Why the modest inflation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

While it is true that central-banks do help commercial-banks sustain the "illusion of solvency", it usually doesn't lead to inflation & siphoning of the purchasing-power in the long-run because as I've said, banks have to pay back the loans with interest & when they do, the money gets destroyed...

---

For the record, and for the sake of precision, and clarity of understanding, I avoid the unqualified use of the word 'inflation' wherever possible as it applies to economics.

Price Inflation, or 'inflation' as commonly understood when used by itself, refers only to a general increase in price levels. Thus, it is a description of an effect, without regard to its many possible causes. So it is no wonder that this definition is the much preferred default by statists, monetarists and Keynesian-spawned schools of thought, because the term is so nebulous and imprecise as to be forever moot, as it lends itself to myriad reality-obfuscating interpretations.

Monetary Inflation, on the other hand refers only to an increase in the aggregate currency supply--by any amount, regardless how, when or where it circulates. If you counterfeit and circulate a single dime you have caused monetary inflation to that extent. This definition is an extremely precise, indisputably positive description of a specific cause, without regard to its many effects. How that might lead to 'price inflation' is another story altogether. Follow the money--the cause, and not its much-debated effects, or whether or not they are discernible, or can be attributed to monetary inflation.

Each loan under the currency creation/destruction process you described above has a monetary inflation/deflation curve of its own. Considering the case of only a single loan in the creation/destruction process, monetary inflation occurs the very moment that new currency comes into existence as a result of that loan, with monetary deflation occurring as that loan is repaid and the principle is destroyed. The only thing that ultimately happens, once the loan is repaid, is that wealth was transferred in the form of interest as it was channeled into/through the bank. Monetary inflation occurs, however, so long as any counterfeited currency in that creation/destruction process still exists. Thus, loan payments only deflate the bubble originally created in the supply--not the original supply.

You say that "...banks have to pay back the loans with interest & when they do, the money gets destroyed...", which implies 1) there was no net effect on the exchange value of the currency in the interim, and 2) there is no net new money in the system when all is said and done.

Two problems with that:

1) there is always an interim effect, and
2) nothing is ever "all said and done"

In reality, there is always monetary inflation which leads inexorably to price inflation) in this process. That is because there is always a new and ever-expanding crop of loans to replace all the principle that is being destroyed from prior loans long before they are repaid. You say that principle is destroyed as banks pay back loans with interest, but the aggregate debt pool always expands at a faster rate than the loans that are being repaid. That is an absolute mathematical requirement for the survival of the entire FRB system, which cannot survive otherwise (under any regime), making it little more than a Ponzi scheme. The Federal Reserve is there to facilitate and provide cover and efficiency to that scheme, and to disguise its inherent insolvency.

This is where increase-consumption-at-all-costs ("grow the economy") comes into play, and goes to the heart of why I believe mainstream economists (Krugman et al) do not include private debt as factors in macroeconomic models, and yet will argue out of the other side of their mouths that spending, consumption, and private debt in the aggregate must expand to keep the economy 'stimulated'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

Clearly, you have no clue that the interest on debt owned by Fed goes right back to Treasury. This nonsense conspiracy-theory has been debunked many times on these forums. Do your research or keep smoking the conspiracy-dope!

I really can't debate when someone is so ignorant of such basic things.

---

Last year they gave back $77 billion to the US Treasury. Not just interest on the Treasuries they own but the profits they earn from other actions and investments as well (minus their expenses).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/bu...sury.html?_r=0

Quote:

---

Fed Turns Over $77 Billion in Profits to the Treasury

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM

Published: January 10, 2012


WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve said on Tuesday that it contributed $76.9 billion in profits to the Treasury Department last year, slightly less than its record 2010 transfer but much more than in any other previous year.

The Fed is required by law to turn over its profits to the Treasury each year, a highly lucrative byproduct of the central bank’s continuing campaign to stimulate economic growth.

Almost 97 percent of the Fed’s income was generated by interest payments on its investment portfolio, including $2.5 trillion in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities, which it has amassed in an effort to decrease borrowing costs for businesses and consumers by reducing long-term interest rates.

Through those purchases, the central bank has become the largest single investor in federal debt and securities issued by the government-owned mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a consequence, most of the money flowing into the Fed’s coffers comes from taxpayers.

But Fed officials note that this cycle — payments flowing from Treasury to the Fed and then back to the Treasury — still saves money for taxpayers because those interest payments otherwise would be made to other investors.

“It’s interest that the Treasury didn’t have to pay to the Chinese,” the Fed’s chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, half-jokingly told Congress last year.

The scale of the transfers grew rapidly after the financial crisis.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

I don't know what "fraud" you are talking about but if that's an inference to money-creation then that's the problem caused by government, not banking in general.

---

The bankers control the government. FEC records alone prove this. There's a reason why pro-Fed candidates are more successful in politics. Political donations and PAC's are just an "operating cost" for the bankers. Goldman Sachs for example has its own PAC. I wonder what causes they support?

This claim that, it's not their fault, because the government is doing it, not them, is part of the scam. If I were to hire a hitman to pull the trigger, I'd be just as responsible for the murder. But somehow, if I were to hire the government to do the same thing, it's not my fault, because it's the government that is coercive? I don't buy that for a second.

Making profits off the Fed is one thing. But when you profit enormously off this counterfeit money, AND lie through your teeth about it AND pay the coercive institution known as government to maintain it, that's fraud. Plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven Douglas

You say that "...banks have to pay back the loans with interest & when they do, the money gets destroyed...", which implies 1) there was no net effect on the exchange value of the currency in the interim, and 2) there is no net new money in the system when all is said and done.

---

I didn't imply 1) although I didn't clarify on that point because I didn't want to elongate the posts even more; on the other hand, I've already talked about 2), pointing out that most of this NET new money continues to exist as money created to finance the Treasury by almost perpetual NET purchases of Treasuries.

Of course, it could be said that there's a temporary inflationary effect in the interim but that depends on how long the money remained in the system; nonetheless, however much its effect on the people at large, so long as you are paying its cost, you can hardly be accused of theft.
In fact, such an effect occurs in various markets, for example, the more oil you buy, the more it may temporarily push up demand & prices & it could be argued that you have reduced, at least temporarily, other people's purchasing-power to buy oil compared to a scenario where you didn't buy oil at all or bought less than you actually did but the answer to that contention is that you paid the cost for it on the market.
Similarly, banks pay the cost of borrowing, banks either borrow from savers/depositors or from Fed, Fed charges much higher rate which makes it less profitable to borrow from Fed so they borrow from Fed only when it's absolutely necessary.
If there was no Fed, then banks would be paying this cost of borrowing only to savers/depositors but since there's Fed with power to create money (steal & lend others' purchasing-power), the interest-cost that banks would have otherwise paid to savers/depositors ends up being paid to Fed, & of course, by effect it ends up in Treasury's pocket as Fed hands over its profits to Treasury. This could essentially be construed to be the value absorbed from people during that temporary inflation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven Douglas

That is because there is always a new and ever-expanding crop of loans to replace all the principle that is being destroyed from prior loans long before they are repaid.

---

Again, it's not always very profitable to borrow from Fed because of higher interest charged so banks don't like continuously rolling over their loans, Treasury doesn't mind it because they don't have to pay any interest-cost to Fed because whatever Treasury "pays" to Fed comes right back to Treasury but that's not how it works for banks, they have to go out there, provide voluntary services, make profits while balancing the risk of borrower-defaults, & no, Fed doesn't help all the banks all the time, many banks fail without recourse so the notion that Fed exists purely to support banking-industry as a whole is rather facetious, whatever loaning/bailing Fed does occurs according to their belief that banking-collapse, especially collapse of bigger banks, will lead to more problems & public-outrage due to recessions.

Further, as I've said, you can look at the NET monetary-inflation that Fed has created over the years until the recent crisis, most of the increase is due to continuous NET increase in Fed's stock of Treasuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bxm042

The bankers control the government. FEC records alone prove this. There's a reason why pro-Fed candidates are more successful in politics. Political donations and PAC's are just an "operating cost" for the bankers. Goldman Sachs for example has its own PAC. I wonder what causes they support?

This claim that, it's not their fault, because the government is doing it, not them, is part of the scam. If I were to hire a hitman to pull the trigger, I'd be just as responsible for the murder. But somehow, if I were to hire the government to do the same thing, it's not my fault, because it's the government that is coercive? I don't buy that for a second.

Making profits off the Fed is one thing. But when you profit enormously off this counterfeit money, AND lie through your teeth about it AND pay the coercive institution known as government to maintain it, that's fraud. Plain and simple.

---

Ok, let's use your reasoning then. Ok, let's presume all of your speculative accusations to be true & incriminate all the PDs, banks or whoever for bribing government to indirectly steal, defraud & whatever & put'em all into prison.

What next? You know there's a big chunk of the population which bribes government through votes as well as money to steal money from some people & give it to them or others, well, we must then put'em all in prison for indirect theft.

What next? You know there's another chunk of the population which bribes government through votes as well as money to go to wars & kill so we must also put them into prison for indirect murder.

Well, going by that reasoning, most of the population would be in prison for none of them has committed any direct coercion against anyone! :rolleyes:

Liberty emphasizes a lot on people being INDIVIDUALS & that would presume that people can only be held accountable for their OWN coercive actions.

Do you think each of the welfarist would go around stealing people's money if the government had no coercive powers? Do you think war-mongers would go to foreign countries to kill people if government had no coercive powers? Do you think Fed would even be there if it wasn't for a coercive government? It's the government's "legal" coercive powers that enable all of this. Instead of recognizing this, if you attack people for following what they perceive to be in their self-interest without direct coercion, which is how a market naturally works, then you are in effect dissing the market itself & pushing people away from the free market & towards coercive government.

Such thinking leads to ultra-liberal thinking of absurd proportions where one starts believing that "if we could just stop people from trying to use government for their self-interest then government would be great", overlooking the root of the problem itself - coercive government.
Case in point :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travlyr

The state is your friend if you are a homeowner or a property owner.

---

Again, people & markets are driven by self-interest & profit, you can never stop this market-process & hence, so long as the government has coercive powers, people will continue to try to use it to their advantage, expecting them to not to do that is like expecting markets not to work - it's not going to happen! So the focus must at all times be on getting rid of government's "legal" coercive powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

So the focus must at all times be on getting rid of government's "legal" coercive powers.

---

Count me out of your libertarian Utopia.

I subscribe to the classical liberal philosophy. I want to keep my rights to own a home and have a monopoly of force in my home. I want the support of state law to back me up if I have to eliminate thieves or intruders from my home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travlyr

Count me out of your libertarian Utopia.

I subscribe to the classical liberal philosophy. I want to keep my rights to own a home and have a monopoly of force in my home. I want the support of state law to back me up if I have to eliminate thieves or intruders from my home.

---

So you don't believe in equality? You believe that people in government should have the "legal" power to coerce others while not everyone else can do the same?
Well, if one believes in equality of rights for all people then one must believe that nobody should be able to coerce anyone else.

Oh yeah, governments are innocent little children! Governments don't like the power of issuing money! Governments didn't create central-banking to benefit themselves! :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37f-EKeIifc

0:41 onwards

"Like all government created monopolies, the federal monopoly on money results in substandard product in the form of our ever-depreciating dollars.

Yet governments have always sought to monopolize the issuance of money, either directly or through the creation of central banks. The expanding role of the Federal Reserve in the 20th century enabled our federal government to grow wildly larger than would have been possible otherwise. Our Fed, like all central banks, encourages deficits by effectively monetizing Treasury debt."

Governments have sought to control money & its issuance for a long long time, from the Roman emperors debasing the content in their coins to increase total supply to Chinese rulers' issuance of first modern paper-money to modern governments & their central-banks with their surreptitious debt-monetization. Saying that governments didn't create central-banking to finance & benefit themselves is like saying that earth is flat - the evidence is far too overwhelming when looked at through the lens of reason & critical-thinking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

What next? You know there's a big chunk of the population which bribes government through votes as well as money to steal money from some people & give it to them or others, well, we must then put'em all in prison for indirect theft.

---

And they too are accountable for their actions. I wouldn't throw them in prison though. I don't like the idea of prisons. (Prefer restorative compensation or deportation).

However, their crimes pale in comparison to the heinousness and magnitude of the unforgivable crimes of the Federal Reserve.

Quote:

---

What next? You know there's another chunk of the population which bribes government through votes as well as money to go to wars & kill so we must also put them into prison for indirect murder.

---

They do deserve it, that much is true.

Quote:

---

Well, going by that reasoning, most of the population would be in prison for none of them has committed any direct coercion against anyone! :rolleyes:

Liberty emphasizes a lot on people being INDIVIDUALS & that would presume that people can only be held accountable for their OWN coercive actions.

---

You're still trying to tell me here that if I hire a hitman to pull the trigger, and a person dies, I didn't do anything wrong because I didn't pull the trigger.

Calling it "government" does not give anyone a free pass.

Quote:

---

Do you think each of the welfarist would go around stealing people's money if the government had no coercive powers? Do you think war-mongers would go to foreign countries to kill people if government had no coercive powers? Do you think Fed would even be there if it wasn't for a coercive government? It's the government's "legal" coercive powers that enable all of this. Instead of recognizing this, if you attack people for following what they perceive to be in their self-interest without direct coercion, which is how a market naturally works, then you are in effect dissing the market itself & pushing people away from the free market & towards coercive government.

---

You're trying to act like government is some abstract entity coercing and shoving people around all by itself. It's not. Most people are coercive, and the government is simply a reflection of that. Bankers have bought themselves positions of power, allowing them to be even more coercive, and buy even more power, so I do hold them more culpable than the average Joe voter, but the bottom line is putting a 'government' label on their actions doesn't make it any less of a crime.

Quote:

---

Such thinking leads to ultra-liberal thinking of absurd proportions where one starts believing that "if we could just stop people from trying to use government for their self-interest then government would be great", overlooking the root of the problem itself - coercive government.

---

Self interest? If hiring a hitman is in my self interest, that makes it ok? How does that even begin to make sense?

If stealing on the order of trillions is in my self interest? That's ok? No, it's not ok. And manipulating elections to get the government to do it for you, is also, NOT OK.

Modern central banking, and the bankers responsible for it, are responsible for the single greatest assault on human liberties in the history of mankind. Their crimes are not to be forgiven or overlooked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

Oh yeah, governments are innocent little children! Governments don't like the power of issuing money! Governments didn't create central-banking to benefit themselves! :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37f-EKeIifc

0:41 onwards

Like all government created monopolies, the federal monopoly on money results in substandard product in the form of our ever-depreciating dollars.

