I assume a gold standard implies a government controlled gold standard?
Does a forced monopoly on the money supply by the government offer something better than a free market money supply aka competing currencies?
Juan:1. Highly developed financial systems with widespread fractional reserve banking have reduced government seigniorage, even at double-digit inflation rates, to a trivial source of revenue... 2. Globalization and international competition have approximated Hayek's world of competing private banks issuing fiat money...> 3. Central banks are freer to respond sensibly to this growing international competition and market discipline because of their political independence. LMAO !!!! I wonder how much money ppl 'make' by spouting that kind of nonsense ? Are they paid directly by the gov't ? Or the CB ? Or the 'private' banking 'industry' ?
1. Highly developed financial systems with widespread fractional reserve banking have reduced government seigniorage, even at double-digit inflation rates, to a trivial source of revenue... 2. Globalization and international competition have approximated Hayek's world of competing private banks issuing fiat money...> 3. Central banks are freer to respond sensibly to this growing international competition and market discipline because of their political independence.
I know - I thought it was going to be a serious critique.
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.
limitgov:We are talking about competing currencies, not bartering. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/brimelow3.html The idea of Citibank and Chase Manhattan issuing their own money may indeed seem mind-boggling. What would their currencies be called – Wristons and Rockefellers? But the truth is that there have been several episodes of private, competing monies in world economic history, including in the U.S. Recent research is suggesting they worked much better than had been thought.
What do you mean issuing their own money? And if you'd read what I said the holders of competing currencies are in barter with regards to one another.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
limitgov:"What do you mean issuing their own money? And if you'd read what I said the holders of competing currencies are in barter with regards to one another." Did you read the article? its all there. Its on lerockwell.com You're a moderator here, I assume you read lewrockwell.com, right? I assume you like Ron Paul? read the article.....
I'll read it once I get the time.
Thedesolateone: Hummel: 3. Central banks are freer to respond sensibly to this growing international competition and market discipline because of their political independence. I know - I thought it was going to be a serious critique.
Hummel: 3. Central banks are freer to respond sensibly to this growing international competition and market discipline because of their political independence.
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."
Because they are not subordinates of the legislature or the executive.
Central banks can't be independent, because goverments control their monopoly.
scineram: Because they are not subordinates of the legislature or the executive.
Remind me who appoints the governor of the Fed? Or the bank of England?Tell me what would happen if the CB did anything radically opposed to the executive?
Better to have competing currencies. Gold...........wear it.
Thedesolateone:Remind me who appoints the governor of the Fed?
Who appoints the federal judiciary. Which is also independent.
Thedesolateone:Tell me what would happen if the CB did anything radically opposed to the executive?
What exactly?
I think there's been some confusion with regards to the definition of "currency". What I meant is that I do not believe there will be seperate, different currencies provided by different firms, rather, that there will be numerous firms whose business is coinage and warehousing but there will be a single commodity picked by the market that will serve as money. The latter of these two proposals is both confirmed by history and praxeology, whereas the former stands in contradiction to both. I cited Hayek as wrongly favouring the former because of his arguments in one of his essays that appears in Individualism and Economic Order, I forget the name but it is, to my knowledge, the only essay on currency in the book. Hayek claims that firms will issue notes based on a collection of goods, however, this seems absurd since there would exist one of those goods that would be more saleable than the rest and would thus be better suited to serve as money (and would hence, most likely emerge as one).
its not something that can be settled theoretically its so very contingent on the facts of the world and human action. but in history there have been 'free markets in money' (if not for other products etc) and bi-metalism has worked in these. im thinking gold and silver. etc. so its not beyond belief that modern commodity free market money would have several competing commodities that vie for the title of superior money. obviously the larger the number of competing commodity moneys there are in use, increases costs and reduces the 'special benefit of money' yet as an opposing force, a market that has adopted one predominant money is not inevitably locked into that money, and may abandon that money for a rival money if over time the rival money begins to seem superior. and this is because the 'historically widely traded as money' attribute of a candidate for money, isnt the only quality of moneyness.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:its not something that can be settled theoretically its so very contingent on the facts of the world and human action.
Of course it can, as follows:
Moreover, with competing currencies as advocated by Hayek, certain trade will be contingent upon a double coincidence of wants with regards to the competing currencies and therefore the division of labour will not be as widespread as it possible could, moreover, prices cannot be determined entirely rational without a single currency to be used in cost accounting.
nirgrahamUK:but in history there have been 'free markets in money' (if not for other products etc) and bi-metalism has worked in these.
When have I said I do not advocate free markets in money? I've just said the free market will choose one single good, not a bundle. Also, in history there has been countries that have attempted to do away with prices and private ownership of capital goods. This does not mean that socialism is viable or economic, so I don't get your point.
nirgrahamUK: im thinking gold and silver. etc. so its not beyond belief that modern commodity free market money would have several competing commodities that vie for the title of superior money.
No, it's not, but it would be beyond belief for one to say that one will not outcompete the rest as gold has historically done.
it depends on how you are using outcompete?
does that mean it will be the only money, or just that it will have a relatively larger share of the 'is money pie' then any other rival money?
i.e. is it a question of being the only thing anyone will admit to being money. i.e. A natural monopoly arising on the free market. or using a looser definition of outcompete that gold would be the 'dominant money' that has lesser rivals nipping at its heels... , incentivising it to stay the relatively 'better' money....,
I agree with only the latter and not the former.
nirgrahamUK:. i.e. is it a question of being the only thing anyone will admit to being money. ie.e. a natural monopoly arising on the free market. or thte looser 'dominant money' that has lesser rivals nipping at its heels , incentivising it to stay the relatively 'better' money,
I don't understand the second of the options, but it's nonsensical to refer to the former as a monopoly and it is the former that will prevail.
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