Can any Libertarians help me understand these concepts?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Falcon63, Mar 23, 2013.

  1. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That's not really an inherent problem. The value of gold rises when there is less. The main point of it is that it's relatively steady (except for when you have a fiat currency).
     
  2. My Fing ID

    My Fing ID Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12,225
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't like that 1000. Straight up X/Y =Z. We can't have a pivot point like that because it can be abused. Also if we go to war, we need to pay for it up front. If the people are too pissed to pay then clearly it is not a war worth fighting. Also with the second amendment, we're already good on defense (not that I don't see people paying for defense to begin with).
     
  3. My Fing ID

    My Fing ID Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12,225
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    OK so...

    Deterioration isn't something we have to worry about, physically. It's not happening. The gold standard does bind our currency, but if dollars are shares then the gold supply doesn't really matter as dollars can be broke down. Imagine the dollar as gold in your hand, that's basically what it would be. As for enough gold to back the economy, I don't know if that would be an issue. If anything dollars would be more valued because they were actually backed by a physical and worthy item. They could be bought and redistributed as in the government buys 5 dollar bills and turns them in to 5 one dollar bills.
     
  4. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would prefer X/Y = Z, but the problem as someone already pointed out, is that the US would have to destroy alot of currency, or buy alot of gold to achieve this.
     
  5. My Fing ID

    My Fing ID Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12,225
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No they don't, the dollar adopts a new value based on a share of the gold. It'll cause problems right then and there clearly, but it's the only real solution. Also multiple metals (a backing on the nation having gold, silver, and platinum) would inflate the initial value of the dollar and be more stable. It would clearly be a shock to the system locally and globally, but it would balance out shortly after.
     
  6. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't understand this.

    How does the dollar adopt a new value?
     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Federalist Paper 44 addresses the matter of delegation of the authority to mint coins being transferred from the states to the federal government.

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed44.htm

    The Federalist Papers were a summary that lacked many specific details that were commonly known to exist at the time one of which was that a merchant in Boston might not be familiar with coinage from Virginia and would therefore be reluctant to accept it or would unknowingly accept counterfeit coinage that represented itself to be lawful money from another state. It can be noted that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution the primary coinage in the United States was Spanish gold and silver coins that had become the "world" monetary currency at the time. As noted in Federalist 44, under the Articles of Confederation, the states started their own mints and while the alloy content was established by Congress the actual definitions of the coins was not and it had lead to many problems in interstate commerce because different, and often unfamiliar, coinage was in circulation. We can also note that the coinage from one state was not mandated for use in other states. A person from Virginia with coinage from the state might not be able to purchase goods in Boston or, more likely, might have their "money" discounted (worth less) by a merchant because it was out of state coinage.

    We must also differentiate between "money" from "lawful money" as the first merely represents a common commodity used in the barter system to facilitate the exchange of goods while the second is "certified for use" in a national economy. Then we must differentiate between "lawful money" and "legal tender" because they are different as well. In creating "lawful money" then, under the law, making it "legal tender" it merely establishes that the coinage is good for all public and private debts but does not disallow the use of other "money" in financial transactions. For example, a Canadian Gold Maple Leaf is "lawful money" of Canada but not "legal tender" in the United States but transactions can still be made in Canadian Gold Maple Leafs in the United States today. Our laws do not prevent the use of any commodity as a medium of exchange but the values are measured in "dollars" because our monetary system is based upon dollars (which were adopted from the Spanish silver Ocho Reales coin).

    http://metaldetectingworld.com/coins_silver_reales.shtml

    Historically we can document the use of "money, lawful money, and legal tender lawful money" in the United States by simply referring to the California gold rush days. Gold dust and nuggers, which are money, were commonly used in transactions because of a lack of coinage. The gold (money) was coming out of the ground faster than it could be turned into coinage. Of course there was a lot of fraud during transactions where "weighted" scales were used and, while only a small percentage, a significant amount of gold dust managed to find its way to the floor and through the cracks (and was later recovered) basically robbing the person bringing the gold dust in for exchange. At the sametime there was still a lot of Mexican minted gold and silver coins being used in California that had been a part of Mexico only a few years earlier. Additionally there was some circulation of US minted coins as well which were lawful money in the United States and this increased with the opening of the San Francisco Mint. We had raw money in the form of gold as well as foreign coinage and lawful US coinage all being used at the sametime.

    Legal tender currency is a different matter and wasn't declared "Constitutional" until the Supreme Court ruling in Juilliard v Greenman. In that decision the Supreme Court ruled that "currency" was not "money" but instead a promissory note issue (or backed) by the US government that represented the borrowing of money by the US government.

    Even today "A merchant could just as easily insist on coins from highly reputed coiners, or even warehouse certificates if the weight of the coins are in question." Of course this is problematic because if the "buyer" doesn't have the required coins then they would have to make another transaction to obtain them. Banks would have to keep different coins separate with different certificates of deposit. "Checks" would have to specify what "coinage" was to be transferred to the bearer. Having to retain the certification documents from the producer of the coins creates a paperwork nightmare as each would have to be serialized to avoid fraud and the "certificates" can be counterfeited. If in doubt the potential requirement to assey a coin is costly and removed metallic content from it reducing its value. All of these factors would place a huge and costly burden on the free market making commerce next to impossible to flow freely and it is ripe for fraud and explotation.

    It's far easier to have nationally minted "American Eagle Coins" that are certified by the US government for usage in the economy.

    One fact that is lost on the American People and our members of government is that when the term "dollar" is used in legislation it's actually referring the American Eagle coins because, under the law, a Federal Reserve note is just a promissory note that is supposed to be redeemed on demand in American Eagle coins. Federal Reserve notes are not money but instead are a promise of payment in money which has always been the coins produced by the US Mint. As a "promissory note" a Federal Reserve note is discounted in commerce just like all promissory notes are discounted based upon the ability of the bearer of the note to redeem it in what the note promises. "Inflation" merely represents the discounting of the promissory notes being issued by the Federal Reserve and they're currently discounted by about 97% because we can't redeem those notes even though the law says we should be able to.
     
  8. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or simply change the value of the gold coins (i.e. change the denomination) so that the "dollars" in gold equal the "dollars" circulating in Federal Reserve notes. A Federal Reserve note is a promissory noted (the word "note" in Federal Reserve note indicates its a financial obligation of debt, or promissory "note") so a $50 Federal Reserve note (FRN) is redeemable in $50 of US MInted coinage (i.e. a $50 FRN = $50 American Gold Eagle). If we were to change the denomination of our Minted Coins so that a $5000 Gold coin contained one ounce of pure gold then the US has enough gold reserves to provide the coins to redeem the Federal Reserve notes (at least to cover the national debt which is all the US government is really responsible for).

    There is a caveat though. There only needs to be enough gold and silver (and platinum) coinage so that anyone wanting to redeem their Federal Reserve notes can do so at anytime. We actually only have about $1 trillion in physical currency and it wouldn't be anticipated that we need more physical coinage than that. We would require the "money" reserves but not the physical coinage. The key to the "gold standard" is that "legal tender currency" and "legal tender money" must be freely exchangeable. People will still prefer the currency over the coinage in most cases but to maintain "equal purchasing power" the people must be able to exchange one for the other on demand at any time.
     
  9. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is false as we have a continually increasing supply of gold. We have mined more gold since 1950 than was produced in the entire history of mankind before 1950 and the world gold supply has doubled. As the demand for gold, silver and platinum increases there is more production of gold, silver and platinum. It's merely a matter of supply and demand as is true with any commodity.

    There is actually far more gold in the ocean than on land and just gold in sea water alone represents trillions of dollars of recoverable gold.

    http://goldfever.com/gold_sea.htm
     
  10. Libertarian ForOur Future

    Libertarian ForOur Future New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,843
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For starters, Ron Paul is definitely not 100% libertarian. He has some ideals that don't mesh well with some, if not most, libertarian beliefs. He's a good starting point, but definitely not the end all solution. Same with his son, Rand Paul.

    Let's dissect this issue a little bit here. Gold/silver standard isn't necessarily just that, gold/silver. It's essentially a platform to get us to sounder money. We could also look into petrodollars (Based off of petroleum) or bitcoins (More information here: http://bitcoin.org/en/). We can implement whatever works best for all involved, but it should be done before the dollar completely loses all of it's value. When the dollar loses it's value, you will have a hard time trading it in for something that will retain value.

    Private organizations or the government can mint coins or other forms of sound money (IE: bitcoins).

    Setup channels that allow other forms of currency to be trade-able. The fiat currency we're currently on (USD) is losing value every day. By the amount of accumulating debt and the mass printing of money by the Federal Reserve (Through various channels but one most notably 'fractional reserve banking'), the dollar is going to lose value. The problem is that everyday people hear reports on how strong the dollar is and it's never going to devalue itself and you shouldn't worry yourself about it. When/if the time comes and the dollar loses most, if not all, of it's value, there will be riots because all of the wealth folks have obtained, it will become worthless. Folks need to be told real truths. The bigger problem is the politicians & their corrupt allies won't budge on this because, by them being able to freely manipulate the monetary policies, they can create bigger pools of money for themselves and their friends. With a commodity, such as gold or silver, it would be a lot harder for them to do that.

    So, it's not a question of 'how do we wean people off of fiat currency', it's a question of 'how do we get people to understand that fiat currency is drowning us in more debt than it is allowing us to obtain real wealth'? When folks can honestly answer that question, they'll wean themselves off of fiat currency.

    I think it's best to add any commodity that holds real wealth. Platinum is included in that pool, gold, silver, petrodollars, bitcoins, and any other form of sound money that can retain wealth, I think we should explore. Fiat currency is a means for corrupt politicians & their corrupt bankers to milk us for more money while giving us debt, in return. We are buried in debt while they make profits hand over fist because of it. With real wealth, bankers won't make ridiculous amounts of money, that's why we push for sound money.

    Again, let's dissect this a little bit. Laissez-faire capitalism is an ideal that most, if not all, libertarians want to see come to America. How this is implemented is where it varies by individual. Where I stand (As I've said many times), I believe government does serve a purpose, especially when it comes to the market. HOWEVER, let me be very clear, the type of regulations that are being imposed aren't tailored towards stopping monopolies or creating deeper pools of money for only the top 1%. On the contrary, it does the exact opposite. Monopolies are formed because of the regulations that are imposed by the government. In which case, you see these monopolies occur, big businesses trample all over the small guys, then you hear how America is a free market, people get scared and call for more regulation, and then we get away from any form of free market. Let's also be clear that the type of market we have right now isn't a free market, it's saturated heavily by corrupt capitalism. As such, don't be fooled when you hear how the market is horrible and unforgiving so we need heavier regulations. Government helped create these riffs so they can push for more regulation that is tailored towards their corrupt friends, not to help the consumer.

    What I want to see is markets that are truly free. If you want to buy things overseas or across state lines, there should be nothing stopping you and no regulations should be imposed to stop you (IE: FDA). I believe regulations should be in play to protect folks from corruption and setup in such a way that if it does occur, you have the means to effectively sue the other person to retrieve your goods back. The problem with today, only the strong survive, you'll hardly ever see the little man get stronger because of it and I don't find that fair at all.

    All of these pretty much tie in together, so I'll tackle them all at once. For starters, slavery is never an option. Government should crack down on folks using children as slaves. That should never be tolerated and should never occur. However, a good way to ensure the public at large doesn't cover the expenses, companies could pay a fee to the government that states that are certified not to have child slavery. Thinking off the top of my head here, as I never really gave it much thought on how to crack down on this (As it's practically impossible to fully vet this out), as it would be relatively hard without imposing some sort of cost, either through the government or private companies. By them receiving this accreditation, they accept that the government can perform a random visit to ensure no one, including race, gender, age, and background, is used as a slave to perform work. It will be hard to weed this completely out, but serious fines & penalties should be imposed for any company caught doing so.

    As far as child labor is concerned, who determines what age a child should perform a job? Doesn't most parents setup some sort of allowance program for them to do choirs around the house to earn money or some other gift for performing work? Couldn't we chalk that up as child labor as well and have parents arrested? Of course you'd say that's silly, I agree. If a child is wanting to work, maybe a summer job or after school, shouldn't they be allowed to without scrutiny from the public at large? Where I disagree is if they are forced into it, no child or anyone, for that matter, should be forced into doing something they don't want to do. When I was 13 years old, I had a job as a cook at a local sub shop. Should the sub shop been closed and fined for hiring me? I willing accepted the work for the pay, should either of us be punished because of it? I don't think so. If I was forced into doing it, that's where I draw the line.

    How we can enforce this, again off the top of my head, is the same manner in which to achieve accreditation for not having any working as a slave. This accreditation would also included interviewing everyone to ensure they are paid to perform their job (Regardless of how crappy a pay it is) and they're not working there under forced obligation. Probably a far fetched theory, as it will be hard to fully know every single employee from every single job and it's almost certain that this type of behavior won't just 'go away' with some sort of regulation/legislation, but if the case is to be made to try and stop it, that's my thought process on it. Again, purely off the top of my head, I'd have to think about it more to have something concrete that makes ultimate sense to me and this topic but, in either case, regulation\legislation is going to be hard to stop this. This ultimately comes down to looking out for one another.

    For the question of 'how can we be ensured they are doing their job?', I think the same case can be made for a lot of folks jobs, not just this one in particular. How can we determine anyone is doing their job? What if your boss just sits behind the desk, attending phone conference meetings, and doesn't really converse with his team, how can we determine they are doing their job? You can say by the amount of things they produce, but what if that person doesn't really produce anything? Not trying to deter you from this thinking, but I simply want you to understand the complexity of your question, at hand. This is why most, if not all, libertarians believe the market can best determine what's good or bad. In case of the government, if they are doing a bad job, we can chalk it up as a loss and have to move on from there. If it's in the hands of private organizations, we have more control and can seek retribution if they've done a bad deed to us.

    For instance, if the road you are driving on has a massive pothole in it and you damage your car. Think you'll be able to sue the government to get your car fixed? I hope you say no, because if you say yes, you're only going to mound yourself up with more debt from paying the lawyer & court fees and you will still have to pay for the damages for your car (Insurance varies, but you get my point). What if a private company owned that road? That's where you will be able to take control and sue the private company for damaging your car. They can refute it in court, but as long as you can prove that the damage was done because of a massive pothole in the road, your damages will be covered by the private company. Since they don't want to go that route and they'd rather make money, they will best serve you as best as they can to avoid those issues. That's how YOU, as the consumer, will win and can take back your freedoms & your rights.

    Of course you can state 'why do I believe government can do a better job than a private company, when it comes to child labor & slavery, when I just talked about how we have more control when it's in the hands of a private company?', I'll state that's why I hold myself as a 'minarchist' and believe government serves a purpose. In the case of child labor & slavery, it'll be hard, in my eyes, to have this to leave in the hands of private organizations. What we need to do is ensure that private companies pay the fee, not the public at large (This is where greed & corruption come into play because the government absorbs so much of our money, they just want to grow). The only difference is, we need to ensure that all parties are held accountable. If it comes to be that a company is determined to be breaking the law, by having some form of child labor or slavery (Forced labor, not sure about the child labor thing as whole), then those folks who interviewed & reviewed the company need to be held accountable. This means penalties, prison time, and anything else, according to the extent of damage. Again, we'll probably get into deeper semantics at this point, but I think you get my point with this.

    Hopefully I've given you some more information to continue with your arguments. My other opinion to you would be to do more research on it and see how you stand. You're going to get various opinions & points on each libertarians views on these points. I think it's best for you to understand why people want these type of things and then, for yourself, determine how you would like to see them applied. We can all make the claim to have government 100% out of our lives, but the question we have to ask is what type of impact will that bring to all of us? Once you get into this question, you'll begin to see whether or not you support this type of thinking. I've explored this thinking, I don't think it's feasible, in my eyes. That's why I believe the government does hold/serve a purpose. However, what I do advocate is that those who go against anything that is Constitutional (And not just with having a Supreme Court dance around it either. We all know what it means, we don't need some judge to tell us it, we just need them to uphold it), they be held accountable for their actions. This will take time and careful planning.

    Think of it like this, it's taken our politicians over a century to put us in the position we're currently in, it's not going to solved overnight by simply doing away with government. Government holds a role, that's what, I believe, the founding fathers intended. The problem is, our politicians, since that point, believe we should be cradled by the government through massive regulation & legislation. Some of it good, but most of it has become so much of a hindrance, it creates more problems than it solves. That's where I think we need to start putting an end at and begin looking into breaking down the mold we've built around ourselves.
     
  11. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no problem with the states not being in the business of coining money. However, there is nothing in the Constitutions that prohibit private organizations from minting coins.

    Try telling that to Bernard Von Nothaus who was convicted for offering his Liberty Dollars as "current money." Also, where does the Constitution authorize forcing others to decide how they want to fulfill their contracts?

    What you describe as legal tender laws does not bear up under a study of history. The legal tender laws enacted in the United States were enacted to force merchants and banks to accept fiat paper money - Greenbacks, and later any government issued currency.

    In a system where gold is money, there is no need for legal tender unless the government intends to fiddle with the content of money, which is what they always do when given legal tender power. In fact, I can find noone who suggested that legal tender was necessary to protect gold dollars or gold-backed dollars (certificates for exchange) from being used to pay public or private debts. I still think you are making up your argument to suit your desires, rather than relying on any historical precedence.

    You would be in violation of legal tenders laws if you try to refer to a Canadian Gold Maple leaf as valid money. Legal tenders laws may not prevent the use of commodities as a medium of exchange, but they severely curtail the benefits of doing so. If we agree to exchange a certain amount of gold in return for your labor, and I utilize your labor and then pay you in highly inflationary dollars instead, you have no recourse but to accept the exchange. You could take it to court, and they'd point out that legal tender is good for all debts, public and private. They might even require only that I pay you the value of the contract at the time it was signed, rather than the higher price of gold today. The government has no right, nor Constitutional authority, to decide what is lawful for the settling of private debts.


    This is ridiculous. It's like saying that having so many food producers puts a huge and costly burden on the free market because grocers have to maintain so many different supply lines and spend a lot of time deciding on what to put on the shelf. You know what they do? They go to their vendors and tell them what needs to be done in order to get their products on their shelf. Over the last century, grocers have gone from being small, relatively inefficient operations to giant, complex entities that can deliver hundreds of thousands of the same products to everyone in the entire country with very little loss, and today they can manage local foods for local customers integrated into their national supply lines.

    Banks are in no less a position to demand that their customers either pay for the privilege of using exotic forms of money or that they stick to whatever the bank is willing to deal with, and entrepreneurs can figure out the details of making a complex system more efficient. Just because you don't like a system to be complex does not mean that others should not have the right to choose. No merchant, including a banker, is under the obligation to do business in a way he doesn't wan to do it, and yet your argument assumes that he must deal with exotic forms of money if there's a free market in money. Your grocer doesn't haven't to carry a line of exotics fruits just because you fancy them.

    It's far easier to have the government do everything for you and you not have to do anything thinking at all. That doesn't make you better off, more free, or any safer.

    I submit that if you believe government should control your money, you have no cause for complaint when it decides to tell you what money is. The argument that I get from many is that the Federal Reserve system is far easier to deal with than commodity backed money and a disparate banking system. Since your argument is that it's all about how easy it should be for banks to handle money, how can you argue against those who claim fiat currency is easier for banks?
     
  12. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apparently where Nothaus screwed up is that he was producing coins that violated the counterfeiting laws. His coins carried a dollar designation which constituted counterfeiting under the law. Had he limited the coins to specifying metallic contents, such as "One-Ounce Pure Silver" then he wouldn't have been violating the statutory laws against counterfeiting. A dollar ($) is a US Coin that only the United States Mint can legally produce. He was attempting to "simulate" a US minted coin and that is counterfeiting.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/485

    A reading and understanding of the US Supreme Court decision in Juillard v Greenman is necessary. We must also understand that the US government is NOT enforcing the statutory laws that require redemption of Federal Reserve notes in American Eagle coins nor is our government ensuring the equal purchasing power of all "currencies" (legal tender coins and currency) authorized under the law. Hell, our government was grossly incompetent in even "regulating" the value of US coins because five $10 American Gold Eagles (i.e. $50) contains 1.25 oz of pure gold but a single $50 American Gold Eagle only contains one pure ounce of gold based upon the 1985 American Gold Bullion Coin Act. Congress if full of idiots that can't even add.

    Once again a person needs to read Juillard v Greenman. As the Supreme Court noted there can be emergencies (they cited the Civil War) where there simply wasn't enough gold that the government could borrow to save the nation from the illegal insurrection of the Confederate States. The Supreme Court reasoned, and justifiable so, that extreme emergencies could require the government to issue promissory "legal tender" notes but as with any promissory note there comes a day when the promise must be fulfilled.

    The problem is that Federal Reserve (promissory) notes are not being redeemed on demand in accordance with the law nor is the creation of these "legal tender" promissory notes based upon a national emergency of the scope necessary to require "fiat legal tender" notes to be created.

    The problem isn't with legal tender notes but instead that we're not following our own laws and Supreme Court decisions related to them. If we could exchange a $50 Federal Reserve note for a $50 American Eagle coin on demand then there is nothing wrong with the Federal Reserve note.

    A Canadian Maple Leaf is not "legal tender lawful money" in the United States and representing it as such would certainly be fraud but that doesn't imply that I can't go down to my local Mercedes Benz dealer and exchange Canadian Maple Leafs for a new Mercedes if the dealer want to make the trade. There is a disadvantage to doing this of course so I'd use American Gold Eagles instead because they are "legal tender lawful money" and I would realize a huge savings on the sales tax based upon the denomination of the coins used for the transaction. A $60,000 Mercedes is measured in Federal Reserve note but logically I could purchase it for $2,000 in Gold Eagles (based upon a $1500/oz of gold) which would reduce a 5% sales tax from $3,000 to $100 (and the tax paid in Federal Reserve notes). This is 100% legal according to the law as both FRN's and American Eagles are legal tender.

    Yes, "legal tender" is good for all debts public and private but since 1977 we can also, under contract law, require that a debt established by the contract be paid in "gold coins" produced by the US Mint (i.e. American Eagle gold coins). This is a contractual agreement made at the establishment of the debt and the payment is in "legal tender" so the contract merely designates the type of legal tender required to fulfill the debt. Either could be used unless the "contract" specifies that only one of the two can be used. Remember that a "debt" reflects an "after the fact" financial obligation but the contract comes before the debt is established. A contract can specify virtually any obligation between the two parties and limiting a "monetary" payment to only one type of "legal tender" is established before the debt exists.

    Much dribble. The government should not be "controlling" the money as the money belongs to the People and not the Government. The government can and should coin money but that is not controlling the money or the money supply.

    Once again "money" was initially a common commodity used to facilitate the barter system. Because of the probability of fraud for profit it is common sense for a government to certify the "money" in coined tokens that everyone recognizes on sight. That still doesn't prevent counterfeiting of the money (i.e. a person could still counterfeit a $50 American Gold Eagle by using 10 ct gold instead of 24 ct gold) but it greatly reduces the possibility of fraud and government goes after counterfeiters. If we depend upon the private coinage of "money" then it becomes a civil enforcement where, if a person is defrauded, they have to personally file a lawsuit to address the fact they were cheated in the transaction.

    The banks and financial institutions require a common denominator to operate and that is "lawful money" (i.e. species coinage under the laws of the United States). Banks do NOT keep the deposited money but instead lend it out (at interest) to others. The amount of "money" in the ecomony actually exceeds the amount of money in the country as money is deposited and then loaned out so it is being used by numerous people basically at the sametime. The depositor owns the money but stores it in a bank which loans it out so another person also has the same "dollars" which are spent and then others deposit some in the bank which is loaned out, and on and on again. Only a small percentage of the "money in the economy is actual coinage. We generate over $16 trillion in profits in the US but only have less than $1 trillion in currency. Most of these transactions are with notes and not actual dollars. A personal check is fundamentally no different than a Federal Reserve note as both eventually promise payment in species money under the law.

    We still have serious problems today with the species (gold, silver, and platinum) American Eagle coinage of the United States because of the incompetence of Congress in regulating the value of the coins. I've mentioned the difference in gold content between a $10 and $50 American Eagle but we also have the $100 Platinum Eagles but platinum is actually selling for less than gold on the free market. If a person deposited $100 in Gold Eagles a the bank and then the bank gave them one $100 Platinum Eagle at withdrawal the person is fundamentally getting screwed.

    When Congress was delegated the authority to "regulate" the value of coins that related to the different market values of the metals being used.Silver is currently worth 1/56th of an ounce of gold today based upon "spot" prices. Congress, in regulating the value of "lawful money" (gold and silver coins) needs to establish the denominations of the coins so that they are appoximately the same as the market exchange rates of the metals. When it comes to a $50 Gold Eagle and a $1 Silver Eagle it's close because both contain an ounce of the respective metals and the current denominatios have a ratio of 50:1. Not perfect but close enough. When it comes to comparing a Silver Eagle to a Platinum Eagle it's way off because the market difference is one ounce of silver equals 1/55th of an ounce of platinum and not 1/100th of an ounce. As noted the $50 Gold Eagle is actually worth more than the $100 Platinum Eagle on the free market.

    Bottom line, the only requirement for a viable gold standard is that promissory notes, such as Federal Reserve notes, must fulfill the promise and be redeemable in "lawful money" which is gold and silver coinage on demand and that the coinage is properly regulated by Congress related to metallic content and relative denomination based upon the free market. Congress cannot "create" money because Congress cannot create gold or silver but it can make certified tokens (coins) for use in commerce and it is logical for it to do so. Literally speaking the People create the money by mining the gold and silver from the Earth. The government merely coins it into lawful (certified) money as a service to the People.
     
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We may not need to consider these issues until we run massive federal surpluses again.
     
  14. johnmayo

    johnmayo New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    13,847
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That isn't what he advocates. He advocates removing taxes on the sale of gold and silver, including income taxes. That allows people to use it as a real hedge against inflation, since often people are taxed on "gains" that were really just inflation, not real.

    We would have laws like we have now that minors cannot enter in contracts, or only under certain arrangements. Cops and lawyers would enforce it like they do now.
    Competition would discourage monopolies. Nearly all destructive monopolies in history have had the blessing and protection of government.
     
  15. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He never made any claim that they were US dollars or that anyone should treat them as something issued by the Federal Reserve. Quite the opposite. It may be what he was accused of, and anyone who has paid attention to the case knows that it has less to do with the accusation and far more to do with putting a viable and growing operation out of business.

    Where he went wrong was competing with the US government when it comes to money. He probably also went wrong by trying to call it money, rather than medallions. As for the law, it's very unspecific, allowing for a great deal of leeway on the part of prosecutors to destroy a business and lock up anyone they want.


    And yet you somehow believe that these same idiots should be central planners for the money supply. I have to wonder who are the idiots. Congress, which has a great deal of power over so many aspects of our lives, including what we can use as the most common medium of exchange in all major transactions, or the people who believe that Congress should have that power and believe that it will, if they just get the right people into Congress someday somehow, do the right thing. I'm going to go with the latter. Congress and the Federal government have never been good or wise when it comes to monetary matters. Expecting them to act differently if they would just "see the light" is either the errand of a fool or the insane. Probably both.

    In your opinion, it was justifiable and perhaps you naively believe that the promise will be fulfilled some day. In my opinion, it was a power grab, just as was the civil war, and once that power is grabbed, it's not going to be given back to the people. Now, the question is, who has been proven right?

    When you say "we", I assume that you mean the government. I don't consider them "my laws" so please don't include me in them as if I am with you on not following them. I don't expect government to follow it's own rules. I consider it naive of anyone, especially anyone who is informed and intelligent, to expect it to do so, especially when it has been getting away with not following those rules for well over a century or more.


    "Common sense" is frequently nonsensical. It was common sense to burn witches lest they influence others to follow the devil. So, rather than rely on a "common sense" argument, why not use real logic and objectivity. You call Ron Paul an idiot, yet he often refers to the logic of his arguments. "Common sense" implies that you have nothing to stand on but the subjective opinion of millions of ignorant people.

    Is it or is it not possible for private agencies to certify commodities? If money is a commodity, why, in your objective opinion, is it impossible for private agencies to certify the quality and authenticity of different "brands" of money?

    You know that they still have to do that? The government may go after counterfeiters but it doesn't make whole the person who has been defrauded. The government also goes after financial fraud of other types. If your financial planner pockets your money instead of investing it, guess what, he's a criminal and will be prosecuted. However, to get your money back, you will still have to sue him in a civil court. Now, since your logic seems to be that since you have to sue in civil court, that we would be better off if government did all of our retirement planning? Perhaps so. After all, there's plenty of opportunity for fraud, and there are so many options that it often confuses savers who make not such great choices. If the government rescues us from the allegedly dangerous complexities of a free market in money, why shouldn't it save us from the dangerous complexities of the free markets in everything else? Money is fairly simple compared, to, say, food.

    What you mean is that banks are *required* to lend out money, often a great deal more money than they hold in reserves. Banks that do not are subject to sanctions by the central bank.

    That has not always been the case. Those who did not want their money to be subject to the risk of a lending institution could pay a small fee to a depository institution where their money was kept safe and secure and not lent out to others.


    Good luck with that. You can see what "service" they provide by doing what you call a "lawful" service and preventing anyone else from their right to alternatives.
     
  16. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The dollar ($) designation on the coins constituted counterfeiting.

    To shorten up the rest of the issue.

    So long as "legal tender currency" can be redeemed on demand at par (based upon the denomination) with "legal tender lawful money" (i.e. coins produced the the US Mint containing a specified amounts of copper, gold, silver, or other metallic commodity with denominations based upon free market differences in "value" of the metals) then we have no fundamental problem. This really comes down to an issue of contract law (i.e. a Federal Reserve note is a promissory note that specified the species coinage that it can be redeemed for) and as long as the Congress regulates the value of the different metals used in the coinage so that one isn't preferrable to another then we are back to species money, or the "gold" standard, which is what's being addressed.

    The matter is really as simple as contract law and the problem today is that contract law is not being enforced by our government related to Federal Reserve (promissory) notes.

    Would anyone be complaining, for example, if we could walk into a bank and withdraw either $50 as a $50 American Gold Eagle or as a $50 Federal Reserve note? Under the law both are identical but when asked how I would like my withdrawal at the bank I always say, "In American Eagles" but they won't give them to me. I should be able to get either as both are identical under the law.
     
  17. Validation Boy

    Validation Boy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,748
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    These questions are the foundations of leftist economic thought.
     
  18. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is that in addressing the Gold Standard Ron Paul is either completely ignorant or a complete idiot. This is best exemplified by his own words.

    First of all American Eagle coins are "legal tender" coins in the United States and this is acknowledged by the US Mint.

    http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/american_eagles/index.cfm?Action=american_eagle_platinum

    Why would Ron Paul, who was a member of Congress for many years, be completely unaware of the fact that American Eagle silver, gold and platinum coins are legal tender in the United States?

    Yes, at the end of the Civil War the United States government did provide for the redemption of legal tender currency to be redeemed and allocated the "species coinage" necessary for that redemption but that cannot be done today based upon American Gold Eagles as defined under the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985. The national debt, which is representative of what the US government (not the Federal Reserve) is obligated to redeem in species money equates to over 300 billion ounce of gold which is many times more that all of the gold ever mined in the history of the United States. A phased redemption of the national debt over time would require about 2,000 years based upon rough calculations I've done in the past because it requires the recirculation of the small amount of gold held by the government over and over again until it totals 300 billion ounces.

    Of course the government can also retire the national debt by collecting more in general tax revenues than what the government spends. Currently that would require a huge tax increase because the general tax revenues only equal about 50% of general government expendatures. Ron Paul opposed tax increases necessary to fund the cost of government so this is basically a non-starter for Ron Paul.

    Unfortunately even if the US government did retire the entire national debt the Federal Reserve has issued far more Federal Reserve notes than can be redeemed. The Federal Reserve can submit "Gold Certificates" to the US Treasury but it doesn't have nearly enough to cover even a small fraction of the amount of Federal Reserve "notes" in circulation because every "dollar on deposit" at every bank represents a Federal Reserve note since 1935. In short, requiring the Federal Reserve to actually redeem FRN's in species coinage would bankrupt the Federal Reserve and ultimately the banks leading to an econimic collapse were every dolllar on depost by Americans in every bank in America would be lost because of the "bankruptcy" of the Federal Reserve.

    The only solution is the one I proposed, and which Ron Paul has never proposed, is that the Congress "re-regulate" the value of "money" which it is authorized to do under Article I Section 8 similar to what it did with the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985. As I suggested it would need to change the denomination "value" of an ounce of gold to roughly $5,000 and this would at least allow the redemption of the national debt in "gold coins" being produced by the US Mint and would also allow the Federal Reserve the possibility of redeeming Federal Reserve (promissory) notes without having to declare bankruptcy.

    The complexity of the problem is apparently not evident to Ron Paul as he didn't really make any proposal that would pragmatically restore the gold standard. His proposal was basically "bankrupt the Federal Reserve and the US government and let the American People lose almost everything because of that bankruptcy." That is not an acceptable solution.

    As far as requiring "redemption" that is already statutory law under Title 12 but the law is not being enforced nor is contract law that requires redemption of a contractual obligation based upon a promissory note.
     
  19. monty1

    monty1 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lib for our future, I liked your pothole scenario where the private company owning the road would be sued for damage to the user's car. I just wonder what you see as the advantage when it's obvious that the private company is going to recover the the price of the damages awarded back on the users? Something government doesn't have to ever do because the gov can't be sued. And the gov doesn't have to build in a profit either!

    You never did comment back much on my province's ICBC auto insurance I told you about. It's a no fault insurance scheme where the injured party takes the government to court if necessary to recover damages. So regardless of whether or not the party that caused the damages is capable of paying or not, the injured party is covered. How does that work in with your vision of libertarianism?
     
  20. monty1

    monty1 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lib for our future, I liked your pothole scenario where the private company owning the road would be sued for damage to the user's car. I just wonder what you see as the advantage when it's obvious that the private company is going to recover the the price of the damages awarded back on the users? Something government doesn't have to ever do because the gov can't be sued. And the gov doesn't have to build in a profit either!

    You never did comment back much on my province's ICBC auto insurance I told you about. It's a no fault insurance scheme where the injured party takes the government to court if necessary to recover damages. So regardless of whether or not the party that caused the damages is capable of paying, the injured party is covered. How does that work in with your vision of libertarianism?

    Seems to me that I as a user would much rather prefer to not have to try to sue a road owner with unlimited resources in lawyers. Sounds like a real losing proposition to me! But maybe you would build in some kind of control to prevent the road company from spending big to bail his a-s out of his liability?
     
  21. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the real problem is this. ( in regards to gold standard ) We sinply cannot buy enough gold to back up the ammount of money in circulation currently.

    So, that being the case, how do you tie the money back to gold? And who has to pay the price of the loss of wealth? Because there will be a LOT less money around if you tie it to gold. SOMEONE is going to loose out big time. How do you figure out who that is?
     
  22. monty1

    monty1 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ooooooooo, now we're getting into the hard questions being asked of the gold bugs, libertarians, and Ron/Rand Paul suppporters. Expect novel answers!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Ooooooooo, now we're getting into the hard questions being asked of the gold bugs, libertarians, and Ron/Rand Paul suppporters. Expect novel answers!
     
  23. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    President Nixon did not remove the United States from the Gold Standard and it would have been unconstitutional for a president to do this. President Nixon withdrew the United States from the Bretton Woods agreement (treaty) that required the redemption of foreign debt by the US government in gold at a rate of $32/oz (or $35/oz - I don't recall) which was the legally prevailing (pegged) rate of the US Dollar to Gold under US law.

    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brettonwoodsagreement.asp

    Remember, at the time the United States was still under the Emergency Banking Act from the 1930's and Americans were fundamentally prohibited from owning gold and Nixon was not concerned with that at all. Nixon was concerned because France had decided to redeem all of the "US Dollars" in gold at the prevailing "rate" and it would have rapidly depleted all of the US gold reserves. As I recall from then France alone actually held more "US dollars" than all of the gold in Ft Knox contained at the prevailing rate. I could be mistaken in that but I do recall that France presented a very serious threat to the US gold reserves at the time. That was what President Nixon was reponding to with his executive order.

    In today's world where nations don't back their currencies with gold the United States would not redeem any foreign debt with gold even under the gold standard. We would only redeem our international debt with goods and services produced in the US and "lawful money" (i.e. species money) would be reserved exclusively for use by the American People.

    Another false belief is that every dollar in circulation must be backed with gold held by the US government. The actual "gold coinage" required needs only account for the money being used in circulation and enough in reserve to meet any "run on the (species) dollar" by the American People. Currently there's less than $1 trillion of actual money in circulation which, if we never had "legal tender" currency, all of the "money" that would be required in gold, silver and even platinum coins. People also like paper currency because it's a lot easier to carry than species coins.

