This video, posted on our FB page earlier this afternoon, elicited a record 242 comments within an hour.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/18570/gold-is-completely-unbacked/
Gold is completely unbacked
Previous post: Morgenstern on Pearl Harbor (1947)
Next post: Happy Birthday, Ludwig von Mises
{ 145 comments }
Made me lol.
Me too.
The product of a government school.
Well, she was talking about imaginary gold, or made-up gold. Not the real thing, no – we all know real gold is backed up by gold atoms. No, she was thinking of that gold that is not physical… the ethereal kind.
Ok, ok. She’s an idiot. There.
Wow…just wow.
The un-backed gold thing is idiotic, but she’s right about violence backing USD.
At the risk of being overly charitable I believe she was just trying to say that gold is not legal tender at or near its current spot price. If she had a clue she would have added, parenthetically, that gold itself is backed by stellar nucleosynthesis primarily within type II supernovae.
Who said of the US Dollar – “not worth the paper it’s not printed on”?
Was not the Zimbabwe Dollar also backed up by the power of the Zimbabwe Government to tax?
I remember first hearing it from Gerald Celente.
We had Rhodesian gold pounds back in the day. During the chaos of 1980 Zimbabwe-Rhodesia Independance, these coins were a godsend to many escaping the socialist onslaught, as gold prices peaked across the globe.
I never thought about it this way before. Gold is backed by nothing. The US dollar on the other hand is backed by the US government. The US government is backed by the people of the US, who are backed by the self-evident truths that apply to all people at all times. So what if gold was historical money? It does have not mean that it will remain that way forever. The future preference for exchange tokens could be for that of platinum, or titanium, or for that matter dollar backed by the US government. No telling what the market will go for.
Ah yes, claiming that power = the market. Just because people choose a dollar backed by the US government does not mean that this is a result of the market.
Correct. When they choose to use the currency you approve off, that would mean the result of the market.
When you there is a monopoly, backed by force, on a currency it will crowd out all others. I don’t care if we start trading Pokemon cards. Whatever the market chooses isn’t up to me. Nor do I care. I just want the choice without the threat of violence and theft.
Well the market has chosen fiat currency, so live with it.
it has not chosen voluntarily.unless you think rape is consensual sex.
ad no.platinum and gold are not the same as the US govt.platinum doesnt come with guns pointed at your head
The Us dollar is not forced currency. The US government is a representative government. There is not enough people to hold a gun behind everyone forcing them to use the US dollar. Even if there where, people would not know how much dollars to charge each other. It is the currency of the market. So if you want to participate in the market, you will use it. Otherwise you won’t.
havent you heard of Gresham’s law? and try paying your taxes in non dollar currency.the jail awaits those who mess with the dollar.
the test of something being spontaneous and market based, is if it is coerced or not.the dollar is universally accepted but only because the govt has driven out other currencies by Legal tender laws. that doesnt make it the market’s choice.it is merely the only available choice to those who wish to avoid violence.that is pretty obvious
Have you not heard of currency traders? If the government insists taxes to be in one currency and the market chooses another, currency traders can fill the gap. But the market chose the dollar. As for currencies being ‘driven out’, it is just competition at work. Considering that there is an element of coercion behind every fait currency and the world economy runs on fiat currency, the almost unchallenged preference for the dollar tells a lot.
yes it tells us that the USD is better than the rest of the fiat currencies.it still doesnt tell you it is better than gold or silver.it clearly is not given how gold and silver have performed vs ANY fiat currency .so gold and silver already won in this competitive race.why not legalize them? you can keep your dollars and those who wish to not engage with currency traders can simply follow that ‘self evident truth’ in the constitution -only gold and silver is money.lets not pick and choose what we want from the constitution.
Fine try legalizing gold and silver. All you need to do is convince the voters that it is a good idea. And if you fail, you can try in four more years and if you fail, then four years later and so on, all the while hoping that after the bill is signed into law, some judge does not end up striking it down. In order to win the competition, gold needs to win the hearts and minds of the voters, the judges and the politicians. It is possible I suppose.
uh,what does winning 51% of the voters minds and hearts (not even that given half the people dont vote) have to do with a free market? unless you want to argue that the idea of the US constitution is to prevent a free market from developing,there should nothing to be legalized -do you want to legalize the constitution now?
it is funny how the constitution can be trampled willy nilly but any transgression should be accepted as the ‘will of the people’
Ask Bernard Von Nothaus how many people with guns shut down his operation when he peacefully traded silver coins.
There is no “market”, money is socialized.
