I'll be the first to say that the fed is a scam, but his statement that "if anyone else tried to print money like the fed they would be arrested for counterfeiting" is a poor argument. The fed is authorized to print money. It's the same as if you said "if any regular citizen tried to go around arresting people they would be put in jail for impersonating an officer. Well yeah, no shit. Only officers sanctioned by the state are allowed to make arrests and enforce the law.
@SkeksisRule "If anyone else tried to print money like the fed they would be arrested for counterfeiting" is a poor argument, but also false. Counterfeiting means fraudulently imitating. There is no law to prevent you from issuing your own currency so long as it is materially distinct from Federal Reserve note and coin.
As you may know, the effective cartel arrangement the Fed enjoys results from its monopoly position in being the only means of exchange good for the payment of Federal taxes.
Giving someone the power doesn't mean it's just if their actions are detrimental to society. The Fed is a detrimental organization to the American people, has no interest whatsoever to preserving the way of life and quality of this nation, and I am in the camp who believes the FED should be abolished and its organizers should be convicted of high treason and put in jail.
The evidence is stacked high against the FED, but nobody does a damn thing about it. It's time for a change.
@orimoneychannel - not only have i read the constitution, i've studied how it's interpreted
The provision of the Constitution which gives Congress the right to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, gives Congress exclusive ability to determine what will be legal tender
The Constitution does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts; Federal Reserve Notes are taxable dollars. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.
(1 of 2) Congress is explicitly granted power to regulate currency, and to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' to fulfill any of its enumerated powers. Therefore, if Congress can create a Bureau of Mint to coin and print money, it can also create a Bank that can regulate said currency. This argument has stood the test of time since 1791 when congress created the Bank of the United States.
(2 of 2) In 1819 the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to uphold the Second Bank. Critics say only gold and coin are legal tender, but U.S. v. Rifen clearly tells us what can be legal tender:The United States Constitution prohibits states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts: Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.
@sfiorare, first of all the Supreme Court being the final say in cases against the Federal Government is akin to the wolf guarding the hen house. This was *NEVER* the intention of the founders. The Fed was always subservient to the states and the people, otherwise why create a country with a new set of central government royalty when you just fought a war of independence to throw off the old royalty? Enumerated powers are only those. Congress has no authority to expand upon them.
@sfiorare, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;" Section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;" If the states can't pay in anything but gold and silver, how can currency be anything but? Logic?
@Anarkocapitalist - congress isn't a state and here's the supreme court's logic et al:
"It is also sometimes argued that the constitution permits the minting only of gold or silver coins. This is a misinterpretation, as a federal court makes clear in U.S. v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111. C.A.Mo. 1978"
google: "Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories (and other financial myths)" to read further on this subject
@sfiorare First of all, the Supreme Court always rules in favor of the Federal Government. Second, follow the logic. You haven't answered how the States are to pay debts only in silver and gold coin, yet Congress can make silver and gold coin illegitimate legal tender. Hamilton invented the first central bank via the myth of "implied powers" via the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses in "Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States." Jefferson and Madison retorted.
@Anarkocapitalist - the authors of the constitution realized there would progress far beyond what they could imagine and made allowances for advances in knowledge/technology/society
something tells me you have no problem with the second amendment
you can bellyache all you want, but people like ron paul, peter schiff and salerno are playing you for all they can get; i have no doubts that you'll never live to see the abolition of the federal reserve and the reason for that is that it's necessary
@sfiorare, what does the 2nd Amendment have to do with any of this and any problems I have or not with it? You're a troll. I don't belly ache. I'm not being played. I have the wherewithal to read, reason, use logic, and learn. If the Fed was so necessary, why didn't it exist until 1913? If you knew history, you would know it was created to socialize the risk, yet privatize the profits of a very select few people who lobbied for its passage. You sir are a statist, pure and simple.
@sfiorare Despite the fact that the Fed's track record is utterly pathetic, you still contend that we need it? Even by their own self-declared, ignorance-inspired mandate of stable prices and full-employment, they have been an abject failure. From a scientific perspective the CPI and employment statistics are a joke, because the government constantly changes the rules in the middle of the game.
@sfiorare, see: Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791. Specifically "The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution. ... They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid."
@sfiorare By this standard, if I Google things like "Why the Gold Standard works" or "Why the Gold Standard didn;t cause the Great Depression" would it validate that perspective? Just asking.
@sfiorare you can also google how World trade center 7 is not a controlled demolition,... The great depression was caused by the federal reserve when they took over the power to dictate monetary policy on Dec 23 1913,
I am sorry but as Steve Keen, which is not a gold bug, has pointed out it was proven already during the seventies that our growth in the money supply is due to credit and then later comes the base money supply.
On top of that you are rude and you don't answer the two questions asked in any meaningful way. The thing is that I can live without a gold standard; however I do not understand why I should think it makes sense that a central planer should set the interest rate.
@AngryWaab - before the historical standardization of mechanical devices, tools & etc; people generally had to make their own wrenches and tools because there were so many different custom sized bolts, it was extremely chaotic and inefficient; through collective agreements they organized standardizations so things were less chaotic; its not much different with financial matters; before the federal reserve, credit markets were disorderly and confused; organized markets are beneficial to progress
Ironically, Austrian business cycle is rooted in the concept of dis-equilibrium in the credit market, the condition it argues is the standard situation in all other markets. In effect, they think that the money supply and interest rates are determined exogenously (i.e. outside the economy) by the state. However, this is unlikely as the evidence points the other way, i.e. to the endogenous nature of the money supply itself.
@Xasew You can be sure i know it pretty well.Do you know any other theory. Samuelson Oscillator and Metzler Inventory Cycle?There also a lot other theories about Cycles like:Hicks's Trade Cycle,Duesenberry-Smithies Ratchet Effects, Growth Cycles by Duesenberry-Pasinetti, Extensions: Shocks and Money Cycle, Kaldor's Non-Linear Cycle, Kalecki's Distribution Cycle,Goodwin's Non-Linear Accelerator and Goodwin's Class-Struggle Model.Banking just an minor part in case of development of a cycle.
