[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it is the government who give banks permission to do this, then why don't they just give themselves permission to do it, create the money themselves, and not pay interest?
[/ QUOTE ]
Is that what Germany did after WWI with such great success that in the end you needed a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread?
[/ QUOTE ]
How is it different if the governement borrows created money from banks and pays interest instead of money it creates itself and doesn't pay interest?
Same result, cheaper method.
[/ QUOTE ]
kimchi, you wouldn't have faith in somebody who only answered to themselves would you?
by answering to the markets, a necessary mechanism of restraint and trust is established.
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
I just posted this in BFI, but is relevant here as well.
web page
[/ QUOTE ]
you have to excuse me tol, i just have such little tolerance for articles from mises.
it just rubs me the wrong way.
i'm sure alot of the analysis is good, but there are SOOO many words in these articles and the tone makes me uncomfortable.
things like this is where i stopped reading:
[ QUOTE ]
There was a century of sound money. During one hundred years preceding World War I, government touched money hardly more than to establish standards of weight and measure, to lay down the laws of liability and to license bankers.
.
In that century the wealth of the world increased more than in all preceding time of economic man.
[/ QUOTE ]
here he is trying to assert that the speed of the increase in wealth duringg the 100 years of untouched sound money is (by implication) caused by said sound money.
what about the industrial revolution? unheardof increases in productivity due to massive inventions like the steam engine, the locamotive etc. etc.
is he saying sound money did that or had a huge part in it?
there were also many banking crises (i.e. the failing of a bank...something like over a thousand) in that hundred years (far more in proportion than there were in teh following hundred years)
finally, the amt of wealth created during the NEXT 100 years far surpassed that created during that 1800-1900 period.
i dunno, maybe i'm hugely biased for the govt or just an idiot or an [censored], but i have virtually no tolerance for that type of prose and by extension for links from mises.
i asked borodog to link me to research to back his points NOT from mises and he has yet to do it in ANY other case than with the monopoly discussion (in which he linked non-mises links within minutes of me asking whereas when i asked for non-mises research for other discussion he never responded).
anyways, enough of my ranting.
Barron