-16 votes

Benjamin Franklin Was No Fan of The Gold Standard

Federal Reserve Notes are the modern day, "colonial scrip."

Never thought I'd say that a year or two ago, but change is healthy.

Gold and silver can not supply the unlimited liquidity of a world market full of 6 billion customers. There's only so much precious metal to go around and quite frankly, if there wasn't enough to go around in 1751 there will never be enough to go around the globe today.


Franklin’s friends then asked him how the American Colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses, and how they could overcome this plague of pauperism...

At that time, England was throwing into jail those who could not pay their debts. They therefore asked Franklin how he could explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England Colonies. Franklin replied:

“That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

The information came to the knowledge of the English Bankers, and held their attention. They immediately took the necessary steps to have the British Parliament to pass a law that prohibited the Colonies from using their scrip money, and then ordered them to use only the gold and silver money that was provided in sufficient quantity by the English bankers.

(That's big...)

The first law was passed in 1751, and then completed by a more restrictive law in 1763. Franklin reported that one year after the implementation of this prohibition on Colonial money, the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployment and beggars, just like in England, because there was not enough money to pay for the goods and work. The circulating medium of exchange (currency) had been reduced by half.

Franklin added that this was the original cause of the American Revolution – and not the tax on tea nor the Stamp Act, as it has been taught again and again in history books.

------------------- Full article linked above

The American Revolution was primarily fought over money, of course. The colonies wanted to print their own money, but England said hell no, you're going to use what we tell you to use.

Aren't all wars fought over money?

In 1913, America created the Federal Reserve. And then we got dragged into WWI shortly afterwards.

Was WWI started because America decided to print their own money again?

I hate to be the Dollar's advocate, but I think it is wise to question everything in an objective way.

Ever since the colonists of the United States decided to print their own money, America has been at war.

Is the printing of dollars itself the cause of all wars today, or is the attempted prevention of dollars being used around the globe the root cause?

If gold and silver were the only forms of money today, few people would own all of the wealth like kings and queens, and the rest of us would be begging for scraps and crumbs off their table.

Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers, and the benches of those selling peace doves for gold.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Thanks Bee, yes, that is a

Thanks Bee, yes, that is a very good essay by Sherman, I appreciate you bringing it back to my attention!


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Thanks to all who have

Thanks to all who have responded. I like to often challenge myself and my own beliefs, so please forgive me.

I think the US Dollar is the world's first, "Global Currency."

There is no rival. There is no replacement. China is buying gold in droves. What are they buying all of that gold with?

Dollars. How ironic is that?

No currency in the history of the world has ever created so much wealth, influence, abundance, opportunity, and debt.

The Middle Class, the Corvette, modern day suburbia, skyscrapers in big cities, stadiums, arenas, television based upon advertising revenue, awesome movies, rock n' roll, awesome music, awesome music videos, welfare for those who really need it, McDonald's, pro sports, people in "poverty," with flat screen televisions, Wal-Mart, Joe's BBQ and Beer, the underground economy, a college education, Home Depot, video games, and free porn on the internet would not be possible today without the US Dollar.

America would not be possible without the dollar because America and the rest of the freedom loving world has UNLIMITED potential.

In economic theory, a global economy based upon capitalism and free trade requires a currency that is based upon an infinite source, not a finite source.

One can't impose a, "cash cap equal to the amount of gold and silver," on the world economy and expect economic prosperity to grow.

Human production, ingenuity, and consumption are infinite.

A true, "free economy," should be limitless and not bound to any physical material that can and will eventually constrain growth and negate opportunity.

In order to feed the flowers of World Capitalism, the economies of the world and America itself needs an unlimited supply of US dollars.

I just got a credit card offer in the mail...0% interest for 21 months with a $10,000 credit line. That's pretty freaking awesome. I don't need it, but still...that is pretty cool. I can borrow $10 grand for almost 2 years and pay no interest?

Some people think dollars are worth crap, but manure can be very profitable as a fertilizer that eventually helps the grass GROW if you use the fertilizer wisely. Use too much and your grass gets burned, that's how it works.

There is no growth without paper or digital money created out of nothing. Franklin and the colonists found that out the hard way.

Please consider this heavily...

The printing presses of the Federal Reserve can NOT produce enough physical dollars to meet demand. They print money out of paper and ink, nonstop every single day but they literally can not print enough of it or even keep up with the average consumers demand for their, "product." The only way the FED can keep up with demand for their product is through digital credit.

People have a ferocious appetite for dollars and digital dollars, and the economies of the world show it.

How can a finite resource like gold, silver, or any other physical substance that is so limited in availability and RARE ever have the flexibility of liquidity a world market needs to operate upon?

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Cooperative Competition

If I can help you see a competitive viewpoint it is this:

The POWER that is consumed in making exponentially more POWER out of less POWER is not the money used in that process.

The POWER is independent invention, adaptation, and desire to move from poor to not as poor.

When that POWER is released, and no longer held down by false authority, the rate of increase in The Standard of Living, and the rate of decrease in The Cost of Living reaches its full potential in any place on Earth.

We in America have almost realized that full potential; however those Jack Boots of False Authority were, in demonstrable fact, working to keep that POWER under those Jack Boots since, at least, 1787; so the benefits of Liberty were not fully realized, but the actual rate of increase in The Standers of Living, and the actual decrease in The Cost of Living, on average, has been significant despite the effective efforts to suppress, steal, or incorporate that POWER of those individual people working for better instead of worse.

The Monopoly Money Supply, as a function of Fraud, IS an accurate record of how well the Theft of Liberty did work, and it (Fraudulent Money use) accurately records the flow of Economic Power from those who produced that Economic Power to those who stole it, and once those who stole it gain control of it (Economic Power), they (the criminals) consume it (Stolen Economic Power) in the work required to steal more if it (Economic Power). Our Economic Power to Produce cooperatively and competitively is proven by the increases in standard of living and the decreases in costs of living DESPITE the Jack Boots crushing competition and the Fraudulent Monopoly Money use. If you care to know the facts, there are easy ways to do so.


quote fabricated

But you have not addressed the problem with that alleged quote, blamed on Benjamin Franklin.

Franklin considered gold/silver coin money, and government-issued paper notes the substitute of money

The alleged quote aside, the

The alleged quote aside, the bottom line is that the American colonists issued PAPER currency for the Continental Congress to finance the Revolutionary War.


Source: The U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Web: www.bep.treas.gov


Without the ability to print their own money, how would the American colonists have been able to fight against the world's most powerful military force?

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Republicae's picture

Yes, they issued Continentals

Yes, they issued Continentals to the point that the value of the colonies paper currency became worth 1/1,000th of its original face value by the end of the war. That's Scrip for you!

