Mises, Marx, and Keynes is the false left/right paradigm of banker fascism. The Georgist school of political economy considers Mises, Marx, and Keynes to be the main schools of neo-classical economics.
Mises arbitrarily distributes wealth to the individual, often in the hands of the corporations and non-productive elite. Keynes arbitrarily distributes wealth to the individual and public equally, and often in the hands of the corporations and non-productive elite. Marx arbitrarily distributes wealth to the public, and often in the hands of the corporations and non-productive elite. All three schools of neo-classical economics are designed to steal from the worker and give to the elite. They are setup to oppose each other as false paradigms, while together, they slowly enslave the people.
The Georgist school of political economy, or classical economics of classical liberalism, existed largely uncorrupted into the early 1900s. Henry George built upon the well-intended men before him. After Henry George, it all quickly went to pot as the Rockefeller Foundation reached their tentacle of corruption into the understanding of political economy. Henry George was able to respond in the beginning by calling Karl Marx what he was, a fascist, when he learned of Karl Marx, while he dismissed the absurdities of other neo-classical economists who also appeared on the scene.
Henry George was self-published in 1879. He quickly became the best-selling and most-influential American economist. He inspired the Monopoly board game, though you won’t find that information from Hasbro. You just have to know who inspired the Monopoly board game. He was the most principled man in politics. His son, Henry George, Jr., refused to be the candidate for governor of New York because he felt he could best serve the public by writing a book on his father, as he gave a scathing criticism of the hard currency advocates within his own party in his rejection. However, it wasn’t long until Henry George was erased from the American memory and deleted from the American history books and economic textbooks, despite winning admiration from greats like Albert Einstein, MLK, Winston Churchill, Leo Tolstoy, Milton Friedman, and many others. Leading Georgist, Dr. Mason Gaffney, wrote a compelling essay, “The Strategem Against Henry George“, describing the conspiracy to delete the genius and macroeconomic understanding of Henry George from humanity. He also joined with Fred Harrison to write The Corruption of Economics.
The Marx conspiracy is probably the most obvious since it is obvious rule by the elite. It is fascism with a pretty ribbon, where the bankers and corporations have an absolute monopoly.
The Keynes conspiracy is the mainstream conspiracy. However, it is starting to become clear to the people that the republican democracy is a myth. It is starting to become clear that our government serves the banking and corporate elite, and not the people and rule of law.
The Mises conspiracy is a little less obvious since it most emulates classical liberalism, though corrupting the understanding. However, the cautious student of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and libertarianism will realize that things aren’t adding up.
The land issue, as shown by Henry George, several of the founding fathers, and among many other great people around the world and throughout history, is the most obvious corruption. You only have to look at a few quotes to see the issue was at one time in history clearly understood.
One of the most difficult to uncover is the hard currency advocacy since currency is a complicated topic, requiring abstract thinking skills to understand. Lincoln faced the issue directly when he refused to pay high interest on gold to finance the Civil War. Henry George touched on the issue, as promoted at the American Monetary Institute by Stephen Zarlenga, and discussed in Henry George’s book The Science of Political Economy. The Founding Fathers, whether they praised soft currency or not, used it to finance the American Revolution, and the States used soft currencies because the people had fertile land but no gold to trade among themselves, as the gold they did have was quickly used to trade with Europe. Stephen Zarlenga gives a long view in “Economics: A Clandestine Religion Masquerading As A Science.”
We learn from history that the gold standard was the currency of choice by tyrants and the currency of disaster throughout history. It was the currency of choice for the Federal Reserve when it was created in 1913 and when we entered the Great Depression. We learn that soft currencies, such as the Tally Stick, was used for hundreds of years, building the wealth of the British empire. We learn that King George favored gold. We learn that Europe was on a gold standard during the American Revolution. We learn of banking panics almost every ten years when America was on a gold standard. We learn that the Roman Empire was built with cheap money, bronze and silver coinage, and started to crumble when it first demonetized bronze and monetized gold in 50 BC.
If one does have the abstract thinking skills to understand monetary issues, one realizes that deflation, like inflation, is theft. One understands that the current system is not public paper, but rather a private debt paper, created and destroyed by private banks through the fractional reserve banking system. One would also understand that replacing the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking system with a public debt-free paper would create the need for a monetary expansion to prevent deflation that could pay off the national debt and end income taxation.
One would understand going onto a pure 100% reserve gold standard would further complicate the deflationary effect of coming off fractional reserve banking and massively destroy wealth and economic production. One would understand gold would increase in value to the net economic production of the nation when used as a currency, rather than the intrinsic value of gold, causing deflation. One would understand that 30-year mortgages would be very risky with a high threat of deflation. Most of money paid on a 30-year mortgage is not even for the value of the property, it is for interest, which is a form of usury and monetary theft, which deflation would make worse. Gold and silver are best left in the free market, where people can choose to store their wealth in whatever commodity they deem of value, including gold and silver, free of the corruption of the government.
We should end the Federal Reserve, end fractional reserve banking, have the U.S. government print debt-free money to replace the fractional reserves with real reserves as private debt is paid. The U.S. government can use the debt-free money to pay off the national debt and issue significant tax refunds to every citizen. We can do this without causing inflation with a public debt-free paper if we end the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking.
If you understand that last statement, you realize how corrupt the media and foundations are, including the Libertarian foundations. Lew Rockwell and the “Royal Libertarians” are funded by foundations to blind you with gold, giving you an even more flawed monetary system, which favors those with most of the gold, the international banking cartel, so you won’t see the full truth of what ending the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking with debt-free Greenbacks really means for the working class.
The working class doesn’t even understand why politicians and the wealthy like wasteful spending and a huge national debt. The national debt is welfare for the rich. The working class pays income taxes to pay interest on the national debt to the bond holders. The national debt is a yearly $700 billion bailout for aristocrats around the world. This welfare funded by the tax payer is used by transnational corporations and artistocrats to buy up the land from under the feet of the tax payer and their children. It is a new form colonialism, where Americans are becoming homeless on the land their father’s conquered or rent-paying, usury-paying, and tribute-paying indentured servants to the transnational corporations and aristocrats.
Ultimately, monetary policy is about who controls the quantity of money. The most transparent method of giving the most control to most people is the use of public paper, with commodities left in the free market as a store of wealth. This gives the most oversight and transparency for the people. It provides them with transparent markets in savings and loans. It provides them the most freedom to choose commodities they want to use to store their wealth. Leaving currency strictly to the free market would make the supply unmanageable, the value of the currency volatile, and place the control of the economy in the hands of large private banks as they manipulate the value of competing currencies rather than the people who wish to use currency for trade.
However, short of extensive and broad macroeconomics study, perspective, and understanding, one can realize the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a conspiracy.
“Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” – Richard M. Ebeling, The Life and Works of Ludwig von Mises
More information can be found direct from the source from Murray Rothbard’s biography of Ludwig von Mises and an article published at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
The William Volker Fund and Rockefeller Foundation funded people like Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and Murray Rothbard to promote a gold standard so that the bankers could manipulate the supply of currency and easily cause cycles of inflation and deflation to bankrupt the people. Ron Paul and Rand Paul receive donations from Bilderberger, Peter Thiel, and partnered with PNAC board member, Lewis Lehrman, to write a book, The Case for Gold, promoting the gold standard fraud using the same lie that gold is “sound” and “honest” money, which the bankers used over a 100 years ago when they first setup the gold standard during the Crime of 1873 by demonetizing silver and the Greenback. Lewis Lehrman also wrote Money and the Coming World Order: The Creation of International Monetary Order.
It should be noted that among the Libertarian elite and even some of the members of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Henry George is recognized glowingly but rarely promoted by their foundations to the libertarian masses, who are largely brainwashed anarcho-capitalists, falsely believing Henry George is a neo-classical progressive or socialist. There is some common ground with the Green and true Left, such as Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, and Cynthia McKinney, who promote the principles of Henry George, though corrupted by more Marxist leanings.
Furthermore, classical Libertarians generally promote principles of Cicero’s Natural Law, principles of right and wrong, principles of inalienable rights, and the original anarchist schools of Proudhon, Spooner, and Tucker, while the neo-libertarians generally promote the egoist schools where to the victor goes the spoils under Spencer, Stirner, and Rand, where the mythical and magical hand of self-interest will bring an altruistic order out of chaos. It should be noted that even the egoist anarchists believed that landed property was different than other property.
The two schools end up fighting over the classical liberals, though it should be evident by the Constitution, that the classical liberals followed Natural Law rather than egoist philosophies of anarcho-capitalism. The U.S. Post Office is hardly anarcho-capitalism.
Classical Libertarians don’t have to spend their time apologizing for Ludwig von Mises with Murray Rothbard, apologizing for objectivist Alan Greenspan, or even apologizing for the deficit spending, corporate welfare, trickle-down, supply-side, military industrial complex Reaganomics. Classical Libertarians don’t carry the baggage of neocons, nor do they carry the baggage of social Darwinism, Malthus, and eugenics, which stem from your egoist philosophies and which were debunked by the Georgist school of political economy.
The classical Libertarians look more like your modern embodiment of the Founding Fathers, whereas, the neo-libertarians following anarcho-capitalism look more like statist, feudal, and aristocratic thieves, stealing from the people with their statist ownership of land, which violates Libertarian principle, and their theft through deflation, the racketeering and inherit problems of free market currency, or a statist gold standard, where the government only accepts payment of taxes in gold and only allows banks to issue debt paper backed partially by gold reserves, favoring those who are capable of hoarding gold or who mine gold over those who were born without a silver spoon to buy their own land, start their own business, or hoard their own gold.
Since classical Libertarians are correct and address the economic issues in a honest manner, the classical Libertarians have the ability to draw from the Left and Right, resulting in greater political power. Your vulgar Libertarians are regulated to merely an extreme Right-wing ideology of a gold-hoarding, land-stealing, and Kool-Aid-drinking cult of economic anarchists and financial racketeers, incapable of achieving political success since they don’t adequately address the concerns of the broader population.
Because of Mises, Marx, and Keynes, we’ve allowed ourselves to become ignorant and brainwashed masses, losing our understanding of economics, cheering the people who enslave us, and losing our understanding of the greats like Moses, Cicero, Jesus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Henry George, Ghandi, and MLK, who worked to free us from the tyrants, the ruling elite, the aristocrats, the slave owners, the monarchs, the robber barons, the monopoly men, the banking elite, and the corporate elite.
There are no free lunches. When a vulgar Libertarian sees their land increase in value for doing nothing, someone else is going to pay for the increased value with their labor. When a vulgar Libertarian sees their gold currency increase in value for doing nothing, someone else is going to pay for the increased value with their labor, if the deflation doesn’t cause massive unemployment and bankrupted businesses. Land rent and usury are two forms of unearned or public wealth. Land rent and usury are theft. When land rent and usury isn’t used to fund public interests, and taxation of private wealth, labor and capital, is used to fund public interest, there is an economic conspiracy to steal the wealth of a nation and to steal earned wealth from the productive citizens of that nation.
The advisors to those on the political right and left share the same belief: The sanctity of this privately managed credit monetary system. No more evident was this then in October 2008 when Treasury Secretary Paulsen proposed a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry and the presidential candidates of the two major parties only issue was how to get to Washington fast enough to carry out this wrong policy.
But $700 billion was the tip of the iceberg. According to recently released information, the Fed has made $9 trillion in loans and now holds $2 trillion in assets (toxic? probably) to the financial sector in attempts to get money (credit) into the economy. http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_release/index.htm?hp But none of this has worked. Now the Fed is proposing to pass $600 billion more to the banks through purchase of Federal securities.
Congressman Ron Paul was not a presidential candidate in October 2008, so one might only speculate on his position regarding this travesty. He argues himself a Libertarian. But the Libertarians trace back through the von Mises group to their principal supporter: Koch Industries. Without going to far afield, according to Wikipedia, Koch Industries is a conglomerate “with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments.”
Trading and investments are what all of these conglomerates do. So there is little reason to believe Koch Industries’ desires something different from the present privately managed credit monetary system. General Electric, Reagan’s sponsor, is an example of these: it carries loans on secure residential real estate in Mexico at 18 percent.
Manufacturing creates products that fulfill our needs and comforts. But trading and investments are the means that transfer great wealth. It is done through the simple process of accounting. But that accounting only works if it is connected to a government chartered lending institution.
When we get to the banks and lending institutions, we discover the true definition of money and it is not the surreptitious objects economists tell. It is true in the United States that pieces of green paper bearing portraits of dead presidents are money. But that’s because the Federal government stamps them so.
Government could as well stamp pieces of gold, silver, copper, iron or any of a host of materials and they would be money representing the stamped value. To stamp gold as money is the hype of the gold bugs; many professed Libertarians who deal in gold. To them and the others that trade in these things, that would be nice, as there would be another artificial item of wealth to go with the Federal securities for speculation.
But government could as well guarantee accounts as money. And in essence that is what government does through bank charters and account guarantees. We may see this a little better in a more personal setting.
Anybody that has kept a checking account should know that money is simply an accounting process: keeping a record of one’s money transactions. That is what banks do: keep a record of money transactions. Banks also transfer accounts in their record keeping. But through electronic banking, we do too by entering numbers on a computer screen.
The difference between our record keeping and our electronic transfers and that of the banks’ is that government guarantees the banks’. This is why the banks’ accounts are money and ours are not. And this is why we have to have our accounts also with the banks. But now we come to the gist of the issue:
According to Abraham Lincoln, ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. So if it is our government that secures the accounts and stamps the counters that constitute money: Why is it that our government has passed the management of this most important component of our economic life to a privileged private group?
That question is not rhetorical. Certainly if we do not wish for this continual obscene transfer of wealth to the elites and if we do not wish to experience these periodic economic crises then it is us that should create our own money, which we can through the fiat of our government.
Many over the years going back before Ben Franklin’s tracts on money have argued the benefits of having government create societies’ money. There now is a bill before Congress by Dennis Kucinich that follows the ideas of Steven Zarlenga of the American Monetary Institute to do this: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-6550.
I find many faults with the Kucinich bill, some cited here, much more on our web site: http://www.aplanforamerica.org/ But it is a long overdue beginning in monetary reform and both Mr. Zarlenga and Mr. Kucinich should be greatly commended for their efforts in bringing this idea this far.
A further point is that Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul cooperated before: most memorably against the on-going wars and are alone in seeking to change the Fed: http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-09-13/ron-paul-and-dennis-kucinich-allies-against-war/
The Kucinich bill requires one hundred percent reserves on all demand deposit accounts. That would have been all that was needed to place full control of the monetary system in the government in 1933 when the Chicago plan was presented to the Roosevelt Administration.
However, things are far more complicated today in consequence of Federal deposit insurances on saving deposit accounts (as well as many other guarantees on investments); and a greatly different tax structure. The Kucinich bill is silent on both. If Federal deposit insurances are not eliminated on saving deposit accounts, the act clearly loses meaning.
As to the changed tax structure: in 1933 the income tax was highly progressive (relative to the revenues obtained), whereas today, it is excessively regressive. The latter is in consequence of a multitude of factors but mainly:
A capital gains tax, which coincides with the lowest income tax schedule while removing it from all other taxes; Greatly compressed income tax brackets to where the maximum is little more than twice the minimum, the latter falling into the poverty range; and a limit on the income taxed for social security. To establish a sound and equitable publicly managed cash monetary system, as I refer to it in “A Plan for America”, also requires changes in the tax structure.
Mr. Zarlenga wrote an excellent article a few years back, which he appropriately titled: “Economics: A Clandestine Religion Masquerading As A Science.” http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/zarlenga-stephen_on-economics-as-a-science.html.
Federal deposit insurances are a violation of the law of liquidity preference, one of the few concepts that would place (macro) economics in the realm of science. Through this law the divide between money and credit is uncovered. Contrary to the musings of economists, there is a fundamental difference between money and credit.
A third point is the amount of new money needed to advance the economy and then how this money is introduced into the economy. In 1949, the money quantity, the Fed M1, was approximately 40 percent of GNP and the growth in GNP since then was approximately 7 percent per year.
If money and GNP had grown proportionally since 1949, then the money quantity for the projected 2009 GNP of $15.7 trillion would have been $6.25 trillion and the change in money quantity from 2008 to 2009 would have been $430 billion. That is a far smaller number than seems reasonably necessary to meet all the things the Kucinich bill proposes.
The Kucinich bill proposes to disburse the majority of the new money by passing it to the states and local governments. I disagree with this on two accounts: one drawing on the behavior of the economic system, and the other on our legal structure. As I see it, the Kucinich bill violates both accounts.
The constitution is clear in denying the Federal government the right to pass money to the states. That was understood by all of the presidents during the antebellum period and was the basis for many of the early New Deal measures found unconstitutional.
In this I suspect Mr. Paul and I are in agreement. If Mr. Kucinich eventually sees it so, I will feel progress was made. And if Mr. Paul understands money is the creation of government, as Mr. Zarlenga exposes, I will feel more progress was made.
As an engineer, I know that if I am to make a machine perform as I intend, I need to understand what drives it and how it responds to the driving force. Economics is no different. Here money and production are the issues: Is it money that drives production or is it production that draws money?
Clearly, if the economy is demand driven new money should be placed with consumers: which, according to our democracy, equality before the law, would be distributed equally to the people.
The question whether the economy is supply or demand driven would not be difficult to answer if we spend any time at all observing the economic system. But that would be true only if we were not confused by the present paradigm. But if for the moment we can separate ourselves from this paradigm, we should see it quite clearly:
When the entrepreneur’s widgets begin to back-up in his warehouse and he looks outside and finds it happening to others, he sees it not as an obsolesce of his product but rather as a general lack of sales in the community. And if he knows anything about human nature and history, he knows that when money becomes scarce people buy less and hold money tighter. That is the law of effective demand and it is akin in the economic world to an apple falling on one’s head in the physical world.
It is the force of gravity that pulled the apple toward the earth and it is money that drew the widgets from the entrepreneur’s warehouse. Here the economy is clearly driven from the demand side. The reason the force of gravity still exists is that bankers do not control the universe.
But bankers do control money, through issuing credits and retiring loans. When things look bad, mainly because they issued too much credit (gravity) when things looked good, they can only retire loans. That they must do if they are to retain their charters under existing law. Clearly loan-retirements exceeding loan-issuances contracts the currency and weakens demand. This is the essence of our current crisis.
Currency contraction was the cause of the slowed recovery during the Great Depression. A clear difference in these two events was in the initiation of the crises: by 1933, bank failures, destroying demand deposit accounts, brought the economy to its knees. So far, bank failures have not been the problem in the present crisis.
But as here noted, other differences make this crisis far more complex and far less amenable to the measures that worked during the Great Depression: And they are all in consequence of this wrong paradigm that the economy is supply driven.
Although our observations and logic (the two components of science) tell us that the economy is demand driven, the rhetoric from such as Economist Arthur Laffer in the early 1980s and Mr. Krugman arguing the benefits of the $600 billion Fed bond purchase http://www.truth-out.org/figuring-out-what-a-dollar-worth66609 have imbedded many amongst us with this false notion that it is supply driven.
So in accordance with our economic laws and our democratic form of government, newly created money should be passed equally to the people. For the 2009 year, that would have been about $2,000 each. For the Fed $600 billion, it would be nearer $3,000 each.
But rather than passing $600 billion to the people and restraining the banks from credit issuances, that $600 billion will be passed to the banks where they can again do great damage should things begin to look better.
Not a point aside, given the low Fed interest rates, those bonds will be purchased above par, and when the Fed sells them, as a control on inflation, they will be below par. This is just another way the Fed transfers money from the government to the elites.
By E.J. (Jim) Miller Ph.D
PS I submitted this to Truthout in response to Paul Krugman’s paper toting the benefits of the Fed’s recent proposal to purchase $600 billion of Federal securities. This was Truthout’s response: “Thank-you for your submission described below. It will not be published on Truthout.”
Thanks for the information. I added you to the blog roll.
I have a 4 step plan that will give america the leg up to get things going –
1 – set the value of the dollar
2 create permanent funds for each state – 1%tax on everything – interest earned is divided up equally and disbursed annually or monthly
3 end use it or lose it as a fiscal paradigm for government – instead, guarantee x which was last years funding and ask to save – the savings go into a trust for that echelon, the interest earned on that offests next years budget.
4 set the price on refined gas food and electricity – say, 1999 levels.
there it is, that should do it – no one is getting robbed, because the 1% tax comes back in the dividend… no matter who is paying it – self funding governent will eliminate the need for any taxes within a 100 years or so – congress could vote how much of the budget each echelon gets once they are up and running to keep control – and every person is vested in the system . a bulwark against corruption.
