Doormat
New member
I agree, Clete.
My opinion: deposit expansion (with its governor the fractional reserve system) is equivalent to a combination of theft, counterfeiting, tax fraud and extortion.
What is Money?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
I agree, Clete.
My opinion: deposit expansion (with its governor the fractional reserve system) is equivalent to a combination of theft, counterfeiting, tax fraud and extortion.
Doormat
New member
The definition of money is a medium of exchange. One type of medium of exchange is debt; you can give someone an IOU or promissory note in exchange for something of value. Perhaps you meant money can be the accounting of transferable incomplete transactions.
I know that this is an old thread (Bob's last post was no less than two years ago!), but I'd be very grateful to get a response, if not from Bob himself, from anyone familiar with his position on this issue.
Of course, I could call his radio show and talk with him about it and perhaps I will do that but I'd love it if we could revive the discussion on this thread.
Clete
Of course, I could call his radio show and talk with him about it and perhaps I will do that but I'd love it if we could revive the discussion on this thread.
Clete
That is an incomplete transaction. When you complete the transaction, your money is gone. You have a certain amount of money in your pocket, but don't have the apple. When you buy the apple, the transaction is now complete, and the money is gone.
I endorse money based on my labor, not the amount of gold stashed away somewhere. That makes the money finite, and lowers the standard of living for those that don't have it.
The debt the US government has is a seperate issue, and is not from intrest of the federal reserve. It is from spending. Specificially I think it is spending of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other social programs. The stimulus package. In 2010, when Obama gave a trillion dollar deficit, if mandatory spending was rolled back to 2007 levels (when Nancy Pelosi was not speaker) then there would have been a surplus.
As I said in my post, this is only true if the medium of exchange has no actual value of its own.
Fiat money merely represents a potential asset. Gold (or some other commodity) is a hard (i.e. actual) asset. Thus when you are paid in real money that transaction is entirely complete. If you then go and trade that asset for an apple, that would represent a second complete transaction.
This is self-contradictory. If money is based on labor then it would have to be finite as labor is finite.
Further, the value of money is effected by supply and demand. This is why governments like to be able to print money and control interest rates and thus control, to a large degree, both the supply and the demand for money and therefore its value (i.e. its rate of exchange).
This, of course, is a power no government should have because by controlling the value of money, they effectively control the price of my labor. What's worse is that this control is after the fact! That is, they effect the value of the money that I've already been paid for work I've already done.
It is a separate but very much related issue because the government is spending money that they not only don't have but that DOES NOT EXIST before they borrow it! Every fiat/pretend dollar the government borrows and then spends into the economy increases the money supply and thereby dilutes the value of all the dollars in your pocket and mine. They get to spend the money at the full value of today's dollar while you and I, several months later, get to spend cheaper dollars for more expensive products.
In other words, there is no free lunch! Just because the Fed gets to print free money doesn't mean its really free! Its free for them, but YOU and I get to pay for the Fed's free money with our labor by means of getting paid for our labor with cheaper and cheaper Fed printed dollars.
It's stealing! Theft that would be flat out impossible if a true and genuine gold standard was in place.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Doormat
New member
People need to wake up to that fact or things will not change.
Clete, over many years, you have been one of my favorite TOLers to read. (Or, come to think of it, you've been one of my favorite writers to read!) Thanks for all that edification, education, and encouragement. As to the above, yeah, now it's REALLY been some time! In the intervening years we have made some clarifying updates to kgov.com/money and we've still kept it very brief. I do think your questions are answered there, and on that broadcast. But feel free to call the studio for an on- or off-air catching up!
Last edited:
Thanks Bob! I'll definitely check it out!
The following is my response to the last portions of the article found at https://kgov.com/what-is-money-best-definition
Before I start, I just want to point out that what I am defending is a TRUE gold standard, which has rarely existed, if it every existed at all. A true gold standard would be a system where the price of gold in dollars in permanently fixed AND where the government had to buy the right to print money by acquiring additional gold reserves. In such a system, every dollar of paper money would represent exactly X% (say .1% for example) of an ounce of real physical gold and could be exchanged directly for that amount of gold. The result being a system where a heavy and otherwise inconvenient metal could be exchanged by means of a lightweight and far more convenient piece of paper (or other medium of exchange (e.g. bitcoin or whatever).
