Amen. I used to think he just did not get it... now I do not see how that is even possible. He has to know that what he is saying is crap. He has to know that the system he supports is not good for the masses, but only for the elites in control. But, at least I can find some pleasure in poking fun.

"It is property with no promise of limited supply."
You have precisely stated the root of the "money" problem today. But there was a promise, and the promise has been broken. In the 1800's a "dollar" was a weight of precious metal. The paper notes printed and circulated by the US government were backed by a measure of Silver or Gold. These gold and silver certificates were like warehouse receipts... a claim on real property. Since these notes had to be backed by precious metal in the treasury, their production had a built in limitation and their value was fairly constant. The dollar of today does not measure up to those of the 1800's. The purchasing power of a "real" dollar from the 1800's is far greater than the purchasing power of a paper dollar printed today. It was much more difficult for the government to steal purchasing power from the people when we had hard money. That is why the government has replaced hard money with fiat currency. Now they can take as much purchasing power as they want by creating dollars out of thin air. Creating dollars out of thin air does not add purchasing power, it transfers it from others. As new dollars are created out of thin air, all other existing dollars lose purchasing power. If your neighbor steals your car, would you think it “no big deal” because he never promised not to? You can tell yourself that the dollar you put between your mattresses in 1980 is the same today as it was back then… when a loaf of bread was $0.48, gas $1.03, milk $1.60, Hershey’s chocolate bar $.25, and a McDonald’s cheeseburger $.43. Yeah, it’s the same dollar…
I’ll gladly trade you the $50,000 car for the $43,000 damaged version… if you will also accept $50,000 modern paper dollars in exchange for $43,000 face value coins from the 1800’s.
;-)

You are correct. The conversation should not be so difficult.

However, it is the same car. Same Make, same Model, same Color, VIN Number, and the same exact functionality. The car never left the drive. It is just damaged and "worth less" after the damage, due to the actions of a neighbor, just as the US Dollar is damaged and "worth less" due to the actions of the US Government.

If a tree fell on a crisp new US $100 bill, the wrinkles in the paper would not damage the value of the bill... but doubling the quantity of US Dollars would.

Is it safe to say that you would not be comfortable with the government taking half of the US Dollars out of your bank account, but, because value is subjective, you are perfectly comfortable with the government doubling the total amount of US Dollars and passing out the new US Dollars to everyone but you?

Now that is an interesting point. Let us say you own a nice car worth about $50,000 that you keep parked in your driveway. Let us also say that your neighbor was trimming his tree and one of the branches fell onto your car, scratching the paint, denting the hood and front fenders, but leaving the car fully operational. What would you do? Would you tell the neighbor not to worry about it because you still have the same fully functioning car, it just happens to be worth $43,000 instead of $50,000? Maybe you would. Maybe you would just take a deep breath, put on a smile, and let it go. However, I think the vast majority of people do believe they have a right to the value of their property and they take it quite seriously when someone damages the value of their property. In this example, we are talking about a car that you are not forced to own or use for transportation. In the case of the US Dollar, it is the medium of exchange mandated by the US government... we have little choice but to use it. Is it too much to ask that they do not intentionally destroy the value of the dollar they force us to use?

Paul Krugman must be dumbfounded by the behavior of major retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy who try to use “lower prices” to attract customers. Maybe Krugman should open his own retail outlet and show these numb-skulls how the market REALLY works… in his head. He could build his whole marketing strategy around a targeted 2% annual price increase that becomes an 8% to 12% annual price increase. Or, to keep it simple for the simple, a 1% per month price increase.
“Shop at Krugman’s today and avoid our higher prices tomorrow.”
“Spend Money. Have Less.”
“Krugman’s, your broker faster partner.”

From what I have seen, Productivity Inequality is far worse than Income Inequality. In the United States, millions of able-bodied people produce nothing (but babies) and yet still receive an income...

If the the people running the government can find a way to wipe out the Productivity Gap (instead of subsidizing it) then maybe I would be willing to let them take a stab at the Income Gap.

What is it called when someone does nothing over and over again and expects increasing financial results?

The point of my post was that this was not much of a concession. I have nothing against Rothbard, he is one of my favorite authors. I have nothing against Rajsic or this fine article. All I'm saying is that the concession mentioned is trivial. It is equivalent to conceding that the sun shines or that rain falls. It is so obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. I think it is clear to all thinking people that there is no shortage of men who would work together to rob and rule over others and resort to violence or threat of violence to achieve these ends. It is hardly a concession to accept this fact.

Governments do exist, therefore, Rothbard MUST concede, “there can be no absolute guarantee that a purely market society would not fall prey to organized criminality." Failure to concede this point would be equivalent to denying the existence of governments all over the world.

I have zero support for inflation of the money supply through printing or digital means. It should NEVER have been allowed or tolerated. Unfortunately, deflating the money supply has one very serious consequence. The amount of debt created by our government, the debt that we will be forced to pay off, would have to be paid back with paper dollars that may have much more value than the paper dollars borrowed. The productive would be punished even more than they are today. Our government, all governments for that matter, should NOT be allowed to "create" or borrow money under any circumstances. Additionally, whatever quantity of "money" that is currently circulating should be tied back to the gold reserves... whatever is left of them. Even if it were tied to gold at $1 to 1/5,000 of an ounce it would be better than what we have today. Our medium of exchange should be stable in both quality and quantity. If we have stable money and if our government could only spend what they were able to steal from the people who put them in power... there would be no need for a CPI.

Good comment. Maybe it is not safe to assume that all people posting comments here are Austrians with a full and complete understanding. I know I don't understand it all. It may be safer to assume that all people reading and posting comments here are at different levels of understanding and are (hopefully) in the process of learning and unlearning. The more I learn, the more I realize I have a lot more to learn. I remember not long ago I read that unemployment was voluntary. The statement sounded crazy! It sounded so crazy that I could not process it at the time. Eventually, after a lot more reading, the statement began to make sense. A teaspoon of sugar... unless they are socialists or Keynesians.