together.

----------


## LawnWake

> It matters not. People would chose another commodity like Platinum, Palladium, Silver or something eles all together.


I agree, but those'll be synthesized too and I'm not too sure how stable of an economy it would be when we switch commodities so often. Surely that could result in a similar boom-bust cycle?

----------


## whippoorwill

It seems our friend Roy L (with cheese) draws this conclusion from the defintion of Subjective.




> Thank you for posting the proof that I am absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong.


Lets take another look at it and see if he is correct as it pertains to prices being "subjective". Which is what he denies.

Here is the definiton of Subjective for you to concider.
adjective 
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective). 
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. 
4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

Lets see what proof he claims. 

existing in the mind. belonging to the thinking subject(the man) rather than to the object of thought (the thing being priced)
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual(the man) personal(him alone) individual(no one other than the one holding the thought in his mind)

It looks like the price(ratio of exchange) exists in the persons mind. He ponders, in his mind, if the good or service that is for sell is worth more to him than the thing or number of things being ask for in the exchange. His personal time preference schedule is at interplay with the factores of the exchange in question. He must make a decision to exchange or not exchange. A mental process is undertaken by an individual. Then a action is made by the person after he has formed his opinion on weather the good or service was of more value to him than the thing he exchanges for it.

The price is subjective and is self evident.

Roy L (with cheese) gets another F.

One more point, if I may, is that Roy L (with cheese) does not understand capital theory. If he did, our friend would know that wealth and capital dose not come out of a decree by Government. No matter how fine the hat maybe that rests on the printing press operators head.

----------


## whippoorwill

> I agree, but those'll be synthesized too and I'm not too sure how stable of an economy it would be when we switch commodities so often. Surely that could result in a similar boom-bust cycle?


My friend if we ever get to the point that commodities can be synthesized at will.....we will have a new "industraul revolution" and the wealth of all of humanity will be lifted to new highs. Scarcity is the basic reason why we work in the first place. I long for the days of no scarcitys and we can play and do what ever we want. As long as you keep your mits to your self that is :-)

----------


## LawnWake

Oh wait, he's anti-subjective theory of value? Never mind. Wow.

----------


## Travlyr

> Oh wait, he's anti-subjective theory of value? Never mind. Wow.


Oh yeah, RoyL is a big government guy. Control ... control ... control.

----------


## Roy L

> Oh yeah, RoyL is a big government guy. Control ... control ... control.


Travlyr is a big dishonesty guy.  Lie..... lie...... lie.

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr is a big dishonesty guy.  Lie..... lie...... lie.


I've read your posts RoyL. You call everybody a liar. lol. Everybody is a liar but you.  heh.. heh...

----------


## Roy L

> Private banks create credit (which Murray mentions briefly in the video).  Money (as the layman understands it-paper and coins) is created by the government.


The layman does not understand what money is -- what is generally accepted in exchange -- or that in the current system, almost all of it is bank-created debt.

----------


## Roy L

> I've read your posts RoyL. You call everybody a liar. lol.


No, that is another lie.



> Everybody is a liar but you.  heh.. heh...


No, those who rationalize privilege, justify injustice, defend greed and excuse evil are liars.  They have no choice.  It just happens that I am the main one here opposing their evil agenda, so they have to lie about what I have plainly written.  As you did.

----------


## Roy L

> That's a quite good solution.  (Except that in government incompetence is more often rewarded or pardoned away than punished) But competing currencies is a necessary check on monetary criminals.


Competing currencies _CREATE_ monetary criminals.  See Steven Mihm's _A Nation of Counterfeiters_.

----------


## Roy L

> I'm deontological and I believe that currency needs to be up to the individuals and banks, a government has no place to dictate what I place value on


I've provided three reasons why it has: court awards, tax payments, and control of counterfeiting.



> (and Roy L is wrong here -- two people engaging in trade is a market. A currency is not necessary for the market, in fact, it's the product of the market, because the discrepancy of people's supply and demand. Hence individuals decided on a medium they both placed value on).


No.  Currencies have emerged that way in the past, but government can easily create a currency by fiat, simply by requiring tax payments in that currency.



> I also agree  that if you're gonna have government, they need a default standard, much like a single language for the sake of efficiency. But people should be free to use any language they want or any currency they want. How government gets paid could easily be determined by exchange rates.


If government prints and manages fiat currency responsibly, as I propose, almost everyone will choose to use that currency, and there will be no good reason to use any other.

----------


## Roy L

> It matters not. People would chose another commodity like Platinum, Palladium, Silver or something eles all together.


Yes, and the same problem will apply.  Technology is not going to leave commodity money alone.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Competing currencies _CREATE_ monetary criminals.  See Steven Mihm's _A Nation of Counterfeiters_.


Meh, there will always be counterfeiters and criminals amongst us.  Not a good reason to give the regime a monopoly on money.  Did you know Zimbabwe had to give up monopoly over currency (and allow competing currencies) this past year?