Further, setting a system up on a gold standard does precisely nothing to the value of gold that wouldn't also be done to whatever else you decided to use. To put it your terms, using paper as money "thereby artificially, that is, by government decree, inflates the value of the paper the money is printed on." In other words, your argument doesn't address the issue because the same "problem" (if it is a problem) exists for either system.
Gold is a commodity just like any other commodity. You could base your medium of exchange on the value of any commodity, whether gold or silver or oil or water or salt or molybdenum or whatever. It doesn't matter so long as it's a real commodity. The reason why gold is the better choice has to do with its availability (including its relative rarity in relation to other commodities), durability, portability, etc but that's beside the point here. The point here has simply to do with the fact that it is a commodity and can be traded at market value in exchange for other commodities. Just because a nation doesn't have gold deposits doesn't mean that it has no commodities at all. If it didn't, it couldn't survive as an independent nation to begin with. But, even it we accepted the existence of such a nation for the sake of argument, that nation would still have a labor force and could exchange the time and talents of its citizens for the commodities it needed, including gold. The point of a gold standard isn't about gold, it's about value, real value. It's about turning the exchange of money into the exchange of real value for real value. My labor is real, the goods and services I offer are real and they have real value. I should, therefore, get something of real value in exchange. In a system where money is based on gold, it makes no difference what commodity you do have because they can all be exchanged for gold. As such, a "gold standard" could just as accurately be called a "commodity standard".
Further, the chief concern of a nation is the welfare of its own citizens not whether or not some other nation is able to mine for gold or not. A nation that runs out of resources, runs out of existence. That's not the fault of a nation who's money is based on a real asset.
Lastly, just because a nation has gold deposits doesn't mean that they get the gold for free. It still cost time, talent and labor to extract the gold from the ground, all of which, in a just society, would be exchanged by mutual consent for mutual profit (mine workers get paid for the work they do). The fact that miners can get the gold at below market rates only means that they make a profit in exchange for the risk they took when they bought the equipment and hired the labor to first find and then extract it from the ground. And as I said above, it's the same for any other commodity. A nation that doesn't have gold, might have oil, or any number of other valuable commodities that a nation that does have gold might not have. And if one country has more commodities that all the rest then that's good for everyone so long as the market on which those commodities are bought and sold is free. There are no conflicts of interest among men (or nations) who only exchange value for value by mutual consent and for mutual gain.
That is, if you are saying that gold doesn't work as a standard because it's value to one person is different than it is to someone else, then how is that not also true of paper money? Would not a nation dying of thirst also trade it's paper money for water? The fact that one commodity is valued more highly to one person than to another is precisely what creates a market. Assets flow for the same reason the wind blows. Just as wind blows from areas of high pressure to low pressure so assets flow from areas of high supply and low demand to areas of low supply and high demand.
You are using the principles of supply and demand to argue against a standardized currency system when the same forces are at play in any currency system. You say that the value of gold lies in the eye of the beholder but the same is true of those pieces of paper in your pocket. The difference is that the government has no control over the supply of gold but can print that paper until the cows come home. In order to increase the supply of gold, someone has to spend a great deal of time, effort and MONEY to dig it out of the ground. In an system where gold is the standard of money. it literally takes gold to make gold.
The Gold Reserve Act was the government "solving" a problem that it's own laws had created. There were more gold certificates than there was gold!
In a sentence, your argument here cites a problem that isn't created by a gold standard but by the absence of it.
So, to bottom line this discussion about money, the point of having a gold standard isn't about gold at at all. It's about having the currency in your pocket represent real value rather than the mere promise of it. In a system where the currency is back by gold, the currency stops being a promissory note and all transactions are complete when the currency is exchanged. It's real value exchanged for real value (or as close to it as you can get without having to lug the actual commodity around in your pockets). Any other system allows the government to steal your time and talent, which is your life, by arbitrarily altering the value of the money you exchanged that portion of your life for. Ever notice how governments never increase the value of their currency? No government has the right, nor should they be have the power to do that.
Clete
Before I start, I just want to point out that what I am defending is a TRUE gold standard, which has rarely existed, if it every existed at all. A true gold standard would be a system where the price of gold in dollars in permanently fixed AND where the government had to buy the right to print money by acquiring additional gold reserves. In such a system, every dollar of paper money would represent exactly X% (say .1% for example) of an ounce of real physical gold and could be exchanged directly for that amount of gold. The result being a system where a heavy and otherwise inconvenient metal could be exchanged by means of a lightweight and far more convenient piece of paper (or other medium of exchange (e.g. bitcoin or whatever).
This, it seems to me, is a based on a critically flawed premise. The error has to do with the use of the term "fiat". The fiat nature of our currency has to do with the fact that it is not based on any standard. The value of a medium of exchange cannot be on a gold standard and be fiat. That's a contradiction. The setting of the standard might be arbitrary but it's still a standard. It's when that standard can be changed by mere decree, or removed completely, that the system becomes a "fiat system".
Further, setting a system up on a gold standard does precisely nothing to the value of gold that wouldn't also be done to whatever else you decided to use. To put it your terms, using paper as money "thereby artificially, that is, by government decree, inflates the value of the paper the money is printed on." In other words, your argument doesn't address the issue because the same "problem" (if it is a problem) exists for either system.
With respect, this is not correct. No such redistibution happens because a country pegs its currency to a hard asset.
Gold is a commodity just like any other commodity. You could base your medium of exchange on the value of any commodity, whether gold or silver or oil or water or salt or molybdenum or whatever. It doesn't matter so long as it's a real commodity. The reason why gold is the better choice has to do with its availability (including its relative rarity in relation to other commodities), durability, portability, etc but that's beside the point here. The point here has simply to do with the fact that it is a commodity and can be traded at market value in exchange for other commodities. Just because a nation doesn't have gold deposits doesn't mean that it has no commodities at all. If it didn't, it couldn't survive as an independent nation to begin with. But, even it we accepted the existence of such a nation for the sake of argument, that nation would still have a labor force and could exchange the time and talents of its citizens for the commodities it needed, including gold. The point of a gold standard isn't about gold, it's about value, real value. It's about turning the exchange of money into the exchange of real value for real value. My labor is real, the goods and services I offer are real and they have real value. I should, therefore, get something of real value in exchange. In a system where money is based on gold, it makes no difference what commodity you do have because they can all be exchanged for gold. As such, a "gold standard" could just as accurately be called a "commodity standard".
Further, the chief concern of a nation is the welfare of its own citizens not whether or not some other nation is able to mine for gold or not. A nation that runs out of resources, runs out of existence. That's not the fault of a nation who's money is based on a real asset.
Lastly, just because a nation has gold deposits doesn't mean that they get the gold for free. It still cost time, talent and labor to extract the gold from the ground, all of which, in a just society, would be exchanged by mutual consent for mutual profit (mine workers get paid for the work they do). The fact that miners can get the gold at below market rates only means that they make a profit in exchange for the risk they took when they bought the equipment and hired the labor to first find and then extract it from the ground. And as I said above, it's the same for any other commodity. A nation that doesn't have gold, might have oil, or any number of other valuable commodities that a nation that does have gold might not have. And if one country has more commodities that all the rest then that's good for everyone so long as the market on which those commodities are bought and sold is free. There are no conflicts of interest among men (or nations) who only exchange value for value by mutual consent and for mutual gain.
This is contradictory.
That is, if you are saying that gold doesn't work as a standard because it's value to one person is different than it is to someone else, then how is that not also true of paper money? Would not a nation dying of thirst also trade it's paper money for water? The fact that one commodity is valued more highly to one person than to another is precisely what creates a market. Assets flow for the same reason the wind blows. Just as wind blows from areas of high pressure to low pressure so assets flow from areas of high supply and low demand to areas of low supply and high demand.
