HAHAHA, yes, because that’s what governments are known for right? I mean it’s pretty rare for governments to trample on the weak through invasion or oppression. The Roman government in the Mediterranean, the English government in India and Ireland, the Spanish government in the New World, the Soviet and Nazi government in Europe, the American government in aboriginal America and in the Middle East… all exceptions.

We need to give the government more power so it can stop further cases of miners dying.

More like they just happen to the the little animal that got stamped upon by the big gorilla. This is what happens when government is not strong enough to protect the weak from the strong. Anarchy = rule of nature, where only the strong survive.

Not when they need a bailout as you have indicated!

Let’s go ask all those TARP recipients how they feel about the government’s legal tender laws. Mike S

Bankers absolutely LOVE legal tender laws since it enables them to counterfeit in a government enforced monopoly money supply with FRL (fractional reserve lending). However, they would hate it if the government abolished FRL and became the sole issuer of new money reducing them to loaners not creators of new (although temporary) money.

I advocate for separate government and private money supplies which should please everyone worth satisfying.

“But a 100 percent gold reserve requirement would not be just another administrative control by government; it would be part and parcel of the general libertarian legal prohibition against fraud.” Rothbard Rick

What I mean by government backing of gold is accepting it for taxes purposes. That would thus be an unlibertarian privilege for a class of monies (gold).

I agree with Rothbard that FRL is theft but we are not talking about the same thing.

Your objections to a government backed gold standard was addressed by Murray Rothbard in “America’s Great Depression”, a book I happen to be reading at the moment.

“But a 100 percent gold reserve requirement would not be just another administrative control by government; it would be part and parcel of the general libertarian legal prohibition against fraud.”

He goes on…

“Banks that issue receipts to non-existent gold are really committing fraud, because it is then impossible for all property owners (of claims to gold) to claim their rightful property. Therefore, prohibition of such practices would not be an act of government intervention in the free market; it would be part of the general legal defense of property against attack which a free market requires.”

Ch.1, page 27. Fifth paperback edition.

What should be done with men (or women) that do not take responsibility for their children? Unfortunately, the majority of mothers and fathers that do care pay the price for those that don’t care.

As a temporary member of “generation sloth”, I can assure you that it is our fault. It is due to irresponsibility, apathy, arrogance, and a lack of competitiveness. I ended up not having any college debt, but a surplus (the lucky benefactor of a subsidy and of a willingness to work over the Summer), but I realized that there wasn’t much of a future for me in the avenue of work I had assumed I would be qualified for at the outset of highschool (or at least that was the thought that dominated me in my pessimistic state while at college: now I am just uncertain). I was, probably unjustifiably, spending more of my time worrying about how the government created an uncompetitive and counterproductive state in the workplace that I was preparing myself to move into and how that would influence my own behavior rather than looking for other avenues of employment. I am currently applying for work in the resturant business as a line cook with the hope of eventually being an executive chef if I can prove myself fit for the role.

“That hatred is (partially) justified if the government money can be used for private debt.”

should be changed to:

“That hatred is (partially) justified if the government money must be accepted for private debt.” {italics added]

Which should be abolished except for government debts (taxes and fees). By the same token, private monies should ONLY be good for private debt.

Any objections??

The libertarian argument in favor of the gold standard is simple: it emerged naturally through voluntary free-market activity. It is considered “honest money,” and not “tools of the usury class” (what does this even mean anyways?).

Let the goldlovers get gold accepted for government debts and you will find out.

The economic argument in favor of the gold standard is somewhat complicated, but it has to do with the fact that it has natural self-correcting mechanisms (again, look up the “price-species-flow-mechanism”), that prevent international distortions and perpetual disequilibria in money and capital markets.

Again, I do understand (well enough) the international gold standard. Banks in a country that imported more than it exported risked the loss of gold as its paper money was redeemed. That loss of gold would force the banks in that country to contract credit. That would normally cause price deflation which would make the countries exports cheaper. Conversely, a country that exported more than it imported would gain gold and be able to expand its money supply thus driving up its prices and making imports cheaper. Note that the system is based on fractional reserves which the Austrians claim to hate.

Fiat paper money = theft, and it has value solely because it was once tied to sound money (where its supply cannot be arbitrarily altered by decree), i.e., gold.

Government is force. Whoop te do. If you wish to call taxation “theft” then go ahead. But if the goldlovers force us to buy gold to pay our taxes, then there will be TWO sets of thieves to deal with, the government and the goldlovers.

Liberty is liberty and gold is gold. They are not synonymous. The bankers (the usury class) hate that government can issue money. That hatred is (partially) justified if the government money can be used for private debt. But please recognise the hypocrisy of the bankers if they wish to have their private monies (or class of monies such as gold) be accepted for government debt.

Again, to have a truly free market in private money creation we need separate government and private money supplies.

The Mises Institute has done tremendous work towards overcoming the deception and my congratulations to you.

From my understanding there is no special reason why everybody must use the U.S. Dollar worldwide, except for what has happened in the past. The only reason it happened this way was through international treaties and promises that a percentage of the dollar was gold back. Promises and treaties that Nixon broke. Since then it’s seems to have just trudged along just because it was convenient and we were dominate.

