I like your uneducated grandiose statements.
It is your contention, that inflation will NOT occur without government action? I will wager you can disprove your own "theory" in 15 mins. This will mean you have to go to websites other than ones focusing on the illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, and the Jews did 9/11.

I have asked you a simple question about 18 times now. You have never answered it. Some times you post a link, which only I read, and you pray that it will fool the lazy people. But of course the articles are usually about how evil the fed is and have nothing to do with my question. Which is (for the 19th time).

What happens if you can't increase the gold supply faster than the economy is growing?

I would also be interested to know what you envision would happen if the USA eliminated its armed forces. Since you consider it "non-essential".

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

I can't wait to see how "few" taxes he pays next year. Trust me. He's lovin' it.

...so the nation's losers can wallow in free money. Nice of him to contribute to the destruction of the 'American Dream.'

Typical liberal assumation. For someone who seems to take a bow in front of a mirror, you certainly fall for the cheapest of fallacies.

(aka: propping up the peasants, instead of picking them up)

Well, I think the government should be kicking those Mexican criminals out of our country, so I guess I should start rounding them up myself.

Nice to see that you die-hard liberals like to tack conditions onto your "charitable causes."

What's it like to have your thoughts dictated by what the government tells you they should be?

I should say the PRIMARY cause of inflation is government action. It is the SOLE cause though when excess fiat currency is being continuously printed on a regular basis.

Funny, I don't recall you ever asking me this question. What I'd like for you to do first, is prove that you've asked me this question "18 times before" - please provide the links to the specific threads.

Straw Man. This is a skew by raytri. Neither myself nor Ron Paul supports elminating the armed forces. That's absurd. National defense is a legitimate government function. We can reduce our military if we close our military bases in foreign countries and bring all our troops home. But that wouldn't be more than a 30% reduction. Again, with enough nuclear weapons to destroy every other country on earth, we will still be quite well protected. Also, Ron Paul will seal the border, place national guard troops on the border and transfer more military resources to the Coast Guard to guard our borders.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Boynamedsue:

Since you are a novice poster, and I am not aware of any credibility you have, nor do I feel like searching the 1000 posts of mine, that obviously disprove any of your simplified and uneducated insinuations I don't feel obliged or the need to respond to your uninformed rant.
Example:
I said hyperbolically (sp?) something about Haliburton. I company I think is unethical but brilliant,

you say "Typical liberal assumation. For someone who seems to take a bow in front of a mirror, you certainly fall for the cheapest of fallacies."

Because you know jack squat about my views on haliburton, or my use of hyperbole to make a point. But for the record, they have squandered or can't account for millions of $ that they received on No-Bid Contracts. Hence my choice in bringing them up.

I am curious, where does your policy and political expertise come from?
(This is the internet, you can lie your tongue off. So, its an easy opportunity to claim you work for the Rand corporation. (you can wiki it) But I always hold the posters who are honest about their "expertise" in high esteem, so who knows maybe you will do the same.)

On to a more interesting challenge.
Truth-Bringer said:
I work for a living, but here are several links to that very question/point.

Today is the Teaparty - 07 style
CHINA TO DUMP ONE TRILLION IN U.S. DOLLAR CURRENCY RESERVES
inflation, inflation, inflation


I was thinking about your obsession with Milton and the gold standard, so I called up an expert in the field at my old haunt. (PhD Macroeconomist, member of several conservative think tanks, Former Fed economist, and most importantly a Hard Core Monatarist)

We discussed several issues and I walked away with 4 items:

1) Keynesian philosophy is severly flawed, based mostly on that you can never prove causality, that the real answer will ALWAYS be the business cycle.

2) He is willing to concede that Keynesian automatic stabilizers are useful, provided you don't tinker with them based on partisan pandering. He seemed to buy my argument that they probably have a positive affect on reduced consumption situations.

3) That the Fed would be better served sticking to the Taylor Rule and less time tinkering with other tools.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research.../2003/0703.pdf
( there are probably better links, but here is an example of the Taylor Rule

4) That the idea of a gold standard is absurd. He acknowledges that using Fed tools, the economy has been far less eratic, and less prone to bad recessions. He argues that the overall affects of Fed manipulation are far to slow, and that a strict adherance to money supply would be more affective.


I figure there is some good and some bad in there for you truthy.
I think if you just switched to educating yourself on monatarism and gave up the "gold standard" conspiracy theory stuff you would be a lot more credible.

I will keep looking around and see if I can talk to any economist who believes in the gold standard. I realize there are a few fringe guys, but I don't personally know of anyone or have ever been to a lecture series or a convention where I met a Conservative/Libertarian/Liberal/Monatarist/Keynesian who endorsed the gold standard.

Ixtellor

P.S. There goes my free time for the day, thanks a lot Truth-Bringer.

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

First of - this doesn't look like 18 identical questions. More like a mixture of a couple of questions/statements.

To the question above, if people need a particular item - such as money - they will peacefully, honestly and voluntarily come up with a solution without government intervention. The economy in Somalia grew and improved without a central government issuing currency and controlling the money supply. It's certainly not an ideal economy in my opinion, but it disproves your assumption that no central government control = immediate economic ruin.

If this truly becomes were to become an issue, and people decide to voluntarily print paper money backed by nothing, and other people voluntarily decide to accept it, with no government coercion on either side, then it is their full right to do so.

The market will always find a solution when one person wants something that another person has. You don't need some idiotic politicians in Washington telling people what type of currency they should be using.


I don't have an "obsession with Milton and the gold standard." I have a devotion to truth and logic.

Appeal to the authority on the status B.S.

First of all, none of what he claims refutes anything here.

Call him up and tell him that choosing a currency is a peaceful, honest, voluntary activity. Ask him under what authority he claims the right to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary activities of other adult individuals.

THAT is the core issue.


Again, it's not so much about the gold standard as about the freedom for people to choose what type of currency they prefer. If you go into a store to buy a hat, do you want the government to mandate what type of hat you have to buy from the store?

"Oh that's absurd!!!!! Currencies are different!!! Don't you understand anything you stupid @#$%!!!! If people choose currencies they won't agree and there'll be chaos I tell you!!! Sheer chaos!!!! The world will collapse!!!"

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I've heard all this economic fearmongering before. It certainly gets old.

You are most welcome for that.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I think one of your "problems" IMHO is that you do believe in our founding fathers major concept of:

The tyranny of the majority.

You think that when government prevents a majority from doing something, that is bad.

Slavery.
Segregation.
Racism.

These all had the support of majorities.

A majority of people thought we should invade Iraq.

People are dumb.

Basing everything on their "freedom" to choose something like money is equally dumb.

The government coerces us not to have slaves, or murder, or rape, or steal, or rob, or sell poison to kids, or do any number of bad things.

They also don't let us print our own money for the same reasons.

Have you done any research on what America was like before we had one currency?

Ever heard of wild cat banks?

Just because you want to print up "Truthy Dollars" and they based on gold, does not make it a good idea.

Did you know that people in America peacefully, and honestly, and voluntarially, have let other people perform mutilations on them? The most famous case being where a man volunteered to let two wacked out gay males, geld him.
Was that a good thing? It seems to meet your criteria.

Next you will say, we should have votes and peacefully, and honestly, and voluntarially decide what our highway system should be like.

One lane made of gravel here, a 20 lane steel one there, a bicycle only path throught natural surroundings overthere...

People are dumb. Government is not perfect, but they have got the whole

1 currency thing down pat.

I wonder why those dumb Europeans decided to go to 1 type of currency?

Did you read any of that research? No? Thought so.


Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Au contraire. I am not a novice poster.

Still...I love the god complex. It's very charming, in an "ignorant rube" kind of way. Do you make kissy faces at yourself in the mirror too?

No, I think that when a government prevents individuals in a majority or minority from initiating force, fraud or coercion - THAT IS GOOD/RATIONAL.

When the government prevents individuals in a majority or minority from engaging in peaceful, honest, voluntary activities - THAT IS BAD/IRRATIONAL.

Yes, they did. Which proves majority support - or majority use of something such as fiat currency - does not equate to a rational or logical policy.


No, professor. The arrogance and elitism are once again just oozing out of your pores... Many people may be ignorant, but they are not dumb. They are perfectly capable of surviving and thriving without you elitists controlling their every action.

Then their choice of government will be equally dumb as well - according to your argument. So why should we allow them to choose a government if their decision will be dumb? And if people are stupid, then the people that come from that population to make up government will also ipso facto be stupid.

But choosing money is a peaceful, honest, voluntary activity - and there's no logical reason people shouldn't have the freedom to make that choice.


And all of those things you mentioned involved government acting against actions of force, fraud, or coercion.

No, that's not why. Choosing and using a currency is a peaceful, honest, voluntary activity.

Yes, I've heard of all manner of banking issues - and government corruption was always at the root of those problems.

You ever heard of "not worth a Continental"?

No, of course not. The opinion of one individual does not make something a good idea. However, what you want to do is prevent giving people the freedom to make a peaceful, honest, voluntary choice in the matter. And that isn't rational. Let people decide for themselves what is or what isn't a good idea - as long as they do not initiate force, fraud or coercion.

Did the government stop them from doing it? No.

Some people will unfortunately make very bad decisions. But as self-owners, human beings also have the right to harm or kill themselves. We should certainly use persuasion to try and convince them not to do these things, but even if you wanted to introduce an extensive system of laws to prevent this type of behavior, it would be impossible and meaningless. You cannot stop someone who is suicidal from killing themselves if they are truly dedicated to doing such a thing. Making suicide illegal is irrelevant. THEY DON'T INTEND TO BE AROUND AFTER THE ACT IS DONE, BY ITS VERY NATURE, TO FACE PROSECUTION.

They simply go to their home, lock the door, and kill themselves. What do you propose, professor? A camera in everyone's bedroom so that you can make sure that they're not doing anything you don't want them to do? Do you want to keep track of how many times they urinate, defecate or masturbate while you're watching them and spying on them 24/7? And if they did start to commit suicide, how will you get a police officer over to someone's house when you see them put the barrel of a gun in their mouth? Again - such would be impossible. Unless you propose paying for a government agent staying 24/7 in everyone's home and bedroom. Ah, glorious visions of the professor's police state...


No, I do not want a voting majority to determine policies that rely on force, fraud or coercion. And if you're going to use force to steal tax money from people to enact these plans, then I don't want to give the majority that kind of power. I want a republic - not a democracy. I want inherent, unalienable rights protected from legislative decree.

Again, you're contradicting yourself. If people are dumb, the people in government are ipso facto dumb as well. Why do you want to give "dumb people" the power to control your peaceful, honest, voluntary activities?

So the Europeans voted and made a "smart decision" - according to you - by going to one currency? But that contradicts your assertion that people make decisions that are dumb - according to you... Whoops...

Which research are you referring to?

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I assumed you had a god complex when you arbitrarily picked my positions for me and decided what my beliefs are. I apologize for calling you on it.

Thanks for avoiding my question, though.

Truth-Bringer said:
I finally discovered your major problem with America.
You wish the Anti-Federalists had won.
You do not like federalism.

America tried it your way once. It was under the Articles of Confederation.

Since you are soo learned, I assume you read about all the horrific economic and social problems we experienced.

You should read about Shay's Rebellion.

It pretty much epitimized what is wrong with minimal government and republicanism.

On to Fiat Currency.
I don't support it because, our government says so, or because it is popular, or because I am a "statist"
I support it because it works.

I like how your one example of non-fiat currency working is Somalia.

Yes I am also aware of what was wrong with the Continentals. They abused fiat currency and got the results that always happen when you devalue your currency.

I assure you, that America and the rest of the world (Germany, Hungary) have all learned their lesson.

It's why we have the Fed. Smart guys, making smart decisions.
Have you noticed how we have had no major downturns since the inception of the FED? The economy of the 70's was as bad as it got, and it was nothing compared to actually bad recessions.

We are never ever ever ever ever going to be a Republic. You should start getting used to it. I personally think our country would be best served by using a Star Trek - utopian/communist government. But that won't happen either, so I deal. (Deal = not post about my utopian dream world, and instead make suggestion based on reality)


Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.