Yet governments have always sought to monopolize the issuance of money, either directly or through the creation of central banks. The expanding role of the Federal Reserve in the 20th century enabled our federal government to grow wildly larger than would have been possible otherwise. Our Fed, like all central banks, encourages deficits by effectively monetizing Treasury debt.

Governments have sought to control money & its issuance for a long long time, from the Roman emperors debasing the content in their coins to increase total supply to Chinese rulers' issuance of first modern paper-money to modern governments & their central-banks with their surreptitious debt-monetization. Saying that governments didn't create central-banking to finance & benefit themselves is like saying that earth is flat - the evidence is far too overwhelming when looked at through the lens of reason & critical-thinking!

---

You are aware, are you not, that the Fed is not a Constitutional entity?

"To Regulate The Value Of Money"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

So you don't believe in equality? You believe that people in government should have the "legal" power to coerce others while not everyone else can do the same?
Well, if one believes in equality of rights for all people then one must believe that nobody should be able to coerce anyone else.

---

This is correct. I do believe that I have more of a right to my home than you. And I expect the State laws to back me up on that if I must use force to remove an unwanted intruder.

I agree with Mises and Ron Paul and I disagree with Rothbard on that.

Quote:

---

We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government. - Ludwig von Mises

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bxm042

You're still trying to tell me here that if I hire a hitman to pull the trigger, and a person dies, I didn't do anything wrong because I didn't pull the trigger.

---

It's not about what's "right" or "wrong" but whether someone is using coercion or not, of course, there may be different views on "right" or "wrong", for example, it may be considered "wrong" for someone to let a child starve but since there's no coercion, the parent(s) can't be held responsible.

Each person can only be held responsible for his own coercive actions & not of someone else's, so long as hitman is free to make a choice, only he can be held responsible; the crime mayn't even occur if he refused to do it because obviously his client doesn't want to get his hands dirty. There may be different views on this but having things any other way can make things far too arbitrary.

Again, you're too much into conspiracy-theories & therefore unwilling to look at facts such as the magnitude of benefits to government & that banks don't get any "free money" as is assumed while I prefer to rely strictly on facts & reason, so there's a fundamental disconnect between the two views which is going to make any fruitful discussion impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travlyr

This is correct. I do believe that I have more of a right to my home than you. And I expect the State laws to back me up on that if I must use force to remove an unwanted intruder.

I agree with Mises and Ron Paul and I disagree with Rothbard on that.

---

Ok, so you don't believe in equality of rights! And how ironic that you'd like to invade other countries that trample on their people's rights! :rolleyes:

You believe that there should be two classes of people :
1) Master Class, comprising of people in government, who can rob & coerce others
2) Slaves, comprising of rest of the sub-humans, who will be robbed & coerced

Even more ironic that you justify the War of Northern Aggression under the pretext of ending slavery! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

It's not about what's "right" or "wrong" but whether someone is using coercion or not, of course, there may be different views on "right" or "wrong", for example, it may be considered "wrong" for someone to let a child starve but since there's no coercion, the parent(s) can't be held responsible.

Each person can only be held responsible for his own coercive actions & not of someone else's, so long as hitman is free to make a choice, only he can be held responsible; the crime mayn't even occur if he refused to do it because obviously his client doesn't want to get his hands dirty. There may be different views on this but having things any other way can make things far too arbitrary.

Again, you're too much into conspiracy-theories & therefore unwilling to look at facts such as the magnitude of benefits to government & that banks don't get any "free money" as is assumed while I prefer to rely strictly on facts & reason, so there's a fundamental disconnect between the two views which is going to make any fruitful discussion impossible.

---

Do you understand that money can not be created out-of-nothing? Currency can but money must be earned. Money is a tangible good that is mined, grown, or sewn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

Ok, so you don't believe in equality of rights! And how ironic that you'd like to invade other countries that trample on their people's rights! :rolleyes:

You believe that there should be two classes of people :
1) Master Class, comprising of people in government, who can rob & coerce others
2) Slaves, comprising of rest of the sub-humans, who will be robbed & coerced

Even more ironic that you justify the War of Northern Aggression under the pretext of ending slavery! :rolleyes:

---

Where do you come up with these crazy conspiracy theories? Why are you making stuff up about what I believe. People can read for themselves. The world doesn't need you telling them what I think. You are distorting what I write.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travlyr

Where do you come up with these crazy conspiracy theories? Why are you making stuff up about what I believe. People can read for themselves. The world doesn't need you telling them what I think. You are distorting what I write.

---

Well, you support existence of coercive government, which obviously means following :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

Ok, so you don't believe in equality of rights! And how ironic that you'd like to invade other countries that trample on their people's rights! :rolleyes:

You believe that there should be two classes of people :
1) Master Class, comprising of people in government, who can rob & coerce others
2) Slaves, comprising of rest of the sub-humans, who will be robbed & coerced

Even more ironic that you justify the War of Northern Aggression under the pretext of ending slavery! :rolleyes:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

Well, you support existence of coercive government, which obviously means following :

---

Do you think you have equal right to my home?
Or do I have more right to my home than you?
Do you have more right to your home than I?

What do you believe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travlyr

Do you think you have equal right to my home?
Or do I have more right to my home than you?
Do you have more right to your home than I?

What do you believe?

---

Crickets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

It's not about what's "right" or "wrong" but whether someone is using coercion or not, of course, there may be different views on "right" or "wrong", for example, it may be considered "wrong" for someone to let a child starve but since there's no coercion, the parent(s) can't be held responsible.

Each person can only be held responsible for his own coercive actions & not of someone else's, so long as hitman is free to make a choice, only he can be held responsible; the crime mayn't even occur if he refused to do it because obviously his client doesn't want to get his hands dirty. There may be different views on this but having things any other way can make things far too arbitrary.

---

Hiring a hitman is an act of aggression. Period. I'm not going to get into an extended debate on this subject, because its really quite silly. The idea that "its not aggression unless you yourself pull the trigger" has more holes in it than a cheese grater. It doesn't hold up to reality, because you are in effect endorsing the right to hire people to kill others for money, which clearly conflicts with the vast majority of people's concept of natural law. Furthermore, just as a handgun is but a tool, so is a hitman. The person commissioning the hitman has coercive intent, and is simply using a different tool to complete the act. The only difference is that there are now two parties at blame for the murder than just one.

The bottom line is the idea that a person who hires a hitman is "wrong" but shouldn't be held responsible is an outlandishly oversimplified misunderstanding of the NAP. You're probably just trying to justify your apologies of the bankers, but if you do actually really believe this, I'd prefer not to discuss this aspect further. It's not worth my time, so if you disagree on this, then please just agree to disagree and move on, because you will never convince me that hiring a hitman is non-coercive.

Quote:

---

Again, you're too much into conspiracy-theories & therefore unwilling to look at facts such as the magnitude of benefits to government & that banks don't get any "free money" as is assumed while I prefer to rely strictly on facts & reason, so there's a fundamental disconnect between the two views which is going to make any fruitful discussion impossible.

---

The politicians are criminals too. And I would like to see them held accountable for their crimes, just as much as the bankers. The crimes of the politicians does not exculpate the crimes of the bankers. They are both responsible for the crimes of the Fed.

I've already proven that the banks make more profit with the Fed than without it. How much profit, can't be proven, but based on the available evidence and the strong correlation between money printed, and bankers profits... I'd say, A LOT.

You're just proving that you're a mindless apologist by calling that a "conspiracy theory"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travlyr

Do you think you have equal right to my home?
Or do I have more right to my home than you?
Do you have more right to your home than I?

What do you believe?

---

As anyone who has ever argued with you will agree, you're quite the master of diversion & intellectual dishonesty. But nonetheless, just for the heck of it, I'll answer the 3 questions :

No
Yes
Yes

Ok, so that random nonsense is out of the way - here's the point again - you support government robbing & coercing people, which automatically entails that you believe that people in government should have more rights than rest of the people, that is NOT equality at all, in fact, it's like slavery.

Clearly, you don't believe in all people having equal rights to their life, liberty & property!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

As anyone who has ever argued with you will agree, you're quite the master of diversion & intellectual dishonesty. But nonetheless, just for the heck of it, I'll answer the 3 questions :

No
Yes
Yes

Ok, so that random nonsense is out of the way - here's the point again - you support government robbing & coercing people, which automatically entails that you believe that people in government should have more rights than rest of the people, that is NOT equality at all, in fact, it's like slavery.

Clearly, you don't believe in all people having equal rights to their life, liberty & property!

---

Why are you still telling people what I believe. Clearly, your understanding of what I believe is wrong. I subscribe to classical liberal philosophy as described by Ludwig von Mises.

It is amazing to me the number of people on this forum who can not understand the proper role of government. Read Mises, "Liberalism, State and Government"

Quote:

---

"The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand."

---

Private ownership of the means of production not the private ownership of everything in the world.

I do not support government robbing people. I want the counterfeiting to stop ASAP. End the Fed tomorrow by legalizing competing currencies.

I also do not see all taxation as theft. I understand some taxes are fees for services. I do agree with Mises. What really baffles me is the number of people who read LvMI and disagree with Mises himself. I believe, like Mises, that a state is a necessary good in which to provide law administered by government officials.

Quote:

---

We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bxm042

Hiring a hitman is an act of aggression. Period. I'm not going to get into an extended debate on this subject, because its really quite silly. The idea that "its not aggression unless you yourself pull the trigger" has more holes in it than a cheese grater. It doesn't hold up to reality, because you are in effect endorsing the right to hire people to kill others for money, which clearly conflicts with the vast majority of people's concept of natural law. Furthermore, just as a handgun is but a tool, so is a hitman. The person commissioning the hitman has coercive intent, and is simply using a different tool to complete the act. The only difference is that there are now two parties at blame for the murder than just one.

