“can you ever justify printing money” . Only when I do it.
You see? A troll.
Yes. Everyone’s a troll.
God, I get sick of talking to kids. Do you have anything else to add? Or are you just that intellectually challenged?
It is fraud. Unless ALL holders of the currency agree that it can be inflated. And such agreement is of course impossible in practice. And is nonsense from the point of view of economics/self-interest.
That is like saying building more homes is fraud, because it reduces the value of my home.
no, juan is for accurate printing of receipts to actually stored commodity. he is against excess printing of receipts, in excess of what has been deposited.
just as printing up more deeds for a fixed number of homes, is excessive, and fraudulent.
Ah, gotcha. Yes, FRB is fraud.
No, he asked if you could ever “justify” it. And there is nothing within a libertarian legal system that would prohibit that. So yes, printing and issuing “unbacked” paper notes is entirely justified.
and printing and issuing unbacked deeds to homes is entirely justified?
Sure, some people might want to play pretend.
they want to play pretend, with your home ?
It’s unbacked so there’s no home to go with it. It’s just a deed. If they want to pretend they have my home by owning a fake deed to it, there’s nothing wrong with that. Of course, if they actually attempted to use my home against my will, that would be aggression, but I have no problem with someone thinking or pretending in their mind that they own it, at least, not on a libertarian level.
ok, i think we got into a semantic cul-de-sac.
pretending to sell your real house twice (telling your friend bob that you are handing over two deeds to two different people in exchange for money)
is different from
from actually selling a pretend house (actually handing over two deeds to two different people in exchange for money)
And not making anything legal tender.
Well I never said that issuing unbacked notes as if they were backed was legitimate. By “issuing unbacked notes” I was implying that they were being issued as unbacked notes and that their issuance was not a breach of contract.
Some people may want to participate in an inflating unbacked paper currency. In fact, many mainstream economists find such currency preferable to a stagnant one. If they want to make a bad choice based on faulty reasoning, that’s their business.
The same goes for selling home deeds. Perhaps someone wants to buy a fake home deed so they can pretend they own a nice home and they can show and impress friends with it. If they want to do that, again, that’s their business.
this is undoubtedly true banned, but its a non-sequitor would you not agree.
you were being witty, i salute you 
but it somewhat misses the point. which is that a lot of people
on these very forums, believe that it is legitimate to issue unbacked notes as if they were backed notes.
I don’t think there are many, if any, that think this.
Is it OK to print a note that says it is redeemable for 1 oz of gold at some bank, if it is being issued by the bank, and the bank has the 1oz of gold? Of course. So in this instance, it is completely justifiable to print “more” money. However, is it justifiable for a bank to issue a note that claims it is redeemable for 1oz of gold it does not have? Of course not. That is fraud.
met Wilmot of Rochester ? maxliberty?