At least you can admit it, and you must like it because you find it acceptable.
If your property is entirely paid for then why do you have to pay taxes on it? If a man owns something why does he have to pay for it?
That may be true, but in order for you to have any money, somebody, somewhere had to go into debt to a private commercial bank in order for that money to exsist.
Tomozope,
If you think Byron has it goin on, check out: http://www.moneyasdebt.net/
I saw their last show and may have had a primal religious experience and just bought a 10 pack of their DVDs at half price to give to all my friends and just have to say thanks Tomo for guiding me to the light, sorry I skimmed over Byron’s work but these new folks lay it out so much better and offer hope on how to survive and even thrive in a world gone mad.
It just makes such sense, we’re not slaves to the government but to banks, wealth no longer exists only debt masquerading as money, the real cost of doing business is interest and taxes, etc., etc.
Thanks again Tomo, be sure to start more threads here and elsewhere to help spread the Word.
Have you skimmed over Byron’s newest book modern money secrets?
I wish someone would make a movie about his book “bashed by the bankers”.
Because the state has a lot of guns, and if I don’t pay my taxes they will kill me or imprison me. So, just to be clear, I wouldn’t be a “debt slave” if there weren’t taxes?
Oh yeah, I stole my “debt money” because there isn’t “wealth money.” I’m familiar with your absurd and childish argument where you presuppose your conclusion in your premises.
If you stole it then you’re a thief. If you went out and earned it that is a whole nother story. My absurd and childish arguement? I thought that is the way it works pal. You said you don’t have any debt, so that means you didn’t borrow the money. Which would mean you had to go out and earn it (or your parents did and gifted you an allowance) or you engaged in criminal activity to obtain the money.
I love how you can quote austrian economic theory but you can’t understand how money is transfered, even though it’s probably something you do every day. Have you ever had a job before? Oh that’s right, you steal.
I love how you criticize me but you don’t know what value is or where it comes from. I love how you continue to push this nonsense though the fine people here at mises.org spent 24 pages explaining why you’re wrong, with extreme detail, logic, and facts.
We all know you wrote the article, and not some 6th grader, unless you’re a 6th grader, which would make a lot of sense.
Yes our system is fiat. Fiat doesn’t mean paper, it means decree or order. Our system is imposed (decreed) by the government and thus it is fiat. We happen to use unbacked paper money. Everything else (bank credit, electonic money, whatever) is what is called a perfect money substitute. It is a representation of the paper money we use called the dollar, or Federal Reserve Note. We don’t have to use the paper for the majority of exchanges for the paper to be the true money with everything else being a perfect money substitute. Perfect money substitutes exchange at par with money which is why they are called “perfect money substitutes”.
How is it not different? Our current system only survives through government manipulation and coercion. The Federal Reserve wouldn’t exist in a free market nor would fractional reserve banking. It is fractional reserve banking that allows credit to be expanded out of thin air and contracted when debt is paid off. If all you are worried about is money created as debt, then 100% reserve banking would cure your problems because money couldn’t then be created by the banking system.
It’s impossible to know exactly what a free market monetary system would look like. It’s just like any other industry. I can’t tell you what will be happening in the electronics industry 10 years from now because the market is constantly changing. The same would be true to some degree of a free market monetary system. In all likelihood, the market would choose gold or silver or some combination of the two since these two metals have been chosen time and time again by the market in the past. They work well as the medium of exchange since they are durable, recognizable, hard to counterfeit, have high value per unit weight etc. Let’s assume gold is selected as money by the market. Then gold mining companies would sell raw gold to minting companies who would either spend the new coins into circulation or deposit/loan them to a bank who would loan them out to entrepreneurs and the gold would thus get into circulation. It’s even possible that the mining, minting, and banking operations could be combined into one company. Only the market can tell if this is efficient or not.
Everyone knows how the current system operates: very badly. Theory is important. If you don’t know any economic theory, then you will be stumbling in the dark when you talk about real world issues.
Austrian theory doesn’t seek to answer this question. It’s just an economics question. The transition to a free market monetary system is an entirely different question. There are lots of theories on how this would be done. The best I’ve read come from Rothbard and Jesus Huerta de Soto, but I haven’t read that many proposals so I’m no expert on the transition phase. Basically you need to find what the true money supply is and from there it isn’t terribly difficult.
