Economics Questions

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

sthomper — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 04:04:44 GMT

the constitution is online now too.

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

Sage — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:53:22 GMT

SilentXtarian:
I don't see why people who claim to love the constitution can be okay with fiat currency and what's going on today.

They're just being consistent: they love one piece of paper (the constitution) and they also love other pieces of paper (fiat money).

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

sthomper — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:05:38 GMT

"Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit...."

so is the act you speak of counter to this section??

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

Saan2 — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:23:59 GMT

Wanderer:

Congress was supposta do this directly, without a central bank acting as a middleman.

No, congress was supposed to say that if you stamp $20 dollars on your coin, it has to weight x amount. That is all. Anyone can mint coins, congress says what a dollar is worth and that is the end of it. States can also issue their own currencies according to that act. Those currencies need only be gold and silver. The denomination only serves to make arithmetic easier.

I think the whole constitution is illegal though. I'm just saying if you follow it that is what it says.

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

Andy Wessel — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 04:04:44 GMT

The most fatal flaw of the Constitution was its giving monetary oversight to politicians. The Constitution represents a victory of the big government Federalists over their Anti-Federalist opponents. I do believe if we are going to have a constitution then it should be followed or abolished through its own due process. Most folks who love the Constitution haven't read it. I have read parts. It is very dry reading. I carry one in my pocket frequently but would rather be riding than reading the Constitution. Let the market decide what money is.

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

sthomper — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 03:28:28 GMT

i have seen definitions of the word fiat that meant 'by legal decree'...i wasnt sure if the original poster was referring to the fiat definition meaning "by legal or authoritative decree" or not.

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

wilderness — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 03:15:55 GMT

sthomper:

Congress can regulate commerce. wouldnt this mean to make sure they all made gold and silver coin their legal tender?

I don't know if those two go together directly, but they both are written as obligations of the federal government.

sthomper:

if you mean gold and silver as "legal" tender or consitutional mandated COIN as fiat money...i guess those constitutin lovers just also happen to like gold and silver coin as money.

I wasn't sure what you said here. It states gold and silver, correct? And that's not fiat money. I also know it states they were to regulate a standard measure of gold and silver for the coin which is price fixing anyways and that would have eventually stood in the way of free market dynamics due it's a centrally planned standard measure of the weights and numerial value of the coins. They could never calculate the value of the gold and silver, stamp it, and then distribute it to keep in touch with the real market dynamics.

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

sthomper — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 23:51:42 GMT

Congress can regulate commerce.

wouldnt this mean to make sure they all made gold and silver coin their legal tender?

if you have heard people say they love the constitution...and love the legal tender system that exists now...which i guess is different from what is decreed in the us constitution...then maybe you shoiuld ask those people.

if you mean gold and silver as "legal" tender or consitutional mandated COIN as fiat money...i guess those constitutin lovers just also happen to like gold and silver coin as money.

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

wilderness — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 23:33:26 GMT

scineram:

wilderness:
Not ok. If it's not written explicitly in Article One Section 8 (hopefully I don't have the numbers backwards but it's the explicit outline of what powers Congress has), then the state's have the power according to Amendment Nine or Ten (the tenent stating if not given powers to federal government here-in then the power is of the state's, etc...).

Congress can regulate commerce.

That only means the federal government can set the tax rate. It was an addition from the Articles of Confederation in which differing states were taxing variously to each other. The first central banks had no way of gaining establishment under such a clause therefore (has been known for most of the history of the U.S. - maybe the Supreme Court still understands this). The first central banks made their way in through the door of the 'necessary and proper' clause. That clause has been the stamp of approval for almost everything not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but again it is only to be necessary and proper if written word for word in the Constitution. From day one the Constitution was trashed so it doesn't really matter.

scineram:

A central bank is needed to do that, and Congress can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States".

That's the necessary and proper clause and it only pertains, at least in the infancy of the government and the explicit meaning originally, that anything written in the Constitution under Article One Section 8 in which it outliness all the duties that Congress can carry forth. If it doesn't say it word for word, then Congress was to have no power to enact it. If it's not in the Judical or Executive Branches, then all else fell to the states. Originally, even up to the Civil War each individual state were mainly considered similar to their own countries/republics with an overarching Federal government to bind them all.

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

bloomj31 — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:57:44 GMT

Also, I think the Commerce Clause is one of the most abused parts of the Constitution, I don't think the Founders ever intended it to be used to argue that the government should be able to control healthcare.

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

bloomj31 — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:56:21 GMT

Just to be clear, I'm not disputing a literalist/enumerated powers argument for the Constitution, I'm just saying that the people who basically say "if the constitution doesn't say I CANT do it, I obviously can" have been winning for a long time.

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

scineram — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:42:03 GMT

wilderness:
Not ok. If it's not written explicitly in Article One Section 8 (hopefully I don't have the numbers backwards but it's the explicit outline of what powers Congress has), then the state's have the power according to Amendment Nine or Ten (the tenent stating if not given powers to federal government here-in then the power is of the state's, etc...).

Congress can regulate commerce. A central bank is needed to do that, and Congress can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States".

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

Wanderer — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:26:51 GMT

jmorris84:

Wanderer:

Since there was no mention of a central bank, it was implied that there would never be one.

This.

I think you can relate this to the argument that people make when they use the "General Welfare" argument to pass things like universal health care, because, in their mind, health care falls into general welfare. What many people don't understand is that "General Welfare" was only relating to things that were outlined in The Constitution. Since health care isn't discussed in The Constitution, it doesn't fall into the General Welfare category.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has a quote relating to this: "How general is your welfare?"

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

wilderness — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:16:33 GMT

indeed

Re: Why do people who say they love the constitution have no problem with fiat money?

jmorris84 — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:51:47 GMT

Wanderer:

Since there was no mention of a central bank, it was implied that there would never be one.

This.

I think you can relate this to the argument that people make when they use the "General Welfare" argument to pass things like universal health care, because, in their mind, health care falls into general welfare. What many people don't understand is that "General Welfare" was only relating to things that were outlined in The Constitution. Since health care isn't discussed in The Constitution, it doesn't fall into the General Welfare category.