This account of money (proposed strongly by, among others, the post-Keynesian school) argues that the money supply is a function of the demand for credit, which itself is a function of the level of economic activity. In other words, the banking system creates as much money as people need and any attempt to control that creation will cause economic problems and, perhaps, crisis.
@zsylvana If it is perfectly efficient and beneficial for a banking system to create any amount of money that is desired by the people, why does the banking system need to be involved at all? If any amount of money creation is justified as long as there is demand for it, it would be more efficient to just allow people to print however much money they desire at home. (And this money would be debt-free!) This is, of course, ridiculous, but it reveals the gaping chasm in the "logic" of your case.
@gergenheimer Perfect competition never did exist and never could exist because, even when firms are small, they do not just take the price but strive to make the price. But then immediately go on to say that the 'cloud-cuckoo' fantasyland of perfect competition is the benchmark against which we may say something significant about real-world competition,how can an idealised s of perfection be a benchmark when we are never told how to measure the gap between it and real-world competition?
@gergenheimer Your claims flows from Say's law, the argument that supply creates its own demand. This theory, and its more formally put Walras' Law, is the basis on which the idea that capitalism could never face a general economic crisis is rooted in.Capitalism has always been marked by boom and bust.It put Say's Law into question.For Say,"every producer asks for money in exchange for his products only for the purpose of employing that money again immediately in the purchase of another product
@zsylvana Were your responses meant for me? Because they did't address what I said at all. You made the claim that any amount of money creation was justified by the general demand for money. I merely took your argument to its logical conclusion - if demand for money is the only criterion for the beneficial expansion of the money supply, why not let people produce their own money as desired? Each house could be given a dedicated printer that prints FRNs on demand. Sounds great, right?
The historical fate of the Gold Standard after the First World War is well known and can be told briefly. Britain, like all the major countries, practically abolished the Gold Standard during the First World War: sterling was no longer exchangeable for gold; now the state sought to bring all gold under its control. As a result sterling fell in relation both to the value of gold as well as all stable currencies.
@gergenheimer City of London,dependent on a strong currency,refused to accept this and every effort was bent towards-bringing back the conditions which obtained in 1914.Under the supervision of Churchill,restoration of the Gold Standard involved a savage deflation in order to force prices down,jack up the exchange rate and bring about an improvement in the external payments position.The cost,as Keynes warned,was a price level which made British exports uncompetitive in world market
The weakness of the restored Standard can be seen in the fact that it could not re-establish the circulation of gold coin (specie). Gold was almost entirely removed from domestic circulation and concentrated in the hands of the state where it became world money, a universal means of payment in the international economy. This system, brought into being with such problems and sacrifices, could not endure for more than a few years.
The gold imported into a country with a favourable balance of payments may simply lie in private hoards ,or lie in the vaults of the Central Bank.Even if the increased supply of gold does bring an increase in the supply of money,this will not necessarily produce an increase in prices. The exact result will depend,on the particular phase of the economic cycle which the country concerned is experiencing.
Also questionable is the idea, fundamental to Gold Standard’s ,that the inflow of precious metals into a country brings with it an increase in the money supply,following the principles of the quantity theory of money,that this increased supply is the source of a corresponding inflation of prices,if the economic conditions of a country (the value of total commodity circulation) don´t require an increase in the supply of money,then nothing will bring about an increase in that supply
The theory was also static,indicated amongst other things by Ricardo’s view that it was perfectly possible for countries to invert their specialisms.Smith and Ricardo wrote in the period prior to the introductio of mass production and the possibilities of taking advantage of the economies of scale. However realistic this particular assumption might have been it was increasingly undermined by the penetration of mechanised forms of production into more and more areas of the economy
As many economists and others pointed out Gold Standard hardly accorded with the idealised picture.The theory derived from the quantity theory of money proposed by Hume and Ricardo as from the latter’s theory of international trade – the theory of comparative advantage.The assumptions on which the Ricardian theory was based on the view that all nations were homogeneous;at same stage of development.
@sfiorare Money, in other words, emerges from within the system and so the Austrian attempt to "blame the state" is simply wrong.Attempts by the state to control the money during the Monetarist disasters of the early 1980s failed and it is unlikely that this would change in a "pure" capitalism marked by a totally privatised banking system.
@sfiorare LOL!I could understand that!Paul Krugman wrote in his blog: "Austrian theory" of the business cycle—a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire" !I agree!
@AFRIKTODAY I recommend you to read "Economics" by Paul A Samuelson,at MIT.In his famous oscillator model economic trends works as follows:
A- Damped monotonic B - Constant monotonic C- Explosive monotonic D -Explosive oscillations E - Constant oscillations F - Damped oscillations
How do his multiplier-accelerator reveal "cycles". In fact, only parameter ranges (B , C) which are in situation E (constant oscillations) will yield constant cycles.
@sfiorare, the real issue with any centralized bank is that it is a monopoly currency provider. Not only is this unconstitutional, it creates instability due to devaluation of the monopoly currency through basic supply and demand principles. The more there is, the less it is worth. It also creates moral hazards for the institutions it supports. The market should determine the currency, and mismanaged institutions need to go bankrupt, not get taxpayer funded bailouts.
@sfiorare, please refute Solerno's speech instead of being a troll. I'd like to hear your understanding of the economics and how what Solerno is saying about the Fed is untrue. This isn't about the Gold standard, although it does help to bring stability to the currency based off of it due to supply and demand. Obviously you don't care about constitutional requirements of gold and silver money. Apparently, you're better educated than the founders on the subject.
@sfiorare Let's see. Since going off the gold standard there's been the recession of 1921, the Great Depression, Stagflation, the recessions of 1981, 1991, 2001, 2008 which hasn't ended yet.
So how's that non-gold-standard working out for you, eh?