    If we "reset" the value of species money, as I suggested, to $5000/oz of gold then I wouldn't anticipate a lot of people demanding gold or silver coins to carry around for purchases. Remember that "resetting" the value of gold coins by 100 times (i.e. a $50 American Eagle would fundamentally become a $5000 American gold coin) then silver coinage also needs to be reset. A Silver American Eagle, instead of being a $1 coin would become a $100 coin. This resets all lower silve coins as well so a "1/2 dollar" silver coin becomes a $50 coin, a "quarter" becomes a $25 coin, a dime a $10 coin, a new "nickle" becomes a $5 coin and a copper "penny" becomes a "dollar" coin. We could use other metals, such as aluminum, for coinage under one dollar.

    The entire "species" money tree needs to be reset to prevent a panic run on the species money that would deplete the entire country. Always remember that "money" is nothing more than a commodity used to facilitate the exchange based upon a barter system but the real wealth of a nation is in the other commodities it produces. We only require enough "money" to facilitate commerce in the United States. Bank deposits represent excess wealth accumulation and are merely a measured based upon the value of money.
     
  24. Libertarian ForOur Future

    Libertarian ForOur Future New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,843
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The advantage to this is you have someone to go after for damages. If the private organization is negligent in fixing the road, they should be liable for any damages. I shouldn't have to claim that on my insurance, pay higher rates, and still continue to fund the road if the damage has occurred because of the road. It's like getting into a car accident that isn't your fault, paying for car insurance, paying for the damages, and then having your car insurance go up because of it. You didn't do the damage to your car and you didn't willingly allow someone to damage your car, you shouldn't be liable for it.

    My apologizes on that. For the first part, our government isn't structured like that. It's going to be nearly impossible to get the government to pay for any damages. I say that, with experience, as my father and I were driving in our vehicle. A cop ran directly into the side of us. We had our insurance hold off on fixing the car until we got the State to pay for it. The final result was the state admitted that the cop was at fault but refused to pay for the damages. As such, our car insurance company had to cover the costs and our insurance went up because of it. I'd be inclined to go along with something like that, IF our government was structured as such. The way it is now, no thanks.

    However, I did some more research on it as well. It seems the ICBC has begun to let private companies into the market as well. I think that's a good thing as well. It seems to me that it works well, in Canada. My only question is how will it work in America. The way our government uses anything that has become socialized has become a big mound of corruption & waste for them (Just look at Medicare & Social Security). So, for me, I think if we set this type of structure up with the private companies, it will be better. Could it work within the government? Maybe, but I don't think with the way our government is currently setup that it will. The ICBC functions like a private organization where it puts any profits back into the good. Whereas our government would take that extra revenue and spend it on something else, thus beginning to create a deficit with that government provided insurance, and we'll be swimming in more debt because of it.

    Of course that's always the risk, same risk as when it comes to suing the government and having unlimited resources. The difference is when it comes to proving it in court. Folks have to know that if you have damage occur, you need to take pictures. The society we're living in now, everyone has a camera on their smartphones. There is 0 reason not to take pictures of the damage and the damaged road. I've ran over a pothole with a car, completely bent my rim, and I couldn't get it replaced by the State. They claimed it was their fault, they just sent someone out to fill in the pothole, and nothing more could be done about it. I had to buy a new rim because of it.

    The only controls that folks would need is to ensure the court system upholds the law. If an individual can show the damage in the road, the damage on their car, have a report from the mechanic/car shop that states the damage occurred by the damaged road, there is no longer a need for more controls. The issue is that when these private companies begin to throw their money around, the politicians look the other way, and the consumer has to take the full brunt of the recourse. If we can cut that element out of it, the court system is where those folks will need to take it. However, in my firm belief of a true, capitalist free market, if folks catch wind of a private company fighting it and trying to out do the person, their profit margins will hit because naturally folks will boycott the organization. The best way to do that is in their pocket. Thus, less people will drive on their road, less revenue in their pocket, less of a chance of them actually fighting it and just settling it to keep their name in good faith.

    If I owned a business, the #1 thing in the world to know is 'The customer is always right'. Even if they're wrong, they're right. They're the reason why you are in business. Of course there are variations to this (IE: Fraud), but if the person has a legitimate claim and has a valid proof, no need to fight the point. Just right the wrong and the company will be better for it. But, the way our system is currently structured, it's easier to pay folks off then it is to do the right thing. That's where things need to stop as well.
     
  25. Libertarian ForOur Future

    Libertarian ForOur Future New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,843
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, doing something like that is going to be basically pointless. Furthermore, by backing it against paper, if the paper is lost, the gold is still there. It becomes an issue overall when doing something like this. I've been advocating something like Bitcoins as the next currency standard. This is because it isn't subject to inflation, it isn't subject to fractional reserve, and the amount of coins you have are it's worth. When less coins are available, the value of the bitcoins goes up and vice versa. There is no way to increase the limit of the coins, as the system simply won't let it.

    My solution is based off of this article dated over 2 years ago (http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/12/01/why-do-people-want-a-gold-standard-when-history-shows-us-it-does-not-last/). It's still very much valid today (http://bitcoin.org/en/). It's a free market currency alternative that isn't backed by anything, there is no way to manipulate the total reserve (IE: Freely printing it), and the value is based on the market. This is truly the next de facto, I believe, in standardizing a valid monetary policy for the future good of all.

    Allow the markets to work, they will determine what's best for all, just give them a chance. Bitcoins is proof on how a free market works and how folks find ways to better individuals through their own creativity.
     

Share This Page