Really?
no third solution
Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics
Category Archives: gold bugging
Comments on Comments #7
This is not really a full-fledged “Comments on Comments,” because I’m working on limited content and a short week. I’ve got a few comments, and a few items which would otherwise appear in a “Catching up Around the ‘Sphere” type post:
+++
Discussing my vacation itinerary,Anna confirms my excitement for Jackson Hole’s legendary steeps:
I’m not a boarder, but I am a skier, and Jackson Hole is a wonderful place, especially if you like steeps.
I’m also fond of Colorado, but I have family there, so I’m more familiar with it. In general, I prefer the west, with the wide steep runs and better powder, to the northeast which is more slalom-like.
I would need to mount legitimate bindings on my skis if I were to consider using them for anything other than gaper runs in March. I got them used, on eBay, and they’re mounted with Demo bindings, which conveniently pop off your boot, when you least want them to. The only time I want my bindings to release is if my ACL is in jeopardy. I would, however, like to ski some powder if we get it. I don’t want to pay to rent a set when I’m out there, and I can’t carry both skis and my board on the airplane. Maybe The Highlander and I will swap skis for snowboard for a run or two, if the conditions are right.
I too, prefer the West to the East, although I had a great time at Killington, VT, with my father in 1997. Of course, we got 11 inches of snow on Friday night, so that helped, immensely. Tremblant, in Quebec was also very nice, but the conditions (zero degrees one day, 38 degrees the next) were reminiscent of the Michigan winters I’ve had to suffer all my life. We only get out once a year to somewhere great, so we’ve got this sort of running list of resorts that we all want to visit. Once we hit them all, we’ll probably put the favorites on a rotation, throwing in a new one every few years, for good measure.
+++
Regarding my ongoing criticism of George Reisman’s policy proposal, where I said, “Of course, as Reisman argues, no creditor lends money anticipating the future cash flows to be decimated by inflation,” Anna responds:
Actually I think they ought to. Caveat emptor and all that. We’ve had constant inflation since 1913… I think any savvy lender by now prices inflation loss into their interest rate.
They absolutely do price an inflation premium into the rates at which we can borrow money. This is at least part of what I mean when I suggest that in the absence of central bank manipulation, long term interest rates (e.g., for mortgages and the like) would be in the neighborhood of 2-3%, not 7%. Probably the most efficient way to increase homeownership would be to eliminate inflation via monetary policy. Sure, you can temporarily increase ownership by “stimulating” demand and creating asset-bubbles, but the long-run solution is to keep interest rates low and stable.
+++
An addendum to a previous post on Massachusetts’ failed attempt to implement universal healthcare. I noted that the sympathy-case, chronically ill, mother of five, below-the-poverty-level example would be asked to pay something like $40/month for her “insurance.” Of course, the outliers like this single mother deserve compassion, I’m not saying that she doesn’t. But her plight is as much a product of the system as it is a “market failure.”
For comparison’s sake, I’m a 27-year old male, active and in good health. I haven’t been to the doctor for a medical condition in years. I pay something like $40 per paycheck for my insurance policy, through work, although my employer picks up the balance bringing the total close to $250/month. At my age, and in my health, I’d be far better off buying A) catastrophic coverage and B) disability coverage, than I am forfeiting $3000/year on health coverage I don’t use. I’ve spent less money on doctor’s visits and medications in the past year than I have on health insurance premiums in the last month.
My case is, anecdotally, an example of a broken system crowding out otherwise beneficial solutions. Were I free to spend my health-care dollars in whatever manner I see fit, I could spend some of the money buying goods and services from a company which could profitably employ those people, lifting them from the depths of poverty. Or, I could give more to charities which would help the truly destitute. Until I have the freedom to spend $100/month on catastrophic coverage, instead of $300 a month on comprehensive coverage I don’t need, I won’t be able to help out.
When I have that choice, and I refuse to help, then and only then can you accuse me of being greedy, selfish, and insensitive.
+++
One of my Mises University classmates, Anthony Gregory, is afraid of Obama. So am I. For precisely the same reasons:
He actually terrifies me precisely because I find him rather likeable. When a radical libertarian finds something to like in a statist of this caliber, you know we are dealing with a dangerous politician.
I would still prefer an Obama presidencey over H-rod in a heartbeat, but Obama’s boy-next-door likeability puts him squarely on my “potentially the Antichrist” list.
+++
I am really digging Umair Haque’s project, which I think I first stumbled upon via FSK’s shared items… I’ve been reading this blog for a few weeks now. Here’s a relatively short and intriguing piece, for starters. He focuses alot on this idea of “DNA,” which I interpret as the fundamental structure of the corporation, the nation, the economy, etc. When a company’s DNA is fubar, it’s about to go belly-up. When a nation’s or an economy’s DNA is fubar, hold on. Tightly.
+++
Angelica is a self-professed “cheerful statist,” yet she exhibits at least some libertarian tendencies when questioning the seeming arbitrariness of the bacon-dog-bans in the DPRC.
What’s wrong with grilling food on the streets? The authorities never seem to give a straight answer even though the article (admittedly one with a very pro-dog slant) is thousands and thousands of words long.
Angie, the next time you apply your big, fat, statist apologetics to the policy problem du jour ask yourself the same question. What’s wrong with gay marriage? What’s wrong with individually funded and private retirement accounts? What’s wrong with allowing bar patrons to enjoy a fucking cigarette? Why can’t I engineer my Jeep to run on vegetable oil without running afoul of the law? What’s wrong with any number of things that are deemed illegal in any number of locales throughout the nation?
The appalling thing is, that it takes a ban on bacon-wrapped hot dogs in a city 3,000 miles away, to incite these feelings in you. You should be just as incensed, if not more so, by every one of the millions upon millions of rights violations that governments and their agents perpetrate on a daily basis. Maybe this will be your wake-up call.
If it is, and you’re ever in Detroit, I’ll treat you to a bacon-dog at my favorite little suburban hot-dog stand.
Comments on Comments #6
In comments # 5 I continued the discussion of why I (generally) do not “hate the troops.” Franc replies:
Your argument seems to be that ignorance of morality is an excuse to be immoral. This does not seem very defendable to me. After all, the facts about the morality of the military are easily accessible to all. If they were not, you might have a case (as in for instance the fact that ignorance of the law should be an excuse, since every point of law is not easily accessible to the average person), but not here.
If you surrender your moral compass, either by joining the military or by putting faith in the government, then you should be blamed for everything that follows. You have abdicated your mental independence, and that’s a cardinal sin.
(I hope you mean a “cardinal sin” figuratively, because the essence of religion is abdication of mental independence!)
I do not support them, but that doesn’t mean I want them to die. I do not hate them, and that doesn’t mean I excuse their actions. Most of these kids (and they’re mostly kids) have been brainwashed to the point where they’d probably point a gun at your or me, if they were ordered to do so. They wouldn’t do this on their own. If monsters they’ve become, it’s because of the State—they’re victims, too, pawns as they are.
I do not mean that their actions should be excused, nor do I mean to suggest that ignorance is an excuse for immorality. But it certainly mitigates these factors, IMHO. People are bound to make grievous errors in judgment when the foundation for their decisions is a lifetime of propaganda. I deny that the facts about the morality of the military are easily accessible to all, precisely because I don’t believe for a second that the plain facts about “morality” are easily accessible to all. Living rightly is a conscious decision which requires knowledge of the right way to live, and practice/repetition or right actions. Sure, most people have some inkling of what it means to be moral, and what decisions are or are not right. But morality isn’t, I don’t think, something entirely innate, it is a learned behavior.
One’s moral compass can only be calibrated by consistent application of right reason and action. (If this goes any further, I’ll have to dig up my notes from Ethics class…) The State’s interference is like a magnetic field which imperceptibly alters the indications given, and sends you off course.
This post at Tranarchism brought me back to Tyler’s post at Marginal Revolution, questioning the validity of a gold standard. (see my previous response) This time, I perused the comments.
Bernard: “What is all this business about legal tender? All it refers to is something that must be accepted in payment of a debt. If you owe me money, what is it about “legal tender” that prevents me from accepting gold in payment if you offer it?”
Bernard, nothing prevents you from accepting gold as payment. Capital gains taxation, however, is an impediment. But more generally, legal tender laws preclude you from enforcing a gold-denominated contract. As creditor, you may be forced to accept paper dollars (i.e., legal tender, for all debts, public and private) at an unsatisfactory, but statutory exchange ratio.
Mike: “The biggest problem with the gold standard is that once the central bank commits to maintaining convertibility at (say) $800 per ounce, the central bank becomes vulnerable to a bank run.”
He then encourages people to read up on the real bills doctrine. I think Mike needs to read up on the gold standard. There is no practical need for a “central bank” or “lender of last resort” where notes are backed by specie and fully convertible.
Also related to gold, George Reisman has responded to critics (I count myself among them) of his recent post on the insertion of gold clauses into contracts.
What the insertion of gold clauses into existing contracts signifies is the use of government power to determine the purchasing power of what is paid and received in the fulfillment of contracts in a way that diminishes the further such use of its power.
As an aside, the logistics of this are sketchy, at best. I still maintain that the insertion of gold clauses is effectively an ex post facto order, which is facially unconstitutional. Limited government proponents (I assume Reisman is one) should be consistent with their reverence for the constitution. Furthermore, expecting the government to voluntarily restrain itself through legislative or regulatory processes is patently absurd: if the government were so inclined, it could simply stop the presses and refrain from “determining the purchasing power of what is paid and received”, in the first place!
Of course, as Reisman argues, no creditor lends money anticipating the future cash flows to be decimated by inflation. But similarly, no debtor has the ability to create money out of thin air, and then to lend it at for a profit! I just don’t see the justification for protecting the banking cartel’s Dr. Jekyll from its counterpart, Mr. Hyde. If we are interested in protecting small, non-institutional lenders, e.g., land contract vendeor, inter-personal loans, etc., from the negative side effects of declining purchasing power, we can do so by eliminating impediments to free contracts. As a policy proposal, I would begin by removing the obligations imposed by “legal tender” laws, a step which must necessarily be followed by reducing or eliminating the capital gains tax which must be paid on transactions denominated in certain terms (e.g., precious metals).
Regarding the appalling display of force against a quadriplegic man, commenter dwz says: “Pathetic. Ssimply pathetic.” Exactly. Although it’s not nearly as bad as this old incident in Detroit, where an emergency operator refused to dispatch anyone to a house where a five-year old boy was calling and reporting that his mother had passed out, because the boy was unable to put his mother on the phone. The boy’s mother, Sharon Turner, died of heart failure.
Kip wants to know if he’s saying it right: “Gnarly, dude!” in response to a snowboarding video I recently posted. Sounds good to me, Kip.
Citing my post, “Taxation is Theft!”, Stephan contributes Competition in Bads.
Proposing government by democracy is like saying ”Let’s have a competition to find out who’s the best at whipping the slaves! And the winner gets to be the slavemaster”. This is precisely what we don’t want.
Right! We don’t want to provide an opportunity for the most cunning, calculated, power-hungry con-artist to succeed at defrauding 300 million people. That is precisely what the democratic process is.
Note to regular readers: I will be on vacation from Thursday, 2/21 through Tuesday, 2/26. I may or may not pay attention to the interwebs during that interval.
Submissions to the blog carnival are due NLT 2/27.
