Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
Debasement of currency is good?
I've seen this so many places, and what actually brought this to my mind is an article Gard posted on the front page (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39957072).
Its unbelieveable that people can try to say that debasement of currency is good so blatantly. I will quote the article:
Gross added: "One of the ways to get even, so to speak, or to get the balance, is to debase your currency faster than anybody else can. It's a shock because the dollar is the reserve currency. But to the extent that that is a necessary condition for rebalancing the global economy over time, then that is where we are headed."
It doesn't even make any sense. If foreign countries are invested in the US, why would they want to devalue the currency and lose out on their investment? On top of that, the consumer's ability to purchase foreign goods would be absolutely destroyed, resulting in a lower standard of living for everybody.
This is one of those examples how politics and economy have mingled to create a horridly illogical scheme..
So apparently, if I have $20, and I give $4 away. I'm better off.
Frankly, they aren't as smart as you and Gard are. I mean, seriously. How else can you explain this stupidity?
--
Jackie Fiest
Jackie,
While you may be right, I think it's really about world views and integrity, not intelligence. The problem is that the art of critical thinking is discouraged in government indoctrination camps, i.e. "public school." Also, rocking the boat and telling the truth are out of fashion. Most economists do not check the premises on which they base their assumptions. If they did, they would find that these premises are incorrect, often badly incorrect. But they'd also be out of a job.
As you probably know, I consider Murray Rothbard to be one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. Rothbard could have been a very rich and powerful man. He was on-track to be a top economist, probably an advisor to the president. Instead, Rothbard remained relatively obscure outside a very small circle. Why? Because he told the truth and the Powers That Be don't like that. Compare Rothbard's career trajectory to Alan Greenspan's, a man who never let the truth hold him back. Of course, Rothbard is proving to be right while Greenspan is going to go down in history as a fool. The same thing is true of Mises. And of many other courageous libertarians.
Unfortunately, not many folks have the courage that Rothbard, Mises and our other heroes have had. The courage to question one's beliefs, to come to a different conclusion than is fashionable, and then the courage to act on that conclusion.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.--Murray N. Rothbard
X,
I was being fasceous with the inteligence statement, or at least half way. I know most of them believe what they say, it's just really annoying as someone who very clearly sees the flaw in their actions. Sometimes, I liken it to saying, "Hey, Bernake, if you keep hitting your head on the wall like that, it's gonna hurt," But instead of he being the one who's getting hurt, it's all of us. He keeps printing up more FRN's, making the ones in circulation now even more worthless, while people all over the US are trying to scrape up enough to just pay the bills. Since you mentioned Rothbard, I've been listenting to a seven part lecture he gave in Toronto some years ago and he does a wonderful job of explaining all of this. I was a notoriously bad math student all the way through high school and college, and I know that if I can understand it, these people should be able to as well. It's just unfortunate that people like Greenspan (a former supporter of the gold standard at that) and Bernake have been willing to sell the rest of America out so he can keep this one job. It wouldn't be so hard to find a new one if it wasn't for his actions in the first place.
Sorry about that.
Yeah, the problem is that they do believe what they say. They have the hubris, Hayek's Fatal Conceit, to believe that economies can actually be centrally planned. I once heard stupid Krugman (not being facetious here) say that he had done some "back of the envelope calculations" to determine that the "stimulus package" should be three times larger than what it was. So you can predict the activities of 300 million people on the back of an envelope, huh? I guess you'll only rent a grave site since you're only planning on staying buried for three days.
No need to apologize, hun. And it would certainly help me learn to spell facetious.
It's good to know that some people think so highly of themselves. He probably does expect to be dead for only three days. How about we roll a a large stone in front of his tomb and let him out once we've turned the economy around? It's pretty sad that someone like him would do that, and admit to it. I know people in the video game industry that scribble things on napkins. You'd think the welfare of the US economy would be taken a bit more seriously. Not that the people in power now are doing any better, but seriously. Maybe he should head to London and hug his Nobel Prize.
I'm all of a sudden reminded of picture I saw while researching the German hyperinflation. A woman was burning deutsche mark notes in her oven because it was cheaper than buying firewood. This may well be where we are headed.
On a recent trip to New Hampshire, I was spending some time with my mom. We were talking about how we used to play monopoly. Well, my mom was always the banker. The trouble with monopoly is that if you only use the money that comes with the game, the bank almost always goes bankrupt. My mom used to print new money for the bank so that it would not run out.While discussing this, I explained that what my mom did was debase the currency, and pointed to the FED to state that the central bank is doing the same thing. I also explained what that some of the consequences are a rise in prices, market volatility, deflation/collapse. My mom told me, "But that's the only way the game could continue." I think when I play monopoly with my kids, I'll let them find another solution.
Well, theres a few problems with that monopoly example FUR3. One, the prices for rent are static; no matter how much money you add into the system, those prices will never rise. Therefore, the only prices that rise are the property trades between players.
The rents are not static, because if you improve the properties, the rents can increase. Also, if the property in mortgaged, then no rents can be collected.
I knew someone who did that. The whole idea of being careful with the provided money never really sunk in.
Just a few observations about Krugman, Bernanke and Greenspan. Krugman seems to be a guy who is not used to being challenged. When he is, he goes into a defensive shell. He knows that he can't defend his positions. Greenspan is a stone cold (Sorry X) liar. When he testified before Congress, he would lie with a straight face. Ron Paul mentioned that, in a off the record conversation, that he didn't disavow his support of the gold standard. So maybe he is able to hold two contradictory positions in his head at the same time. Or maybe he separates the "theoretical" from the "practical". Bernanke, for all his faults, seems to have a conscience. When he lies to Congress, he seems to have difficulty doing it. You can tell by his facial expressions that it bothers him to some degree.
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
F.A. Harper
Yeah, Greenspan's greatest gift was his ability to be obtuse and speak in boring riddles, obfuscating the facts with beguiling rhetoric. He was truly the incarnation of "if you can dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S." Just like so many others in D.C. (and on Wall Street) he is a political fascist in that he has no ideology other than maintain and expanding his power. A real chameleon.
I believe that Bernanke is more of an idelogue married to Keynesianism than Greenspan was, and he is not as skilled in the art of obfuscation as Greenspan was. But perhaps he is even more dangerous because he really believes the Keynsian nonsense. While Greenspan was a liar through and through, I think that Bernanke suffers from cognitive dissonance as he tries to justify his paradigm while it is collapsing in the real world. Thus, he is confronted with questions to which he has no answer, while Greenspan, on the other hand, would just spew a line of bull which he probably knew was a lie.
What will be interesting and compelling TV is to see the new chairman of the House Monetary Policy Subcommittee, Ron Paul (if the Republicans don't submarine him) grilling Bernanke on C-SPAN 2 (or 3 or 4 or whatever). As you note, since Bernanke already seems uncomfortable testifying before Congress, he must be sweating bullets as Ron will now be completely unleashed. As we say, business is about to pick up!!
obfuscation
You know, I have learned more new words from this guy since I've started reading his writings over the last six months than I did all of my college years combined. I tend to keep a dictionary ready when I get an email that he's just updated his blog...
What will be interesting and compelling TV is to see the new chairman of the House Monetary Policy Subcommittee, Ron Paul (if the Republicans don't submarine him) grilling Bernanke on C-SPAN 2 (or 3 or 4 or whatever). As you note, since Bernanke already seems uncomfortable testifying before Congress, he must be sweating bullets as Ron will now be completely unleashed.
This is good. I like this. Ron Paul and I disagree on a major cornerstone issue for me, and I honestly don't know if I could vote for him as president. But, I do love the man on monetary policy so I really like him in this seat. I'll have to record that and put it on youtube.
As we say, business is about to pick up!!
*hands X a black cowboy hat*
Was reading the business section of a national paper the other day, they interviewed Bernanke, they are obsessed with using the words "quantatitive easing" to hide the latest 600 or 700 billion print job.
Pretty shocking, and people swallow this, because its shrouded in fancy financial talk! Bah, must be time to go n see the local gold dealer. Though I went to see one the other day and they requested a tax file number for identification matching purposes. Makes Agorism look pretty good!
I used to be the man. Until I decided to stick it to myself - mothyspace
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. – Edward R. Murrow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1W0pP6A8BE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlMuAuZ6DS8
That "quantatitive easing" thing is hilarious, actually.
The first time I ever heard that term was in an email from Gard. I saw it and thought, "Hmm...that sounds like a term I should know..." so I looked it up and then immediatley went back to my email from Gard and replied to him, "Umm..dude...I'm horrible at monetary stuff. But I don't see a difference between quantitive easing and inflation." And Gard replied that it's the same thing, just with a different name. I should have known better than to think they'd come up with anything new instead of taking old, failed policies and putting a new coat of paint on it.
That "quantatitive easing" thing is hilarious, actually.
The first time I ever heard that term was in an email from Gard. I saw it and thought, "Hmm...that sounds like a term I should know..." so I looked it up and then immediatley went back to my email from Gard and replied to him, "Umm..dude...I'm horrible at monetary stuff. But I don't see a difference between quantitive easing and inflation." And Gard replied that it's the same thing, just with a different name. I should have known better than to think they'd come up with anything new instead of taking old, failed policies and putting a new coat of paint on it.
*dig*