On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:20 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
There are a lot of valid things in it, but they are commonsensical. But the stuff about Rothbard and the von Mises Institute at the start should tip you off: it's right-wing stuff.
I find insights here and there in the right wing stuff quite often. There's a point, I have noticed, where strong left views and congruent with strong right views. It's not unusual to find two paths to the same conclusion.
It also looks likes a "monetary crank" film: there are a lot of things wrong with the world (stagnant incomes, etc.) that can be solved by our monetary solution (the gold standard).
Again, being a monetary crank film doesn't bother me, per se. What does bother me, i.e., what I don't understand, is how anyone is allowed to create money by simply accepting a promise, then using that promise as a basis for creating more money, er, promises.
They seem to imply, for example, that Social Security's imminent demise would be prevented by their solution.
I noticed this flaw, too.
They miss the fact that the Fed is largely subordinate to bankers, Wall Streeters, and a non-Austrian brand of conservative economics. This means that the Fed also has inflation-phobia, but not as strong as the Austries' version.
Here's one concept where I get lost. I don't know what this -- Austries' -- means. Is this an economist's nuance or is this a verifiable phenomenon? I don't know.
Even without a debt-deflation depression like the early 1930s, deflation is bad for debtors, as the 19th century populists knew. Maybe we could deal with that by getting rid of credit, but that's hard to imagine under capitalism.
Question: Is getting rid of credit the same as getting rid of Capitalism?
Jim, I really appreciate your time checking out this video and responding.
Dan "Some banks are too big to live." -- Rodd Gnawkin
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
