It would seem that using the printing press on currency always leads to trouble ( inflation, assault on savings ect ) , can you ever justify printing money?
Dustin S. Jussila: It would seem that using the printing press on currency always leads to trouble ( inflation, assault on savings ect ) , can you ever justify printing money?
No.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Gold is not copied. It is mined. Wood is not copied either, it is grown and harvested.
Stamped gold coins can be copied.
Stamped paper can be copied.
So, why would a bank issue notes not backed by something that is not as easily produced and is much more valuable? I never said a bank would do this.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Paper money is nothing more than stamped paper. Its value is tied up in the state, since the state has monopoly control over the manufacturing of stamped paper, i.e. money. But in a free society the individual actors will be free to choose whatever form of currency they wish and the manufacturers of the currency can do whatever they are contractually bound to accomplish.
Thus, if one form of currency is a receipt or claim against some commodity (gold) then the manufacturers of that currency are bound to produce gold upon demand, or whatever the contract states. But if I try to peddle off unbacked currency and people take it, then I am under no obligation not to inflate my stock of currency. Inflation of a currency not bound by contract is not a crime.
The example given earlier is a prime example, just because you possess some commodity does not give you the right to demand there is no increase in supply of that commodity. Paper money is a commodity like any other and is subject to the same demand/supply structure everything else follows - this is why freedom to choose is so important as well as the legal binding of contracts.
People are forgetting that the free market decides what is valuable currency, therefore paper money could be produced. I can produce Cain-Dollars if I truly wish to. However, no one would take unbacked dollars that can be easily inflated.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarchist Cain: People are forgetting that the free market decides what is valuable currency, therefore paper money could be produced. I can produce Cain-Dollars if I truly wish to. However, no one would take unbacked dollars that can be easily inflated.
Which brings us back to the OP. Can it be justified to inflate a currency? Well, if the currency were left up to the private sector, it would not be a matter of whether or not one could justify inflating a currency, it would be whether or not it would be a good business decision. And yes, it can be. For example, look at libertydollar.org. If they only issued 10 coins, well, no one would care to use them. So, they will keep printing them until they satisfy the market demand.
What some here do not seem to understand, is that when they print more coins, they do not just give it to their buddies. They exchange the coins for something they think is of equal value. So there is not necessarily "inflation", per se. They are injecting something of value into the market while at the same time taking something of value out of the market. This means the value of the currency will stay stable, even though there is more of it in the economy.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
What some here do not seem to understand, is that when they print more coins, they do not just give it to their buddies. They exchange the coins for something they think is of equal value.
Juan: Anything easy to manufacture can be easily copied unlike things such as gold of course. But at any rate, why is it OK for the bank to counterfeit its bank notes, but it's not OK for Smith to do it ? Why is it OK for the bank to inflate and it's not OK for other people ? Really. I need money. I just print it. It can't get any easier...and 'efficient'...and 'libertarian'.
Well, it's "ok" by me in the sense that I don't really care if you do it. I just think,
A. You're not going to be very successful at it and
B. The bank is just as right to hang you from your toes after they catch you doing it - like a drug dealer would do to someone posing a different product as a brand-product.
You want to go poking wild dogs with a stick, go ahead. Good luck.
existence is elsewhere
nirgrahamUK: Wilmot of Rochester:Well then, if it's currency just go and exchange your gold receipt at your local Seven Eleven and quit complaining. you quit complaining. and wtf?!?
Wilmot of Rochester:Well then, if it's currency just go and exchange your gold receipt at your local Seven Eleven and quit complaining.
you quit complaining.
and wtf?!?
I'm not complaining. I'm very happy with fractional reserve banking - not happy about a central bank, but I like fractional reserves.
And the point is that most people aren't going to accept gold over cash in direct commercial transactions and if they do, then there's really nothing to complain about is there?
You guys still wasting your time here? The OP had his answer before he even asked the question.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Which was obviously yes, as there is no inherent coercion or breach of contract involved in issuing inflatable currency. However, people who hold those assets are taking a rather large currency risk.
Yes, of course.
Spideynw: Esuric:How the hell did you come to this conclusion? Because money is just like any other commodity. It has a supply/demand curve.
Esuric:How the hell did you come to this conclusion?
Because money is just like any other commodity. It has a supply/demand curve.
Except that unlike other commodities, more of it provides no social benefit.
DD5:Except that unlike other commodities, more of it provides no social benefit.
I already addressed this nonsense. Commodities are not homogenous, in fact, there are three separate categorizations. The creation of production/consumption goods increases wealth, the same is not true for money.
They're just trolling.
Esuric: DD5:Except that unlike other commodities, more of it provides no social benefit. I already addressed this nonsense. Commodities are not homogenous, in fact, there are three separate categorizations. The creation of production/consumption goods increases wealth, the same is not true for money. They're just trolling.
It's also true. Gold is money. Fiduciary media don't.
nirgrahamUK: have you understood that those who condone sound banking , commodity banking, gold dollars, dont have anything against the use of paper notes per se ? (think: receipts) from what you wrote it seems that you have not.
have you understood that those who condone sound banking , commodity banking, gold dollars, dont have anything against the use of paper notes per se ? (think: receipts)
from what you wrote it seems that you have not.
Thankyou. It seems like a lot of posters on this thread are missing this. The critique of monetary inflation (including those who reject fractional reserves) is not a condemnation of the issue of paper notes altogether, it's just that they have to be backed. There is nothing inherently wrong with token representatives of the commodity - in fact, it's incredibly more efficient then lugging a bunch of gold around with you everywhere. I don't believe Mises and Rothbard ever advocated a metal-coins-only standard.