@CurtHowland - the last 80 years in the usa have been the good life, here's what it was like before 1913: Panic of 1797, Depression of 1807, Depression of 1815, Panic of 1819, Panic of 1825, Panic of 1837, Panic of 1847, Panic of 1857, Panic of 1866, Black Friday (1869), Depression of 1873, Panic of 1884, Panic of 1890, Panic of 1893, Depression of 1896, Panic of 1901, Panic of 1907, Panic of 1910-1911 no depression in 80 years and no panic in 100 years is working pretty well
@sfiorare Well said!The record is wellknown.It was aa time of lawless Mob -Rule,Robber Barons and Oligarchy.If it´s the society they admire i don´t know how to reach them.
@CurtHowland "Robber Barons an Economists view", economistsview.typepad.com/.../2007/.../robber-barons.html Professor Bradford De Long, University of California, Berkeley
Of course bank failures are good things, just as any insolvent business run into the ground by fraud or simply bad business practices is a very good thing for them to fail.
To prop up such a business is to use coercion to divert resources from efficient uses just to continue inefficient uses. Everyone is poorer because of the waste.
@sfiorare What's moronic about someone saying that pizzeria bankruptcy is a good thing! Free markets is a system of profit and loss! Protecting the bad companies hurt society and the consumers for it allows the strains of bad business behavior to continue unabashed ...like Goldman sachs, JP Morgan, CITI dolling billions of dollars of taxpayers loot to their employees and managers!
@orimoneychannel - during the time period that salerno was referring to, when a bank went under, it's depositors lost all their money; that likely included thousands of middle and lower-class people's life savings; nowadays there are much less damaging ways to handle this
that's a world of difference from a pizzeria owned by one person or a small group of investors, going bankrupt
@sfiorare So what? People should know better! These same small investors often carry 50,000 of credit card debt, hundred of thousands on their mortgage...etc It doesn't matter. That's why we do not need FDIC for it prevents depositors from investigating the health status of their banks. People have been taught to just trust the banks while in fact banking is simply another business like any other. I only have one bank account where I deposit a little money. The rest of it is in gold and silver.
@sfiorare You are very much a naive person! How do you select the shoes you buy? Don't you shop around first and only buy those shoes that are made by reputable companies with a long history of quality? Don't you do the same thing for your restaurant selection, beverages, doctors, clothes, even pastors? You go to those you believe will provide you with a higher return. Why shouldn't that be the case with banks? Why are incompetent bankers be protected? Who suffers if not the customers?
@sfiorare@sfiorare No, you are naive because you do not understand the moral hazard of having an entire industry being protected by the State! Why should they care about their customers if they are " allowed" to inflate above their deposit in order to maximize their profits? Imagine a restaurant watering down its soups or drinks in order to make more money! Do you expect the State to protect them to; or, to shut them down for abusing their customers? No business should be protected by the State
@sfiorare You just can't counter my argumentation, that's all! Look, nobody in his right mind would approve of any business going bankrupt. We are wish people well in their entrepreneurial ventures. However, when someone engages in fraud, it our moral duty to oppose his actions. Bankers defraud their depositors by inflating their deposits and artificially lowering the rates of interest in order to issue more loans. they have to go bankrupt when caught; that's A MORAL NECESSITY FOR CIVILIZATION.
@orimoneychannel - i read it 15 years ago, it's political rhetoric
@gergenheimer - you're 100% wrong, if the full deposit isn't held in reserve, it's a fractional reserve, by definition
the joke is your naiveté for propaganda, since the federal reserve was instituted nearly 100 years ago, the usa has consistently been the financial and economic leader of the world
@sfiorare I"n a world where there was absolute certainty about the present and future there would be no need for a medium of exchange like money at all. In the real world, money haIt is, in other words, not neutral (although, conveniently, in a fictional world with neutral money "crises do not occur" and it "assumed away the very matter under investigation," namely depressions. (Keynes, quoted by Doug Henwood, Wall Street)
@orimoneychannel - not only have i read the constitution, i've studied how it's interpreted
The provision of the Constitution which gives Congress the right to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, gives Congress exclusive ability to determine what will be legal tender
The Constitution does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts; Federal Reserve Notes are taxable dollars. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.
@orimoneychannel - not only have i read the constitution, i've studied how it's interpreted
The provision of the Constitution which gives Congress the right to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, gives Congress exclusive ability to determine what will be legal tender
The Constitution does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts; Federal Reserve Notes are taxable dollars. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.
@sfiorare and so based on this logic, the big banks should essentially and effectively be able to get away with murder? that is such bullshit! tell me, what motivates the banks to "do right" and conduct themselves ethically with a view towards upholding a moral economy where there is no risk of failure; when in fact, failure is rewarded via tax payer bailout? absolutely, the banks should be subject to failure due to illegal activity/mismanagement in the same way a SMB sould, i.e. the pizzeria.
@sfiorare FTR - i accidentally thumbed you up when going to reply:(
uhm... yes, i'm very much against a system that prints money @ its whim and out of its proverbial ass and lends it out at interest! ergo, i'm against being defrauded and existing in a debt-based monetary system. hope that was clear enough.
@sfiorare He's saying that bank failures are a good thing the same way that running into a burning building to save someone is a good thing. Obviously, the failure itself is not good, nor is it good the fact that the building is burning. But once the building is burning, running into save someone means there is someone worth saving! So too, a bank run means that the money was actually worth something.
@sfiorare Let's say a company like Pfizer knowingly makes a drug that makes thousands of people sick. As a result, their stock plummets and millions of people stop using Pfizer products. They reach the brink of going out of business. By your logic, it would be bad to lose the jobs and capital tied up in Pfizer, therefore it's preferable for government to step in rescue this company, despite the consumers' vote that they be punished. A bank run is the consumer vote against the bank's behavior.
@sfiorare I am confused? How so? In both cases, the customers are voicing their displeasure by removing their business from the entity in question. If this results in the failure of a business that harmed it's customers, so be it. In the case of a bank run, the customers are merely exercising their right to remove their deposits from the bank, as they are entitled. When they all try to do this at the same time, the inherent fraud of fractional reserve banking is revealed. Who's confused?
@sfiorare You and modern bankers are confusing two distinct practices - deposit banking (warehousing) and loan banking (timed deposits). Modern banks behave as unstable and dishonest hybrids of the two. They represent themselves to customers as deposit banks, where they paradoxically charge fees AND pay interest for warehousing, and where the depositor can withdraw on demand. Fractional reserves are not required for making loans - loans can honestly and profitably be made from timed deposits.
@gergenheimer - if the money you describe as 'timed deposits' is not 100% fully held in reserve, then what you're talking about is a fractional reserve
read the comment i put on your channel page, 2 months ago
@sfiorare no, a timed deposit is not a fractional reserve, it's not a reserve at all - if the person depositing the money accepts the potential risks, and agrees that they can't come get their money until the allotted time has passed, this is a totally different contractual obligation than a demand deposit, which must be redeemed AT ANY TIME of the DEPOSITOR'S choosing. In short, timed deposits are a form of voluntary speculation, whereas demand deposits are (supposed to be) a bailment contract.
@CurtHowland A moron?James Bradford DeLong? Professor of Economics and chair of the Political Economy at the University of California, Berkeley. ex.Deputy Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration under Lawrence Summers.Research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and is a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
Along with Joseph Stiglitz and Aaron Edlin, editor of The Economists' Voice,etc.etc
@sfiorare Each of which lasted about a year, and which were described as "terrible" because there had not been a Great Depression yet.
By the same standards as the "panics" of the 1800s, the 40 years since going off the gold standard has been one long depression, punctuated by occasional unsustainable booms.
Seriously, have you ever actually studied history? Here's a talk for you:
@CurtHowland - you're just wrong, the depression of 1873 isn't called the long depression for nothing
There is one central fact about the economic history of the twentieth century: above all, the century just past has been the century of increasing material wealth and economic productivity.
to see source info google: "Cornucopia: Increasing Wealth in the Twentieth Century"
It took going off the gold standard to create the Great Depression. The collapse of the govt fiat paper currency in 1873 was awful, but it was GOVERNMENT CAUSED because of Lincoln's greenbacks.
11:29 This is the most important part of his speech. The bank runs and recessions before we went off the gold standard are the #1 argument against going back to gold on youtube.
This is the first time I've heard how those things really happened. He should have gone into more detail.
I'll be the first to say that the fed is a scam, but his statement that "if anyone else tried to print money like the fed they would be arrested for counterfeiting" is a poor argument. The fed is authorized to print money. It's the same as if you said "if any regular citizen tried to go around arresting people they would be put in jail for impersonating an officer. Well yeah, no shit. Only officers sanctioned by the state are allowed to make arrests and enforce the law.
SkeksisRule 11 months ago
@SkeksisRule "If anyone else tried to print money like the fed they would be arrested for counterfeiting" is a poor argument, but also false. Counterfeiting means fraudulently imitating. There is no law to prevent you from issuing your own currency so long as it is materially distinct from Federal Reserve note and coin.
As you may know, the effective cartel arrangement the Fed enjoys results from its monopoly position in being the only means of exchange good for the payment of Federal taxes.
thespacialone 9 months ago
@SkeksisRule
Giving someone the power doesn't mean it's just if their actions are detrimental to society. The Fed is a detrimental organization to the American people, has no interest whatsoever to preserving the way of life and quality of this nation, and I am in the camp who believes the FED should be abolished and its organizers should be convicted of high treason and put in jail.
The evidence is stacked high against the FED, but nobody does a damn thing about it. It's time for a change.
TheReapersSon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
zsylvana who's thumbing up all your comments?
DKshad0w 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@orimoneychannel - not only have i read the constitution, i've studied how it's interpreted
The provision of the Constitution which gives Congress the right to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, gives Congress exclusive ability to determine what will be legal tender
The Constitution does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts; Federal Reserve Notes are taxable dollars. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.
sfiorare 1 year ago
(1 of 2) Congress is explicitly granted power to regulate currency, and to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' to fulfill any of its enumerated powers. Therefore, if Congress can create a Bureau of Mint to coin and print money, it can also create a Bank that can regulate said currency. This argument has stood the test of time since 1791 when congress created the Bank of the United States.
sfiorare 1 year ago
(2 of 2) In 1819 the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to uphold the Second Bank. Critics say only gold and coin are legal tender, but U.S. v. Rifen clearly tells us what can be legal tender:The United States Constitution prohibits states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts: Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare, first of all the Supreme Court being the final say in cases against the Federal Government is akin to the wolf guarding the hen house. This was *NEVER* the intention of the founders. The Fed was always subservient to the states and the people, otherwise why create a country with a new set of central government royalty when you just fought a war of independence to throw off the old royalty? Enumerated powers are only those. Congress has no authority to expand upon them.
Anarkocapitalist 1 year ago
@Anarkocapitalist - can you read?
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;" Section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;" If the states can't pay in anything but gold and silver, how can currency be anything but? Logic?
Anarkocapitalist 1 year ago
@Anarkocapitalist - congress isn't a state and here's the supreme court's logic et al:
"It is also sometimes argued that the constitution permits the minting only of gold or silver coins. This is a misinterpretation, as a federal court makes clear in U.S. v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111. C.A.Mo. 1978"
google: "Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories (and other financial myths)" to read further on this subject
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare First of all, the Supreme Court always rules in favor of the Federal Government. Second, follow the logic. You haven't answered how the States are to pay debts only in silver and gold coin, yet Congress can make silver and gold coin illegitimate legal tender. Hamilton invented the first central bank via the myth of "implied powers" via the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses in "Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States." Jefferson and Madison retorted.
Anarkocapitalist 1 year ago
@Anarkocapitalist - the authors of the constitution realized there would progress far beyond what they could imagine and made allowances for advances in knowledge/technology/society
something tells me you have no problem with the second amendment
you can bellyache all you want, but people like ron paul, peter schiff and salerno are playing you for all they can get; i have no doubts that you'll never live to see the abolition of the federal reserve and the reason for that is that it's necessary
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare, what does the 2nd Amendment have to do with any of this and any problems I have or not with it? You're a troll. I don't belly ache. I'm not being played. I have the wherewithal to read, reason, use logic, and learn. If the Fed was so necessary, why didn't it exist until 1913? If you knew history, you would know it was created to socialize the risk, yet privatize the profits of a very select few people who lobbied for its passage. You sir are a statist, pure and simple.
Anarkocapitalist 1 year ago
@sfiorare Despite the fact that the Fed's track record is utterly pathetic, you still contend that we need it? Even by their own self-declared, ignorance-inspired mandate of stable prices and full-employment, they have been an abject failure. From a scientific perspective the CPI and employment statistics are a joke, because the government constantly changes the rules in the middle of the game.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
Comment removed
Anarkocapitalist 1 year ago
@sfiorare, see: Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791. Specifically "The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution. ... They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid."
Anarkocapitalist 1 year ago
the mises institute is one of the most politically biased sources of information you'll find
google any of the titles to see why the gold standard doesn't work
"The gold standard and the Great Depression"
"Why The Gold Standard Is Obsolete"
"Here's Why a Gold Standard Won't Work"
"Libertarians and the gold standard"
"Why is the gold standard crazy?"
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare By this standard, if I Google things like "Why the Gold Standard works" or "Why the Gold Standard didn;t cause the Great Depression" would it validate that perspective? Just asking.
TheF4FS 1 year ago 4
@TheF4FS - don't you find it inappropriate to be taking advice on the gold standard from gold salesmen?
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare you can also google how World trade center 7 is not a controlled demolition,... The great depression was caused by the federal reserve when they took over the power to dictate monetary policy on Dec 23 1913,
Dullumis 1 year ago 2
@sfiorare
The problem is still:
* Why I should think it is a good idea to let a central planer inflate away the value of my savings meanwhile they the rich bankers?
* Why do we have a system were our money is based on debt?
None of your google searches explains that.
AngryWaab 1 year ago
@AngryWaab - our money isn't based on debt, your brain is based on propaganda from gold salesmen
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare
I am sorry but as Steve Keen, which is not a gold bug, has pointed out it was proven already during the seventies that our growth in the money supply is due to credit and then later comes the base money supply.
On top of that you are rude and you don't answer the two questions asked in any meaningful way. The thing is that I can live without a gold standard; however I do not understand why I should think it makes sense that a central planer should set the interest rate.
AngryWaab 1 year ago
@AngryWaab - before the historical standardization of mechanical devices, tools & etc; people generally had to make their own wrenches and tools because there were so many different custom sized bolts, it was extremely chaotic and inefficient; through collective agreements they organized standardizations so things were less chaotic; its not much different with financial matters; before the federal reserve, credit markets were disorderly and confused; organized markets are beneficial to progress
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare
Ironically, Austrian business cycle is rooted in the concept of dis-equilibrium in the credit market, the condition it argues is the standard situation in all other markets. In effect, they think that the money supply and interest rates are determined exogenously (i.e. outside the economy) by the state. However, this is unlikely as the evidence points the other way, i.e. to the endogenous nature of the money supply itself.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana
That you clearly don't understand what ABCT is about on the other hand isn't ironic at all.
Xasew 1 year ago
@Xasew You can be sure i know it pretty well.Do you know any other theory. Samuelson Oscillator and Metzler Inventory Cycle?There also a lot other theories about Cycles like:Hicks's Trade Cycle,Duesenberry-Smithies Ratchet Effects, Growth Cycles by Duesenberry-Pasinetti, Extensions: Shocks and Money Cycle, Kaldor's Non-Linear Cycle, Kalecki's Distribution Cycle,Goodwin's Non-Linear Accelerator and Goodwin's Class-Struggle Model.Banking just an minor part in case of development of a cycle.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana
Let's see: "...dis-equilibrium in the credit market, the condition it argues is the standard situation in all other markets."
No it isn't.
"...this is unlikely as the evidence points the other way, i.e. to the endogenous nature of the money supply itself."
The Fed could triple the money supply tomorrow if it wanted to. That's endogenous to you?
Xasew 1 year ago
@sfiorare
This account of money (proposed strongly by, among others, the post-Keynesian school) argues that the money supply is a function of the demand for credit, which itself is a function of the level of economic activity. In other words, the banking system creates as much money as people need and any attempt to control that creation will cause economic problems and, perhaps, crisis.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana If it is perfectly efficient and beneficial for a banking system to create any amount of money that is desired by the people, why does the banking system need to be involved at all? If any amount of money creation is justified as long as there is demand for it, it would be more efficient to just allow people to print however much money they desire at home. (And this money would be debt-free!) This is, of course, ridiculous, but it reveals the gaping chasm in the "logic" of your case.
gergenheimer 1 year ago 2
@gergenheimer Perfect competition never did exist and never could exist because, even when firms are small, they do not just take the price but strive to make the price. But then immediately go on to say that the 'cloud-cuckoo' fantasyland of perfect competition is the benchmark against which we may say something significant about real-world competition,how can an idealised s of perfection be a benchmark when we are never told how to measure the gap between it and real-world competition?
zsylvana 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Your claims flows from Say's law, the argument that supply creates its own demand. This theory, and its more formally put Walras' Law, is the basis on which the idea that capitalism could never face a general economic crisis is rooted in.Capitalism has always been marked by boom and bust.It put Say's Law into question.For Say,"every producer asks for money in exchange for his products only for the purpose of employing that money again immediately in the purchase of another product
zsylvana 1 year ago 2
@zsylvana Were your responses meant for me? Because they did't address what I said at all. You made the claim that any amount of money creation was justified by the general demand for money. I merely took your argument to its logical conclusion - if demand for money is the only criterion for the beneficial expansion of the money supply, why not let people produce their own money as desired? Each house could be given a dedicated printer that prints FRNs on demand. Sounds great, right?
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer B
The historical fate of the Gold Standard after the First World War is well known and can be told briefly. Britain, like all the major countries, practically abolished the Gold Standard during the First World War: sterling was no longer exchangeable for gold; now the state sought to bring all gold under its control. As a result sterling fell in relation both to the value of gold as well as all stable currencies.
zsylvana 1 year ago 5
@gergenheimer City of London,dependent on a strong currency,refused to accept this and every effort was bent towards-bringing back the conditions which obtained in 1914.Under the supervision of Churchill,restoration of the Gold Standard involved a savage deflation in order to force prices down,jack up the exchange rate and bring about an improvement in the external payments position.The cost,as Keynes warned,was a price level which made British exports uncompetitive in world market
zsylvana 1 year ago 5
@gergenheimer .
The weakness of the restored Standard can be seen in the fact that it could not re-establish the circulation of gold coin (specie). Gold was almost entirely removed from domestic circulation and concentrated in the hands of the state where it became world money, a universal means of payment in the international economy. This system, brought into being with such problems and sacrifices, could not endure for more than a few years.
zsylvana 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@gergenheimer
The gold imported into a country with a favourable balance of payments may simply lie in private hoards ,or lie in the vaults of the Central Bank.Even if the increased supply of gold does bring an increase in the supply of money,this will not necessarily produce an increase in prices. The exact result will depend,on the particular phase of the economic cycle which the country concerned is experiencing.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@gergenheimer
Also questionable is the idea, fundamental to Gold Standard’s ,that the inflow of precious metals into a country brings with it an increase in the money supply,following the principles of the quantity theory of money,that this increased supply is the source of a corresponding inflation of prices,if the economic conditions of a country (the value of total commodity circulation) don´t require an increase in the supply of money,then nothing will bring about an increase in that supply
zsylvana 1 year ago 14
@gergenheimer
The theory was also static,indicated amongst other things by Ricardo’s view that it was perfectly possible for countries to invert their specialisms.Smith and Ricardo wrote in the period prior to the introductio of mass production and the possibilities of taking advantage of the economies of scale. However realistic this particular assumption might have been it was increasingly undermined by the penetration of mechanised forms of production into more and more areas of the economy
zsylvana 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@gergenheimer
As many economists and others pointed out Gold Standard hardly accorded with the idealised picture.The theory derived from the quantity theory of money proposed by Hume and Ricardo as from the latter’s theory of international trade – the theory of comparative advantage.The assumptions on which the Ricardian theory was based on the view that all nations were homogeneous;at same stage of development.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@sfiorare Money, in other words, emerges from within the system and so the Austrian attempt to "blame the state" is simply wrong.Attempts by the state to control the money during the Monetarist disasters of the early 1980s failed and it is unlikely that this would change in a "pure" capitalism marked by a totally privatised banking system.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana - yes, most of the time salerno was speaking, i felt like he was just pandering to the audience, especially at the end of the video
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare LOL!I could understand that!Paul Krugman wrote in his blog: "Austrian theory" of the business cycle—a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire" !I agree!
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana The same Krugman who was economic adviser to robert Mugabe! Of course!
AFRIKTODAY 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AFRIKTODAY I recommend you to read "Economics" by Paul A Samuelson,at MIT.In his famous oscillator model economic trends works as follows:
A- Damped monotonic B - Constant monotonic C- Explosive monotonic D -Explosive oscillations E - Constant oscillations F - Damped oscillations
How do his multiplier-accelerator reveal "cycles". In fact, only parameter ranges (B , C) which are in situation E (constant oscillations) will yield constant cycles.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@sfiorare explain the concept of fractional reserve banking please?
noodoo19 1 year ago
@sfiorare, the real issue with any centralized bank is that it is a monopoly currency provider. Not only is this unconstitutional, it creates instability due to devaluation of the monopoly currency through basic supply and demand principles. The more there is, the less it is worth. It also creates moral hazards for the institutions it supports. The market should determine the currency, and mismanaged institutions need to go bankrupt, not get taxpayer funded bailouts.
Anarkocapitalist 1 year ago 3
@sfiorare, please refute Solerno's speech instead of being a troll. I'd like to hear your understanding of the economics and how what Solerno is saying about the Fed is untrue. This isn't about the Gold standard, although it does help to bring stability to the currency based off of it due to supply and demand. Obviously you don't care about constitutional requirements of gold and silver money. Apparently, you're better educated than the founders on the subject.
Anarkocapitalist 1 year ago
@sfiorare Let's see. Since going off the gold standard there's been the recession of 1921, the Great Depression, Stagflation, the recessions of 1981, 1991, 2001, 2008 which hasn't ended yet.
So how's that non-gold-standard working out for you, eh?
I'll tell you, it SUCKS.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare Well said!The record is wellknown.It was aa time of lawless Mob -Rule,Robber Barons and Oligarchy.If it´s the society they admire i don´t know how to reach them.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana "Robber Barons and Oligarchy"
Jeff Tucker does a great presentation on that:
youtube/watch?v=t0fI8n-WbYs
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland "Robber Barons an Economists view", economistsview.typepad.com/.../2007/.../robber-barons.html Professor Bradford De Long, University of California, Berkeley
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana Brad De Long is a moron.
Can't you at least find someone with actual experience in economics to cite?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland - what's moronic is someone saying bank failures are a good thing 13:29
sfiorare 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sfiorare "bank failures are a good thing"
Of course bank failures are good things, just as any insolvent business run into the ground by fraud or simply bad business practices is a very good thing for them to fail.
To prop up such a business is to use coercion to divert resources from efficient uses just to continue inefficient uses. Everyone is poorer because of the waste.
Why do you want to subsidize failure?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@sfiorare What's moronic about someone saying that pizzeria bankruptcy is a good thing! Free markets is a system of profit and loss! Protecting the bad companies hurt society and the consumers for it allows the strains of bad business behavior to continue unabashed ...like Goldman sachs, JP Morgan, CITI dolling billions of dollars of taxpayers loot to their employees and managers!
orimoneychannel 1 year ago
@orimoneychannel - during the time period that salerno was referring to, when a bank went under, it's depositors lost all their money; that likely included thousands of middle and lower-class people's life savings; nowadays there are much less damaging ways to handle this
that's a world of difference from a pizzeria owned by one person or a small group of investors, going bankrupt
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare So what? People should know better! These same small investors often carry 50,000 of credit card debt, hundred of thousands on their mortgage...etc It doesn't matter. That's why we do not need FDIC for it prevents depositors from investigating the health status of their banks. People have been taught to just trust the banks while in fact banking is simply another business like any other. I only have one bank account where I deposit a little money. The rest of it is in gold and silver.
orimoneychannel 1 year ago
@orimoneychannel - what are you saying, people should know better than to put their money in a bank?
rumors are what destroyed many healthy banks in the 19th century
@sevendust62 - what you wrote is nonsense
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare You are very much a naive person! How do you select the shoes you buy? Don't you shop around first and only buy those shoes that are made by reputable companies with a long history of quality? Don't you do the same thing for your restaurant selection, beverages, doctors, clothes, even pastors? You go to those you believe will provide you with a higher return. Why shouldn't that be the case with banks? Why are incompetent bankers be protected? Who suffers if not the customers?
orimoneychannel 1 year ago
@orimoneychannel - it's you that's naive to think shoe stores and restaurants are comparable to banks
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare @sfiorare No, you are naive because you do not understand the moral hazard of having an entire industry being protected by the State! Why should they care about their customers if they are " allowed" to inflate above their deposit in order to maximize their profits? Imagine a restaurant watering down its soups or drinks in order to make more money! Do you expect the State to protect them to; or, to shut them down for abusing their customers? No business should be protected by the State
orimoneychannel 1 year ago
@orimoneychannel - the more you write, the more you show how ignorant you are
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare You just can't counter my argumentation, that's all! Look, nobody in his right mind would approve of any business going bankrupt. We are wish people well in their entrepreneurial ventures. However, when someone engages in fraud, it our moral duty to oppose his actions. Bankers defraud their depositors by inflating their deposits and artificially lowering the rates of interest in order to issue more loans. they have to go bankrupt when caught; that's A MORAL NECESSITY FOR CIVILIZATION.
orimoneychannel 1 year ago
@orimoneychannel - your argument is so idiotic it's not worth wasting time on
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare No, you just don't know any better! One advice though, read Murray Rothbard's : " The case against the Fed"!
Voila!!
orimoneychannel 1 year ago
@orimoneychannel - i read it 15 years ago, it's political rhetoric
@gergenheimer - you're 100% wrong, if the full deposit isn't held in reserve, it's a fractional reserve, by definition
the joke is your naiveté for propaganda, since the federal reserve was instituted nearly 100 years ago, the usa has consistently been the financial and economic leader of the world
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare I"n a world where there was absolute certainty about the present and future there would be no need for a medium of exchange like money at all. In the real world, money haIt is, in other words, not neutral (although, conveniently, in a fictional world with neutral money "crises do not occur" and it "assumed away the very matter under investigation," namely depressions. (Keynes, quoted by Doug Henwood, Wall Street)
zsylvana 1 year ago
@sfiorare You should have red the constitution as well bud! " Art. I Sec. 10 Cl. 1
[No State shall ...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
orimoneychannel 1 year ago
@orimoneychannel - not only have i read the constitution, i've studied how it's interpreted
The provision of the Constitution which gives Congress the right to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, gives Congress exclusive ability to determine what will be legal tender
The Constitution does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts; Federal Reserve Notes are taxable dollars. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.
sfiorare 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@orimoneychannel - not only have i read the constitution, i've studied how it's interpreted
The provision of the Constitution which gives Congress the right to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, gives Congress exclusive ability to determine what will be legal tender
The Constitution does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts; Federal Reserve Notes are taxable dollars. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare and so based on this logic, the big banks should essentially and effectively be able to get away with murder? that is such bullshit! tell me, what motivates the banks to "do right" and conduct themselves ethically with a view towards upholding a moral economy where there is no risk of failure; when in fact, failure is rewarded via tax payer bailout? absolutely, the banks should be subject to failure due to illegal activity/mismanagement in the same way a SMB sould, i.e. the pizzeria.
noodoo19 1 year ago 2
@noodoo19 - are you against fractional reserve banking?
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare FTR - i accidentally thumbed you up when going to reply:(
uhm... yes, i'm very much against a system that prints money @ its whim and out of its proverbial ass and lends it out at interest! ergo, i'm against being defrauded and existing in a debt-based monetary system. hope that was clear enough.
noodoo19 1 year ago
@noodoo19 - where do you think money comes from?
sfiorare 1 year ago
Comment removed
noodoo19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sfiorare how about you address my question re: your warped logic first?... then maybe i'll tell you;)
noodoo19 1 year ago
@sfiorare He's saying that bank failures are a good thing the same way that running into a burning building to save someone is a good thing. Obviously, the failure itself is not good, nor is it good the fact that the building is burning. But once the building is burning, running into save someone means there is someone worth saving! So too, a bank run means that the money was actually worth something.
sevendust62 1 year ago
@sfiorare Let's say a company like Pfizer knowingly makes a drug that makes thousands of people sick. As a result, their stock plummets and millions of people stop using Pfizer products. They reach the brink of going out of business. By your logic, it would be bad to lose the jobs and capital tied up in Pfizer, therefore it's preferable for government to step in rescue this company, despite the consumers' vote that they be punished. A bank run is the consumer vote against the bank's behavior.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer - you're confused
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare I am confused? How so? In both cases, the customers are voicing their displeasure by removing their business from the entity in question. If this results in the failure of a business that harmed it's customers, so be it. In the case of a bank run, the customers are merely exercising their right to remove their deposits from the bank, as they are entitled. When they all try to do this at the same time, the inherent fraud of fractional reserve banking is revealed. Who's confused?
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer - you are confused, you're mistaking propaganda for reality
without fractional reserves, there's no money to lend and the bank would have to make money by charging you to keep your money in the vault
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare You and modern bankers are confusing two distinct practices - deposit banking (warehousing) and loan banking (timed deposits). Modern banks behave as unstable and dishonest hybrids of the two. They represent themselves to customers as deposit banks, where they paradoxically charge fees AND pay interest for warehousing, and where the depositor can withdraw on demand. Fractional reserves are not required for making loans - loans can honestly and profitably be made from timed deposits.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer - if the money you describe as 'timed deposits' is not 100% fully held in reserve, then what you're talking about is a fractional reserve
read the comment i put on your channel page, 2 months ago
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare no, a timed deposit is not a fractional reserve, it's not a reserve at all - if the person depositing the money accepts the potential risks, and agrees that they can't come get their money until the allotted time has passed, this is a totally different contractual obligation than a demand deposit, which must be redeemed AT ANY TIME of the DEPOSITOR'S choosing. In short, timed deposits are a form of voluntary speculation, whereas demand deposits are (supposed to be) a bailment contract.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901,
Allan Nevins, John D. Rockefeller: The Heroic Age of American Enterprise,
Alfred D. Chandler, "Comparative Business History," Enterprise and History
zsylvana 1 year ago 21
@CurtHowland A moron?James Bradford DeLong? Professor of Economics and chair of the Political Economy at the University of California, Berkeley. ex.Deputy Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration under Lawrence Summers.Research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and is a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
Along with Joseph Stiglitz and Aaron Edlin, editor of The Economists' Voice,etc.etc
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana "James Bradford DeLong"
Ok, a very politically astute, amoral, intellectually dishonest, lying moron.
I've read some of his works. They are utterly worthless except to the people who use them to justify their predation.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland could you check the URL for Jeff Tucker's presentation? the one you provided isn't working for me. thanks.
noodoo19 1 year ago
@noodoo19 You can search for "How to Improve Society | Jeffrey A. Tucker"
Here's a direct copy/paste: /watch?v=t0fI8n-WbYs
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland thx Curt.
noodoo19 1 year ago
@sfiorare Each of which lasted about a year, and which were described as "terrible" because there had not been a Great Depression yet.
By the same standards as the "panics" of the 1800s, the 40 years since going off the gold standard has been one long depression, punctuated by occasional unsustainable booms.
Seriously, have you ever actually studied history? Here's a talk for you:
Martin van Buren: What Greatness Really Means
youtube/watch?v=rcbAZCaG_Ck
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland - you're just wrong, the depression of 1873 isn't called the long depression for nothing
There is one central fact about the economic history of the twentieth century: above all, the century just past has been the century of increasing material wealth and economic productivity.
to see source info google: "Cornucopia: Increasing Wealth in the Twentieth Century"
sfiorare 1 year ago
@sfiorare "you're just wrong"
Nope.
It took going off the gold standard to create the Great Depression. The collapse of the govt fiat paper currency in 1873 was awful, but it was GOVERNMENT CAUSED because of Lincoln's greenbacks.
Really, please, read some economics.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland - i've been reading economics and history for decades
currency, backed by volatile commodities like gold and silver, will also be volatile primarily due to its inelasticity of supply
try reading some economics that isn't tainted by political rhetoric
sfiorare 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sfiorare "volatile primarily due to its inelasticity of supply"
Can you grasp the idiocy of that statement?
The one and only reason that gold and silver seem volatile is that they are being measured against a constantly changing fiat currency, the dollar.
It is the dollar that is volatile, not gold or silver.
How can you have read any economics and not understand even that?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sfiorare "try reading some economics that isn't tainted by political rhetoric"
The Austrian School is the only one that is not politically motivated.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sfiorare "currency, backed by volatile commodities..."
There's a Forbes article you might enjoy:
"The Astonishing Genius Of Men In Tights"
forbes. com/2011/02/24/economics-john-locke-opinions-contributors-nathan-lewis.ht ml
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@sfiorare I can tell that you are highly educated. LOL
arcanekrusader 1 year ago
@sfiorare you must be on the fed payroll? your dogged determination to vindicate the organization is intriguingly suspicious.
noodoo19 1 year ago
@noodoo19 - no, i'm an independent businessman
@CurtHowland - the long depression was 65 months of contraction (peak to trough), the great depression was 43 months
here's the average length in months, of the contractions
1854-1919 (16 cycles) 22
1919-1945 (6 cycles) 18
1945-2009 (11 cycles) 11
the federal reserve and it's monetary policies have demonstrably helped stabilize economic cycles
for source info, google: "US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions"
sfiorare 1 year ago 2
11:29 This is the most important part of his speech. The bank runs and recessions before we went off the gold standard are the #1 argument against going back to gold on youtube.
This is the first time I've heard how those things really happened. He should have gone into more detail.
Buffalo122333 1 year ago 4
@Buffalo122333 The govt manipulation that causes systematic monetary problems is a well written subject on Mises. org
I can suggest "America's Great Depression" and "The Panic of 1819" by Rothbard.
I very much suggest "Martin Van Buren: What Greatness Really Means" for a discussion of the recession of 1836 as well: youtube/watch?v=rcbAZCaG_Ck
CurtHowland 1 year ago
I was at CPAC on Thurs and Fri and missed Salerno's speech on Sat. Thanks for posting!
WallStForMainSt 1 year ago
Thank you for posting this.
bearing01 1 year ago