It is unfortunate that the United States does not sit on top of a giant pool of oil like the Saudi’s. It is unfortunate that the U.S. doesn’t have millions of desperate labor and manufacturing personel that will work for pennies per hour like China.
But the simple and important fact is that is the case.
Russia is always selling these Nations upgraded and sophisticated weapons and sensory equipment in exchange for the labor in China and oil from the Middle East. These Nations have also been using the economic trade wealth to build against us and force us into a kneeling position.
In fact China and Russia have just begun military war games together. Russia has resumed bomber patrols just outside of our airspace. The North American Union is needed to strengthen our economy as well as our Security forces.
We as a Nation will fall either way due to the constant pressure and economic stranglehold by these Nations. The conspiracies you all speak of is true, but it is necessary
so the working masses should make tribute payments to the idle rich because the chinese and russians are frightening? should they also allow the witch doctor to drink the blood of their first born too because the volcano is frightening? sorry. your reasons why we should make tribute payments to the idle rich does not make sense in the age of reason. it is bad enough that we have to fund a military industrial complex that we also have to pay interest on our own money to non-producing aristocrats around the world who hold our national debt and who own shares of the financial institutions, which create our money as interest-bearing debt. there is no justification for the institutions of fraud and usury. there is plenty of justification for the government to print the money free of interest. lincoln did it to fund the civil war. george washington did it to fund the american revolution. the reasons you give are actually reasons why the government should print it’s own legal tender rather than borrow it’s own legal tender from the banks the government chartered. the government can always print up some continentals and greenbacks to fund the military as we have done in the past. the government can also open some public banks to replace the commercial banks like canada and iceland did during the great depression.
Austrians don’t want a mandated gold standard. We want people to be able to exchange goods and services for whatever the parties in the exchange agree is an acceptable trade. If by “deflation”, you mean that the cost of living falls as the aggregate supply curve shifts to the right, then yes, gold is deflationary. All this means is that people using gold as a medium of exchange have increasing purchasing power as the economy grows. This type of “deflation” is a good thing, not a bad thing.
deflation harms every aspect of the economy and STEALS wealth from anything of value and PLUNDERS producers. if steals value from the inputs of production. it steals from capital goods. it steals value from inventories. it steals value from commodities and other assets. it steals from the debtor. it discourages production, investment, and job creation. it destroys jobs. it destroys the economy. it bankrupts people. it allows banks to steal farms and homes. it keeps food from being produced. it starves and kills whole populations. why produce and anything and lose value when you can sit on your cash and steal wealth in your sleep? this is why ron paul is a globalist bilberger. and you’re loving your own enslavement. the only people who benefit from deflation are usurers and idle non-productive aristocrats. it is the definition of welfare/socialism for the idle and non-productive rich. gold as money destroyed rome. gold as money caused the great depression. gold as money caused the dark age of feudalism. you fell for propaganda of feudalism, serfdom, fraud, lies, deception, and sin wrapped in the flag of freedom. however, as mark twain said, it is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled. in the investment world, there is a saying. do your own research (and thinking).
inflation is the creator of markets and economic life. if you have an island of people and no money, you have market and no economy. you print some money to fund the government and spend into circulation. suddenly, people have a means to trade. ron paul is a deceptive liar and propagandist. he is the controlled opposition. he is a false flag. he is a false paradigm. he is a feudalistic aristocrat who wants to steal wealth through land rents and his gold holdings in his sleep when government declares gold as money and ends all forms of taxation (redemption) on land.
“why produce and anything and lose value when you can sit on your cash and steal wealth in your sleep?”
If people did that, their cash wouldn’t increase in value, so such a strategy would be self-defeating.
Let’s consider the basic aggregate supply and aggregate demand curves. By your logic, if both curves are shifting rightward, but the AS curve is moving slightly faster, and the money supply is unchanging, then it would be bad for the economy. You say that people would sit on their money as its purchasing power increases. If people did that, then the AS curve would slow, and might even start moving leftward. Prices would rise and force people to start being productive again.
Also, people always want more, so if they have money to sit on, they aren’t going to sit on it. They are going to lend it to an investor for interest, or they are going to invest it themselves, so they are still contributing to production, even if they aren’t the ones doing the producing. The few who do hoard are only increasing the purchasing power of everyone else’s money, so they aren’t really reducing demand in the long run.
“inflation is the creator of markets and economic life. if you have an island of people and no money, you have market and no economy. you print some money to fund the government and spend into circulation. suddenly, people have a means to trade.”
So people can’t trade without a medium of exchange? People long ago probably chose metal money because it has a stable supply, can be easily made into coins with certain weights, and the value of the coins could be easily compared to the value of any other good. Money makes trade simpler, but it doesn’t enable it.
deflation = money increases in value.
deflation is not self-correcting. when you sit on cash, less cash circulates, which makes it worth even more. lower monetary velocity increases the value.
i’m talking about legal tender, the currency government declares to be money for payment of taxes, which is quite different from barter systems and private currency. when government declares gold to be legal tender, the government has corrupted the free market in gold and has created fictitious value for gold. fiat means by government decree. gold is fiat when government declares it to be legal tender.
the roman empire started with bronze coins in 270bc because it was cheap but still difficult to counterfeit. silver was added in 260bc. gold wasn’t added until 50bc when bronze was demonetized. gold isn’t always the first choice for civilizations.
you should learn the basics before you try faking advanced topics. you should also try to diversify your education about money since banker-funded propaganda is probably the worst out there, worse than even global warming propaganda.
