The United Fiat Serfdom of America (Republicae)
Fiat money is a medium of exchange, but it has no commercial commodity value, no producer or consumer value, nor does it convey any title to an underlying commodity property. The only method of imparting value to an irredeemable paper fiat money is through government decree based solely upon the enforcement of legal tender laws with threat of penalty. In total and absolute contrast, commodity money, such as gold money, is a medium of exchange which retains an underlying commercial commodity value, it retains both a producer and consumer value and since that value is inherent in the underlying commodity of the money it actually conveys title to the commodity as private property of the individual holding the commodity money. Additionally, there is no necessity to involve the impartation of value to a commodity money by government, nor is there a need to enforce the use of commodity money by legal tender laws.
Given the generalized acceptability of gold commodity money, any form of that money, based upon weight would translate into a universal medium of exchange and do so on a global scale even though the coinage may be of foreign origin. Because of this characteristic of gold money, it is possible to construct all currencies based upon weight and the exchange opportunities of such currencies would be subject to both producer and consumer costs that cannot be found in any other type of money, especially fiat money. Gold money, unlike fiat money, is based upon the most fundamental principles of a barter economy; as such the indirect exchange involved with gold money maintains a direct interaction with the underlying pre-existing barter economy. In fact, gold money is the direct result of the barter economy. Gold maintains its marketable characteristic because of its connection to the most basic barter economic principles, which make up its foundation.
Today, the world is plagued with fluctuating fiat currencies that provide absolutely no consistency as a medium of exchange. Exchange becomes difficult since there arises a conflict in the manner in which fiat money must be sustained and in order for any exchange to take place, this system is dysfunctional on several levels, but especially in the balance of trade between countries, and to a large degree the means by which companies of all sizes, and individuals make economizing decisions. Gold money, on the other hand, based upon weight is a very stable and provides a solid foundation on which to base exchange, this factor also gives the ability to make sound economizing decisions and reliable information on which such decisions can be made.
As a medium of exchange, money normally serves as a measure of value, but in order to actually contain a measure there must be an imputation of value otherwise there can be no real measure on which to base value. As such, fiat money does not serve as a measure of value since the face value is in contradistinction with the underlying value, which is essentially the value of the paper itself. The imputation of value found in fiat monetary systems has absolutely nothing to do with the money itself for there is no value to fiat money, all value is imparted to fiat money via the government legal tender laws used to enforce its use and the manipulation of interest rates which serves to provide fiat money with a pricing structure.
It is apparent within the world that we live that most people associate the measure of value of their fiat dollars in terms of face value, but that is far from a meaningful measure of value and only is a numerical valuation that does not relate to the ordinal value of fiat currency since the currency is subjected to inflationary depreciation. As such, the ability to actually measure value within a fiat monetary regime becomes increasingly difficult as time progresses and depreciation takes place. With an unstable purchasing power, it becomes impossible for fiat money to actually serve as a concrete measure of value, this is particularly true considering the nature of our political economy since the continuous state of government and central banking intervention precludes a stable constant of value measurements.
Since fully functional money always arises as commodity money with all the market characteristics of a commodity value; that being said the question therefore, is how does fiat money arise and what is necessary to transform what amounts to pieces of paper into a medium of exchange? Fiat money is a forced unit of value and exchange, which never arises naturally from a voluntary exchange with an underlying measure of value. Fiat money is developed as a money substitute that carries with it some of the characteristics of money but essentially is not money in the purest sense of the word.
Such money substitutes cannot convey title to any underlying value since there is no underlying value in fiat currencies. Since it is not possible for title to be conveyed all claims of ownership are null and void; indeed, under a fiat monetary regime there are usually numerous claims to each fiat monetary unit and those claims range from the U.S. Government, to the Federal Reserve System, to national and regional banks and then to corporations, as well as individuals, but these claims do not convey absolute title to something that cannot, in the strictest sense, be considered private property at any point in ownership.
There are other problems that arise with a fiat monetary system, especially when that system is subject to a fractional reserve system of banking. Under a fractional reserve system the banks do not maintain a 100 % reserve therefore, the system lends itself to providing numerous claims at the same time on the same money, thus the possibility of bank runs is ever present in such a system. When a bank run occurs, the problem is revealed as people want to lay claim to their money but there is only a fraction of their money available to them under the system.
Prior to 1914, the year the Federal Reserve Act took full effect, commodity gold money circulated in various forms ranging from bullion to gold certificates. Gold certificates are actual claim to title of the amount of gold on deposit or warehoused at a banking institution, as such they can and have served as mediums of exchange only because of the underlying value of the gold that entitled them. Additionally, there are non-monetary instruments, which also can be exchanged as though they were money and yet they do not bear weight upon the total supply of money in circulation, they simply serve as an exchange unit in lieu of the money they represent. An interesting fact about gold commodity money is that, unlike fiat money, the gold proper and the gold certificates could circulate side-by-side without affecting the total money stock. This is possible because when a gold certificate is issued in a particular denomination, the equal amount of gold was take out of circulation and placed on deposit, thus there are no nominal pressures on the supply of money.
In this country, fiat money was saddled upon the gold money system by using the certificate system as a medium. It was necessary for those who supported the creation of a complete fiat monetary system to use the existing certificate system as a means of injection into the economy. The fact is that no fiat system can arise without the facility of an existing commodity monetary system upon which it is "piggy-backed"; usually this action is executed by stealth and deception without the population of a country ever being aware that it has taken place. It is in this manner that what was once completely worthless paper can be issued into the money stream and assumes purchasing power for it is accepted and used, by an unsuspecting public, as though it had equal purchasing power as real titled money. Essentially, fiat money appeared to be exactly like certificate receipts and since those certificate receipts represented a complete and unconditional claim to gold money, fiat money with no claim to any absolute money was exchanged as though it were absolute money. Problems arise when the monetary policies of both government and central bank extend the usage well beyond reserves; this is particularly true when there is a political agenda behind such expansive policies.
In most cases, people rarely think of how money actually functions within an economy. In most people’s minds money has a very one-dimensional quality…it buys things. It is, in the minds of most people, a purely linear mechanism that can be counted in a straight line. Basically, money is the purchasing power that each monetary unit provides in an economic transactional exchange. One of the primary signs of the quality of money is its purchasing power, but also, in relationship to that purchasing power is the savings rate. This is both a real and perceived quality that translates into cash-holding behaviors of people.
It is therefore, nothing more than the liquidity status of money that allows for transactional exchange to take place within an economy and as long as that liquidity provides purchasing power at virtual face value for such transactions and the settlement of debts then there is rarely a problem in perception, but when the face value of a currency does not relate to the purchase value then the problem becomes evident and confidence is lost. That is the primary problem with fiat currencies, due to the likelihood in fiat monetary expansion the purchasing power never remains at the face value of the currency.
Now, in terms of perception it really doesn’t matter how purchasing power is generated because people are only interested in what and how much they can purchase with a given unit of money. It is only when that purchasing power is diminished that people begin to take notice however, it is rarely understood that it is not a problem in pricing as they continually rise, but a problem with the currency as it continually depreciates in purchasing power.
With a fiat monetary system there must be a mechanism that provides for the imputation of value and the primary force behind that mechanism is government, its legal tender laws and taxation. Under fiat monetary systems taxation is not related to revenues since under such systems there is no need for taxation, it only serves as a social control and as an enforcement mechanism to require people to use the fiat currency. People do not voluntarily use fiat money; it is a monopoly that government has granted itself outside the parameters of Constitutional authority. Fiat currencies do not arise naturally nor voluntarily, they are always are imposed and the reasons they are imposed are evident to some people, it is purely for the benefit of government. Central Banks likewise, are instruments of this government monopoly and function at both the behest and benefit of the government and the political interests of the government.
The imposition of fiat currencies have never been for the benefit of the people and in fact, the people are the ones that always have suffered when government imposes fiat currencies upon them. Fiat currencies are the most deceptive of currencies for while they retain their face values; the deliberate policy of monetary inflation robs people of their labor and their ability to generate wealth. Essentially, there comes a time when people work for pennies on the hour while they think they are receiving the full face value of their fiat currency paychecks. It is a feudal system that always, without exception creates a peonage where the people labor for little and the government benefits from the virtual unlimited resources of a country. Fiat currencies used by governments always create a productive serfdom and the people that make up that serfdom rarely understand their own fate.
“The problem with fiat money is that it rewards the minority that can handle money, but fools the generation that has worked and saved money.”- Adam Smith
In support of the fiat monetary system, the government has allowed for certain creativity in banking and accounting. What would be considered criminal under an asset monetary system is sanctioned and encouraged under a fiat monetary system and for good reason, without such activities a fiat monetary system could not perform the primary functions of a transactional economic exchange unit, in other words it would not act as money in the economy. Under any total fiat monetary system it is imperative that there be a pricing mechanism to support the imputation of value otherwise it doesn’t function as money, it would be nothing more than what it really is: paper. Of course, this mechanism is found in the various schemes created by both government and the Federal Reserve Banking System.
There are those who mistakenly think that fiat money functions as money because it circulates, but the truth is that without the various artificial mechanisms put in place by government and banking there would be absolutely no value imparted to the paper we use as money. The truth is that the government could print all the fiat money it wanted to and without those hidden mechanisms it would be nothing but the paper it really is: worthless. Voltaire knew exactly what he was talking about when he correctly stated, ““At the end fiat money returns to its inner value—zero.”
The facts are clear, there was a very deliberate plan to the creation and execution of a fiat monetary system. When reading the works of John Maynard Keynes it becomes evident that the fiat conspiracy was nothing more than a shared power-grab between the political powers and banking powers. Keynes stated: “By this means (fiat money and fractional reserve banking) government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.”
While fractional reserve banking has been used in various monetary systems, including gold, it is however, fiat currency that benefits the most from a fractional reserve system. Without fractional reserve banking there would be no possible way that fiat money could function as a medium of exchange because the amount of fiat currency necessary to maintain a 100% reserve demand would instantly peel away all perceived and purchase value imparted to the currency by the various schemes used to support the system.
Among those deceptive schemes is the fact that all of the Treasury’s deposits are not counted as a part of its reserve against any money it has issued. Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking system all U.S. Government deposits were considered a part of the total money supply, thus all variations in the money stock could be readily known. This is not the case in the Fiat Fractional Reserve System since there can be no total demand on all deposits on the banking books.
So demand deposits under the Fiat Fractional Reserve System are subject to limited transferability. The problem, at least for the Fractional Reserve System, is there is simply not enough money to cover all demand deposits. Since the Fractional Reserve System maintains a well-constructed veil that protects the banking system from bank runs. At one time there was a 30-day notice required for the withdrawal of all savings deposits, but it was very rarely imposed for if it were then the veil would instantly be pulled back on the system causing a very rapid and devastating run on banks across the country. Imagine, if you will, that you wanted to withdraw your savings, your money and the bank teller tells you that you would have to give the bank 30 days notice before you would have your own money. It would be an instant confidence breaker in the system and the system would not be able to survive such revelation of the inner workings of the Fractional Reserve System.
The means of payment under the Fiat Fractional Reserve System actually describes one of the essential definitions of fiat money. In this system the Fiat Money may be parked in one form and spent in another, but the system must maintain the interchangeability in order to maintain a degree of parity and acceptability of the system. This characteristic poses one of the problems with the system and that problem is the extreme elasticity necessary to keep the system from imploding upon demand withdrawals and the total lack of asset value.
Every Fiat Monetary System is designed for the benefit of the government and its political allies never the people subjected to its deceptive functions. Fiat Currencies, at the hands of government, has always been a means by which government could, through the hidden taxation of inflationary depreciation, secure a relatively costless form of power generating funds, most of which are used to either extend the scope of government, but also to amass assets. It essentially accomplishes this by simply using inexpensive paper and inking its official signage upon it, then it is just a matter of enforcing the use of the fiat money by the people through a series of penal codes.
Additionally, one of the more insidious characteristics of all fiat monetary systems is that it allows government to divert the wealth and resources from the private markets into its own coffers. Governments, with the instrument of fiat currency, creates what amounts to a vampire economy where the labor and generated wealth from that labor is siphoned off from the people and transmitted to the government without the necessity of the more unpalatable form of direct taxation.
While there are those who sing the praises of the fiat monetary system, it should be no surprise that those who favor such systems the most are bankers and politicians who have a large stake involved in maintaining the fraudulent and deceptive system. It should also not come as a surprise that there are those within our society that exploit the system to increase their own holdings and are essentially granted almost monopolistic rights by the government and are beneficiaries of a system that otherwise makes life difficult for the working individual.
There are some very peculiar consequences of this fiat monetary system, one being a divergence of wealth generation between those who are politically favored and those who are basically politically ignored. Those who are favored by the political influence they peddle are able to take pecuniary advantage of the system, benefiting from the mechanism of inflation in ways that are difficult for the regular citizen to understand, most citizens are completely unaware of the connections between government and those who are politically favored.
Although there are usual detractors, the truth is that all fiat currency systems have been abused throughout history by governments and has always led to corruption and the eventual destruction of the currency itself along with the economic society connected with the currency. Fiat systems lend themselves to total government monopolies over money; in fact it is impossible to maintain a fiat system without such government monopolistic control. Under such monopolistic control the government enjoys the power to dictate and deprive, give favor and grant influences.
It, fiat currency, is the one instrument that the government has at its disposal that can completely subvert all Constitutional restrictions and limitations. From this one monopolistic tool, there is the granting of privilege that our government was never intended to possess; likewise, with this tool the government also has the ability to deprive the most fundamental right of money property upon which all other private property rights rests. Fiat money is the key for all government usurpation and allows government the ability to act as though it were not the servant of the people but their master and they its subjects.
- Republicae's blog
- Login or register to post comments





















.
.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Just so you know
when you do that it is a real test of our cursor skills.
Trying to get an interesting website rolling along, Offering free banners to DP business owners. Please contact me through the DP for details with size Etc. If you don't have one I can adjust, I will make you one.
http://www.shtfknowledge.com/index.php
I like your sign off signature statement.
;)
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
Open Competition of Currencies
The FREEDOM to able to choose the medium of exchange to best fit your personal needs should be our main concern. In a Open Competition of Currencies this would be possible.
A likely result for America if this Act would ever pass is that all Government contracts would be paid in debt free 'greenbacks'. The Government would try to set the value of greenbacks through stamp prices, taxes, and licenses which would be payable in greenbacks. While private individuals and companies would use gold or silver. I personally would choose silver.
www.memewatchers.com
The government tried issuing
The government tried issuing "debt-free" Greenbacks before and during the Lincoln Administration the debt quadrupled. Besides that the degree of inflation caused by those so-called "debt-free" Greenbacks was severe, to say the least. Everything, including the balance of trade suffered under the Greenback regime for years afterwards. Besides that, they so-called "debt-free" Greenbacks were anything but debt-free, the whole scheme was suggested by Salmon P. Chase and the bankers were all behind the whole scheme because they actually reaped the benefit of the bonds issued to support the system.
Likewise, how would the government "set" the value of Greenbacks? Without a market to support them with interest-bearing bonds no one would accept them or support the use of such currency. The mere fact that there is a legal tender law must include a value imparting system otherwise it simply flounders, thus there is really no such thing as a "debt-free" fiat currency even with all the power of the government stating that it is legal tender the value of our current system comes from the fact that it backed by the bond market, hence the debt behind the fiat monetary system that allows for the payment of all debts public and private with our current Federal Reserve Note System, it also promotes borrowing because there are those willing to lend to the government in hopes of a return, without such a return on bonds there could be no fiat currency regime. Unless this government could run completely without borrowing, which would be wonderful, it would be impossible for such a "debt-free" Greenback to accomplish what people suggest. Remember, there was no need for a bond market under a gold/silver regime and the whole bond market revolves around a fiat monetary system to support the value base of the fiat money. Gold needs no such market for each monetary unit is a self-sustaining market, a double asset value that requires no manipulation or enforcement to be accepted as money by people.
The idea that there would be some sort of value set through stamp prices, taxes and licenses ignores some of the most basic principles behind the entire practice of fiat currencies. Essentially, you would be doing nothing more than substituting one type of debt, i.e. bond markets, for another type of debt to impart value to a government issued fiat currency.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
The debt only quadrupled
The debt only quadrupled after converting non-interest-bearing Greenbacks into interest-bearing gold bonds !! At the same time the currency in circulation was reduced from $50 per person to $3.50 per person; to strenghten the credit of the United States -- what a blessing it was !
Given the choice, people, perhaps, would choose land or grain based commodity currency; or social-creditpaper money, based on the number of citizens and business activity of the nation -- a la fascist Arthur Kitson http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/kitson/kitson_index.html. And, once again, you do not believe in commodity currency, only in gold-silver currency.
The government issued legal treasury notes several times prior to 1860, most recently in 1857.
Without a market to support them with interest-bearing bonds no one would accept them or support the use of such currency. -- that is simply not true, and you know it; greenbacks were readily accepted; were at par with metal; would have remained at par with metal had it not been for the 'exception clause'; regained parity http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/uregina/ferry.html
"Whatever the Government receives and treats as money, is money; and, if it be money, then they have the right, under the Constitution, to regulate it. Nay, they are bound by a high obligation to adopt the most efficient means, according to the nature of that which they have recognized as money, to give it the utmost stability and uniformity of value. And if it be in the shape of bank notes, the most efficient means of giving those qualities, is a Bank of the U[nited] States, incorporated by Congress" --Senator Calhoun, in the Senate, January 13, 1834 http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/benton/calhoun_340113....
I am not supporting
I am not supporting 'Greenbacks' in the above post, I am merely stating the probable outcome of an Open Competition of Currencies.
What do you think a likely scenario would be if the US government passed the Open Competition of Currencies Act tomorrow?
www.memewatchers.com
If given the choice, most
If given the choice, most people would choose an asset based currency, such as gold and silver. There is however, the problem of ignorance in this and other countries, most people have never been exposed to real money, they don't know the difference between real and fiat money, but given the government's monetary policies over the last few years they will learn very quickly as the purchase value of the fiat currency is completely wiped out.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Repeat
sorry.
www.memewatchers.com
First eliminate the problem, abolish taxpayer(y).
Government should not have the authority to tax and take away property. It should, like churches, be run on a system of voluntarism. Donations of money, goods or services. Government as it is today benefits a class of individuals and corporations to maintain control over citizens. It is possible to maintain the State without armed conflict, without chaos with the simple task of eliminating corruption, taxation is a corrupt system and nothing more than collective theft. Having a State that provides a system of justice that steals money from the people is definitely not a sturdy foundation and eventually will fall. As posted on Ron Paul's desk, Do not steal, the government hates competition.
grant
Hear Hear!
.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Would you accept barley ?
Would you accept barley as the basis of commodity money, or gold and silver, exclusively ?
What should be used as money in a country where there is no gold or silver ?
The Federal Reserve Notes (bank notes, not fiat money) were saddled upon the United States not by the Federal Government, but by private bankers whose ancestors saddled upon mankind the idea of gold and silver money.
Fiat money would be non-interest-bearing, legal-tender Treasury Note. If since 1971 fiat money had been used (in stead of interest-bearing bank notes) the volume of money in circulation, price level would be the same, but 30 cents of every tax-dollar would not be syphoned off for the interest on the national debt.
Money is a tangible representative of an abstract idea
The problem is not with legal tender Treasury Notes, but the people who issue them.
There is a very good reason
There is a very good reason why gold and silver, but gold in particular, evolved into money and that is they are not consumed in use, unlike barley or other similar commodities. Money evolved over a period of years and did so in a manner that could be considered unplanned over a period of 2500 years or so; the act of coinage came about around 620B.C. and the interesting thing is that there were similar occurrences around the same time in other civilizations.
In addition to the non-consumptive nature of gold and silver, the recognition of value by various civilizations only added to its natural evolution as a monetary exchange medium.
The fact is that bankers did not saddle mankind with the idea that gold and silver was money. Gold and silver evolved naturally from the market and preceded the concept of banking, especially as it arose in Western civilization. Thus your premise that it was bankers that somehow created gold and silver as money is fraught with historical flaws. The problem, of course, is that people’s understanding of money has been so distorted by the actions of governments throughout history that the entire concept is skewed and the knowledge of monetary history is colored by certain political understandings that do not correlate with the actual events that gave rise to money as it superseded the barter system. It is also very misunderstood that the concept of interest also preceded the use of money and originated with the barter economy.
Money required no government intervention or law to create or manage it, but as governments began to understand the power that money played in economic power they sought to harness that power and control its use. Money has never been the problem governments have been the problem.
Now, if you actually read the history of the FED, you will quickly find that it was not only private bankers, but also politicians that wanted the system to be implemented and there is a very good reason. That reason is because the primary beneficiary of the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve is the government. It is government sanctioned, government ordained and its very existence depends upon this government. The relationship is symbiotic and one cannot exist without the other, at least in their current state.
History proves that whether the fiat currency is interest or non-interest bearing, that the results are basically the same and that is the massive accumulation of debt because of government abuse of the fiat monetary system. The debt of this country quadrupled under the so-called non-interest bearing note known as the Lincoln Greenback. There are several examples going back throughout history of fiat currencies, which carried no burden of interest, causing massive accumulations of debt. Additionally, when a fiat currency is used, even one that is non-interest bearing, the propensity of government is to inflate, causing massive depreciation and ending in social suffering, many times a degree of suffering that we cannot yet relate to in this country.
Factually, if you look at the various monetary regimes throughout history it becomes relatively clear, even to an untrained eye, that the cause of monetary instability is the intervention of governments into the monetary market.
The inflation of the money supply, especially since 1971 when a pure fiat regime was implemented, as been astounding and is readily recognized when compared to a historical time-line reaching back to the 1600s. The fact is that until 1914, the rate of inflation, thus monetary depreciation, remained relatively level and traveled in a very narrow channel with minor increases and decreases. From 1914, the level of inflation began to rise until 1971, at which point there was a precipitous rise that has never been seen before during the last 400 years or so. As a correlation between the steep rise of inflation [increased fiat money supply] and debt can be seen without difficulty, thus it did not have much to do with whether the currency was or was not interest bearing, for it was interest bearing prior to 1971, but it was the fact that from that point, all debt was, at that point, repudiated by this government and a pure fiat regime was forced upon the world.
I contend that, based upon history, the fact is that the concept of fiat notes is a problem and it not only contributes to the actions of men in power, but causes many of the actions that are taken by men in power. Money is indeed a medium of exchange, but the nature of that medium makes all the difference. Fiat money, whether interest or non-interest bearing, is both a contributing factor to the actions of men in power and is effected by the actions of men in power. Anytime a monetary medium must be forced upon the population by the means of legal tender laws then that money is a tool in the hands of those who wield that power. Fiat money never arises voluntarily; it has never done so in all of history, but is thrust upon people by governments. The problem is fiat currency and history proves that fact time and again.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
very selective
What happens when there is no gold/silver:--
http://dailypaul.com/node/123696
So you don't belive in commodity money, only in gold money -- at least should be honest about your religion. You believe that fiat bank notes, based on non-existent gold/silver reserve, should be lent into existence and circulation by private bankers at interest ? You are very selective in your objection to paper money. Fraudulent Standard
>>>>>The problem, of course, is that people’s understanding of money has been so distorted by the actions of governments
Yes. Who paid for those governments ?
You should have noticed in the history of the Federal Reserve that it was bank employees posing as congressmen/senators who pushed the act; it was a president, bought and paid for by J.P. Morgan Co. who signed the act. (just as it was a bank employee [Paulson] who recently gave a boat-load of fiat money to bankers)
Gold and silver money did not evolve naturally -- especially not in places where there is no gold; gold is a fairly value-less material, no use for it untill the electronic age; copper, iron are a lot more valuable
Etruscs -- great civilization, pottery, no gold money
Carpathian basin -- organized society, nice houses, ice-cellars, cattle standard
Indus valley -- indoor plumbing, no gold money
Sumeria -- great civilization, science, agriculture, domestication, barley standard, clay notes; eventhough in Sumeria they did not have to dig deep for gold, it could be panned from the river
South America -- organized society, socialism, impressive buildings, gold is considered worth-less
Paul Einzig in 'Primitive Money' lists all sort of things that were used by people as currency. A quote from it :
"China is practically the only country about which we possess detailed evidence concerning the early evolution of her primitive currency. Terrien de Lacouperie in his 'Catalogue of Chinese Coins', produces a chronological list of the outstanding numismatic events from the earliest time to the 17th century A.D. It is based largely on W. Visserig's standard work 'On Chinese Currency', published in 1877, and it is confirmed by a recent translation of an early work on the economic history of Ancient China. The pre-Chinese population of China had used cowries shells as a medium of exchange. When the Chinese arrived on the scene (24th century B.C.) they found cowries in general use. The Chinese invaders, who for many centuries constituted a minority of the population, regulated the circulation of cowries as well as that of tortoise-shells and other shells. Reference to cowries appear in 'Ya-King', the oldest Chinese book. The same book also mentioned tortoise-shell currency, used for large payments which would have required too many cowries. The use of cowries and other shells by the early Chinese as currency is also indicated by etymological evidence. The words denoting 'buying', 'selling', 'riches', 'prices', 'cheap', 'dear', and many others referring to money and wealth contain the ideographic sign denoting the word 'shell'."
{
Cowry Cowrie
A marine shell of the genus Cypraea.
There are numerous species, many of them ornamental.
Formerly Cypraea moneta and several other species were largely used as money in Africa and some other countries, and they are still so used to some extent. The value is always trifling, and varies at different places.
}
If you studied history you would notice what a disaster gold/silver money was; and what a blessing it was for bankers who issued their own notes based on alleged gold reserve. Please point out a time period when fiat was not used and only gold and silver coins were in circulation; was it a time of prosperity or disaster ?
1971 was the private bankers' idea, the same private bankers (owners of Fed) whose hard-money ancestors pushed for note circulation, http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/uregina/antibank2.html demonetization of silver, when silver was plenty; monetization of silver and de-monetization of gold when gold was plenty and silver scarce. If tomorrow a million tonnes of gold was discovered in the desert, all ye gold-bugs would discard your precious metal and would clamour for Moon-rock-based bank notes.
Up until the 20th century there were no social programs, social spending, very large, permanent, interest-bearing government debt -- please place the blame where it belongs, not on legal tender Treasury Notes.
_________________________
" Every conclusion arrived at as a result of study of the fragments of information available in respect to money and its creators in the world of the Ancient Civilizations, indicates the existence of a far reaching conspiracy in respect to monetary issuance influencing the progression of man’s history in the earliest times of which written record exists. It is also outstandingly clear that it was parent to that acknowledged and most obvious conspiracy such as exists today.
"The whole notion of the institution of precious metals by weight as common denominator of exchanges, internationally and nationally, cannot but have been disseminated by a conspiratorial organization fully aware of the extent of the power to which it would accede, could it but maintain control over bullion supplies and the mining which brought them into being in the first place. Clearly such notion had originally come into being during that historically distant period when first of all free silver began to be extensively used as a convenient and highly portable commodity in settlement of balances outstanding in foreign trade; certainly as far back as Neolithic times. This fact was indicated by the evidence existing that values (and by inference money) were already expressed in terms of silver by weight at the time of the Azag-Bau Dynasty at Kish in Mesopotamia; although in a sense perhaps narrow and strictly national."
" So you don't belive in
" So you don't belive in commodity money, only in gold money -- at least should be honest about your religion. You believe that fiat bank notes, based on non-existent gold/silver reserve, should be lent into existence and circulation by private bankers at interest ? You are very selective in your objection to paper money. Fraudulent Standard"
I’m am not sure where you could possibly come to any other conclusion about my “belief” that gold is money, it is clear in this thread and in all my writings about the subject, even on my blog it is very clear. I have been extremely honest about my beliefs! Equally as clear is my disdain for the fiat monetary system and the organization of debt into money, again, I have been very clear on the subject, so I am not sure just how you could arrive at such conclusions after reading my writings. I am a believer in the Constitutionally sanctioned monetary system which, based upon the Constitution and the Debates on the Constitution, is clearly that gold and silver are the primary forms of money with baser metals making up the smaller coinage, as under the Coinage Act of 1792. Additionally, I am a firm believer in a warehouse receipt system where paper receipts would be utilized as a substitute medium of exchange, but only if it were completely and 100% convertible into the real money that those receipts represent.
As far as commodities used as money, I am well aware of the evolution of various forms of money in various societies throughout history, that being said however, the subject here is our money, not that of some other society where goats, shells, corn, cows, etc. have evolved as a means of exchange above a barter economy. Thus, based upon the subject of the United States monetary system, it should be clear that I am a firm supporter of the Constitutional monetary system as it was enumerated.
Nothing could be clearer in my statements!
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
I did not come to any other
I did not come to any other conclusion than that you are gold-based paper note advocate/subscriber. That was very clear from any of your post. Please re-phrase first paragraph of post (and any other reference to commodity money); you do not support commodity money.
If the article is only about "our" money, yes, for this and that and other reasons the framers decided [decreed, fiat(ed)] that only gold, silver, copper coins are the legal-tender media of exchange of these united States. (I am not a citizen or resident of the U.S.) Then let us -- for the first time -- try strictly coin money on for size: no paper receipts, no cheques, no banks, only coin.
_____________
Vice-President Thomas Jefferson
To John Taylor.
November 26, 1798.
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year, would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars would be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas. "
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/taylor.html
789: I think you are touching on a good point here
Gold and Silver were used (developed as a currency) during Fuedal or Noble Societies.
These societies had very few "owners" and a whole lot of peasants.
It was not truly a free-market -- therefore if you analyse Gold and Silver (et al commodities) given the Propertarian nature of those societies (where the owners had title, hereditary, religious, and military power behind them -- and the poor had nothing) then it would be easy to see why/how Gold and Silver has never been reliable (in and of itself).
If we go back to Constitutional-Minarchism or Propertarian-Anarchy (Anarcho-Capitalism) gold or silver backed currency will automatically lead back to owner-monopolization -- owing to property rights (military or police might).
However, if we were to create a truly free-society (Consumer-Minarchism or Consumer-Individualism), where Owners and Workers have zero rights -- then gold and silver would be a truly free-currency. There would be other currency options as well; to be a true free-market there can be no barriers to entry and 100% self-defense (zero protectionism).
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
What a curious article
The title doesn't match the discourse, does it?
The fact of the matter is, despite all your opinions about money/gold/commodities/value etc., your arguments that fiat money, in and of iself, has somehow destroyed our economy, are very weak. Far better it would be to focus on the actions of our governments.
The most curious thing about the US dollar these days is that people will willingly exchange gold for it. And, if I ask any gold dealer what the value or price of gold is, they will always give a quote in dollars.
How strong is your argument that the actual purchasing power of Americans has declined? Over the last 100 years I think maybe not. Over the last 30 or so years, maybe so. How could we come we definitively figure this out?
h-daddy
If we look at history, in
If we look at history, in particular political monetary history, the evidence has always concluded in the destruction of a fiat monetary system and the subsequent suffering of the people it is imposed upon.
The very nature of fiat currency almost begs for abuse by governments, in fact, if you look at the history of governments in relationship to either fiat currency or debased currencies you will always see the correlation between fiat money and government abuse, not only of the monetary system but also ultimately of the entire social order. The actions of our government cannot be separated from the monetary system since the fiat monetary system is the very impetus by which this government acts and expands its power. Without the fiat monetary system government would have a limited ability to exceed a taxable mandate, thus fiat currencies always, without exception provides the vehicle for such government action. The entire fiat monetary system is nothing more than a system that creates a transfer society, one in which the wealth of the many is transferred into the hands of a select few, particularly those within government and those who are politically connected to that government.
You make my point for me, there was a gradual implementation of the fiat monetary system in this country, beginning primarily with the Lincoln disaster known as the Greenback, then later with the Federal Reserve Act, the actions of FDR and the New Deal and then, finally the institution of a pure fiat monetary system under Richard Nixon. The depreciation of the purchase value of the “dollar” can be seen in the incremental implementation of the fiat monetary system in this country.
Today, that depreciation is translated into the contrast between a 1913-dollar verses a 2009-dollar; today it takes almost $22.00 to purchase what $1.00 purchased in 1913. In the year 2000 it took $17.39 dollars to purchase what $1.00 purchased in 1913. In 1990 $13.90, in 1980 it took $8.32, in 1970 it took only $3.92 to purchase what $1.00 did in 1913. In 1960 it took $2.99, in 1950 it took $2.43 and in 1941 it took $1.41. Thus, based upon the official rates of inflation, it can be easily seen the effects of fiat currency from the first real frontal assault on the dollar by FDR to the final assault by Nixon in 1971. The rate of inflationary depreciation rapidly increased after 1971, and that was to be expected due to the nature of a purely fiat currency. Thus, we have the United Fiat Serfdom of America.
Now, in terms of a fiat serfdom, the definition a serf is one who is bound to his master, laboring for his master in return for his life, his relative freedom to live his life and what meager rewards are provided to him from his master in recompense for the labors he performs for his master’s estate. I propose that if you look at the hourly “wage” in terms that contrast the actual purchase value of the dollar with the face amount of the dollar then the vast majority of the population of this country is indeed serfs dependent upon the good-graces of their master. The American People are productive serfs, working for what actually amounts to pennies in purchase power while under the assumption that they are making a given amount in terms of the face value of the fiat currency they are paid every week. For instance, if a man “earns” $25.00 face value an hour today, the actual purchase value is approximately $1.15 in terms of a 100 cent 1913 dollar. Thus, for a 40-hour week of labor the person “earns” $1,000.00 [pre-taxed], but that translates into only $46.15 dollars in actual purchase value based upon a 100-cent non-depreciated dollar.
The effects on the economy should be rather clear; the economic power of each monetary unit has been diluted to a degree that each dollar is losing its exchange value through inflation. Of course, the ultimate expression of a complete loss of purchase value is a hyper-inflationary event.
People are willing to exchange paper fiat money for gold and there are several reasons for that, one being the legal tender laws that government the implementation of the fiat dollar. Additionally, the reason that gold is quoted in dollars is simple, it is the only point of reference available to us, and the same goes for other countries where gold is quoted in their respective fiat currencies.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
I have no doubt that
everything you say concerning the attributes of a fiat monetary system are accurate. But I find your argument about purchasing power very weak. By any measure, Americans are far better off today than they were in 1865, 1913, 1945. We work fewer hours for a higher standard of living. And we've added over 200 million people to our population.
I don't know about 1971 to the present. A lot has changed and the picture isn't clear to me.
So, despite having a fiat monetary system, we have prospered. You've argued before that we would be even better off if we had a gold-backed system. And you may be right.
h-daddy
Concerning the purchase power
Concerning the purchase power of the currency all one need do is look at the figures, whether provided by the government or some other source, to see that the depreciated value of the currency has been enormous over the years. As Adam Smith said: "Though the wages of the workmen are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not in money, but in the money's worth..."
If therefore the worth of money is depreciated by inflation, what is the effect of that depreciation on the average citizen to gain wealth? Well, you have raised an interesting point when you say that we are better off today than say in 1865, 1913 or 1945; while that does appear to be the case, what is the personal rate of debt on average in this country? Now, when you consider that prosperity is based upon actual asset value, and not the burden of debt then what has fueled what you see as “better off”? It is certainly not actual prosperity, but the illusion brought about by a debt-standard of living. Under such fiat systems, the illusion is very fragile, what we see as wealth under such systems can easily and rapidly be destroyed. Real prosperity cannot be lost by such onslaughts as debt prosperity.
It must also be understood that not only does money serve as a medium of exchange, but also at the means of economic calculation upon which all economic decisions are made; as the currency is depreciated the value of those decisions, as well as the reliability of those decisions become distorted. Additionally, fiat monetary depreciation destroys the character of individual thrift, eventually even self-reliance is corrupted through the system and, as we have seen, now almost half the population of this country depends upon some sort of government subsidy. History proves that there are few policies that destroy a free society as does the intentional debauchery of a country’s currency; it promotes poverty at an ever-increasing rate and eventually chaos ensues, which leads to an the need for more and more government control to the point of tyranny.
What is prosperity? First, the primary characteristic of prosperity is consistency and the generalized availability of people to become prosperous. Fiat monetary systems preclude widespread prosperity due to the fact that the currency loses its potency as a medium of exchange. Additionally, since the fiat monetary system allows for the drastic expansion of government, economic resources and capital are diverted into the system through a number of mechanisms, one, of course, being inflationary depreciation which amounts to little more than a well-hidden taxation upon the earnings of the people. Without the fiat monetary system such an expansive government would not be possible, nor would the government have the ability to ignore the will of the people with a sound monetary system since taxation would be required for any expansion of government power and overt taxation tends to cause the people to rise up against policies which demand such taxation.
As I have said, fiat monetary inflation is a federal tax, particularly on those who hold dollars and are on fixed incomes, but additionally, it is a very potent instrument for the redistribution of wealth. When we look at the actual magnitude of this redistribution, it becomes impossible to ignore just how damaging fiat money really is to the common man. There has been a massive transfer of the disposable income of the American People, in realistic terms the most massive transfer of wealth in the history of the mankind. Are we indeed better off? Are we indeed prosperous?
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Indeed!
"Though the wages of the workmen are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not in money, but in the money's worth..." Exactly! I contend that the wages of 1913 (or any time prior to 1971) purchased a lower standard of living than they do today. Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?
Moreover, despite all the insidious effects of fiat money, as you so clearly outline, the prosperity of US citizens has increased. That's the bottomline.
In my mind, corporatism, welfare, taxation, redistribution of wealth, war, etc. are important issues but side isues and, importantly, could come about with any sort of monetary system. The real issue is govermnet "shenanigans", ie not following the law of the land - the U.S. Constitution.
So, I would argue that fiat money per se is not the central problem but rather it is the way government operates. Fiat money, as you say, is merely one of the many tools they employ to keep control.
Throughout history, correct me if I am wrong (of course you will!) whenever monetary systems are ineffective or inappropriate, black markets - underground economies - arise. Why doesn't the USA have a massive underground economy if our monetary system is so awful? Or does it? Is it Wall Street? Is it hidden?
h-daddy
Oh, I most certainly do
Oh, I most certainly do disagree. Remember too, that many things, not just money, affect standards of living, there are other factors involved, such as technological advances, more efficient methodologies of labor and manufacture. The average American lives better than most Kings did even though most Kings were probably much richer in terms of money than the average American. That does not necessarily have to do with money, but with certain advances in civilization and the creative minds of men through the implementation of those advances.
Anytime you have inflationary depreciation, the purchase value of the currency is diminished meaning it requires more money to purchase the same amount of goods as when the purchase value of the currency was undiminished. It is also very important to remember that the scale of wages, as in per hour dollars earned, is very different than the purchase value of those wages. If you have a wage of $100.00 per week where the currency paid holds full purchase value and compare that to a wage of $100.00 per week where the purchase value of the currency paid has been depreciated through inflation then it will take you more money to purchase the things you need with your wages under a diminished purchase value than it did with a full purchase value currency. The fact that we appear to be paid more today in face value leads to the illusion that we are making more than we really are in purchase value. Adam Smith was correct; it is the money’s worth, not the face amount of that money that is meaningful. Thus if you are making $50.00 per hour in terms of the currency’s face value but that $50.00 in face value, because of inflationary depreciation, only purchases $40.00 worth of goods then the worth or purchase value has been decreased. You are essentially buying less for more money, that is the effect of inflationary depreciation of the currency.
As an example, let us take that $50.00 in terms of a decade ago, the year 2000. Today it takes $62.29 to purchase what $50.00 would purchase in the year 2000. Thus, although you may be making more per hour in face value wages those wages allow you to purchase less due to the depreciation of the currency through inflation.
Take for instance a once of gold, today an ounce of gold hovers around $1142.00 per ounce. Now, in order to make the point about the severity of inflationary depreciation I use the year 1913 because the U.S. Dollar retained the full purchase value of 100 Cents. Remember, I am speaking about the worth or purchase value of the dollar, not the dollar price of gold when I make this illustration. Now say your Great Grand Father socked away $1000.00 worth of gold in 1913 and stated it was to be given to you in the year 2010. In dollar terms what would be the worth of that $1000.00 worth of gold today? Excluding other factors, and there are other factors involved in the fiat price of gold today, let us consider the dollar in relationship to gold price. In 1913, the dollar was valued at 1/20th an ounce of gold; today the dollar is 1/1142nd of an ounce of gold. What is the difference, disregarding other factors in the price of gold?
If it takes you more money to buy what less money bought 10 years ago then are you better off? I contend that you are not better off. Again, the standard of living is not solely based upon the value of the currency, although it is a factor to be sure. Primarily borrowing has fostered the standard of living in this country, all advancement has been fostered by borrowing…take that away and what do you have? Since the fiat monetary system is based upon the organization of debt into currency, in other words borrowing, what is the net effect on the standard of living? Well, there can be no doubt that the standard of living has increased, but it is due to the fact that there has been a virtual unlimited supply of credit; the problem, of course, with all fiat monetary systems, is that it can only last as long as the currency remains viable.
If you took the entire available fiat monetary credit away from this economy what would the standard of living be? Since the economy is based upon the fiat nature of credit creation, the more the monetary purchase value is depreciated the more dependent on debt society becomes to fuel its standard of living. If you look at the rate of personal, corporate and government debt over the last 60 years, you will see a direct correlation between the increase in debt and the depreciation of the currency. Since the purchase value of the currency is being depreciated there must be some mechanism to replace that value, unfortunately the only thing that can replace a currency’s purchase value is the extension of credit/debt. People tend to utilize credit to maintain a standard of living that cannot be maintained by a depreciated currency.
You mention the Constitution and the lack of adherence to it by government and you are correct, but the primary impetus of this deviation from Constitutional principles has been the transformation of this country’s sound monetary system into a fiat monetary system. Fiat money allows government to expand, it allows for the redistribution of wealth, for the hidden taxation of inflation to avoid open taxation, it allows for massive interventionism in other countries around the world, it allows for the welfare state, for corporatism and government sponsored monopolies. Without fiat money, all the ills that you have mentioned would be difficult to create or maintain; fiat money is the life-blood of the un-Constitutional State Machine, without it the State Machine, in its present form, could not operate. With a sound money system there would be much more ability to restrict and limit not only the power of government, but also those who are politically connected to that government.
Without fiat money, the government would not be able to operate as it pleases. Fiat money denies the ability of oversight and accountability of the government. If you look at the history of this country, it has been the fiat monetary system that has allowed government to reach beyond the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.
This country has a massive underground economy; it also has a rather substantial barter economy as well. There is a massive, bustling underground economy where all types of jobs, services and all manner of business transactions take place, all by word of mouth, transacted in cash to avoid the government and to bypass the tax system in this country.
So, we have all types of economic activity that provides income that is not reported, other types of economic activity is created to circumvent various compulsory mandates, licenses, inspections, labor laws, regulations and controls. Also, along with all that you have those who are the beneficiaries of some sort of government assistance who bypass the restrictions, choosing instead to draw their government assistance while maintaining “under-the-table” jobs. It has been estimated that the underground economy is somewhere around the $1 Trillion mark, although since it is underground there can be no real measurements.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
I am certainly not arguing for a fiat monetray system
Any monetary system controlled by government would go against my belief that free markets serve the populace better. But your claim that fiat money undermines economies and the citizens is not supported by the evidence.
"If it takes you more money to buy what less money bought 10 years ago then are you better off?" Only if your income increases and/or if the things you need to purchase get "cheaper". Both things have happened. What the average citizen earns today can purchase a higher standard of living (quality of life) than in 1913. Isn't that the bottomline?
"Without fiat money, the government would not be able to operate as it pleases." Seems to me the government did just as it pleased prior to the fiat system.
We do have an underground economy but it doesn't exist because of a fiat monetary system. It exists for all the reasons you mentioned. I contend that if our fiat system was no good a black market would arise that didn't use it. Has that happened?
h-daddy
Actually, if you look at all
Actually, if you look at all of the fiat monetary regimes throughout history it is hard to come to the conclusion that you have by stating that fiat money does not undermine economies or the citizens of those countries which implement such monetary regimes. One need not look far to find ample evidence to the contrary. From the economic and social disasters in Rome, to China, to Colonial America, Sweden, to France, then in the 20th Century we have The Weimar Republic and then the list becomes far too extensive to mention.
The following is a partial list of the various fiat failures in history. While there was no “paper money” in Rome, the effect of debasing the Denarius was virtually the same in terms of fiat. By the year 244, the once Silver Denarius only contained 0.02% of Silver, at that point it was no longer accepted as money even though there were tons of it that had been circulating in the economy. The results of that collapse eventually facilitated the fall of Rome because of the social disorder that ensued from the economic chaos. A good book to read is The New Deal In Old Rome by Joseph Haskell, published in 1939. If you read that book you will find an incredible correlation between Rome and our current situation.
Then you can see the effects of a fiat monetary system on China from the 11th Century to the invasion by Kublai Khan. If you have read the writings of Marco Polo then you will recognize his assessment of the Khan’s own venture into fiat currency:
“You might say that Kublai has the secret of alchemy in perfection…the Khan causes every year to be made such a vast quantity of this money, which costs him nothing, that it must equal in amount all the treasure of the world.”
Sounds great, and in fact the Khan’s fiat regime worked rather well for a while, but like all fiat regimes collapse is inherent and end in the people suffering the consequences. Marco Polo, after lauding the wonders of the Khan’s fiat regime later stated:
“Population and trade had greatly increased, but the emissions of paper notes were suffered to largely outrun both…All the beneficial effects of a currency that is allowed to expand with a growth of population and trade were now turned into those evil effects that flow from a currency emitted in excess of such growth. These effects were not slow to develop themselves…the best families in the empire were ruined, a new set of men came into the control of public affairs, and the country became the scene of internecine warfare and confusion.”
Now, on to a later period in history where the results of a fiat regime are far less than commendable. The first time that fiat money was introduced into France was through a man named John Law, who after assisting in the creation of the fiat regime in France because the most hated man, his life literally threatened, he was forced to flee the country. Of course, later in the 18th Century yet another fiat regime was introduced, called the Assignats, that fiat monetary system finally collapsed in a rate of inflation that could be considered a little high at 13,000%, the results on the common man and even on those who were of the higher classes was devastating, to say the least. You would think that the French would have learned their lesson, but by 1930 the French did it again, this time it only took 12 years for the currency to lose 99% of its value; again the results of that collapse was not a pretty picture in terms of the people’s ability to survive such a high rate of inflation without starving to death.
Of course, then we have the Weimar Republic, I am sure you are familiar with the accounts of people burning bundles of Marks because it was cheaper to burn their money than it was to buy fire wood. By the year 1923, the exchange rate was $1 Dollar to 4.2 Trillion Marks.
Then we have the fiat disaster in Hungary under the Pengo, which had an inflation rate that is absurd to even consider, by the time the Pengo was put to rest at a rate of inflation of 100 quintillion and the Forint replaced it the Forint had to be introduced at a value of 4 × 1029 , even that could not stop the hyper-inflationary event that had gripped the country, ruined its economy and destroyed the ability of the people to live in a manner that could be considered half-way normal under any circumstances.
The list from there is so extensive that I will only touch on them, such as Argentina, which had the 8th largest economy in the world prior to 1932, then due to fiat inflation the currency collapsed. Of course, Argentina has suffered several times from a fiat meltdown throughout the 20th Century. You also have examples in Italy, Norway, and Finland, all through Europe, South and Central America. Russia, under the Communist Fiat regime also suffered massive inflation, of course the Iron Hand of the government and the economic isolation of the country insulated a drastic social collapse, although it can be said that since economic calculation is virtually impossible under a socialized system, economic viability is completely unsustainable in the long run. There are so many countries that have suffered from the effects of fiat regimes that it is hard to name them all.
Then, of course, we have Zimbabwe, once it was one of the wealthiest countries on the African continent, but under the fiat regime of Mugabe, a regiment of price controls put in place to combat the hyper-inflation has left the country in dire straits, where food, clean water and even the most basic essentials for life are difficult to obtain.
It is difficult, in fact, to hold the position you do when you view this history of fiat regimes. Fiat currency is an insidious system, which, in a very real sense, destroys capital production, destabilizing the entire capital structure through the artificial management of interest rates. Through the fiat monetary system, capital is siphoned off of productive industry and business because of several factors, one being the propensity of bond speculation that arises under a fiat regime. As we have seen, financial capital [via speculation] becomes a parasite on productive capital. We must take into consideration another important fact, and that is under a gold monetary system there was no bond speculation because there was no need for bonds to support and create the monetary unit.
Additionally, because of the manner by which a fiat monetary system is managed, there is also a propensity for mal-investments, misallocation and simple economic mistakes because the information received under a fiat monetary system is inherently inconsistent and distorted. The uncertainty of the monetary foundation creates uncertainty in the market; this is particularly true when considering the manipulation of interest rates. In a free market, interest rates are set by the market and, in a very real sense; it becomes a self-regulating system, which provides accurate information about the economic markets upon which financial decisions can be made. There are, in such a system, rather capricious changes in the marginal productivity of capital, which gradually transforms the economic system into a mass of distortions.
Since the entire fiat monetary system depends on the manipulation of interest rates and the market created for bonds, the effect is the contraction of profits and the destruction of capital, especially when a loose-money policy is maintained. Debt servicing becomes an issue under such a system because there in no consistency of the monetary decisions of the Federal Reserve and the reason for that is that the FED cannot foresee the subtle changes in the economy that require a change in the rate of interest. Unlike a free market gold monetary system where the market sets the rate of interest, the fiat system must rely upon the next best guess of those who decide the discount rate should rise or fall, but the means by which the FED comes to those decisions is itself skewed by the very system they seek to manage.
Of course, we have seen the very things I am speaking about. Take the current banking system, most of these banks did not want to report the actual losses they incurred, so, they essentially cooked the books for a period of time, paid out phantom profits in dividends to their share-holders and continued to make decisions based upon the information they were receiving from the Central Bank; this served to compound their losses.
At present, the FED is seeking to fight the potential threat of falling-asset values by bond purchases on the open market and through quantitative easing. The problem is that the creation of all this “newly printed money” does little to create an atmosphere that inspires business confidence or a drop in the rate of unemployment.
Since there are no limitations on the amount of fiat money that can be created under this system, it also allows for an unlimited amount of credit creation. Now, the initial appearance from the influx of more fiat money and fiat credit is that there is a rapid growth in just about all asset and equity prices. The availability of all this new money and credit gives the impression that there is actual economic growth and prosperity. However, since there is no way to continue inflating the fiat bubble forever, the bust always comes. The economy then contracts, profits are squeezed; people lose their jobs, their homes, their savings, their retirement, etc. Mal-investments are exposed, distortions in the economic substructure surface and the economy contorts.
Since fiat systems contribute to deficit spending, the damage to the economic well-being of the country and the people of the country is concealed for a while since the government continues to maintain its viability through uncontrollable spending, but that can only last as long as the monetary unit remains viable as a medium of economic exchange. Mises called the end of this fiat cycle a “crack-up boom”, in other words, the fiat system is stretched to the limits of monetary viability, the system enters a stage of inflation that increases to the point that the monetary unit no longer retains purchase value and the people spend the currency as soon as they receive it because of the fear prices will continue to rise. Eventually of course, the system enters a hyper-inflationary event, which leads to economic and social collapse. The fiat money then becomes irreversibly worthless and nothing the government or the Central Bank does can revive its value. The fact is that in the last 3000 years every single fiat monetary system has collapsed and in ever single case, gold has been the only money that could revive economic and social order in the countries subjected to a fiat monetary collapse.
At present, the U.S. has a debt rate similar in proportion to that of Weimar Germany, but with some very important distinctions. The debt of this government is purely based upon a total and absolute fiat regime, a massive amount of IOUs that are physically impossible to ever repay, there will be few options left this government, but I can imagine what will happen based on the history of other fiat regimes.
If we consider the U.S. Dollar, it has lost between 92% and 97% of its purchase value since 1913, depending if you are using official government numbers or some of the more independent analysis. We are at the tipping point with our fiat regime, it will not take much to cast it over the edge of viability.
Now, you state that if your income increases and if things get cheaper then you can purchase a higher standard of living, that is true, at least to a degree, but if you research the actual economic stratification that has taken place in our society since 1913 you will readily see that has not been the case. Have you ever heard that the Middle Class is disappearing? Even wonder what that means? Well, it must either mean that people are moving into a higher economic class or they are moving into a lower economic class. The fact is that there has been a drastic increase in the numbers of those in the lower class than that of the higher-class strata. This points to the fact that there are more people struggling economically than not. If you assume that the bottom line is a better standard of living then look at the numbers of those who have fallen into the lower economic strata verses those who have risen into the higher strata. Indeed, as I stated earlier, there are proportionally more living in poverty today than at any time in our history, if it were simply a case of having more money in circulation to help people prosper, as with the fiat regime, then we should see a vast rise in the wealth-creating ability of people, but we don’t, we see just the opposite. If the amount of money in circulation was a cause of wealth or of a better standard of living then everyone should be wealthy and have a wonderful standard of living based on the amount of fiat money printed and placed into circulation, the two do not relate to each other except in the most basic of terms of economic exchange.
Now concerning the ability of governments to do as they please, they do attempt to however, under the budgetary limitations of a gold monetary system it is far more difficult for the government to expand in a way that is contrary to what we know as the Constitutional limitations placed upon it. You can, in fact, look at the history of our country and see a marked difference between the actions and expansion of government under a gold monetary system and the fiat monetary regime. A good study about the excesses that a fiat regime allows is the Administration of Lincoln and his Greenbacks.
Now, you state that the underground economy does not exist because of the fiat system, but when you consider what is necessary to maintain the fiat system then you can see that the reason for the underground economy is directly associated with the existence of the fiat system. In the 1940s, a man by the name of Beardsley Ruml gave a speech and the contents of that speech have a direct bearing on our debate today. In that speech Ruml asked the question: “Why does the government need to tax at all?”, of course he was speaking about the operations of government under a fiat monetary system and he proceeded to answer the question he rhetorically asked his audience.
He went on to state that the answer would seem obvious: revenue. However, he continued with an amazing revelation about the fiat monetary system that very few people seem to be aware of today. He stated that governments have resorted to borrowing to pay the expenditures since those expenses are far greater than any revenues from tax receipts will allow. Ruml continued to say that one major change made it possible for governments to by-pass such restrictions and that was transforming money into unconvertible fiat money. Then he makes more revelations saying: “the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured by a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.
Now if you can come to grips with what Ruml is really saying in those statements then you will find it as astounding as I do, but that is not all of his revelations concerning the fiat regime and the reason for taxation. He goes on to give the reason for taxation:
1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the [fiat] dollar;
2. To express public policy in the distribution [redistribution] of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups.
4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits.
He continues by saying: :the most important single purpose to be served by the imposition of federal taxes is the maintenance of a [fiat] dollar, which has stable purchasing power over the years. [which, by the way, is impossible to maintain under a fiat system]…
“The second principle purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and income than would result from economic forces working alone [in other words, a free market]. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax and the gift tax…It is important, here, to not that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income.
Again, he revels the insidious nature of the fiat system: “The dollars the government spends become purchasing power in the hands of the people who have received them. The dollars the government takes by taxes cannot be spent by the people, and, therefore, these dollars can no longer be used to acquire the things which are available for sale. Taxation is, therefore, an instrument of the first importance in the administration of any fiscal and monetary policy.”
Essentially, Ruml is stating that under a fiat regime there is no need for taxation to generate revenues, the purposes are all connected with either the maintenance of the fiat monetary system or the redistribution of wealth and income. In fact, Ruml stated on numerous occasions that “taxes are obsolete”, if so then why do we have them. Ruml gave us the answers above, but he also stated that taxes were necessary in order to maintain the fiat system and the way to do what was to enforce legal tender laws by making people pay there taxes with only fiat currency.
So, why is there an underground economy? Hmmm… could it be to avoid all that the fiat regime has allowed this government to do and the power it has provided to the government.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
H-Daddy: The argument can be better articulated in terms of
short-run vs long-run adaptation.
A "free-market" adapts to consumer needs because the owners are not protected (they have no rights) and are thus slaves to consumer interest desire; which is the most accurate prediction of future and present demand.
Therefore all products sold or exchanged in a free-market have entrepreneurial-intrepreneurial-and innovative adaptability at far faster rates then committee engineered markets.
Since currency is a "product" of exchange (it is possible to have competition in this market) then only in a free-market can currency give us the accurate reflection of demand.
All property (truly in a free-market "property" is actually "possession" because there are no-rights) is valued in terms of 'some' currency. In a corporatist economy it is pegged to the "dollar"
Suggesting the latter "fact" does not reverse the point that a free-market currency (owing to no barriers to entry or perfect competition) would out-perform and be a "perfect" (short-run) tool to gauge demand/desire and "real" property values.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I'm not 100% sure what
you are trying to say. But, I think I agree. Free markets are always better than "committee engineered markets". And that, maybe obviously, Fiat money is "committee engineered".
Republicae's point is that the fiat monetary system is an invention of governments, is a tool of governments, and has done the average citizen no good. His evidence for the first two points is convincing but for the 3rd, IMHO, rather weak.
In thinking about this entire topic I would focus on what Dr. Paul calls the "shenanigans" of government when they corrupt our monetary systems and our markets.
h-daddy
H-daddy, have you read "Gold, Peace & Prosperity" by Dr Paul?
http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf
Its a first-rate summary of monetary history in the United States.
Let us see just how the fiat
Let us see just how the fiat monetary system has been detrimental to the average citizen, shall we?
First, we must understand the nature of what can accurately be considered a “vampire economy” where the primary beneficiary of the fiat monetary system is the government itself. In addition to the government being the beneficiary of the fiat monetary system and the power it provides the government, the government can, through the fiat monetary system, not only allocate the income of others, but in a very real sense it can allocate wealth; transferring both from the working people into the hands of those which are generally politically connected. It is the creation of a transfer society, one that provides not only political power to the government, but also, to a very large degree social power. It is a stratifying system that, given the evidence of history, always leads to eventual social conflict and generalized suffering. Thus, in such a transfer society, money no longer retains a completely voluntary character, but is, in a very real sense, becomes an instrument of political force, economic redistribution and influence. Since the fiat monetary system lends itself toward deficit spending, such spending becomes chronic, draining more and more economic efficiency from the productive sectors of the population and transfers it into less productive sectors, in particular the public sector of government bureaucracies.
In addition, the very nature of the fiat monetary system also generates artificially manipulated booms, which conclude, in every case, in a bust where the working people usually end up as victims, suffering not only a decimation of their personal resources, jobs and wealth, but in each bust cycle there is an additional stratification that takes place in the economic viability of the working people in general.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
My Favorite Quotes
As a medium of exchange, money normally serves as a measure of value, but in order to actually contain a measure there must be an imputation of value otherwise there can be no real measure on which to base value.
Such money substitutes cannot convey title to any underlying value since there is no underlying value in fiat currencies. Since it is not possible for title to be conveyed all claims of ownership are null and void; indeed, under a fiat monetary regime there are usually numerous claims to each fiat monetary unit and those claims range from the U.S. Government, to the Federal Reserve System, to national and regional banks and then to corporations, as well as individuals, but these claims do not convey absolute title to something that cannot, in the strictest sense, be considered private property at any point in ownership.
What would be considered criminal under an asset monetary system is sanctioned and encouraged under a fiat monetary system
It should also not come as a surprise that there are those within our society that exploit the system to increase their own holdings and are essentially granted almost monopolistic rights by the government and are beneficiaries of a system that otherwise makes life difficult for the working individual.
The role of a farmer, in Fukuoka's mind, is an observer, not an intervener, of the natural order in his/her particular landscape. How is that any different than Hayek in regards to Economics?
