27 votes

Should Minimum Wage Be A Crime?

Politicians love to get votes by claiming they help people by raising the minimum wage. They claim that raising the minimum wage is good so people can have a livable wage.

Anyone who has put some thought to the subject can see how criminal this concept is.

Wages are determined by ones productivity. If the minimum wage is $7.50 per hour, people who are low skilled and whose productivity is worth $0.01 to $7.49 per hour are not able to work by law. It has become illegal for young people, handicapped or low skilled people to work.

The fast food workers are demanding $15.00 per hour minimum wage. If they get their way, they will protest themselves out of a job. Anyone whose productivity is between $0.01 to $14.99 per hour will not be able to work by law. This will be in every job market that pays a wage under $15.00 per hour.

If you pass laws forcing low skilled workers and young people out of work, people are most likely going to try to make money in illegal ways. This increases crime and creates a revolving door for people into prisons.

Another note on the subject is when young people work for low wages, the learn skills that they can use in the future. The best time to learn how to change oil or a tire on a car at a gas station is when people are young and not needing the low wage to support themselves or a family.

The big question:
Should the politicians responsible for passing minimum wage laws be criminally liable for destroying peoples lives?

http://www.treubigshow.com/forum/16

Comment viewing options

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

Like Drug And Firearms Posssession

It is a completely non-violent "crime" -- and victimless too, because the worker is not being forced to work for a low wage; he or she is free to take or leave the offer.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Thomas Sowell On Minimum Wage

Tom Woods is right: He is a good writer:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell091713.php3#.Um4CG2Q...

The minimum wage is not a floor that raises wages; it is a hurdle one must clear in order to receive wages.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

SteveMT's picture

Will it be a crime to obtain ANY wages in the future?

Karl Marx would say yes. Who in the government agrees is the question?

In less than 30 years, the

In less than 30 years, the competitive advantages of creativity and human invention will be utterly outflanked by the power of artificial intelligence. According to the math, by 2045 the equivalent of a home computer will contain the "brainpower" of every person on Earth. And we can probably safely say robots will be extremely advanced by then as well, far outperforming humans in nearly every physical respect.

What will be the value of human labor? What will be the value of human creativity and thought?

This is not true. There is

This is not true.

There is something called Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which basically proves that "A formal knowledge system (such as AI) can never be both consistent and complete" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel_incompleteness_theorem#F...

The implication of the above is that machines can never achieve general intelligence that we humans do, but can only achieve high degree of specialization (much like assembly lines and house-hold machines). There could be some specialized machines than can repair/maintain other machines, but at some level human intelligence will always be needed.

Advent of technology will always result in increased productivity, but will not replace labor completely across all economic sectors. Real wages will not be affected and humans will continue to be employed in those sectors where automation cost continues to be high.

It already is, isn't it?

Or did you mean "illegal"?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

fireant's picture

No, the big question is...

what business is it of the federal government to set a minimum wage? My read of the Constitution says it's a State issue.

Undo what Wilson did

moved

delete

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.

Cyril's picture

Minimum wage... minimum wage... but, in WHICH currency, btw?

Minimum wage... minimum wage... but, in WHICH currency, btw?

http://www.dailypaul.com/302646

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I always ask the collectivist

I always ask the collectivist minimum wage supporters; "If minimum wage should be set at $7 per hour, then why not $50, $75 or $50,000 per hour?"

They will come up with some

They will come up with some keynesian pseudo-mathematical model with statistics out of thin air, claiming that a minimum wage will only work for a marginal increase beyond which cost/price adjustments in the economy will kick-in and negate the minimum wage benefits.

They always have some government funded statistics to 'help' their case.

I have heard this response

I have heard this response before. Since we're playing in their logic by this point anyway, I like to reply with "Why should someone be denied a living wage based on "blah blah blah" reason they just stated?" They love hearing the words "denied a living wage".

Because empirical studies

Because empirical studies based on questionable mathematical models is not enough to justify a law rooted in coercion. Austrian economists have long argued that economics is the study of human action and that it is incredibly difficult to model a group of individuals and their decisions in an economic setup. To extend such models to a whole nation and complex economy is impossible. Simpler models fall into the broken window fallacy where economic impact on only one group is studied.

Labor is a commodity and just

Labor is a commodity and just like any other commodity it's subject to the law of supply and demand. It's as simple as that. Productivity is a meaningless metric in discussing wage prices.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

fireant's picture

Only in terms of large standardized scale, like unions.

In my shop, wage prices would be completely contingent upon productivity.

Undo what Wilson did

In a nutshell, that's

In a nutshell, that's basically what I've been trying to say.

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.

no

You absolutely are paid by how productive you are. You are incorrect that because it is a moving target due to share that technology or law impact it that you are not paid to produce. Rises in productivity due to technology do not mean you need to be paid more for technologies gain. Your job could be easier to produce 10 or 100x more than was done 100 years ago, that does not translate into wages going up 10 or 100x.

Supply and demand

Are you saying supply and demand isn't the main determinant on wages?

When demand is higher than supply, prices go up. When supply is higher than demand, prices fall. This applies to labor just like everything else. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

When productivity increases, you capture more profit only if you are an owner of the company or you are a worker with bargaining power. Increasing productivity can actually lower wages because company owners need fewer workers to produce more of the same product, which lowers their demand for more workers. Productivity gains can even lead to layoffs.

I'm not saying increasing productivity isn't a positive thing, I'm just saying it doesn't cause wage increases.

I agree that minimum wage laws are a joke and are harmful. I see them as a misdirection tactic politicians use to make it seem like they are doing something for wage earners while behind the scenes they are working to depress wages through international trade agreements like NAFTA, or the H-1B program, or amnesty for illegal immigrants, or increases in legal immigration quotas.

The Federal Reserve is a big advocate for mass immigration and free trade agreements because it was set up to benefit Wall Street banking interests, which have always sought to increase passive income streams by lowering labor costs.

If you are self employed or you own your own business, increasing your productivity will benefit you because you keep your profits. But if you are the most productive slave on the plantation, you aren't any better off than the slave next to you who works just hard enough to avoid the whip. A productive slave is merely enriching those who enslave him.

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.

When productivity increases,

When productivity increases, you capture more profit only if you are an owner of the company or you are a worker with bargaining power. Increasing productivity can actually lower wages because company owners need fewer workers to produce more of the same product, which lowers their demand for more workers. Productivity gains can even lead to layoffs.
What you say might be true for a monopoly or a oligopoly industry. Price fixing and control is easier to accomplish by companies when there are fewer players. Workers obviously lose bargaining power when working for colluding companies rather than competing companies.
It is no secret that most Government laws have been intentionally passed to out-law small businesses and create oligopolies in various industries (media, telecom, oil, auto, food, retail, education, medicine etc...)

The second thing that we should consider is the real wages and not nominal wages. Many of us miss this, because we are often looking at an industry or company in isolation. The nominal wages of an employee may not rise or even fall due to efficiency improvements/productivity increase in an industry, but the purchasing power of his wage will increase because goods will have lower prices due to widespread productivity increases. Again in an artificially controlled monopoly/oligopoly, such as lobbying companies with bankster friends, this will not hold true.

In summary, real wages actually matter and minimum (nominal) wage laws are useless especially in the current inflationary bubble with state sponsored oligopolies.

OK. But when you have an

OK. But when you have an oversupply of labor and increasing productivity, wages will still fall, even when there are no monopolies or oligopolies to speak of.

If you are one of only a few mechanics in a town with three garages, you can demand a raise from your employer and he might turn over more of his profits to you to keep you from looking for work at his competition. You have bargaining power because there aren't that many mechanics around.

If suddenly 1,000 mechanics show up due to an increase in immigration quotas and more garages open, your boss will be facing increasing price competition for the same amount of customers who now have more options. Your boss will resist increasing your pay even if you become twice as productive because of the sudden influx of eager unemployed mechanics willing to work for a lower wage.

If more garages open, it will only increase downward pressure on your boss's profits. The garages who pay the least will have a price advantage over you and your boss. There will be a strong incentive for your boss to cut your pay or let you go as long as there is a supply of unemployed mechanics eager for work.

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.

Do you want to talk about

Do you want to talk about demand-supply of labor or productivity improvements?

First, I didn't claim that the demand-supply equilibrium of labor didn't work. In fact, I wrote only about productivity improvements and potentital wage impacts to counter your specific argument. You were the one who claimed that productivity improvements will lower wages irrespective of demand and supply.

Second, I explained why real wages ought to be considered and why productive employees earn more purchasing power in a free market and why your point, that Productivity improvements are bad for wages, is wrong.

Lastly, in both the current scenario of over-supply of labor (unemployment is rampant) or the scenario of productivity improvments, minimum wage always creates more problems and solves none.

I agree about minimum wage

I think minimum wage laws are a political smoke screen. No one climbed out of poverty because the government increased the minimum wage. The Federal Reserve quickly offsets any minimum wage increase anyway with its yearly inflation targets.

I just don't see how productivity improvements lead to higher wages. Supply and demand for labor is what determines if wages rise or fall, not productivity. Increases in productivity benefit the owners of the companies and not the workers, unless the workers are in a position to demand a greater share of the profits. This happens when there is a scarcity of labor.

Profits are maximized by increasing productivity and decreasing labor costs. Over the last several years we've seen the wealth gap increase with more and more wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Global labor arbitrage has put wage earners at a disadvantage even as productivity improves. International high finance is in the power position right now and it is seeking to move capital to where labor is cheapest and least able to make demands.

American workers displaced by immigrants and outsourcing have not retrained into higher paid jobs. Instead, they went on food stamps and disability.

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.

I understand how wealth has

I understand how wealth has been transferred from the poor and middle-class to the uber rich in the last century.

It has to be kept in mind that the tptb used the force of Government to establish this wealth transfer mechanism with schemes such as Federal Reserve, Petro-dollar and MIC. Without the force of the Government, this disparity in wealth is not possible. Free markets will lead to the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people.

Also people shouldn't expect permanent stability in a job. Candle industry would've lost business and lowered wages with the invention of the electric bulb, no matter how efficient the production of candles is. In free markets, individual industries can experience bubbles and busts and the workforce has to adjust (look for new jobs) accordingly, but it is extremely rare for a reduction in real wages in the free markets.

Couple questions

Do you think merging the American labor market with China and India, or Mexico for that matter, will increase the American standard of living?

Should we remove all restrictions on the movement of labor from India, China and Latin America into the United States and go with an open borders policy?

What effect would this have on wages in the United States?

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.

Real wages for people engaged

Real wages for people engaged in free trade would definitely increase. Of course if a certain party (say Americans) is already gaining wage disproportionate to their productivity, they might lose out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Effect_o...
Do you think merging the American labor market with China and India, or Mexico for that matter, will increase the American standard of living?
Yes absolutely. But if we don't fix the fiat money issue first and start trading in real money (say gold), this would result in transfer of wealth from one country to another (example: from India to US because of fiat USD petro-dollar)

Should we remove all restrictions on the movement of labor from India, China and Latin America into the United States and go with an open borders policy?
Absolutely. Free immigration (in the absence of welfare) would bring-in labor to fill local low-wage jobs, thus allowing American workforce to chose higher paying jobs.
https://mises.org/daily/6543/Free-Immigrants-Free-Capital-Fr...

Of course the current unemployment situation might influence or pressure us to do the opposite - restrict free trade and ban immigration - but that would only hurt in the long term. If free markets are allowed to operate, immigration and free trade would only bring increased prosperity.

What effect would this have on wages in the United States?
Real wages (purchasing power) would increase for the American people and those who participate in free trade. Buying and Selling is not a zero-sum game.

What you say above is why I

What you say above is why I have become suspicious of Austrian economics.

What you say above is a direct contradiction to the law of supply and demand. By merging the American labor market with China, India and Mexico, you are massively increasing the supply of labor. American wages can only go down.

Stock prices will rise as labor costs fall which is why Wall Street loves immigration and open borders.

Your argument above is similar to Al Gore's argument that NAFTA would increase America's standard of living because Mexicans would take the factory jobs and our factory workers would move into higher paid positions as trade expanded. What happened instead was that American wages fell and unemployment increased and our factory workers went on food stamps and disability or into lower paid service jobs. Ross Perot's argument that NAFTA would cause a decline in American wages and a loss of jobs and cause more wealth to concentrate into the hands of the rich was exactly what happened. After all, that was why international high finance pushed NAFTA on us in the first place. That's their goal. Lower labor costs to increase the wealth and power of the international elite.

Austrian economics lines up with my values and it makes sense until you get to the open borders argument. Then Austrian economics lines up with the globalist goal of ending American sovereignty and merging the American labor market into the global proletariat. The idea that immigration and open borders frees up Americans to move into higher paid jobs is a pipe dream. Sounds good on paper but historically it has never happened.

Simple supply and demand. Merge the American labor market with China and American wages will fall and Chinese wages will rise. But because China is so much larger and poorer than us, American wages will fall much farther than theirs will rise. And they won't fall in just manufacturing jobs but also in the higher paid white collar jobs that the Chinese are perfectly capable of doing just as well as us. Plus, China is protectionist and its government subsidizes Chinese industries. It will take government action to outcompete Americans by distorting the market in any industry it targets for dominance. Their industrial policy is to create an advanced economy that supplants us, not makes us richer.

The international banksters are smart. They want one world government and a global proletariat. Mass immigration and free trade are the policies they are using to destroy American sovereignty and end our national self determination. Austrian economics appears to be another globalist Trojan horse.

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.

What you say above is why I

What you say above is why I have become suspicious of Austrian economics.
What you say above is a direct contradiction to the law of supply and demand. By merging the American labor market with China, India and Mexico, you are massively increasing the supply of labor. American wages can only go down.
I never contradicted the law of supply and demand. Free markets don't contradict that. But if you introduce Government and other International regulations, yes that can skew the market. Also when you mention 'American wages will go down' do you mean real or nominal wages? Technically if by shifting production to China a company can lower cost of production, that benefit will be passed on to consumers thereby increasing the consumer's purchasing power. In case of TPTB controlled/designed oligopolies price reduction will not happen - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly#Demand_curve

What you say above is why I have become suspicious of Austrian economics.
Your argument above is similar to Al Gore's argument that NAFTA would increase America's standard of living because Mexicans would take the factory jobs and our factory workers would move into higher paid positions as trade expanded. What happened instead was that American wages fell and unemployment increased and our factory workers went on food stamps and disability or into lower paid service jobs. Ross Perot's argument that NAFTA would cause a decline in American wages and a loss of jobs and cause more wealth to concentrate into the hands of the rich was exactly what happened. After all, that was why international high finance pushed NAFTA on us in the first place. That's their goal. Lower labor costs to increase the wealth and power of the international elite.
Austrians are completely against NAFTA and know that is was intended to bankrupt the nations (example: destruction of MXP and formation of new-pesos in Mexico, destruction of american industries etc.) for the benefit of the international companies with bankster friends. Austrians support unadulterated free trade, and not bankster funded Government sanctioned 'free'-trade agreements. See one of Rothbard's final writings (about NAFTA) - https://mises.org/econsense/ch88.asp. Please don't use post-Fed USA as a free-market example to denounce Austrian economics. Post-Fed USA has become one giant technocracy.

Austrian economics lines up with my values and it makes sense until you get to the open borders argument. Then Austrian economics lines up with the globalist goal of ending American sovereignty and merging the American labor market into the global proletariat. The idea that immigration and open borders frees up Americans to move into higher paid jobs is a pipe dream. Sounds good on paper but historically it has never happened.
Did you read that article on free-immigration and free-trade?
I think this is where republicans and conservatives stop becoming libertarians. What makes national borders so sacrosanct? Remember that America was built by immigrants, people from Japan, China, most of Europe, Africa and Latin America immigrated to America in the 19th and earliest 20th century, when it was still a free country, and help grow America to most richest and powerful capitalist nation in the world. Free immigration brought untold prosperity then and would do so now - if only Government can be shrunk back to old levels and all free people to produce and consume as they see fit. Second, an average person in Texas or New Mexico might associate themselves more with Mexicans than with Alaska. Borders and sovereignty are a nation-state concept and is important to define the law of land. But from the economic view-point, open-borders and free-trade will result in the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.
In addition please consider the fact that, America didn't respect the sovereignty of other nations when the Petro-dollar scheme was setup and the artificial (meaning by force) standard of living of the post-Fed America was established. With 17 Trillion in debt and 120 Trillion in future liabilities and massive trade deficit due to a consumption based economy, it is no secret, that the current standard of living in US is unsustainable without MIC and the Fed. If you want to preserve the status quo, then go ahead and support the MIC and the Fed and petro-dollar scheme. If you want real long-term change for the better, then free-trade and free-immigration is the way to go.

Simple supply and demand. Merge the American labor market with China and American wages will fall and Chinese wages will rise. But because China is so much larger and poorer than us, American wages will fall much farther than theirs will rise. And they won't fall in just manufacturing jobs but also in the higher paid white collar jobs that the Chinese are perfectly capable of doing just as well as us. Plus, China is protectionist and its government subsidizes Chinese industries. It will take government action to outcompete Americans by distorting the market in any industry it targets for dominance. Their industrial policy is to create an advanced economy that supplants us, not makes us richer.
I'm sorry but the damage is already done by the fiat USD inflationary policies. If you wait till the reserve currency status of USD is destroyed, all USD reserves around the world will rush in and buy up most land/real-estate and physical assets. Hyper-inflation will hit and devaluation of USD and hence wages will be unimaginable. Free trade would only benefit America now and in the long-term by re-starting production and saving in America and ending this madness of blind consumption.

The international banksters are smart. They want one world government and a global proletariat. Mass immigration and free trade are the policies they are using to destroy American sovereignty and end our national self determination. Austrian economics appears to be another globalist Trojan horse.
It is no doubt they are smart but also pure evil. NAFTA, which Austrians are completely against, is definitely a base for one world govt. model. Free-immigration and free-trade happens without govt. involvement (like 19th century America). What happens now is a farce, under the guise of capitalism. Austrian Economists have been in this war for a long time and have consistently opposed central banks, fractional reserve banking, govt. regulations, keynesian fallacies for all these decades. To call them a Trojan horse, is a great insult to the work of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and others.

"Technically if

"Technically if by shifting production to China a company can lower cost of production, that benefit will be passed on to consumers thereby increasing the consumer's purchasing power."

That's how you get a Walmart economy. The Chinese government subsidizes production so producers in China can sell below cost in the American market. By shifting production to China, jobs are eliminated in the United States for the sake of lower prices. When the American competition is eliminated the Chinese will raise prices because they want a return on their investment. Meanwhile, economic dislocation causes American job losses and poverty so voters demand things like food stamps and more law enforcement and you get more government interference in your life.

"Austrians support unadulterated free trade, and not bankster funded Government sanctioned 'free'-trade agreements."

Japan, China, Korea and Taiwan are all protectionist nations. The European Union is protectionist. We have opened our market to them while theirs remain closed to us. We run massive trade deficits with them and with everyone else. We practice more free trade than any other nation on earth and we have more immigration than all of them. Yet we are going bankrupt and have to borrow from them to pay the interest on our debts to them.

Our trade partners will continue to move up the value chain as their economies develop, and they will drive more Americans into the unemployment line as long as we allow them to. Free trade enthusiasts tell us this is great because we can buy cheaper stuff at Walmart and all those American factory workers who lost their jobs will get higher paying jobs as innovators of some kind. Instead, we get more food stamps and more prisons.

"If you want real long-term change for the better, then free-trade and free-immigration is the way to go."

In the 1800s, free trade was the philosophy of slave owners and imperialists. Today, it is the philosophy of Wall Street speculators, Federal Reserve economists, Democrats, Republicans, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, William Kristol, Austrian economists, and above all, international high finance, which owns them all. The banksters know they can get what they want if they control all sides of the debate. What they want is mass immigration and free trade. So all economists, from Marxists to anarchists, Keynesians to Austrians, advocate for free trade and open borders because that's how you get heard in the media, or get jobs at universities, or get grants, or jobs at think tanks, or book deals. Any economist who questions free trade or mass immigration will be subject to vicious name-calling by the media and he won't be working for long. You have to kowtow to the money power if you want a livelihood as an economist.

"Free-immigration and free-trade happens without govt. involvement (like 19th century America)."

America was not a free trading nation in the 19th century. We were protectionist. Imperialist Great Britain was the free trader of its day. They attacked nations to open up markets and they looted the world at the point of a bayonet. They buried themselves in debt fighting wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. British free trade policies resulted in deindustrialization as they turned to America for their manufactured goods. We were protectionist and a creditor nation, like China is today. Once the banksters bled Britain dry, they moved over here and set up the Federal Reserve Bank. Now we follow free trade policies and Americans are buried in debt and dying in wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

America was not a free immigration nation in the 1800s either. We had great swings in immigration numbers as industrial interests imported shiploads of impoverished immigrants causing wages to fall and crime to increase which led to nativist movements that would push through restrictionist immigration policies.

Other than open borders and mass immigration, I agree with everything else you say. The petro dollar and the Federal Reserve Note are scams perpetuated on the American people and the world by international banking interests. The Federal Reserve and its debt-based monetary system are the main source of our problems.

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.

So what kind of government or

So what kind of government or society do you think will be the best? A minarchist government with protectionist trade agreements?

The British were for 'free' trade when the pound sterling was the reserve currency of the world. Interesting that you support real money and the end of Federal Reserve but not free trade.

Let me pose this question, why does protectionism come up as an issue only across national borders. Say a state was devstated by hurricanes and people are ready to work at sweat-shop wages. What if that state govt. practices protectionism much to the chagrin of the other states within the USA borders. Or counties vs other counties or districts.

Remember this, even if companies out-sourced to China because of cheap labor and production, if Americans had bought stuff from China with real money (and consequently a real limit to spending), then such a difference in trade deficits would've never occurred. By borrowing from future unborn generations to service the current consumption levels, America has done a grave mistake of losing their future sovereignty and freedom to the chinese and big companies. When sound money is in place, protectionism will not work and un-adulterated free trade will flourish.

I support a Constitutional

I support a Constitutional government. We need to return to a limited government with no income tax. We need to return to a non-interventionist foreign policy and we need to kill the Federal Reserve.

The progressives ended the tariff and gave us the income tax. Progressive internationalists never met a tax they didn't like--except for the tariff, which they hate because tariffs strengthen the national economy and promote economic independence. The Founders knew that there could be no political independence without economic independence so that's why they supported the tariff.

When we had high tariffs we still had trade. The founders just preferred to pay for the cost of government by taxing foreigners for their right to make a buck here instead of taxing American wages.

Free trade and open borders work across states because we are all citizens of the same country with the same political and property rights. We have the same laws that we follow. I can move to Arizona or Idaho and have the same rights as the people there because I am an American citizen just like they are. I can buy property and open a business there and vote. I speak the same language and share the same culture. I can compete on a playing field where I know the rules and must obey the same laws.

I am not a citizen of China. I cannot buy property there. I cannot vote there or open a business there. I don't speak their language or fully understand the nuances of their culture and laws. They have a very different business culture with different values and different views on how to treat people. I have no rights to speak of there and can be deported at any time. I have no property rights there.

And speaking of the pound sterling, you can never have sound money as long as you have fractional reserve banking and a central bank. The British were the originators of the modern central banking system, which goes hand in hand with free trade. The central bankers know that it doesn't matter if your money is paper, gold or silver. Whatever your currency is, fractional reserve bankers will always create more debt than there is currency to pay it back. They cause inflationary booms when they issue lots of cheap loans and then they create deflationary busts when the debt burden become untenable. During the busts they buy up real property for pennies on the dollar. That's their scam. That's why they own everything.

Fractional reserve banking is the heart of the problem. Gold won't fix anything as long as the bankers are able to lend out gold that doesn't exist and then collect interest on it. That's why today they own most of the world's gold. They prefer paper because it's easier to manipulate but gold works fine for them too. They might even give us a global gold-backed currency after they kill the dollar.

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.