What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

When Queen Elizabeth attended the opening of a new building at the London School of Economics in November 2008, she asked the academics, "Why did nobody notice it?" How could a global financial meltdown sneak up on the crème de la crème of the economics profession? One professor's answer: "At every stage, someone was relying on somebody else and everyone thought they were doing the right thing."

...

The lady who knighted Greenspan for his contribution to "global stability" might like to know that Austrian theory provided the crystal ball that helped numerous commentators announce the train wreck well in advance of its arrival — and that according to Austrian theory only a train wreck can occur when money grows on trees. If someone had briefed her on the Austrians before her visit, she might have had the new building razed rather than dedicated. Given that her portfolio lost £25 million, the professor is lucky to have his head.

Books by Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, de Soto, Hülsmann, Paul, and Sennholz, among others — and all published before the meltdown — explain in detail what happens when government officials and bankers get together and take over the country's money supply. In brief, they subject everyone to an unaccountable monopoly called a central bank, enact legal-tender laws to force acceptance of the central bank's fiat paper notes, and abolish or cripple through regulations the autonomous market monies, gold and silver.

Under modern central banking, an economy endures chronic monetary inflation, wealth redistribution, trade cycles, an obsession with Fed rhetoric, confiscation of savings, malinvestment of resources, impoverishment of the poor and middle class, enrichment of the politically connected, institutionalized moral hazard, mass delusion as a norm, and mushrooming government growth. The central-banking system and its spurious currency amount to a doomsday machine that could topple civilization itself.[17]

Click to expand...

Frisco_Slug_Esq said:

http://mises.org/daily/4668

You might actually want to "READ" this one U_D...

Click to expand...

Ulaven_Demorte said:

Nothing I wouldn't expect to come from the Mises Institute. In the end, it's just another Ron Paul call to return to the gold standard and "end the Fed".

But it wasn't the "Fed" that caused the meltdown the author of the article complains of, but unregulated banking. Which he insists the cure is, guess, LESS regulations on banking.

Typical "we don't need no gubmint" bullshit. No surprise that you're in agreement.

Click to expand...

rosco rathbone said:

We were on the gold standard and went off it when it became inconvenient for those in power. I never really understood what was supposed to insure that this wouldn't happen every time. "Objective Law",. I guess.

Click to expand...

Ulaven_Demorte said:

Nothing I wouldn't expect to come from the Mises Institute. In the end, it's just another Ron Paul call to return to the gold standard and "end the Fed".

But it wasn't the "Fed" that caused the meltdown the author of the article complains of, but unregulated banking. Which he insists the cure is, guess, LESS regulations on banking.

Typical "we don't need no gubmint" bullshit. No surprise that you're in agreement.

Click to expand...

Ulaven_Demorte said:

The Gold Standard made money supply too inflexible.

When money is pegged to a fixed commodity, the only way for it to increase is for that commodity to increase. This 'inelasticity' of the money supply was evident in the 1800s when interest rose sharply during planting season (when borrowing was greatest), and fell sharply during harvest season (when loans were paid off).

Click to expand...

jeninflorida said:

So, how much more money does obama need to spend/waste in order to “fix” the economy?

Thank god you don’t have to pay taxes

Click to expand...

Ulaven_Demorte said:

Same tired old attacks Jen.. You're getting tediously boring. Try to get some new material.

Click to expand...

Ulaven_Demorte said:

The Gold Standard made money supply too inflexible.

Click to expand...

rosco rathbone said:

I guess we need a Constitutional Amendment then.

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

We are condemned to a politically corruptible system of fiat currency. What would the market decide to accept as a means of exchange if it were free to do so?

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

Of course the Founders imposed a more stringent standard on the states than it did the Congress.

Click to expand...

Byron In Exile said:

Fiat currency is the only option, now.

That's not bad, in itself, but in 1913, the system was taken over by private bankers who knew they could make money off the idea. They would "loan" the money out, and then charge interest on it.

Click to expand...

Byron In Exile said:

Well, there's already this:

From the US Constitution Article I Section VIII:

Congress shall have the power to... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

I don't see why any Amendment might be required.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

The history of compound interest started quite a bit before 1913.

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

Article I Section 10:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Click to expand...

Ulaven_Demorte said:

Nothing I wouldn't expect to come from the Mises Institute. In the end, it's just another Ron Paul call to return to the gold standard and "end the Fed".

But it wasn't the "Fed" that caused the meltdown the author of the article complains of, but unregulated banking. Which he insists the cure is, guess, LESS regulations on banking.

Typical "we don't need no gubmint" bullshit. No surprise that you're in agreement.

Click to expand...

rosco rathbone said:

There seems to be some controversy about the interpretation of this part of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Frisco_Slug_Esq said:

What part isn't controversial anymore?

Let's take it from the top

"We the People of the United States"

Citizens, Undocumented Democrats, Islamic Terrorists...,

Click to expand...

busybody said:

and overseas contingency operators

Click to expand...