The bottom line is the idea that a person who hires a hitman is "wrong" but shouldn't be held responsible is an outlandishly oversimplified misunderstanding of the NAP. You're probably just trying to justify your apologies of the bankers, but if you do actually really believe this, I'd prefer not to discuss this aspect further. It's not worth my time, so if you disagree on this, then please just agree to disagree and move on, because you will never convince me that hiring a hitman is non-coercive.

---

In fact, defining coercion upon "intent" is a big blackhole, it's a pandora's box of its own. Let's go back to the parents starving their children, again, are they obligated to feed them? Is anyone obligated to feed anyone? No. The "intent" in this case is obvious, it's going to lead to children's death but does that mean the parents are using coercion? No.
Let's say a Christian priest desecrates Qur'an or photo of Mohammed or whatever with an "intent" to incite Muslims & demonstrate their violent nature, then some Muslims riot, vandalize & let's say kill some Christians, did the Christian priest commit coercion upon anyone? No.

As I've said, once you start trying to criminalize people based on "intent", it's going to lead to all kinds of scenarios where arbitrary judgments are going to be have to be made & people are going to disagree quite a bit & all you're going to end up with is crappy laws, words of which can be manipulated more wildly by lawyers, good for lawyers, good for their criminal-clients, bad for the society as a whole.
That's why it's important to keep laws simple & solid, so that they can't be wildly manipulated - if a person commits an act that's not voluntary, then it's not justifiable.

Further, there may be People-A (let's say like the person hiring the hitman) & People-B (like the hitman) - now, the incidence of crime is going to be higher in a society where both types of people exist compared to a society where People-B don't exist.
Somebody may want someone else killed but the mere "intent" itself is never sufficient to kill, it requires people willing to use direct coercion (like People-B), if nobody is willing to use coercion & kill then nobody dies no matter how much someone wants to kill somebody else, so given that he has a free choice, only the hitman can be said to engage in an unjustifiable, involuntary, coercive act.

As for trying to convince, I'd not try to convince any conspiracy-theorist because their views rely heavily on their imaginary world full of conspiracies, where anyone with a different view on things & anyone who doesn't share their delusions is immediately considered to be the part of the conspiracy, a "banker-apologist" or "disinformation-agent" or whatever. They have trouble being objective about things so the only way they are going to come around on any issue is if they somehow develop a more objective approach of looking at things but that realization has to come from inside, nobody can convince them of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bxm042

The politicians are criminals too. And I would like to see them held accountable for their crimes, just as much as the bankers. The crimes of the politicians does not exculpate the crimes of the bankers. They are both responsible for the crimes of the Fed.

---

It's not a question of exculpating the government so much but it's the act of inculpating the private non-coercive actors that leads people in general (may be not you personally) to adopt a mentality that "all we've to do is disentangle the private influence within the government & government won't misuse it's coercive powers". Travlyr is a typical example of this, where he believes that "if only the government was decoupled from 'evil bankers' then government will be nice despite its coercive powers". Then there are the typical socialists who also think government will be great if we could just weed that the evil private influence, again, not realizing that the private influence exists only to benefit off of government's coercive powers!
In order to sidestep such delusions, it's important to be specific about the root of the problem, & that must be the coercive powers of the government, because blaming non-coercive private actors causes most people to disregard the root of the problem & they continue to engage in socialist fantasies of various kinds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bxm042

I've already proven that the banks make more profit with the Fed than without it. How much profit, can't be proven, but based on the available evidence and the strong correlation between money printed, and bankers profits... I'd say, A LOT.

You're just proving that you're a mindless apologist by calling that a "conspiracy theory"

---

No, you haven't proven anything, if it's about the PDs then here's the thing, whether Fed exists or not, PDs would still exist so long as government values their participation because as I've repeatedly pointed out, PDs are there to keep the markets liquid & spreads low, which allows the government to maximize its revenues from selling Treasuries/debt. So even if Fed were shut down tomorrow, PDs would likely continue to exist so your assumption that bankers support Fed to preserve their profits on PD-business is utterly fallacious.

And calling me "banker apologist" or whatever doesn't change anything about facts & facts are that you don't understand how the Fed works, you seem unable to grasp the magnitude of monetary benefit extracted by the government because of the Fed, you won't even bother to learn history & realize that governments have always tried to control issue of money & current times are no different. The only thing you "know" is the typical OWS approach that bankers are evil because they are making lots of money in ways that you can't comprehend so all those videos & articles out there saying that "bankers are evil" must be true :rolleyes:

Why modest inflation? Because the economy is only just beginning to recover. Inflation will become a concern only if and when the economy brings it on 1999 style. Personally, I'm ready to party like it's 1999.

