Currency expansion

tomterm8

RDB wrote: »

For you to say that do you mean you disagree with what he said there?

Tomterm8 if you disagree that that money just came out of thin air, then where do you think it came from?

Its all very well calling someone a nutbar but if you have to agree with what they say then what does that make you?

Where we disagree is that Ron Paul thinks this is a bad thing, whereas I, and every central banker and major economist in the world thinks its basically A-OK.

chucky

tomterm8 wrote: »

I think you'll find that Ron Paul is a complete american nutbar.

i think the OP was referring to Ron Jeremy as his source of info

RDB

tomterm8 wrote: »

Where we disagree is that Ron Paul thinks this is a bad thing, whereas I, and every central banker and major economist in the world thinks its basically A-OK.

I would like to see these major economists who agree with you that abusing the currency to this level is a good thing?:rotfl:

Do you understand your sig?

Dives sum, si non reddo eis quibus debeo.
I am a rich man as long as I don't pay my creditors.
Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254-184 BCE), "Curculio"

It seems to be in disagreement with the argument you are trying to put forward on this thread?

tomterm8

Er, I've just wikied him... you don't mean the American !!!!!! star do you?

chucky

tomterm8 wrote: »

Er, I've just wikied him... you don't mean the American !!!!!! star do you?

that is correct your honour :rotfl:

purch

(sigh) another thread where you are expected to argue with a YouTube video :mad:

RDB

When all the childish playground stuff is finished, can you take it somewhere else.

This Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtvHAqK8P14

is 100% correct that the Greek bailout money is just added to the currency supply out of thin air.

If anyone disagrees with this, where does it come from?


Or like Tomterm8 who thinks that abusing currency supply like this is actually a good thing.



http://www.chartingstocks.net/2009/06/us-money-supply-updated-chart/

Degenerate

RDB wrote: »

This latest Greek bailout for example, what if they cant pay it back. Has anyone lost any money?

If you want to make sense of fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, you need to stop thinking in terms of quantities of money, and start thinking in terms of the wealth that money represents.

Over the past decade or so a considerable amount of wealth has flowed in to Greece as goods and services, in exchange for promises to repay it in the form of Greek government bonds. It's now pretty obvious they don't have the wherewithal to repay the wealth they enjoyed. With some outcomes their creditors may not necessarily "lose money", but the money repaid will be worth much less, so they will definitely lose wealth.

Degenerate

RDB wrote: »

Or like Tomterm8 who thinks that abusing currency supply like this is actually a good thing.

It's a good thing in crisis circumstances when maintaining the continuing flow of money can keep economies functioning, and people in work. When critical imbalances (such as the excess of Greek debt) have built up, losses are already inevitable. The dilution of wealth by increasing the money supply is the least painful way for these losses to be borne.

tomterm8

RDB wrote: »

I would like to see these major economists who agree with you that abusing the currency to this level is a good thing?:rotfl:

Do you understand your sig?

Dives sum, si non reddo eis quibus debeo.
I am a rich man as long as I don't pay my creditors.
Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254-184 BCE), "Curculio"

It seems to be in disagreement with the argument you are trying to put forward on this thread?

I do understand my signature. The signature was of an (fictitious) ancient Roman banker. In terms of historical context, the Roman world had just been though one of the first recorded systemic banking crises. At that time, the Roman banking system was based on gold (the system Ron Paul advocates) which had suffered high inflation. Further, fractional reserve banking was outlawed by the roman senate; the crises happened under precisely the conditions Ron Paul advocates.

At that time, inflation was a real problem in the Roman Empire, and indeed, currency instability was pretty much indemic throughout recorded Roman history. There were periods of sharp inflation, and deflation.

So, yes, I do understand the meaning of the signature. It is a banker saying that if his creditors (these days depositors) don't withdraw their money, he'll go far.

It's the first recorded example of someone talking about a bank run.

Which, when I put it up, was quite in context with the times.

Oh... first nobel prize economics winner who agrees with fractional reserve banking for the day: Krugman. Now you find me a living nobel prize economist who thinks we should return to the gold standard.