Paper money

[Rshermr]

There are more than a few actual economists that would disagree with you, whose opinions mirror those of Rand. Friedman, Mises, Williams and plenty of others:

Category:Libertarian economists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what economics background do you have?



As has been discussed here so many times before, everyone knows that there has never been a 100% pure libertarian economy anymore than there has been a perfect example of a socialist economy. We look at trends and examine results from economic and social experiments over time. There, we see that the American experience, especially prior to the Progressive era, most closely resembled that of free markets and free minds. It also happened to be a time during which more poor become middle class and more middle class become rich than at any time in human history, while the country came to dominate the world economically and socially, despite representing a tiny portion of the population. Even in today's economic malaise, countries that embrace economic freedom are thriving as the US heads down the path of central planning. It would appear we have not learn from past lessons. Ironically, you look to those central planners to fix the problems they've caused in the first place. Amazing.



An ad hominem attack does not help you case.

That would be 56 libertarian economists out of thousands and thousands of economists. Or would be, except, Uh, dead economists do not count. So, maybe actually 40 or so. Nice. And they have become, over the past few years, about as popular as a fart in church. Nice, me boy. Good luck next time.
I mean, really, dead and mostly old (I am old, but these guys make dirt look young for the most part.)

By the way, it was not an ad hominem attack. Truth never is. Most libertarians get over it with age. Most of those that do not are simply paid shills. If they are capable.

How much economics background do I have?? Way more than Ms. Rand. Who had NONE.

Ah, so economics is a matter of a majority?

Got it...

Sorry, but I choose to take a deeper approach and actually study the various schools of thought. You're free to count up the players and go with the majority. I mean, it's not like the government has a vested interest in Keynesian-leaning economists or anything...

Still looking for any logic, reason or specificity in your argument. Until then...

Good for you. Enjoy your island. And never wonder why there is no libertarian economy. Or why so few stand with you.

 

[eflatminor]

That would be 56 libertarian economists out of thousands and thousands of economists. Or would be, except, Uh, dead economists do not count. So, maybe actually 40 or so. Nice. And they have become, over the past few years, about as popular as a fart in church. Nice, me boy. Good luck next time.
I mean, really, dead and mostly old (I am old, but these guys make dirt look young for the most part.)

By the way, it was not an ad hominem attack. Truth never is. Most libertarians get over it with age. Most of those that do not are simply paid shills. If they are capable.

How much economics background do I have?? Way more than Ms. Rand. Who had NONE.

Ah, so economics is a matter of a majority?

Got it...

Sorry, but I choose to take a deeper approach and actually study the various schools of thought. You're free to count up the players and go with the majority. I mean, it's not like the government has a vested interest in Keynesian-leaning economists or anything...

Still looking for any logic, reason or specificity in your argument. Until then...

Good for you. Enjoy your island. And never wonder why there is no libertarian economy. Or why so few stand with you.

STILL looking for that logic, reason and specificity.

 

[eflatminor]

I went back and checked this the other day - from 1865 to 1914, the US economy was in recession half the time. Literally. Roughly 9,000 days, the economy was in recession or depression over 40 years.

Setting aside that you've cherry picked time frames to include the devastating economic situation following the civil war, what you're overlooking is the fact that economies are supposed to fluctuate between growth, no growth, and shrinkage. That's why we had basically flat inflation. It worked to create unparalleled prosperity and fostered the industrial revolution. It made America the greatest power the world have ever known.

What you're also overlooking is that after the Fed, we went from customer driven economic fluctuations to prolonged periods of economic growth followed by devastating crashes. That boom/bust cycle produces all kinds of issues that free markets do not face.

"Cherry-picked?" This is the time period the gold bugs like to mythologize as being some sort of fabulous unique time period in American economic history, as someone argued the other day. In fact, we had more economic volatility during this time period than perhaps any time in our history. It was the constant booms and busts that led to the creation of the Fed in the first place.

Booms and busts that worsened after the Fed.

Also, economic growth over that time period was not materially different than the next 100 years

And yet, during the previous 133 years, we had NO income tax, relatively little debt or unfunded liabilities, and greater upward mobility for all classes...all with comparatively negligible government meddling.

Gosh, thanks for making my point for me!

 

[Toro]

Booms and busts that worsened after the Fed.

That is absolutely is wrong. Take a look for yourself.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

From 1854 to 1914, we had more recessions, and spent more time in recession prior to the creation of the Fed.

Also, economic growth over that time period was not materially different than the next 100 years

And yet, during the previous 133 years, we had NO income tax, relatively little debt or unfunded liabilities, and greater upward mobility for all classes...all with comparatively negligible government meddling.