As far as waging the War goes, the French outspent the Continental Congress, spending about 1.3 billion livres in support of the American Revolution against the British Crown. Congress issued $241,552,780 in Continental scrip currency, thus you can readily see where the real money came from to wage the War. So, could the War have been won without the Continental scrip, most likely.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Your title

Your title says ...... but you have nothing to offer to support of your contention

The continental notes were not printed up money, the continentals were promises to pay silver (certificates of debt), which circulated as currency; which would imply that the people who issued these certificates (including Mr. Franklin) considered silver money, and they knew that there is a difference between money and currency (which in this case is only promises to pay money)

Thomas Jefferson was ahard-money man, but for the purpose of financing a (defensive) war he, too, recommended to borrow from the people of the United States and issue (non-legal-tender) Treasury notes (currency obligations) as evidences of this debt; and after the war, within one generation, these notes, through taxation, would be retired from circulation and existence

The Continetal Congress did not print money ! they did not declare that their notes are money.

The Soviet Union printed their own money (which money financed the domestic improvements of the Soviet Union, and financed the built up of war machine which turned back Hitler)

This is a great

This is a great post.

However, a little correction...the TREASURY prints very little physical dollars. The physical paper level might not even be 1 trillion yet.

The banking system is the way it is because it allows banks to create credit as it is needed. As they can find credit-worthy customers, they will create credit.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Republicae's picture

The question arises when

The question arises when considering the support that Benjamin Franklin for colonial scrip when at the very same time there are a multitude of examples condemning colonial scrip. This is just one example, and there are numerous examples citing the evil affect that paper scrip had on the common man and merchant of the colonies. So why the disconnect? Why, for instance, have I seen numerous quotes attributed to Benjamin Franklin and yet, for the most part, those quotes are unsubstantiated as actual quotes from Franklin himself. Upon reading the works of Benjamin Franklin and his Autobiography, I find precious little on the subject. His tract on the subject is singular, his Autobiography simply notates that he wrote a tract on the subject and he really doesn't delve into the subject in great detail. Thus, I have to wonder what motives are being exhibited in articles such as the one above?

Originally published in Boston in 1749:

“The other Governments of New-England soon went into the same Practice of issuing Bills, after the Massachusetts had shewn them the Way; and the Bills of each Government, by common Consent, obtain'd a Currency through the Whole.

The great Mischiefs and infinite Injustice arising from a depreciating Currency, which it is impossible to prevent or redress, are so glaring, and our Ears have been so fill'd with the Complaints and Cries of those who have been most sensibly affected, that there is no need of spending any Time in describing or enumerating them.

During the Currency of these Bills, a Variety of Proposals have been published for retrieving their Credit, and for furnishing a stable Paper Currency, but all to no Purpose.

No Sort of Bills but such as are payable on Demand, can have an invariable Value; and in this Case there must be a Deposit, and it is as easy to provide Silver to serve for a Medium, as for a Deposit, and it is as likely to stay in the Country in one Case as in the other.

Bills that are payable at a distant Day, will be esteem'd according to the Time of Payment, and from their being issued, will gradually rise in their Value, which will produce the same Injustice as a gradual Depreciation; for whether the Creditor receives less or the Debtor pays more than the Contract, the Injury is the same; somebody is defrauded: But then, the Rise would be more intolerable than the Fall. The Creditors are few in Number compar'd with the Debtors, the one generally envy'd, the other pity'd. The Injury and Complaint of the Creditors have been too much disregarded; but turn the Tables, and oppress the numerous Debtors, and they will not long remain quiet.

I think therefore we may rest satisfy'd, no stable Currency can be projected, other than that of Silver and Gold.

And here I expect to be ask'd: Why may not New-England have a Currency of Bills of Credit, as well as New-York and Pennsilvania? I answer. At New-York, and Philadelphia Silver is their Medium, and mill'd Dollars pass current at a known determinate Rate, and other foreign Coins in proportion: Paper Bills are sometimes the Instrument in Payments, but the Proportion is small compar'd with the Silver; and I have no Doubt that if either of those Governments should ever issue a sufficient Sum in Bills to serve for a Currency, their Silver and Gold would leave them, and their Bills depreciate as those of New-England have done; which, as has been observed, kept their Value while Silver continued current with them.

The General Court of the Massachusetts seem at length fully convinc'd of the Necessity of destroying the Paper Currency; and having a Sum granted by Parliament to reimburse the Expence of the Cap-Breton Expedition, they have pass'd an Act of Assembly for transporting the same in foreign Coin, and exchanging it for their Bills by the last of March 1750, at the Rate of a mill'd Dollar for 45 s Currency; and have determin'd, that after that Time, all Contracts shall be in Silver at the Rate of 6 s a Dollar, which is agreable to the Rate establish'd by Act of Parliament, and that all past Contracts shall be discharg'd by a Dollar for 45 s, and they have prohibited the Currency of the Bills of the other Governments after the Redemption of their own Bills.

But this Act, notwithstanding all the Calamities brought upon the Province by Paper Money, is not universally approv'd of.

It is, I confess, a great Unhappiness, that we are possess'd of so large a Sum in the other Governments Bills, and there is a great Danger, That, unless the Parliament interpose, the Bills, will either die in our Hands, or the Continuance of their Currency will prevent the Design of the Act. Of the two Evils the first is the least; for though it will be a heavy Loss, we feel it at once, and it's over; the other would be a continued Loss, and work our Ruin.”

This was just a small portion of a commentary on the subject of colonial scrip by William Douglas written in 1740:

“There can therefore be no other proper Medium of Trade, but Silver, or Bills of Exchange and Notes of Hand payable in Silver at certain U'sos or Periods, which by a currant Discount are reducible to Silver ready Money, at any Time. The Debitor Party (I am ashamed to mention it) being the prevailing Party in all our Depreciating-Paper-Money Colonies, do wickedly endeavour to delude the unthinking Multitude, by perswading them, that all Endeavours of the Governour, or Proposals and Schemes of private Societies, to introduce a Silver Medium, or a Credit upon a Silver Bottom, to prevent the honest and industrious Creditor from being defrauded; are Impositions upon the Liberty and Property of the People.

Depreciating the Value of nummary Denominations, to defraud the Creditors of the Publick and of private Persons; by Proclamations of Sovereigns, by Recoinages, and by a late Contrivance of a depreciating Paper-Credit-Currency; were never practised but in notoriously bad Administrations.”

“In all Sovereignties in Europe where Paper-Money was introduced, great Inconveniencies happened; upon canceling this Paper Medium all those Inconveniencies did vanish. InSweden, Baron Gortz, by imposing Government Notes (and Munt tokyns) reduced the People to extreme Misery (this was one of the principal Crimes alledged against him when he suffered capital Punishment) but these being called in, and the Coin settled upon the same Foundation as it was before Charles XIIth Accession, Sweden flourished as formerly. 2. The late Regent of France, by the Advice of Mr. Law, did form a Project A. 1720, and by his arbitrary Power, endeavoured to put it on Execution; to defraud State Creditors and others, by banishing of Silver Currency, and by substituting a Paper Credit: the Effect was, the greatest Confusion, and almost utter Subversion of their Trade and Business.

