IDigSluts_ky: Perhaps you didn't read my follow up post, in which I gave the answer to the question... I also gave, below that, a much better analysis of the original question and my own answer to this (which is that a currency backed by GDP is a currency that's not backed by anything at all). Gold backing money is nothing but money backing money.
Perhaps you didn't read my follow up post, in which I gave the answer to the question... I also gave, below that, a much better analysis of the original question and my own answer to this (which is that a currency backed by GDP is a currency that's not backed by anything at all).
Gold backing money is nothing but money backing money.
What backs the dollar bill is government guns. Why is the dollar bill worth more than any similar scrap of paper? Answer: guns.
JonBostwick:What backs the dollar bill is government guns. Why is the dollar bill worth more than any similar scrap of paper? Answer: guns.
I don't care if anything backs the dollar or any precious metal. What I do care is that I receive "currency" for my labor to buy goods and services.
IDigSluts_ky: don't care if anything backs the dollar or any precious metal. What I do care is that I receive "currency" for my labor to buy goods and services.
So you'd be happy to accept, for example, a salary in Zimbabwean Rand? Good on ya mate - take one for the team!
IDigSluts_ky: JonBostwick:What backs the dollar bill is government guns. Why is the dollar bill worth more than any similar scrap of paper? Answer: guns. I don't care if anything backs the dollar or any precious metal. What I do care is that I receive "currency" for my labor to buy goods and services.
You don't care what you recieve so long as someone with guns will force others to take it off your hands. How noble.
JonBostwick:You don't care what you recieve so long as someone with guns will force others to take it off your hands. How noble.
This is a flat out lie. I am simply disgusted by your comment.
I believe that currency should be left up to the market; as long as currency is redeemable, not replicable, and stable. It is regrettable that I do not share your fascist and noble stance for the gold standard. Shoving gold down my throat as a currency is analogous to shoving your conception god down my throat.
The only one who is being forceful is you.
jimmy:So you'd be happy to accept, for example, a salary in Zimbabwean Rand? Good on ya mate - take one for the team!
You will be better off accepting your strawmen argument than I will be accepting the zimbabwean rand.
IDigSluts_ky: jimmy:So you'd be happy to accept, for example, a salary in Zimbabwean Rand? Good on ya mate - take one for the team! You will be better off accepting your strawmen argument than I will be accepting the zimbabwean rand.
Ah, I see... so you don't want currency? Even if a bunch of guys with guns want you to use it to pay for goods. What you actually want is a currency that HOLDS IT'S VALUE right? Phew - took you a long time to realize it!
ViennaSausage: I am not advocating this position, but I would like to hear your thoughts on GDP as Backing for Currency for the US and for other other countries. I ran into a Cato Economist. He aborred the Gold Standard, and suggested that GDP would be the ideal solution for currency backing. I have never heard that arguement before, so I was not preparred to counter that position. The only thing I could think of at the time was that GDP itself is not a reliable calculation, because of the the plethora of outstanding variables. Suggestions against or perhaps even praise for GDP as a backing?
I am not advocating this position, but I would like to hear your thoughts on GDP as Backing for Currency for the US and for other other countries. I ran into a Cato Economist. He aborred the Gold Standard, and suggested that GDP would be the ideal solution for currency backing. I have never heard that arguement before, so I was not preparred to counter that position. The only thing I could think of at the time was that GDP itself is not a reliable calculation, because of the the plethora of outstanding variables. Suggestions against or perhaps even praise for GDP as a backing?
How about letting people decide which money they want to use? Why wanting to choose for others what is goo dor not for them? That's what I would have answer to your man.
Time will tell
tim:How about letting people decide which money they want to use? Why wanting to choose for others what is goo dor not for them? That's what I would have answer to your man.
I agree with you here. Let the market decide it's commodity money.
jimmy: What you actually want is a currency that HOLDS IT'S VALUE right? Phew - took you a long time to realize it!
Whenever did I imply differently? It is you realization that is lagging.
IDigSluts_ky: jimmy: What you actually want is a currency that HOLDS IT'S VALUE right? Phew - took you a long time to realize it! Whenever did I imply differently? It is you realization that is lagging.
You don't remember writing the following then??? I don't think there's anything wrong with my comprehension skills no...
But this thread is getting tired. I have the impression that even if you agreed with what anyone (myself included) was saying, you wouldn't admit it at this point for the sake of stubborness.
jimmy:You don't remember writing the following then??? I don't think there's anything wrong with my comprehension skills no...
Your comphrehension lacks. I remember your strawman argument of the Zimbabwean Rand.
I guess it is time to concise the argument. You go first.
IDigSluts_ky:Your comphrehension lacks.
Ah ad hominen retorts - such joys! They tend to say rather more about the person making the retort than the argument or person that they're arguing with though.
IDigSluts_ky:I guess it is time to concise the argument. You go first.
No point in restating myself:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/2538/36422.aspx#36422
Once again, if you have a problem with my argument (rather than a problem with my person) then I'd be interested to hear it. If you have nothing constructive to say though (e.g. phrases like "your comprehension lacks") then I'd suggest you say nothing at all.
IDigSluts_ky: I believe that currency should be left up to the market; as long as currency is redeemable, not replicable, and stable. It is regrettable that I do not share your fascist and noble stance for the gold standard. Shoving gold down my throat as a currency is analogous to shoving your conception god down my throat. The only one who is being forceful is you.
Ok, so you've listed four properties you'd like to your currency to be: redeemable, not replicable, stable and market derived. The dollar, or any fiat currency backed by government decree or the GDP, fails the latter two, as it is neither stable nor market driven.
I'm not sure how the gold standard is "fascist" or in any way forceful. The market has, over many centuries, consistently chosen gold as currency. Would it pick something else if we abandoned the current fiat? Perhaps. Would whatever is chosen be a scarce commodity? Without a doubt. Is it "forceful" for an individual participant in the market to express a preference for gold? I don't see how.
Finally, the market has clearly already rejected currency backed by the GDP, which is why there are laws enforcing its legal tender status.
JackCuyler:Ok, so you've listed four properties you'd like to your currency to be: redeemable, not replicable, stable and market derived. The dollar, or any fiat currency backed by government decree or the GDP, fails the latter two, as it is neither stable nor market driven.
I am not arguing from a governmental perspective. Perhaps, I should have clarified. I am an anarchist. I really don't see an issue with fiat currency as long as it is stable, not replicable, market derived, and redeemable.
I'm not sure how the gold standard is "fascist" or in any way forceful.
In my experience, people who typically favor a strict gold standard are often against alternative forms of currency.
The market has, over many centuries, consistently chosen gold as currency. Would it pick something else if we abandoned the current fiat? Perhaps. Would whatever is chosen be a scarce commodity? Without a doubt. Is it "forceful" for an individual participant in the market to express a preference for gold? I don't see how.
I disagree with you that the market has consintely preferred gold over the centuries. Many cultures used beads, sea shells, and even animals as currency. To impose a strict gold standard is facist.
I don't see how the market has rejected currency backed by gdp. There is a clear relationship between gdp, the money supply, and inflation. Money is valued as a relationship to gdp. Is it not?
Even if we were on a strict gold standard, then a discovery of gold occured. This discovery increased the money supply by two folds. What would happen and how would this be any different if a government doubled its fiat currency overnight? Inflation would happen, but utlimately there would be no difference.
IDigSluts_ky:I really don't see an issue with fiat currency as long as it is stable, not replicable, market derived, and redeemable.
I don't even see a problem with fiat currency being unstable, unredeemable and not market-derived. I doubt they'll be able to gain the necessary trust from the people to get them used, but I don't see why they should be forbid. (by the way, is it a fiat currency if it is redeemable?) If they are replicable, then they aren't really currency... Surely, they will be worthless pretty soon... ;)
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
What you mean is FRB. Fiat money is just one form of it - but it is neither market-derived nor stable. It is issued by central banks, and its use is forced upon the populace. Otherwise it would not be fiat money! The term applies only to this form of money, not to FRB in general. Hence it is a contradiction to say it is market-derived.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
IDigSluts_ky:I am not arguing from a governmental perspective. Perhaps, I should have clarified. I am an anarchist. I really don't see an issue with fiat currency as long as it is stable, not replicable, market derived, and redeemable.
You can't support a fiat currency without supporting government. By definition. Fiat means "by command" or "by order". In the case of the money, fiat currency is currency thats use is ordered by the government.
IDigSluts_ky:I disagree with you that the market has consintely preferred gold over the centuries. Many cultures used beads, sea shells, and even animals as currency. To impose a strict gold standard is facist.
To impose anything is fascist, wouldn't you agree? Yet you defend fiat currency, which is by definition imposed. Moreover, granting that many cultures use beads, sea shells, etc., that does not take away from the fact that gold has been used as currency in many more cultures, for thousands of years. And again, most people who support the gold standard would be happy with another commodity. They simply want a commodity as their currency.
IDigSluts_ky:I don't see how the market has rejected currency backed by gdp. There is a clear relationship between gdp, the money supply, and inflation. Money is valued as a relationship to gdp. Is it not?
It is not. It is valued in its relationship (ability to act as a medium of exchange) to goods and services. That is, $1 buys me a weekday NY Times or a double cheeseburger at McDonalds. The dollar is valuable because I can exchange for either of these goods.
IDigSluts_ky:Even if we were on a strict gold standard, then a discovery of gold occured. This discovery increased the money supply by two folds. What would happen and how would this be any different if a government doubled its fiat currency overnight? Inflation would happen, but utlimately there would be no difference.
There would be little difference. The owners of the new gold would get more purchasing power out of it, as would those who initially receive the new money, as prices would not begin to rise until the new money is further circulated. Similarly, the recipients of the government's new money would get more purchasing power out of the new money. The end result in each case would be that those who never see the new money would have their own money devalued.
Consider the big difference, though. The scenario you proposed, a huge discovery of gold, so large that it literally doubles the existling gold supply, is rather unlikely. And it's even more unlikely is that it will happen multiple times. The amount of gold is limited by the amount of gold that is discovered, mined and minted, all of which takes time an effort. Contrast that with the current fiat system. The government has doubled the money supply roughly ten times in the last hundred years, and there's no reason to think they won't again and again and again. The amount if fiat currency is limited by... well, it's not really limited at all.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap