Half joking:
I always thought a good definition of legal tender would be guns and ammo.
That way, if we get hyperinflation, at least we'll be well armed!
We are set up a as a society for the paper money. It just has to be backed by gold. It has so have some tie. I do not demand 1 to 1 but any kind of fixed tie is needed.
Did you see gold prices were up $30 today. There is no stopping it.
Shouldn't I be able to pay taxes to the government in something other than gold or silver. Considering that the Constitution only allows for payment to be made to in gold or silver (or today only in FDRs), couldn't some crooked people horde gold and silver (or dollars) making it more difficult for me to acquire money and thereby preventing me from paying my taxes to the government or mortgage to the bank. This is currently being done with FDRs as Central Banks around the world hold FDRs in reserve not allowing them to return for us to earn and pay our debt. If I don't pay my debt then the government can take away my property, eventhough I am still able to produce on my property. Then those hording the money come in and buy my property at a discount. Seems that there should be a way for me to pay my debt to the government without having to use gold or silver (or FDRs). Returning to the use of only gold and silver sounds like a good idea, but because of human nature, the exclusive right to use only gold or silver as payment of debt can be used as a scam to get property away from people, this is perhaps why the government, corporations and bankers own most of the property in our country. Without the right to property, there is no freedom.
grant
...that only silver and gold are acceptable payments for debt. Anything else would (and should have) require(d) an amendment.
HOWEVER...if two parties wish to engage in a contract using an alternate medium of exchange as payment between them, that's their business.
We've been forced to accept debt markers (aka FRN's) in place of money for our transactions for far too long. Don't you think it's time we are able to require debts to us to be paid in gold & silver, as the Constitution says we ought to be able?
I am for Ron Paul, I am for freedom, I am for the right to own land without having to pay taxes on it, I am for no income tax, I am for any kind of money as long as I am not obligated to use it and can trade whatever I decide to produce.
grant
As long as they get rid of the fed, Monetizing debt to pay for greedy govt fraud is the problem, They distort the free market to hide their crimes and the bubbles get blamed on big business. The people who run the worlds central banks ( rothchild , rockerfeller etc) are the real terrorists
As you explain below, when banks have money in reserve they can lend it out. The same happens with internation Central Banks, such as China and Brazil. Brazil, has last time i heard over 200 billion dollars in reserve, they purchase these dollar off the Brazilian market to support the dollar as a way to support their exports. With these dollars they of course print money or issue bonds to those who trade them the dollars and then they can lend out money in a 9 - 1 ratio or whatever their law stipulates. The problem is that if the dollar collapses what happens to the value of their reserve.
Of course measures are being taken to trade in other currencies, especially between trading partners. As the law is today for example Argentinian and Brazilian exporters and importer need to trade in dollars, this will be changing in the summer when they will trade with each others currency. Eventually there is to be a Central bank for all of South American country with the formation of UNISUR, so this will eliminate the need to keep dollar in reserve, where should we imagine the dollars will go then.
grant
Of course another and even better commodity would be to make it based on corn, or some other food product. With a growing world population, I expect countries should rather exchange their FDRs for corn and keep that in reserve as opposed to gold or silver.
There are over 9 trillion FRDs held in reserve by banks around the world. Now one of our problems is that these dollars aren't returning. So what can we do to get them back into our economy,, since there are a lot of them out there? From what I understand Ron Paul wants to authorize a competing curency backed by some commodity or group of commodities. This would be one way, since we could start the second currency authorizing it for trade and this would entise foriegn governments to exchange their FRDs, since they would certainly lose appeal. If for example we started a currency based on silver and allowed for it to compete with the FDR freely without fixing the price, the FDR would flood in rapidly, we would then have FDR's to pay our mortgages which are based on FDRs. In a short time we would have our houses paid off and many banks would go bust, but like any good gardener knows from the Peter Sellers film, we have to clear the field before we can plant and produce a new crop.
and this does not necessarily mean gold and/or silver. Any commodity backing the currency would suffice. Electric utilities (for example) could issue a currency based on kilowatt hours. They could make it acceptable for paying the electric bill and let the market determine the value of the kilowatt hour. Of course, I also like gold and silver, but in this scenario, it would be a competing currency.
-- because as long as the government is in control of the money supply, it will work to again create a central bank. This has happened in nearly every nation around the world, so there's no point in thinking it wouldn't happen again.
Free-market is always the better choice, because coercion is evil -- and of course government is just a scheme to do things, including to FUND things, by means of coercion.
Here's a column that expands on that thought:
The Worst Way to Do Anything: Why a Healthy World Required Freedom from Coercion
I have to admit, it's easier to travel in Europe now that there is one single currency accepted everywhere. But even before, in each country there was one currency, but was still a pain (and costly) to have to convert all the time.
So how would competing currencies in the U.S. work out?
You'd have currency in different units from different banks? Or would each be tied to some amount of gold?
Say a bank guaranteed each of its dollars with one thousandth of an ounce of gold in reserve, and guaranteed to keep 100% in reserve, while another bank did the same but kept only a fraction in reserve. Would the market value the "dollars" from the two banks the same? If so, then the first bank would probably go out of business, because, at least in the short run, the bank doing fractional reserve would have so much more opportunity to invest and create wealth from its reserves, while the first bank would have to sit on all its reserves.
I'm just trying to picture the practical implications of going to the grocery store and paying in one currency, while receiving change in another. And how would credit cards work? Would each store provide prices in terms of various currencies? Or would each probably have a primary currency, and that's how prices would be set and credit cards charged?
I'm not opposed to the idea, I'm just having trouble picturing exactly how it might work.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Any one should be able to start a bank and print their own money, with or without a backing to it. Money and banking should not be regulated. Central planning of money doesn't work any better than central planning of anything else economic.
--------
Dr. Paul says Barr is an ally (http://www.newsweek.com/i...)
and would do "a very good job" as president (http://www.youtube.com/wa...).
Watch for Barr on the Colbert Report Jun 4, and on the Glenn Beck Program Jun 5.
anything is better than a central bank regulating fiat currency ..
the free market will ultimately choose gold ... if it doesn't .. it doesn't essentially matter .. it just has to be backing by something of real value
gold is the best so far, because it's small and rare, not allowing governments to pursure war and excessiveness unless directly through the people by higher taxes
-------
Dr. Paul says Barr is an ally (http://www.newsweek.com/i...)
and would do "a very good job" as president (http://www.youtube.com/wa...).
Watch for Barr on the Colbert Report Jun 4, and on the Glenn Beck Program Jun 5.
A) What's the problem with a person voluntarily choosing to depositing his money in a institution that states that it will only keep part of it in reserve?
Note: if the bank says it will keep 100% in reserve and doesn't, then that is another story...(breach of contract).
whenever debt is used to pay interest, it has the effect of adding more to the money supply, which in turn makes all of the previous "money" that came before it loose value.
In my opinion, money should be a store of value, not a promise to pay an obligation. Interest can only exist when currency and credit are introduced into the system (promises to pay) due to the fact that coin (gold and silver) does not grow exponentially under a mathematical equation, it must be mined, refined, and fabricated. Gold and silver are good stores of value because of the fact their amounts are limited.
So, if a person voluntarily choose to surrender his wealth to an institution (bank) that destroys the value of the wealth, by its very business model, it could be said that said person was either acting irrationally, or was at least ignorant of how the system works.
In my perfect world, we would be using gold and silver for economic transactions; and even electronic transactions could be allowed, if they represented a unit that was exchangeable for gold, silver, or something else that is rare, and of perceived value on a 1:1 basis.
Here's my reasoning:
a) Debt can be used to pay interest with out adding to the money supply.
For example, if I take a loan from some money that my friend has been saving.
Sorry, I got confused for a second. I was talking about money creation on the macro-economic level. I didn't clarify that above.
Debt, or credit, always increases the overall money supply by its very nature; i.e. more money must be created to pay back a loan at interest. The way that fractional reserve banking works, is that for every unit of currency held in reserve, the bank is allowed to "create" new money out of thin air to loan. This, by its very definition, is monetary inflation, which in turn leads to price inflation, which leads to currency debasement.
Let's consider a scenario. Instead of central banking, let's imagine we had banks issuing their own currency. When someone borrows a certain amount of money from a bank, they are going to have to repay that loan, over time, in the same currency, or make an arrangement with the bank, to pay in another currency that must be exchangeable for the bank's currency. For simplicity, lets remove the second option from the table.
So, the borrower is going to first spend the currency that they borrowed from the bank. Second, they are going to have to gather up more of the bank's currency over time, plus the interest earned on the loan. Where would that currency have to come from?
1) from the issuing bank creating new currency in order to have itself paid the interest earned on the loan, or
2) from other actors in the economy who have a supply of the bank's currency that was previously supplied by the bank.
3) In the case of a privately-issuing bank, more currency (money) is going to need to be created, just for the loaning institution to be paid back. What is the bank's risk in this situation? From what I can tell, minimal. Unless there was a run on the bank, and all the depositors lost faith and showed up at once to withdraw their currency, the bank could just go about issuing more currency to cover its losses. Sure, this debases the currency, but why would the bank care, as long as they are the issuers of said currency.
This differs in the scenario that you mentioned about your friend lending you money in the sense that your friend actually has something to loose--his savings in a unit of currency that he does not produce; nor can he magically loan you money that he doesn't have.
I hope this clarified things somewhat, and I apologize for the vagueness in my earlier post.
debt and credit are how new money is created. The banks are not loaning out any of the actual reserves they have on hand. Instead, they create "new" money based on these reserves, to loan to the borrower. So, if someone deposits $1.00 in a bank account, and the reserve ratio is 9:1, the bank can lend out $9.00, an increase in the theoretical money supply of 900%. This figure grows at an exponential rate.
If you have not watched it already, check out "Money as Debt" on google video. It describes monetary creation through fractional reserve banking much better than I can. Also, disregard their solution to the problem at the end. A centrally distributed fiat currency without interest is still a centrally distributed fiat currency. It is best left to the markets to decide what is and what is not of value.
You are talking specfically about fractional reserve banks.
Re: that Money as Debt video, I don't like it. It boggles the mind how someone who takes the time to make a 45 min documentary on the subject can fail so miserably at the solution.
I think that society would be much better as a whole without fractional reserve banking practices for the following reasons.
First, the lender is put in a position over the borrower--the two can no longer be considered equals.
Second, the practice of fractional reserve banking is inflationary and debases the money.
Third, it allows those who issue the money supply to create misallocations in the economy. In this situation, bubbles arise as well as occupations and market segments that otherwise wouldn't exist under a sound money economy.
Fourth, it increases the level of poverty for the benefit of the few.
Fifth, it is a welfare system for the very rich--those who create the money supply.
Sixth, it allows the government to borrow and spend money on things that are irrelevant and unnecessary to the nation as a whole. While this occurs, each and every person who contributes to the system through the payment of income taxes is reduced to serfdom to those the money is owed.
If I thought about it, I could probably come up with more, but I would say those are my top 6 reasons.
1) Why is the inequality a problem if both parties voluntarily entered into the transaction?
2) Why not let the people who want to do business with fractional-reserve banks do so?
If you don't want your money to be depreciated why not just simply use another currency?
3) + 4) Again, why not just use a currency that is not being depreciated?
5) If there were enormous profits being made, wouldn't that attract newcomers to the field who would drive down the profit margins?
6) Yes, if the State has tried to monopolize the issuance of money (ie. through legal tender laws, taxes on gold and silver, etc), I definitely agree with this point.
People should be free to provide for payment by any means that is mutually consented to by the parties to a contract - and all purchases are contractual. Practically, in a free market precious metals will nearly always become the default currency.
