patrick.net

AdHominem says

And I’m sure we are all better off today because one income is not enough but when two people work 40+ hours a week families are more stable, there is less stress and life expectancies go up. Thank you Big Brother and Federal Reserve for saving us from the freedom of a sound monetary system.

Where did you get the idea that one income isn't enough? One income is plenty--especially if you're content to drive a Hyundai instead of a Beamer, and live in a modest 1500 sq ft house instead of a 3000sq ft. mansion. And one income is more than enough to live the same lifestyle that people lived a generation ago...

Nomograph says

The fact is that cars are MUCH cheaper now than they were a generation ago. The amount of labor I exchange for a vehicle is MUCH less than the amount of labor my father exchanged for a vehicle. In fact, cars are so much cheaper today that almost everyone has one, and most people have several.

A "generation ago" it was very unusual to buy a car on credit. Today, almost everyone finances or leases their cars. If you're going to compare car ownership and costs, you need to compare the method of payment that was used to make those purchases. Ease of credit policies infuses an unnatural flow of money into the economy; excessive money chasing goods which drives inflation. The fact that more people own cars today, or that most own several is not a valid point when comparing to other generations that typically owned their car outright. A person that "owns" 2 cars worth $60,000 that has financed $55,000 doesn't actually own much. The same point can be made for housing. When 20% down payments were common a generation ago, can we really compare ownership and the prices then as compared to the peak of the housing bubble when 0% down was common?

Nomograph says

I don’t know why anyone would demand that the government store their wealth for them.

Me neither. That is why taxes ought to be almost zero (no income tax). And there should be competing currencies instead of the Federal Reserve Note monopoly.

Nomograph says

The fact is that cars are MUCH cheaper now than they were a generation ago.

I suppose we make 10X what our parents made right? Nice try. This just doesn't hold water. And we haven't even began to discuss housing.

Oh, and Tatu perhaps in your neck of the woods one income (for someone with a good income of course) can buy you a 30 year mortgage payment on a comfortable house. But in a large percentage of the country one income will not even buy you a 30 year mortgage that is "affordable."

Nomograph says

simply prove my statement wrong?

I don't need to prove you wrong when you and everyone else here knows that Federal Reserve Notes are the only "legal tender for all debts public and private." It is a monopoly, and to make matters worse they keep devaluing the currency.

Are you really this childish NOMO?

Nomograph says

Complete bullshit. Are you saying that barter is illegal? I can pay for something using ANY exchange medium as long as the seller is willing to accept it.
My neighbor just sold me two heads of homegrown spinach. I paid for these with a bag of homegrown oranges. Are you trying to say that we broke the law?

We are legally FORCED to accept FED minted currency as money. Barter is a grey area. How does one pay sales tax when dealing in potatoes, oranges, and spinach? How does one declare income to be taxed when bartering.
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html --a link on declaring bartering income to the US government.

If you do this on a small scale with your neighbor it is not considered illegal. If you do this on a larger scale I would bet you'd be made to be a public example of a tax cheater. Obviously, I am no expert on barter, or US tax code, but a bartering transaction is generally considered to be part of the underground economy, and could be considered illegal if done as part of a commercial enterprise.

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/four-ways-youre-unknowingly-cheating-on-taxes.html

"So taking turns mowing lawns with your neighbor without claiming the “barter income” is okay, but trading website design work with a landscaping business requires claiming barter income. If you’re part of a barter exchange or network, it sounds like that’s automatic grounds for claiming it as income."

However, if you want to actually issue a competetive currency to the US dollar, you would absolutely be charged with a federal crime. "However, under the Constitution (Article I, section 8, clause 5), Congress has the exclusive power to coin money of the United States and to regulate its value. The United States Mint is the only entity in the United States with the lawful authority to mint and issue legal tender United States coins."
http://www.usmint.gov/pressroom/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=press_release&id=710

Nomograph says

Complete bullshit. Are you saying that barter is illegal? I can pay for something using ANY exchange medium as long as the seller is willing to accept it.

You are quite self rightous for someone that is just flat out wrong. You do not have the "freedom" to coin and use your own currency, as many banks did in the 1800's. Nor do you have the "freedom" to pay with, or accept payment via barter, except under very strict circumstances.

Nomograph says

YOUR INABILITY to convince others to accept your form of payment.

Oh, it is my fault government created a monopoly on money and then proceeded to devalue it by over 95%.

Way to go Winston! Big Brother forever!

Kevin says

Lehman failed because nobody intervened and they were insolvent.