To make a Bill or Note bearing no Interest, and not payable till after a dozen or score of Years, a legal Tender (under the highest Penalties as in New-York and Jerseys) in Payment of Debts, is the highest of despotick and arbitrary Government: France never made their State Bills a common Tender. Our Paper Money Colonies have carried the Iniquity still further; the Popular or Democratick Part of the Constitution are generally in Debt, and by their too great Weight or Influence in Elections, have made a depreciating Currency, a Tender for Contracts done may Years before; that is, they impose upon the Creditor side in private Contracts, which the most despotick Powers never assumed. An Instance of a still further arbitrary Proceeding in relation to Paper Money was an Act of Assembly in New Jerseys A. 1723, whereby Executions for Debt were stayed until Paper Money should be issued.

The Mystery of the infatuation of our Colonies running Headlong into a depreciating Paper Currency may be this: In many of our Plantations of late Years, by bad Management and Extravagancies, the Majority of the People are become Debtors, hence their Elected Representation in the Legislature have a great Chance to be generally of the Debtors Side: or in other Words, the Representatives being generally Freeholders, and many of them much in Debt; by large Emissions their Lands rise in Denomination Value while their Debts become really less, and the Creditor is defrauded in Part of his Debt. Thus our Colonies have defrauded more in a few years than bad Administrations in Europe have formerly done in some Centuries. The great Damage done to the generous Merchants at Home, and to the industrious fair Dealers amongst our selves; call aloud, for some speedy and effectual Relief from the supreme Legislature of the Parliament of Great Britain.

There is an Argument, which tho' not much attended to here, may be of some Weight at Home, viz. That the Government at Home ought to connive at Paper Money in the Colonies, because by indulging them in this Error, all the Silver which they acquire from Time to Time is sent to Great Britain; and by the chimæra of a fallacious Cash, Extravagancies are encouraged in favour of a great Consumption of British Goods: This ought to be an Argument with us against that Paper Currency, which tends to turn the Ballance of Trade so much against us.” Douglas 1740

“The repeated large Emissions of Paper Money are the Cause of the frequent rise of the Price of Silver and Exchange; that is, of the publick Bills of Currency depreciating in all the Paper Money Colonies; which do as regularly follow the same, as the Tides do the Phases or course of the Moon… This infatuation in favour of Paper Money has had a mutinous bad Effect upon the Civil Government, in several of our Colonies. The Representatives of the People, have frequently refused to provide for the necessary Charges of Government, and other wholesome Laws; because the Governours & Councils, would not (in breach of their Instructions from the Crown) concur in emitting large Sums of Paper Money to defraud the industrious Creditor and fair Dealer… A general Clamour for a depreciating Paper Currency, is a certain Sign of the Country being generally in bad Circumstances, that is, in Debt; because all Creditors who by their Industry and Frugality have acquired Rents, Bonds, Notes and Book Debts, loose by its depreciating; and the Debtors (the Idle and Extravagant Part of the People) come off easy by the Creditors loss. Seeing they who are desperately in Debt, and want to pay a smaller Value than contracted for, or they who have nothing to loose, are generally of the Party for Paper Money; this ought to be a strong Prejudice against it, with sober thinking Men.” Douglas 1740


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

"(in breach of their

"(in breach of their Instructions from the Crown)"

That alone says it all, does it not?

Does it surprise you that England did not want or like the American colonies printing their own money out of nothing?

I think the Crown still hates this idea today.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Republicae's picture

Acutally Zoo, I think you

Acutally Zoo, I think you should continue reading on the subject...the fact is that colonial scrip was a disaster on both sides of the seas, not just for English and colonial merchants, but for the common people. It was far, far more involved than you make it out to be. This was long before the Crown issued its 1751 and 1763 edicts against expanding colonial scrip. You should therefore, read the reform acts themselves.

The problems it caused in the balance of trade, not only with England but with other countries were immense, this fact caused even more troubles in the domestic economy. The fact is that these problems were occurring long before the Crown attempted to very gradually reduce the issuance of paper scrip in 1751 or 1763 which, if you read the acts of reform in the individual colonies were 20 to 40 years in execution, not suddenly. I have read commentaries, essays, pamphlets and letters written as far back as the early 1720s decrying all of the suffering the issuance of paper scrip caused in the colonies, there were even a few written back in the 1690s that condemn the practice of colonial scrip and the suffering that was resulting from such issue.

Thus these commentaries had nothing to do with the Crown's interdiction into the issuance of colonial scrip, these were people who saw, who were eye-witnesses to the economic devastation caused by scrip.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Anyone outside of America who

Anyone outside of America who was in favor of Colonial Scrip probably had their heads cut off by the Queen or King of England.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Republicae's picture

I'm sorry but your comment is

I'm sorry but your comment is rather disconnected...there were precious few in favor of colonial scrip in the colonies, except certain politicians and those aristocrats, the common people, who felt the full brunt force of the problems of inflationary depreciation were certainly not for it, they despised it!

OH, and at that time in history there was the Kind of England, not the Queen...I would assume you would have known that if you are writing commentaries about the period.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

A 'precious few,' were in

A 'precious few,' were in favor of colonial scrip?

I find that hard to believe because of human nature.

If people could get their hands on, "money," they'd be in favor of it.

America was not built on silver and gold. The Old World was. We made our own rules and still do in defiance of the Crown today.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Republicae's picture

Maybe you should read more

Maybe you should read more about the subject. The fact is that precious few of the common people liked the paper scrip because it didn't take long for it to become virtually worthless in their hands, they couldn't buy things with it because the rates of inflation were so astronomical. Why would you like a type of money substitute when the rate of inflation was going through the roof? The lowest inflation rate was Pennsylvania
and it was at 80%, Rhode Island had the highest rate of inflation due to the abundant printing of it's scrip at over 2200%, now tell me why any common man would want to hold or use colonial scrip? It was a crappy currency system that enriched certain elite members of the colonies at the expense of the common people, sound familiar...that is why those within power love fiat currencies, it is a system that redistributes wealth from the largest portion of the population into the hands of a concentrated few.

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..." Thus it is not the amount of money that you have in your pocket that matters, but the worth of that money that holds meaning. Paper money value is alway a vapor that totally depends on the responsibility and accountability of those who hold the power of the printing press, unfortunately there has never been a government with the moral fortitude to restrain itself when it had the power to print money...it just prints and prints until the paper money is worthless.

The fact is that after the Revolution, America was indeed built on gold and silver, the greatest economic expansion of history of this country took place under a hard-money regime, not paper scrip.

We must come to understand the effects of a paper money substitute system actually does to a country, while it now appears that expansion of credit associated with public or government debt is natural, the fact is that it is simply a reflection of underlying political expediencies, but not social necessities. Public or government debts are nothing more than anticipated taxes. At one time, government debt was governed by the amount of tax revenues and if the distribution of the holding of such public debt were equal to the distribution of the weight of taxation then any public debt would pose no burden on the society. The problem is that such a view of public debt was always very restrictive on government under a gold monetary system, but that is not the case under the wondrous fiat monetary system, which is not subject to such restrictions.