I’m guessing you haven’t been paying attention or something because pretty much everyone here agrees with doing that.
What is a “wealth based monetary system”? How does a monetary system “increase”? You mean the supply of money increases? An increase in the supply of money doesn’t generate new wealth. And currently, wealth doesn’t increase because debt increases, we just get a bigger money supply and, as always happens when the money supply increases, higher prices.
Just like we can’t fit the thousands of pages of economic theory relating to monetary economics that we’ve read into one forum. It’s impossible which is why we want you to familiarize yourself with Austrian economics before you claim we support such and such, when in reality we don’t.
Value is subjective. It is purely a mental concept. It is how much I want to keep something, balanced against what I am willing to give up for something else.
Well, at least you’re learning. Little by little you may get there.
Who lied to you and told you that checkbook entry is money by law? You better go throw those books in the trash. Our system is the checkbook entry stuff. Not the paper stuff. Get your facts straight. The paper currency cannot exsist until the check book entry does.
But our government creates no money, so how can it manipulate the money supply when it does not create any of it?
Then who would create the money? If the banks loaned out something and held a reserve then it should be obvious they are expanding the money supply!
Any minor study of history proves that the people did not want to use the gold or silver, they always preffered the paper receipt. If they preffered the gold and silver they would have never wanted the paper receipts.
Now if all them coins are loaned into circulation where is the gold/silver going to come from to pay the interest on those coins if 100% of them are loaned into circulation?
This is like saying the facts don’t matter, just so long as you study a theory that isn’t based on the facts. Yeah I got it, avoid reality, and just delve into a theory. Got ya. Where do i sign up?
Are you telling me that the austrian theory avoids the facts of today?
The true money supply is easy to find out in America. It’s 0. It’s all credit and no true money (final payment). If their theory is so great why can’t you give me a step by step way to impliment it? At the very least they should be able to, or is this just some sort of belief system that its just got to work because it’s gold! Pie in the sky, I think I’ve found my cross of gold!
But you just said that you would have gold/silver coins loaned out? Oh jeez, you should be a spokesperson for classic doulbethink.
Read www.wealthmoney.org
If it’s spent in for production is certainly does dude. Payment for new wealth created. Increase in wealth right there. Bam! Delicious.
Absoluetly true.
An increase in prices happens from an increase in interest bearing debt. Study the debt increase along with price increase. They go hand in hand. You want more purchasing power, decrease the debt.
Theory is garbage. Facts are solid. Their theory is flawed when it is put to the test of simple mathematics.
The value of a federal reserve note is clearly printed on it. 1, 5 ,10, 20, 50, 100…I don’t know how much more clear that could be.
I spoke too soon.
Wow man… you really are hopeless. You don’t even bother to read what I write do you? Sigh…
Non sequitur. I never said that. Go back and read what I wrote.
You are delusional if you believe the “paper stuff” isn’t money. The “paper stuff” is the money, the “checkbook stuff” is a perfect money substitute. They are worth the same in exchange. The “checkbook stuff” is used more. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a perfect money substitute. If you don’t understand this, please don’t respond.
Non sequitur. That’s not what I said. Again, you fail to read what I wrote. Without things like the Federal Reserve Act, passed by Congress, which is a part of the government, the current system wouldn’t exist. I said that already and that was the context in which I wrote what I wrote. I don’t know how to make that any simpler to understand.
The money supply wouldn’t necessarily increase at all. Do you understand the difference between loan banking and deposit banking? Fractional reserve banking combines the two. 100% reserve banking keeps them separate as they should be. With 100% reserve banking money that would be used for loans would be acquired by people going to the bank and giving up availability of their money for some period of time. The bank would then loan that money to someone. No money is created in that process. Depositors would retain full availability of their deposits and the bank wouldn’t be allowed to touch them. If you don’t understand this, don’t respond to me. There is vast amounts of information on this site about banking. If you want help trying to understand it then ask.
Again, this is the issue of money vs. perfect money substitutes. The paper receipt represents gold or silver and is thus a perfect money substitute for gold or silver. Gold or silver is the actual money, the paper is a perfect money substitute. That doesn’t mean gold and silver are used more. In fact the paper could be the only thing that is exchanged, but its value would be derived completely from gold or silver and is thus a perfect money substitute, not the actual money itself in a technical sense.
There is already gold in the system. It’s not as if the bank is the only source of gold coins. Besides, I already said that money can come into circulation through bank loans, but it can also be spent or deposited directly by the minting company. But let’s go with your assumption that all new money enters the system through bank loans, the gold having already been minted. The bank issues a loan and after some time receives payment of the principal plus interest. The interest is profit for the bank. The bank pays its employees, shareholders, etc. and they go out and spend the money on other stuff. Now that interest that was collected by the bank is back out into the economy. Not a terribly difficult thing to think about.
No tomozope, it is not like saying facts aren’t important at all. Theory and facts are both important. If you had bothered to read what I wrote you would see that I said nothing about the importance of facts. All I said is that theory is important and with out theory, facts are blind. It works the other way around. Without facts, theory is blind. I’m not sure why you think stating the importance of theory somehow means the author believes facts are unimportant. Let’s try an example shall we?
Let’s say you never study economic theory in your life. The price of apples goes up. Why did the price go up? You have observed a fact (the price of apples has gone up) but you have no way to explain this because you don’t know economic theory. To anyone who knows economic theory, the answer is obvious. The price of apples rose either because of a fall in supply, a rise in demand, or some combination of the two. That is combining theory with facts. Theory alone is often useless. Facts alone are often useless. Together they are incredibly useful. If you honestly try to deny this, I don’t know what to tell you.
Austrian theory is a very vague term. It could refer to a lot of things. Generally Austrian theory talks about the business cycle. If the business cycle doesn’t qualify as “facts of today” then I’m not sure what does. So no, Austrian theory does not “avoid the facts of today”.
Really? There’s no money? So when I go to the store and pull out a $20 bill to pay for groceries, I’m paying with nothing? Interesting.
The reason I can’t tell you how to implement it is because it would take far longer than I feel like explaining. In your last post you said you couldn’t sum up a 300 page book. How do you expect me to sum up in detail thousands of pages I have read on this subject? You really are a confusing person.
No I didn’t say that. I said gold could be loaned out. Anyway, loaned out doesn’t mean created as debt. If I loan $5 buck from my wallet to a friend, has money been created? No it hasn’t. The same is true of gold coins in a free market monetary system. The gold has already been mined and turned into coins. The banking system is one way that the new money can enter the economy. That doesn’t mean new money is created by loans. It can be spent into circulation just as easily, and if it is loaned, it’s not as if the gold suddenly disappears upon repayment (which is what happens in our current system). You really need to read what I write. It’s getting frustrating.
I really like how you expect us to read your stuff yet you won’t take the time to read anything we suggest.
No, it simply leads to higher prices. Production would happen whether or not new money is created. Money poured into investments by the banking sector’s artificial increase in the supply of money is exactly what the Austrian theory says causes the business cycle. If you are not willing to read up on this stuff then please stop responding to people who are more educated in this subject than you.
No it’s not. If you are not willing to read up on the ABCT, go away.
It’s not the fact that we have more debt. It’s the fact that we have more money. Prices go up from an increase in the money supply, not because of an increase in debt. If new money is created, then debt goes up since money is created as debt (in our system), but this is not the same thing as saying debt leads to higher prices. If you really believe that you need to go back to basic microeconomics. This stuff isn’t hard buddy.
That’s got to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. Theory is garbage? Are you trying to sound like an idiot? Are you rejected years and years of scientific analysis? Do you have any idea how insane that statement sounds? Theory is garbage… wow. You really are an idiot.
How is the Austrian theory “flawed when put to the test of simple mathematics”? Which “Austrian theory” are you referring to? The Austrian theory of the business cycle? Do you even know what that is? If you don’t know what you’re talking about, how can you have disproven it?
I really can’t believe he continues to post on this forum. I wish he would pick up some Rothbard and try to actually learn something.
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
*--Murray Rothbard*
¡Aye carumba!
Oh god no… Here’s a specific refutation of the Money as Debt videos: