Comment: Denninger is a 'greenbacker'

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: who is this douche? (see in situ)

Denninger is a 'greenbacker'

he's a statist who is free-market leaning.

he has on again off again critique of the Austrian School as well as the Doc.

He's totally misleading here: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=196394

Dr. Paul NEVER claimed that booms and busts will be eliminated without the Fed, he merely stated that the size and duration and frequency without the FED market intervention, wouldn't be as severe. Bursting of Mini-bubbles, mini-recessions, and other organic market adjustments are how the market naturally maintains its equilibrium. Thought that was like Econ101. But hey, suppose if you make a couple 100ks and a few mil from the market, you automatically believe you're an econ genius. The two can be mutually exclusive. Apparently no one told Karl that.

It's always the case with all these people: they NEVER read what Dr. Paul wrote, nor ever studied Austrian econ, nor read the relevant literature, yet delude what they can blurt out in a twitter sized blog rant, and repeat it often, automatically makes it true and real.

Awhile back, Karl also blurbed about how if nothing changes with the Fed after the Doc became the House Financial Services SubCommittee Chair, which is really ceremonial, that the Doc wasn't 'serious' about the Fed, or as he put it, he's "out of excuses:" http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2305043

What a douchey thing to say! It'd be one thing if Karl Denninger was a one dimensional FauxNews/MSDNC caricature, but he's clearly not dumb; as with these things when people 'fcuk' up the obvious, one is really only left to gauge the statement as either dumb, or malicious.

More?

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2608611
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2609611

Since Denniger's not dumb, he's being maliciously confusing his readers on purpose. Though, of course, a 'well intentioned' misguided guiding belief can be another factor behind such statements; suppose in the finality, those can actually be chalked up to stupidity.

Regardless, talk about a naive statist delusion; really, like Doc alone as a SubCommittee Chair, a ceremonial post at best, could single handedly end or audit the Fed, with Barney Barf as the illegitimate chair and later Spencer FACHus, not to mention a traitorous, bankster acquiescent majority in the CONgress?

Puhleez Karl.

Plus, Denninger DOESN'T think it's unConstitutional for the CONgress to "emit bills of credit," even though The Constitution FOR the United States of America specifically enumerates:

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; ...

[...]

Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

It clearly states that the Fed Govt can borrow on the reputation of US, essentially. From whom? And for how long? It doesn't specify; suppose it can borrow from other nations, foreign nationals, and the US citizenry. So that's left unclear. But the Constitution, as an explicitly enumerated document, I wouldn't assume too broadly. And, since it NEVER delegated a central bank or that the Treasury can be a central bank, and NEVER enumerated the Fed. govt nor the State govts to be able to print currency, neither State nor Fed govt can print currency, ie "emit Bills of Credit," Period, End of Story!

(can't recall the title of his blurb where he went in depth about all that, but if you google long enough, I'm sure you can find it.)

That said, I wouldn't exactly call Karl Denninger an enemy of the Freedom Movement, a cautious friend perhaps, even despite this neoCon-ish knee-jerk rah-rah statist BS pandering 'I'm not pandering, if I'm pandering to the statist impulse of the masses'-pandering: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3127708

That's before he posted the likes of this one: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3022367

He's more freemarket than Krugman, quasi-interventionist than a neoCon isolationist (in the truest, non-RP sense), less neoCon than Kristol (though still buys into the 'terrorists everywhere are out to get us! now! now! now!'-nonsense: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2823578), more libertarian than GOP, more Constitutionalist than minarchist, more minarchist than AnCap, More Bill Still than Rothbard. So, c'est la vie, as far as I'm concerned. On many issues, he's spot on. On others, he's a douche. Still, compared to the run of the mill neoCons, oBUSHmaBots et al, he's a million times better.

On the other hand, a mixed bag on Karl's statement on BitCoins; many of his monetaryist's criticism of BitCoin are understandable: it would be wrong to say that BitCoin is "money." BitCoin, like the Fed. Reserve Notes, however is a currency.

But he doesn't believe or perhaps like the idea that BitCoin is "stateless"; is the fact that one MAY be arrested by the State that makes it 'bad'? So according to him, BitCoin is bad because it's designed to "evade" autho-ra-teh?? He is literally asking govt, our supposed servants, permission to accept the use of a certain type of currencies, backed up by govt protections:

I prefer instead to effort toward political recognition of the duties that come with the privilege that is bestowed on a sovereign currency issuer in the hope of solving the underlying problem rather than sniveling in the corner trying to evade it.

Which would be the dumbest reason to not exercise in the free market, as govt has been known to violate the Constitution, um like EVERY SECOND of the day? That's never gonna stop those govt terrorists from doing what they do best: lie, arrest, assault, steal, kidnap, rape, torture, and murder.

Specifically regarding the definition of what a real money is, in traditional economic sense, for anything to be real money it has to be a lasting store of value, divisible, fungible, portable, and of course, naturally, widely accepted organically by the marketplace.

Frankly, without electricity, internet, or a BitCoin 'reader,' it's useless.

Then again, as current state of currency is mostly digital (less than 3% of all dollars in circulation are actual physical cash, though if you include derivatives exposures, it's gotta be like 0.000000000000000003% cash), it's really no different from Federal Reserve Notes, other than its major attractors: BitCoin is stateless, mostly middleman-less and solely peer-to-peer.

Ah, but the fact that it's stateless, mostly middleman-less, and solely peer-to-peer IS what really defines it. So suppose that can be unfair to compare it to FRN's. Which is why the BitCoin can become the ideal CURRENCY for modern times.

But still, its number one detractor? The BitCoin, like Fiat Federal Reserve Notes, is backed by nothing other than faith. In BiCoin's case, a faith in an unknown, albeit 'open source,' computer algorithms.

And like all currencies AND money, BitCoin exists at the sole discretion at the faith and acceptance of the market. Lucky for commodity money, vs. the BitCoin? The former kinda has about a 6,000yr+ recorded human history of its usage to back it up.

And besides, it's not true when people say that you can't eat gold and silver: YES, you can, in tiny amounts. Also, you can use gold and silver as conductor, plating, and as water filter, not to mention as colloidal silver. BitCoin? Sorry, can't eat, conduct, plate, or filter with BitCoins! lol.

Essentially, what backs up the faith in BitCoin is the belief in its ease as a secure medium of exchange, and the belief in the security of the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto's computer algorithms and various server farms.

Now I'm not opposed to BitCoin or other currencies at all, as long as their nature is made transparent and the people and market actors know what they're dealing with, and simply let each voluntary market player decide for him/herself.

But BitCoin, will never be money, for the simple fact that it itself is a 'fiat' (not the dictionary literal 'dictated' or 'arbitrary command dictate' sense) currency in the sense that while it's not imposed as the current regime currency of FRN, but while opensource, no one has any clue who or whom Satoshi Nakamoto is, though AJ humored Max Keiser that Max is the real Satoshi; it originated out from a SINGLE SOURCE, of someone's, or a collective's computer.

Hey, the day you can buy a house, a car, rent, pay for hotel with BitCoins, we'd all have our answers by then. For now it's too early to tell. But for those interested in not being 'left behind' by the BitCoin momentum, to each his/her own, I'd say: let the market decide.

But ask the Cypriots if they'd rather have their own stolen ECB currency or BitCoin; well...there's your market answer. The market is deciding right now, in real time, what BitCoin means to the masses.

Living history.

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