Under a very restrictive gold monetary system, government debt was very limited and any expansion of government debt beyond the measure of anticipated revenues always resulted in an increased burden of taxation. Since the imposition of such excessive taxation hampers and places a real check on private enterprise there is a very real economic cost associated with higher accumulations of public or government debt, thus diminishing any socio-economic dividend within the economy.

Such restrictions on public debt posed a severe problem for government, in that it did not allow for the expansion of that debt beyond the anticipated tax revenues. Since a gold monetary system poses such restrictions on government due to the necessity of balancing the extension of spending with that of anticipated tax revenue, the budgetary restraint on government proved very prohibitive on any expansion of government and the services it is able to provide. Government was so limited by gold money that there is a long history of political contrivances to evade such limitations.

The economic limitations of gold are very well known; the lack of flexibility in the supply of gold does pose many problems that restrict the expansion of economic growth beyond a certain point. Unlike fiat money, there is the requirement of good business practices under a gold monetary system, where credit is limited and responsible decision-making is necessary.

Gold, unlike fiat currency is not very convenient; it also does not provide a protectionist system where the value of the currency is managed by the government itself or the banking system the government employs to maintain the system. While gold money does not allow for many variables in both usage and derivatives of financial instruments, fiat money does provide both government and banking with a vast array of financial derivative instruments on which to draw wealth. Perhaps on of the greatest advantages of fiat currency is that it allows for the expansion of deficit spending by government without regard to the possible burden of overt taxation on the people and the private sector, thus there are no such restrictions under a fiat monetary system. There is the ability for a government to set a course of unlimited growth and expansion of its reach, its power and its services under a fiat monetary regime, which is simply not possible under a gold monetary regime.

It can be easily determined that the creation of the Federal Reserve System, as well as the eventual elimination of the gold monetary system provided the government with an instrument that completely extinguished the necessity for direct taxation and the social and economic limitations of such taxation. Essentially, the fiat monetary system allowed for Congress to avoid all the unpopularity associated with the burden of rising taxation. At first, the avoidance was achieved by supplementing borrowing by increasing the supply of fiat money, this form of hidden taxation simply diverted productive wealth from the private sector into the public coffers.

Gold monetary systems hindered the ability of government to borrow and would not allow for the expansion of the money supply, which is absolutely necessary to implement the hidden taxation of monetary inflation, thus the advantage of the fiat monetary system is evident. Through the creation of the Federal Reserve System, the government was able to divert monetary power away from the producers into the hands of government, this allows for an almost unlimited degree of monetary power to be concentrated in the government and in the hands of those who are politically connected to that government through the system.

Another advantage to the fiat monetary system, as opposed to a gold monetary system, is that real wealth under a fiat monetary system is siphoned from all except those who are the original holders of the fiat money as it is issued. Thus, the government and those connected to the government though their patronage systems are the primary beneficiaries of the fiat monetary system. This form of hidden wealth redistribution is very essential to the expansive power of the government, for it does not involve the necessity of the consent of the People in order to achieve any socio-political goals desired by the government.

Another distinct advantage of fiat currency is that the government can expand its military might and the scope of that might without regard to budgetary restraint. It would be impossible for this government to have expanded its military or engage in military intervention under a gold monetary system. There would be no possible way for this government to spend as much on its military as all the countries of the world combined on the far less advantageous gold monetary system. Thus this advantage is of supreme importance to the offensive imperialism and intervention of this government. Without the fiat monetary system there would also be extreme restrictions on the government’s ability to provide entitlement programs to various sectors of the population, this gives the political structure a natural support system within the voting public, which allows politicians to retain their seats in Congress since nearly 50 percent of the population receives the benefits of government entitlements.

The advantages of the fiat monetary system also extend to the fact that the irredeemable notes require no real assets to back them, thus the government is relatively free to pursue its policies without the restrictions redeemable currencies pose. Since modern fiat notes are IOUs that make no promise of actual payment, it amounts to little more than a forced loan from the people to the government.
Additionally, since gold monetary systems rarely involve the necessity of a permanent market for government debt, the government cannot reap the benefits normally associated with the government bond market. Fiat money, unlike gold money, is issued solely to meet the fiscal needs of government, and unlike gold money, fiat money has no real relationship to the actual monetary needs of the business sector. In fact, gold money almost always involves good business practices, forcing good decision-making on business as well as government, the lack or distortion of such business practices always tend to be revealed quickly under a gold monetary system while being relatively concealed under a fiat monetary system.

Such restrictions pose a definite problem that is easily diverted through the fiat monetary system, unlike the gold monetary system. Historically, of course, the issue of fiat money usually meets with general popularity, and is politically expedient, because it makes the issuance of credit relatively easy since there are far fewer restrictions on the ratio of actual savings to loans extended, thus the appearance of wealth generation is widely spread throughout the country.

On the other hand, gold money does not allow for the build up and maintenance of illusionary wealth creation, which is based in the fiat system on the extension of easy credit instead of actual wealth creation. Gold money rarely lends itself to the illusion of paper wealth generated by the extension of credit debt accumulation, instead it requires a strict regiment of fiscal discipline in order to create and maintain wealth.

Another distinct advantage that the fiat monetary system has over a gold monetary system is that the fiat monetary system allows the construction of a view of short-term benefits through inflation as a means of artificial stimulation of business; this, combined with the fact that the fiat monetary system allows for the eventual transference of wealth generated in the boom portion of the business cycle to those positioned to benefit from the burst portion of the business cycle. This is of particular importance to those well-positioned business interests closely associated and connected to the government’s patronage. We recently witnessed just such a transfer as the government sought to “save” certain large corporations and commercial banks during the recent Panic of 2008.

In terms of the Federal Reserve System, there would simply be no way for the FED to expand its balance sheet by over 100% within a time frame of a few weeks under a gold monetary system. Additionally, under a gold monetary system there is simply not the flexibility to manipulate the system as it is under the fiat monetary system. There would have been no way possible for the government and the Federal Reserve to bail out the various troubled banks and industries under a gold monetary system. Thus the advantages of the fiat monetary system can be clearly seen in this most recent economic dislocation. It should also be of note that a gold monetary system would not allow for the increased concentration of power and wealth into the political center of Washington, D.C. or the financial center of New York. Gold money would not allow this government to support the privatization of profit with the socialization of risks as does a fiat monetary system, another distinct advantage to fiat money.

Gold money would also not allow for the concentration of power normally associated with money into the hands of those who are closely related to and therefore highly influential on the members of Congress who are generating political and fiscal policy. In other words, the fiat monetary system has the advantage of opening doors and keeping them open, while doing so under the radar of ethical scruples. This is of particular advantage to those within banking and government, for it allows for the most intricately based accounting practices that can be manipulated to conceal almost anything since the entire system is not based on any actual asset valued commodity, but on a paper system of money that was created to be manipulated.

In the book entitled The Economic Consequences of Peace, John Maynard Keynes stated: “Lenin was right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Since it is almost impossible for gold money to be debauched without the public noticing, it is a distinct disadvantage to those in government and since gold money does not allow for the artificial manipulation of the money supply through inflation, the government cannot steal massive amounts of productive wealth as it can through the fiat monetary system, thus the advantage to government is clear. Based on the government’s own calculations, since 1913, the government has siphoned off nearly 2105.2% of the productive wealth of this country through fiat money inflationary depreciation. That has been very advantageous to the government, filling its coffers, allowing for unbelievable government expansion, making this government the largest employer in the history of the world and it is all made possible through the fiat monetary system.

Perhaps one of the greatest advantages of the fiat monetary system is the fact that it provides the people with the impression that the government generally manages the economy well. Inflation tends to bolster confidence that government can and will do what is necessary when necessary to ensure a stable increase in the value of assets. Thus an increase in the prices of real estate and stocks are viewed as positive aspects of the management skills of the government and the FED. In general when people see the price of their homes increase they feel good, that feeling is a direct result in the inflationary policies of the government, it allows the government to continue stealing them blind through the very policy that they perceive as good economic management.

To correspond to that advantage another advantage of fiat currency is that it appears that wages are increasing, at least the face amount of wages are increasing. It matters not if a persons real wages are decreasing as long as it appear they are earning more dollars per hour, the governments ruse effectively continues. This little advantage also provides the government with a tax benefit, for the more a person makes per hour in the amount of face value currency the more of that money is taxed at a progressive rate, thus this form of double taxation is a distinct advantage to the government since it has directly taxed the earnings of a person and it also indirectly taxes it through fiat monetary inflation. So, a person may feel good to have received a $100 dollar raise a month, but calculated in terms of real wages that $100 dollars only represents an increase of approximately $2.52 per month in purchase value while it is being taxed at a given rate based on the face value of the increase.

Another distinct advantage fiat money has for the government over gold money is that, unlike gold, the fiat money supply available to the government can be increased in order to pay for goods and services without any real cost to the government itself. It is important to remember that this advantage is made possible, not only through the issuance of fiat money, but also through the manipulation of that fiat monetary regime. None of that would be possible without the very close relationship build between government and banking.

Factually, the government is at the center of monetary manipulation, the banks; under government charter operate as both the essential agents of the government, but also as the servant of the government’s political agenda. The government has, through the utilization of the fiat monetary system, created a monetary monopoly, a cartel that simply would not be possible without the direct legislative intervention of the government. The reason for the cartelization of banking is to provide government with a direct advantage in every aspect of political, economic and social spectrums. In fact, along with these advantages, it is not uncommon for those in government to move into banking and those in banking to move into government positions they are now almost interchangeable.

Through the fiat monetary system the government has created a very effective parasite system of monetary economics, keeping the host alive while continually feeding upon it. Thus, with all the disadvantages of gold money is it any wonder why the government has chosen to create and enforce the legal tender of a fiat monetary regime?


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

in lieu of money

On the whole, no method has hitherto been framed to establish a medium of trade in lieu of money, equal in all its advantages to bills of credit, founded on sufficient taxes for discharging them, or land securities of double the value for repaying them at the end of the term, and in the mean time made a general legal tender. The experience of now near half a century in the middle colonies has convinced them of it among themselves, by the great increase of their settlements, numbers, buildings, improvements, agriculture, shipping, and commerce. And the same experience has satisfied the British merchants who trade thither, that it has been greatly useful to them, and not in a single instance prejudicial.


Republicae's picture

The idea proposed by this

The idea proposed by this commentary states that Benjamin Franklin was no fan of the gold standard, so what? That does not mean that he was correct, nor does it condemn a gold monetary system. What it does, or should do is simply raise questions about Benjamin Franklin's views on the subject and, in doing so, opens the subject of his reasoning to a critique.

While Benjamin Franklin is certainly to be regarded as a genius in many subjects, especially some of the most fundamental attributes of the idea of Liberty, economics was not one of them. In fact, if you read his writings you will find very little in the way of actual economic theory, or even monetary theory even though he wrote "A Modest Enquiry Into The Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency." Strangely, or perhaps not, he held some very interesting similarities to the economic and monetary doctrines of none other than John Maynard Keynes in his General Theory, not to mention the later works of Marx and all those who held the Labor Value theory.

Franklin asserted that all economic output was valued based on the amount of labor used to produce that good or service, believing that "trade in general being nothing else but the exchange of labor for labor, the value of all things is, as I have said before, most justly measured by labor."

Of course, there are some major problems with such a theory and of course, the theory was totally refuted by several economists, including Carl Menger. It should be evident however, Menger proved that the value of goods and services don't stem from the amount of labor used to create those goods and services, but from the subjective taste and evaluations of all those within a given economy. Thus, the value of the factors involved in the production of goods or services are dependent on output, not on input. Therefore, the Labor Theory of Value falls apart.

Because of his view of what is essentially the Labor Theory of Value, he believed that gold and silver were only used as money and considered valuable because of the labor it took to retrieve the metals from the ground and the labor used to refine them. Thus Franklin's statement: "the riches of a country are to be valued by the quantity of labour its inhabitants are able to purchase, and not by the quantity of silver and gold they possess."

The reality however, was quite different, both then and now. Labor has nothing whatsoever to do with the value placed on either gold or silver; value is a subjective determinate based upon individuals within the economy acting and bidding on certain goods and or services available within the market. Indeed, it becomes evident that the idea that there must be a particular or expanding quantity of money in order to maintain or expand commerce is completely incorrect. The market does not "deem" that there be a certain amount of money in circulation to enable the market to function. Money and its purchasing power, as well as any rates of interests are decided by the market under free market circumstances. The value or purchasing power therefore, of money comes normally comes from the subjective evaluations within the market and not from the labor used to acquire either gold or silver used as money.

Interestingly, Franklin also implied that a certain quantity of money must exist in order to maximize trade in any given area of the country and, like the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, that there could be shortages and surpluses of money in the market and that there was a need to control such variations of the quantity.

Franklin stated that: "there is a certain proportionate quantity of money requisite to carry on the trade of a country freely and currently; more than which would be of no advantage in trade, and less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it."

That is the common mistake of all those who assume that it is the quantity of money that is meaningful in an economic market, misunderstanding that it is not the quantity, but the quality of money that is meaningful. The lesson of classical economics is that the quantity of money in the market is not meaningful since the market will adjust to the supply of money either by an increase in the pricing structure or a reduction in price. Money is functional being a medium of exchange, therefore, when massive amounts of money is flooded into the market, the market responds by increasing the bid price of goods and services, in other words, the purchase power of the monetary unit is reduced. Franklin did not understand this fact, or if he did he certainly didn't express it in his writings even though a contemporary of his David Hume had published his works on the subject.