Also, the Fed's policies are not nearly as inflationary as some believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

It's not a question of exculpating the government so much but it's the act of inculpating the private non-coercive actors that leads people in general (may be not you personally) to adopt a mentality that "all we've to do is disentangle the private influence within the government & government won't misuse it's coercive powers". Travlyr is a typical example of this, where he believes that "if only the government was decoupled from 'evil bankers' then government will be nice despite its coercive powers".

---

Your reading skills are horrible dude, and your writing skills are deceitful. Why are you writing false crap about me? That's bullshit. Why are you telling people what I believe when you don't have a frikken clue?

I know that psychopaths gravitate toward government power no matter what. I also know that when enough people understand how the Federal Reserve System is stealing most of our individual wealth, then the counterfeiters will go the way of the dinosaur, and government will shrink to little of nothing because they will starve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travlyr

I also do not see all taxation as theft. I understand some taxes are fees for services.

---

All taxation is by definition theft/robbery as it is extracted forcibly from people, there's no choice, something that anybody who believes in equal rights won't find justifiable.
And taxation & user fees aren't always the same, taxation is coercive & extracted arbitrarily irrespective of whether a service was used or not, irrespective of the extent of the usage while user fees mayn't be so.

Besides, you support conscription, which is coercive & a form of slavery!

Anybody that truly supports freedom & believes in everyone having equal rights to life, liberty & property so they'll will ONLY support VOLUNTARY ACTION, no coercion of any kind because that would violate the principle of equal rights - & this doesn't seem to be the case with you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travlyr

I do agree with Mises. What really baffles me is the number of people who read LvMI and disagree with Mises himself. I believe, like Mises, that a state is a necessary good in which to provide law administered by government officials.

---

Why is everyone obligated to agree with Mises or Ron or anyone? They aren't. People can have different opinions, if Mises was a minarchist then that doesn't mean everybody here must be a minarchist, just because Ron is a Christian doesn't mean everybody here must be a Christian....

Besides, it seems Mises believed in micro-secession & you don't seem to, so why do you disagree with Mises? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

All taxation is by definition theft/robbery as it is extracted forcibly from people, there's no choice, something that anybody who believes in equal rights won't find justifiable.
And taxation & user fees aren't always the same, taxation is coercive & extracted arbitrarily irrespective of whether a service was used or not, irrespective of the extent of the usage while user fees mayn't be so.

Besides, you support conscription, which is coercive & a form of slavery!

Anybody that truly supports freedom & believes in everyone having equal rights to life, liberty & property so they'll will ONLY support VOLUNTARY ACTION, no coercion of any kind because that would violate the principle of equal rights - & this doesn't seem to be the case with you!



Why is everyone obligated to agree with Mises or Ron or anyone? They aren't. People can have different opinions, if Mises was a minarchist then that doesn't mean everybody here must be a minarchist, just because Ron is a Christian doesn't mean everybody here must be a Christian....

Besides, it seems Mises believed in micro-secession & you don't seem to, so why do you disagree with Mises? :rolleyes:

---

You have horrible reading skills. You still have no clue what I believe yet you are quite willing to tell others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II

In fact, defining coercion upon "intent" is a big blackhole, it's a pandora's box of its own. Let's go back to the parents starving their children, again, are they obligated to feed them? Is anyone obligated to feed anyone? No. The "intent" in this case is obvious, it's going to lead to children's death but does that mean the parents are using coercion? No.
Let's say a Christian priest desecrates Qur'an or photo of Mohammed or whatever with an "intent" to incite Muslims & demonstrate their violent nature, then some Muslims riot, vandalize & let's say kill some Christians, did the Christian priest commit coercion upon anyone? No.

As I've said, once you start trying to criminalize people based on "intent", it's going to lead to all kinds of scenarios where arbitrary judgments are going to be have to be made & people are going to disagree quite a bit & all you're going to end up with is crappy laws, words of which can be manipulated more wildly by lawyers, good for lawyers, good for their criminal-clients, bad for the society as a whole.
That's why it's important to keep laws simple & solid, so that they can't be wildly manipulated - if a person commits an act that's not voluntary, then it's not justifiable.

Further, there may be People-A (let's say like the person hiring the hitman) & People-B (like the hitman) - now, the incidence of crime is going to be higher in a society where both types of people exist compared to a society where People-B don't exist.
Somebody may want someone else killed but the mere "intent" itself is never sufficient to kill, it requires people willing to use direct coercion (like People-B), if nobody is willing to use coercion & kill then nobody dies no matter how much someone wants to kill somebody else, so given that he has a free choice, only the hitman can be said to engage in an unjustifiable, involuntary, coercive act.

---

Pulling a trigger = coercive intent. Telling another to pull a trigger = coercive intent. Intentionally withholding food = intentionally withholding food. One is an active attack on another, and the other is passive non-action. It's apples and oranges.

Again, this idea that the person that hires the hitman isn't morally accountable has more holes than a cheese grater. You can write another small novel on it if you like, but doesn't change this fact.

