Ron Paul is NOT an Austrian economist

Monetary socialism is a sort of way station between communism and capitalism. It can be reached from either direction.

Ukraine approached monetary socialism from communism. "The government continued to subsidize state-run industries and agriculture by uncovered monetary emission." That is, in a nutshell, monetary socialism.

Stephen Zarlenga wants the same thing that Ukraine got in the 1990’s, but he is approaching it from within a capitalist country.

 

Continuation of the abuse of the economic spectrum, nothing more. Why didn't you even bother to even blag some reference to socialist political economy?

 

Demonstrating an ignorance to the term socialism and subsequently propagating this ignorance is the closest thing to trolling that has taken place on this thread.

 

Government monopoly money is certainly not capitalist money, is it fascist money?

 

I have difficulty determining why my post was quoted while having this proposal put forth as a follow up. A government monopoly on something is just that, a government monopoly, why are you so eager to advance it catagorically into some other terminology?

 

I'm not eager to do anything here, I'm just asking a question. Do you think we have fascist money?

 

No, is amtrack fascist? Not trying to be disengenuious just trying to accurately gauge why you would either A. Propose something to be fascist, or B. Ask whether something was facist.

On topic however, you must understand that for americans the word government has become synonomous with socialism. The act of using the two terms interchangeably is fraudulent at best. The manipulation has been a long process of misinformation coupled with rather intriguing scare tactics. The idea was for lassiez fair ideologues and other powerful people with a vested interest in this set up to launch a campaign (to be continued in perpetuity) to sway the public away from thinking worker ownership was a noble method to control a means of production. The fact that this system can function just fine still continues to be severely dilluted by the extremist examples of lenin, stalin, mao and other gansters who have nothing to do with the term. they can thank both the pyschological need to belong and experience vague feelings of celebrity, along with the need to avoid uncertainty (why propaganda works so well) for the ignoble success of this campaign.

 

This is ignorant of capitalism. You abuse, like the silly fellow, the economic spectrum and then use that to make ridiculous statement. Try just economic sense!

 

our government has set laws that force americans to do transactions in dollars. our government has given the authority to control the issuance and supply of these dollars to an organization whose members are selected by a group of private banks, and by the president. these private banks benefit tremendously from this arrangement at the expense of the rest of the population. the government benefits tremendously from this arrangement at the expense of the people. maybe this isn't fascism. that's why I was asking. I'm sure you could come up with a thousand definitions of fascism. what it most certainly is not, is freedom. it is a system of collusion between government and big business to take advantage of the people, and to squash competition. maybe a better word for it is statism. frankly I'm not sure labeling it matters except to the extent that a lable allows people to refer to group of concepts quickly. so that's why I am trying to get a good label for it.

how would you label it?

 

how is it ignorant of capitalism. what is the definition of capitalism?

 

I'm not prepared to let you off the hook. Why don't you defend the stupid comment "Government monopoly money is certainly not capitalist money, is it fascist money?" with some economic sense? I expect more than your norm!

 

I would label it a mere democratic manifestation of peoples choice. Albeit very likely a manipulated and ill-informed one. However I would be resistant to call something socialism which does not meet the criteria just because some alleged preeminent authority in monetary policy calls it so. I would actually be more interested in seeing how monetary rule would work out in the U.S as opposed to monetary policy.

 

You're apparently not prepared to do much of anything. Please don't respond to any of my posts unless you are willing to have a discussion, one without hurling insults. Thanks bud.

 

"monetary rule as opposed to monetary policy"?

I would not call it a democratic manifestation of people's choice. I would call it government preventing people from using a free market money.

 

So, in summary, you can't defend the comment: "Government monopoly money is certainly not capitalist money, is it fascist money?". Good call!

 

Monetary rule is an alternative to monetary policy but would still be handled by the FED. It was first proposed long ago yet the talks never go anywhere.
It would limit the FED's monetary expansion and contraction powers by fixing the growth or reduction to say, inflation.

Yes, but it came into being in 1913 as a result of democracy did it not?

 

I was very clear. Please don't respond to my posts unless your willing to have a discussion.

 

Clarity should be twinned with validity. We know that capitalism will go hand in hand with "government monopoly money". Political economy dictates that. We also know that the term "fascist money" is nonsensical, but perhaps describes a lack of knowledge over the nature of fascism. To help you, here's a summary:

First, the movement is characterised by anti-intellectualism (“obedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along independent lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism”). Second, we have the belief in the distribution of innate ability (i.e. the Theory of the Elites where those with a natural talent for ruling rule over the masses). Third, we have a reaction against democracy: “the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions”. Fourth, we have “fascism is in its broadest meaning a revolt against the modern age, against democratisation, secularisation and internationalism”. Fifth, we have corporatism where fascism is defined as “a system of political and economic decision-making based on the representation of organised interest groups in government” (Sarti). Ultimately fascism and economics, unlike socialism, do not go well together. The economics of fascism is actually “economics by mistake, not design”.

 

All communist arguments are based on redefining common words to mean exactly the opposite of what the dictionary says. Reiver has been doing this for years. You are not the first person to denounce him for this sleazy tactic.

Here is an exchange from June 2009:

Do not say, “you can try again if you want.” That is just feeding the troll. Use the dictionary definition of words, ignore the troll and focus on the OP.

 

YouTube the encounter with HumptyDumpty it is quite inspirational. Its from a movie entitled, ''through the looking glass''. Considering the origins of the socialist movement, no entymology will sway a socialrom what the word actually means. The dictionary offers CONCISE definitions, and often times several of them. Most these days in america at least use government as equate to socialist. If you cannot trace the origins as to why this is so then I suppose you are a Finished product. It is actually others who are employing the humptydumpty 'words mean what I wwant them to' argument.

 

I do love the notion that political economy just means 'thumbing the dictionary'. Of course the manipulating ideological, given their agenda, more than love it: they're reliant on it. 'Government is socialism' and 'Government is fascism' (used interchangably without any thought or consideration) are mantras used to restrict individual thought; to encourage hive thinking suited to those interested in coercing an often destructive dogma on the gullible.

 

Austrian economics calls for sound money, not necessarily gold-backed. A step in the right direction would be austrian.

Mises himself called for not a gold standard but a free-market currency which's value is determined by a business acting in self-interest rather than that of governments who have debt and taxes to worry about aswell.

 

Yay! I finally got a comment on the OP. I'm just sick to death of the commies writing snarky and completely content-free comments that have nothing to do with the OP.

First, I must ask that you read my 2006 paper, Critique of Stephen Zarlenga on the Origin of Money, in which I defend Carl Menger against Zarlenga's spurious criticisms.

Here I go into depth about the origin of money and describe how gold coins were originally fiduciary money backed by cows in the same way that, centuries later, paper money and checking accounts would be fiduciary money backed by gold bullion (Peel's Act, as Mises points out, neglected to treat checking accounts the same as paper money), Las Vegas casino chips would be fiduciary money backed by dollars and dollars would be fiduciary money backed by short-term T-Bills.

Observe that, in every case, the currency is "sound" in the sense of the issuer holding something that can be sold to withdraw currency from circulation in the event that inflation should threaten to turn into hyperinflation.

Now observe that the Zarlenga/Paul plan does not call for dollars to be backed by anything. The Treasury just prints them and Congress spends them into circulation. If inflation threatens to turn into hyperinflation, they have nothing in their portfolio to use for withdrawing currency from circulation.

Bottom line: Ron Paul has betrayed the Austrians.

 

That isn't possible. Consider, for example, the IEA: an influence group that peddles the Hayekian message. To potentially impact on policy it will necessarily include comment incompatible with the crackpot stuff on mises.org. Policy markers, by definition, have to bother with economic reality

 

You're really, very, mistaken. Ron Paul is doing exactly what Mises wanted. Ron paul wants competing currencies. Both the gold standard and the fed are less austrian than letting the market decide the currency.