From The Globe and Mail:

*A choice of currency leads to a choice for security
*Zimbabwe isn’t normally cited as an example of the transformative power  of laissez-faire economics. But it was Austrian School economist  Friedrich Hayek who, in his 1976 classic _Choice in Currency_, asked this simple question: Why not let people choose what money they want to use?
And it was Zimbabwe, two years ago, that did exactly that – an act of  desperation that saved this African basket-case country from economic  annihilation. Writing in the summer issue of The Cato Journal, gold  mining executive Joseph Noko calls this single act “the saviour of  Zimbabwe.”
 Mr. Noko tracks Zimbabwe’s three inflationary decades of economic  mismanagement – ending in hyperinflation that wrought “frightful  devastation” on the country and drove 4.2 million of its 16.2 million  inhabitants to flee.
 When Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe first took office in 1980,  the country’s dollar was worth $1.47 U.S. By 2003, printed on cheap  paper in large denominations, it was mostly worthless, but still used –  though the inflation trend line was turning vertical. By around 2007,  Zimbabwe came “within an inch of oblivion” when inflation began  literally to destroy money at a faster rate than it could be printed.
 By March, 2007, Zimbabwe’s annual inflation rate hit 2,200 per cent. By July, it reached 7,634 per cent.
 Now skip a year. The rate hit 9.6 billion per cent in August, 2008,  471 billion per cent in September and 3.8 quintillion per cent in  October. By November, it climbed to 89.7 sextillion per cent – that’s  89.7 followed by 20 zeroes.
 During these two years, per capita GDP fell to $265 U.S. a year from  $720. Unemployment reached 60 per cent. Business screeched to an almost  complete halt. On Feb. 2, 2009, the central bank depreciated the  Zimbabwean dollar for the last time – on the basis of one new dollar for  a trillion old ones. Only days later, on Feb. 11, a coalition  government took office. The country’s new finance minister, Tendai Biti,  declared that the Zimbabwean dollar had ceased to exist: “Our  currency,” he said, “is moribund.” On April 12, Zimbabwe suspended the  use of its currency as legal tender.
 “At first covertly, then in openness, and finally with the consent of  the government,” Mr. Noko writes, “foreign currencies – the rand, the  euro, the pound, the U.S. dollar, the [Zambian]kwacha – replaced  Zimbabwe’s dollar.” Precisely as Mr. Hayek had imagined, Zimbabwe’s  inflationary spiral ended. Within weeks, the country’s economy showed  dramatic improvement. Businesses began to open. Banks began to function.  Unemployment began to fall. GDP began to rise. Private credit began to  increase. Foreign investment began to return. The human exodus ended.
 Out of sheer necessity, Zimbabwe adopted the fiscal discipline known  as “cash budgeting,” which meant that the government could spend and  lend only the money it had in cash. Mr. Biti, the finance minister, said  simply: “We will eat what we have gathered.”
 The moral of the story is obvious enough. Thiers’ Law, the opposite  principle of Gresham’s Law, does work: Good money, freely circulated,  drives out bad. End a government’s monopoly over money and you can even  moderate, as Mr. Noko calls Mr. Mugabe’s regime, “a rapacious  kakistocracy.” (The Greek kakistos means “worst”: government by the  wicked and the corrupt.) Although the rand is still used in Zimbabwe,  the American dollar has become, by far, the most popular currency. It is  obvious, Mr. Noko says, that the U.S. dollar brought about the end of  hyperinflation, restored precision to prices and persuaded people to  save again. It did not, alas, end the Mugabe kakistocracy. Your currency  can’t do everything.
 Coincidentally, The Moscow Times reported on Aug. 12 that Mikhail  Prokhorov, the billionaire leader of a business-oriented opposition  party, has proposed that Russia jettison the ruble and adopt the euro as  its currency. Aside from creating a greater Europe, extending “from  Lisbon to Vladivostok,” the move would protect the savings of the  Russian people – and especially its pensioners – from inflation. The  ruble can’t do this, Mr. Prokhorov said, because it depends too much for  its value on the erratic price of oil and gas. But the simpler solution  beckons: Why not simply let Russians choose the currency they want?

----------


## Roy L

> It seems our friend Roy L (with cheese) draws this conclusion from the defintion of Subjective.


Correct.



> Lets take another look at it and see if he is correct as it pertains to prices being "subjective". Which is what he denies.


Correct.  And without reading any further, I predict that you will be lying about what *your own dictionary* plainly says.



> Here is the definiton of Subjective for you to concider.
> adjective 
> 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective). 
> 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 
> 3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. 
> 4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 
> 5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.


Correct.  Every definition plainly shows that not only is price -- what an item traded for -- not subjective, but *neither is value* (what an item can be traded for in the market).



> Lets see what proof he claims. 
> 
> existing in the mind. belonging to the thinking subject(the man) rather than to the object of thought (the thing being priced)


Nope.  The object of thought is not the thing being priced, but its price: the amount it traded for.



> pertaining to or characteristic of an individual(the man) personal(him alone) individual(no one other than the one holding the thought in his mind)


Well, that is an accurate statement of subjectivity, so you are still not lying; but I have faith in you.



> It looks like the price(ratio of exchange) exists in the persons mind.


No, that's a lie.  It exists in objective physical reality.  It is the amount that actually changed hands in an objective physical event.



> He ponders, in his mind, if the good or service that is for sell is worth more to him than the thing or number of things being ask for in the exchange. His personal time preference schedule is at interplay with the factores of the exchange in question. He must make a decision to exchange or not exchange. A mental process is undertaken by an individual.


Right.  He is judging its *UTILITY*, which *IS* subjective, not its value or price.



> Then a action is made by the person after he has formed his opinion on weather the good or service was of more value to him than the thing he exchanges for it.


Wrong.  The action -- the exchange -- takes place between TWO individuals, and is therefore by definition not subjective.  It is an objectively observable event -- which might be why it is reported in newspapers.



> The price is subjective and is self evident.


The price is self-evidently objective.  You are just lying.



> Roy L (with cheese) gets another F.


ROTFL!!  You continue to humiliate yourself by your dishonesty.  You got Fs in economics, logic, history, and moral philosophy.  You FAIL.  You are a FAILURE.



> One more point, if I may, is that Roy L (with cheese) does not understand capital theory. If he did, our friend would know that wealth and capital dose not come out of a decree by Government.


Currency is not wealth or capital.  If *you* knew any capital theory, which you do not, you would know that in economics, money is not capital:

*In economics, capital, capital goods, or real capital are those already-produced durable goods that are used in production of goods or services.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29

----------

