[OT] Ameros will clog the tubes - was Re: Network Neutrality
von at fugal.net
Sat Dec 6 09:22:14 MST 2008
<quote name="Andy Bradford" date="Fri, 5 Dec 2008 at 22:33 -0700">
> Thus said Von Fugal on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:39:14 MST:
> > I feel that inflation is inevitable in many respects. Well
> > distributed, limited inflation is acceptable and manageable.
> Are you talking about monetary inflation (the classical definition of
> inflation) or the more modern definition of price inflation? And why is
> it ever acceptable and manageable?
Monetary inflation. Price inflation is certainly avoidable. I only say
it's inevitable because finding that ideal money that will never expand
and never fluctuate in usage, could prove hard indeed. If we used gold
as money, and more gold is mined, we have inflation. To me that's
acceptable and manageable. My point is that people seem to to think that
because no matter what we do, we'll have inflation, means that we might
as well let the government control that inflation. Wrong answer. More
wrong is the conclusion that inflation is NECESSARY. It certainly is
not, and if we were able to find a money that never inflated, there
would be no detriment from the lack of inflation.
> If we all awoke tomorrow morning and found that all our bank accounts
> had evenly doubled overnight, how would that benefit anyone? The only
> people that would actually benefit are those who woke up earlier and
> discovered the increase sooner. They would then spend their money, thus
> driving up prices for the late comers (or those who thought to be
> prudent and save it). Late comers would find that their infusion of
> money wouldn't buy as much as those who spent their money early on in
> the process. Eventually overall higher prices would reflect the new
> situation of the doubling of the money supply. Those who had acquired
> goods and increased their capital wealth early on would end up
> wealthier, and those who didn't end up poorer.
Yep, those early risers are the government and it's suppliers.
> > If taxation is the exact same thing, then, why not just tax? Why
> > inflate instead?
> Taxation is such a distasteful thing. Nobody gets elected on higher
> taxes. This is why democratic governments are so able to wage war. If we
> had to pay taxes for all the wars we get, the costs would be unbearable.
Precisely, so given the choice between taxation and inflation, I'll
choose taxation anyday. Why allow the government the subversive and
deceitful tool of inflation, to be able to tax us more than we otherwise
would allow? Inflation (by government) is even more distasteful than
taxation, because it is at least as distasteful as any taxation, but the
tasters are future generations. Ick! The perpetrators can continue to get
themselves elected because the current electorate don't see the inflation
for what it is.
Government is a disease that masquerades as its own cure
-- Robert Lefevre
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20081206/a0b8dfb7/attachment.bin
More information about the PLUG