not one person has been able to answer these questions
1. If gold were money, how would countries that lacked it function domestically?
2. since some gold is in central banks, how do we make the transition, who will get the first gold money to use?
i'm not for fiat money either
i just want some answers to my questions
why should countries that have gold have the initial advantage over countries that don't?
and countries first neeed to be able to function domestically before they can start trade, it is impractical to suggest otherwise
david_z:Take away all of the money in the world, tomorrow, and we'd be no less wealthy.
But there would be a redistributive effect
I'm asking - is this fair?
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Thedesolateone: david_z:Take away all of the money in the world, tomorrow, and we'd be no less wealthy. But there would be a redistributive effect I'm asking - is this fair?
No no no - I'm just saying that if all the bank deposits in the world evaporated overnight, we'd still have all of our stuff. And an abundance of stuff is what constitutes real wealth.
So a difference between a commodity-backed currency, and fiat paper, is that the commodity is stuff. Unbacked paper money is decorated toilet paper.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
david_z:So a difference between a commodity-backed currency, and fiat paper, is that the commodity is stuff. Unbacked paper money is decorated toilet paper.
I know all this
What I'm really asking is: how do we make the transition nonocoercively, but so people don't lose out "unfairly"?
Thedesolateone: david_z:So a difference between a commodity-backed currency, and fiat paper, is that the commodity is stuff. Unbacked paper money is decorated toilet paper. I know all this What I'm really asking is: how do we make the transition nonocoercively, but so people don't lose out "unfairly"?
Huerta de Soto covers this is the last chapter of his treatise, you might want to check that out.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:Huerta de Soto covers this is the last chapter of his treatise, you might want to check that out.
On my wishlist
Rothbard said something about it in Mystery of Banking IIRC
Thedesolateone: GilesStratton:Huerta de Soto covers this is the last chapter of his treatise, you might want to check that out. On my wishlist Rothbard said something about it in Mystery of Banking IIRC
I want to get it too actually, the new cover looks fantastic. The problem is I've already got well over 20 books on my shelf I've not yet read.
Funnily enough, I've read the book in its entirety once and many of the chapters again but I've always skipped the last chapter on this topic, otherwise I would have elaborated.
GilesStratton:The problem is I've already got well over 20 books on my shelf I've not yet read.
Me too, although not all of them are top level stuff.
In the two orders I made from the Mises Store, I bought really random stuff - and afterwards I just wondered why.
My next order is well planned though - although I may have to wait until my birthday...
OK, here's a question I will answer whether you ask it or not: how many annoying new posts does one need to post before they get banned? Well, you're coming pretty close to that. So either limit it, or I am banning you for a few days. You have questions, fine. Just keep them limited or consolidate them into a few single topics.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I'll have to pull that one off the shelf, errrr, out of the basement where it's been since I moved about a year ago. I was about 1/3 of the way through that book before it got boxed up and I started using power tools on the new house...
This is simply nonsense. How the hell would then I get my hands on my consumption goods?
scineram: david_z:Take away all of the money in the world, tomorrow, and we'd be no less wealthy. This is simply nonsense. How the hell would then I get my hands on my consumption goods?
You're kidding, right? How do you think man was able to consume prior to money?
In the short- to medium-run, you'd probably have to give up something in exchange for whatever it is that you like to consume. Maybe you'd give up your labor in-kind, or maybe you'd give up something that you had previously bought (in a roundabout way, with your labor), etc. Over the long-run, I would expect some new medium of exchange to rise, in which you'd likely be paid wages, and with which you could buy whatever you could afford.
nirgrahamUK: you are right about my terminology. i meant what you said about guaranteed 100% demandably convertable. I would hope all the libertarians would demand their fed notes in gold, and then since legal tender laws were repealed entrepeneurs could found their own bailment banks for the gold.
you are right about my terminology. i meant what you said about guaranteed 100% demandably convertable.
I would hope all the libertarians would demand their fed notes in gold, and then since legal tender laws were repealed entrepeneurs could found their own bailment banks for the gold.
Yes but there is a risk of inflation. If the Fed resets its notes at a price much higher than the current market price of gold because it cannot cover every note with its actual gold reserves, then there exists an incentive to convert gold into dollar notes (by depositing gold at a bank or at the Fed) and thus inflate the money supply. This will not create a cycle because it is the mining industry that will be stimulated instead of the financial businesses, but it will create a rise in the price level.
The alternative is for the Fed to refuse all new gold deposits, but that would mean a fixed, zero-growth money supply.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power