8 votes

Bill Still continues Max Keiser attacks on Gold Standard and Austrian Economics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVlqwJ00LMU

Continuing in his tradition of pushing for a fiat "debt-free" Greenback dollar, Bill Still has launched yet another attack on Austrian School of economics. He is continuing Max Keiser's ill-advised attack on Austrian economics, and in fact enmity with Tom Woods. He's making same ridiculous statement that von Mises institute, Ron Paul etc are "fake" libertarians. He has literally embedded garbage spewing out of Max Keiser's mouth as argument to "strengthen" his claim. The fact is, using juvenile diatribes of Max Keiser only weaken Bill Stills' argument, if anything.

Bill Still makes a ridiculous claim that Austrian school of economics is only obsessed with gold standard and DOES NOT care about problem of fractional reserve banking. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where is it established that establishing gold standard is totally disconnected from abolishing fractional reserve banking? There is nothing stopping establishment of gold standard being combined with abolishing of fractional reserve banking.

I've already posted comment on Tom Woods' blog alerting him of this nonsense. I'm sure Tom Woods is more than capable of tearing down Bill Stills' illogical argument, just as he is tearing down Max Keiser.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Interest-Free Government-Issued Greenbacks

would HAVE to be better as a medium of exchange than interest-bearing, PRIVATELY-issued DEBT NOTES. They may not be perfect (what is?), but they'd have to be an improvement over the Federal Reserve "system" (and what a system it is!).

I fully "get" the argument for a commodity-backed currency (gold, silver, chonch shells) to tether the production of money to some physical thing of value, but commodities have shown themselves to be too easy to manipulate and control (gold confiscation of '33 comes to mind). Why do you think the central banks are ALL scrambling to hoard gold? A "gold standard" in this current lawless environment will just be more of the same. The Founders had it wrong- they assumed no one small entity would ever capture the bi-metal market. Whoops-

Fractional reserve banking... that's just plain old common theft.

Mad Max has been a paper bug for awhile.

He tried to get Ellen Brown, paper bug extraordinaire, to debate Gary North. Ellen and Bill both understand the problem they just think that the government printing un-backed, unlimited fiat is the answer. Pretty, pretty, pretty, bizarre.

Libertarianism is separate

Libertarianism is separate from liberty. Liberty allows for the Libertarian party and the other parties. Free people ought to disagree, but don't get the cart before the horse and think that a true libertarian is defined by a party. Either way, all political parties are simply tools to win elections. In-fighting/attacks are simply ineffective means of sharing ideas. One might be right, both might be right, neither might be right, but any behavior that leads to closed-mindedness and emotional beliefs are nonconstructive.

Perhaps it is best to deny

Perhaps it is best to deny them any attention at all. I think Max Keiser knows he screwed up and now feels he has to save face somehow. Adding fuel to this ridiculous argument by giving it attention is counterproductive. imho.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

The problem is: Unlike Max

The problem is: Unlike Max Keiser (who is a rah-rah Alex Jones like rabble rouser), Bill Still projects a calmer, more professional (somewhat equivalent to G. Edward Griffin) demeanor. Due to this, there is danger of the false messiah message spreading.

It's almost bizarre that Bill Still chooses to use footage from a wacko like Max Keiser to "prove" his flawed argument.

In any event, since Tom Woods is a strong and very professional debater, I feel it's far more likelier for him to debate Bill Still. I don't expect any sort of meaningful debate between Tom Woods and a jerk like Max Keiser. At least with Bill Still, there is some hope to maybe have a debate and put this argument to rest once and for all.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!
http://facebook.com/NoPropagandaZone
http://twitter.com/the_chiefe71

Control of money creation and

Control of money creation and issuance is the issue. All RPers should agree on that issue. To those RPers who agree, you agree acknowledge Bill Still is correct: He says control is the issue. The money issue is simple and is easy to understand.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

"Meet Bill Still: Fiat Money Advocate"

by G Edward Griffin (author of "The Creature From Jekyll Island")

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?...

I've read two paragraphs of

I've read two paragraphs of Griffin's essay. He hasn't defined fiat. What's he say fiat means?

Aside from G's definition, here is fiat's definition:

Fiat: a decree; an authoritative statement, a statement from a source that covers a society.

Notice fiat has nothing to do with material, whether a material be paper, metal or other.

Continually DPers misuse the word fiat. I'd estimate 90% of DPers believe fiat means paper money or something related to paper. Why do most DPers believe that? The misunderstanding of the word fiat is a serious error in debating money's significance, because vocabulary, therefore meaning, is the basis of argument.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

if you read his Creature from Jekyll Island

you'll know that he clearly understands the proper definition of what the word "fiat" means in its original context: 'let it be so'/'by decree'/'arbitrary and/or tyrannical hierarchic dictate,' etc.

plus if you've seen him in any of his numerous interviews over the years, you'll never mistake the fact that Griffin knows what the real definition of the term is.

P.S. also, while I completely understand the point you're making about the conflating of the term "fiat" with "fake," one would not be 100% 'wrong,' as if something has no value but some a-hole comes along to dictate that it has value, well, a decree does not make a fake empty item to suddenly imbue it with value, so 'in a sense' it is 'almost same' as 'fake' at least when it comes to monetary discussions.

but it's true, it's misused with equal frequency as those who confuse "aggravate" which means to 'make worse,' NOT 'frustrate' which it's commonly misused as.

I suppose it's almost like "irregardless." Technically it's a misnomer and a non-existent term, but it's been used for so long, it eventually became an accepted dictionary listed term.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

G. Edward Griffin: Fiat

Griffin's letter, or essay, was a reply, a reaction. He reacted to Still. His reaction was meant to disqualify Still's argument saying that Still wants fiat money. Griffin said the word fiat without defining his comprehension of it. That word, fiat, is the base of his rebuttal and of the argument on money.

When in debate, each debater should define his terms. I recall Still did define fiat. If my recollection is wrong, that Still didn't define fiat, then shame on him. If the initiator of debate didn't define his terms, the reactor should define his terms and ask the initiator his definitions of the terms he uses. Why? Because terms and definitions are the commonality, the basis, the floor -- starting point -- of debate. I think terms and definitions, however, are not only the starting point of debate but are the mortar of debate, the vessel of debate, what carries and shapes debate.

What I concluded when I read Griffin's essay and reflected on it knowing he didn't define fiat in its opening or anywhere in it, I thought this:

Because 1) Griffin's essay was a reaction 2) the topic of it was fiat money, 3) Griffin claimed Still wants to swap fiat money for fiat money and 4) Griffin made that claim while using language that is meant to denounce Still's argument, it's incumbent on Griffin to define his terms -- the significant, or pivotal, words. The first term he should have defined is fiat.

For a reactor (read: person who reacts) in a debate, and no less than someone who invited himself into the debate,

1) to not define his terms after the initiator did define his terms or
2) when the reactor didn't define his terms after the initiator didn't define his terms, which the reactor should have because it enhances his credibility even possibly at the expense of the initiator, the reactor loses credibility and if this absence happens again, it's correct to investigate his past work -- his use of language before then.

AnCapMercenary, language is friend and foe to everyone. One piece of evidence used to evaluate authenticity, genuineness and sincerity where language is is excessive language: adjective and adverb use and, to a degree less than their uses, discourse length. Adjective and adverbs are subjective uses, and because they are, they demand definitions or, absent them which shouldn't be, that context (read: the composition) defines them.

Griffin didn't take the easy route -- define fiat -- and his essay sat on lengthy analogy (which I found weak) and misrepresented what Still said.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Old news is fine when the

Old news is fine when the context involves it, but forcing the reader, listener or opposition to consult history to understand the author's comprehension of a word presently is laziness. An author should define his words instead of leaving his opponent, listener or reader to do dig up the author's work whether that work is from yesterday or last century.

The point of putting information forth is:

to carry a message from its sender to its receiver.

This process is without clutter because clutter causes rereading, the fault of the author's. Does the author want or not want to convey his message? Is he requiring his listener or reader to labor or to read/listen? Authors research, readers/listeners read/listen. After reading (or listening), the reader can research the author's claims, of course. Reader's discretion.

By the way, I have the C of J Island.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

To be fair, Ron Paul isn't a

To be fair, Ron Paul isn't a very good libertarian, because he believes that state government have broad power in enacting legislation. He's even applauded the usefulness and necessity of legislation at a local level.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a