Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

61 posts / 0 new
Last post
DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

This is a response by Keith Gardner to someone named Dan McLaughlin. McLaughlin's quote is at the top, followed by Gardner's excellent response.  - complete article link (Bill Still, Money Masters and The Secret of OZ)

Pro-Austrian Point  - McLaughlin

"You might actually want to read some of Mises works, because you obviously don’t have the slightest clue about the ideas he put forth.  Adam Smith was certainly one of the great minds in economics, but his absolutely false labor theory of value gave credence and ideological support to Marxist theories.

Most of what Mises said was merely a comprehensive treatment of ideas which incorporated and expanded on those that sprouted in the 1870’s, primarily those of Carl Menger. If you can lump Mises with Keynes and Marx, then you certainly don’t understand. Mises is the antidote for Keynes and Marx."

_____________________________________________________________

Counter Point  - Gardner

"you obviously don’t understand the concept of false left/right paradigm. one false paradigm props up the other paradigm because neither are correct. there is always a perpetual struggle and the congress utilizes myths of both to push towards a marxist state.

a true libertarian paradigm is not acceptable to the international banking cartel.

that is why they deliberately funded and pushed ludwig von mises on the population in the early 1900s, while they instituted the federal reserve and gold standard, usurping the constitution.

the economic theories of ludwig von mises are based on no empirical evidence nor supported with consistent definitions or logic. human action was written as poorly, if not worse with his obfuscating language, than even das kapital. i actually labored through the original propoganda of ludwig von mises. complete trash. anything said of value was already said by uncorrupted men and usually taken out of context. if you actually read ludwig von mises, rather than consume the foundation propaganda on a daily basis, you’d understand why i said “labored” through his work. if i didn’t throw it away, i may still have a copy for you to read if you enjoy torture. i consumed the propoganda on a daily basis from the mises foundations. but i had the intuition to realize there were things which didn’t add up.

they continue to push the gold standard because it is the favorite monetary fraud of tyrants throughout history. bringing back the gold standard would be economically destructive, whereas going on a true colonial scrip, greenback, or continental currency would provide the funding through the monetary expansion needed to end fractional reserve lending in order to eliminate the national debt and end income taxation. the endgame of tyrants is a world gold fiat though a world debt fiat would be acceptable to them as well. they can always switch between debt fiat and gold fiat as one system causes complete economic breakdown, like a false left/right paradigm, pushing the former fraud as the solution to the current fraud.

if you ever spent a tenth of the time you spend reading rockefeller foundation funded ludwig von mises and the ludwig von mises institute propaganda, the constant parade of strawman, ad hominem, definition inconsistency, and reducto ad absurbum, by reading and studying henry george, you would see the cat.

you are guilty of what you accuse others. you’re part of the false paradigm and can’t see the truth. that is why the vulgar libertarianism you push has never caught on. it is difficult to be popular when you’re wrong.

you might want to take a look carefully at the libertarian party’s david nolan and the ludwig von mises institute’s robert andelson. both georgists. robert andelson even wrote a text on how academia was corrupted. you might want to look at what people like milton friedman and albert einstein said about henry george. you might want to take a look at mason gaffney and fred foldvary, two georgists who aren’t paid to be silent or obfuscate, like murray rothbard. carl menger, thomas malthus, herbert spencer, max stirner, and ayn rand were dopes too. land, labor, commodities, capital, and currencies are distinct classes of objects."

Gutsy call to take on Mises and the Austrians, but I think it needs to be done and Keith Gardner does a fine job of it.  The libertarians and many conservatives are spell bound by Austrian beliefs that do not square up with math (see my post Austrian & Keynesian Theories Vs. Mathematical Facts).

Perhaps more importantly, Mises never acknowledges, or takes into account, the fact that sovereign nations hold the power to create their own money free from any banker debt.  The assumption is that government cannot be trusted and that we need private banks to handle the nations finances.  The great American "experiment" was based on the premise that people are capable of governing themselves. Austrian beliefs violate this most fundamental axiom.

Keith Gardner states that the "Rockefeller foundation funded Ludwig von Mises and the Ludwig von Mises institute."  In support of this claim, I offer some substantiating sources:

"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.

Even after he finally landed the position at NYU, where he remained only a visiting professor until his retirement in 1969, his salary was paid for not by NYU, but from funds contributed by generous private supporters."

  • Mises wife, Margit Herzfeld, wrote in her biography of Ludwig Von Mises

"that he participated in Count Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan Europe movement in 1943. He had been brought to the U.S. in 1940 by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation of $2500 a year to work at the Natl. Bureau of Economic Research, which grant was renewed in 1943."

"Hence his [Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England] campaign in favour of completely autonomous central banks, dominating their own financial markets and deriving their power from common agreement among themselves. They would succeed in taking out of the political realm those problems which are essential for the development and prosperity of the national financial security, distribution of credit, movement of prices. They would thus prevent internal political struggles from harming the wealth and the economic advancement of nations.

In short, Norman wished to see the imposition of the World Order over the financial affairs of the nations. It was this agreement among the central banks, rather than the front organization, the League of Nations, which became their final instrument of power. Crucial to these arrangements was the monetarist school, the Austrian School of Economics, an outgrowth of the Pan-Europe movement."

This information is relevant to the discussion as the well meaning "Austrian believers" are perhaps the biggest obstacle to true monetary reform.  We will have no freedom until we once again exercise our financial sovereignty; without it, government, commerce and the people will remain subservient to international bankers.

Larry

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

Ok Larry, when I first came to the CM site I was firmly on side to return to a PM backed currency. Now through the efforts of yourself and a few others, I do see problems using gold and silver only as backing, but must say I have not discarded a currency backed by something. A friend of mine, a Chemistry professor said any substance requiring thermodynamics could be used, and I seem to remember some old Star Trek episodes that used commodity-backed currencies, but we'll leave that off to the side for the moment.

The problem I have conceptualizing a government issued debt-free currency is the corruption displayed by virtually every government we'd care to examine - that being the temptation to print themselves as much money as they'd like for wars, patronage projects and on and on. So number one question is how can we expect a government to issue an honest money supply not to provoke inflation or deflation?

2nd question: This might work well (or be accepted) by the US but what about other countries - let's say the future government of Zimbabwe or Sudan, or Fudpuckerland, Africa? How are we to trust their government-issued currencies to affect trade and commerce?

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

Larry,

I am certainly not an Austrian expert but I do consider myself an Austrian sympathizer.  What I do not understand is your constant pissing on the one group of people that share your objections to Central Banking and debt based money.  It is hard to have a rational converstion on this topic when any objections that are brought up to your beliefs are ignored.  We will see how many converts you can gain with this silly strategy.  Have a nice Easter.

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

 

  I do see problems using gold and silver only as backing, but must say I have not discarded a currency backed by something.

 Money should be backed by liberty.

 The fact that gold and silver have historically been used as the agreed standard doesn't mean they have to be... it's the freedom issue that truly matters, not a particular commodity !

 

 The freedom to accept or refuse what you deem acceptable in return for your goods or your labour. Traditionally, that's been commodities or between neighbours simple good faith.. the return of value for value..

 The FRN is good for repaying debt. through legal force.

 It's like a voucher for the "company store" .. it's a currency fit only for slaves.

 

 

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 601
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

Whoever controls the quantity of the currency (or the material backing it) controls everything.

Who has the lion's share of the PMs?

Larry's arguments are 100% valid. I've yet see anyone offer any proof otherwise.

As far as pissing on someone, if a person is wrong, they are wrong and being called out for it is the correct thing to do by a caring person.

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

 

 

The direct connection between the Federal Reserve System and the US Congress that created it --------

 

The Federal Reserve System   controls  the nations monetary system

BUT

the  U.S. Government is there to protect that system,      by its enacment of Legal Tender laws.  

 

By decreeing  Federal Reserve notes as legal tender,  

it is our government that granted the Federal Reserve a monopoly on money and forced  all Americans to accept them without question.

 

Why the unholy alliance?     The answer is simple:

In return,   the Federal Reserve provides  government with funds it could not otherwise collect in direct taxation,  which is politically unpopular.

Legal Tender law allows the government to spend as much as it wishes and pay its bills without fear of the citizens refusing to accept its money or choosing an alternative   ( which they always did in the past.)

You do not need force to have men accept good money,    you need it for bad money.

 

The elephant  may have  been trampling us for about a hundred  years, 

but it is our government that put handcuffs on us all that prevented escape.

 

 

 

 

 

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

Tycer: Once the people realise that they can control the definition of money, that question becomes irrelevant..

 Nobody has any gold ? Ok.. lets use wheat berries.. or kisses, or ...

 

 DrKrbyLuv wants the state to take the power back from the bankers. A minor victory... since the state has proven all too corruptible.. this is the third central bank remember !  " fool me once.. shame on me.. " (tm) DrKrby wants to try it a fourth time...

 I want the people to take the power back... simply by realising that they already have it.

 

Upon their return to Emerald City, the Wizard is reluctant to grant the group their wishes. Toto exposes the great and powerful wizard as a fraud; they find an ordinary man hiding behind a curtain operating a giant console which contains a group of buttons and levers. They are outraged at the deception, but the wizard solves their problems through common sense and a little double talk rather than magic. He explains that they already had what they had been searching for all along and only need things such as medals and diplomas to confirm that someone else recognizes it.

The wizard explains that he, too, was born in Kansas and his presence in Oz was the result of an escaped hot air balloon (although his balloon says Omaha, which is a city in the neighboring state of Nebraska). He promises to take Dorothy home in the same balloon, leaving the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Lion in charge of Emerald City. Just before takeoff, Toto sees a cat and jumps out of the balloon's basket. Dorothy jumps out to catch him and the wizard, unable to control the balloon, leaves without her. She is resigned to spend the rest of her life in Oz until Glinda appears and tells her that she has always had the power to return home, through the power of the ruby slippers. Glinda explains that she did not tell Dorothy at first because she needed to find out for herself that she doesn't need to run away to find her heart's desire.

 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

John99 wrote:

The problem I have conceptualizing a government issued debt-free currency is the corruption displayed by virtually every government we'd care to examine - that being the temptation to print themselves as much money as they'd like for wars, patronage projects and on and on. So number one question is how can we expect a government to issue an honest money supply not to provoke inflation or deflation?

John, thanks for the questions.  I don't know that we should expect government to act in our best interest while they are totally subservient to the international banking cartel.  As a nation, we do not have the power to charter an economic course because we have no money nor ability to create it.  Every "dollar" must come from the private bankers including the service of current debts.  They may fund or shut-down the government at their whim.

Election campaigns become compromises, or worse, for anyone running for high office as the expenses are horrendous and the lobbyists have the money and party backing to select our candidates through bribes, perks and extortion.  In yielding to your point, I would think that campaign finance reform must be part of the process. 

Individuals should be free (constitution) to contribute to whoever they want.  Corporations should not be allotted the same rights as individuals; they should not be able to contribute without full disclosure and tax penalties.

I agree that it would be a mistake to replace the predatory banking cartel with a spend happy federal government.  There must be some restraint built into the system and I think that decisions should be "de-centralized" from the federal government to the states and private sector.  Here is my massaged list of "possible solutions" rehashed from an earlier thread.

Dennis Kucinich and his financial adviser, Steve Zarlenga, have suggested using debt free money to pay for social services.  I don't think this is a good idea as it could spiral out of control within a relatively short time period.  I think the Federal government needs to be kept on a short leash.

My suggestion is to split the creation and distribution of new money.  The Treasury could create all new money and the private sector could continue to distribute most of it in the form of loans.   Here are some ideas for transition:

