Why inflation is not theft
4 comments
I'm saying that a central authority with that kind of power is necessary and advantageous in a recession. And that they (central banks) are more accountable to the people than e.g gold mining companies.
And the propensity for libertarians to indulge in conspiracy theories is more than guilt by association.
And the propensity for libertarians to indulge in conspiracy theories is more than guilt by association.
Gold mining companies are accountable to reality: they can't extract gold that isn't there. Nor can they extract gold that isn't profitable to get at given the technological context. Money is supposed to be a representation of wealth, and private banking does that perfectly.
In contrast, government banks are "accountable" only to the whims of politicians and a public that wants its cake ("reasonable" taxes) and to eat it too (immoral entitlement programs). That's one purpose that statist banking serves: to make up for the inherent, recurring government budget shortfall by printing boatloads of money, forcibly lowering the standard of living of anyone that saves, in order to "benefit" those that won't or can't.
In contrast, government banks are "accountable" only to the whims of politicians and a public that wants its cake ("reasonable" taxes) and to eat it too (immoral entitlement programs). That's one purpose that statist banking serves: to make up for the inherent, recurring government budget shortfall by printing boatloads of money, forcibly lowering the standard of living of anyone that saves, in order to "benefit" those that won't or can't.
The entire article deals with this. I'm not going to reiterate.
It's also very advantageous for favoring politically well connected players in an economy and engaging in economic warfare.
As far as conspiracy theories go, it depends on who you're talking about. It also depends on the conspiracy theory. Conspiracies do exist; the phrase "conspiracy theory" has of late been used as an effective tool to dismiss what used to be called investigative journalism or social criticism. Anyone advancing a criticism of the social order or putting forward the outrageous idea that powerful people might organize to maintain their power is a "conspiracy theorist." Obviously powerful people are rational, egoless, dispassionate technocrats and are only concerned with the public interest. All praise the great steersmen!
As far as conspiracy theories go, it depends on who you're talking about. It also depends on the conspiracy theory. Conspiracies do exist; the phrase "conspiracy theory" has of late been used as an effective tool to dismiss what used to be called investigative journalism or social criticism. Anyone advancing a criticism of the social order or putting forward the outrageous idea that powerful people might organize to maintain their power is a "conspiracy theorist." Obviously powerful people are rational, egoless, dispassionate technocrats and are only concerned with the public interest. All praise the great steersmen!
<<Inflation is really no worse than taxation ... An objection to inflation is an objection to tax a priori; which is fine, I simply ask for an awareness that the two items come as a package.>>
Which is the point Libertarians are trying to make! Taxation is theft according to libertarians. Inflation, like taxation, is theft. You actually ended up agreeing with them by saying that inflation is no worse than taxation. To libertarians, tax and inflation are both theft.
Which is the point Libertarians are trying to make! Taxation is theft according to libertarians. Inflation, like taxation, is theft. You actually ended up agreeing with them by saying that inflation is no worse than taxation. To libertarians, tax and inflation are both theft.
And both positions are absurd. That was the point.
The point that you made was mere opinion you hold. You did nothing to substantiate why either positions are absurd.
Instead of telling libertarians "Why inflation is not theft ", you ended up echoing the libertarian sentiment that inflation is no worse than taxation.
Instead of telling libertarians "Why inflation is not theft ", you ended up echoing the libertarian sentiment that inflation is no worse than taxation.
If the article persuaded libertarians that their claim 'inflation is government stealing your money' is as fanatical as 'taxation is government stealing your money', then it has done its job.
It simply argues that both statements should be treated with contempt, especially since the former has recently been in vogue.
It simply argues that both statements should be treated with contempt, especially since the former has recently been in vogue.
people complain about artificial inflation, when states print money for no reason, while this article talks about inflation generated by real economic facts (like a bad year in agriculture).
So yes, if you ignore half of reality, you are right!
and what is this? "If the state endows the money with value". Money have a certain value because everybody using them agrees on that value. Dictatorships tried and failed to "endow the money with value". What happened in my country was that some alternative, valuable papers were created. Like a card for bread ratio. That piece of paper had value even if nobody was calling it "money". Or other papers that gave you some rights like buying a car, getting an apartment, vacation tickets etc.
So yes, if you ignore half of reality, you are right!
and what is this? "If the state endows the money with value". Money have a certain value because everybody using them agrees on that value. Dictatorships tried and failed to "endow the money with value". What happened in my country was that some alternative, valuable papers were created. Like a card for bread ratio. That piece of paper had value even if nobody was calling it "money". Or other papers that gave you some rights like buying a car, getting an apartment, vacation tickets etc.
So if the President decided he wanted to build a mansion on Mars, and printed enough trillions of US dollars to achieve this, it wouldn't be theft?
I expect you would have elected a new president before we had time to find out.
It's not a question of waiting to 'find out.' It's a question of using logic applied to the premises you've already stipulated. In other words, you dodged the question.
If you can't differentiate between living in a democratic economy and a capricious dictatorship, then it really isn't me who has a question to dodge.
That doesn't even make sense. If we could agree that some things a government could do with currency are improper and tantamount to theft, then it's just a matter of degree over whether things they actually do with currency manipulation are also theft (at least potentially).
"When someone pays me, I receive the purchasing power of that money at that time, why shouldn’t I be entitled to that purchasing power in perpetuity? Well, because purchasing power is temporal; if a bubble bursts, or the economy dives, there is no reason at all why I should be able to buy the same basket of goods as I could at the top of the bubble."
Of course. That's not the point. The point is that there is a central authority that can manipulate the value of money and in so doing can favor of disfavor different players in the economy. It's also quite un-democratic. There are criticism of this from the left as well as the right. (For the life of me I've never been able to figure out why some on the left consider the existing Federal Reserve system progressive.)
The author also conflates libertarianism and conservatism, which isn't something you can just do with a hand-wave. The former is far more complex than that. He also tosses out red herrings about the 9/11 "truth" movement and similar things to achieve guilt by association.
Crummy article.