It has been for a millennium albeit on and off again. You'd think we'd learn something from history. Hey my husband had a suggestion to find the real republican nominee. Last man standing gets it. Have both Ron and John take a stress test side by side. lol we know who the real nominee should be..
Free market money ("common tender") is far superior to gold as legal tender.
If gold wins in the free market, then we effectively have a gold standard. However, if conditions change, then we can adapt. If we're legally linked to gold and markets dictate that something else should be common tender (say, platinum for example) then it would require an act of Congress to adapt.
But I would also much rather have a government administered gold/silver-based currency as defined in the Constitution than a debt-based fiat currency administered by a more fraudulent government.
I always thought...
Half joking:
I always thought a good definition of legal tender would be guns and ammo.
That way, if we get hyperinflation, at least we'll be well armed!
Gold Backed Paper Money
We are set up a as a society for the paper money. It just has to be backed by gold. It has so have some tie. I do not demand 1 to 1 but any kind of fixed tie is needed.
Did you see gold prices were up $30 today. There is no stopping it.
One problem.
Shouldn't I be able to pay taxes to the government in something other than gold or silver. Considering that the Constitution only allows for payment to be made to in gold or silver (or today only in FDRs), couldn't some crooked people horde gold and silver (or dollars) making it more difficult for me to acquire money and thereby preventing me from paying my taxes to the government or mortgage to the bank. This is currently being done with FDRs as Central Banks around the world hold FDRs in reserve not allowing them to return for us to earn and pay our debt. If I don't pay my debt then the government can take away my property, eventhough I am still able to produce on my property. Then those hording the money come in and buy my property at a discount. Seems that there should be a way for me to pay my debt to the government without having to use gold or silver (or FDRs). Returning to the use of only gold and silver sounds like a good idea, but because of human nature, the exclusive right to use only gold or silver as payment of debt can be used as a scam to get property away from people, this is perhaps why the government, corporations and bankers own most of the property in our country. Without the right to property, there is no freedom.
grant
I agreed. What were the framers thinking?
Gold and silver as legal-tender...that's tyrannical!
The Constitution says...
...that only silver and gold are acceptable payments for debt. Anything else would (and should have) require(d) an amendment.
HOWEVER...if two parties wish to engage in a contract using an alternate medium of exchange as payment between them, that's their business.
We've been forced to accept debt markers (aka FRN's) in place of money for our transactions for far too long. Don't you think it's time we are able to require debts to us to be paid in gold & silver, as the Constitution says we ought to be able?
3)
I am for Ron Paul, I am for freedom, I am for the right to own land without having to pay taxes on it, I am for no income tax, I am for any kind of money as long as I am not obligated to use it and can trade whatever I decide to produce.
grant
It dont matter
As long as they get rid of the fed, Monetizing debt to pay for greedy govt fraud is the problem, They distort the free market to hide their crimes and the bubbles get blamed on big business. The people who run the worlds central banks ( rothchild , rockerfeller etc) are the real terrorists
America isn't the only one with a problem.
As you explain below, when banks have money in reserve they can lend it out. The same happens with internation Central Banks, such as China and Brazil. Brazil, has last time i heard over 200 billion dollars in reserve, they purchase these dollar off the Brazilian market to support the dollar as a way to support their exports. With these dollars they of course print money or issue bonds to those who trade them the dollars and then they can lend out money in a 9 - 1 ratio or whatever their law stipulates. The problem is that if the dollar collapses what happens to the value of their reserve.
Of course measures are being taken to trade in other currencies, especially between trading partners. As the law is today for example Argentinian and Brazilian exporters and importer need to trade in dollars, this will be changing in the summer when they will trade with each others currency. Eventually there is to be a Central bank for all of South American country with the formation of UNISUR, so this will eliminate the need to keep dollar in reserve, where should we imagine the dollars will go then.
grant
Something of real Real value.
Of course another and even better commodity would be to make it based on corn, or some other food product. With a growing world population, I expect countries should rather exchange their FDRs for corn and keep that in reserve as opposed to gold or silver.
Silver based currency, and use American silver mines.
There are over 9 trillion FRDs held in reserve by banks around the world. Now one of our problems is that these dollars aren't returning. So what can we do to get them back into our economy,, since there are a lot of them out there? From what I understand Ron Paul wants to authorize a competing curency backed by some commodity or group of commodities. This would be one way, since we could start the second currency authorizing it for trade and this would entise foriegn governments to exchange their FRDs, since they would certainly lose appeal. If for example we started a currency based on silver and allowed for it to compete with the FDR freely without fixing the price, the FDR would flood in rapidly, we would then have FDR's to pay our mortgages which are based on FDRs. In a short time we would have our houses paid off and many banks would go bust, but like any good gardener knows from the Peter Sellers film, we have to clear the field before we can plant and produce a new crop.
Gold standard
Because exchanging currencies is annoying.
The annoyance would be a small price to pay
Can you name one instance where the the government did not default on the gold standard?
P & G just sold the Folgers brand for
something like the equivilant of 7 billion dollars in stock swaps.
It was a legal barter with no tax consequences.
The big wigs do it.
Why can't we?
I'll trade my beef for
I'll trade my beef for Silver eagles! anyone hungary?
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
You can,
there is no law (yet) that says you must do economic transactions in dollars. The problem is finding merchants who will accept barter in transactions.
Commodity backed currency
and this does not necessarily mean gold and/or silver. Any commodity backing the currency would suffice. Electric utilities (for example) could issue a currency based on kilowatt hours. They could make it acceptable for paying the electric bill and let the market determine the value of the kilowatt hour. Of course, I also like gold and silver, but in this scenario, it would be a competing currency.
Free-market money
-- because as long as the government is in control of the money supply, it will work to again create a central bank. This has happened in nearly every nation around the world, so there's no point in thinking it wouldn't happen again.
Free-market is always the better choice, because coercion is evil -- and of course government is just a scheme to do things, including to FUND things, by means of coercion.
Here's a column that expands on that thought:
The Worst Way to Do Anything: Why a Healthy World Required Freedom from Coercion
http://www.strike-the-roo...
Free market money
Free market money will end up with gold & silver as its chosen currency.
A "gold standard" means (historically) that the government sets the price of Gold.
In Peace & Liberty,
Treg
videos here: http://youtube.com/result...
competing currency - hard to imagine
I have to admit, it's easier to travel in Europe now that there is one single currency accepted everywhere. But even before, in each country there was one currency, but was still a pain (and costly) to have to convert all the time.
So how would competing currencies in the U.S. work out?
You'd have currency in different units from different banks? Or would each be tied to some amount of gold?
Say a bank guaranteed each of its dollars with one thousandth of an ounce of gold in reserve, and guaranteed to keep 100% in reserve, while another bank did the same but kept only a fraction in reserve. Would the market value the "dollars" from the two banks the same? If so, then the first bank would probably go out of business, because, at least in the short run, the bank doing fractional reserve would have so much more opportunity to invest and create wealth from its reserves, while the first bank would have to sit on all its reserves.
I'm just trying to picture the practical implications of going to the grocery store and paying in one currency, while receiving change in another. And how would credit cards work? Would each store provide prices in terms of various currencies? Or would each probably have a primary currency, and that's how prices would be set and credit cards charged?
I'm not opposed to the idea, I'm just having trouble picturing exactly how it might work.
"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."
Advocating for minarchical libertarianism since 1984...
Free market money and free banking
Any one should be able to start a bank and print their own money, with or without a backing to it. Money and banking should not be regulated. Central planning of money doesn't work any better than central planning of anything else economic.
--------
Dr. Paul says Barr is an ally (http://www.newsweek.com/i...)
and would do "a very good job" as president (http://www.youtube.com/wa...).
Watch for Barr on the Colbert Report Jun 4, and on the Glenn Beck Program Jun 5.
umm ok that makes sense! I
umm ok that makes sense! I will just use plain old monopoly money... And I bet the wally mart or 7-11 will gladly take them.. lol get real!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
anything is better than a
anything is better than a central bank regulating fiat currency ..
the free market will ultimately choose gold ... if it doesn't .. it doesn't essentially matter .. it just has to be backing by something of real value
gold is the best so far, because it's small and rare, not allowing governments to pursure war and excessiveness unless directly through the people by higher taxes
I could care a less
as long as fractional reserve banking is made illegal.
So you dont believe in freedom of contract?
-------
Dr. Paul says Barr is an ally (http://www.newsweek.com/i...)
and would do "a very good job" as president (http://www.youtube.com/wa...).
Watch for Barr on the Colbert Report Jun 4, and on the Glenn Beck Program Jun 5.
Why should it be made illegal?
A) What's the problem with a person voluntarily choosing to depositing his money in a institution that states that it will only keep part of it in reserve?
Note: if the bank says it will keep 100% in reserve and doesn't, then that is another story...(breach of contract).
Well,
whenever debt is used to pay interest, it has the effect of adding more to the money supply, which in turn makes all of the previous "money" that came before it loose value.
In my opinion, money should be a store of value, not a promise to pay an obligation. Interest can only exist when currency and credit are introduced into the system (promises to pay) due to the fact that coin (gold and silver) does not grow exponentially under a mathematical equation, it must be mined, refined, and fabricated. Gold and silver are good stores of value because of the fact their amounts are limited.
So, if a person voluntarily choose to surrender his wealth to an institution (bank) that destroys the value of the wealth, by its very business model, it could be said that said person was either acting irrationally, or was at least ignorant of how the system works.
In my perfect world, we would be using gold and silver for economic transactions; and even electronic transactions could be allowed, if they represented a unit that was exchangeable for gold, silver, or something else that is rare, and of perceived value on a 1:1 basis.
I don't see how your 1st paragraph is true
Here's my reasoning:
a) Debt can be used to pay interest with out adding to the money supply.
For example, if I take a loan from some money that my friend has been saving.
Yeah,
Sorry, I got confused for a second. I was talking about money creation on the macro-economic level. I didn't clarify that above.
Debt, or credit, always increases the overall money supply by its very nature; i.e. more money must be created to pay back a loan at interest. The way that fractional reserve banking works, is that for every unit of currency held in reserve, the bank is allowed to "create" new money out of thin air to loan. This, by its very definition, is monetary inflation, which in turn leads to price inflation, which leads to currency debasement.
Let's consider a scenario. Instead of central banking, let's imagine we had banks issuing their own currency. When someone borrows a certain amount of money from a bank, they are going to have to repay that loan, over time, in the same currency, or make an arrangement with the bank, to pay in another currency that must be exchangeable for the bank's currency. For simplicity, lets remove the second option from the table.
So, the borrower is going to first spend the currency that they borrowed from the bank. Second, they are going to have to gather up more of the bank's currency over time, plus the interest earned on the loan. Where would that currency have to come from?
1) from the issuing bank creating new currency in order to have itself paid the interest earned on the loan, or
2) from other actors in the economy who have a supply of the bank's currency that was previously supplied by the bank.
3) In the case of a privately-issuing bank, more currency (money) is going to need to be created, just for the loaning institution to be paid back. What is the bank's risk in this situation? From what I can tell, minimal. Unless there was a run on the bank, and all the depositors lost faith and showed up at once to withdraw their currency, the bank could just go about issuing more currency to cover its losses. Sure, this debases the currency, but why would the bank care, as long as they are the issuers of said currency.
This differs in the scenario that you mentioned about your friend lending you money in the sense that your friend actually has something to loose--his savings in a unit of currency that he does not produce; nor can he magically loan you money that he doesn't have.
I hope this clarified things somewhat, and I apologize for the vagueness in my earlier post.
Nice post
I liked the analysis of the 3 ways the currency could be paid back.
However, I still disagree with your assertion that "debt or credit, always increases the overall money supply by its very nature."
As far as I can tell, it is logically incorrect. Debt or credit only increases the money supply when it involves the creation of new money.
debt and credit is creating
debt and credit is creating money out of thin air.. the banks loan money they do not have..
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
Under the rules of fractional reserve banking
debt and credit are how new money is created. The banks are not loaning out any of the actual reserves they have on hand. Instead, they create "new" money based on these reserves, to loan to the borrower. So, if someone deposits $1.00 in a bank account, and the reserve ratio is 9:1, the bank can lend out $9.00, an increase in the theoretical money supply of 900%. This figure grows at an exponential rate.
If you have not watched it already, check out "Money as Debt" on google video. It describes monetary creation through fractional reserve banking much better than I can. Also, disregard their solution to the problem at the end. A centrally distributed fiat currency without interest is still a centrally distributed fiat currency. It is best left to the markets to decide what is and what is not of value.
Ah okay,
You are talking specfically about fractional reserve banks.
Re: that Money as Debt video, I don't like it. It boggles the mind how someone who takes the time to make a 45 min documentary on the subject can fail so miserably at the solution.
Now, back to the original issue!
So, for what's reasons are you stating that fractional-reserve banking should be illegal?
I can give you 50 trillion
I can give you 50 trillion reasons why.... personal, corporate, and government debt( local state and fed)! thats why!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
That's my personal point of view
I think that society would be much better as a whole without fractional reserve banking practices for the following reasons.
First, the lender is put in a position over the borrower--the two can no longer be considered equals.
Second, the practice of fractional reserve banking is inflationary and debases the money.
Third, it allows those who issue the money supply to create misallocations in the economy. In this situation, bubbles arise as well as occupations and market segments that otherwise wouldn't exist under a sound money economy.
Fourth, it increases the level of poverty for the benefit of the few.
Fifth, it is a welfare system for the very rich--those who create the money supply.
Sixth, it allows the government to borrow and spend money on things that are irrelevant and unnecessary to the nation as a whole. While this occurs, each and every person who contributes to the system through the payment of income taxes is reduced to serfdom to those the money is owed.
If I thought about it, I could probably come up with more, but I would say those are my top 6 reasons.
Reponses
1) Why is the inequality a problem if both parties voluntarily entered into the transaction?
2) Why not let the people who want to do business with fractional-reserve banks do so?
If you don't want your money to be depreciated why not just simply use another currency?
3) + 4) Again, why not just use a currency that is not being depreciated?
5) If there were enormous profits being made, wouldn't that attract newcomers to the field who would drive down the profit margins?
6) Yes, if the State has tried to monopolize the issuance of money (ie. through legal tender laws, taxes on gold and silver, etc), I definitely agree with this point.
Let's pick this up at another time,
on another thread. The posts are getting skinny and I am getting tired. Remind me, and I'll discuss it with you then.
Hahah,
You`re right--but at least they`re not as bulimic as Bob Barr`s libertarian credentials...
Here's da new thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Either
Just get away from the Feds
So, you'd be fine with state governments
taking control of the money supply?!
I vote for free market
but if the government would follow the Constitution, either option would be an improvement.
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
People should be free to
People should be free to provide for payment by any means that is mutually consented to by the parties to a contract - and all purchases are contractual. Practically, in a free market precious metals will nearly always become the default currency.
marlow
Bingo
we all have our roles.
Gold
It has been for a millennium albeit on and off again. You'd think we'd learn something from history. Hey my husband had a suggestion to find the real republican nominee. Last man standing gets it. Have both Ron and John take a stress test side by side. lol we know who the real nominee should be..
Free Market
Free market money ("common tender") is far superior to gold as legal tender.
If gold wins in the free market, then we effectively have a gold standard. However, if conditions change, then we can adapt. If we're legally linked to gold and markets dictate that something else should be common tender (say, platinum for example) then it would require an act of Congress to adapt.
Ideally
I choose free market money.
But I would also much rather have a government administered gold/silver-based currency as defined in the Constitution than a debt-based fiat currency administered by a more fraudulent government.
_________________________________
My liberty-minded home base of thought:
www.ponderthis.net