I don’t want the government to declare gold to be legal tender. I do, however, want to be able to buy gold and put it in a bank account in exchange for gold certificates, which I would then be able to use to buy stuff. The people I pay with the certificates could then use them or take them to the bank and redeem them for gold. This would be a private currency, not legal tender.
To enable this, I want no sales tax or capital gains tax on precious metals.
nothing is stopping you from doing this now. i think the lakota bank allows you to do that now. you can always start a bank to offer gold certificates as well. you can’t force someone to accept gold for payment. most people don’t like to be commodity traders. it is a good way to lose money. you also can’t use government to force people to use a private currency. that is coercion and not libertarian.
gold is relatively worthless, except for that used in technological applications which is dwarfed by it’s use for jewelry and investment (8-10 times more tonnes), but it is natural resource created by god, and thus, part of the common wealth. you should pay a redemption to all to claim exclusive title to what is the common wealth. a land value tax is adequate to collect such rents for the population. georgists believe in the land value tax rather than a sales tax to collect such land rents, though arguments are made to tax such a rare natural resource and non-renewable natural resources when it is first extracted or first sold or exported. libertarian georgists also believe after a minimum government is funded, such collected land rents should be directly distributed to the people as a citizen dividend.
the same holds true for the legal tender. the legal tender should be printed by the government and distributed into the economy as a citizen dividend to allow for economic growth so there is enough money to put immigrants and young people to work and to allow for increased economic activity (monetary velocity) or more exchanges over time, without having to pay usury to bankers. first, we’d need to end the private privilege of bankers from creating and destroying the legal tender by ending fractional reserve banking. banks should only be allowed to loan what they have in reserve. to prevent deflation while fractional reserve banking is ended and to print fractional reserves to full reserves, the government can print legal tender to pay off the national debt without national debt. when that happens, we can end the income tax. there would be no overhead in the currency, no usury (interest) to pay, and no miners to pay.
most importantly, the money supply wouldn’t be dependent on the bank’s willingness to loan money. it would be dependent upon congress. considering the wealthy wouldn’t be allowed to collect usury upon the printing on money, the wealthy would lobby against wasteful spending rather than in favor of wasteful spending. inflation would be an ideal progressive tax with little to no cost for most people if it was a hidden tax to benefit the public rather than a privatized public monopoly which benefits the usurer. it would also remove the dismal nature of our current system. it would be clear in what should be done if we face deflation or high rates of inflation (print or stop printing). it would end the business or boom/bust cycle related to the compound usury upon the public’s money supply.
i should add that gold is a natural resource, not capital, and that money is a legal agreement, not capital. capital are goods produced by toil to aid in production.
Nothing is stopping me, but there are currently sales taxes and capital gains taxes on gold, so that kinda defeats the purpose.
I would like to address your earlier post about deflation. You say that less money would be spent as a result of deflation, which means demand is falling. That is true, if you are measuring in monetary units. If you adjusted for changes in the value of the money – in other words, you measure demands in terms of the goods and services purchased, rather than the amount of money spent – then you would not see a decrease in demand. More likely, you would see and increase, since people have more purchasing power. GDP would fall, but that’s a problem with how GDP is calculated. It is measured in terms of dollars, not actual value.
no. the decrease in monetary units makes the monetary units worth more. instead of risking those monetary units or borrowing monetary units which increase in value to invest in production, it is of more benefit to sit on the cash because it buys more tomorrow than it does today. why buy the inputs of production today when it costs less tomorrow? why invest the time and energy when the outputs of production decrease in price before you have it produced? why buy land when the money would be worth more than the land tomorrow? when that happens, there is even less circulating. yes, you can buy more for less under deflation. however, we’re speaking in terms of changes in both supply and demand.
causes of deflation:
more people (more demand)
lower supply of money (less supply)
decreased monetary velocity (less transactions, which is effectively decreased supply, not a reduction in demand. wealth accumulates and sits there.)
causes of inflation:
less people
increased supply
increased monetary velocity (wealth decentralization)
stop trying to invent excuses to justify your false paradigm whereby you can steal a free lunch in your sleep with your stash of monetary units or god’s gold, both of which are a sin. attend a college course in macroeconomics to learn the basics.
immigration and such leads to deflation.
increased lending increases monetary supply under our current system.
decreased lending decreases monetary supply under our currency system.
considering world markets/commodities, compound interest upon the money supply, shortages in critical commodities, and trade deficits, prices can increase in commodities while prices can fall in the domestic economy (wages and sometimes land and services), which leads to a situation of stagflation.
the taxes apply to retail sales of gold, not bartering with gold. gold traders are a commercial enterprise in it for profit. that is the anarcho-capitalism you love. i’m not an anarcho-capitalist. i’m pro-toil, anti-state-granted privilege.
i have some examples here of how a gold standard steals value…
http://libertyrevival.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/paper-beats-rock-the-gold-standard-is-theft/
All you’ve shown is that price deflation reduces time preference (present demand/future demand), not overall demand. If price deflation were to begin now, present demand would fall, but future demand would rise. After a brief correction, both present and future demand would begin to rise, with future demand rising at a higher rate (A graphical illustration of aggregate demand over time would show a line that is both upward sloping and upward curving). As a result, more money and resources would be invested in early production stages, rather than later production stages. This would stimulate technological advancements, which means that goods would become obsolete more quickly, so people would buy new stuff more frequently. Time preference in an economy with perpetually deflationary money would constantly fall, but never reach zero (asymptote).
