 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Yet even that gold standard would be fake. Why? Because no one is being charged for a service: storing the gold coins.
Gold does not generate interest.
Do you find that fact to be the least bit interesting?
Money makes the owner of money more money. How does that work? Money works for the owner of money so that the owner does not have to work.
Who works?
No one?
Money makes more money appear, as interest, like a rabbit out of a hat?
Gold does no such thing. Gold, as money, even according to the Gold Bugs, does not "earn" interest, as a reward for existing. So, please, how does money just so happen to have this amazing quality, whereby the mere fact that it exists, it is rewarded, as money, all by itself, makes more money. How can the Gold Bugs explain such nonsense? Well, you have to find out yourself, because they don't confess, and they don't answer honest questions.
At least the Gold Bugs have a common enemy, common to all friends of liberty, and common to anyone who produces more than they consume, because the common enemy will always be busy finding ways to steal that surplus wealth, in interesting ways, to be sure.
Yet even that gold standard would be fake. Why? Because no one is being charged for a service: storing the gold coins. Any time you find a valuable service being offered for free by any bank, you can be sure that there is a ringer somewhere in the arrangement. The bank is luring you into a deal by means of a promise that cannot be met under all circumstances. In this case, it is free gold coin storage. Somewhere in the bank's operations there is a liability against the gold coins – a liability superior to any depositor's claim.
Austrian Economists are caught in a self-made clap trap. They want to be paid a reward for being thrifty, which is fine, but who pays them for doing so, why, and what happens if everyone is just as thrifty, then who pays who for what? To get this straight in your head you may well imagine an actual working free market, a market that is as free from effective fraud, as free from effective deceit, as free from effective false advertizement, as free from threats of aggressive violence upon the innocent, and as free from actual aggressive violence upon the innocent as is humanly possible, and in that free market, so defined, anyone can produce any form of money, and anyone can accept any form of money, at any time, anywhere, and under such conditions money will be forced higher in quality and money will be forced toward lower cost.
Do you have that in view, and if so, think, and invent, the highest quality money at the lowest cost, and know that someone else will be raising the bar you set, since there is always someone bigger, better, stronger, more powerful, and able to kick your ass; but go ahead invent, think, imagine, produce the highest quality money you can produce in your mind, at the lowest cost you can produce in your mind, and begin the process ahead of time, just in case an actual free money market moves into place, and the legal monopoly money power moves out of place - regime change.
This isn't hard to know. How much worse can the money we use be made worse, and how fast can the money we are forced to use be made much, much worse? If that is easier to know, instead of knowing how much better money can be, then you have a scale in view.
1. Money is of a known quality and a known cost right now.
2. Money can become much worse in quality and it can become much more expensive soon.
3. The opposite direction of 2 above.
Gold Bugs have money revert back from the horrible quality and extremely high cost that it is now to Gold.
Gold is better money, and all but a few people will disagree with such a claim, or accurate assessment, and the viewpoint will be subject to the power of numbers. In other words: if only one person claims, or has an accurate assessment of Gold as being high quality money, then the claim is not baseless, it is based upon one accurate assessment, which isn't going to work, as money. If everyone but one person assesses gold as a powerful money, then the power of numbers, obviously, confirms the accuracy of the assessment.
All but a few, very few, people claim that Gold is not money, and as it happens, those few probably own most of the Gold, which should interest you, if anything should, if you want to work less and have more, you should know this, and you should know this well.
The clap trap, the corner they paint themselves into, is that Gold is the limit toward better money, and there isn't any thought, any action, any effort, any work, there is no competition imaginable, to them, working to improve upon that standard, therefore, by default, they, in their minds, create a money monopoly.
A monopoly is the absence of competition. Competition ends a monopoly.
The Austrian Economists may be right, sure, in a free market, gold will become the best possible money, and no one can ever invent anything better, ever.
I'm skeptical, since electricity is a much better money, by far, compared to gold, but then again so is oil, and as anyone can see, those forms of currency have been taken over by the legal criminals too, and here is a quote from Gary North, which you may want to consider when considering the power of Gold as money:
In August 1914, European governments that entered the war broke their monetary promises, confiscated the gold that was on deposit in commercial banks, turned this gold over to their respective central banks, which then inflated to fund World War I. It was the biggest bank heist in history. There was no resistance by the public.
Back to Gary North:
The point of a gold standard is to limit central banks.
I can translate that for you. Here is the translation:
The point of a gold standard is to sever the connection between those who produce surplus wealth and those who steal it with a legal money monopoly extortion racket "system".
The problem is that the legal criminals can confiscate gold. Then a silver standard will work to accomplish the goal. Then the legal criminals can confiscate silver. Then whiskey can work to accomplish the goal, and then the legal criminals can assemble an army the size of the army used to drive the British Military out of the 13 colonies so as to enforce a tax on whiskey, payable in gold. Then oil can be used, then electricity can be used, then any other inventive replacement can be used, and each time the legal criminals will invent a way to regain the connection to the producers of surplus wealth, until such time as the power of numbers work for the honest productive people instead of having the power of numbers working against them, by way of deceit, by way of threats of violence, and by way of aggressive acts of terrifying violence upon the innocent people.