Quote:

---

As for trying to convince, I'd not try to convince any conspiracy-theorist because their views rely heavily on their imaginary world full of conspiracies, where anyone with a different view on things & anyone who doesn't share their delusions is immediately considered to be the part of the conspiracy, a "banker-apologist" or "disinformation-agent" or whatever. They have trouble being objective about things so the only way they are going to come around on any issue is if they somehow develop a more objective approach of looking at things but that realization has to come from inside, nobody can convince them of that.

---

Ah, the classic "conspiracy-theorist" card. The go-to argument when you have nothing constructive to say and simply wish to discredit via personal attacks.

Quote:

---

It's not a question of exculpating the government so much but it's the act of inculpating the private non-coercive actors that leads people in general (may be not you personally) to adopt a mentality that "all we've to do is disentangle the private influence within the government & government won't misuse it's coercive powers". Travlyr is a typical example of this, where he believes that "if only the government was decoupled from 'evil bankers' then government will be nice despite its coercive powers". Then there are the typical socialists who also think government will be great if we could just weed that the evil private influence, again, not realizing that the private influence exists only to benefit off of government's coercive powers!
In order to sidestep such delusions, it's important to be specific about the root of the problem, & that must be the coercive powers of the government, because blaming non-coercive private actors causes most people to disregard the root of the problem & they continue to engage in socialist fantasies of various kinds.

No, you haven't proven anything, if it's about the PDs then here's the thing, whether Fed exists or not, PDs would still exist so long as government values their participation because as I've repeatedly pointed out, PDs are there to keep the markets liquid & spreads low, which allows the government to maximize its revenues from selling Treasuries/debt. So even if Fed were shut down tomorrow, PDs would likely continue to exist so your assumption that bankers support Fed to preserve their profits on PD-business is utterly fallacious.

And calling me "banker apologist" or whatever doesn't change anything about facts & facts are that you don't understand how the Fed works, you seem unable to grasp the magnitude of monetary benefit extracted by the government because of the Fed, you won't even bother to learn history & realize that governments have always tried to control issue of money & current times are no different. The only thing you "know" is the typical OWS approach that bankers are evil because they are making lots of money in ways that you can't comprehend so all those videos & articles out there saying that "bankers are evil" must be true :rolleyes:

---

I haven't proven that the bankers make more money with the Fed than without it? Just how dense are you? a) It's simple economics, b) I posted it earlier, c) you still haven't addressed it - at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bxm042

Banking is even more (a lot more) profitable when you have a best friend with a printing press who's singular purpose in life is to buy your shit. Tends to make things easier.

The Federal Reserve buys things. Based on FUCKING BASIC economic principles, that means they bought the product at a price that noone else was able and willing to pay at that time. It follows then, this also means that they gave the person they bought the product from more money than that person would have received otherwise. Again, this is economic FACT. Very fucking basic fact, at that.

Additionally, they buy these products from a select group of people; namely BANKERS. In VAST quantities.

This is 100% proof that the bankers do profit from this arrangement. How much is the only question, and there is no way to measure this. You can speculate based on available evidence (such as the correlation between money printed and profits), but the actual quantity cannot be mathematically proved.

---

It's proven they make more money with the Fed than without it. Your denial of this simple economic fact speaks volumes.

The bankers, out of their own personal greed and avarice, have contracted the government into building and maintaining a monetary system designed to steal from me, and give it to bankers and politicians. They lie through their teeth to protect the system for their own wealth, and show zero concern for the monstrous tyrannical government they have built with the system they created.

Your denial of this, again, speaks volumes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bxm042

I haven't proven that the bankers make more money with the Fed than without it? Just how dense are you? a) It's simple economics, b) I posted it earlier, c) you still haven't addressed it - at all.

It's proven they make more money with the Fed than without it. Your denial of this simple economic fact speaks volumes.

The bankers, out of their own personal greed and avarice, have contracted the government into building and maintaining a monetary system designed to steal from me, and give it to bankers and politicians. They lie to their teeth to protect the system for their own wealth, and show zero concern for the monstrous tyrannical government they have built with the system they created.

Your denial of this, again, speaks volumes.

---

Speaks Volumes.

Quote:

---

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." - Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers." - Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from either class." - Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"Our goal is gradually to absorb the wealth of the world." - Cecil Rhodes, "The secret banking cabal"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan

Also, the Fed's policies are not nearly as inflationary as some believe.

---

Care to elaborate? Do you mean monetary inflation or price inflation? Does the first eventually result in the second?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travlyr

You have horrible reading skills. You still have no clue what I believe yet you are quite willing to tell others.

---

I don't think anybody is so naive to not realize what you believe.

You have yourself admitted that you support taxes (robbing people) & you support conscription (coercion), which automatically means that you don't believe in equal rights for all people but instead a system where people in government have more rights than rest of the people.

You can keep pretending that you are for freedom but you aren't, you just want "your version of freedom" just like socialists want "their version of freedom", not equal freedom for everyone!