-3 votes

Competing Currencies: The Founders Said "No."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc5ZZ8194Qk

The problem may be the central bank system, arbitrary interest rates, and wanton debt-based money printing. But, the solution is not, according to the Founders words in the United States Constitution, "competing currencies."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

comments on videos are

comments on videos are subject to approval (sketchy)

not sure if he will approve the comment but check out what happened in Indonesia when they introduced competing currency:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6dOxftBlMo

certainly wasn't the complete anarchy he thinks it would be.

- Grow Mushrooms at Home
http://subfarms.com

maybe he wanted

to see them first

Sometimes you get more info

Sometimes you get more info from comments than you do from the video. If you restrict those views to only those in agreement with the author, what's to stop the spreading of blatantly incorrect information? That's why youtube channels belonging to the worst politicians always have comments disabled. Sure you can do it if you want to, but to me, it immediately calls your message into question. I'm just sayin, if I could filter out videos that have comments disabled or "with approval only", I would choose to never see another censored video in my life, and I think I'd be better off for it. Maybe that's just me.

- Grow Mushrooms at Home
http://subfarms.com

He is incorrect. The

He is incorrect. The Constitution grants Congress the power to Coin money and regulate the value thereof, and it forbids the States from making anything a legal tender other than gold and silver [Federal Reserve notes obviously do not meet this Constitutional requirement]. However, nowhere does it forbid private currencies whatsoever. He is reading something into it that just does not exist anywhere in the text. (He separately argues that competing currencies are not practical, however that is a policy argument and not a Constitutional argument. He is wrong on his policy argument as well, as history proves otherwise).

Granting the legislature the power to do something is not the same as forbidding everyone else from doing so. For instance if your local city charter granted your city council the power to create and maintain a library and regulate the content thereof, that does not mean everyone else is forbidden from creating libraries. Also, the Constitution also grants Congress the power to fix a standard of weights and measure, but that does not forbid people from using alternative weights and measures.

This is of course borne out by history as well. Throughout all the founder's living lives during and after ratification of the Constitution, competing currencies were the norm and an integral part of US life and culture. Following the Constitution during the early portion of the nation’s history, there were plenty of alternative competing currencies. States, municipalities, private banks, railroad and construction companies, stores, restaurants, churches and individuals printed an estimated 8,000 different monies by 1860. Take a look at this example of $1 dollar note issued by the "Delaware Bridge Company" of New Jersey 1836-1841: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Delaware_Bridge_Company_Do...

Any private person or entity could issue currency. However, the only currencies that were generally trusted and used were the ones that were readily redeemable by the issuer for something of intrinsic value – notably gold and silver. Unlike fiat currencies that are forced to be used by legal tender laws, such private competing currencies gained trust and acceptance through the ability to readily redeem such currency from the issuers for gold or silver, or some other valuable substance as noted on the currency.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

We already have competing currencies

What's interesting is that we're already in the midst of a digital free banking era when you consider the several competing digital gold currencies in circulation today. It wasn't even necessary to repeal the legal tender laws, that's how powerful the Internet is. And then there's bitcoin, which is a new form of money altogether. The problem though of course is that the Government is actively trying to shut down these companies or at least prevent them from catching on.

I love when

I love when pseudo-intellectuals take a word written 225 years ago and apply a definition written less than 225 days ago; their lack of sophistication and intelligence is quite telling.

Regulate: modern meaning: to control

Regulate: 1787 meaning: to make regular;
modern equivalent: to make uniform

So then Article 1 section 8 states:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

However, when we make the substitution we see what it says:

To coin Money, to make uniform the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

This certainly is different then if we use the modern definition substitution:

To coin Money, to control the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

The original definition didn't grant Congress the authority to set the value of money, but it granted Congress the authority to make sure the value was uniform throughout the States; meaning that a 25.8 grains troy Gold coin had the same value no matter which State one was in.

Also, as the direct quote provided proves that the founders did allow for other coins to be in used, by stating that Congress has the power to make uniform foreign coin; meaning that foreign coins were allowed to be used in THE United States Of America, but it was Congress' job to ensure the value was uniform with respect to its weight and composition.

Also, that particular section of the Constitution didn't forbid other currencies being used.

The Founders said no to

The Founders said no to competing currencies within our own country. They simply desired a single form of national currency. The Founders did NOT say no to the idea of competing currencies in the world...which begs the question.

Should the US Dollar be the one dominant currency of the world? No...just as the Euro should not be the one dominant currency in Europe.

In other words, I think what America's Founding Fathers were saying was, "to each sovereign country, their own currency."

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

That's makes sense.

That's makes sense.

Federal Reserve Notes

are a competing currency. Look up 12 USC 411. "They shall be redeemed in lawfull money on demand..." If FRN are not lawfull money, then they are competing with lawfull money.

I see it a little differntly

The Constitution was placing limits on government, not you and I.

Congress coins the Money and the States can only use gold and silver Coin as tender for debts.

Each State collects taxes etc and sends its share to the Federal government. The Constitution requires the States collect gold and silver Coin. The value of foreign coin is regulated (made regular) so that a fixed value applied when paid to the State or by the State to the Federal government.

States are also prohibited from emitting Bills of Credit.

People pay taxes, fees, tariffs etc in gold and silver U.S. Coin. The States submit their share in gold and silver US Coin to the Federal Government.

The people of the States thought it best that the same silver and gold Coin be used by the unified governments. The people wanted the government to use a standardized and branded (coined) commodity money.

What is a US Dollar? It is a specific weight of Silver/Copper alloy. To make foreign coin regular requires only a published assay of silver content.

Competing gold and silver coin would have to develop competitive strategies so that using one silver coin is better than another silver coin.

Still the government is stuck using US Coin or regulated foreign coin.

The people can use whatever coin, bills of credit, banknotes they please. Or they can simply trade labor for goods and services.

A gold and silver standard applies to the government. Cheating a branded commodity money is costly. Theft of the physical stores would be more of a problem if the government ran a budget surplus.

Free includes debt-free!

Consider

the founders weighing the options: A) A monopolistic private central bank run off fiat fractional reserve not accountable to anybody but its share holders, or B) A private central bank ran off fiat fractional reserve not accountable to anybody but its share holders in competition with a competing currency. Surly, the founders did not want a competing currency which is understandable, but that is because they did not want fiat moneys. If we went back to constitutional legal money, the currency would be set in gold and silver upon which the congress can adjust the weights and measures. I am sure that if they were alive right now they would have abolished the FRB long ago, and if it could not be done they'd probably set up their own competing currency w/o authorization in a form of civil disobedience. They were not the type to put up with tyranny from a centralized overzealous gov’t of any kind, even if it was the likes of their own.
*EDIT* Great video!

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Interesting video

But I have to disagree, I would rather have congress decide on the currency as article 1 sec 8 lists. The competing currency idea the Ron has put forth as his ideal policy for our current situation is a valid one. Dr Paul endorses the idea WHILE the central bank is in place! Not after it's eventual demise. The founders did not have the problem of a monolith with the power that the fed has. Globally and locally the fed can destroy us quicker and much more painfully than any atom bomb could and no one would be able to do anything about it not even the president. The fact that you can elect to boot out a congressman who takes this power for granted is reason enou to get rid of the fed.

well

yeah

you may not agree

but he makes some good points!

I think a single currency is

I think a single currency is completely fine; it makes things alot more simple(kinda like in many games where they simply call all the money "credits"). The problem is when a currency gets manipulated and this is one reason to have different competing ones. If someone starts to manipulate one, people will start moving to a more stable choice.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.