You can say whatever you wish. You invoked Mises only because ONE paragraph in a book supports your position while ALL THE REST of the book is against it. Your mistake no ?
Yeah well. In your mind inflation is not inflation.
Why you write so much about whats already been covered I don’t know. You are confusing banking systems with bases. Government violence and decree has, in fact, put in place gold standards (we’ve been over this as well), and harmed functioning FRB systems. Further, I doubt gold bullion will serve you well in Somalia right now. Why you completely ignore all assets and insist only on commodity just seems like cult like following as you are going to follow it right off of a cliff.
Also, you could spend this time finding where I mined and chopped up parts of TMC.
Well Hayek expands this point a little in Prices and production. He claims that if controlling fiduciary media were possible, meaning that if somehow it could be used to satisfy the demand for money alone and not for capital, then it would be beneficial. But he continues by saying that this is pretty much impossible and shouldn’t be attempted. Of course, the “free bankers” constantly cite that passage without including the caveat. The same is true for this one passage; they use it as their only justification, and then claim they’re “Misesian,” even though he pretty much devoted his life explaining why there should be a gold standard with a 100% reserve (something Rothbard, Mises’ student, also devoted his life to). The book is filled with passages like this:
“It was the aim of the Currency School to prevent the periodical recurrence of general economic crises by setting a maximum limit to the issue of uncovered bank notes. An obvious further step is to close the gap that was not reckoned with in their theory and consequently not provided for in their policy by limiting the issue of fiduciary media in whatever form, not merely that of bank notes. If this were done it would mean it would no longer be possible for the credit-issuing banks to underbid the equilibrium rate (natural rate) of interest and introduce into circulation new quantities of fiduciary media with the immediate consequence of an artificial stimulus to business and the inevitable final consequence of the dreaded crises.” Page 439
The first two parts of the book introduce the regression theorem and explains the nature of inflation; namely how it permeates amongst society in a subtle fashion, altering all price signals either relatively or absolutely. He also tackles previous notions on money as economic goods, explaining that all goods are not homogeneous. The first two parts made him famous, while the third part introduces the effects of credit on the natural and market rate of interest (ABCT). Hayek was left to expand Mises’ work and put it into a more coherent and illustrative manor. The fourth part was added later; it pretty much criticizes the international fiat movements around the world, the effects of unions, and exposes the nature of the ‘Progressives.’
Well, no. More than one paragraph defends it, the book largely is an attack on fiat-regimes.
Yeah well. In your mind your arguments are witty and informed. Scratch that, I can’t even believe that you honestly think you have made any relevent points, or meaningfully contributions at all.
Good job. You completely ignore the fact that I obliterated your objection to the gold standard. Keep it up! Commodity standards where put in place before kings, senates, presidents, whatever. The government had to implement commodity standards because the people wouldn’t accept their money. This is why every fiat currency, literally, has destroyed itself. Whenever the King debased his currency, implemented arbitrary fixed exchange rates amongst different currencies, the people didn’t comply (hence Gresham’s Law). In the former case, people tested the weight of the gold, when they saw it was lighter, they demanded more coins, hence inflation.Gold standards (silver standards as well) limit the government’s power to inflate, which is why they are always abolished during war time.
How can you skip the two most important parts of TMC and then come here as some kind of authority?
Yeah, ignore this moron; he doesn’t know anything about Austrian method or theories. Another idiot wasting people’s time. At least Giles knows what he’s talking about.
Mises does not object, at all, to the suppression of fiduciary media. His only point is that government can’t be trusted to really stop credit expansion. Only free banking can. Mises wants free-banking because free banking is the only way to stop FRB.
Please point out where you obliterated my objection to the gold standard.
I’ve objected to it for multiple reasons: less efficient, and unlibertarian (as all overnment standards are), you haven’t obliterated either. I haven’t once defended fiat currency, so I don’t know why you bring it up at all. Nor did I ever deny that gold standard limits government power, that explains why so many libertarians fall for it, the fact is though FRB has a far more significant distribution effect than a gold standard, it is a direct threat to government seniorage, which explains why governments co-opt gold standards. With 100% reserves the government accumulates far, far more money than with FRB. Simple arithmatic.
If you guy don’t win this debate by your superior logic, your civility will almost certainly get the job done. Not to mention your intellectual honesty (where are all those answers to posts by me and Avram though?). No wonder everybody dismisses you as a bunch of kooky non-economists, you can’t have a serious discussion without calling those who disagree liars and hacks pushing the agenda of big banks.