[OT] Ameros will clog the tubes - was Re: Network Neutrality

Nicholas Leippe nick at leippe.com
Fri Dec 5 09:56:10 MST 2008


On Friday 05 December 2008 09:18:21 am Von Grant Fugal wrote:
> How do you propose to distribute this new money in lockstep with capita
> changes?
> Perhaps you could give each newborn an average savings worth of
> money in a trust fund. Anything less than this is redistribution of
> wealth and is abhorrently immoral.

Let's not get into the subject of individual's differring morals.

You are suggesting here that there is no other way to increase the supply in a 
fair manner. It's simple really. The purchase of goods and services by the 
government would be done with newly minted/printed currency as opposed to 
currency already in the budget. As opposed to being done by fractional reserve 
banking as it is done today. To decrease the money supply, currency collected 
from the sale of public goods and services can simply be withheld from 
circulation, and taken off the books.

> The capita increases and so does the
> money supply. What then? The printers of the money benefit first, then
> the first receivers of that money, and so on, until the average American
> is just completely screwed over because he doesn't see that new 'per
> capita' money until it's value AND the value of the money he already had
> AND his paycheck are ALL devalued!

No. The printers of the money benefit, yes. But, the first receivers do not, 
except for the fact that they are compensated at fair-market value for their 
goods and/or services--they do not get any unjust benefit. No one else will 
notice any change whatsoever--no price inflation or deflation would occur--
this in fact prevents that--everyone's buying power remains the same.

> Inflation is theft any way you look at it.

Are you talking about monetary inflation or price inflation? In some ways, 
yes. In all ways, no.

> At least with gold the inflators actually have to do some work to
> mine that gold, so that's not theft, it's work. But printing new fiat,
> theft in my book.

Well, it's theft if done by private individuals for private gain. If the 
government (we'll pretend a government that's by and for the people, assuming 
one exists), then no private individual gains anything by doing so--it is a 
benefit to _all_ of the people by maintaining a stable per-capita money 
supply. Because the government is in essence the collective of the people--
thus the people are the ones printing the new money.

OTOH, what we have today, is exactly what you say. Theft. *Private* banks, 
benefiting *private* interests control the money supply by central banking 
(debt-backed currency) and fractional reserve lending.

> You mention astrian economics. I haven't delved to deep into it myself,
> but from most of my conversations with other subscribers to austrian
> economics, I was under the distinct impression my views were highly
> aligned with austrian economics; maybe I was wrong?

I am not in a position to classify your views.







More information about the PLUG mailing list