Inflation hurts the poor more, IFS says.

[Anarchist420]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ion-hurts-the-poor-more-says-ifs-2297175.html

Obviously.

Anyway, it's about damn time someone other than the Mises Institute has done a great study on this. U.S. Govt stats and CNN will tell you otherwise, but they're full of shit.

Why would the ruling class set inflationary policies if it didn't help them? QE2 hasn't worked and the countries (U.K., US) with the most stimulus (inflation, spending) still have the highest unemployment. Switzerland is doing quite well with their low and Flat tax, strong currency, and decreasing public debt. Even France is doing better than U.S. is.

I hope Keynes is burning in Hell as I type this.

 

[Anarchist420]

And since when have our inflationary policies helped reduced the federal debt? Short answer is that they haven't.

 

[LegendKiller]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ion-hurts-the-poor-more-says-ifs-2297175.html

Obviously.

Anyway, it's about damn time someone other than the Mises Institute has done a great study on this. U.S. Govt stats and CNN will tell you otherwise, but they're full of shit.

Why would the ruling class set inflationary policies if it didn't help them? QE2 hasn't worked and the countries (U.K., US) with the most stimulus (inflation, spending) still have the highest unemployment. Switzerland is doing quite well with their low and Flat tax, strong currency, and decreasing public debt. Even France is doing better than U.S. is.

I hope Keynes is burning in Hell as I type this.

The bulk of the difference is not monetary, it is due to a scarce resource being used up at an ever increasing rate, this results in non-monetary inflation. Blaming stimulus or QE2 completely ignores the fact that the entire planet is facing an energy issue related to the easiest to find oil. This situation is inevitable.

It is also very intuitive that the poor would be hurt more. They have less disposable income to be absorbed by inflation. That's the nice thing about being rich, you have inflation bearing assets that protect you from inflation and you have massive amounts of disposable income. It's also why I don't feel sorry for some incremental tax increases to the rich. That marginal tax makes little difference to them, same with inflation.

The Swiss have a completely different economy and is very socialist. It's funny you are using them as some sort of basis for your economic ideals despite their economy being far from libertopian. Their currency strength is based in the security of their banking sector (which had its own issues, UBS and Credit Suisse had major issues).

France is hardly "doing better" than the US. The Euro is structured specifically for France and Germany to the detriment to every other country in the EU. France's GDP growth is far lower than the US during most periods. That's the offshoot of their socialist system.

What's funny is that you use two very socialist societies to back up your arguments against monetary situations. One is in a very un-mises currency regime, another is highly socialist with very high top marginal tax brackets. The Nordic countries are also doing reasonably well, but they are very socialist also with very high tax rates. Funny...

 

[fskimospy]

The Mises Institute doesn't do studies, at least not real ones. They don't believe in math.

 

[Darwin333]

The Mises Institute doesn't do studies, at least not real ones. They don't believe in math.

Neither do you.

 

[matt0611]

The founders knew the dangers of fiat money, that is why the constitution does not allow for it. Too bad we couldn't follow it for very long.
Ah well, our overlords know what they're doing, just trust them mmk?

 

[LegendKiller]

The founders knew the dangers of fiat money, that is why the constitution does not allow for it. Too bad we couldn't follow it for very long.
Ah well, our overlords know what they're doing, just trust them mmk?

There is not one mention in the Constitution that money has to be backed by an asset. Not one.

 

[matt0611]

There is not one mention in the Constitution that money has to be backed by an asset. Not one.

It doesn't need to specifically mention it because congress has only the powers given to it in Article 1 Section 8.

On money, it has the power to coin money.
It doesn't even have the power to "emit bills of credit" (which is what federal reserve notes are, they were at one time promises to pay in lawful money).

 

[LegendKiller]

It doesn't need to specifically mention it because congress has only the powers given to it in Article 1 Section 8.

On money, it has the power to coin money.
It doesn't even have the power to "emit bills of credit" (which is what federal reserve notes are, they were at one time promises to pay in lawful money).

Coining money is a very generic term that does not prohibit fiat currency. A coin can be just was worthless as paper. Conversely, paper can be backed by a coin (metal generically speaking). So, effectively, your "coin" clause is logically and semantically worth about as much as you believe paper is worth.

Now, as far as your "bills of credit", STATES cannot emit bills of credit.


Jeebus, this is the best you can do? Some half-asset bullshit "I know the Constitution" on the eve of the celebration of Independence Day? Go back to school, kid.

Fucking righties wrap themselves in something they don't even understand. Any fucking newb who took one single iota of a law class (I took several and have a con law book on my bookshelf) would know this.

 

[matt0611]

Coining money is a very generic term that does not prohibit fiat currency. A coin can be just was worthless as paper. Conversely, paper can be backed by a coin (metal generically speaking). So, effectively, your "coin" clause is logically and semantically worth about as much as you believe paper is worth.

Now, as far as your "bills of credit", STATES cannot emit bills of credit.


Jeebus, this is the best you can do? Some half-asset bullshit "I know the Constitution" on the eve of the celebration of Independence Day? Go back to school, kid.

Fucking righties wrap themselves in something they don't even understand. Any fucking newb who took one single iota of a law class (I took several and have a con law book on my bookshelf) would know this.

States cannot issue bills of credit OR coin money, the constitution mentions both of them and denies the states both. They are separate things.

States cannot emit bills of credit and neither can congress because its never given it the power!

Then, just as now, to coin has always meant "to make (coinage) by stamping metal"

or "fashion[ing] pieces of metal into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamp[ing] them with prescribed devices"

"To stamp a metal, and convert it into money; to mint." - from Websters 1828 dictionary btw

Even if you did make a coin out of plastic (because obviously no one even knew what plastic was), it would have to be stamped at such a low value.

For the same reason copper coins were never valued at the same value silver was.

Sorry, coining money is not a "generic" term, pfft. No powers to create fiat money found.
Seems like you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

So much for that degree, hope you didn't spend too much money on it

 

[LegendKiller]

Even if one were to take the literal definition of "coin", there are many other basic arguments for a fiat currency that doesn't make it unconstitutional. The point that because it was prohibited to the states and isn't mentioned in the federal, then it wasn't enumerated to the federal is nonsensical.



http://www.economicstability.org/history/the-coinage-clause-in-the-constitution

According to the original understanding, the Constitution’s Coinage Clause granted to Congress the express power to coin money and bestow legal tender quality upon that money. A similar power of lesser, but still broad, scope was also created by the Commerce Clause, for part of the eighteenth-century definition of “regulating commerce” was the issuance and regulation of the media of exchange.

In addition, the money thus “coined” did not need to be metallic. Paper or any other material that Congress selected would suffice. Because the power to coin paper was express, it requires no justification by the incidental powers doctrine of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Supreme Court’s opinions in the Legal Tender Cases did rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause, and to that extent their reasoning was at odds with the original understanding. However, the outcome of those cases – that Congress had authority to issue legal tender paper money – was correct as a matter of original understanding. Originalists or others propounding interpretive theories, therefore, need not make any special accommodation for the holdings of the Legal Tender Cases.

Of course, you can be the nth person to challenge the fiat currency as unconstitutional, but really, you'd just be a failure as the ones before. Contrary to Ron Paul, it isn't unconstitutional and anybody with an ability to reason themselves out of a wet paper bag can see that.

But hey, at least my degrees are worth more than your brain obviously is, even if the only immediately produceable evidence I have of them is paper, but even that paper is worth more than your intellectual abilities. Nice try.

States cannot issue bills of credit OR coin money, the constitution mentions both of them and denies the states both. They are separate things.

States cannot emit bills of credit and neither can congress because its never given it the power!

Then, just as now, to coin has always meant "to make (coinage) by stamping metal"

or "fashion[ing] pieces of metal into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamp[ing] them with prescribed devices"

"To stamp a metal, and convert it into money; to mint." - from Websters 1828 dictionary btw

Even if you did make a coin out of plastic (because obviously no one even knew what plastic was), it would have to be stamped at such a low value.

For the same reason copper coins were never valued at the same value silver was.

Sorry, no powers to create fiat money found.
Seems like you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[DominionSeraph]

^ gold is fiat currency, you moron.

 

[matt0611]

Lmao, "commerce clause", please.

Its crystal clear from the dictionary definition and the constitution that "bills of credit" and "money" are two entirely mutually exclusive things.
Nice try though.

 

[LegendKiller]

^ gold is fiat currency, you moron.

I've said that many times, people just don't seem to get it. Not sure why they don't pick something else as their sound-money basis, like Titanium or Palladium or even uranium. Something with actual value, not just what the market thinks it's worth for jewelry.

 

[LegendKiller]

Lmao, "commerce clause", please.

Obviously you didn't go through the whole thing, they make an argument for paper even using the coinage, that argument has been upheld by the USSC.

 

[matt0611]

^ gold is fiat currency, you moron.

gold is a precious metal you moron
fiat money is paper backed by nothing but law

Come on pony boy, try to keep up.

 

[Matthiasa]

It's a precious metal because we say it is, hint the value you give for it is that of the fiat currency you hate so much. Meaning that its value is just that.
Seriously even iron is more useful then gold is.

 

[matt0611]

Its a precious metal because we say it is, Hint the value you give for it is that of the fiat currency you hate so much. Meaning that its value is just that.
Seriously even iron is more useful then gold is.

Water is more useful than diamonds. We can't live without water, so water should be more expensive?

Tell you what, I'll give you an oz of iron, you give me an oz of gold, deal?
If you truly valued iron more than gold you'd take the deal.

 

[soccerballtux]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ion-hurts-the-poor-more-says-ifs-2297175.html

Obviously.

Anyway, it's about damn time someone other than the Mises Institute has done a great study on this. U.S. Govt stats and CNN will tell you otherwise, but they're full of shit.

Why would the ruling class set inflationary policies if it didn't help them? QE2 hasn't worked and the countries (U.K., US) with the most stimulus (inflation, spending) still have the highest unemployment. Switzerland is doing quite well with their low and Flat tax, strong currency, and decreasing public debt. Even France is doing better than U.S. is.

I hope Keynes is burning in Hell as I type this.

it forces us to invest our money otherwise lose it to inflation.
Pisses me off. It's why they make storing wealth in gold more difficult, because it allows you to let your money sit on its ass and not be exposed to risk.

The democrats are OK with it because if the system collapses it leaves you crying to the government for help. It's a win/win/win!

 

[soccerballtux]

There is not one mention in the Constitution that money has to be backed by an asset. Not one.

It doesn't need to specifically mention it because congress has only the powers given to it in Article 1 Section 8.

On money, it has the power to coin money.
It doesn't even have the power to "emit bills of credit" (which is what federal reserve notes are, they were at one time promises to pay in lawful money).

Why not? Everything falls under "promoting the general welfare" these days.

 

[LegendKiller]

Water is more useful than diamonds. We can't live without water, so water should be more expensive?

Tell you what, I'll give you an oz of iron, you give me an oz of gold, deal?
If you truly valued iron more than gold you'd take the deal.

Your bill of credit is an invalid argument as that is something prohibited by the States but not prohibited for the USG. As pointed out in the text, that argument is expressio unius est exclusio alterius and therefore not applicable to the USG.

Funny, diamonds are, effectively, worthless. They have a constrained supply met with artificial demand driven by DeBeer's marketing campaign. Gold has about the same type of value, although the supply is more naturally constrained. The demand is set by a historical marketing campaign. Both examples are purely a psychological construct.

I do find it funny that you want to cherry pick the Constitutional articles to suit your own goal, although both sections do not prohibit paper currency, as highlighted in that paper written by a person far smarter than you are. If it were unconstitutional, why don't you go and sue the Fed and be the first (and smartest) person in history to be successful. Do it, I double dog dare you.

 

[LegendKiller]

it forces us to invest our money otherwise lose it to inflation.
Pisses me off. It's why they make storing wealth in gold more difficult, because it allows you to let your money sit on its ass and not be exposed to risk.

The democrats are OK with it because if the system collapses it leaves you crying to the government for help. It's a win/win/win!

gold is a shitty inflation hedge, always has been, always will be.

 

[LegendKiller]

Why not? Everything falls under "promoting the general welfare" these days.

Hey look, another clown who didn't take a con-law class either, or even bothered to read the article above. But hey, YouTube is a fine place to gain well-rounded historically and intellectually rooted basis for Constitutional application and interpretation.

 

[soccerballtux]

I've said that many times, people just don't seem to get it. Not sure why they don't pick something else as their sound-money basis, like Titanium or Palladium or even uranium. Something with actual value, not just what the market thinks it's worth for jewelry.

IMO gold would not be what it is had most of the regimes in history not been mesopotamian in ethnicity, thus mildly to moderately middle-eastern. Gold looks MUCH better on their skin tones than it does on white people's fairer skin. Ever seen a gold ring on an Indian? Looks like diamond set in silver on a caucasian.

 

[soccerballtux]

It's a precious metal because we say it is, hint the value you give for it is that of the fiat currency you hate so much. Meaning that its value is just that.
Seriously even iron is more useful then gold is.

meh guys it's really not THAT simple. In order of importance
1. nearly every ruling authority and power in history has ascribed value to gold
2. everybody thinks it looks good
3. it feels like it's worth something. It's dense.
4. there's a finite amount of it thus not everybody can have all of it that they want.

water doesn't count because it fails #4. It rains all the time and there are streams where the stuff just keeps coming and coming.

Fiat currency is nowhere close because the fiat de-jour changes every 100 years, and doesn't feel like it's worth something, it's a piece of paper with numbers on it, there's not a finite amount of it we can just print more, and you can't wear it and "look like money" in quite the same way like you can with gold, palladium, and diamonds. Technically yes gold is fiat, but when all of written history agrees to it's value, it can only be considered fiat "academically" or "technically" speaking.