The entire economics profession, except for the Austrian School, believes in central banking and fractional reserve commercial banking.
...
Who professes to have an exclusive license of authority over economic facts? Gary North is nearly criminally ignorant, in my view, but I don't have a license, and I have not be elected into an office of authority, and I don't profess to be a professional in command of exclusive knowledge, and I can offer competitive examples of many people who do not believe in central banking and fractional reserve commercial banking, and who are not Austrian School economists who base their "knowledge" upon a false premise that they claim as fact.
Where is this "entire economics profession"? Why does that "entire economics profession" ignore all the competitive economic inventions that have existed, exist now, and will exist so long as competition is still alive and working despite all the force of stolen wealth being used to crush so fatal a spirit?
Gary won't confess. I've tried to reach him. It is a one way street with the Austrian Economists, which is a nice way of saying Dictatorship.
What about all the economic inventions that have managed to compete, work, and prove to be valuable, outside that exclusive club of "entire economics profession"?
5 examples:
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40
http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf
http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm
http://www.umungu.com/scrip.htm
http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-california-town-prints-its-own-currency/
Those are not among the Austrian School of professors, authorities, officials, and license holders, nor are those examples examples of believers in central banking and fractional reserve commercial banking.
The first example, a proposal written by Lysander Spooner employs land as the commodity backing a competitive currency, not meant to be an enforced currency, which would be enforced by deceit, on purpose, and not meant to be enforced by threats of violence upon the innocent, and also not meant to be enforced by acts of vicious violence perpetrated willfully upon those who choose to use that competitive invention if that is what they choose to do.
The second example blows the whistle on the whole fallacy behind Austrian Economics, written well before Austrian Economics became Austrian Economics, whereby "scarcity" is required before "value" can exist, or some such nonsense, and I can find the relevant quotes, as needed. That example bases money on labor, which is not to be confused with the "argument for the sake of argument" invented by some people, whereby some people invent a "labor theory of value" which is their own exclusive Straw Man invention, an invention they attach to their targeted victims, and then by that false association they win the argument they create, as they claim that their victims "believe" in "The Labor Theory of Value" that they alone create, which has nothing to do with Example 2.
Example 3 blows the whistle on the fraud known as "interest", well done in the essay titled The Parasite City.
Example 4 proves the workability of a Stamp Script competitive form of money, as it was used, and it did work, for all to see, if you have an interest in knowing the truth.
Example 5 is used today, for as long as that competitive example managed to compete, despite all the forces that are, or will be forcing that competitor out of business.
The entire economics profession, except for the Austrian School, believes in central banking and fractional reserve commercial banking.
That is called ignorance. It may be willful ignorance. It may just be stupidity. I can't know, the person who fails to report the facts does not confess.
This means that economists favor a cartel.
Legal criminals favor a cartel, because a cartel cannot exist without some force being exerted in the work required to render competition powerless. The forces that render competition powerless, in all but a few cases of naturally occurring monopolies (cartels), are deceit, threats of aggressive violence upon the innocent, and acts of aggressive violence upon the innocent, clueless, powerless, targeted, victims.
Economists call for their favorite pseudo-market, government-administered limitation on this or that aspect of banking. But they do not call for 100% reserve banking, as Rothbard did. They do not call for free banking, as Ludwig von Mises did.
Gary North is the only Austrian Economist I've ever read where by a confession is made as to the existence of a split up within the ranks of Austrian Economists.
A. Actual supporters of a free market.
B. Frauds, who claim to support a free market, but their true color is criminal: they support legal crime, they support a cartel, they support whatever force is required to enforce a legal monopoly.
Of course there are individuals who have individual viewpoints, individual thoughts, and individual actions, which span from the most effective supporters of a free market to the most effective supporters of legal crime, with
in the ranks of The Austrian Economists.
The gold coin standard removes final economic authority from people with badges and guns and turns it over to the masses.
As far as I know, that is the truth, and as far as I know Ron Paul knows that that is the truth, and as far as I know Ron Paul will cause that to happen if elected, and if that is true, then Ron Paul is the Anti-Legal Criminal, and that places a huge target on Ron Paul's back, if that is as true as I believe it to be.
Gold is not the best form of money, but it is most certainly better than the worst form of money, and if you think the dollar is as bad as it can get, think again.
The reason for the truth being expressed in the quoted words above is that Gold becomes a competitor, so it is competition that accomplishes the task, whereby economic authority is removed from people with badges and guns, as they were enforcing a single money upon their victims, and competition turns the power of choice over to anyone else, or "the masses" of people who didn't have a choice, or not much of a choice, or a choice between two evils, which is still evil, and competition becomes a choice, a higher quality option, and an option that costs less.
In this life, there are nails and hammers. The battle over final economic authority is the battle over the monetary system, for money is the central institution in a division-of-labor economy. Thus, the battle is over who holds the hammer.
Suddenly
I have to work.
No time to edit