Gosh, thanks for making my point for me!

Prior to 1870, GDP per capita actually grew slower.

However, the point is that it hasn't mattered what taxes and spending have been, or what money we've used, growth has chugged along at a pretty good clip for a century and a half. So when you try to mythologize about this great period of economic prosperity - one in which we were in contraction literally half the time - it's easy to point out that it was no different than most other times of the past 150 years.

That's a disturbing point to ideologues of the left or the right since it generally contradicts their belief systems. However, it is a great testament to the spirit of the American people.

 

[eflatminor]

Booms and busts that worsened after the Fed.

That is absolutely is wrong. Take a look for yourself.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

From 1854 to 1914, we had more recessions, and spent more time in recession prior to the creation of the Fed.

More recessions, perhaps, but less severe ones. That's the point. The economy fluctuated based on market-driven activity, which meant being in a recession simple led to lower prices, which has a tremendous up side. Now we have recessions AND inflation. Thank you Fed.

Point is, after 1913, we had not only relentless inflation, we had greater fluctuations in in boom/bust cycles (higher peaks and troughs). There's a reason we called the Great Depression "great". Look at today, we're in one of the longest periods of recession and yet, prices are rising (especially food, energy, education and healthcare). That makes zero sense.

Also, economic growth over that time period was not materially different than the next 100 years

And yet, during the previous 133 years, we had NO income tax, relatively little debt or unfunded liabilities, and greater upward mobility for all classes...all with comparatively negligible government meddling.

Gosh, thanks for making my point for me!

Prior to 1870, GDP per capita actually grew slower.

So you're contracting your earlier point that it was not "materially different"?

No backtracking now.

Regardless, the economy grew under both schemes. One involved free markets, free minds, no income tax, and negligible debt. The other, well, we all know the status quo.

However, the point is that it hasn't mattered what taxes and spending have been, or what money we've used, growth has chugged along at a pretty good clip for a century and a half.

As it did prior to that...without the taxes, without the meddling, without the debt.

So when you try to mythologize about this great period of economic prosperity - one in which we were in contraction literally half the time - it's easy to point out that it was no different than most other times of the past 150 years.

Again, thanks for making my point.

That's a disturbing point to ideologues of the left or the right since it generally contradicts their belief systems. However, it is a great testament to the spirit of the American people.

Whatever. You're advocating getting basically the same result with massive taxation, meddling and debt that we got without all that.

That's the spirit of ridiculous.

 

[Toro]

More recessions, perhaps, but less severe ones. That's the point. ...

Point is, after 1913, we had not only relentless inflation, we had greater fluctuations in in boom/bust cycles (higher peaks and troughs).

That's not true either.

The only episode when that happened was during the Depression when the Fed raised the discount rate from 1.5% to 3.5% in 1931 to stop gold from leaving the country. Countries that went off the gold standard during the Depression started growing sooner than those that stayed on. Since 1945, recessions have generally been less frequent and less severe

So you're contracting your earlier point that it was not "materially different"?

No backtracking now.

No. I said that from 1870, GDP per capita has risen at about the same rate regardless of spending, taxation, monetary system, etc. I never said anything about prior to 1870.

As it did prior to that...without the taxes, without the meddling, without the debt.

We also did it with much more economic volatility and financial crises. That's why the Fed came into being to start with.

So when you try to mythologize about this great period of economic prosperity - one in which we were in contraction literally half the time - it's easy to point out that it was no different than most other times of the past 150 years.

Again, thanks for making my point.

Actually, your point was

It worked to create unparalleled prosperity

Which, as I've shown, is false.

Whatever. You're advocating getting basically the same result with massive taxation, meddling and debt that we got without all that.

That's the spirit of ridiculous.

Again, wrong. I'm not advocating that. I prefer lower taxes and less spending, and I think there is a greater than zero chance that our fiat monetary system will end badly. What I'm doing is refuting the notion that the 40 years after the Civil War was an era of unparalleled prosperity, which is often promulgated by libertarian ideologues and gold bugs.

 

[Rshermr]

Ah, so economics is a matter of a majority?

Got it...

Sorry, but I choose to take a deeper approach and actually study the various schools of thought. You're free to count up the players and go with the majority. I mean, it's not like the government has a vested interest in Keynesian-leaning economists or anything...

Still looking for any logic, reason or specificity in your argument. Until then...

Good for you. Enjoy your island. And never wonder why there is no libertarian economy. Or why so few stand with you.

STILL looking for that logic, reason and specificity.

So are we all. You have none. Arguing that libertarianism is valid even though there are none in existence is the epitome of non-logic, me boy.

Funny thing is you can logically argue for or against libertarianism all day. Just not many argue for it any more. Mostly just paid shills. Because the trip toward libertarianism is great for the wealthy. Always. And they pay the shills well. As you know. But if you look at the history, you will see the truth. Libertarianism has the same basic problem as communism. People don't like it. So in the end, it fails. Always.

 

[eagle1462010]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX-D4kkPOQ]Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eflatminor]

More recessions, perhaps, but less severe ones. That's the point. ...

Point is, after 1913, we had not only relentless inflation, we had greater fluctuations in in boom/bust cycles (higher peaks and troughs).

That's not true either.

The only episode when that happened was during the Depression when the Fed raised the discount rate from 1.5% to 3.5% in 1931 to stop gold from leaving the country. Countries that went off the gold standard during the Depression started growing sooner than those that stayed on. Since 1945, recessions have generally been less frequent and less severe

So you're contracting your earlier point that it was not "materially different"?

No backtracking now.

No. I said that from 1870, GDP per capita has risen at about the same rate regardless of spending, taxation, monetary system, etc. I never said anything about prior to 1870.



We also did it with much more economic volatility and financial crises. That's why the Fed came into being to start with.



Actually, your point was

It worked to create unparalleled prosperity

Which, as I've shown, is false.

Whatever. You're advocating getting basically the same result with massive taxation, meddling and debt that we got without all that.

That's the spirit of ridiculous.

Again, wrong. I'm not advocating that. I prefer lower taxes and less spending, and I think there is a greater than zero chance that our fiat monetary system will end badly. What I'm doing is refuting the notion that the 40 years after the Civil War was an era of unparalleled prosperity, which is often promulgated by libertarian ideologues and gold bugs.

Well, bottom line, we disagree about the relative prosperity and economic fluctuations of 1780-1913 vs 1913-today. My study of economic history shows we thrived to a greater extent without all the central planning, and would continue to do so today. Whatever the difference between the two time periods, and you whatever extend you believe the Fed has helped economically, we're stuck with the undeniably negative consequences of the Fed's influence, which is to say, relentless inflation and a mountain of debt and unfunded liabilities that will break us some day. However we disagree on the nuances, I'll take free markets and free minds over the devastating baggage central planning leaves us every time.

 

[eflatminor]

Good for you. Enjoy your island. And never wonder why there is no libertarian economy. Or why so few stand with you.

STILL looking for that logic, reason and specificity.

So are we all. You have none. Arguing that libertarianism is valid even though there are none in existence is the epitome of non-logic, me boy.

Well, me boy, for the umpteenth time, the fact that no particularly economic ideology exists in a 100% pure form is not evidence against that platform.

Logic 101.

Funny thing is you can logically argue for or against libertarianism all day. Just not many argue for it any more.

So you give us the majority argument again. How sad. At one time or another, the majority of Americans supported some pretty heinous institutions, laws, and policies. I suppose you would have been right on board because, hey, that's what the majority thinks. Are you really that incapable of independent thought?

Mostly just paid shills. Because the trip toward libertarianism is great for the wealthy. Always. And they pay the shills well. As you know. But if you look at the history, you will see the truth.

If you'd like to point to these libertarian economists that are "paid shills", we'd like to see the list and your evidence. Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath on this one...

Libertarianism has the same basic problem as communism. People don't like it. So in the end, it fails. Always.

As you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, most people have no clue about macro-economic issues and will bitch about any and every system that has ever existed. All I can do is point to what has, and what has not worked. Free markets and free minds wins every time.

 

[editec]

What JOHN Galt and Ayn Rand both do not apparently understand is that GOLD make no difference.


If the MASTERS decide to screw their people they can find a way regardless of the state of the money supply.

Or do you imagine that there was never economic hard times when the GOLD standard was in place?

 

[eflatminor]

What JOHN Galt and Ayn Rand both do not apparently understand is that GOLD make no difference.


If the MASTERS decide to screw their people they can find a way regardless of the state of the money supply.

I find that hard to argue with. Sad to say, you're probably correct.

Or do you imagine that there was never economic hard times when the GOLD standard was in place?

Certainly not.

I do however, know that all previous societies that devalued their currency by basing it on the intangible found themselves effectively bankrupt in short order. I also know that when we had a sound money policy and no Federal Reserve, politicians had to actually PAY for their overseas intervention and entitlement programs, which means we kept debt and unfunded liabilities under control. With the sugar daddies the Fed, government has a non-consequence ATM machine...a burden that is placed on those yet born. I find that immoral and unsustainable.

 

[Rshermr]

What JOHN Galt and Ayn Rand both do not apparently understand is that GOLD make no difference.


If the MASTERS decide to screw their people they can find a way regardless of the state of the money supply.

I find that hard to argue with. Sad to say, you're probably correct.

Or do you imagine that there was never economic hard times when the GOLD standard was in place?

Certainly not.

I do however, know that all previous societies that devalued their currency by basing it on the intangible found themselves effectively bankrupt in short order. I also know that when we had a sound money policy and no Federal Reserve, politicians had to actually PAY for their overseas intervention and entitlement programs, which means we kept debt and unfunded liabilities under control. With the sugar daddies the Fed, government has a non-consequence ATM machine...a burden that is placed on those yet born. I find that immoral and unsustainable.

So perhaps we should look at a current economy that is successfully based on the gold standard. Or the silver standard. Or the zink standard. And emulate them.

OOPS. There are none. Damn, Flat. There ARE NONE. They must all be stupid. And immoral. And only you and the gold heads have a clue. Yep. That's it. Only you, on your island.

 

[oldfart]

More recessions, perhaps, but less severe ones. That's the point. ...

Point is, after 1913, we had not only relentless inflation, we had greater fluctuations in in boom/bust cycles (higher peaks and troughs).

That's not true either.

The only episode when that happened was during the Depression when the Fed raised the discount rate from 1.5% to 3.5% in 1931 to stop gold from leaving the country. Countries that went off the gold standard during the Depression started growing sooner than those that stayed on. Since 1945, recessions have generally been less frequent and less severe



No. I said that from 1870, GDP per capita has risen at about the same rate regardless of spending, taxation, monetary system, etc. I never said anything about prior to 1870.



We also did it with much more economic volatility and financial crises. That's why the Fed came into being to start with.



Actually, your point was



Which, as I've shown, is false.

Whatever. You're advocating getting basically the same result with massive taxation, meddling and debt that we got without all that.

That's the spirit of ridiculous.

Again, wrong. I'm not advocating that. I prefer lower taxes and less spending, and I think there is a greater than zero chance that our fiat monetary system will end badly. What I'm doing is refuting the notion that the 40 years after the Civil War was an era of unparalleled prosperity, which is often promulgated by libertarian ideologues and gold bugs.

Well, bottom line, we disagree about the relative prosperity and economic fluctuations of 1780-1913 vs 1913-today. My study of economic history shows we thrived to a greater extent without all the central planning, and would continue to do so today. Whatever the difference between the two time periods, and you whatever extend you believe the Fed has helped economically, we're stuck with the undeniably negative consequences of the Fed's influence, which is to say, relentless inflation and a mountain of debt and unfunded liabilities that will break us some day. However we disagree on the nuances, I'll take free markets and free minds over the devastating baggage central planning leaves us every time.

Just to clarify, you equate a central bank with central planning?

 

[eflatminor]

What JOHN Galt and Ayn Rand both do not apparently understand is that GOLD make no difference.


If the MASTERS decide to screw their people they can find a way regardless of the state of the money supply.

I find that hard to argue with. Sad to say, you're probably correct.

Or do you imagine that there was never economic hard times when the GOLD standard was in place?

Certainly not.

I do however, know that all previous societies that devalued their currency by basing it on the intangible found themselves effectively bankrupt in short order. I also know that when we had a sound money policy and no Federal Reserve, politicians had to actually PAY for their overseas intervention and entitlement programs, which means we kept debt and unfunded liabilities under control. With the sugar daddies the Fed, government has a non-consequence ATM machine...a burden that is placed on those yet born. I find that immoral and unsustainable.

So perhaps we should look at a current economy that is successfully based on the gold standard. Or the silver standard. Or the zink standard. And emulate them.

OOPS. There are none. Damn, Flat. There ARE NONE. They must all be stupid. And immoral. And only you and the gold heads have a clue. Yep. That's it. Only you, on your island.

I see no need to continue to rehash the same point with you over and over again. You want to believe that the way things are handled today is the necessarily the best path by virtue of its popularity among central planners around the world, that's your right.

 

[eflatminor]

That's not true either.

The only episode when that happened was during the Depression when the Fed raised the discount rate from 1.5% to 3.5% in 1931 to stop gold from leaving the country. Countries that went off the gold standard during the Depression started growing sooner than those that stayed on. Since 1945, recessions have generally been less frequent and less severe



No. I said that from 1870, GDP per capita has risen at about the same rate regardless of spending, taxation, monetary system, etc. I never said anything about prior to 1870.



We also did it with much more economic volatility and financial crises. That's why the Fed came into being to start with.



Actually, your point was



Which, as I've shown, is false.



Again, wrong. I'm not advocating that. I prefer lower taxes and less spending, and I think there is a greater than zero chance that our fiat monetary system will end badly. What I'm doing is refuting the notion that the 40 years after the Civil War was an era of unparalleled prosperity, which is often promulgated by libertarian ideologues and gold bugs.

Well, bottom line, we disagree about the relative prosperity and economic fluctuations of 1780-1913 vs 1913-today. My study of economic history shows we thrived to a greater extent without all the central planning, and would continue to do so today. Whatever the difference between the two time periods, and you whatever extend you believe the Fed has helped economically, we're stuck with the undeniably negative consequences of the Fed's influence, which is to say, relentless inflation and a mountain of debt and unfunded liabilities that will break us some day. However we disagree on the nuances, I'll take free markets and free minds over the devastating baggage central planning leaves us every time.

Just to clarify, you equate a central bank with central planning?

What would you call central price controls? The Fed controls, centrally, the price of money. That is central planning. Note I've not claimed they control EVERYTHING (thank goodness), but yes, it is an example of central planning.

You claim to have studied Mises. You should know this.

 

[Bombur]

Do we have to take gold standard folks here seriously or can we just laugh and ignore them?

You don't have to do anything. However, if you want to be taken seriously as a grown up capable of debating with logic, reason and specificity, you'll have to do better than your childish little taunt.

Please, tell us why standing for a sound money should not be taken seriously.

The floor is yours...

Then make an argument why the government should choose a precious metal as the basis of our money supply. Be sure to include "reason and logic" in your argument.

I will promise not to laugh.... too hard.

 

[oldfart]

If you'd like to point to these libertarian economists that are "paid shills", we'd like to see the list and your evidence. Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath on this one....

Well, I would avoid the phrase "paid shills" as a bit too harsh, implying that the motivation for the publications is simply financial gain. But I would note two prominent examples. F A Hayek was turned down in 1950 for employment as an economist at both Princeton and the University of Chicago. His position at the University of Chicago was a privately funded position in the Committee on Social Thought. Prior to that, his tenure at the London School of Economics was defended in no small part by J M Keynes who nominated Hayek in 1944 for his membership in the British Academy. Apparently the LSE--Cambridge controversy was a rather cosy one for Hayek.

Likewise von Mises moved to the United States in 1940 and in 1945 became a visiting professor at NYU; again with a privately funded position. Laurence Fertig, a libertarian enthusiast and member of the NYU board fully funded his salary while he engaged in love/hate exchanges with Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

In both cases, the authors lived mainly on the income provided by ideological benefactors outside of any normal peer reviewed faculty position.

 

[oldfart]

Just to clarify, you equate a central bank with central planning?

What would you call central price controls? The Fed controls, centrally, the price of money. That is central planning. Note I've not claimed they control EVERYTHING (thank goodness), but yes, it is an example of central planning.

You claim to have studied Mises. You should know this.

You dodged the question. Does the existence of a central bank mean to you that the economy is centrally planned?

And yes, I've read Mises. I'm pretty well read in history of economic thought. If you want to debate Mises' "The Theory of Money and Credit" (1912), you have some heavy lifting to do.

 

[eflatminor]

Do we have to take gold standard folks here seriously or can we just laugh and ignore them?

You don't have to do anything. However, if you want to be taken seriously as a grown up capable of debating with logic, reason and specificity, you'll have to do better than your childish little taunt.

Please, tell us why standing for a sound money should not be taken seriously.

The floor is yours...

Then make an argument why the government should choose a precious metal as the basis of our money supply. Be sure to include "reason and logic" in your argument.

I will promise not to laugh.... too hard.

Read the thread. I've done so, repeatedly.

Allow me to sum up for you: Sound money (a gold or any similar standard) and a market free of central price controls on money (like we had 1780-1913) produced at least the level of prosperity and economic growth and prosperity as we've experienced under the Fed's reign (I argue more)...and did so with NO inflation, NO income taxes, NO significant debt or unfunded liabilities, wars and entitlements that actually had to be paid for, far fewer "great" depressions, and further, produced a populace with less of a wealth and income gap that we see today.

1913 to today? We have $17 trillion of debt, over $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities, 2500% inflation (the most regressive tax of them all), giant swings in the economy to include the greatest depression of them all, the highest corporate tax rate in the world, personal income taxes that can take over half a man's income, endless wars and entitlements that will be the burden of future generations, and a wealth and income gap far greater than during the so call 'robber baron' days...none of which could be possible with a sound money policy and allowing the market to set the price of money (the interest rate).

There you go, a sound argument based in logic, reason and specificity.

Now, can you retort without childish name calling? We'll see...