Promoting THIS
Not quite as pithy, but making the same point, AI agrees, The passage you quoted is from Alan Greenspan, who served as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006. This excerpt is from his essay titled "Gold and Economic Freedom," which was published in 1966. In this essay, Greenspan discusses the relationship between the gold standard, economic freedom, and the implications of inflation and government monetary policy on wealth and property rights.
An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to senseāperhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faireāthat gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statistsā tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statistsā antagonism toward the gold standard.
According to DuckDuckGo AI (using GPT-4o-mini) : The quote āBy a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizensā is attributed to Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian-British economist and philosopher known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism. This statement reflects Hayek's views on the effects of inflation and government monetary policy on individual wealth. It is often cited in discussions about the consequences of inflation and government intervention in the economy.
The quote you mentioned is often associated with Friedrich Hayek, but it is not a direct quote from John Maynard Keynes. However, Hayek did critique Keynesian economics and discussed the implications of inflation in his works.
The specific phrase you referenced does not appear to be a direct quotation from Keynes, but rather a summary of Hayek's views on the effects of inflation. Hayek's critiques of Keynesian economics can be found in his works such as "The Road to Serfdom" and "Prices and Production."
If you are looking for a specific instance where Hayek might have referenced Keynes in relation to inflation, it would be best to consult Hayek's writings directly, as he often engaged with Keynesian ideas throughout his career.
Appreciate your getting to the heart of matters in your shares.š¤
Instrumentals are more approachable, the vocals are an acquired taste worth
the effort IMO
Similar habits (eating al fresco, reading books) ādoing ordinary things outdoors, preferably with exposed skināI mostly blame Dr Jack Kruse
Iām almost finished migrating from Google Workplace to Proton for zBusinessāpretty straightforward
Agree that Bitcoin manifests moral ideals and the awareness it fosters is revolutionary. Letās speak provocatively about it without idolizing it.
I donāt understand this. Explain pleases.
How does running my node (Start9), help me and the Bitcoin network?
Most posts I make on Nostr feel to some extent like a challenge. And I post them anyway. I enjoy that challenge. I write them in part *because* they are challenging.
I'm putting uncomfortable thoughts into the decentralized Nostr void to anyone who wants to host what I say on their relay.
That's why I'm here. I'm adding my thoughts to this medium to help advance it. I write here the things I wouldn't post to the normies on Twitter/X. Only on Nostr do I embrace my weirdness and inappropriateness. I analyzed this ecosystem, and decided that you, and only you, yes you reading this who took the time to be here, deserved to see my real or "based" thoughts to the extent that you care about them. And that includes my weaknesses. I've shown those in some of my recent posts, and I'll continue to show you my weaknesses here. I wrote about the times I got rekt in a fight and cried. I'll type that kind of thing out here, and only here, on Nostr, again and again.
If I post something intellectually polarizing I start to think, "what would my followers think?" But then I'm immediately like, "I don't know. Who cares. If they hate my truths here then were they even real my followers to begin with? Maybe they need to be challenged."
Meanwhile, I *do* care what you all think in aggregate, am willing to disagree with you individually on certain topics, but want to hear your thoughts. And I'm willing to change my views based on you. In fact, many of my Twitter/X posts are there over the past years because I want to see what people comment with before I write my full-on reports. The same is likely true for Nostr. This is raw ground. I want your thoughts. I won't bend my truths toward you, and I'll challenge you, as I expect you to challenge me.
So, if someone takes the effort to be on Nostr and some how reads this, I want them in my ecosystem. I want their criticisms as much as their praise. Criticize me here. I'll enjoy it. Let's go. You're awesome.
And then I'm like "What about my business contacts?" I have like these various billionaire institutional close contacts that are richer than me but have to wear ties to work. But I mean, if they are reading this right now, they are fucking awesome. I think, any of my serious existing business contacts who are cool enough to be here, are likely people I want to continue to work with. If they don't like what I say, they can bring it up with me. Otherwise they can appreciate my rawness here, and recognize that Nostr is where I post my random thoughts or my deep thoughts, and either of which are my raw thoughts.
My goal is to be real, and to advanced this protocol.
The day that far more people are on Nostr, is the day I will practice more public moderation. Until then, and that's probably far away, it's the medium where I will drop f-bombs and describe weird situations and thoughts. Let's go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akPbu6TOx2E&ab_channel=JerisJohnson
Have been following (subscriber) you on the normie side for 2 years. Appreciate this āwindow into your soulā on the Nostr side. Broken Money is great so far. Blessings
Elaborate please
In terms of a manās obligation to his fellow man, could polygamy be detrimental to oneās fellow man depriving some men of having a wife?
Ok. Is that logic exclusively focused on one manās obligation to another man? Another words is the prohibition of extramarital sex based upon any other moral grounds?





