User talk:Misessus

Welcome

Hello, Misessus, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DickClarkMises (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Misessus, I just wanted to explain and clarify that I had asked for a checkuser on your account not as a personal matter - another user with a long, storied history of sockpuppetry (including using accounts to take "opposite" views and using several at the same time) with literally dozens of accounts was being checked, and I decided to make certain this was not happening again. Your editing just happened to coincide in a few key ways with that editor's - primarily timing. It was not intended as an attack upon you, just a normal check given the extremely disruptive behaviour of that editor. As such, I hope that you will not take it personally.

I continue to disagree with you on some key issues and the degree of presentation/prominence of matters Austrian, but disagreements of that nature are normal and can be handled on the discussion pages, hopefully without rancour.--Gregalton (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi Misessus. This is just a quick word of advice. I suggest that you don't waste too much time arguing with MainstreamEconomist. I can't say anything for certain but the fact that he has turned up out of nowhere (with no past editing history) and jumped straight into arguing with us, combined with the fact that our incumbent troll has a past history of using straw man sockpuppets to advocate views opposite from his own, makes me suspicious. I know that we disagree about a lot but I would hate to see this guy yanking your chain. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misessus, I will leave you to the mercy of Wikipedia. :-) :-) :-)

Daniel, I have only one view. It agrees with yours and part of Misessus. Kind of neutral, hey?

Daniel, although I feel your are an honest broker, you wear the blinkers of what is generally accepted and you are quite paranoid and a bit naive. You should learn with time to place more trust in the good faith of mankind and not to believe everything you read on Wikipedia as always the absolute factual truth. Remember, new discoveries are being made all the time, peer reviewed and then revealed to the general public - even here on Wikipedia, although you do not realize it. You have read it many times in the article but you cannot see the difference it makes to everything in the economy.

Daniel, not everyone is only interested in "yanking your chain" (I am not sure I even know exactly what it means) and all that jazz: some of us are actually interested in real economics and its development and will seek to take the best from every school of thought (including the Austrians) and build the future thereon. On the way we will encounter people like you too. That is generally accepted.

MainstreamEconomist (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DanielRigal, you are the troll here, are you not? Let´s be honest.

MainstreamEconomist (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments

You wrote: Dear friend,

What in the name of all that is good and pure have you written in the preface?

Response --- That preface is copied from the cited source. Those words are not directly mine. I trusted that the source was valid -- I am repeating it here.

Check below -- I am interspersing my response within your comments see /////////

CHAPTER I

PREFACE

1. Who has the right to create money in the United States? Under the Constitution, it is the right and duty of Congress to create money. It is left entirely to Congress.

2. To whom has the Congress delegated this money creating right? To the banking system, that is, to the Federal Reserve System and to the commercial banks of the country.

3. Why is the money-creating power important? Because, by creating money, banks provide the exchange media which the economy needs to prosper and grow. Since the growth and proper functioning of the U.S. economy require increasing amounts of money over the years, those who control the amount of money exercise great power over business activity, the incomes people earn and economic strength.

4. Why was the banking system given the right to create money? The reasons are mainly historical. Still the banks do perform a service in creating money. For once the money and credit is created someone must decide whom to give the money and for what purposes. This the banks do. And bank earnings are the return for wise and proper placing of the money supply.

1. The Constitution does not allow Congress to create money./////// are you saying Patman is completely wrong? ////////The Constitution explicitely prohibits the issuance of bills of credit ///////// Please tell me exactly where that appears in the constitution ////// is a bill of credit a synonym for "money"? ////// and clearly states that the only legal tender is gold and silver. //// are legal tender and Money precisely the same thing?

2. The Federal Reserve system was founded 1913, well over a 100 years after the framing of the Constitution. To say that the Constitution authorizes Congress to create money //// " ... coin money and regulate the value thereof ...??" and that Congress has delegated that right to the Fed is completely absurd. //////// Patman did not say Congress instantly gave that right to the Federal Reserve system -- I guess they waited until 1913.

3. A growing economy does not need new money to be created. If it did, how exactly do you think the economies have grown before th existance of central banks? /// I have no idea -- did economies grow without creating new money?? -- which ones?? ????? --- Patman claims that new money is needed -- are you saying new money never has to be created //////// If the money supply remains constant and the production increases, the value of the money goes up.//// Are you saying there is never a need to create new money? I have read that theory somewhere and it made sense to me as a theory -- but I doubt that any country follows that theory //////// There is absolutely no need to create more units of money. ///// I suppose you might be right in theory -- but I do not think this has been put into practice in any major country for any length of time. Nor do I think it is practical. ////////// In fact, it is that very practice that has lead to economic downturns over and over again. ////////// Perhaps ?? ??? //////////

4. There is no history whatsoever to the supposed right to create money, given to the banks. //////// how did the Fed get the right to issue money? ////// The fractional-reserve system enables the central bank to keep up its operations. ////// I do not understand what you mean in the preceding sentence ////// I believe the fractional reserve system ( of banking) is wonderful invention that allows for virtually unlimited expansion of wealth ////// there is a lot of information on the fractional reserve system at the link I sent you /// As for the banks' profits being the return for a wise and proper placement of the money supply, just how well did the banks do during the 1920s? /////// the fact that the banks screwed up in the '20s or now /// does not negate Patman's statement -- He did not claim they would always be wise -- In fact he more or less said they were untrustworthy and that they should be replaced ///////// Or how well have they been doing now? //////// who is defending them??? -- certainly not me ///////////

Are you for real, or is this some sort of an oversized bad joke? ///// no need for sarcasm -- let's be polite??? ///// Martycarbone (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misessus (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for writing

I will check my sources and make needed corrections. I am sort of new to this and can't respond off the top of my head.