  1. Private banks could basically continue on with one exception; all money they lend, if not theirs, should be electronically transferred from the Treasury as interest free loans.  An issuance fee could be charged to provide a revenue stream for the federal government to eliminate income and employment taxes.  In the future, the federal government should pay for itself without creating new money.
  2. State government should have special drawing privileges (through chartered banks) to build and repair infrastructure, fund energy saving programs and alternatives, build mass transit systems.  Debt free and interest free money could be made available.
  3. We owe the private Federal Reserve around $4.5 trillion not including interest.  I would pay this in full but refuse any interest charges.  This would extinguish the debt, it would simply cease to exist.  Yes, this would be deflationary so it should accompany the direct issuance of some new money into circulation through other mechanisms.  The RICO Act should be used to investigate and audit the Fed.  Their assets should be immediately seized pending the investigation outcome.
  4. Intergovernmental debt should be repaid (SS and Medicare, etc) and that money should NOT be extinguished since it was borrowed twice.  Interest should be paid since the lender was actually lending their (our) money.  I think this is basically a zero sum game as far as inflation/deflation as the money already exists.
  5. Foreign and private debt should be repaid with interest as the bonds become due.  Principal repayments could be created as new money but I'm not sure about the interest.
  6. The Federal government should not be allowed to borrow money after we get out of debt, ever again.  Given the new income, they would have a budget to operate within.  There may be times when we would want the federal government to directly spend money into the economy but each event should be passed by congress with a specific reason and an exact time frame - nothing perpetual.
  7. I would consider buying all the mortgages in the country since we are backing them up with our credit guarantee.  I would "prepay" only the principal and reduce the interest payments to 2-5%.  As of 2008, I think residential and commercial mortgages totaled around $14.7 trillion.  If the average duration were 12 years and the interest rate were 4%, then it would provide an interest income of $49 billion a year.  As the principal is repaid, it would be extinguished.
  8. Would the wall street banks that are too big to fail, fail?  Probably, and we should refuse to pay any derivative losses.  In fact we should tax derivatives to end the notational amounts.  This would be good for the country and a bonanza for smaller, local banks.
  9. The Wall Street banks and big box retailers currently hold much of our credit card debt.  Since many on Wall street would not make the cut, this would become a problem.  I would consider buying this debt, interest free, by creating new money and lending it to interested banks to profitably collect via interest or service fees.  Principal payments would be extinguished.  This would provide another source of much needed income.

The important thing to remember is that by taking back our power and constitutional mandate to create our own money; we gain an awesome creative opportunity.  We also cut the international banking shackles in re-exerting our national sovereignty.  Many of the international bankers would be moved to the productive part of the economy by making license plates in prison.

Larry

James Wandler's picture
James Wandler
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 11 2008
Posts: 219
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

Thanks Larry for the heavy lifting. We don't need the answer to all problems yet we do need to see past Austrian obfuscation. Best answer? Ocram's rawer. James

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

goes211 wrote:

What I do not understand is your constant pissing on the one group of people that share your objections to Central Banking and debt based money.

I can't respond to your objections unless you are more specific as to where I may be wrong. 

We (nation) have neither gold nor silver so that cannot be a tenable course though I do agree with experts (CM for example) that people should buy and hold private allocated and/or personally possessed PMs.

Larry  

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid
Tycer wrote:

Whoever controls the quantity of the currency (or the material backing it) controls everything.

I agree that it does not matter what backs money.  This is because all money is nothing but a shared illusion and only has value as long as everyone else believes that it does.  The real question I have is should money be FORCED upon us?  If it is not forced upon us, most likely people will choose a money that cannot be arbitrarily deluted by a third party and has some sort of inherent value.

Tycer wrote:

Who has the lion's share of the PMs?

Who said the money has to be backed by PMs?  I merely would prefer it backed by something tangible instead of the full faith and credit of a discredited system.  Certainly at this point the tangible assest are largely controlled by the same people who control the system.  For this reason alone I don't doubt that the conversion from the current system to any system will not materially change who are the haves and have nots.

A conversion to sovereign credit might stop the upward flow of wealth due to interest but it also may freeze those at the top into their positions above us all.  I wonder if a revolution and systematic reset would work better to everyones benefit it the long run.

Tycer wrote:

As far as pissing on someone, if a person is wrong, they are wrong and being called out for it is the correct thing to do by a caring person.

I don't mind being called wrong but at this point I just don't think that I am.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if someone started posting threads that are clearly just being antagonistic to your point of view?  Would it be pleasant to you if we had a bunch of threads posted by people from mises.com with names like the following.

Drinking the Byron Dale Kool-Aid

or maybe

Bill Still's Delusion of Oz

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid
DrKrbyLuv wrote:

goes211 wrote:

What I do not understand is your constant pissing on the one group of people that share your objections to Central Banking and debt based money.

I can't respond to your objections unless you are more specific as to where I may be wrong. 

We (nation) have neither gold nor silver so that cannot be a tenable course though I do agree with experts (CM for example) that people should buy and hold private allocated and/or personally possessed PMs.

