Bitcoin Forum

Ron Paul states deficit spending is a tax.  But, is not deficit spending really theft.  It is no different that if they go around take money out off everybody's bank accounts and wallets.  Then they go around like your kids are going to have to pay it back.  It all is a big government lie.  Only people with bank accounts are going to pay it back.  Your kids are never going to pay it back, because the debt will be even higher.  They don't give a crap as long as they get to spend it on earned income tax credits for millionaires or line the pockets of their friends.  Government spending is money to the rich.  The poor are to busy working mowing lawns and washing windows.   How do they get paid, from the money they stole out of the laborers wallet.  So you really think Obama is out to help you, Obamcare?  that is your money anyways, Obama could implement the Japanese system and really save you a bunch of cash.  Washington has been infiltrated by idiots and the only hope to get them (the rats) out is currency crash.  End of the U.S. dollar. 

end of my 3;00 am rant. gn

Why are you so concerned? Just live your life to the fullest, not thinking about pointless stuff like that  :)

All government taxation is theft; what does it matter if it's deficit spending or not? (deficit spending being borrowing, which is simply deferred theft)

The extraction of money from the citizenry by governments using their monopoly on legal force is theft.  Some might argue that in the long run, allowing that theft means that good works are done with the stolen money and hence is a net positive.  Personally I don't think that changes the fact that it's theft.  And personally I don't think theft is a good basis for government.

As 5th November says though: whatchagonnado?  Whoever we vote for we always get the government.  It's that logic that has led me to being a bitcoin proponent: the only way to reduce government (given that voting doesn't work) is to take power from them.  Bitcoin use seems an excellent way (to me) of doing that.

Taxation is theft from the current generation of taxpayers.
Deficit spending is theft from a future generation of taxpayers.
Inflation is theft from holders of a currency.

However, it's different for people who voted for politicians who tax, voted for politicians who spend into deficit, and voted for politicians who inflate the currency. Taxation is not theft from those voters, who asked for it. One might even say those voters are complicit in the theft from those who did not vote for it.

i partly agree, on the two first.
but can't agree on the last: you are not losing anything, except some imaginary value, that only exists in your head.

"Give me that bag of crisps"  "no it's mine" "I'll give it back, don't worry".  Munch, munch, munch.  "Hey! You've eaten half of them" "Erm; okay; well here's some gravel to make the bag up to the same weight.  After all, the crisps were only some imaginary value that only existed in your head".

What you say is nonsense.  Assume you work an hour in 2008 and are paid $50 for it.  In 2012, the government prints 100% more money.  Your $50 in 2012 is now worth $25 in 2008 money, which is when you earned it.

It would be more accurate for the poster to have written:

"Inflation is theft from the past."

can you point at your stuff that got stolen? no, you can't.
you should be angry at any producer of any kind of stuff that you own. because its fall in value, when they produce more of the stuff.

After I've eaten your crisps can you point at what was stolen?

If I trick you into supplying me a service that I then don't pay for (or pay for with, for example, counterfeit dollars) can you point to what was stolen?

When the value of the hour work I performed last year is represented by subsequently devalued dollars, can you point at the half hour that was stolen from me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

I expect producers to produce more; but it's not unreasonable for me to desire (or require) that the value of the hour I worked last year remains at the value that was paid for it, rather than being inflated away on the whim of the person guarding the printing press.

It doesn't matter in the end, because enough of this theft by inflation will cause people to (a) not bother deferring consumption (b) moving to a different store of value that doesn't enable such stealthy theft (people will find themselves better off when they store in bitcoin; there can be only one result as that meme spreads)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft :
are you missing any of your dollars?

How could someone else borrowing money to spend on what they want be theft? Oh they're going to take from me to pay it back? That part does sound like theft.

Yes; in my example, I am missing 50% of my 2008 dollars; which my government has achieved by turning them into 2012 dollars.

nope! they just lost their value because of supply.

QFT.  When you use a government currency to store your wealth, you know that its subject to inflation.  If the value of your currency goes down, its no more theft than if the value of your houses goes down.

I agree. However, we are forced to use the government monopoly currency; forced to make a bad investment. If there was competing currencies then this wouldn't be a problem. People would just use a currency that wasn't being printed like mad.

Also, consider that the government gets to consume real resources from the marketplace with those printed dollars. Forcing the market to accept worthless paper in exchange for tangible goods is kinda like theft. Not literally, but practically.

Voting is only there to distract you from actually doing something that could change the culture.  Once you vote you think you are done and someone else will do the hard work.  Instead go start a business, learn some new things and teach someone else not to be dependent on the government.

You do realize every money-spending bill was vetoed, right? And that one to save 800 Billion was trashed by the legislature because "it was not enough"?

They did not lose value "because of supply".  In the context of money, more supply is the equivalent of more people willing to lend, which is not what happens with money printing.  They lost value because of counterfeiting.

If you had 5 gold coins in your desk drawer; and I break into your house and swap them for 5 coins made of 50% fools gold and 50% gold; is that "increased supply" of gold coins?

Correct.

But with bitcoin, you knew that when you bought the coins.  You also know how long, how much and when that inflation will stop.  One could argue that your purchase/acceptance of bitcoins is tacit agreement to that policy.

With governments, it's done on a whim.  You are forced to use their money (governments only accept their own currencies to settle tax debts).

In the end money's primary purpose (for the people) is a token which functions as a store of wealth. Creating more tokens not backed by actual value is theft of buying power from current holders. Some might describe this system as a pyramid scheme. I can point to what was stolen when the federal reserve banks buy up capitol at dirt cheap prices using the buying power directly stolen from current holders.

You deposit your gold with me and I give you bearer bonds, then just print as many bonds as I like, in effect devaluing the value of the bond in the entire market. Once word gets out, there will be a run on physical delivery, the real gold (capitol) will run out, and your notes will in effect be worthless. It is nothing more than a global version of the cup and ball trick. Every fiat note you hold is on fire. Spend it before all you have left is ashes.

Sure money is being printed, but a lot of money was also destroyed.  

What's the problem?  Inflation is still low.

I'm not sure if you're serious, but ... price inflation is positive, and greater than interest rates. Because of this, most people can't effectively build up a low-risk nest egg for the future security of themselves and their families. They therefore become dependent on the state, and to help fund this the state creates even more inflation.

The problem is that a lot of people here believe in what's called the Austrian school of economics and it insists that inflation must be high as a result of interest rates being low and the Fed printing money.  Its one of those cases where reality doesn't match theory so reality gets ignored.

Let me try to explain why I think inflation is low.  Please correct any flaws in my reasoning.

It has generally been observed that, in the short term, there is an inverse correlation between unemployment and inflation.  Unemployment is high.

Another argument can be made, when we acknowledge that there is a natural rate of unemployment.  The unemployment rate oscillates around this natural rate.  Now, if we hold the rate of inverse correlation to inflation constant, we can see that the inflation rate similarly oscillates.  Perhaps the average can be called the natural rate of inflation.  This is a non-zero number.

Before saying that printing money and low interest rates cause inflation, we have to look at the circumstances.  Much money was lost when banks cut lending.  This money was replaced, and then some.  In order for the replacement money to cause inflation, it must first be spent.  Due to low demand and reluctant lending, this is not happening.  So inflation remains low.  Increased demand would increase inflation.

It is true that we have a negative real interest rate.  This does not mean that inflation is high; interest rates are low.  The idea is to make other investments more attractive.  Investment here can mean real estate, stocks, increased lending, or a new tv.

The problem is your lack of understanding of the federal reserve fractional banking system. Every dollar created is backed only 10% in "real capitol", but even that "real capitol" is based upon inflated dollars that have already been leveraged several times as it snowballs upon itself. The network of major federal reserve banks are literally handed the money by the federal reserve out of thin air, just digits punched into a computer. Even if they are not lending they are STILL buying up capitol at fire sale prices so they can leverage that even further to take advantage of the fractional reserve system while it lasts and before the ponzi fails.

BTW look up "Shadow Stats" for some interesting data analysis.