It would take far more than winning 51% of voters to bring back gold and silver as money. The US constitution can have several real world implications that a cursory understanding of the document would not seem to indicate. What boils down to is the interpretation assumed at the time. It changes with time as people’s understanding changes. So gold may never come back, or it could come back tomorrow.
Bernhard von Niehaus learned the hard way that creating one’s own currency is considered terrorism by the U.S. government.
“backed by the self-evident truths that apply to all people at all times”. LOL. really? the desire to have a free lunch at all times is a self evident truth?
Self-evident truths mentioned in the declaration of independence. Find out where having a free lunch fits within that framework. I am sure some people will get free lunches.
right.and that is representative democracy?without even considering the faults of the electoral system, it takes a leap of faith to even imagine that we have a representative democracy.yes it represents the well connected lobbyists and the banksters.
No electoral system is perfect, but if you can know about faults and if steps can be taken to fix them, that is as good as it gets. Lobbyists have to use their talents to win the approval of the voters, bankers can’t be rich if they ignore the will of the market. Market players are voters too. So their alliance helps the people. Sure they can stab you in the back, but in four years the politicians are to be judged, while the bankers are being judged every day. One concern I have is that the four year cycle does not effectively accomodate needs and concerns that are more long term. But there are the judges that can weigh in on that. They are not elected and are therefore not subject to the whims of the public. It is not perfect, just the best there is.
” bankers can’t be rich if they ignore the will of the market”. did you completely miss the bailouts of the past few years? . it is hardly the best there is.it is pretty much the easiest route out.your faith in the electoral system is touching
No, I did not miss the bailouts. You think the bankers take to such decisions easily? They know better than us that every dollar they print makes every dollar already printed a bit less worthy. And if currency is worthless, they have no career, no power and no influence. My faith in the electoral system is neither absolute nor reckless. Like Churchill, I think it is pretty bad, except for everything else.
the electoral system is a perversion of the intent of the constitution -a republic first and not merely a voting system. the constitutional republic is far superior to a democracy.it takes eternal vigilance to guard that system and keep it going,but to declare that electoral democracy is the highest supreme doesnt make sense.what is your opinion on Hoppe’s -democracy the god that failed?
The same people that decide how elections are run are the ones that are subject to the results of the elections. They have rigged the system so that only a specifically chosen few are ever able to get elected. Unless you are approved to be elected by the people in power then you have no chance to any major political seat.
Our electoral system has turned into a sham that serves little purpose besides providing a thin veneer of legitimacy over the selfish behavior of people in charge.
Our banking system is effectively a arm of government nowadays. The largest banks have close political ties with politicians and the federal reserve exists for the sole purpose of benefiting large national banks.
Their alliance serves their own purposes for their own means. Whether or not it benefits ‘the people’ is completely incidental, except for the fact that if the people in power want to retain power and gain more money we need to have a at least half-way functional free market to supply them with.
That is the major difference between the Soviets and American governments in the last century. The American despots realized that letting people have a free market would provide the necessary resources to carry out their global ambitions. The Soviets thought political control would be enough, and thus had a poorly performing economy. Economies cannot be centrally managed successfully.
It seems that with the political dominance of America government in the world our rulers have gotten lazy and have decided that consolidating political power is more important then retaining a top-notch economy.
@pravin
Elections have a rightful place within a constitutional republic. I never made an argument for absolute democracy. I never called it supreme. Nevertheless I see no problem in the fact that people are only as free as their understanding permits them. The good news is elections happen regularly.
@nate-m
Power does not exist in vacuum. People empower those that rule and can replace those rulers through elections or revolution. If they think the system is rigged, they will elect those that will unrigg it. If they do not have confidence in the electoral system, they will empower people will make an electoral system that they can be confident about.
Comparing the political freedom in the US to what was in the erstwhile Soviet Union is done by people who have no idea what it is to live in a totalitarian nation. If Yuri Maltsov made the comparison, I will listen. When you make it, I laugh. You just sound like a spoilt brat. In a way I am glad you brough up the USSR. The communists came to power when people exercised their right to revolution and lost it for the same reason. But here in the US, people like you will just whine.
That’s a blatant contradiction.
Most people have no confidence in the electoral system. That is why most people don’t bother with politics and don’t bother to vote. They instinctively know it’s all bullshit and there is nothing they can do about it.
When the electoral system is crooked you can’t use the electoral system to uncrooked it.
Democracy, fundamentally, is a system you cannot place trust in. The advantage to having a limited government is because it limits the damage democratic governments can do. Our government shed it’s limitations over a hundred years ago.
