[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
" Borodog: and the structure of production is generally producing what people want
[14:29] Borodog: everyone is happy."

The rest of the conversation assumes that level of production is optimal

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. The structure of production can never be "optimal", for any reasonable definition of optimal.

[ QUOTE ]
, it isn't, just because "everyone is happy"

"Businessmen see lower interest rates. Without fake money, the interest rate might be 8%.
[14:33] Borodog: Any project where you have to take out a loan to start it, and will only return 7%, will be unprofitable. A waste of resources.
[14:33] Borodog: So the credit expansion artificially lowers the interest rate to 6%."

The language here is self-serving and propagandist. There is nothing "fake" about additional money supply that fuels business,

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it a crime to print your own money?

[ QUOTE ]
and there is nonthing "artificial" about an interest rate that encourages investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Lowering the interest rate discourages investment. Do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
A rigid monetary standard pegged to a commodity is just as "artificial" because it subjects all other goods and services to a (necessarily) constrained supply of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? What is the "correct" amount of money? The answer of people like you seems to be simply "more than we have now".

[ QUOTE ]
That has the converse effect of making what would otherwise be profitable enterprises unprofitable, denying their entry into the market, which hurts the consumer.

[/ QUOTE ]

How? And how does printing money magically making an unprofitable business profitable, beyond the obvious profitability of being the counterfeiter?

[ QUOTE ]

"14:35] Borodog: He must bid all of these factors of production away from other businesses, because the factors of production are at any one time finite. That bids up the prices for the factors of production, the so-called "input prices", the prices of things used to produce other things. "

Just because inputs are "finite" doesn't mean there isnt a sufficient supply. Well run businesses can just as well have anticipated the demand and have sufficient inventories to meet it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they can't. That is the entire point of an entire exchange that you apparently missed. They don't have those inputs because they do not exist; for them to exist consumption must have been deferred to accumulate them, but because of the artificially lowered interest rate, consumption is incentivized at the expense of savings, and those reserves will not exist. More "houses" are started than there exist "bricks" and "lumber" to complete.

[ QUOTE ]

The rest of the conversation is the same doom and gloom about the "impending crash" that has been selling books for the last 40 years and making money for no one but the authors and publishers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you've noticed, but the "impending crash" has actually crashed, over and over and over, exactly as predicted.

[ QUOTE ]
The real lesson in this OP is that by choosing assumptions and placing your own value judgement on them, you can prove that the alternatives are "bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

The lesson here is that someone who does not understand a theory will make himself look foolish when he attempts to criticize it.

[ QUOTE ]
Start out with an artifically constrained money supply and you will reach exactly the opposite conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said this before. What is "artificially constrained"? Is a money supply where nobody is allowed to counterfeit "artificially constrained"? How it that one needs to create money by artifice to avoid "artificially constraining" the money supply? How much money is the "right" amount? Let me guess: more, more, more.

[ QUOTE ]
If your agenda is the malevolence of the government and the Fed you obviously aren't going to show both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is only correct and incorrect. If you would care to actually explain how printing money magically makes everyone better off, be my guest.