Answering the Same Old Arguments Against Sound Money | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[@SS-dm5iy]

The gold standard was only a disaster for Keynesian economics. They think it is a disaster because you can't print and spend.

Also because the individuals in government would lose power and influence.

[@SovereignStatesman]

Exactly-- just like with Keynsian physics you can have a water running up a pipe, that then flows down and turns a waterfall for UNLIMITED POWER!

[@StubbsMillingCo.]

Gold is to be used as a place of value. Meaning you are to be paid in silver and you then turn the silver in for gold and hold the gold for your net worth/value. You spend the silver on bread and whatever else. An oz of silver can get you roughly 11 loaves of bread… now of course you aren’t eating 11 loaves at once but OVER A SPAN OF TIME you will. So that’s a loaf of bread a day from Mr. Baker man to you and you gave him an oz of silver. Gold = stored value | Silver = use as payment.

[@SS-dm5iy]

@@StubbsMillingCo. What if you aren't buying something that costs $3 and instead costs $25,000 or $500,000? Both gold and silver hold value. Both can be used as currency.

[@StubbsMillingCo.]

@@SS-dm5iy I agree, I was just using the simple bread analogy because that’s the easiest way for folks to understand. Use whichever is my point though the good you would more than likely want to hold on to than the silver. Depending on the item purchased. Yes, gold would possibly be more reasonable in exchange for purchasing say a home/land or vehicle or something of high-extremly high value. I personally would use the gold as stored value and the silver as “spending” currency. I do not agree with paper money at all. Now do I spend it? Of course that’s what I’m paid in as with the rest of you and is less explaining on how it’s legal tender than gold or silver at the moment. Again spend each however you wish or don’t. You are free to do so.

[@lancesteinke3732]

"The Mises institute will never back down." -Tom Woods :D

[@chubbyninja842]

One of the arguments one of my friends made against sound money and the gold standard was that "there's just not enough gold in the world". But that's the beauty of the free market and the fundamental laws of economics. As scarcity increases, the value of the item in question increases as well. For the sheer fact that there's not enough gold to go around, the value of gold itself goes up to the point that it's no longer an issue. Additionally, in a free market solution, you can supplement gold currency with other precious metals: silver, copper, platinum, etc... There is plenty of precious metal of all sorts to service the money market, and the value of it will be determined by its demand.

[@qwertymanor]

ZombieTex the amazing atheist said that too

[@51MontyPython]

@@qwertymanor Did he really?

[@intranext1359]

@@qwertymanor who is he?

[@qwertymanor]

@@intranext1359 famous youtuber 10 years ago

[@dcsco]

There is plenty of gold for all of the common people. There is just not enough for the over spending over bloated and wasteful governments that always need more and more. There is never enough of any fiat for them either.

[@ReadMr]

The last 4 minutes are must watch. It's becoming more and more relevant these days. Excellent lecture!

[@BaremetalBaron]

The TL;DR on deflation is: "Yes prices are falling, but costs are *also* falling, because a cost is just another price." So yeah you can still turn a profit with falling prices. Simple.

[@tabletalk33]

Woods is in top form, as usual. Wonderfully clear, devastingly accurate. End the FED.

[@j4ck2234]

Oh my the 'zeitgeist' movement. I'm no expert on that but I think you should read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. Without economic education it is difficult in these times to not fall victim to conspiratorial nonsense. If you post specific economic ideas I can tell you what's wrong with them if you like.

[@j4ck2234]

Capitalism isn't really an 'ism' at all. It's just the societal acceptance of property rights, That is incorporating divided systems of property rights; families, tribes, nations, continents, and so on, into one big division of labor. In a sense another word for capitalism is peace. Peace doesn't fail.

[@frederickfred2714]

The relative value of silver and gold should never be set by anyone ..buyer and seller should always be able to set the value at the time of the transaction ..

[@ItsAllAboutGuitar]

I paid $400 for this computer. I paid $1500 for the previous one 5 years ago. I don't regret paying that $1500 because I USED it for the last 5 years.

[@gideondavid30]

"A currency doesn't need to represent all wealth and production" Yeah it does! Otherwise, the value of the currency would become unreliable like FIAT money is today. "what represent what is not currently in the form of currency" Well it needs to be or that money is an arbitrary measure of wealth. When money didn't exist, people bartered. When we create money, we are essentially creating money to represent wealth so that when we BARTER, we are bartering with cash.

[@Tenebrousable]

No it doesn't. If economy was 1 dollar, and there was a car and an apple tree. The car could be sold at real price. Apple tree owner buys the car for debt. He then sells an apple for dollar every day to the debtor, and then uses that dollar to pay back the debtor. Your inherent confusion is to equate price discovery to instability. No, supply and demand curves shift, prices change, it's not arbitrary. It's price discovery.

[@makisxatzimixas2372]

An argument against "gold takes labour" statement is that gold has value on its own. I believe that why it was chosen as currency. It is actually valuable, non corrosive, and it has uses and value on its own. It is an intermediate good with which we exchange other things. Cigarretes, or pure metals are like that.

[@petrucchio]

No doubt the best economist alive.

[@Fernando-sj6bq]

This guy should have his own podcast

[@dcsco]

He does now.

[@Yellowgary]

@@dcsco he’s still a very failed podcaster

[@gideondavid30]

"competing currencies were allowed, there would be a flight into them as a real store of energy by people anywhere. An example of free markets." Competing currencies may temporarily emerge under a free market. However, unless that currency is backed by wealth and production, it then becomes as arbitrary as monopoly. Yes, people will place their faith in the speculative markets ....but the END RESULT of any currency that is subject to interest and not tied to anything of value is the same.

[@JDoubleOP]

Use the Gaussian curve: Employability almost equal, Production is rising quick, Purchasing power drops quick = End of a cycle(kondratiev wave) = default = World currencies Dollar/Euro/Yuan balanced ---> one world currency? I don't know, but technology will take over more and more, and that's ok to me, but how do you balance a healthy and 'stabile' purchasing power to it? People still want stability, health and a lucky feeling. Next step in evolution of mankind. Great speech 100 points!!!.

[@JDoubleOP]

Sorry, it's my crappy explanation. This belongs to my previous answer and is actually very simple. The values of our individual motivations have to change from "money making/greed/ego" to "healthy, happy, ungreedy, sustainable, comfort of living," So no war, hatred, jealousy, because there is no need to. Capitalism has helped to progress humanity, but we need to adapt to the new reality of advancing technology and the unsustainable depletion of our natural resources.

[@JDoubleOP]

The values must be adapted to the status(state) in which the economy has grown, according to the Kondratiev wave or great supercycle. We always come "better out of a cycle as we started" it. Cycles after cycle we will come to a "tippingpoint" in which machines will do more than 'handicraft'. People are still nesceccary to develope/create/produce machines and other services, but 'handicraft' will always be less from that point in time = the point money loses his value as a medium of change.

[@JDoubleOP]

Talking about individual/collective "productivity"; over the years our individual consciousness is raising and also becomes more global, but it's not in a state of global consciousness yet, it's emerging. So according to the 'entire structure' of life we made an enormous change. Economics will be always at the root of life, just the values have to change and to be adapt to the state economy can grow to a higher level. Now civilization isn't civilized yet. It's a combination of the right values.

[@JDoubleOP]

First i support the libertarian way, but why against something which had not been tested? Quote: 'They all said it's impossible, till one came who didn't know that and did it'. Did you see the full conversation. What if economics we learned till now aren't 100% accurate anymore, because our knowledge has grown. Why not adapt to the new situation = machines will do more and more. If you can't see the whole picture, it's hard to understand the full idea. The transition is the most difficult part.

[@JDoubleOP]

Actually, you're saying the same as i am, with the difference that your ideal civilization still uses money. If we want our civilization on a higher level, we must use current knownledge from capitalism, socialism, communism and all the other ism's. Basicly all ism's have failures if you analyse them, but they also have good values. It's a matter of combining all the good things and create a new set of values out of it. That's what's evolution all about.

[@JDoubleOP]

Knowing that worldwide; production rises quick, employability almost equal, purchasing power drops quick? Interest almost zero, some deflation to come, the shit hits the fan, hyperinflation to come. Japan over 20 years in recession, BRICS growing fast, EU/UK/US no words neccesary. You think we go back to horse and wagon?? RBE isn't perfect at all, but if technology will do more and more with all respect; what's your proposal for mankind without making the same mistakes over and over?

[@JDoubleOP]

Utopian socialists can be seen as negative as well as positive. Quote: "They all said it's impossible, then one came who didn't know that and did it". Change mindset, let old patterns go and make next step in evolution of mankind. Then look back and say, those peeps were primitive in the 'monetairy system'. It's all EGO based. Our civilization is based on consciousness. You got 3 steps of consciousness; 1. individual 2. global, 3. universal. Over time we will grow from the first to the third.

[@JDoubleOP]

We now ship our raw materials from left to right all over the world. Not very economic or efficiënt. Then we produce something out of it and ship it back to the country the raw materials came from. Why? Because there's money involved. This is just a temporary solution and not a sustainable one. Let's stop producing all the crap stuff and put all that energy in 'real goods' which gives us really value added living. It's all about mindset and it starts with our kids. Just rethink.

[@JDoubleOP]

People still will be working, but way less than we do now. Machines will do more and more. Industrial revolution did the same and gave us the first enhanced tools, now we will make the next step in evolution of mankind = the technology people. But how do you improve the current 'monetairy system' to a healthy fraudefree system. As long as people can be bought, there will be fraude. Rudolf Steiner said in 1918: "In the end everyone will be unhappy"

[@JDoubleOP]

It's not scarcity of money, but scarcity of goods. It's not the amount of money, but the purchasing power of it. Now half the world works his ass of value adding and non value adding and the other half is doing nothing, planned or not planned, willing or unwilling. Day by day technology will do more and more, wich is a great thing, but what's the purpose of producing goods that you also sell them. If people don't have the purchasing power the whole system collapses.

[@Buffalo122333]

The argument i keep hearing is the richest people have been buying up all the gold so going to the gold standard would mean they would have all the wealth. I've never responded but I feel repealing the legal tender laws first, like Ron Paul says, would solve that problem.

[@JDoubleOP]

Is money a good??........or medium of exchange. I'm fully aware how the money supply works. And i agree with you and even sorry for you, that you aren't able to get the full picture. It's also my fault, because i've got limited space for typing.

[@chrishawkins5371]

Austrian economics doesn't claim to be able to end the business cycle - Keynes and monetarist theory make those claims - and Iceland was not 'Austrian' pre crash. Austrian economics would suggest growth post crash in Iceland was inhibited by Government allocation of capital rather than allowing the market to decide where was profitable. It would also argue that welfare in Iceland (or anywhere) inhibits liberty as the recipient becomes dependent.

[@watgaanhieraan]

So when Icelandic banks failed it worked out for Iceland but it would not have worked out anywhere else? "duty of care" is when your balls are on the line and you face the consequences of your actions not some half arsed platitude towards some promised future fiduciary care. If so concerned about the depositors bail them out instead of the totally corrupt and incompetant stewards of that money and passing out conflict of interest waivers for corporate favorites.

[@watgaanhieraan]

Good so oppose an institution that props up banks that should have been allowed to fail and their top management imprisoned for fraudulent behavior, how is okay that certain priviledged banks can loan money at 0.75% reinvest the money for a period at a much higher interst rate and pocket the difference how on earth is that not a monopoly interest while everybody else has to work or come up with some clever way to make money or hope that social security is not pilfered by these same vested groups

[@watgaanhieraan]

The all time great depression started exactly 16 years after the creation of the Federal Reserve. You cannot end greed it is a part of the natural consequence of the the way things work in the Universe as long as people aspire to anything. What you can however do is prevent a certain select group from having total control over the issuing of money that would go a long way to spreading the wealth you would think its obvious to take a printing press away from a vested interest.

[@gideondavid30]

"They lived in poverty and didn't travel far enough to barter with anyone. " Not true. Barter enhances both parties in that they both get something valuable that they otherwise wouldn't have received had they not traded. Gold and silver became convenient in some cases, BUT NOT IN ALL CASES. You really are an intellectual lightweight and not worthy to talk to me. HAHAHAHAHAAH Such arrogance. I love it. KZbin is a bastion of originality and humility. Have you studied MPE yet?

[@gideondavid30]

The entire purpose of a currency is to have a UNIVERSAL DEMAND in order that trade may be done in the most efficient manner. Look what exists with China and the United States. Both countries are in a currency war. Tariffs and barriers to trade only create trouble. While I do understand the concept of COMPETITION and diversifying risk, it is the NATURE OF CURRENCY that is the problem ...whether monpolized by a government or not.

[@CurtHowland]

Dude, you desperately need a history lesson. The US used to have "mills". 1/1000 of a dollar. So your nightmare scenario of a "micropenny" used to be exactly what was done, until the Federal Reserve began the long trek to hyperinflation. And no, I see no problem with it at all. As for "Prices will remain what they are", just what did you pay for your computer. $100,000? If not, then prices never stay what they are.

[@gideondavid30]

"So rather than use 1oz, I use 1/1000 oz, it doesn't matter" It does matter. That is like saying, there is not enough currency in circulation, so lets create a new coin that is worth less than a penny. I don't know, we will call it a Micropenny worth 1,000 of a dollar. Do you see the problem with this? While there may be plenty of these coins floathing around, they won't be worth jack shit. Prices will remain what they are.

[@gideondavid30]

1) So why use gold? IF we can arbitrary set its worth by diluting the metal so to speak (like the Romans did), those that save gold will find that its value has declined. The entire reason for using gold was due to the fact that it had inherent worth. Even if we artificially set the DEMAND FOr it, how can it constantly represent all our wealth and production? 2) Competing/commodity currencies all suffer the same fate of terminal indebtedness.

[@CurtHowland]

All you're doing is restating the tired fallacies of inflationists. It doesn't matter if all those things are true, because it doesn't matter how much gold there is, for two reasons: 1) Fungible. So rather than use 1oz, I use 1/1000 oz, it doesn't matter. 2) "gold" standard is a just a shortcut for commodity currency outside of the manipulation of government. Use copper, silver, platinum, shares of Microsoft. Don't have gold? Use something else.

[@gideondavid30]

"Because gold is a scarce good humanity choose it as a 'back up' currency. What if the big banksters decide that it isn't anymore." You make a case against GOVERNMENT power and its ROLE (or lack there of) in the markets. I actually agree with this notion. The gold standard can be removed in a crisis or at the whims of a bureacracy. Therefore, it CANNOT discipline and tie the hands of government.

[@gideondavid30]

"e) the historically demonstrated encumbrance of the limited circulation is not only demonstrated and demonstrable, the calamities imposed by this defect have thus already served well as a principal argument to abandon the encumbrances of the faulty standard. Even if none of these things inspired the perfection of economy, they indelibly register the shortcomings and present potentially catastrophic consequences of re-invoking the gold standard"

[@j4ck2234]

Self interest, or in other words, having a say in what way the value you produce is distributed, is -not- greed. This is a highly necessary component of any sort of free society. Who else is supposed to distribute the scarce resources in society?..and even more important is that we cannot begin to understand what the wants&needs of a society are without having a system based on property rights.

[@j4ck2234]

But the whole point of 'making money' is sustenance. We work to be able to afford healthcare and aquire things that we think will make us or our friends and family happy. If material factors actually do make us happy is a different subject. The concept of greed, which is in my opinion the neurotic disorder to acquire wealth for the sake of acquiring wealth, is not a necessary part of the capitalist system. It just exists within some actors within the system.

[@j4ck2234]

No you don't get it,it's very true that a collective consciousness is developing but that doesn't change that it is built upon the actions of individuals-and that's a good thing. As long as we do not loose our individual motivations which is as stated,the necessary foundation of a collective or cultural mind,the laws of economics do apply. What do you mean by state economy?+you know, whenever a philosophy tells you that the 'values have to change' that's a sign you're dabbling in bullshit.

[@joepeeler34]

In order to have all the gold money, you would have to sell all the gold's value in the world in product. Then you would never be able to spend it. Then you still have to pay your employees in gold. It's nonsense that any person or any small group of people could control the entire gold supply. Has anyone or any small group been able to monopolize the paper currency supply? No, because it is impossible!! Same with gold/silver if they were monies. The classical gold standard worked fine.

[@PrivateAckbar]

I was wondering if any economists could give me a prediction. I wan't to live in a classical liberal country and I was wondering if anyone could estimate how quickly this Keynesian crisis will resolve itself? I'm in the U.K. at the moment and I hate the idea of engaging in all these socialist things like social security. I know that Signapore is suppose to be great but anyone have any advice?

[@CurtHowland]

Interesting that you are declaring me a "BANKSTER! LMAO!" for pointing out the abuses of a president that pushed for fiat currency. So for you, a bankster opposes fiat currency? Just making sure you actually mean that, because your use of compound double negatives makes your logic less than clear. Please also, define a "ban", because I do not believe that word means what you think it means.

[@JDoubleOP]

In the monetairy system, scarcity is created due to the system. Let's reconsidder: What do we really need in a world where we can live on a f.e. 30 times higher level as we do now, without all the waste and polution.

[@emetts2112]

We really need to end the fed now. Doing this would yield much prosperity for the American people. Ya know its funny, when the financial crash was reeling in its ugly head in 2008, I said to my family this is the closest we will get to experiencing what it was like to be in the middle class. stuff got so much more affordable for a brief period of time. those were some good days

[@gideondavid30]

Currency is money. Money is currency. I agree those that it is supposed to represent some kind of asset (ie our labor and production). The markets are what they are. I do understand the topic. The condescending tone of yours is useless. I would suggest you study MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy).

[@Joe11Blue]

Currency is merely a derivative of money. It's whole purpose is not as you say to have universal demand. It's purpose is to serve as a common derived asset class between hard assets of money for indirect exchange. The Markets are the deciding factor whether or not a particular currency is acceptable. You should understand the topic before advising others on it.

[@gideondavid30]

"was likely chosen for it's properties as being an optimal store of energy. It is homogeneous, easily malleable, and relatively finite." Sorry dude, there is not enough gold to faciliate trade. Unless the value of gold signifantly increases in relation to other wealth and production and consistently matches that wealth and production, deflation or inflation will result.

[@gideondavid30]

d) not only is there no binding linkage between the value of a purported precious metal monetary standard and the value of a circulation and prosperity limited to monetary reserves; the limited circulation itself therefore manipulates the value and availability of money (which thus must manifest in disadvantage or obstruction of prosperity)"

[@j4ck2234]

Economic science is rooted in the nature of humanity itself. More particular in the moral relations we establish to increase collective as well as individual 'productivity' (such a small word) The laws of economics will only change if the entire structure of life within us changes. As far as I know we are still made up of cells so that leaves economics intact, phew.

[@pipewerkz]

I was waiting for someone to talk about this issue with a lot of Ron Paul supporters. It's the same group that sits on Facebook and spends all day trashing Romney. He is no better than Obama, but Obama is the president, why waste time going soley after Romney.

[@Joe11Blue]

They lived in poverty and didn't travel far enough to barter with anyone. You really should not be commenting on this if you really do not have the knowledge to have an honest discussion. Money was the invention that made commerce possible. It was the reason people started advancing.

[@Joe11Blue]

Gold and Silver were chosen by merchants long before ancient civilizations deemed them to be used as money. There is a difference between currency and money, you should really learn the difference to better distinguish to the rest of us what it is that you are trying to say.

[@CurtHowland]

"So why use gold?" Me? Stability of supply. As someone else why they choose gold, you may get a different answer. Some will say, "I don't". "the same fate of terminal indebtedness" Bald assertion without support. Debt occurs because people take it on. Don't take it on, no debt.

[@Timasion]

The average economic professor hasn't heard of Austrian Economics. I try to argue it with my law partner who teaches economics and he gives me blank stares on the various Austrian economic theories and has never read the Road to Serfdom or Constitution of Liberty.

[@CurtHowland]

That which is not scarce is not an economic good and does not require economizing. That which is not scarce has no prices, so is not involved with what you called "stable purchasing power". Therefore, you told me there was scarcity. If that's not what you were talking about, why did you bring it up?

[@CurtHowland]

Why would anyone want "stable purchasing power"? The purchasing power of labor has constantly (at least until 1970) increased, meaning less work to buy the same goods. Stable purchasing power would require a fiat currency and constantly inflation of the money supply. And haven't we had enough of THAT?

[@Dreamw0rxx]

Yes but understand that the paper money we are using now is NOT a commodity, because it can be created out of nothing at a moment's notice. We need a commodity as a currency, dollars used to be since they were pegged to gold, but now it isn't.

[@gideondavid30]

Does gold ad silver occur naturally in a free market historically? Last I checked, government's chose the monetary standard and implemented it. Then there are of course other forms of currencies that have been chosen historically (shells, sticks, etc).

[@Papatch64]

Actually Tom, If toaster fall relative to gold it is not deflation in the money supply, it is an increase in the quantity of toasters. That is not deflation of the supply of money but and increase in the supply of goods.

[@seriouslyyoujest1771]

Buy Bitcoin, and HODL! 2010 - 10K Bitcoin = 2 pizzas 2011 - 1 Bitcoin = $1 2017 - 1 Bitcoin = 1 Oz Gold Today - 1 Bitcoin = 6.89 Oz Gold

[@saltysnacky]

The Mises Institute is not funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Mises himself was in his early years in the US funded by the foundation. However, Mises Institute receives no such funding.

[@gideondavid30]

"Gold and Silver were chosen by merchants long before ancient civilizations deemed them to be used as money." And before that, people simply bartered. What is your point?

[@gideondavid30]

I find it ironic that a person who is upposed to the "inflationists" believes in inflating the currency in circulation related to a finite amount of gold in reserves.

[@CurtHowland]

I quoted your laugh, I am not laughing. I'm sorry that the quote marks were not more clear to you. You have neither clarified your position, nor defined your terms. Enough.

[@JDoubleOP]

So what's your solution worldwide, if machines take over more and more, employability almost equal, purchasing power drops to 'zero'?

[@CurtHowland]

Sadly, the universe has scarcity. So we must deal with that scarcity. That's called "economizing", and any interference in people doing so causes problems.

[@j4ck2234]

Then why did the entire planet evolve a gold based currency? Maybe because transporting 5000000tons of bronze isn't too much fun.

[@CurtHowland]

Time preference answers the "problem" of deflation, but don't tell the Keynesians, because they don't believe in time preference.

[@Cornampoo]

23:46 Tom's argument against deflation is epic! xD

[@JDoubleOP]

Resourced Based Economy vs Libertarianism /watch?v=IVUz6uUi9AU Just listen and learn from eachother.

[@Joe11Blue]

Goodbye, you haven't an argument, so you have to be offensive and declare all others to be beneath you right?

[@Joe11Blue]

Bluff? What are you talking about? You can't have an honest discussion so you must detract with nonsense?

[@CurtHowland]

Wait, let me get this straight, you think the tyrant Lincoln did anything about "sound government"? Really?

[@JDoubleOP]

According to your question: People want a stabile, healthy and lucky living.

[@dks13827]

How's it going in 2021????????????????? Broke, bankrupt.

[@xcvsdxvsx]

I dont know if hes going to get to it later in the video but the funniest one i always hear is "there just isnt enough gold in the word". I literally honestly would have seen right through that argument by at-least the age of 10.

[@JDoubleOP]

But you can't eat gold!!

[@DK12322]

Buckwheat or Potato Standard!!

[@JDoubleOP]

Next step in evolution of mankind is "the Technological People"

[@frederickfred2714]

It should be possible to have a bi metallic money system where market forces determine the relative value of a gold coin and a silver coin what ever they be called ..

[@JDoubleOP]

Typical example of someone who's fixed in old patterns.

[@gideondavid30]

Thanks for the commentary. Research MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy).

[@gideondavid30]

"the gold standard can neither a) save us from perpetual multiplication of debt by interest; nor b) can it sustain prosperity exceeding relatively minuscule monetary reserves. Perhaps even more hideous, c) students of the monetary gold situation are aware we probably don't even have the gold some of us we think we do"

[@SovereignStatesman]

"the gold standard can neither a) save us from perpetual multiplication of debt by interest;" Yes it can, because people won't LEND you more than you HAVE; and you can't REPAY IT by writing on a piece of paper "HAND OVER ALL YOUR STUFF OR GO TO JAIL." Tom Woods isn't half the economic theoretician that he pretends to be.

[@abefroman9565]

@@SovereignStatesman Can you explain this more?

[@CurtHowland]

I don't know who you're quoting, but he's a damned foo.

[@yuothineyesasian]

I won't say first, you can't make me I won't do it.

[@Panax07]

Lumberjacks would do a better job then the Fed.

[@NecessariusVerum]

And I thought that wouldn't be possible!

