Money and Banks

It‘s obvious that a new influx of money will not immediately bring about changes in enough prices to significantly alter a price index. Even so, there are immediate effects of the new money.

Mainstream economists define “inflation” as general increases in consumer and producer prices. Yet, such a definition misses why prices increase in the first place and why inflation should be described as an artificial increase in the money supply.

Pundits have labeled piggy banks small change, irrational and wasteful, “just sitting around doing nothing.” As usual, they are wrong.

Jonathan Newman appears on the show to discuss Bob's recent debate on ZeroHedge, which centered on Austrian economics versus Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

Bitcoin is many things to people and it certainly has developed into a valuable asset. It also has been used as a medium of exchange. But is it money? According to Austrian economics, the answer is “no.” At least not yet.

Governments seem united in their drive to destroy sound money and replace it with worthless paper. As technologies advance, however, so does the ability of people to undermine government, and with it, the development of sound money.

The standard Keynesian line is that the government can shorten recessions by using fiscal and monetary “stimulus.” However, as Austrian economists note, ratcheting up government spending only makes things worse, setting the stage for the next economic downturn.

While the US dollar still is the world‘s “reserve” currency, its abuse by the Federal Reserve and federal government has weakened it precipitously. While President-elect Trump recognizes the threats to the dollar, is he willing to do what needs to be done to change the situation?

The Mises Institute is giving away copies of Murray Rothbard's classic, What Has Government Done to Our Money? and it will change how one sees our nation's monetary history. Rothbard presents a clear case for sound money as a basis for civilization itself.

A central doctrine of the Keynesian system is the “liquidity trap” in which consumers hold money in anticipation of higher interest rates. The act of holding money allegedly promotes “underconsumption,” continuing the economic downturn. This doctrine, however, cannot withstand scrutiny.