It is easy to see the results of such manipulation, the prime example is the Federal Reserve System. The value of the "U.S.Dollar" changes as the supply is manipulated, reducing the purchase value or power of the monetary unit corresponding to the inflationary pressures against it.

Franklin also stated in one of his essays that high interest rates were detrimental to the price of land because few individuals would be willing to make a purchase due to the rate of interest. Franklin, like others, stated that the rate of interest was determined by the quantity of money in circulation; believing as it were, that when money was scarce that the interest rate would be high and vice-versa. That is far from a correct assessment of the mechanics of the rate of interest within the market. The only time that there is a difference in the rate of interest due to the quantity of money is when the government or some official authority has the power to manipulate the supply of money in circulation through loanable funds through its auspices like the FED's Open Market Operations.

Franklin did not grasp the fact that under normal market conditions, under a commodity monetary system, that interest rates can vary from region to region based on the time preferences of individuals within a given region as the supply and demand for loanable funds fluctuate.

Franklin also said:"want of money in a country reduces the price of that part of its produce which is used in trade: because trade being discouraged by it as above, there is a much less demand for that produce." Franklin implied that because a certain quantity of funds are being lent out instead of being spent on consumption, that the demand for goods and services will cause a drop in the price of those goods and services. Again, incorrect. What he failed to understand that although the price of goods and services might fall, the price of both capital is increasing at the same time under such circumstances. What happens during periods like that is there is a shift of resources and labor from consumer goods into capital production and it is the increase of actual savings that allows for economic growth and a rise in the quantity of future consumable goods to occur. Again, strangely, he held very similar views as Keynes on the subject, and held that it was consumption that created economic growth, when, in fact, it is production. He also held that low investment led to higher rates of interest and lower employment; like the Keynesians, he held that lower interest rates were necessary to increase investment and while it is true that lower interest rates do spur investment, usually because of the fact that such rates are artificially maintained under a fiat monetary system, many of those investments spurred by such low rates are not sustainable because once investments are based upon loanable funds rather than capital savings, the imbalances, distortions and the misallocation of resources are revealed. He essentially tied the high and low investment, based on the rate of interest, with changes in the quantity of the money supply; hence, he favored paper money in his early years.

Given his views on economics, one might need to question his views on money, in particular gold.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

If i may Republicae offer something

I agree with almost everything on this post except with one statement. Not that it is wrong but incomplete and may leave readers unsatisfied.

“Again, strangely, he held very similar views as Keynes on the subject, and held that it was consumption that created economic growth, when, in fact, it is production”.

It’s not just production that creates wealth but is production under a stable monetary system that can calculate the “opportunity cost of capital”. Investments in productive resources that not only return accounting profits but an economic profit as well.

During periods of inflation the cost of capital will likely decline as the “new money’ seeks out profitable ventures. These will often lead to not only mal-investment but a breaking down the pricing structure in the market, making what was once profitable venture less so. As profits are squeezed by marginal players in the production process business will curtail cost and idle workers. This starts the cycles of destruction as seen as a lack of demand and only more inflation will be consider as the remedy just furthering the process of the eventual demise of the monetary unit. Often overseas markets are seen as the guiding light to redemption and profit. This is what has happened so often during the mercantilism era the force of government was used to pry open these markets. This is what occurred at the turn of the 20th century in the U. S. and lead to the USG finally achieving empire status dreamed about so long ago by Alexander Hamilton.

Richard Cantillon (168?-1734?) the Irish banker who made his fortune in the Mississippi Bubble has often been celebrated as the first theoretical economist. The list of his contributions stretches from economic methodology, price theory, human capital theory and wages to the circular flow mechanism, price-specie flow mechanism, and business cycle theory.

He integrated population theory, location theory, capital asset pricing, and a sophisticated monetary theory throughout his Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général (circa 1730, hereafter Essai). Only recently has Cantillon been credited with the discovery of the concepts of opportunity cost and possibly the first construction of the invisible hand.

The essences of Capitalism.

The theory for the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to all the individual members of a community, and hence to the community as a whole. The reason for this is that self-interest drives actors to beneficial behavior in a case of serendipity. Efficient methods of production are adopted to maximize profits. Low prices are charged to maximize revenue through gain in market share by undercutting competitors. Investors invest in those industries most urgently needed to maximize returns, and withdraw capital from those less efficient in creating value. All these effects take place dynamically and automatically.

But to the point of discussion on money in this thread.

A highlight of Cantillon's theory of money is his treatment of the value of money as a special case of the value of market commodities in general. As in the case of any product, the alleged 'intrinsic value' of gold is the cost of its production. The value of gold and silver, like other commodities, is set by the values and hence the demands of users in the market - by the 'consent of mankind'. As in the case of other commodities, too, Cantillon has no cost of production theory of the value of gold and silver; he simply holds, as elsewhere, that these products can only be produced if costs can be covered by the value of the product.

The process of aligning costs and values in gold, however, takes a relatively long time since its annual output is a small proportion of the total stock in existence. If the nominal value of gold falls below its cost of production, it will cease being mined; and if costs fall sharply, production of gold will be stepped up, thus tending to align costs and normal values. Cantillon recognized that government paper and bank money virtually have no costs of production, and therefore no 'intrinsic value' in his terminology, but he pointed out that market forces keep the value of such fiduciary MONEY AT PAR with the value of the gold or silver in which that paper can be redeemed. As a consequence, an increase in the supply 'of fictitious or imaginary money has the same effect as increase in the circulation of real money'. But, Cantillon noted, let confidence in the money be damaged, and monetary disorder ensues and the fictitious money collapses. He pointed out, too, that government is particularly subject to the temptation to print fictitious money - a lesson he had undoubtedly learned from or at least seen embodied in, the John Law experiment. Cantillon also provided a sound analysis of how the market determines the ratio of the values of gold and silver. One of the superb features of Cantillon's Essai is that he was the first, in a pre-Austrian analysis, to understand that money enters the economy as a step-by-step process and hence does not simply increase or raise prices in a homogeneous aggregate.

To the Opportunity Cost of Capital:

Value and price
Cantillon engaged in the first sophisticated modern analysis of market pricing, showing in detail how demand interacts with existing stock to form prices. In contrast to the later Smith-Ricardo classicists, and foreshadowing the Austrians, Cantillon was largely interested in price formation in the real world, i.e. actual market prices, rather than in the chimera of long-run 'normal' pricing. In an important recent interchange on Cantillon at least in so far as holding that market prices tend in the long run to approach the 'intrinsic value' of a good, that is, the cost of production, in terms of land and labour inputs, of the product.