You are using the principles of supply and demand to argue against a standardized currency system when the same forces are at play in any currency system. You say that the value of gold lies in the eye of the beholder but the same is true of those pieces of paper in your pocket. The difference is that the government has no control over the supply of gold but can print that paper until the cows come home. In order to increase the supply of gold, someone has to spend a great deal of time, effort and MONEY to dig it out of the ground. In an system where gold is the standard of money. it literally takes gold to make gold.
The gold in the Fort Knox Bullion Depository is there because of the Gold Reserve Act which gave the President of the United States the authority to set the gold value of the dollar by proclamation (i.e. by fiat)! The U.S. Government forced everyone to sell the government all their gold at $20 an ounce and then, once they had very nearly all the nation's gold, they declared, by fiat decree, that gold was worth $35 and ounce. Effectively devaluating the U.S. dollar by about 50% over night.
The Gold Reserve Act was the government "solving" a problem that it's own laws had created. There were more gold certificates than there was gold!
In a sentence, your argument here cites a problem that isn't created by a gold standard but by the absence of it.
Precisely! If gold was the firm standard of the value of money, no such hording could take place. It is precisely the lack of a gold standard that makes such hording make sense. If all trades where made in gold or in currency directly exchangeable to gold, then such hording would restrict the supply of gold and thereby increase its value. The only way that wouldn't work is if the government was allowed to keep the currency in circulation while hording the gold, which would be the equivalent of steeling the gold, which is exactly what the U.S. Government did in 1934.
So, to bottom line this discussion about money, the point of having a gold standard isn't about gold at at all. It's about having the currency in your pocket represent real value rather than the mere promise of it. In a system where the currency is back by gold, the currency stops being a promissory note and all transactions are complete when the currency is exchanged. It's real value exchanged for real value (or as close to it as you can get without having to lug the actual commodity around in your pockets). Any other system allows the government to steal your time and talent, which is your life, by arbitrarily altering the value of the money you exchanged that portion of your life for. Ever notice how governments never increase the value of their currency? No government has the right, nor should they be have the power to do that.
Clete
Last edited:
I have not read this thread so do not know if anyone has posted this or not.
The link below is to a download for a booklet titled "Honest Money" written by Gary North. It's a pretty good summary of how honest money works and why it keeps it's value over the long term.
https://www.garynorth.com/HonestMoney.pdf
The link below is to a download for a booklet titled "Honest Money" written by Gary North. It's a pretty good summary of how honest money works and why it keeps it's value over the long term.
https://www.garynorth.com/HonestMoney.pdf
It's much more than just time, it is life spent. The work that you do, the manner in which you apply your time and your talent is the life you live.
Therefore, if you have the right to your life then you have the right to the product that life was spent to produce. This is the root of private property rights. To say that a person has no right to his property is to say he has no right to live, that his life is not his own and to turn him into a slave who's masters are the lazy, the dilatory and the stupid who either cannot or will not provide for themselves and live by sucking the life blood out of the producers and then despise them for bleeding.
I haven't read it al yet but what I have read I like! I may be modifying my position to some degree after this book. Thanks for posting the link!
Right Divider
Body part
You're being shortsighted... it needs to be implemented galactically (sp?).
Take this for what it's worth to you but this guy's musings on bitcoin's spirituality are at the least interesting.
bombthrower.com
The Spirituality Behind Bitcoin
The timing of the arrival of Bitcoin, the Promethean dynamic behind both it and the Internet, the dynamics of the quickening, not to mention the unsustainability of the current status quo, is all building toward some kind of self-organizing criticality.
bombthrower.com
You can start. Send all yours to me.
Hmmm. If you're not being sarcastic, just what is better, less sinful, than money with which to purchase that which we need to live? Isn't money just an exchange medium so that we have a common object for the exchange of value between people?
Sorry to not have replied. I just yesterday saw your post.
You're welcome for the book. I read it about 10 years ago and learned a lot from it. What I learned from it, along with Hayek's writings, revolutionized my understanding of economic issues.