Larry  

It would take hours to go through all the other threads where you have advocated "wealth money" and failed to address some of the fundamental questions that were raised.  The most recent example would be in your thread "On Deficits And Debt-Financed Government", Carl asks the following simple question.

Carl Veritas wrote:

Larry,

No American should be forced by their government to accept ANY money they deem not worthy.

Do you disagree withe above?

I think this question goes to the heart of many peoples concerns with "wealth money".  Instead of answering such a simple question, you create a parallel thread with the provocative name, "Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid".

At some point I will try and list my concerns with what you advocate but right now my time is limited by a holiday with family.

Tycer wrote:

Larry's arguments are 100% valid. I've yet see anyone offer any proof otherwise.

If you believe that a system where Timmy Geithner, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have total control over our money will result in economic nirvana, I am not sure if there is anything I can say that will change your mind.

Byron Dale's picture
Byron Dale
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 31 2009
Posts: 40
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

"No American should be forced by their government to accept ANY money they deem not worthy."

I can't answer for Larry.  However I don't believe any American should be forced by their government to accept any money they deem not worthy.  But for the life of me, I don’t see why any one would not be willing to use wealth based money (unless he was tired to dishonest bankers..    

I must also state that I have not read many of these posts.  However I have heard almost all the arguments about money.  It seems to me that there are many points that are seldom discussed.  One of those points is the uniformity of money.  In the States united from 1836 until around 1863 -1870 there was many different types of money from many different issuers.  People could choose which money they wanted to use.  It didn't work.  Will the easy of travel today it is very important to have a uniform medium of exchange.  If one travels to a different state he wants to be sure the people in that state will accept the money he has.  If not life would become very difficult.   At the same time if a person goes to a different state and sells something he want to be sure that he will be able to spend the money he accepts when he get back home.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid



If any proposed money is to be trusted by the American people,    the government will  have to allow them the freedom to accept or refuse such money.       What are they afraid of?   

You do not need force to have men accept good money.     

The legal tender status given to Federal Reserve notes  by our Government  is this force,   in other words the hated banking cartel is operating under the protection of the US Federal Government which created it.    





 


 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 601
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid
goes211 wrote:

 

If you believe that a system where Timmy Geithner, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have total control over our money will result in economic nirvana, I am not sure if there is anything I can say that will change your mind.

Not a chance this type of monetary reform will happen in our current abortion of our founding fathers' dream. Until term limits are mandatory and lobbyists are castrated with something like the fair tax there's no chance whatsoever. Real monetary reform is political suicide as the people who have all the money/control the quantity of same would lose all power and will buy the end of every foe in office.

Perhaps if this whole thing melts we can fix it on the rebuild. Until then, serfdom it is.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

To John99:

So number one question is how can we expect a government to issue an honest money supply not to provoke inflation or deflation?

Honest money is money that the people OWN and do not OWE.  The Government could easly issue honest money by creating money as a final payment and then paying the people for the work they do.  Money spent (not loaned) into circulation matched with production would not create and inflation and would give the people an honest medium of exchange.  Would you rather have your paycheck loaned to you or spent to you?

Maybe this article can help you better understand the Theory of Inflation.

http://www.wealthmoney.org/articles/Theory-Of-Inflation.html

How are we to trust their government-issued currencies to affect trade and commerce?

All their currencies are issued by private banks to the best of my knowledge.  It's really no different than in America except in Zimbabwe the banks raised the interest rates to 800% and the overnight rates to 10,000%.  Can you image how fast you would have to raise your prices to stay ahead of your interest?

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1323
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid
Byron Dale wrote:

I must also state that I have not read many of these posts.  However I have heard almost all the arguments about money.  It seems to me that there are many points that are seldom discussed.  One of those points is the uniformity of money.  In the States united from 1836 until around 1863 -1870 there was many different types of money from many different issuers.  People could choose which money they wanted to use.  It didn't work.  Will the easy of travel today it is very important to have a uniform medium of exchange.  If one travels to a different state he wants to be sure the people in that state will accept the money he has.  If not life would become very difficult.   At the same time if a person goes to a different state and sells something he want to be sure that he will be able to spend the money he accepts when he get back home.

Why do you think having multiple currencies would be any harder in the US than it is say traveling between countries?  If a currency is not accepted, you can either use credit/debit cards in which currency exchange services are provided, or use exchange services.  In reality I suspect those currencies that are well managed or are physical precious metals or tied to PM would be widely accepted.  But the big think is , people and businesses need to be free to choose, that way when a currency is being debased, it will be shunned.

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

I have liked Paul Grignon's approach to a digital currency, which has the potential to effect world-wide trade, and allow each and every one of us to issue our own currency - giving everyone access to money. If we use some form of fraud, we are quickly penalized by the marketplace.

 

Of course there must be a free and open internet, which is extremely important in any case.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

John,

Thanks for bringing up Paul Grignon's digital coin proposal because I would like to hear what others think of such an idea.  The problems I could think of with it were:

  1. Requires some sort of central control and possibly a monopoly.  Maybe a few different digital coins could compete in the market place at some fluctuating exchange rate, to keep the system honest.
  2. It may cost us our anonymity because the way all transactions are tracked.  I guess it is possible that perpetual coins could be used to to keep transactions from being easily tracked but that remains to be seen.

What I do like is that it seems under such a system, businesses would not be short of money because they would effectively be able to create there own credit to facilitate their own transactions.  I think it could lead to an entrepreneurial explosion but once again it may just not work.  It is definately outside the box thinking and at least worthly of discussion.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

Byron,

I have not read any of your books but I have listened to many of your interviews/podcasts and although we may disagree on the solution, I do appriciate your tireless efforts in the area of monetary reform.  One thing I noticed in the last podcast I heard you in for Republic Magazine was your apparent frustration at Ron Paul's movement.  You seemed to think that these people should naturally be inclined to support you based upon your monetary ideas, but instead they mostly seem inclined to prefer a gold standard of some sort.

Although I personally am no longer convinced that the gold standard would work right now, given the current distribution of gold in the world, but I do think you are really missing the point with most Ron Paul followers.  I think they distrust the state as least as much or more than they prefer the gold standard.  They look at the gold standard as a way to escape the states control of our money.  Maybe their understanding of how the gold standard would work is naive but I think your expectation of recieving support from them is probably equal naive.

How can you realistically expect people whos primary issue is distrust of the state to blindly accept sovereign credit?

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid
Carl Veritas wrote:

Larry,

No American should be forced by their government to accept ANY money they deem not worthy.

I think this question goes to the heart of many peoples concerns with "wealth money".  Instead of answering such a simple question, you create a parallel thread with the provocative name, "Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid".

goes211 wrote:

Do you disagree withe above?

You're missing my fundamental premise, that is that Mises accepts without differentiation our nation, like many others, using a private money system.  The alternative is to simply issue our money for free.  It is absurd for us to take on an unnecessary national debt and to pay income tax solely for the use of money that the banks never had and do not back up.  The people and the government back up every dollar.

I think it is wrong for the government to put this hardship on the citizens as it is done by choice and not necessity.

I'm in favor of a national currency as I think it is our greatest creative opportunity.  This is where Mises becomes irrelevant, they attack the premise of a national currency because they link it with a private currency.  They eliminate our most important option...and it is intentional...that is why Rockefeller brought them on the scene.

Now if you want to trade tomatoes for potatoes, I have no problem with that provided your trading partner agrees.  Government is not a trading partner when they collect fees, fines, etc., and I think they have the right to demand payment in our national currency.  The problem with our existing system, is that the currency we use is not money - it is a promise to pay.

Larry

By the way, you never answered my questions in that other thread

 

 

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

 

Rhare, 

For a real life case study,  a good reference point for comparison is the monetary situation in Panama---

Research "Panama Has No Central Bank" 

 

Article 114 in the 1904 constitution reads:


"There will be no forced fiat paper currency in the Republic.     Thus any individual can reject any note that he may deem untrustworthy"


There is no central bank and  no FDIC.  The nation have even  adopted US Federal Reserve notes as their currency.     It is widely accepted by everyone,   yet their constitution gave them the freedom to accept or refuse it.

In another time and place,

The American colonists have used the Spanish silver dollars as their money ,     as a result of Great Btitain's mercantilist policies deliberately trying to keep precious metals away from America.      The people simply chose another to facilitate trade.

These are real life experiences with two completely  different types of money.

Notice  that the only thing  the two shared in common is they were not forced upon the people who used them.


So again,   if any  proposed money is to be trusted by the people they need to be free to accept or refuse such money to keep tyrants in check.



  



 


 

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1323
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

Carl,  Thanks for the pointer, I'll check out Panama.  It appears you and I are on the same page.  I think we need to be free to choose on an individual basis what to use or not use as money, and multiple currencies can coexist.  It's just like any other good, it needs competition to keep it viable.  That's the one problem I have will all the people proposing "ONE" money system.  I know I'm certainly not good at predicitng the best outcome in all situations, why does anyone else think they will have the optimal solution.  Multiple competing solutions will bring out the best of each.

First step, remove legal tender laws and capital gain taxes on PM/currencies.

It's interesting that the Panamanians as many other Central American and Carribean coutries still take FRNs.  I think it just shows most of the world doesn't realize how bad the American economy is.  I guess it should be a surprise since most Americans have no idea.  If you get your news from the MSM you only see happy news on the national level and generally only hear about local area problems.  It's why the Daily Digest and Peter Schiff's news articles are so helpful, they show that the problem is widespread and give a much better picture of how all our governmental systems are in serious economic trouble.

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

 

 Agree with both of you, so many aspiring wannabe new emperors offering to replace the naked one.. all dreaming that they are worthy to design the perfect system..

 

  There's a certain mindset that demands written compulsory codes, force of law, and violence.. that needs certification, permission slips, recognition, titles...

 that fears freedom and diversity... that believes since compassion is a good thing forced uniform compassion must be even better..

 In some ways I think trying to reform the world is a futile task, you can only change yourself.. freedom is an internal state, so there's no point trying to force the rest of the world to recognise it officially.

 the kingdom of freedom is within you already.. if you want it. 

 

 Do you want it ?

 

 If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods.   - The maestro.

 No, it can't be that simple, that voluntary ? Surely we need petitions and candidates and carefully drafted regulations and rules and .. and...

 You can even do a bit of monetary judo and use the banks against themselves.. withdraw your balance in nickels..and spend them or save them... it's not silver but it's worthy of the face value..  -  (I'm always amused by those protests you see reported in the media where people pay fines with copper pennies..  !)

 

 "populus vult decipi, decipiatur"  - The people wish to be deceived, let them be deceived.

 

 

 

 

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

 Here's Daniel in the lions den.. giving you a clue..

 

  So, examine what YOU choose to use as money...

  1.  Do you want the FED as the supreme temporal authority ? No ? Then avoid FRN's ...
  2.  Do you want the banks as the supreme authority ? No ? Then don't accept credit cards or cheques...
  3. Do you want the US Treasury/Mint as the supreme authority ? Then accept and use it's coins.
  4. Do you want nature as the supreme temporal authority, then use natural money.. wheat, metals, wine.

 The choice is yours.  The power is yours. No petitions, no demonstrations.. just free will and "human action".

 

  The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

 

jeepndesert's picture
jeepndesert
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 4 2010
Posts: 4
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

hey, i probably should add chris martenson's web site to my blogroll. the discussion here is a lot more intelligent than when they go up on the von misses forums.

just wanted to point out that a goldbug can always buy gold or the commodity of their choice with the current frn or debt-free paper. they really have no argument there. they say the gold dictates the value, but in reality, gold value is distorted when used as a currency, especially as a fiat. commodity-based currency distorts the commodity market in the commodity. it also distorts all commodity markets, and results in theft, when a commodity-based currency is used since the lack of managed supply of the commodity results in inflation and deflation.

it really is about who controls the quantity, not what backs the currency. a gold fiat goes against free markets. gold fiat is anti-libertarian, or vulgar libertarianism. a currency is much different than commodities in definition. a currency should maintain value with supply managed against demand. a commodity should change in value according to supply and demand.

rockefeller foundation von misses and apologist rothbard are the stumbling block for monetary reform and a stumbling block for libertarianism. activists need to be united on the full truth. the austrian deception needs to be exposed if we're going to make progress in the information war because the benefits of a true public debt-free paper fiat is the mother of all information bombs.

likewise, libertarianism needs to learn about georgism. georgism shows clearly that the von misses and apologist rothbard are not libertarian. i'm working on an economic treatise to extend the georgist model.

keith gardner, liberty revival

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

John99 wrote:

I have liked Paul Grignon's approach to a digital currency, which has the potential to effect world-wide trade, and allow each and every one of us to issue our own currency - giving everyone access to money. If we use some form of fraud, we are quickly penalized by the marketplace.

Of course there must be a free and open internet, which is extremely important in any case.

I think I understand some of the concepts expressed in Grignon's "digital currency" but I'm unsure of the mechanics, so take my comments accordingly. 

  • Who issues the "perpetual coin" (permanent debt free money)?  How much should be issued?  When would we know if more should be issued?  How does it get placed in circulation?
  • Grignon says there are already alternative currencies in place and cites the LETS and Time Dollars.  Not to nit-pick, but I think that these are actually bartering systems. 
  • Early in the video he suggests that some monetary reformists suggest that governments should spend "interest free, self issued credit to be collected back in taxes."  He seems to present a cartoon image of Dennis Kucinich who happens to support money spent into the economy for social programs, along with his financial adviser, Steve Zarlenga.  This is a unique view not commonly shared by "monetary reformists" like Byron Dale who advocate that spending money into the economy should be disciplined to accompany improvements in productivity/infrastructure that benefit all.  This endows the money with value.  And, I don't see any reason that money should be "taxed" back out of circulation.  To do so renders it temporary, and Grignon seems to favor at least some "permanent money" and offers his idea as being able to offer that benefit.
  • Credit coins may be issued by private business.  Their value may fluctuate depending on how desirable that might be - the more welcome they are as exchange certificates, the more they hold their value.  This seems to invite big box international retailers to have an advantage over small and local business.  For example, Walmart credit coins would be more widespread in usage, and more desirable than a small local shop offering similar products.
  • Credit coins may be issued by government but they don't specify which level.  Would this include federal state and local municipalities?  What would be the discipline to prevent the government from issuing too much?  Would this become an incentive for government to increase pay roll in order to expand the money supply?
  • How would banking be handled?  Where would money come from for loans?  As a business, would banks be free to issue "credit coins" as interest bearing loans?
  • Who would monitor the program?
  • What would happen to cash purchases?  I think people should be free to buy things with cash to protect their privacy.

I think that the goals of monetary reform need to be specified - what are we trying to accomplish? 

It might be more accurate to say that the plan proposed by many of us is actually "monitory-seigniorage-tax" reform.  That is that taxes should be eliminated as seigniorage income is realized.  The desired effect is to allow government to pay for itself while eliminating any national debt.

It is great that we are having this discussion,

Larry

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

jeepndesert:

it really is about who controls the quantity, not what backs the currency.

What would change if the government was the one controlling the quantity instead of the banks if the government only increased the money supply as interest bearing loans?

Spending money into circulation makes the people prosperous, loaning money into circulation in time will always lead to financial ruin for the bulk of the people.

jeepndesert's picture
jeepndesert
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 4 2010
Posts: 4
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

not only should gold not be used as a currency, i believe people should have to pay rent to everyone in the community on the gold they hold since gold is a natural resource. one shouldn't have to pay rent on the developed value or property value of gold, but the landed value of gold as a natural resource. to hold gold as property is theft from the community. gold is not a product of human labor. gold is a product of god. if you hold gold in a warehouse, you're keeping gold, a natural resource, from people who might make better use of it as jewelry or as a electrical conductor.

to put it in libertarian perspective, the free market is not respected if proper ownership of land and natural resources aren't respected. everyone should have to pay rent to everyone for the land and natural resources they take for exclusive use. and everyone should be able to keep the full value of their labor added to the land or natural resource.

the anarchist proverb of property is theft is true if you don't pay rent for the exclusive use of land or natural resources to the community.

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

 

" Spending money into circulation makes the people prosperous, "

 

 As Gideon Gono might say...

 

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Drinking the von Mises Kool-Aid

Please tell me what Gideon Gono might say because he only expanded the money supply as interest bearing loans and then on top of that he set the interest rate to 800%.

 

Gideon never SPENT money into circulation, he only had it LOANED into circulation.  A world of difference.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments