Christopher Jon Bjerknes
My correspondent supporter of Ron Paul has again written to me. I will present the anonymous author's arguments and inquiries and respond to them.
While stringing together defamatory statements, my correspondent asks why I do not allow comments on my blog. He/she should consider the fact that I would not wish to be a party to the publication of defamatory statements, nor do I wish to waste my time policing and/or responding to the comments of others, other than at my discretion and for the benefit of my audience. In addition, I do not wish to demean myself by allowing myself to be drawn into childish spats with smearmongers.
My correspondent contends that in "99%" of cases, fiat currency is inflated and that we have seen a constant rise in the money supply since 1971. By this argument, the Ron Paul supporter asserts that Ron Paul is honest in asserting that fiat money of necessity causes inflation and, I assume, my correspondent feels that Ron Paul is justified in making such sweeping statements while failing to mention that these inflationary rises are due to choices made by individuals, but that those same individuals could as easily have elected to deflate the currency.
I maintain that it is dishonest to mislead people into believing that a fiat currency can only cause inflation, because it is a fact that it can be used to produce deflation, which fact my correspondent acknowledges. I further assert that during the instances under consideration, World Jewry, not the American People at large represented by persons loyal to the United States, were in control of the supply of US dollars. Beyond this, I state that mild inflation is often a good thing, while deflation is more often destructive. In addition, I avow that a rise in money supply commensurate to or slightly exceeding economic growth is often a good thing.
I do not feel obliged to justify the criminal actions of the Jewish bankers in charge of the American money supply, because I do not support or endorse them. I merely point out that they were not necessities under a fiat system, which is the lie that Ron Paul repeatedly tells, thereby scapegoating the system for the actions of criminals and deflecting attention away from the prosecutable offenses which the Jewish bankers have committed. A well regulated fiat money system can produce deflation should deflation be a desirable outcome, which it rarely is. More importantly, it can quickly reduce the money supply in order to maintain stable price levels and encourage and reward savings.
My correspondent expresses irrational absolutes and declares that governments "always" desire to spend beyond the restrictions of tax revenues, and therefore manufacture inflated paper currency. My correspondent next confuses correlation with causation and asserts that because the means exists to hyperinflate a fiat currency, hyperflation is "inevitable". My correspondent leaves unaddressed the fact that a gold standard can be inflated, I assume because he or she continues to confuse the promises of a politician with the fundamental nature of a monetary system, thereby irrationally excluding the possibility that the politician might be lying, might be mistaken, might not be all powerful or all present, and might not have the means to accomplish the stated goals--but I do not wish to have to belabor the obvious or to repeat myself ad nauseam on points that I have already proven.
My correspondent quoted my factual statement that,
"Fiat money can be used to create stability, or deflation, or inflation. My statement was factual. A government acting on behalf of its citizens has the incentive to do that which will benefit the People. A fiat money system is the most easily regulated monetary system, and can therefore best provide for the needs of the People."
My correspondent then argued that government cannot know what is in the best interest of the People and cannot act in the interests of the People due to an alleged necessary corruption (note my correspondent's complete faith in the politician Ron Paul but irrational mutually exclusive concurrent belief that all government is corrupt). My correspondent implies by this argument that it is better to have a static money supply, or at least one limited to the ability of human beings to mine the limited supply of gold, then it is to allow human beings to attempt to regulate their fate through their elected representatives by scientific means.
I disagree. I think there are means to monitor the money supply and to rationally decide whether or not it is likely to be a benefit or a harm to change it. I contend that it invites corruption by private interests, namely the Jews, who are tribal by religion and tradition, to create a system where they can privately regulate the money supply of any given nation by importing, holding or exporting gold, as they have often done in the past. Witness Genesis 47 and Cicero's Pro Flaccus, Chapter 28, which states,
"XXVIII. The next thing is that charge about the Jewish gold. And this, forsooth, is the reason why this cause is pleaded near the steps of Aurelius. It is on account of this charge, O Laelius, that this place and that mob has been selected by you. You know how numerous that crowd is, how great is its unanimity, and of what weight it is in the popular assemblies. I will speak in a low voice, just so as to let the judges hear me. For men are not wanting who would be glad to excite that people against me and against every eminent man; and I will not assist them and enable them to do so more easily. As gold, under pretence of being given to the Jews, was accustomed every year to be exported out of Italy and all the provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus issued an edict establishing a law that it should not be lawful for gold to be exported out of Asia. And who is there, O judges, who cannot honestly praise this measure? The senate had often decided, and when I was consul it came to a most solemn resolution that gold ought not to be exported. But to resist this barbarous superstition were an act of dignity, to despise the multitude of Jews, which at times was most unruly in the assemblies in defence of the interests of the republic, was an act of the greatest wisdom. 'But Cnaeus Pompeius, after he had taken Jerusalem, though he was a conqueror, touched nothing which was in that temple.' In the first place, he acted wisely, as he did in many other instances, in leaving no room for his detractors to say anything against him, in a city so prone to suspicion and to evil speaking. For I do not suppose that the religion of the Jews, our enemies, was any obstacle to that most illustrious general, but that he was hindered by his own modesty. Where then is the guilt? Since you nowhere impute any theft to us, since you approve of the edict, and confess that it was passed in due form, and do not deny that the gold was openly sought for and produced, the facts of the case themselves show that the business was executed by the instrumentality of men of the highest character. There was a hundredweight of gold, more or less, openly seized at Apamea, and weighed out in the forum at the feet of the praetor, by Sextus Caesius, a Roman knight, a most excellent and upright man; twenty pounds weight or a little more were seized at Laodicea, by Lucius Peducaeus, who is here in court, one of our judges; some was seized also at Adramyttium, by Cnaeus Domitius, the lieutenant, and a small quantity at Pergamus. The amount of the gold is known; the gold is in the treasury; no theft is imputed to him; but it is attempted to render him unpopular. The speaker turns away from the judges, and addresses himself to the surrounding multitude. Each city, O Laelius, has its own peculiar religion; we have ours. While Jerusalem was flourishing, and while the Jews were in a peaceful state, still the religious ceremonies and observances of that people were very much at variance with the splendour of this empire, and the dignity of our name, and the institutions of our ancestors. And they are the more odious to us now, because that nation has shown by arms what were its feelings towards our supremacy. How dear it was to the immortal gods is proved by its having been defeated, by its revenues having been farmed out to our contractors, by its being reduced to a state of subjection."--M. T. Cicero, "Pro Flaccus", Chapter 28; translated by C. D. Yonge, The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 2, George Bell & Sons, London, (1880), pp. 454-455.
Of course, causing deflation by exporting gold is only one means the Jews have at their disposal to destroy a nation. Hyperflation is another means, but unlike my correspondent, I hold hope that a Gentile nation can purge itself of the Jewish corruption that causes hyperflation and I do not hold that hyperinflation is a necessary consequence of fiat money, rather Jewry has used hyperinflation as a means to destroy nations and Jewry have used deadly deflation as a means to destroy nations from the very beginnings of the Tribe. Jewry is the problem, not fiat money. In the case of gold, Jewry and the very nature of the limitations of a commodity currency are problematic. Fiat currency is indeed vulnerable to corruption calling for hyperinflation, but so is gold, a fact my correspondent repeatedly ignores by irrationally denying the reality that governments overspend through the use of credit and do not need to have money on hand to overspend, and by sidestepping the fact that hard money systems can be and are debased, which fact my correspondent dodges by changing the subject and claiming that his hero would do no such thing, this while arguing that all politicians are corrupt and inevitably overspend.
Alas, quoting my statement, "It does not occur to this person that gold can be borrowed", my correspondent responds, "gold borrowed with what money? The money that's already in supply, and not money that you can print, that's the difference." There is nothing other than political restraints and the inability to obtain credit, which inhibits a government's ability to borrow money beyond that which is already in the money supply. If the politicians ask for a loan, and can find a lender, they can borrow as much gold as they want at interest. How can a nation maintain a money supply under such conditions, when the gold in circulation must be returned, and new gold must be acquired to pay the interest on the loan? My correspondent has no response, other than to irrationally deny the reality that governments can and do borrow money and/or gold against their credit, whether or not they are on the gold standard, and in some cases whether or not they have the means to pay off the loan.
Next my correspondent responds to my statement, "or a nation can simply go into debts which it does not have the means to pay." by asserting that the loans under a gold standard have to be paid back with gold and accuses me of lying and ignoring this argument. In fact, I have already addressed this when I wrote in the initial blog which is the subject of this discussion that,
"Should the government, under its Jewish control, elect not to debase a hard money system, while at the same time fighting wars and running up other debts for Jewry, then the taxpayer is required to surrender his wealth to Jewish gold merchants abroad to pay the debts which cannot by paid with extant American coinage, which again results in a wealth transfer to Jewry."
My correspondent furthers the interests of the Jewish bankers by enabling them to take the gold out of America in payment of interest on loans, and by allowing them to milk the taxpayer by forcing the taxpayer to come up with gold from abroad, or from goldmongers, to pay taxes on interest. My correspondent evidently laments the actions of the Government under Nixon. Would my correspondent prefer it if all the gold of the United States were sent overseas in exchange for paper dollars? And what are Americans to use as money should the gold disappear overseas? Or is my correspondent a Utopian who would pin America's future on the frail hope that America will never need borrow on credit just because Ron Paul says so? And how is it that we will pay off our present debt, by converting to gold and raping all our reserves to immediately hand that gold over to World Jewry? Is that what my correspondent is hoping for? Does my correspondent hold gold, and hope that the value will escalate should we take our gold reserves and convert them to money, thereby hyperinflating the already unimaginably large debt into incredibly expensive gold? What will happen to the American People under such a system, where they will have to surrender tens of thousands of dollars for an ounce of gold, and then surrender all of the Nation's gold, and with it all of the Nation's money supply, to the Jewish bankers, and to foreign nations? And what do we do then, other than borrow more gold at interest to create an unsustainable money supply for which the gold does not exist to pay the interest on the loan, and for which the money supply itself must be returned?
Indeed, my correspondent's plan is to convert all of our gold reserves into our money supply, which would hyperflate the present dollar because there is not much gold in reserve, and there is a tremendous debt in dollars. We then face enormous deflation as the money supply disappears and with it our gold reserves.
My correspondent rambles on and on making false assertions which depend upon the fallacies and falsehoods I have already addressed. As a result, I do not feel it would be productive to address those issues which are rotten at their foundation. I will note that my correspondent believes that deflation is a good thing. So many have shown how destructive deflation often is, that I do not feel obliged to repeat those arguments here, other than to point out that prices in slums and slum nations tend to be low, while prices in prosperous neighborhoods and nations tend to be high. I will also suggest that my correspondent consider that wages tend to fall more sharply than prices, and that artificially low prices across the board are an invitation to colonialism and other forms of foreign exploitation and tend to produce famine, unemployment and national bankruptcy.
P.S. I should add that my correspondent argues that Ron Paul would veto Congressional declarations of war, but I merely need point out that such a veto would likely raise the ire of the American People and that Congress could override such a veto and impeach Paul. My correspondent further contends that no nation would ever start a war with the US. I need only ask that he or she recall Pearl Harbor, and consider the fact that the US is declining rapidly.