We watch our currency float in a liquidity pool built by MNC's
What we are witnessing in this world is the suppression of diversity within natural open systems such as the ones which formed our various cultures around the world. This suppression is centrally planned by a form of government to homogenize living practices through mandates, which will close individuals off from naturally occurring systems. This results in a monoculture comprised by a systematic creed of financiers.
The financiers came into power as the Federal Government developed centrist plans to insure civility to the states. Bureaucratic behavior became an example of systematic reform to administer regulation to social inequities. Regulatory agencies ensued in the name of civil liberties; however, a fixed solution by way of legislation could not avert the government’s financial obligations of obtaining revenues to administer laws.
Concessions to various companies allowed monopolize to form in an otherwise dwindling industries. Fraud was replete as firms captured regulatory agencies through monetary means to administer laws in the guise of social ills, but fashioned to serve government agencies and their counterparts in free enterprise with growing revenues. These revenues retained by industrialists became essential to their survival as ailing markets strayed from such monopolies weak business structure due to the obsolete products for which the firms could not maintain.
This led business’s to conform to research and development to further market share in what is now fragmented industries. Furthermore, the unsustainable industrial practices by MNC’s to use government to stamp out competitors has led to higher unemployment, higher crime rates as more efficient but un-patentable resources were made illegal, and a resulting monetary regime.
The MNC’s could not sustain themselves by capital investments within their own markets alone, however the international bankers who took over the treasury could easily print money for MNC’s banks to be properly allocated as commercial paper to hedge against creative destruction. The fiat system emerged as a matter of saving big business from more diversifiable and efficient resources.
The government is now engaged with a commercial class of investors to determine further monetary means to consolidate property by way of fiat currency into the hands of private wealth, and power by way of legislation into the hands of public officials.
The role of a farmer, in Fukuoka's mind, is an observer, not an intervener, of the natural order in his/her particular landscape. How is that any different than Hayek in regards to Economics?
Great essay. I learned a few things.
Republicae,
Have you read this book? Debunking the Hyperinflation of Peter Schiff and the Gold Bugs: A Guide for Investors (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Hyperinflation-Peter-Schiff-...
If you have, I would like to hear your rebuttal.
Thanks
How about Ron Paul's rebuttal?
http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf
I can't think of a more famous "Gold Bug" than Ron Paul himself.
Thanks...and no, I have not
Thanks...and no, I have not read the book however, given the monetary ideology of Richard Moheban, then I can only guess his stance. He is virulently anti-gold and, from what I have read, he holds certain misconceptions about Austrian Economics. He has quite mistakenly asserted that that Austrian Economics theory is based in the Quantity Theory of Money, which is not the case at all. He has also stated some rather strange ideas that just because the supply of money is expanded that does mean that there is inflation or that prices will adjust upward due to that inflation. I assume by these statements that he has never read about the events throughout history regarding fiat monetary inflation.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Nice Essay
However, I would disagree with this statement:
"the only method of imparting value to an irredeemable paper fiat money is through government decree based solely on the enforcement of legal tender laws with threat of penalty."
This failed in Zimbabwe and can fail in the U.S. as well. The "value" of fiat money is determined by the markets, (i.e., people). The government can decree anything it wants, but it can't enforce "value". Value is a function of human psychology and is always changing.
I appreciate your comment
I appreciate your comment however, since fiat money has no innate value of its own, the only way that the value can be imputed to it is through government decree. The term fiat means decree. In conjunction, governments legislate legal tender laws to enforce the use of their fiat currencies along with tax laws which require taxes to be paid in the fiat currency of the country.
Fiat money has never arisen through the markets, only through interventions by governments, the markets never initially impart value to such currencies that originates from the enforcement of government threat. Real money always arises out of markets, since real commodity money is a market phenomenon and is solely based upon the voluntary actions of people as, and history is clear on this subject, they move from a barter economy to a monetary economy. The failure of fiat currencies comes not from markets, although markets do have a great deal to do with the ultimate failure as people lose confidence in the fiat currency, but from governments who abuse the system through incessant inflationary policies.
In fact, the government do enforce the value of fiat currencies, they do it all the time and the mechanism they use if the monetary polices of central banks in the manipulation of interest rates, that is, in the simplest terms, the price of money on the market. If the system were based on the standard of actual free markets, where a commodity money was implemented, then the markets would set the rates of interest as a self-regulating force of pricing. In the current system that is simply not possible. Even FOREX markets are heavily manipulated by the monetary interventions of the central banks as they play a definitive role in the price or value of the various currencies around the world.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Boutique currency
I made a mistake in thinking you were offering an alternative to fiat money systems.
As you know, there is not enough gold and silver to back our national currency, so you are offering a small parallel PM money supply to "complement" or work along side a fiat currency. A "boutique" currency of sorts, small and more symbolic than useful.
This is more consistent with Ron Paul's suggestion for the "Competition in Currency Act." Richard C. Cook recently explained that Congressman Ron Paul’s Free Competition in Currency Act is not a workable proposal, it points to a deeply serious problem with the Federal Reserve System that must be faced if the U.S. economy is to have a future."
Cook goes on to explain that "Over the last 40 years the Federal Reserve, with the acquiescence of Congress and the executive branch, has become the primary regulator of the economy. The prevailing philosophy is called monetarism, and it’s based on the raising and lowering of interest rates."
I agree and think the Federal Reserve should promptly be fired. First they sunk the gold standard, then they sunk a fiat system. They are a big part of the problem.
Cook continues:
In the future, you might want to be more clear that you are offering symbolic gestures instead of viable solutions.
END the FED before it ENDS US
There is
no viable solution to make imaginary wealth, real wealth. Except maybe another scam.
Well, you are getting closer
Well, you are getting closer to understanding, but you are not quite on target yet. The fact is that due to the nature of money, in particular gold money, there is more than enough gold to serve as money within this and the global economy. As I have stated, it is not the quantity of money that makes the difference in an economy, unlike fiat money, it is the quality of money that is effective in terms of economic exchange. As Mises stated, there can never be too much or too little money [unless artificially manipulated] because the market will always absorb all supply shocks with demand equilibrium, in other words a market balance in pricing will always reflect the supply of money as it functions as a monetary utility. The fact is that either more or less money does not impart a social benefit, since it is not the quantity of money but the quality of function that imparts a socially economic benefit.
What Dr. Paul is suggesting is a transitional period between the use of fiat money to the total use of gold money. The Competition in Currency Act would provide such a transitional period; it would also totally expose the Federal Reserve and the fiat fractional reserve banking system as a fraud. The constant expansion of fiat money supply, both in terms of physical money and credit, is completely necessary to maintain a fiat economy because the monetary system is always subject to depreciation, the more the levels of depreciation the more the necessity of fiat monetary supply needed to maintain levels of economic growth. In a fiat monetary system there must be an expansion to offset the detrimental effects of depreciated currency on economic efficiency. In other words, since fiat money is subject to inflationary depreciation there must be an expansion of the money supply to counteract those effects, but therein is the “Catch 22”, for the more the fiat monetary supply is expanded the more inflationary depreciation takes place.
I suppose at this point it is necessary to say that there is simply no need to replace the face value or amount of fiat money with an equal amount of gold money because the amount of fiat money no longer retains the necessary purchase value to maintain economic levels or growth for that matter. In fact, if you look at the history of economic growth levels expressed as percentages and taking into consideration inflationary depreciation, you will find that the percentages of actual annualized growth have been steadily diminished over the decades. There are, of course, more reasons behind this fact than merely fiat monetary policies, but that is a primary force behind the deterioration of economic productivity. All one need do is look at the last 40 years since this government switched to a total fiat monetary system. Since that time productivity has waned, debt has soared, savings have dwindled to basically nothing and the rift between the wealthy and the poor has grown drastically.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Sharpen your pencil and try again
You stand alone in stating that the amount of gold doesn't matter (we have enough). Clearly, it does matter greatly and that is why Ron Paul disagree with your premise.
I have given you many opportunities to explain how $312 billion gold backs $15 trillion money supply and you have yet to show the math to support such a crazy statement. You may say we have enough gold but that doesn't make it so.
You are only fractionally backing the money supply or artificially fixing the price of gold to suit your premise.
In either case, you are effectively establishing "fiat" money that you seem to vilify.
This is an old red herring that you spin and I think it is irresponsible for you to mislead the people that seem to support your writings.
Please show the math or explain how you will put a size 14 foot in a shoe sized 2. I would urge others who may read this to do the math themselves and to trust their outcome.
END the FED before it ENDS US
...erm, mayhaps you should resharpen your pencil...
..because Ron Paul has said and supports what republicae is saying about the quantity of gold...
...It is a canard to say otherwise and I suggest you ask the man himself, or at least watch more of his interviews...
...sorry, but it is you who are misrepresenting what the congressman has stated on the subject...
RON2012PAUL...The r3VOLution continues...
"I always win"
http://youtu.be/Xtl2ZuJpG9M
+GOLD and SILVER are money+
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThisIsRogueLiberty
Here is your answer and even
Here is your answer and even the most illogical mind, such as yours, should be able to grasp the logic of it. In deference to your abilities however, I will attempt to simplify it to almost the absurd.
What is the optimal supply of money within the market economy?
Obviously, it is not $15 Trillion fiat dollars, for if it were than each of those fiat dollars would retain the full purchase value of a dollar, or 100 cents in purchase value based upon the standard of a dollar’s valuation. The optimal supply of money is determined by the immutable law of supply and demand, when governments and central banks manage and manipulate the money supply, mainly for political reasons, the money supply becomes distorted and as a result the economy becomes distorted. Economy exchange, which takes place through the medium of money, becomes dysfunctional. In the fiat economy, most references to the money supply are very misleading; this poses particular problems since economics depends upon this most vital medium of exchange.
“Money is a medium of exchange, discovered and developed in the course of human action. It is not something that was created by government, although government has always co-opted and monopolized money, in the process debasing it into something near unrecognizable.” William Anderson
Essentially, the proper supply of money is not mathematically calculated and then manipulated, it is a function of economic markets and the markets determine the actual optimal supply necessary to perform economic functions. When there is too much money in circulation the result is inflation, too little and the result is deflation, but under the optimal amount each monetary unit retains its fully functional purchase value and exchange abilities.
Now, based upon your assertion that there is $15 Trillion fiat dollars in circulation [remember the FED’s numbers are based upon various definitions which change depending upon that definition] is that the optimal amount of money that reflects the economic productivity of this country? The answer is obviously NO, for if it were the optimal amount of money then each of those monetary units would retain 100% purchasing power and they most certainly do not. Since each fiat monetary unit only retains around 3% to 4% of purchasing value what can be deducted from the fact that there is far too much money in circulation? Obviously, there is so much fiat money that the money has essentially become dysfunctional as a medium of exchange. At some point, as the rate of inflation continues to depreciate the purchase value of each fiat unit, people will no longer accept it as a medium of exchange, for the simple reason that it doesn’t buy anything. Massive inflation of the money supply, something the FED has embarked upon in the last couple of years, will eventually work its way into the pricing structure of the economy; as that happens, the purchasing value of each dollar will be pressured by that inflation and buy far fewer goods and it will take far more fiat dollars to purchase those fewer goods.
Fiat money is the perfect tool for monetarily induced socialism; it works perfectly for that end. The fact of the matter is that neither government nor central banks have the ability to manage the money supply any more than they have the ability to manage the economy. The proof of that fact is in the economy itself.
Mises stated that: money is a good that does not create a social benefit by increasing its supply. That is very true since when the supply is increased the result is the depreciation of the currency through inflation, it does nothing in terms of stimulating economic productivity, quite the opposite, it diminishes productivity since the purchase value of each monetary unit is debased, eventually to the point that there is little exchange value left in the currency, as we are seeing with this government’s fiat regime.
In the case of fiat money, where the government via the central bank controls the supply, creating more money decreases the value of each dollar in circulation; the result is the increase of pricing which is the market’s attempt to nullify the increase in the supply.
Again, how much money is necessary for a healthy economy? The market determines the amount, not by the government or the central bank. The market always brings about equilibrium between the supply and the purchase value retained by each circulating unit of money.
In a market economy, one where the government and central bank does not intervene, the market determines everything and is self-regulating. Since money performs one major function that being a medium of economic exchange, an increase in the supply of money over the demand of money only devalues each monetary unit. Essentially, we buy money as much as money buys goods, we do this through exchanging our goods and services for money, then we use that money to exchange [buy] for other goods and services. The optimal supply therefore is one in which each monetary unit [dollar] is fully functional as a medium of purchase, meaning its value is at 100%. So, if you have $15 Trillion dollars, each with only 3% to 4% of value then how much money is absolutely optimal for a healthy economy? The answer is substantially less than is currently in circulation! So how much less would it take to achieve a dollar that retains no less than a 100% purchase value if the current supply stands at $15 Trillion?
Now, how much gold did you say was in existence?
I know, you are desperate for a mathematical formula that would mollify your need for a linear answer, but the fact is that a linear answer is not only unnecessary, but completely unwarranted in this case since the actual value of each fiat dollar in circulation has been so debased that its economic efficiency is almost no longer viable. I know DrKrbyLuv, you want me to give you an answer that can show you that there needs to be an equal amount of gold to cover the amount of fiat dollars in circulation, but as I have pointed out, that is completely unnecessary since each of those fiat dollars do not function at 100% of purchase value, only 3 to 4%. The amount of gold necessary to function as money, creating a healthy economy, is far less than what you assume in your limited linear mentality. So, how much money, based on the fact that $15 Trillion fiat dollars only retain a few cents of purchase value each, would it take to produce a monetary unit that retained 100 cents value each? Come on DrKrbyLuv, do some math!
You should sharpen your own pencil DrKrbyLuv! You have certainly shown not acumen for mathematics.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
We have too much money?
Hmmm....we have been going through deflation which is opposite of your "theory." If we had too much money wouldn't we see inflation or, hyperinflation?
As far as the money losing value, this is quite true and I think the past year alone the dollar dropped by around 5%. The devaluation has been going on as you said, since the Fed took over.
Interestingly, the biggest drop took place in 1933 when the dollar was devalued by around 40% in one day!
Yes, we were on the gold standard when this occurred. Kinda shoots your theory in the butt.
You need to understand that our problem is not too much money, the problem is TOO MUCH DEBT!
We are drowning in debt - not money. Your gyrations attempt to avoid the obvious fact that is irrefutable. That is that 1 ounce of gold is worth roughly $1,200. This is a fact and you may observe this by buying an ounce of gold.
The $15 trillion in money supply (M3) is worth more than all of the gold that has ever been mined on this planet. It really is not hard to figure out - drop your dogma and pick up a calculator.
Happy new year!
END the FED before it ENDS US
P.S. The primary indicator
P.S. The primary indicator that there is too much money is the rate of inflationary depreciation of the purchase value of the currency. Now, if the currency has been devalued nearly 97%, what does that indicate? Since the most basic definition of inflation is an expansion of the money supply then, logically one could conclude, at least on the planet that I live on, that there is indeed too much money, otherwise the dollar would buy 100 Cents worth of goods and services. Since each dollar only buys around 3 to 4 cents per face value the conclusion that there is too much money is not only valid, but to argue that there is not too much money is not only absurd, but borders on the moronic.
Besides, think about the incredible contradiction in your own statements. You say we are drowning in debt, but there is not too much money and yet, you also assert that money is debt. Now, to actually consider the absurdity of your arguments, it would be necessary to "print" more money to pay the debt, how much money. Even if the government "printed" pure fiat, without accrued interest, which it eventually will by the way, the effects of that much money will be so inflationary that while the debt is both paid off and repudiated through inflation, the purchase value of the dollar will be absolutely worthless as the paper it is printed on. You see, your solution of allowing the Treasury to simply print money is no solution at all. For if all the debt and obligations of this government were calculated it would probably be closer to $100 Trillion. Think about the purchase value of the dollar if the Treasury printed that much money. It could and probably will be done, but the payment of all that debt and all those obligations will be repaid, not in $100 Bills, but Million or Billion Dollar Bills. The fact is there is debt repudiation on the horizon and default on future unfunded U.S. government obligations.
Yep, fiat money is a wonderful thing DrKrbyLuv, whether debt-based or fresh off the press without debt...you are going to love all that fiat money when it is cheaper to wipe your ass with a 100 Dollar Bill than to buy toilet paper.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
How utterly predictable you
How utterly predictable you are, you didn’t understand one single thing that I said did you? You are, perhaps one of the best examples of why ignorance is the bane of our society!
If the monetary base has been inflated to the point that the currency only retains a few cents purchase value and the price index is rising, then deflation would mean that there would be an appreciation in the purchase value of the currency. While there has been a very minor appreciation of less than 1% in its value from the year 2007 to 2009, the whole assumption that there has been deflation in a meaningful way is pure poppycock. Deflation has occurred in a very narrow channel, primarily in certain commodities and, of course, in housing, but both of those were due to other factors instead of monetary deflation. Consider the fact that even the wholesale price index has been rising over the last few months and deflation is nowhere to be seen in monetary terms. Also consider the fact that not only did the money supply increase between 2003 and 2006 was by $3 Trillion, but in the last year and a half the money stock has been increased untold Trillions. So, where is the deflation? It is certainly not on the horizon either looking forward or backward for that matter.
There is a substantial difference between deflation caused by monetary contraction and deflation due to a bubble economy busting. Of course, you don’t know that do you DrKrbyLuv, for if you did then you would not make the idiotic statements you do! There has been absolutely no contraction in the money supply therefore, in terms of deflation there has been no monetary deflation; quite the opposite, there has been an unbelievable amount of monetary inflation, which will, given time, filter through the economy and present itself in rather rapidly rising consumer prices.
Again, you exhibit your total lack of understanding of money, how it functions and the lag time between monetary inflation, which we most definitely has, and price inflation. Of course, since you have not studied monetary history in any meaningful way it must be difficult for you to understand just how inflation filters through an economy, but it does just that, it filters through unless the central bank embarks on a policy that infuses the economy with massive amounts of liquidity.
Your thinking is again evident of the limited scope of understanding you possess, it is pronounced within every word you write!
For example let us take this statement you make and delve into just a few misconceptions you present, shall we: “As far as the money losing value, this is quite true and I think the past year alone the dollar dropped by around 5%. The devaluation has been going on as you said, since the Fed took over.” Yet, you make the statement that we have been going through deflation, the two are quite opposite. Deflation appreciates the purchase value of the dollar allowing for it to make more, not less purchases. Inflation, on the other hand is the depreciation of the dollar restricting its purchasing power, making it most costly in terms of the face value of the currency to make purchases. So, which is it DrKrbyLuv, which do you say we are having at the moment, it cannot be both in monetary terms. For if you state that the dollar has dropped around 5% then you are saying that its purchase value has been debased through inflation, which denotes depreciation not appreciation.
In 1933 the dollar was not depreciated, under a deflationary event, such as the one in 1933 deflation caused the dollar to purchase more, not less. The value of the dollar actually increased, in fact it was only until 1934 that the dollar was decreased in its purchase value by the actions taken by FDR. You cannot possibly be that confused can you?
When FDR artificially increased the price of gold the effect was the depreciation of the dollar in terms of purchase value. In effect the dollar was depreciated around 60% of its value prior to 1934. By 1936, due to the actions of FDR, the dollar’s value was depreciated to the point that it would only purchase $0.81. That meant it took more money to buy less products. That was depreciation due to what amounted to fiat inflation.
Again, gold had nothing to do with the devaluation of the dollar, nor did it have anything to do with bringing on the Great Depression. The actions of the government and the Federal Reserve caused the devaluation of the dollar in 1934 through the actions of FDR and, as your good ole buddy Ben Bernake stated the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy brought about the Great Depression, not gold! When will you ever learn? I mean it are you so completely dense that you cannot read the facts of the period and construct a sound understanding of events?
Here again, you state a rather obvious amount of confusion even about your own argument. On one hand you state that there is not too much money but too much debt and then again you say that all money is debt, if there is too much debt would it not be logical therefore to conclude that there was also too much money since all money is debt?
If the amount of money in circulation is $15 Trillion dollars and each of those fiat notes has the effective economy purchase value of approximately 3 to 4 cents each because of monetary inflation then how on earth can you, with an apparent straight face, say that there is not too much money. Don’t you have a clue about what inflation really is or how it works? I mean are you so ignorant of how money works that you mangle even your own argument with such skewed and flawed logic as to make such statements? Think, think about what you are saying, can’t you at least do us all the favor and logically think about the manner in which you construct your foolish argument?
The fact is that we are drowning in money, debt happens to be an ancillary element of the fiat monetary system. Anytime there is inflation and there has been nearly 95 years of fiat monetary inflation to the point that each dollar has been devalued over 97% then that is evidence that there is far TOO MUCH MONEY! There is absolutely no way that you can logically conclude otherwise except by the most ignorant standards of argument.
It is, of course, that you have an understanding that the value of paper fiat money continually loses its value because of the propensity of governments to print money, this dilutes the value of previously printed money, eventually causing the price of goods and services to increase! The more fiat money the government issues the less the money is worth, in other words, the money is devalued, depreciated, debased and debauched! The faster the rate of monetary expansion the more rapid the depreciation will occur and in the last 6 years the money supply has almost been quadrupled, what does that mean DrKrbyLuv? Do you know? What happens when all that money begins to filter through the economy of this country and the world? Any guesses?
It is the constant and consistent degradation of fiat money that is the cause of inflation on prices. When the government rapidly speeds up the process there is the very real danger that hyperinflation will occur.
Now, imagine, if the government, via the FED, has devalued the dollar by 97% in the last 95 years then what will be the result of the last few years of massive inflation?
Now, onto yet another complete misconception that you present. You state that an ounce of gold is “worth” roughly $1200.00, yet you neglect the most pertinent fact about your statement, because based on all that you have said, you do not understand the entire subject of inflationary depreciation. If those fiat dollars each have the purchase value of 3 to 4 cents each then what is the “worth” of an once of gold in relationship to a dollar that has a 100 cent value? Can you tell me Mr. Math Wizard?
Now remember here are some definitions for you to consider:
INFLATION = DEPRECIATION
DEFLATION=APPRECIATION
So, the fiat dollar has been depreciated through inflation, what is the value of an once of gold in terms of a dollar that has not been depreciated through inflation? Now concerning the purchase of gold, I began buying gold when it was around $157 an ounce and never stopped during the last 37 years…how bout you? Do you have that much foresight DrKrbyLuv?
“The $15 trillion in money supply (M3) is worth more than all of the gold that has ever been mined on this planet. It really is not hard to figure out - drop your dogma and pick up a calculator.”
The above statement is once again evidence that you don’t have a blooming clue about what I have been talking about. Are you so befuddled by the concepts of inflationary depreciation that you cannot grasp these rather simple concepts? You continue to make the statement as though I am talking about either the price of gold in fiat monetary terms or that there is a necessity that the amount of gold equate, in some odd-ball way, to the amount of the face value of the fiat money in circulation. Your statements once again make it perfectly clear that you really don’t understand money, gold or fiat money, how it functions or really anything else about the subject.
You maintain that very linear understanding you lean upon and yet it does not serve you very well does it? You cannot grasp the fact that the $15 Trillion fiat dollars has been debased, devalued and depreciated by 97%, what does that mean in terms of purchasing value? I am not talking about buying ounces of gold; you cannot be so dense as to construe such a conclusion. I am talking about money, the function of money within an economy. If the dollar has been devalued to the point that each of them buy far less than they did say 20, 40, 60 or 95 years ago, then what is the effect of that depreciated money in terms of economic exchange? If your money buys less today than it did yesterday what is the result of your labor, your spending and your savings?
If your money has the effective purchase value of approximately 3 to 4 cents each what does that mean when you purchase something? Now, if the government can “print” as much money as it likes, just because it has the power to do so, then what is the result of that practice. Now, the point you try to make doesn’t enter into the equation of what I am talking about. It matters not that $15 Trillion dollars could purchase all the gold in existence that is not relative to the argument. In fact, that is totally outside the entire subject, but you don’t get that do you because you can’t think past the limitations of your own mind. You can’t understand that I am talking about the economic efficiency of money. Money performs a certain function, that function is based upon the value of exchange it maintains and the consistency of its value. When money is depreciated by inflation, the value of exchange is decreased and since there is little consistency in the value of fiat currency, the entire economy suffers from the results of that depreciation.