It is called fraud. There was plenty of regulation. It was not enforced.

Kevin says

It’s people like me and other $250k+ folks who are paying for it

Oh, that and the printing press. Everyone pays taxes. Even illegal aliens, maybe not income tax but we are all taxed. And then they devalue the currency anyway so yeah, we all pay.

By the way congrats on the high taxable income!

CBOEtrader says

I am making an argument for a constitutionally limited central government to do its job without overstepping its legal authority.

Exactly A constitutional republic. Where "leaders" must abide within the confines of the law of the land and whose job is to enforce that law not write an endless barrage of spending and regulatory bills so long that no one reads, so expensive that no one can pay for them, and so restrictive that we cannot presume the pursuit of happiness anymore without Big Brother's permission. Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around?

By the way CBO thanks for your comments. It is nice that someone can contribute without resorting to Ad Hominem.

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

government created a monopoly on money and then proceeded to devalue it by over 95%.

I am a saver. People say that inflation punishes savers, which is completely incorrect. Inflation punishes people who are foolish enough to store their wealth in currency. I store my wealth in property and business ownership. If I were to liquidate my assets I would be worth at least several million dollars, yet I am completely immune to inflation. You can be too, if you give up on the idea of a government-run wealth management system. Are you afraid of freedom, AdHominem?

It seems to me this is a perfect example of Elitism. NOMO, you don't know what it is like to grow up in poverty. You don't know what it is like not to have more than a few hundred bucks in a savings account.

You are an elitist. Your BIG BROTHER makes it possible for YOU to preserve your wealth at the expense of the peasants, who have essentially no chance of ever achieving what you have. And with every regulation, every tax, every dollar they print they make it harder for the little guy to climb the ladder. They are literally removing the rungs.

Congratulations you have proven my point. YOU ARE A LOYAL PARTY MEMBER WINSTON.

Why are you afraid of freedom? Because it will cost you your elite position?

AdHominem says

Oh, and Tatu perhaps in your neck of the woods one income (for someone with a good income of course) can buy you a 30 year mortgage payment on a comfortable house. But in a large percentage of the country one income will not even buy you a 30 year mortgage that is “affordable.”

That is just patently false.

CBOEtrader says

You always seem to leave out the fact that Reagan’s tax cuts created MORE governemnt tax revenues, not less.

The problem with analyzing the effects of the tax cuts is that Reagan spent money like a drunken sailor. And he came in during a bad recession. So, of course governmental revenue will increase when the Government spends money to get the economy out of recession. When people go back to work, they start to pay taxes, and revenue increases.

The real question is Reagan had spent all that money getting the US out of the recession without the tax cuts, where would Government revenue have been in that case?

The oft-repeated lie that tax cuts increases revenue has been proven false many times over.

The most commonly cited case for this is the 1980s "tax cuts".

What most people don't know (or pretend not to) is that there were no tax cuts. The top marginal rates changed, but the total amount of taxes that people were paying didn't change much at all. What Reagan did was tax reform, not tax cuts -- his changes were designed at the outset to be revenue neutral. It was tax simplification, not tax reduction.

What it did do was shift the tax burden away from businesses and high income earners and onto the middle class, largely through the elimination of most deductions.

The increase in revenue came because the recession that Volker triggered to stop inflation finally ended. Yes, revenues go up when people are making more money -- who knew?

Flash forward now to the Bush tax cuts -- they did not increase government revenue.
Flash backward to the cuts of the 1960s -- they did not increase government revenue.

And, of course, the implication of the "tax cuts increase revenue" theory is that raising taxes will reduce revenue -- but there are no examples of this happening at the federal level.

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

NOMO, you don’t know what it is like to grow up in poverty. You don’t know what it is like not to have more than a few hundred bucks in a savings account.
You are an elitist. Your BIG BROTHER makes it possible for YOU to preserve your wealth at the expense of the peasants, who have essentially no chance of ever achieving what you have.

Every U.S. citizen has the opportunity to achieve what I have achieved, including you. I grew up in a family of modest means. I served in the military, went to school, earned M.D. and Ph.D. degrees and paid my debt entirely by myself. Anyone can do what I did, as long as they are smart enough and hard working enough.
I reject your claim that that the government is responsible for your lack of success. You can, right now, do what I did. Log off, join the military, go to school, study hard and get better grades than the competition, earn acceptance to medical school, pay off your debts, save and invest, and then you will have what I have. The path forward is perfectly clear.

Not that it is any of your business but I happen to be mildly successful when compared to my peers. Perhaps one day I will even be an elite like you. However, I am the exception. And you are too. And it still does not change the fact that all of us contribute too much of our labor to a growing Federal bureaucracy that is trashing freedom in favor of government control and corporate interests.

And if you want to deny that our bureaucracy is making it even harder for those in poverty to climb the ladder you are sadly deceiving yourself.

Your military suggestion is also laughable. You are suggesting I join and add further support to Empirical USA, pledging my life to obey orders to shoot, kill and occupy the lands of sovereign men, women, children and nations around the globe. Perhaps I will be one of the lucky ones like you who manage to retire before I get my leg or head blown off by someone defending their homeland. Or perhaps I won't be so lucky.

But none of this changes the fact that you are a loyal party member. You support the system because it has served you well (at the expense of others of course). And now that you are an elite you are able to continue to succeed using your property, MD monopoly on "medicine", and your relatively massive earnings potential as compared to the average, let alone below average American. Currency debasement doesn't bother you because you have plenty of it.

You have worked hard to get where you are. I am happy for you. But surely not everyone has the same opportunity, let alone the same results as you. And until we have a sound currency, a right sized government, and a parred down military (end the occupation of foreign lands), the little guys will continue to suffer at your expense Winston.

CBOEtrader says

Having a constitutionally limited federal government, while keeping the vast majority of government authority in state and local hands is a much better way to run a country

Just out of curiosity-what makes you think state or local governments will do things any better? California, Illinois, NJ, etc. sure don't seem to have any better ideas...

Doing everything at the local level is a lot less efficient, but the benefit is minimizing the damage when government does something stupid.

When I was taking my real estate classes last year, and being exposed to all the differences in state law wrt RE, I finally figured out what the Federalist Society was all about: full employment for lawyers, where 50 states have 50 different sets of laws.

The general idea that states should handle welfare etc isn't a bad one, though I don't know why the red staters are pressing this issue. Without Uncle Sam sending cash by the billions via military bases, ag subsidies, and the SS/SSI checks they'd be entirely screwed economically, reduced to the standard of living as shown on the "The Waltons". Perhaps they want that, dunno.

It doesn't matter what level government is done, what is necessary is intelligent actors. And I'm not talking Schwarzenegger, though he is in fact I guess an intelligent member of the acting profession.

tatupu70 says

CBOEtrader says

Having a constitutionally limited federal government, while keeping the vast majority of government authority in state and local hands is a much better way to run a country

Just out of curiosity-what makes you think state or local governments will do things any better? California, Illinois, NJ, etc. sure don’t seem to have any better ideas…

You named a bunch of "liberal" states. Try ND, NH, MT

tatupu70 says

CBOEtrader says

Having a constitutionally limited federal government, while keeping the vast majority of government authority in state and local hands is a much better way to run a country

Just out of curiosity-what makes you think state or local governments will do things any better? California, Illinois, NJ, etc. sure don’t seem to have any better ideas…

This is a great question, with an easy answer.

Of course local and state government politicians are no less corrupt than federal politicians. That is simple human nature.

However, the fact there are 50 states means competition. For instance, states have always been free to levy income tax, and many did so. However, the simple fact that the tax base was free to move to any state meant that states had to keep taxes low and government relatively efficient to keep its citizens happy. If one state, like California, wanted to implement a single payer health care system, citizens would be free to move to Arizona in protest, or move TO CALI in support of such a system.

Also, it is MUCH more difficult to steal, rob, or cheat someone that you know, who's family members you see in a town hall meeting, who's businesses you frequent, etc. Basically there is a much higher level of moral accountability within smaller political spectrums, than from an impersonal far off federal government.

It is also relative to point out how the passage of the 16th amendment turned state representatives and senators into professional beggars. These politicians try to statistically prove they are doing a good job by getting more pork spending into their districts than they pay to the government in taxes. Not only is this extremely wasteful, but this results in complete loss of state sovereignty.

As Frank Chodorov said in his "Income Tax: The root of all evil",

"Thus, every federal dollar spent in a state becomes an obligation on the state. The obligation is paid off with sovereignty; the state sells out its independence. It is all done without change of the law, without any modification of the Constitution, and is as imperceptible as the gradual wearing down of a proud horse by a resolute trainer."

I would love to hear some honest criticism of "Income Tax: The root of all evil" by one of the educated liberals in the forum.

http://mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp

CBOEtrader says

I would love to hear some honest criticism of “Income Tax: The root of all evil” by one of the educated liberals in the forum

I don't claim to be either educated or a liberal, but I find the essay to be less than persuasive. All the Judeo-Christian morality and talk of evil serves to get peoples' emotions going, but doesn't really present a good case.

For me the question is simple. The government needs revenue--everyone agrees to that. So, what is the fairest way to generate this while allowing the economy to flourish. Taxes aren't good or evil. They are just a way to collect revenue for the government.

tatupu70 says

CBOEtrader says

I would love to hear some honest criticism of “Income Tax: The root of all evil” by one of the educated liberals in the forum

I don’t claim to be either educated or a liberal, but I find the essay to be less than persuasive. All the Judeo-Christian morality and talk of evil serves to get peoples’ emotions going, but doesn’t really present a good case.
For me the question is simple. The government needs revenue–everyone agrees to that. So, what is the fairest way to generate this while allowing the economy to flourish. Taxes aren’t good or evil. They are just a way to collect revenue for the government.

It doesn't sound like you read the essay. Chodorov uses very logical arguments, and NEVER uses emotion baiting. You are also wrong about your premise. I, for one, do not agree that the government needs revenue. The federal government needs to massively cut spending, and give power back to the states.

CBOEtrader says

It doesn’t sound like you read the essay. Chodorov uses very logical arguments, and NEVER uses emotion baiting. You are also wrong about your premise. I, for one, do not agree that the government needs revenue. The federal government needs to massively cut spending, and give power back to the states.

OK--we'll have to agree to disagree then. Here's an example of what I meant:
Thus, the fabric of Judeo-Christian morality is undergoing deterioration as a result of the "evil" that has infiltrated our political life
How about this--boil down the logical arguments for me then. Just a few bullet points. And "income tax is evil" doesn't qualify.
And btw--I agree we need to reduce spending, but that wasn't the point of the discussion. There will always need to be some governmental revenues, so the question is how to collect them.

AdHominem says

You named a bunch of “liberal” states. Try ND, NH, MT

North Dakota population: 646,844, 70 acres of land per person (much of it highly productive), abundant energy resources -- it would be hard to screw that economy up. It also helps they get $1.68 for every $1.00 they send to DC.

Wikipedia: "North Dakota is also the only state with a state owned bank, the Bank of North Dakota in Bismarck, and a state owned flour mill, the North Dakota Mill and Elevator in Grand Forks."

OMG! ND has caught Teh Socialism!

New Hampshire, Population 1,324,575

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DM87LG0.htm

wut? They already have Teh Socialism too!

Montana, Population 974,989

Montana is one of the bigger Red State Welfare Queens -- taking in $1.50 for every dollar in taxes, so I wonder why you brought them up.

Now, I realize in your cartoon view of the economy we should all strive to be the rugged individualists of Montana and Alaska of the early 20th century.

No thanks. We can do better than that.

I would love to hear some honest criticism of “Income Tax: The root of all evil” by one of the educated liberals in the forum

I'm kinda neutral on the income tax; I believe what the taxman doesn't take off the top will just end up in rents and higher mortgage payments. Any dollar the goverment takes and spends wisely is fine by me, given the current fallen state of affairs.

The essayist you linked to happens to have been a Georgist like me, btw. If I were king I'd tax property first, last, and very hard.

None of this buying up SFHs to rent out. That's pure economic bullshit and if I were in charge I'd go Ho Chi Minh on such behavior. Proprietors leasing commercial space would know the ground rent they're paying is going to the local government and not some absentee LL living the good life off of their hard work.

After that, directly taxing incomes for such things as single-payer insurance, pensions, etc seems reasonable.

tatupu70 says

OK–we’ll have to agree to disagree then. Here’s an example of what I meant:
Thus, the fabric of Judeo-Christian morality is undergoing deterioration as a result of the “evil” that has infiltrated our political life

Well, in that particular section he starts off definining "evil" as the opposite of good. He then goes to explain that, "The American tradition rests its case squarely on the premise that the human being is endowed with rights by his very existence; that is what makes him human. Hence, any political action which attempts to violate these rights violates his human-ness, and thus becomes "evil.""

I really don't have time to create an executive summary of Chodorov's 50 page essay. Sorry, maybe another time. Though, the most important point would be how the federal income tax usurped the sovereignty from the states.

CBOEtrader says

I really don’t have time to create an executive summary of Chodorov’s 50 page essay. Sorry, maybe another time. Though, the most important point would be how the federal income tax usurped the sovereignty from the states.

lol--you have time to write 3 posts tonight, but you can't write a few bullet points? Whatever you say...

tatupu70 says

CBOEtrader says

I really don’t have time to create an executive summary of Chodorov’s 50 page essay. Sorry, maybe another time. Though, the most important point would be how the federal income tax usurped the sovereignty from the states.

lol–you have time to write 3 posts tonight, but you can’t write a few bullet points? Whatever you say…

Good point. I am writing this much today/tonight because I am procrastinating in writing up a business plan for a meeting with some venture capital types on Tuesday.

Writing down the actual bullet points clearly takes no time, but I would have to go back through his essay to make sure I could get the same umph out of my bullet points as his essay delivers. His 50 page essay is pretty densely packed with information. Chodorov, in general, is quite the writer. I suggest you read anything by him.

Troy, seriously, after hearing you call youself a Georgist for the fifth time, I went and read the Wiki. I must admit, I am intrigued. What paper, or writer would you suggest I look up if I wanted to know more?

Nomograph says

CBOEtrader says

I am writing this much today/tonight because I am procrastinating in writing up a business plan for a meeting with some venture capital types on Tuesday.

Good luck. The here in San Diego biotech VC guys can’t seem to scratch up a dime these days. Very little is getting off the ground.

Thanks man! We aren't looking for much and are very close to operating at a profit, so we have a shot. The most likely scenario is that we get money from another company in the business as part of a strategic partnership rather than an investment from a silent third party.

I am not expecting much from the venture capital types. That is part of why I am dragging my feet on writing this nonsense. They want projections that I have to pull out of my ass. I really don't want to pull anything out of my ass, and therein lies my problem with the VC jerks.

AdHominem says

By the way, is it possible for you to make an argument in a civilized manner without making an ass of yourself?

Perhaps you should read what you write. You are confrontational, accusing, lacking a factual basis and attack others who disagree with you (which seems to be many, many people). You don't debate, you cry victim and know not whereof you speak.

In other words, it doesn't seem possible for you to make any argument in a civilized manner, and you continually make an ass of yourself. Any pertinent argument you may have is lost, and don't AdHominem says

happen to be mildly successful when compared to (your) peers

at least when it comes to presenting valid arguments. Just because you've driven so many others away doesn't make you a winner. It does, however, make you a whiner.

You know, I don't even know why we bother arguing with people like this anymore. No amount of fact, logic, or reason will change his opinions.

And lets be honest -- it's not like his opinions matter anyway.

Troy says

AdHominem says

You named a bunch of “liberal” states. Try ND, NH, MT

North Dakota population: 646,844, 70 acres of land per person (much of it highly productive), abundant energy resources — it would be hard to screw that economy up. It also helps they get $1.68 for every $1.00 they send to DC.
Wikipedia: “North Dakota is also the only state with a state owned bank, the Bank of North Dakota in Bismarck, and a state owned flour mill, the North Dakota Mill and Elevator in Grand Forks.”
OMG! ND has caught Teh Socialism!
New Hampshire, Population 1,324,575
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DM87LG0.htm
wut? They already have Teh Socialism too!
Montana, Population 974,989
Montana is one of the bigger Red State Welfare Queens — taking in $1.50 for every dollar in taxes, so I wonder why you brought them up.
Now, I realize in your cartoon view of the economy we should all strive to be the rugged individualists of Montana and Alaska of the early 20th century.
No thanks. We can do better than that.

My point is that these states aren't broke. Are they? But otherwise it was a nice post you just had drama queen.

elliemae says

AdHominem says

By the way, is it possible for you to make an argument in a civilized manner without making an ass of yourself?

Perhaps you should read what you write. You are confrontational, accusing, lacking a factual basis and attack others who disagree with you (which seems to be many, many people). You don’t debate, you cry victim and know not whereof you speak.
In other words, it doesn’t seem possible for you to make any argument in a civilized manner, and you continually make an ass of yourself. Any pertinent argument you may have is lost, and don’t AdHominem says

happen to be mildly successful when compared to (your) peers

at least when it comes to presenting valid arguments. Just because you’ve driven so many others away doesn’t make you a winner. It does, however, make you a whiner.

Well coming from such a stable, nurturing and caring individual as you that really makes me feel.... satisfied.

Kevin says

You know, I don’t even know why we bother arguing with people like this anymore. No amount of fact, logic, or reason will change his opinions.
And lets be honest — it’s not like his opinions matter anyway.

right back atcha Kev

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

Your military suggestion is also laughable. You are suggesting I join and add further support to Empirical USA

I would never make such a suggestion. You made the somewhat bizarre claim that I belong to an elite class that has access to opportunities that you don’t have, and I simply pointed out that you have the exact same opportunities that I did.

Nomograph says

Log off, join the military,

looks like you said join the military. I guess I don't know if anything you say you mean anymore. The military is just the dirty strong arm of corporate America in its thirst for profit at any cost. The US military hasn't done much in the way of righteous might since it liberated the concentration camps. And even that was not our fight.

If you are not an elitist, what percentage of Americans do you think has the "exact same opportunities" and capabilities as you? Like I said, I am not claiming that you don't deserve your success, nor that it can be achieved by a few others who also work hard. I state merely that the opportunities that you have had are NOT there for everyone, and especially that poor people are not capable of preserving what little wealth they have due to the inflationary monetary system we have. Furthermore the powerful AMA has created a monopoly on medicine that puts you in an elite class and this fact warrants your recognition. And when it comes to the military it is the poor who tend to die on the front lines while the elites like GW Bush and perhaps Nomograph who get to stand under the "mission accomplished" banner and pose with the flight-suit.

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

If you are not an elitist, what percentage of Americans do you think has the “exact same opportunities” and capabilities as you?

Every US citizen has the same opportunities that I had. Not every US citizen has the same capabilities. It doesn’t surprise me that, beneath the rhetoric, you actually hate our free-market, merit-based society because you can’t compete, and you want some giant nanny-state government affirmative action program for low performers. First you want the government to handle your finances and savings for you, and now you want the government to decide who succeeds regardless of capabilities? Just how much of your life are you willing to turn over to the government? Are you afraid of freedom, AdHominem?

Actually I was hoping for a government that protects everyone equally. This means the man with $20 should be able to put his money in a bank and buy essentially the same amount of goods and services with in in 5, 10 or 20 years. Why should the man have to suffer the debasement of his currency? Government doesn't have to spend much effort or resources on this. In fact it takes great effort to debase a currency, you have to go out of your way to produce more FIAT dollars (of course in the digital age you just type a few zeros and press enter). It also requires a monopoly on money. Which is something we need to end.

The system that we have now guarantees that storage of wealth in dollars is a loosing investment, and in fact encourages mal-investment. This is to the detriment of the masses and the benefit of the elites. You are an elitist. You claim that everyone needs to be "smart" like you join the military (ie the Imperial US killing machine), buy property and game the system just like you. Everyone can't game the system, it is ponzi scheme. In an inflationary economy there have to be more losers than winners. Why? Becuase the lower class is always hurt worse than the elite upper class, they find it immensely more difficult if not impossible to make investments in "assets" that won't lose value. I don't begrudge you your status, (except for the monopoly of the AMA on medicine) nor do I think we need a Nanny state to make sure you and I and everyone else suffer the same. But what we do need is a sound monetary system so that savings is rewarded, debt is discouraged/costly, and mal-investment is not encouraged. If you think it is too much to ask that government protect a sound money system, then at least we need a government that allows competing currencies so that people can choose one that won't be debased on the free market.

Private property is the foundation of a free society. Private property includes currency. Unless we have a government that protects its currenc(ies) from debasement by the special interests and elites, the average and below average individual (the majority) will continue to lose freedom and his pursuit of happiness will be curtailed.

AdHominem says

Why should the man have to suffer the debasement of his currency?

That's the point. He doesn't have to... Buy inflation protected T-Bills instead. How hard is that?

AdHominem says

Becuase the lower class is always hurt worse than the elite upper class, they find it immensely more difficult if not impossible to make investments in “assets” that won’t lose value.

Again-that is the exact opposite of truth.

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

Why should the man have to suffer the debasement of his currency?

That’s the point. He doesn’t have to… Buy inflation protected T-Bills instead. How hard is that?

You are funny. Why don't we just all use TIPS as our national medium of exchange then? One act of congress could give us this stable money system.

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

Becuase the lower class is always hurt worse than the elite upper class, they find it immensely more difficult if not impossible to make investments in “assets” that won’t lose value.

Again-that is the exact opposite of truth.

Yeah, your probably right. Joe the plumber has the upper hand in earning and preserving wealth over Harriet the Heiress.

AdHominem says

You are funny. Why don’t we just all use TIPS as our national medium of exchange then? One act of congress could give us this stable money system

Because TIPS aren't a currency. They are an investment. When you want to store wealth, you buy TIPS. When you want to purchase goods or services, you use currency. Do you see the distinction?