Thanks again -- I always welcome well meaning criticism.

Here is my email address -- martycarbone@yahoo.com. Perhaps corresponding by email would be easier. Martycarbone (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check << http://www.howto-ville.com/moneykaboom.html >>

Inflation = Increase in the Money Supply = Increased Debt/Credit/Borrowing/Lending

Just a note of thanks for your words of encouragement. Before I get barred again, I thought I might clarify some of my minor edits on inflation. The terrific (pro-Austrian) article by Mike Hewitt (now in the refs) makes clear that the simple characterization of inflation being the printing of paper "fiat currency" (Weimar Republic-style) is now too-simplistic a notion for what is going on in credit markets today.

True fiat currency (printing pieces of debt-free paper currency) died off with silver certificates. We are left with money supply growth from borrowing. From debt. From the issuance of credit. That is, money comes from increases in M3 through new borrowing through fractional reserve banking techniques. That kind of money supply growth/inflation has different characteristics to the fiat/Weimar experience. Ironically, under this Ponzi-like system of money supply, inflation is happening (the currency is being debased), but at the same time people feel there is a "shortage" of money (the indebted fruitlessly run around trying to find the yet-to-be created money required to pay the INTEREST on the all the loans). This pro-Austrian piece is the best summation I've found on the paradoxical nature of the current debt-based system.

The pro-Austrian Mogambo Guru also does a nice job of explaining it here. I picture it like a mad treadmill, where people have to keep running faster and faster just to stay in the one spot. Inflation is a temporary relief in this system, and "welcomed", like a drug addict getting another hit - only for the machine to go faster when the interest on the new debt is due. Of course, von Mises described this crack-up boom as well as any scholar ever has. A great summation on the crack up boom is contained here.

So with this kind of bank-created debt money we can have "mad" inflation AND monetary "shortages" and widespread bankruptcies.

I know you're very familar with this, but I just wanted to provide detail to justify the slight additions to the Austrian school position.

Be well. - TruthComesFromAGunBoat (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely right, inflation today includes much more than the mere creation of new credit. The FRB-system is extremely detrimental, as it expands the injected credit many times over. I've been very pleased to see you clarify what Austrians claim is going in such detail, as my own ambition has always limited itself to the broader overview and the original definition of inflation. Even if the state has come a long way since the days of melting gold coins, the basic principle remains the same, and that is what I wanted to bring forth. I think it is fair to say that we've done a good job :)

It is very gratifying to see the Austrian view displayed on WP, and thanks to your edits it is easy for anyone to see what view makes more sense. Winning this "battle" may prove very important, as millions of people prefer looking stuff up on WP instead of reading academic litterature. Now the readers of WP get the whole story, which they desrve, despite what the self appointed cencors think.

Also, thank you for the external links. Some I have read, but others I haven't so I'm looking forward to remedy that.

Misessus (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, FRB expands the initial injection of Fed-created "out of nothing" fiat many times over (greatly compounding the "debasement" effect). It also has many other terribly destructive effects, including creating a "predatory-prey" economic culture (bully-banks doing nothing other than clipping coupons and collecting interest, while the indebted run around killing themselves to pay the interest on the loans), volatile hyperinflation in housing (banks always look to inflate housing as it is an "essential" need - shelter), extreme inequality (well-connected vs. indebted everyone else), consumerism, excess pollution through "over"-production, unsustainable economic development, and massive speculative bubbles (just to name a few). But once it starts, few people want it to (or can afford it to) stop, because, as von Mises recognized as far back as 1912, when it stops this causes mass bankruptcy and a searing depression. What Keynes euphemistically called the "paradox of thrift". Can you believe we haven't progressed substantially beyond von Mises' seminal work of 1912? It shows just how corrupted the incestuous economics "profession" has become. If anything, we have regressed. What other "science" can lay claim to that "achievement"?

And just on that second-rate plagiarizer John Maynard Keynes, can you believe the moral bankruptcy of a "man" who actively looked for ways to keep the madness going ("in the end we're all dead") rather than admitting to its real causes? Unsurprisingly he was a dear, close (loving?) friend of a certain rather prominant bwanker family. Predictably and simple-mindedly (short cuts were his forte apparently), he fell back on the obvious, "easy" short-term solution of debt-sourced government spending to keep the game of musical chairs alive. Eventually this resulted in WWII. Great "solution" to the problem of bank-created depressions, non?

Read Rothbard's devastating critique of that shallow hedonistic shadow of Silvio Gesell, and I'm sure you'd agree he was one of the most destructive "intellectuals" of the 20th century. I cannot contain my contempt for what his poorly plagiarized ideas have wrought. Not when we are looking at the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. To think these kinds of basic economic errors are still being made in the "high-tech" 21st century! Thank God I was kicked out of academia for being too "radical". I would hate to feel responsible for the mess we are now in. - TruthComesFromAGunBoat (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]