Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Evil of Fiat

Jump to new
Conza88

Conza88

Joined
15 April 2008
Posts
102
Reactions
0
Chris Leithner on 612 ABC Brisbane. 9th March.

- "Quantitative Easing" and what it means
- Printing Money out of thin air
- Failure of Keynesian Economics
- Way to Prosperity: Through savings and production, not debt and consumption.
- Laws of Economics


Part 2
- Cause and effects of Inflation, Hyperinflation
- Failure of the Politicians and Government
- Effect on Australia from International Devaluation of Dollar
- Creation of UK Central Bank to Finance Wars
- Gold standard represents Peace

Part 3
- Who suffers under a debasement of Currency?
- Barack Obama, Canadian Banking System
- Superannuation system
- Reserve Ratio & the Boom and Bust
- Mortgage availability
​
 
Thanks for the link.

I particularly like what Mr.Leithner said in Part 2:

"One of the consequences of that policy of spend today is basically to provide a great disadvantage to punish the making things industries and to give a gargantuan leg up say to the financial sector which basically produces nothing tangible but swaps pieces of paper or entries on a computer."
 
GumbyLearner said:
What are you trying to say robots?

It would be great if you could enlighten the thread more with your profound
analysis. :D
Click to expand...

I think it's clear as mud that robi is complaining about the quality of some produce he bought at his beloved St Kilda fruit & veg market.

:D

BTW I always knew that Fiats were evil. Those ruddy 500's & Bambinos are apt to auto-combust at the drop of hat! :D
 
Aussiejeff said:
I think it's clear as mud that robi is complaining about the quality of some produce he bought at his beloved St Kilda fruit & veg market.

:D

BTW I always knew that Fiats were evil. Those ruddy 500's & Bambinos are apt to auto-combust at the drop of hat! :D
Click to expand...

Dont knock those fiat 500's!!! (also known as cinquecento)
 
nothing evil with fiat.

printing money to bad for debt is evil though.

having a gold standard caused just as many (if not more) problems.

the loss of independence of the central bank is the problem.
 
Stormin_Norman said:
nothing evil with fiat.

printing money to bad for debt is evil though.

having a gold standard caused just as many (if not more) problems.

the loss of independence of the central bank is the problem.
Click to expand...

There was a gold exchange standard. Proponents of the Austrian School said it would fail, and it did.

"the loss of independence of the central bank is the problem"... lmao

No, the fact that the 5th plank of the Communist Manifesto has been established in practically every country in the world, is the problem.
 
Conza88 said:
There was a gold exchange standard. Proponents of the Austrian School said it would fail, and it did.

"the loss of independence of the central bank is the problem"... lmao

No, the fact that the 5th plank of the Communist Manifesto has been established in practically every country in the world, is the problem.
Click to expand...

as a shumpetarian/austrian economist i could bang on all day about the gold standard.

why do u laugh at the independence of the central bank? their job is a measured monetary growth and inflation.

when governments spend trillions more then they have and put pressure on the central bank to wind up the printing presses to pay for it - that's the problem.

even deficits are only quite evil. printing money stopping the bond market disciplining excess government spending is pure evil.

borrowing money to spend more then u have is one thing. printing money you dont have to spend it is catastrophic.
 
Stormin_Norman said:
as a shumpetarian/austrian economist i could bang on all day about the gold standard.
Click to expand...

Great, so could I. :) Btw, Kondratiev wave / cycles are a joke. :p:

More to the point, a Gold Standard would have less problems than the current Communist system. Guaranteed.

why do u laugh at the independence of the central bank? their job is a measured monetary growth and inflation.
Click to expand...

Their existence is a glaring contradiction to their stated goals. They destabilize the economy with their policies, it's not the other way around. They create inflation, fractional reserve banking is inherently inflationary.

Why do I laugh at it's "independence"?

Here is why:

The standard reply of the Fed and its partisans is that any such measures, however marginal, would encroach on the Fed's "independence from politics" which is invoked as a kind of self-evident absolute. The monetary system is highly important, it is claimed, and therefore the Fed must enjoy absolute independence.

"Independent of politics" has a nice, neat ring to it, and has been a staple of proposals for bureaucratic intervention and power ever since the Progressive Era. Sweeping the streets; control of seaports; regulation of industry; providing social security; these and many other functions of government are held to be "too important" to be subject to the vagaries of political whims. But it is one thing to say that private, or market, activities should be free of government control, and "independent of politics" in that sense. But these are government agencies and operations we are talking about, and to say that government should be "independent of politics" conveys very different implications.

For government, unlike private industry on the market, is not accountable either to stockholders or consumers. Government can only be accountable to the public and to its representatives in the legislature; and if government becomes "independent of politics" it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy, accountable to no one and never subject to the public's ability to change its personnel or to "throw the rascals out." If no person or group, whether stockholders or voters, can displace a ruling elite, then such an elite becomes more suitable for a dictatorship than for an allegedly democratic country.​

The Case Against the Fed - Murray N. Rothbard​

when governments spend trillions more then they have and put pressure on the central bank to wind up the printing presses to pay for it - that's the problem.
Click to expand...

LOL.. You call "Quantitative easing", putting pressure on them to wind up the printing presses? Gtfo.

even deficits are only quite evil. printing money stopping the bond market disciplining excess government spending is pure evil.

borrowing money to spend more then u have is one thing. printing money you dont have to spend it is catastrophic.
Click to expand...

No, theft is evil. Taxation is theft. And Inflation is a hidden tax.
 
Conza88 said:
Great, so could I. :) Btw, Kondratiev wave / cycles are a joke. :p:



Their existence is a glaring contradiction to their stated goals. They destabilize the economy with their policies, it's not the other way around. They create inflation, fractional reserve banking is inherently inflationary.

Why do I laugh at it's "independence"?

Here is why:

The standard reply of the Fed and its partisans is that any such measures, however marginal, would encroach on the Fed's "independence from politics" which is invoked as a kind of self-evident absolute. The monetary system is highly important, it is claimed, and therefore the Fed must enjoy absolute independence.

"Independent of politics" has a nice, neat ring to it, and has been a staple of proposals for bureaucratic intervention and power ever since the Progressive Era. Sweeping the streets; control of seaports; regulation of industry; providing social security; these and many other functions of government are held to be "too important" to be subject to the vagaries of political whims. But it is one thing to say that private, or market, activities should be free of government control, and "independent of politics" in that sense. But these are government agencies and operations we are talking about, and to say that government should be "independent of politics" conveys very different implications.

For government, unlike private industry on the market, is not accountable either to stockholders or consumers. Government can only be accountable to the public and to its representatives in the legislature; and if government becomes "independent of politics" it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy, accountable to no one and never subject to the public's ability to change its personnel or to "throw the rascals out." If no person or group, whether stockholders or voters, can displace a ruling elite, then such an elite becomes more suitable for a dictatorship than for an allegedly democratic country.​

The Case Against the Fed - Murray N. Rothbard​



LOL.. You call "Quantitative easing", putting pressure on them to wind up the printing presses? Gtfo.



No, theft is evil. Taxation is theft. And Inflation is a hidden tax.
Click to expand...

I like it, I like it. "control of seaports"

Who's going to buy Asciano?

Great discourse Conza88.

;)
 

Similar threads

R
The Financial Endgame
Replies
18
Views
9K
qldfrog
qldfrog
Top