I’m also anti-state-granted-privilege. I call myself a capitalist, however, because I believe that investment, lending, and labor are all essential for efficient production, so I think that people should be able to make their livings doing any of those things.
it depends on the cause of deflation. it is true that deflation resulting from reduced monetary velocity would eventually see the money eventually spent and circulating. if the original cause was lack of money supply for the demand from the population, after price correction, you may see a return to higher monetary velocity, but deflation would have still resulted in massive theft and bankruptcy.
you should support full reserve banking and should wish the government to provide it’s own legal tender for payment of taxes if you’re against state-granted privilege and support free markets.
if you wish to store your wealth by buying commodities, such as gold, that is your choice. however, you should be aware such is a speculative investment. if you wish to use such commodities as a means to store wealth, you could probably even avoid taxes if you make it a non-profit business. however, you shouldn’t expect that the true free market cares for buying and selling in gold certificates. gold certificates stopped circulating in 1935 even though you could still use them to buy and sell and pay your taxes. nixon eventually and justly did away with the novelty of government accepting the commodity of gold. it boggles my mind how any libertarian and self-described anarcho-capitalist would want government to be a commodity trader in their favorite commodity, gold. even as an anarcho-capitalist, i wouldn’t want government to touch gold.
No Austrian denies that such deflation would initially hurt a lot of people while benefiting others at their expense. Austrians do, however, contend that inflation also hurts many people at the expense of others who benefit. The difference is that the hurt is obvious with deflation but obscured with inflation. Both, according to Austrians, are zero sum games. Perpetually deflating hard money, that which is not “legal tender”, but simply the popular thing to trade with, would continue the way I described earlier after that initial hurt is over.
As long as we have a fiat currency and a government, I think checking accounts should be full-reserve demand deposits, but I think that time interest-paying time deposits with no reserve requirement (CDs) should remain available for depositors who don’t mind the risk.
that’s where you started to go wrong, you’re basing your economic understanding on propaganda from the rockefeller foundation rather than science and using your own head.
At which point did I start to go wrong? It is clear that inflation hurts some (we have to pay more for gas, food, etc… and benefits others (investors who get cheap loans and recipients of government funding).
I’m not familiar with the Rockefeller Foundation, and I don’t reject science, though I do believe that economics requires a lot of a priori reasoning.
inflation hurts a lot less than taxation and usury and actually benefits the working class in terms of debt and job opportunities it creates. any hurt on the poor can be easily corrected with a $30 yearly citizen dividend. any hurt on idle aristocrats hoarding land and monetary units is justice. deflation is absolute hurt and destruction and only benefits parasites, including land hoarders and usurers.
it is clear you’re a victim of brainwashing and propaganda against inflation and in favor of deflation to anyone with a basic understanding of inflation and deflation. i’ve been there. i use to drink the same kool aid. i hope you will get help. you’ll feel better when you stop having to deny reality, history, logic, and christian values for the sake of defending a corrupt neo-classical school of economics. you don’t have to be right-wing or left-wing in a perpetual battle for false paradigms. you can simply be kno-wing, with a proper sense of reality, compassion, and justice.
Your theory must rely on the existence of government intervention for it to have any chance of being true. Take government out of the equation and how would inflation happen? Are you saying that an economy without legal tender would suffer from constant negative feedback loops?
first, you ignore the reality of having to pay land rents (or other taxes and the payment of chartered private debts) to fund a minimum government for the protection of state-granted title to land or other more private and legitimate forms of property and life.
second, you would have to address conversion of the existing money supply. if you don’t consider such, you might as well dig your own grave because you won’t live very long with a plan like that.
third, you miss the point of multiple free market currencies leading to an overall inflationary system of new currencies constantly entering the market, increasing the money supply.
forth, you repeat history of the colonial currencies, where you have widespread money market manipulation. for example, the wealthy would borrow inflationary currency and accumulate deflationary currency, robbing those who are less able to manipulate money markets to their favor. a lot of people would be left the holding bag as those in the know jump ship to another currency. you’d also have the situation of colonies selecting commodities or foreign tender, and the possibility of taxes rotting in a silo.
some of us read old books for direct historical accounts and examine history without the bias of a rockefeller foundation funding of a neo-classical school of economics. colonialism isn’t far from feudalism. there were good reasons why article 1.10 directly banned colonial currencies in the u.s. constitution. adam smith covered some of the reasons in wealth of nations.
but i know what you are really saying. you want to end article 1.8 of the u.s. constitution and have taxes paid in gold and silver by the states and the currency provided by the states restricted by article 1.10. you want to artificially increase the value of your gold. you plan to borrow in the inflationary currency and accumulate the deflationary currency, stealing a free lunch by the state intervening in free markets. you’re nothing but a parasite, looking to steal a free lunch with the help of the government.
you incorrectly assume everyone will use gold and silver. employers won’t be using gold to pay their employees since it will increase in value and since it is too rare to circulate for exchange. they’ll be using bank scrip or local scrip, and the employees will buy gold with their scrip to pay their taxes. which is the prime reason why jefferson declared war against the banks and corporation, wanted to suppress bank paper, and fought for article 1.8, stating it is the prime duty of congress to provide the legal tender.
Did you not previously (and correctly) recognize me as an anarcho-capitalist?
anarcho-capitalists believe in feudalism, the private ownership of land. they equate land and money to capital (like marx). they want the people to pay tribute to the local land baron for protection and for the right to farm and to travel upon the roads. they want “voluntary contracts” between feudal lord and serf. yes, you basically want the federal government and state governments ended. you want local governments. so, yes, you have no need for legal tender and desire for the federal government and existing monetary units to collapse and become worthless (and somehow have private property rights [privileges] in land retained). you only desire the tender that the local land baron will accept. you want a return to the dark age in hopes you’ll be the plantation owner and feudal land baron. you basically want to be jim jones, which makes you a tyrant and parasite. but we have to debate the higher forms and various schemes of feudalism before we come to this point of debating out-right feudalism/anarchy. you guys are slippery, and i know your slippery slope well. you guys all share the same brainwashed brain.
Your theory might have been correct before and during the industrial revolution, but in an age of widely available productive technology, an anarcho-capitalist society would have so many entrepreneurs that they would have to bid up the wages offered, making the job market as competitive as the labor market. Labor laws like the minimum wage, 40 hour work week, mandatory benefits, and such have inadvertently created a labor surplus that makes exploiting the people looking for work even easier. Without that surplus, the highly competitive job market would virtually eliminate the massive profits currently enjoyed by the owners of businesses.
I don’t mean to sound condescending, but I honestly can’t understand how people believe that anarcho-capitalism would result in robber barons. They existed in the 1870s, yes, but that’s only because they were the few who pioneered industrialism. With so many different businesses today, small and large, and with wages and other costs of labor allowed to match supply and demand, workers would have tons of employment options to choose from, with employers who have to actually entice people to work for them.
40 hour work week have resulted in a labor surplus? you really need to think before you try to draw conclusions, incorrectly assuming the rockefeller foundation’s neo-classical school of economics is the miracle cure all. i don’t believe you’re condescending. i do believe you’re brainwashed, and you’re actually very sad to watch. you’re like a zombie without a mind or a soul.
Yeah I should have left that one out. It is problematic, but for a different reason. Still, I stand by the rest of what I said. And you keep mentioning the Rockefeller Foundation, which I’ve never paid attention to, and which I would not even be familiar with if it weren’t for you bringing it up.
Call me a zombie if you want, but I work two jobs, am getting close to a degree in accounting, and spend a lot of time relaxing with friends and drinking beer while talking about things that have nothing to do with economics. This is just a hobby for when I’m bored. To be honest, I hate politics and would avoid it entirely if it didn’t affect me. I also wouldn’t spend any time caring about macroeconomics if it were allowed to simply work the way it should as a force of nature.
the rockefeller foundation funded ludwig von mises. the same people who believe “competition is sin”… rockefeller as in standard oil, exxon, chase bank, united nations, and federal reserve, not to mention the extensive involvement in globalization and eugenics.
unfortunately, things aren’t very simple. getting rid of the government is not the answer since you still have the government of the jungle, which is quite dangerous since the claws and teeth of humans come in the form of guns and kool aid and results in tribalism, colonialism, communism (as in communes), and feudalism. europe found itself with feudalism and colonialism after the fall of the roman empire. it isn’t about government vs. freedom. it is about tyranny vs. liberty. freedom has to be secured by government as liberty.
we have to understand the fundamental nature and components of economies if we’re going to get anywhere. unfortunately, it isn’t simple either. the most fundamental component of governments and economies is land. when you equate land to capital, you’re a neoclassical economist, like marx, von mises, or keynes, and have already failed to understand the fundamentals of economies and governments. we’ve also already failed to understand money by equating it to commodities, capital, or credit.
i think the goverment is so unfair that theyd offer treaty to a nation , thats in a defeceit of ten to twelve million dollors, when our nation is mismanaging monies, yet they send another, 1.4million dollors to our first nations people, and we are the anti treaty people, that know at the end we will have nothing. as its all about the money, power is the money, and our own chief and negoiters use , that against theier own people, if monies was spent how the goverment sent it, and it was spent that way, wed be alright, but people get great amounts of monies, been paid a hundredthousand dollors for making treaty happen also houniourium, monies of fifty thousand, for making treaty happen. the only ones gaining are the chiefs, and negoiters, and the rest of sliammon first nations, cant get their house fixed, or the sewer line, so they condem the house, now does that sound like their ready for treaty, their busy lining each others pockets, and fixing the houses they want, with their three cars and trucks and toys. sliammon first nations needs no more money from the goverment, they need a full forencis , audit, and transperencey,
[...] we live under is a top down authoritarian order of compliance. In order to break this prototype, Mr. Gardner offers this initial [...]