Cantillon's market price analysis was the Austrian one of a given existing stock of a good evaluated and demanded by consumers. Quoting from Cantillon: 'It is clear that the quantity of product or of merchandise offered for sale, in proportion to the demand or number of Buyers, is the basis on which is fixed or always supposed to be fixed the actual market prices ... '. Demand, in turn, is subjective, dependent on 'humours, fancies, mode of living', etc. These subjective valuations are what impart value to the products offered for sale. It is the 'consent of mankind' , says Cantillon, which gives value to 'lace, linen, fine cloths, copper and other metals'. For Cantillon, actual market prices are determined by demand: 'It often happens that many things which actually have this intrinsic value are not sold in the market at that value: That will depend on the humors and fancies of men and on their consumption'. Thus the value of products is imparted by consumer valuation: a crucial proto-Austrian insight derived from medieval and late Spanish scholastics. For centuries, in fact, the scholastic and post-scholastic position had been that the value of goods is determined by 'utility' and 'scarcity', by subjective valuation of a given supply. The more utility the higher the value, and the more abundant the supply the lower the value and price of any good on the market. Cantillon's is a sophisticated and elaborated development of the scholastic approach. While Cantillon considers the 'intrinsic value of a thing' 'the measure of the Land and Labour which enter into its Production', he concedes immediately that subjective valuation by consumers rather than 'intrinsic value' determines price.

On the contrary, for Cantillon, cost of production had a very different function: deciding whether a business could make profits or else have to suffer losses and go out of business. If consumer value and therefore the selling price of a product is high enough to more than cover costs, the firm makes a profit; if not high enough, it suffers losses and eventually has to go out of business. This is an important part of the Austrian view of the role of costs.

Hence the movement toward long-run equilibrium is not a process of adjusting market prices to intrinsic long-run costs of production, but one of labourers and entrepreneurs moving in and out of various lines of production until costs of production and selling prices are equal.

Like I said “the essence of capitalism”. It may simplistic to us now, but when it was espoused it was original thought. But because of this original thought and his thoughts on government money ( paper money issued at par with real money) Cantillon also understood that this was a destructive force in the mechanism of market prices and return of capital flowing in and out of businesses seeking the greatest opportunity……THE INVISIBLE HAND.

"Before we can ever ask how things might go wrong; we must first explain how they could ever go right"


Republicae's picture

I agree.

I agree.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun


...clear, and informative response.

Good job :)

Thanks for that, it was needed.

Keep your eye on the prize! - Ending legal tender laws in order for the Federal Reserve System to self-destruct is of the upmost importance.
What in the World are They Spraying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA

Franklin owned buildings, presses, equipment and materials.

And if Franklin died without any gold or silver because he practiced what he preached that would mean he believed his own theories, at least.

Free includes debt-free!

Edwin Vieira Has Written A Huge 2 Volume Book,

Called " Pieces of Eight", because Spanish milled Silver Dollars, called pieces of eight, were already in circulation in many parts of the world long ago, including the original 13 colonies.

A Spanish milled Dollar could be divided into 8 parts of equal amounts of Silver, called "Bits".
Hence the expression 2 bits, which to this day still means a quarter of a dollar.

The U.S. Constitution Article I
Section 8 covers this by saying:
The Congress shall have the power to:
"Coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of 'FOREIGN' coin", specifically referring to Spanish milled Silver dollars, which by the way circulated to the mid 1800's.

Thank you all for the discussion.


Republicae's picture

And it is a fantastic work!

And it is a fantastic work!


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

We don't owe any debt to the Federal Reserve

The value of the money supply is what should be elastic. What can my dollar buy versus how many of them I have (i.e. in 1950 I could buy a home for $12,000 so I needed less dollars - it is the purchasing power that counts). What I learned is it is a fallacy that is used by "economists" getting their information from bankers. The money supply does not need to be elastic for growth (creating more dollars), but it is the purchasing power and what those dollars can buy.

Interesting part of the article is the "colonies/govt" did not pay interest on the money printed. Can you imagine the strength of America if our Congress coined money like they were suppose to without interest? Instead, the Federal Reserve was created and private banks were given the power to print money and charge interest. I hate hearing the entrenched line about how we owe all this debt, which is mainly interest to bankers who should never have gotten it in the first place. I say we don't owe it.

SteveMT's picture

What we think hasn't seemed to mattered.

Our government is bank-owned, and it's their aim to make us pay it thereby enslaving us in the process, just like PIIGS in the eurozone. They are not about to let us get away with not paying. Hang on to your bank account, and liquidate what you can.

I agree the debt is a joke and most of it we don't really owe

The dumbasses in congress should have liquidated the debt instead of bailing out the banksters since most of it is owed to ourselves via the fed schemes and looting of trust funds by congress.

Many forget about credit of which there is none now and the huge roll it plays in the deflationary death spiral we are in. Much much more than the paltry 85 billion a month the fed creates.

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007


"I say we don't owe it."

I am in that group of we.

That group includes those people defending Liberty against the "Central Banker" Criminals in the American Revolutionary War, Shays's Rebellion, The Whiskey Rebellion, Alien and Sedition Acts, First Bank of the United States, Second Bank of the United States, and most recently The Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Service.

The problem is such that many of the victims are fooled by the many confusing falsehoods employed by the criminals against the victims, so much so that many of the victims are led to believe those falsehoods, and then suffering from those beliefs in those falsehoods, those victims are inspired to turn from defenders of Liberty into employees of the "Central Banker" Criminals.

One very good study of such "belief" in falsehood is a study of James Madison.

The same person who worked side by side with the "Central Banker" Criminals during the First Con Con (con job) taking steps to enforce "Central Banker" Crimes (payments by victims of false debt) turned his coat back to the Blue of Defense of Liberty, and sided with Jefferson in the fight to return back from Monopoly into the obvious alternative, which is competition.

Chief writer of The Constitution (working to create "consolidation" or monopoly)

Writer of The Virginia Resolutions (part of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions)

Madison was the member of this country doing both things in opposition to each other.

The Constitution consolidated (monopolized) the formerly independent and constitutionally limited Republics into one Nation State with one POWER to collect (involuntary) "taxes" including a new concept known as a National Debt.

Previous to the monopoly "constitution" (consolidation of the "states" united into ONE) each constitutionally limited republic could either pay off the War debt (pay who for what?) or not pay off the War debt, at their own, exclusive, prerogative, privilege, choice, discretion, under their own authority, as they alone see fit, voluntarily.

The payment of war debt (to who for what?) was the excuse to call representatives from each constitutionally limited republic into a meeting of congress (federation, or confederation, meeting) and once assembled the turncoats turned a meeting of a confederated congress into a Con Con or Constitutional Convention.


The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

Here in the following link the author spells out the Turncoats real "interest" in Consolidating all the constitutionally limited republics into one Nation State:


"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

That is a long standing tradition among the "Central Banker" Criminals, as they issue false "currency" in many forms, including "campaign promises" that will be broken, because their word can be trusted as being false, and as they seek to bond their victims into despotic servitude based upon the lie that the Credit earned by the productive people is the source of Debt owed by the same people.

I think that your words say the same thing, but I may be mistaken.

"I say we don't owe it."

Not only do I agree with that statement, it is in fact impossible to pay off said "debt" as a well established understanding of accurate accounting.


That which cannot be afforded won't be paid?

How can a liar be known in fact?


Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Pay and don't question the payments, it is against the law?


You give a lot to think

You give a lot to think about. I have been pondering the concept of profit and storage of wealth a lot lately. I don't know how we can sustain this concept of profit without artificial inflation. Years ago people bought homes and they may have increased in value a few thousand dollars when they sold it. Now, everyone wants to make tens of thousands profit off a relatively static item ... What is wrong with what God gave us and how much "profit" is needed?

Please consider

Some people consider the following work to be heavy reading:


I found that work to be a source of many answers such as this "concept of profit and storage of wealth," whereby that work is in stark contrast to dominant current (modern?) thinking driven by monopoly enforcement of fraud and extortion by criminals working under the color of law. When the opposite of monopoly enforcement of fraud (counterfeit, or involuntary, or criminal: money) and extortion (counterfeit, or involuntary, or criminal: tax) by criminals working under the color of law is tried, meaning simply Liberty (non-antagonistic competition) being tried instead of Crime made Legal (monopoly), as it was in Equitable Commerce as an example of Liberty being offered instead of Legal Crime being enforced, the results prove the value of cooperative competition (non-criminal or voluntary) as cooperative competition is opposite of antagonistic (criminal or involuntary) competition.

There is only ONE source of money at it is willfully produced by criminals who design the money to be fraudulent, and there is only ONE source of "justice" (extortion) and it is produced by criminals who design "tax payments" to be willfully the same thing as any other extortion scam: "make him an offer he can't refuse."

Everyone offers their own money (or chooses better money than their own) and everyone is equal under any concept of law (no one but criminals raise themselves above the law) whereby everyone is King or everyone is peasant, and no one can legally use the law to gain something from someone else (something for nothing: which is crime) as is the case in voluntary law or "consent of the governed," as declared in such things as The Declaration of Independence.

When there is Monopoly there is no longer a "collective" force of choices made by individuals who WILL choose better over worse in their own reasonable selections of whatever anyone else has to offer in exchange, including charity (actual charity not the false charity offered by criminals who steal and then "give away" the loot they steal: with strings attached) whereby a generous person "profits" in knowing that a generous person has their gifts accepted by those who are offered such generosity. The cooperative competition among competitors is forced into being by those many choices, as the winners of the cooperative competition are those who adapt, learn by example, invent, reproduce, and emulate (or copy, or improve upon) those methods of offering what people prefer, until people prefer something different, which is "better" by that FORCE of all those choices proving precisely what people prefer.

1. Monopoly means, precisely, no competition or an insignificant measure of competition whereby there is no longer any choice among the significant competitors, and therefore the Monopoly supplier produces whatever is in the interest of the Monopoly supplier as there is no longer any communication, no longer any information, as to what the consumers actually prefer, since the consumers have no choice, other than the one thing on the shelf, or nothing.

2. As soon as there is something of higher quality and/or lower cost (low cost is a quality) right next to the Monopoly product, absent a criminal FORCE making the decision for the consumer, the consumer invariably chooses what the consumer alone considers to be better over what the consumer alone considers to be worse among the two, or three, or four, choices.

As to the concept of "profit," as is the case with many words and many terms, there is a genuine, peaceful, free market, non-criminal, meaning of the word, and then there is a counterfeit, antagonistic, coercive, criminal, meaning of the same word.

1. Profit non-criminal: that which is earned by the earner who gains more at the end of the day than that which the earner had at the beginning of the day; whereby the earner either produces more from a limited supply or the earner trades more for less from his own estimate of that which is more compared to that which is less.

2. Profit criminal: that which is taken by someone who does not earn that which is taken, as that which is taken is taken from an innocent victim as the innocent victim is a victim of fraud, or extortion, or aggressive violence known as robbery or slavery; as the false earner (the criminal) gains at the expense of the victim whereby the victim is made less powerful as the criminal is made more powerful because power is flowing from the victim to the criminal by criminal means.

Those who earn by producing more during the day than that which existed at the start of the day increase what is known as Surplus Wealth, and criminals who take from, but do not add to Surplus Wealth, take that which can be called Unearned Income.

If there were no criminals, and if there were only producers who produce more at the end of the day than that which was produced at the start of the day, there would be a steady increase in the total amount of Surplus Wealth.

Here is where the concept of who has any of those increases in Surplus Wealth, how did they get it, and what do they do with it once they have it becomes a contentious question to be answered either precisely accurately by those demanding "better" (precisely accurate accounting) over "worse" (not up to any standard that can be even remotely called accurate) will, these honest people will, find other people who won't, whereby other people prefer "better" (precisely false accounting where they get 10 and their victim get -10) over "worse" (anything even remotely accurate) becomes an example of antagonistic competition. Which is better?

1. Accurate accounting
2. Willfully false accounting (euphemistically called by many names such as "money laundering," "inflation," "fiat money," and "Quantitative easing" and accurately accounted as FRAUD)

If there is no criminal "taking" of Unearned Income from the Total Amount of Surplus Wealth, then, those who earn it by non-criminal means, have it, and no criminals have it, and if that is the case, then the rate of production (making more by the end of the day than that which existed at the start of the day) is the natural result of having no more criminals taking Unearned Income from those who earn it by non-criminal means.

This can be seen with may possible illustrations such as the following:


If you read the concept of The Prisoner's Dilemma and you download the required files to run the applet, and then you start thinking about how changes in the variables in the formula work, it may become clear as to how Liberty is so much more Powerful Economically compared to Crime made Legal.

Liberty can be understood as the variable of how many "cooperators" are cooperating, so long as you can understand that cooperation involves the concept of voluntary, non-antagonistic, competition, which is required in the process of invention, adaptation, and the FORCE that forces everything to higher quality (higher standards of living) and lower costs (lower costs of living) ABSENT a more powerful criminal FORCE, which can be understood as "defectors," whereby too many "defectors" destroy productive capacity, lead to scarcity of everything, and everyone like rats in a cage without food or water, are at each other's throats killing, and eating, each other to get the next weakest rat, and the next, on and on, until the last stronger rat eats the last weaker rat.

There are two obvious profits (the real deal) given to human beings by the creator of human beings, who or what it matters not, we have these things, one is morality (the capacity to choose better over worse) and our own creativity (the capacity to invent better over worse), whereby, obviously, measurably, and uncontroversially, better is non-antagonistic cooperation relative to the opposite being crime made legal, knowable as Monopoly, also knowable as "civilized" cannibalism.

There is a lot to think about when the falsehoods, one by one, are driven out of the mind, and therefore out of circulation.

Just like the Fraud "money" currently circulating, as units of actual lies, the collective political economy (many individual minds) or one individual mind that no longer uses those lies will be then filled with an inexhaustible supply of competitive possibilities.