Comment: I've given thought to this some time ago

(See in situ)


Cyril's picture

I've given thought to this some time ago

I've given thought to this some time ago, it's in one of my other comments on the DP. I can try to rephrase it here.

We humans have this heavy use of nouns and verbs in our natural languages. There are other grammatical kinds, but both of these two kinds have always played, ever since the dawn of oral and then written communication, and in most languages, central roles.

Soon enough, units of measure appeared as a specific type of nouns, of course, to denote quantities, and sometimes intensities/qualities of the things of the tangible world we experience. Likewise, the Bible stressed out several times the importance of clear, fair, honest weights, and scales.

Fiat monies and currencies have often, if not always, IMO, managed to impose themselves with this deceptive trick at their very inception:

the pretense that giving a representation of money (IOU or not) a widely recognizable name (noun), after fame of a thing, of an event, of a person, or whatever, e.g., "Dollar", or "Yen", will be sufficient to have everybody continue to play fairly the game of life through the universal laws of supply vs. demand on the markets.

The great deception I see is that the very nature of the purely conventional, arbitrary, fiat currency schemes is neither necessary or even sufficient to sustain, and even less, ensure, continued fairness.

"In an ideal world", I believe only well-established and immutable unit systems that denote tangibly recognizable features or properties of the forms of money should be used for the latter's sake. Like I said, we've had those for a long time for various tangible assets even before deciding to pick one or two such as silver and gold to conventionally represent, transport, and exchange value.

Simply: weights.

A pound of mud weighing the same as a pound of butter.

An ounce of iron weighing the same as an ounce of gold.

Same weights, differently perceived values, since made out of different matters/things, and depending on epoch, culture, supply, demand, usage, etc.

But it is AT LEAST all about speaking the same weights, or units thereof, for different things.

Just like saying "yes" to mean "yes", or saying "no" to mean "no".

There's no issue doing it with the intangible as well, btw: nothing in the principle should prevent an experienced professional in this or that domain to trade his work time (say, in hours - intangible) for a specific amount of gold or silver or anything else - say, in ounces - tangible. One just needs a clock and a weighing scale, in that case.

On the other hand...

Fiat currencies force onto the peoples such monetary systems where our minds have to wrap themselves around TWO mostly independent ratios - when man, in fact, for free and peaceful trade really needs ONLY one :

[value of good or service] / [fiat currency, in arbitrary unit]*F*

and:

[fiat currency] / [real money, in weight and nature]*M*

Where:

*F* of course equates to e.g., "dollar" or "franc" or "pokemon" or whatever else one's imagination can make up = merely an arbitrary, intangible, fancy noun

and

*M* equates to another asset, of actual value

While there should only be this ratio, the strict minimum required for trade to function, once you have scales:

[value of good or service] / [real money, in weight and nature]*M*

By forcing the peoples to juggle constantly (even if unconsciously, or better yet: forgetting the real money part) between these TWO FORCEFUL ratios, the central planners, soon or late, can't resist the temptation to manipulate them one way or the other - either by restricting access to the real money or debasing the meaning of the fiat unit vs. that real money, its backing asset. Thus favoring permanent confusion in the peoples' minds, and losing sight at some point of how the fiat currency actually evolved vs. its backing asset (usually unfairly), and over relatively "long" periods of time for people to notice without paying great attention.

The fiat part becoming "elastic" either stretching or shrinking by the stroke of a pen signing a perverted law, it's a much more convenient way for the thieves, and plunderers of all sorts to steal the wealth of others than if they had to change all the scales in existence on earth, all at once, say, "with a magic wand".

Don't you think?

And since those who decide about such tricky "elasticity" installments are in the governments and/or their satellite elites (as it's now clear it's not just about money supply and inflation, but much more so about THE CONTROL over those)... here we are today.

That's how I understood the plunder - and inevitable fall, eventually - of all the fiat currencies have happened throughout history.

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius