Money Supply – Exploding Inflation

[swave]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
You don’t understand that once it goes, it goes. Everyone’s savings are wiped out. This same freaking cycle has happened EVERY TIME and you are turning a blind eye to it.[/quote]

Every time? Every single time? Not a single exception? (Those are trick questions, be careful.) (And please note, never once have I claimed that inflation isn’t coming. I’m only pointing out that your arguments supporting that prediction are rediculous.)[/quote]

I have seen at least 2 explanations of why this happens. Charles Eisenstein explains it in Chapter 6 of his book http://www.realitysandwich.com/sacred_economics_ch_6_usury

and Michael Maloney: “We Pay Tax for the Privilege to Have Currency”

[markmax33]

[quote=swave][quote=markmax33]
Most likely there would be a market of currencies and there would be somewhere between 5-10 of them that would dominate the market. Remember the currencies would be competing for you business. They would likely have ads on tv and some currencies would be handled more efficiently than others. The currency orginators would find ways to profit from the transactions similar to the American Express, Mastercard, Visa. Those companies operate just like currencies currently and ensure customers from fraud.
[/quote]

I agree with you on this. But, I don’t think that the currencies need to be based on gold. Let the market decide what they are backed with. The money could be based on clean water or fertile farmland.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/sacred_economics_chapter_11%5B/quote%5D

It doesn’t have to be gold, but ANYTHING is better than paper money controlled by 12 men. I want to make the point clear nobody should be voting for the republicans or the democrats that stealing from us and there is an alternative that makes sense. They don’t teach you that in school unfortunately!

[Coronita]

[quote=swave][quote=flu][quote=afx114]
By golly, you’re a genius… What the U.S. government needs to do is invent a time based currency… It starts to exponentially decay the moment it leaves the banks and ends up in the hands of people. If you don’t use it, it starts to decay…Don’t use it for a few days…it turns into ashes…..That’s how our government can stimulate growth here in the U.S.A….Forcing people to spend their dollars the moment they get them…[/quote]
You think this sounds silly, but Charles Eisenstein has proposed that currency decay. But at a significantly longer half life than you laughed at. Currency that decays with a half life of about 20 years really fixes a lot of problems. It is described very clearly in chapter 12 of his book.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/sacred_economics_chapter_12%5B/quote%5D

I never said it was a silly idea…. It’s a lunatic idea….But we had discussed something similar to this awhile ago…

[scaredyclassic]

I believe money should expire. Old money is stuffy. Keep the money moving.

[swave]

[quote=flu][quote=swave]
You think this sounds silly, but Charles Eisenstein has proposed that currency decay. But at a significantly longer half life than you laughed at. Currency that decays with a half life of about 20 years really fixes a lot of problems. It is described very clearly in chapter 12 of his book.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/sacred_economics_chapter_12%5B/quote%5D

I never said it was a silly idea…. It’s a lunatic idea….But we had discussed something similar to this awhile ago…[/quote]

Do you have anything more specific. We have several bad ideas to choose from. Is this worse than the others? Have you read this page? Can you tell me where it was discussed before? I must have missed that.

[scaredyclassic]

Maybe we already have it. Maybe inflation is money that expires.

[scaredyclassic]

I have a $10 coupon at vons expires in 10 days. Definitely have to get ghat in circulation if I can remember

[Anonymous]

[quote=walterwhite]Maybe we already have it. Maybe inflation is money that expires.[/quote]

That’s exactly what it is.

And a slowly “expiring” currency is a very good thing.

Cue the mm33 bot response…

[Anonymous]

[quote=walterwhite]I have a $10 coupon at vons expires in 10 days. Definitely have to get ghat in circulation if I can remember[/quote]

Can it be used for booze?

[Arraya]

[quote=markmax33]
No the diffrence is you deal with the failures at the time they occur under Austrian/gold/competeing currencies and you delay it and build a bigger bubble that will destroy the entire country with Keynes. [/quote]

I’m no neoclassical economist apologist(and I don’t see much difference between Austrian and monetarist economics) but I don’t believe Keynes said blow bubbles to keep an economy going. I agree, keeping the bubble, or trying to keep going will eventually destroy the currency. I also think letting it pop now will destroy the country too – that is just the nature of bubbles and this is the biggest one in history. The whole banking system is bankrupt on many levels. The planet is bankrupt

[quote=markmax33]
Please get it right. You just want to push the pain off to your children. It’s going to hurt much worse.[/quote]

Nope – you got me wrong. I want to see the global economy collapse. But first, your theory that it will be “much worse” is faith based. Much worse than what? It’s an unprovable statement which you can always go back to a say see I told you – if the economy gets worse – which it will.

I say it will get much worse and it has zero to do with what the Fed is doing now, or at least very little.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Almost a strawman argument. You suggest that most such advocates think the market would be beautiful and stable. I’m not one of them. I do think, however, it would be better in the long-run.[/quote]

Ok, it was slightly a strawman. But this is an unprovable statement.

[quote=sdduuuude]If we weren’t so far in debt, we wouldn’t need the intervention.[/quote]
This is systemic. It goes along with debt based currency and how the banking system works. It’s a paradox – if we were not so far in debt we would have a smaller economy. Debt = money

[quote=sdduuuude]The cost of short-term stability is long-term disaster.[/quote]

By all accounts we avoided a disaster. Do you mean the next one will be worse than what an un-intervened 2008 would have been. See where I am going – it’s all just mental masturbation. The next hypothetical crisis will be worse than the un-intervened hypothetical crisis of 2008 because of the intervention. It’s a tautology – it goes back to the same conclusion of intervention = makes things worse – without being the slightest empirical.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think throwing more debt on top of a debt crisis will “solve” anything. But I don’t think these actions are quantifiably making things worse. Besides the obvious confidence erosion. Technically, IMO, the whole system is dead.

[markmax33]

[quote=Arraya][quote=markmax33]
No the diffrence is you deal with the failures at the time they occur under Austrian/gold/competeing currencies and you delay it and build a bigger bubble that will destroy the entire country with Keynes. [/quote]

I’m no neoclassical economist apologist(and I don’t see much difference between Austrian and monetarist economics) but I don’t believe Keynes said blow bubbles to keep an economy going. I agree, keeping the bubble, or trying to keep going will eventually destroy the currency. I also think letting it pop now will destroy the country too – that is just the nature of bubbles and this is the biggest one in history. The whole banking system is bankrupt on many levels. The planet is bankrupt

[quote=markmax33]
Please get it right. You just want to push the pain off to your children. It’s going to hurt much worse.[/quote]

Nope – you got me wrong. I want to see the global economy collapse. But first, your theory that it will be “much worse” is faith based. Much worse than what? It’s an unprovable statement which you can always go back to a say see I told you – if the economy gets worse – which it will.

I say it will get much worse and it has zero to do with what the Fed is doing now, or at least very little.[/quote]

Arraya,
If I pointed you to an Austrian model that protected from major failures and led the most prosperous country through 200 years of unprecedented growth into the biggest super power ever known would you use that as evidence that model worked or would you just shrug your shoulders and disregard it?

If the fed had let the tech bubble burst and didn’t blow up the housing bubble we would have MASSIVE GROWTH BY NOW AND WOULD HAVE EASILY ECLIPSED WHERE WE WERE! Don’t you get it? When you let a sector fail, the people leave and get retrained and the rest of the economy is fine. If you blow up a bigger bubble you crush more people. The next bubble is currency bubble and that destroys everyone.

[markmax33]

[quote=Arraya]It’s a tautology – it goes back to the same conclusion of intervention = makes things worse – without being the slightest empirical.[/quote]

This is the flaw in your argument. There are hundreds of pieces of empirical evidence that prove this. I’ve listed them on the blog and you haven’t looked at one of them because you have blinders on. We will never get anywhere until you are ready to look at and consider empirical evidence.

[markmax33]

[quote=Arraya]
I say it will get much worse and it has zero to do with what the Fed is doing now, or at least very little.[/quote]

The fed loaned $16T and they have no power? How much would they have to print in order to have influence? The GOV only makes $2.5T per year in taxes remember…

[Arraya]

[quote=markmax33][quote=Arraya]It’s a tautology – it goes back to the same conclusion of intervention = makes things worse – without being the slightest empirical.[/quote]

This is the flaw in your argument. There are hundreds of pieces of empirical evidence that prove this. I’ve listed them on the blog and you haven’t looked at one of them because you have blinders on. We will never get anywhere until you are ready to look at and consider empirical evidence.[/quote]

Maybe our definitions of empirical evidence is different.

[Author]

Posts