http://www.maryknollsocietymall.org/description.cfm?ISBN=978-1-57075-755-6
http://www.examiner.com/x-3859-Hartford-Books-Examiner~y2009m7d21-JFK-and-the-Unspeakable-Why-He-Died-an-Why-It-Matters-by-James-Douglass-A-Book-Review
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=98465.240
____________________
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=98465.240
Did you even read the above two excerpts before posting another of your canned responses? Because they clearly explain why pegging the international exchange rate for national currencies to gold is not a good idea:
"...the fact remains that gold was inadequate as a global yardstick for measuring value. The price of gold fluctuated widely, and it was subject to manipulation by speculators. Gold also failed as a global reserve currency, because there was not enough gold available to do the job. If one country had an outstanding balance of payments because it had not exported enough goods to match its imports, that imbalance was corrected by transferring reserves of gold between countries; and to come up with the gold, the debtor country would cash in its U.S. dollars for the metal, draining U.S. gold reserves. It was inevitable that the U.S. government (the global banker) would eventually run out of gold.""...Dr. Mahathir conceded that gold’s market value is an unsound basis for valuing the national currency or the prices of national goods, because the value of gold is quite volatile and is subject to manipulation by speculators just as the U.S. dollar is. He said he was thinking instead along the lines of a basket-of-commodities standard..."
And the second excerpt clearly advocates a qualitatively distinct and superior alternative to both "floating" exchange rates and the gold-pegged exchange rate:
"That brings us back to the question of how best to stabilize national currencies. The simplest and most comprehensive measure for calibrating an international currency yardstick seems to be the Consumer Price Index proposed by Mann, modified to reflect the real daily expenditures of consumers." As for the so-called "hate" that international bankers allegedly have for the domestic gold standard, you are (as usual) wrong about that as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRpK7jj9ghY (The Money Masters - part 10 of 22) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUh-h7MvwMA (The Money Masters - part 11 of 22)
-geolibertarian
_________________________________
Quote from: lord edward coke on April 04, 2010, 11:41:50 AM
That is the
whole basis of our enslavement!!!
Slap some ink on (private) paper, Call it 'money', Than hide the excise tax attached to it. Call it an income tax.
How is that in any way responsive to anything I actually said or posted? Privately-issued money is what we have now. Debt-free Greenbacks are the literal opposite of that, because, unlike Federal Reserve Notes, they're issued (a) publicly, not privately, and (b) free of debt. That means no "tax" ever has to be levied to pay interest, because there is no interest to pay.
There's no way you cannot know this, so I can't help but wonder if you're trying deliberately to confuse the issue.
Quote
ONLY government can take a piece of paper......slap some ink on
it.....AND MAKE IT WORTHLESS!!!
This is yet another illustration of why certain PPF members need to stop mindlessly parroting Austrian School dogma and start questioning it for a change. As I've already explained multiple times in this thread:
* The bulk of our money supply isn't even paper, but mere numeric entries on the books of some bank.
* The government does NOT print "money," otherwise it wouldn't have to borrow it all the time. What the government "prints" is currency. But that currency does not become "money" (legal tender) until it's been issued by the private banking system, which does so by lending it at interest.
As to the charge of money being "worthless," that is, of course, ridiculous on its face, because if the money in question was truly "worthless," then people could never buy things with it. That's not to say the debt-based money currently in use hasn't been devalued; it has. But this devaluation has more to do with the cost-push inflationary pressure imposed by both compounding interest debt and land speculation than with anything else:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=121990.msg762379#msg762379
Quote
We are TAXED for the 'use' of private federal reserve notes!!!
That's because they're all loaned into circlation at interest. And as any rational person can see, that is the very opposite of what I propose. So you're railing against something that neither I nor anyone else in this thread ever advocated in the first place, in what I can only assume is a desperate attempt at erecting yet another blatant straw man in place of my clearly stated views.
-geolibertarian
"For the first years of [Ludwig von] Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” -- Richard M. Ebeling
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.0
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=150439.0
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=88303.0
No comments:
Post a Comment