But it seems like to me that the dollar is not backed by force, it is simply backed by the good credit of the USA government and the Federal reserve. If that credit was to falter then can see other countries happily dropping the dollar as a international standard like a hot potato.

Gold itself is a commodity and due to it’s rather compact and it does not rot or rust and that sort of thing. I wouldn’t be surprised if the amount of gold discovered roughly offsets the amount of gold consumed for industrial, electronics, and other applications due to the way commodity trading and price influences work. So gold itself has value based on the simple fact that it’s gold. It’s going to have value no matter what because it’s always going to be desirable for purpose or another.

I can imagine in a world with privatized monetary systems then you can have bank notes backed by something other then Gold. I suppose any commodity is up for potential money-backing status, although most of them are not going to be nearly as ideal as gold is. That would be a nice way to avoid any potential problems in money supply. You could potentially use any commodity as a source for money and thus probably get just about as much liquidity as you’d ever want… and since everything would be backed by something of value you’ll have differences in exchange rates and whatnot, but generally speaking you could avoid most of the pitfalls that you get with fiat money based only on credit.

If we are to have genuine capitalism then competitive currencies are a must. Government privilege for any money or class of monies is thus ruled out.

My favourite private money is common stock. Common stock:

1) Requires no borrowing or lending. Assets and labor are simply bought with new stock issue.
2) Any price inflation is born ONLY by the owners of the corporation who can vote on how much new stock should be issued.
3) Since no borrowing or lending is required then deflation need never occur.
4) Is decentralised.
5) Increases the number of people with a vested interest in the free market.

Even if all gold mining was perfectly conducted, it would still be a waste of human effort. Why? Because government money is backed by force; it needs no other backing. However, it should only be legal tender for government debts (taxes and fees), not private ones.

As for private money supplies, let’s see if gold and usury can survive in a truly free market in money creation. Imo, it can’t, not for long. But let’s see.

Paradoxically, we need government fiat in order to have a truly free market in private money creation. Otherwise, the government would be favouring a particular money or class of monies such as PMs.

As for China and the U.S. dollar, I think it’s a mistake to assume that the dollar will always be the world’s reserve currency. Rick

I assume no such thing. However, if the US will decide to practice genuine capitalism then the demand for both its government and private money supplies should always be strong.

Not so. I read not too long ago about 186 (?) Africans dying of lead in their water supply from a nearby gold mine. Also, the Amazon is being despoiled by mercury used in gold extraction.

I didn’t mean to give the impression that gold would never again be mined. But I was just making the remark that, unlike oil, once it’s mined and being used it doesn’t just disappear into the atmosphere as a gas. And I certainly didn’t mean to imply that all miners would be ethical. But the unethical practices of some people – which always seems to take place regardless – is not a legitimate reason IMO for sticking with fiat money as legal tender.

But if this story you report is true and the mine is the cause, then the mining company has no respect for the property rights of nearby people and it’s government that is sanctioning that and bailing them out of the consequences(?).

Some of the biggest buyers and sellers of gold lately have been governments and central banks. I think this is part your point about the dangers of government having a monopoly on any type of currency, if I understand you correctly.

Also, and IMO, the current gold rush wouldn’t be so dramatic if governments and central banks weren’t so busy debasing the dollar. It’s another example of interventionism leading to unintended consequences.

As for adjusting, the Austrians had better adjust to the fact that they can’t be libertarians and be for government privilege for their favourite money form.

I don’t think all are. I think it’s a mistake to generalize “Austrians” and group Austrian school thinkers into a collective. Once again, IMO, competitive currency is something to discuss.

As for China and the U.S. dollar, I think it’s a mistake to assume that the dollar will always be the world’s reserve currency.

I don’t know what gives Singapore’s money value but what I said with regard to US money is valid. Take the Federal gasoline tax. It is a per gallon tax. It is collected in US dollars. Don’t pay the tax and you don’t get to drive. The tax thus creates demand for US dollars. No dollars = no driving.

Again garbage. Money is money. You don’t have different money supplies, one for the private sector and one for the public sector.

Why not? Because gold and usury can’t survive in a truly free market? But common stock could. It is only paper certificates but has real value based on the assets of the corporation. It requires no borrowing or lending; assets and labor would merely be purchased with new stock issue thus sharing wealth at the same time it is consolidated. Mike Rozeff’s “Wal-Mart Money” also requires no gold.

Money is THE COMMON MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE, by definition.

The government is force and the private sector is voluntary cooperation. How is it morally possible for them to share a single money supply? It isn’t.

You make absolutely no sense (I don’t even know what “genuine capital” is,

Human talent, chiefly. When the US begins to practices genuine (ethical) capitalism then it will attract the finest people in the world.

and I don’t know what the gold standard has to do with fascism).

Like I said, government money is backed by taxation. It needs and should have no other backing since that would privilege some private money form which would be fascism. Government money should be as cheap to produce as possible and still get the job done.