[@SovereignStatesman]

Listen to how Tom Woods says "Austrian economics is better, because it's better for the ECONOMY." Not because of the libertarian principal of SELF-OWNERSHIP and AUTONOMY OF PROPERTY. This is the problem with libertarians: i.e. they VIOLATE THEIR OWN PRINCIPLE of individual liberty, by saying "I'll LET you spend your own money as you choose--- because it WORKS better for the overall economy." NOT because it's like... YOURS? And of course that's pure COLLECTIVISM; while property is no longer a right, but just a convenient PRIVILEGE, that could be taken away on whatever the state DECIDES is "the greater good--" implying that individuals are EXPENDABLE. And so of course the Keynesians just have to say "No, KEYNESIAN economics works better," because the PRINCIPLE is destroyed, and becomes about despotism. So libertarians need to stick to their principles, and say "IT'S NOT YOUR FUCKING MONEY!"

[@Sigridovski]

He cannot tell everything here. Naturally what is right will be good for the economy and be ethical at the same time, or the statistics would not improve, but worsen.

[@dontbothertoreply9755]

Playing word games, the principles of self ownership or property are not questioned or object of the conference. They are fundamentals so Austrian economy can thrive.

[@pipem4n]

gibberish bamboozelment nonsence bs

[@j4ck2234]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic.

[@CurtHowland]

Yes, you are. Good luck with that.

[@CurtHowland]

Really? Where did I say that?

[@bungeebones]

The very idea that the United States was even on a "gold standard" is propaganda. The US has, from it's inception, been on a DOLLAR standard which was is existance even before the US became a country (evidenced by the fact the word "dollar" is used in the Constitution BEFORE it was even ratified and before the passing of the Coin Act and the establishment of US mints). For something to be a "standard" it needs to be established and fixed (such as "gallons", "feet", "inches" etc.) which the dollar was, indeed, fixed at approximately one ounce (another standard) of silver of a certain purity but that standard describing the dollar was informal (because it was based on the existing and widely circulating Spanish mill dollars). The Federal Reserve Notes and all the private bank notes issued were promises to PAY dollars, thus, the "standard" used in their issuance was, in fact, the "dollar" as are all legal documents to this day. Unfortunately, ALL those modern contracts aren't actually using real dollars as their settlement but are, in fact, referring to settlement in Federal Reserve Notes (i.e. it is understood between the parties that payment will be made in F.R.N.s). And there has never been a US GOLD dollar (only silver ones). Such a coin today would be too small to issue at $1 worth of gold as was true throughout US history (which is why gold coins had face values declaring they were MANY dollars despite being only one coin). One gold coin declaring it was 35 DOLLARS goes against basic grammar and doesn't make the one coin 35 "dollars". Also, since it was illegal to own gold privately from 1931 to 1974 it is impossible for it (gold) to be operating as "the standard"! The TRUE hard money this country was built on was the silver dollar. Other hard money was issued in gold, copper, and nickel but were issued with nominal values in relationship to the dollar standard but their actual value in commerce was actually derived from the relative market values of their respective metals (there is no fixed exchange rate saying that 100 copper coins are equal one silver coin or twenty nickel coins equal one silver coin etc)..

[@dontbothertoreply9755]

False, trade was used in Gold, second precious metal was always be the standard on reserve, complete ignorance of economic history.

[@bungeebones]

@@dontbothertoreply9755 Not false. Being used for trade is a far cry from being a "standard". All sorts of things can be used for trade (whatever the parties agree to). Besides, the concept of "the gold standard" had nothing to do with trade but with currency (fiat currency specifically) and there was NEVER a gold "dollar" (they were and still are -legally - silver coins).

[@centurion180ad]

The BEST point about price nonelasticity in a downward direction, is that it is *all* recoverable to operators of manufactory and to providers of capital, as well as to institutionalized labor.

[@suereed]

Ron Paul would have done

[@bamainatlanta]

Tom Woods for president!

[@zsylvana]

The arbitrary action of the banks is by no means a necessary condition for the divergence; if loans were made in wheat and farmers (or for that matter the weather) 'arbitrarily changed' the quantity of wheat produced, the actual rate of interes on loans in terms of wheat would diverge from the rate on other commodities and there would be no single equilibrium rate" [P Sraffa: "Dr. Hayek on Money and Capital," pp. 42-53,The Economic Journal, vol. 42,9] Hayek admitted that this was a possibility,