Concerning M3, as I stated, the definition determines the amount of the money supply and how it is calculated. Here are some definitions for you DrKrbyLuv, see what you can make of them.
M1: The sum of currency held outside the vaults of depository institutions, Federal Reserve Banks, and the U.S. Treasury; travelers checks; and demand and other checkable deposits issued by financial institutions (except demand deposits due to the Treasury and depository institutions), minus cash items in process of collection and Federal Reserve float.
MZM (money, zero maturity): M2 minus small-denomination time deposits, plus institutional money market mutual funds (that is, those included in M3 but excluded from M2).
M2: M1 plus savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts) and small-denomination (under $100,000) time deposits issued by financial institutions; and shares in retail money market mutual funds (funds with initial investments under $50,000), net of retirement accounts.
M3: M2 plus large-denomination ($100,000 or more) time deposits; repurchase agreements issued by depository institutions; Eurodollar deposits, specifically, dollar-denominated deposits due to nonbank U.S. addresses held at foreign offices of U.S. banks worldwide and all banking offices in Canada and the United Kingdom; and institutional money market mutual funds
Bank Credit: All loans, leases, and securities held by commercial banks.
Domestic Nonfinancial Debt: Total credit market liabilities of the U.S. Treasury, federally sponsored agencies, state and local governments, households, and nonfinancial firms. End-of-period basis.
Adjusted Monetary Base: The sum of currency in circulation outside Federal Reserve Banks and the U.S. Treasury, deposits of depository financial institutions at Federal Reserve Banks, and an adjustment for the effects of changes in statutory reserve requirements on the quantity of base money held by depositories.
Adjusted Reserves: The sum of vault cash and Federal Reserve Bank deposits held by depository institutions and an adjustment for the effects of changes in statutory reserve requirements on the quantity of base money held by depositories. This spliced chain index is numerically larger than the Board of Governors’ measure, which excludes vault cash not used to satisfy statutory reserve requirements and Federal Reserve Bank deposits used to satisfy required clearing balance contracts
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
You just contradicted yourself Larry.
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve System has the total money supply increased or decreased?
Obviously, it has *massively* increased. You gave the estimate of $15,000,000,000 for the present day.
How many US dollars were in circulation in 1913?
A hell of alot less than that. Of course!
So anyone with a brain can see that the Federal Reserve System has *massively debased* the US dollar.
Really, I find such a
Really, I find such a statement very odd indeed, since Dr. Paul is very familiar with the writings of David Hume, Carl Menger, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, among others, all of whom not only suggested, but in the case of Hume, proved that the money supply under a gold monetary economy is of no consequence since pricing always adjust to either the increase or decrease of the money supply. In fact, I find it odd that once again you seek to misrepresent Dr. Paul in such a way, when not only is he very familiar with the authors I mentioned, but he knew some of them and quotes their works regularly; indeed all that I mentioned, including Dr. Paul advocate a 100% gold monetary system.
Again, you are completely wrong DrKrbyLuv, just as you are wrong in 99.999% of your posts, with the one exception that the FED must be eliminated, on that one point you are correct.
I have explained it to you several times, it is not however, my fault that you are unable to comprehend what has been said to you on this forum. I suggest you go back and read that blubbering thread you created about Austrian Economics vs. Mathematical Fact. It is all there for you to ponder upon in erroneous, and wearisome liturgy that you espouse as though it held some value in the debate. You have offered nothing of value, nothing noteworthy of contemplating on the subject at hand only a vague exposition of misconceptions.
I find it very interesting that you espouse something that, based upon your own words, don’t understand for if you did then you would not make such statements as you do. Factually, the functional medium of money, in particular gold money, is not limited nor more useful because of the quantity, only the quality of the money is meaningful as a medium of economic exchange. Despite your doxologies, you cannot grasp a single thing I am talking about can you, that is obvious in the statements you make. So, you ask me once again to explain, but the fact is that it appears that such explanations will not only fall upon your deaf ears, but upon your blunted ability to comprehend. Does an explanation take being repeated to you 1000 times before you can understand, is that it, are you such a dullard that you must have things constantly explained, even in the most simplistic terms available?
Again, you express a very linear understanding of money, looking at the very thing that constrains your ability to comprehend as though there was no light at the end of the tunnel in which you mentally traverse. You do not understand that you are looking at the face value of a fiat monetary system that has been so depreciated that the economic functional utility of that money is pennies to the face value of each dollar. Remember, we are talking about an economy that has also been drastically depreciated through inflation of the currency. Aside from that, the entire concept of money, the mechanical functions of money within an economy elude your understanding and it is so apparent from what you write that I am amazed that you continue to express yourself at all.
What is the difference between a fiat dollar that has been depreciated through inflation to the point that its purchase value is only 3 to 4 Cents and a gold dollar which has not been depreciated? Can you tell me, do you even know what I am talking about?
Do you have a clue about how money bids against itself within an economy in conjunction with fluctuations in the supply? Do you know that under a commodity monetary system the law of supply and demand are equally as potent as it is in a commodity market itself? If you did then you would know what I have been talking about for the last year or so.
Do you know that inflation, or depreciation of the currency, in particular fiat currency confers absolutely no social benefit to the economy? That being said what do you make of the massive amount of fiat money, say the number $15 Trillion, has because the dollar has been depreciated through inflation? If inflation of the currency confers no social benefit on the economy then what does it do? Why is there so much fiat money in circulation? So, you cling to the manufactured belief that there is not enough gold and attempt to substantiate the basis of your belief by stating that there is a certain amount of gold verses a certain amount of fiat currency. While that sounds mathematically logical there are other factors, very important factors involved with the whole subject of money, both gold and fiat, of which you never seem to be able to address with any intellectual advantage in defense of your position.
First, you must distinguish between definitions of the money supply, they do vary and based upon what definition you or the government chooses the supply of the money stock changes accordingly. So, it is not so clear cut as you maintain. Now, considering the fact that the U.S. Dollar, otherwise known as the Federal Reserve Note, has been so drastically debased, then what is the economic effect of each dollar? Since it is the value of the money as it functions within an economy that is meaningful and not the face value, what has been the consequence of monetary debasement on the economy despite the seemingly enormous supply of fiat money in circulation?
Additionally, the entire concept and functionality of the fractional reserve banking system is somewhat misleading, to say the least. Since there is only a portion of the money stock held in the fractional reserve system there must be allowances for the discrepancies between the definition of the money supply and the actual supply available for economic exchange.
The answer to your question regarding the amount of gold available as money to cover this fiat economy has been addressed several times, although you are completely unaware that you received that answer several times over the last year or so. In an attempt to address you question, once again, I will state that since money performs its function as a medium of exchange, any increase or decrease in the supply is not meaningful since the purchasing power of each monetary unit will be adjusted to the supply, either the increase or decrease. Of course, you don’t understand that, no more apparently than you understand the truly massive amount of depreciation that has taken place over the last 95 years through this fiat monetary monster created by the Federal Reserve, at the behest of politicians and those politically connected bankers/corporatists. Essentially, that means that all of the fiat money in circulation does not provide for or convey a socially economic benefit, it only depreciates the value of the entire system, draining it of the ability of capital production and simply redistributes wealth to the politically connected.
The fact that you, among others, have not learned the lessons of classical economics concerning the fact that the money supply essentially doesn’t matter since economic adjustments in pricing offset either the increase or decrease in the supply. I will say it yet once again, the reason why it takes nearly $22,000.00 today to purchase what only $1,000.00 purchased in 1913 is the fact that the economy has adjusted to the drastic increase in the supply of fiat money, nullifying the numerical face value of the currency and depreciating its purchase value through price inflation. There is a neutralizing element to inflation, that element is monetary mechanics, the principles that drive the market. You again look only at fiat dollar amounts, face amounts and think that figure tells the entire story, or in someway limits the workability of a replacement for that fiat system by gold.
Again, I cannot help it if you cannot comprehend what is being said, that is a matter for yourself to resolve, but suffice to say that you have received the answer to the questions your raised long ago, but lacked the ability to understand what was being said...you apparently still do. You are looking for an answer on a very linear level of understanding, no such linear answer exists.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
How about Ron Paul's answer?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul319.html
Ron Paul advocates legalising competing currencies. In practice that means neutering government and empowering the free market.
Remember that you will only understand his essay if you actually read it.
Just popping in ;-)
Drk: Are you saying that we need to pay off our debt first before we can switch to a gold standard? #1
I'm not suggesting (nor is Ron Paul) that we solely use gold in an un-regulated currency market (see "un-regulated") -- anything could be used if its what people agree to exchange in; they could use tin or plastic, or sod, or e-cash based on grain futures, or casino chips!
Fiat Money is Debt-Money -- to print it we go against the future value of our productivity and savings.
In a free-market we switch from a debtor-society to a saver-society; this is both a Rothbardian and Misesian axiom -- RP talks about it all the time.
If you are saying we can't use gold alongside fiat currency I agree -- because we have a tinkering gov't and they'd never let the gold be 100% consumer driven.
If you are saying that we can't have a gold currency society while being a debtor-society and expect it to be optimal or "fun" -- I'd agree. Because the gold currency would not reflect "free-market" currency in that situation, the cost of our lifestyles would taint gold value and our fiat currencies value would go down because we'd also need to stop incurring debt to get to the otherside.
I'm not sure where you and Republicae are "truly" disagreeing; it might be a case of mixing free-market theory with fiat-market theory and finding the too un-palitable.
Let me just say this -- We don't get out of this mess "pretty," most of us will be battered and bruised. However, after 2 years max if we go at full-switch speed we will be fine; problem? we never go full-switch there's always cheating and manipulation.
This is why we can't turn to gov't and we need a Counter-Economic Revolution rather than these failed Protest-Voter Revolutions.
Counter-Economics -begets- Consumer-Minarchism -begets- Consumer-Individualism.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
OctoBox
Hello OctoBox, thanks for the question. I wasn't saying that, but I agree it would be a bad idea to repay banker debt with gold backed money.
It really doesn't matter too much as with what little, if ANY, gold the U.S. Treasury has would be very quickly depleted if the money were redeemable or, coined directly from gold.
For example, even if you believe the U.S. has 8,100 tonnes of gold, that amount would be gone in less than a year through interest payments only on our national debt.
Our trade deficit also would wipe out our gold reserves in less than a year.
Not to pick on you, but this is a common misconception that seems to show up quite a bit on this forum. It is simply wrong and misleading.
Any species of money can be issued with or without debt. That is the key.
Let me give you an example. Prior to the great depression the U.S. was on the gold standard; unfortunately we also had a debt based system in that all new money was issued as debt through private banks.
The gold standard failed, not because the gold was no good but because a debt based system cannot be sustained. Then we moved to a fiat system but it was still debt based. While it hasn't failed as quickly as the gold backed system, sooner or later it will collapse.
So where do we go? Again, the key is to avoid a debt based system. Gold, paper, sea shells, whatever, will work fine if we re-establish a "wealth based" system.
That doesn't mean that 100% of the new money would be issued free from debt but it would require that at least some money be spent directly into the economy, preferably, at the State level. The important thing is that all new money be issued debt free to the Federal Government.
Our biggest financial problem is that we are drowning in debt. Soon, 100% of GDP won't be enough to sustain the interest payments. We are slaves to debt and we are enslaving future generations to perpetual debt.
Let me give you an example of the power a nation has when it issues and controls it's own money. We owe the Federal Reserve around $4.5 trillion (I think), if we wanted to we could call the securities in and pay off the debt by issuing the money ourselves - just as the Fed does now.
The result, the debt would be extinguished and the money would disappear - it would cease to exist. We would instantly reduce our national debt by 30%.
There would need to be some restrictions on how and when money should be created, but I wanted to convey that we really do have solutions to our problems by controlling and issuing our own money.
BTW, many might suggest it would be inflationary to issue $4.5 trillion. The reality is that it would be deflationary as the money supply would be greatly reduced. That is one of the reasons we would need to also "spend" some money directly into the economy.
Larry
END the FED before it ENDS US