Live It Up, the Dollar Is Dead?

By -
In this piece I argue that you shouldn't pay down your credit cards. Am I pulling a Paulson? On the contrary, I am giving very unpatriotic advice.

Comments

  1. Silas Barta2:16 PM

    So are you saying that lots of people are (very stupidly) underpricing interest rates right now? That is, credit card companies who are easy on the "temporary 0%" deals, and everyone who buys Treasuries who extends car loans?

    I've felt this way for a long time, but I don't understand what's causing it, or how I can be the only one who thinks this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy7:03 PM

    Silas,

    I hadn't thought of it like that, but yeah you're right. Think of it this way: If millions of people followed my advice, that would not only push up gold prices and hurt the dollar on the foreign exchanges, but would also raise US interest rates as more people tried to borrow dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy7:04 PM

    BTW Silas, I'm not saying the loan-making organizations are doing anything dumb. I think part of what is happening is that people are afraid to take on more debt, and so when the Fed shovels money into one end of the banking system, the rates have to be held pretty low to get people to expand their obligations on the other end. But if the Fed is giving you money on great terms, you're not necessarily dumb for loaning it out at low rates yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Silas Barta10:01 PM

    Well, I'll say it for you then: the folks who set risk-free interest rates (i.e. marginal buyers of government securities) are idiots. They won't even demand interest rates sufficient to cover the true inflation rate!

    The foreigners who need a safe place, the insurers that are obligated to buy government securities, the banks that make loans ... okay, you guys are in the clear. But the folks with an actual choice, but act as if inflation is going to drop soon (or a if they won't be taxed) and the US will NEVER debase the currency in any notable way in the next 30 years? What the heck is wrong with you guys?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:30 AM

    Silas: I guess this is why Peter Schiff thinks 30-year treasuries is where the real bubble is.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more