I think Salerno has argued that the current fractional-reserve fed-banking system is in fact, unlike the fractional-reserve banks advocated by freebankers, backed by a guarantee: that of the fed, FDIC, FSLIc, etc, which are the only reason fractional reserve banking today “works”–there are no runs b/c the fed has a “guarantee” to print more money if need be to make it up to everyone. Absent the fed, deposit insurance etc., private fractional-reserve banks could not be insured or guaranteed, which is precisely the reason the IOUs handed out by FRFBs would be more risky than normal money titles and thus could not serve as money substitutes.
To say that something was “backed” by the US Government was to say that they would give you something of value in exchange for it. Long, long ago the paper money of the US could be redeemed for metallic money – gold and silver. Now to say that it is “backed” simply means that the government will use its power to force someone else to accept it.
That is overtly simplistic. First of all I find the notion that using metallic money would result in greater liberty to be dubious. There are several reasons for that. One is that people have been using metal money long before the concept of liberty was understood or appreciated. Then there is fact that the Continental dollars did help when the Revolutionary War that established the freest nation on the planet. Not that it means that it is always a good idea to print money to fight wars, but it can be done. Then there is the fact that US government is legally obligated and does in fact protect liberties better than any other governments. That makes the US economically strong, which makes the dollar an internationally favored currency. The is a just way to use force. The use of force to protect and expand liberties is the good way. When you do you go from strength to strenght, your economic influence spreads, more people are receptive to your ideas, liberty outcomptes other political philosophies. But to pull this off, the citizens need to actively participate in the political process, in order to keep the government just.
Big news! Turns out Bread is completely unbacked! You really think some fat lazy baker is going to ensure that people will accept your Bread as currency? NO! Bread is worthless!
As currency it definitely is.
Wait till the ultimate dollar meltdown. Bread and other food commodities will reach sky high prices and serve as makeshift market money.
I have been hearing it for so long and waiting for it for so long, after a while, it gets old. If it comes everyone will obviously have to deal with it. I’ll leave it there.
eh.how long have you been waiting exactly?
More than 10 years now.
that is a blip in the life of a monetary system.the death of such a system has always been swift and rarely is it a planned implosion.
Right. And here everyone is planning for the implosion. Probably a sign that it is not really going to happen.
well,you are free to hold govt treasuries or equities if you so wish.those holding gold are doing pretty good in the last 10 years. and that turned out to be such a bad deal because?
We where not talking about gold as part of an investment portfolio, but gold as an alternative currency for when the dollar would supposedly collapse.
the gold in the porftfolio is held as a currency and not as an equity like investment.
gold has no cash flows nor does it any have any extraordinary utility like copper or lead or tungsten in the industrial world.those who hold gold are doing it exactly because they know its value as a currency of last resort.and given its success against paper money,collapse or not -it has already won
There is another reason besides the fear of currency collapse to hold gold. The value of goods and services in terms of gold has stayed flat over decades. It is after all a scarce commodity. If you are saving for the long term, your savings is more likely to retain value if it is in gold.
and that is the definition of a currency -prices remaining stable in gold terms.gold investors are buying it as a currency.you just proved my point
I think this fits snugly with my saying:
Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge is misery.
Or perhaps my other saying:
Optimism is born of blissful ignorance. Pessimism is the product of bitter experience.
Either way, the ramblings of such a vacuous comentator can only be seriously considered comedy!
I stole the above saying and posted it on my facebooks. Perfect.
Ugh, how could I have been so confused about GOLD! Glad LvMI could post this video to put me back on the straight and narrow.
Gold is backed by people’s willingness—demonstrated by history and contemporary events—to use it as a medium of exchange.
IF you look it from the standpoint that she is merely reporting what the thinking of the seller is, then she is not really being stupid. The sad fact is that most of the world’s investors do see the dollar as safe because it is backed by the military force of the US Gov’t, and do not see how Gold could be safe without it being backed by the state. We of course know better, but I do not think you can blame the woman for the same ignorance the majority of the population has.
On one hand you claim to accept whatever currency the market chooses. On the other hand the market players choose a currency, you find excuses to reject it. Markets are wisdom of crowds in action. Like Leonard Reed’s ‘I, Pencil’ clearly shows, markets can create things that no one person knows how to make. So what does it mean when the market chooses the US dollar when you think it should pick gold? The market is being smart than any one individual. And here we have many individuals trying to explain it. They can never be as smart as the market. So stop whining, come participate.
participate? well,why not allow competition.you can use dollars while those want to use silver or gold can use them.surely you dont think legal tender laws are also self evident truths?
You are right, I do not consider legal tender laws to be self-evident truths. I it becomes politically expedient, then gold and silver will end up as legal currency once again.
political expediency is not a market test. in electoral pol. you can always count on the support of paul if you promise to rob peter and distribute it to paul. such expediency is the worst aspect of electoral politics.lets not pretend it is sine quo non for declaring what is acceptable and what is not
I agree political expediency is not a market test. But it is a test that effects markets. I do not consider it to be sine quo non for deciding what I find acceptable or not, but I do consider it a sine quo non for deciding what is presently considered acceptable. It is political expediency that put fiat money into its place of prominence today, but that is not why I consider it acceptable. I consider it acceptable because the market has fully embraced it. And we are not talking about any street bazaar, but the largest economic system that the world has ever seen. I cannot just push it aside and say gold is real money and this is not. For all its shortcomings, this is money too. Gold too has shortcomings. Who knows what currencies the competitive process will through out in the future?
Market did not choose fiat money. Legal tender laws force people to use it in some cases and give it advantages in some other cases. As some of the crassest examples, in the US, it was for a while illegal to own gold for monetary purposes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 . Even now, you are forced to do your accounting in the national currencies, pay your taxes in it, banking in national currency receives preferential treatment from the perspective of regulatory fees and taxation and so on.
Markets must have chosen fiat money. Laws form a part of how choices are shaped of course. But that has always been the case for everything at all times.
In that case everything that happens is chosen by market and the phrase loses its meaning, i.e. your argument becomes a meaningless tautology.
Wrong again.
You mistake the market with one type of market, the free market.
Whenever you have multiple humans with traces of cooperation between them, you will have a market. Even in the concentration camps, there was a market, though far from free.
Then there is the “free market”, a rather ideal phenomenon, never really happened before. We all long for it, however, it is also a good reason for some to ignore what is the market in fact.
Not everything, because not everything lies within the scope of market activity. Although other things do not lie within the scope of market activity, it impacts how the markets operate. But the markets also impact how those other things operate. That is why I said, the market chose fiat money in light of the laws passed.
In the market, several other situations could have resulted. A black market could have evolved side by side with the government approve ‘white’ market – a black market with its own currency and accounting standards. The white market will be more rigid, adhering to the rules and regulations, while the black market will operate with the dynamism that is characteristic of market. That did not happen in the US, but you see things like that elsewhere. Black market seems to hard a term, so informal economy is the prefered term.
Check out Dough French’s article on the Turkish Bazaar
http://mises.org/daily/5380
All sorts of currencies are accepted.
Andras,
Meaningless blabber again.
Abhilash,
first of all, you did not address my point. You diverted the argument. I did not say that people can never choose the what to use for exchange, but that they sometimes can’t, and sometimes the government deliberately influences the choices. So your response is methodologically invalid.
Let’s just for simplicity assume it wasn’t and that you’re making a different type of argument. If you are a businessman, legal tender laws typically force you to do your accounting in the national currency, and to pay taxes with it. While it is correct that this does not necessarily mean you need to accept payments in that currency, it does not mean that your choices are unaffected by it either. You need to somehow get the amount of the national currency at least in the amount of the taxes due. If you don’t get it from your customers, you need to get it from somewhere else.
Also, notice that government employees are typically paid in the national currency. Sure, you do not need to sell them anything. That just decreases supply offered to them, so your competitors can charge them higher prices and you get nothing.
The example with the bazaar you brought up actually nicely indicates that the effect is uneven: at a bazaar, the requirements for formal accounting as well as taxation are lax, and you do not need to use the banking system.
The black market you describe is also not an option without opportunity costs. It would arise if the elasticity of demand was low. However, because it is illegal, the prices and interest rates would be higher, and the quality lower. It would only make sense for the average guy if the national currency was really really bad.
No matter how you twist it, the effect of legal tender laws creates a demand for national currencies. Even if we disregard the network effect, you still cannot claim that this has no effect on people who do not want that currency.
A situation where one cannot choose at all is very rare. Even if you are being tortured, for example, you can choose between enduring the pain or submitting to the torturers. A situation where an act of a state on you has no effect on your other decisions is also very rare. So your response fails both as an attempt to define terms as well as a description of economic processes.
Petar, I have never tried to claim that government does not influence decisions that people make. In fact I am arguing that the market’s preference for the fiat dollar arises from such a successful influence. That does not change the fact that it is the currency the market has chosen. That is all I am saying. I am not saying it is right or wrong. But markets fully utilize the wisdom of crowds. So I assume that the choice is sound. Mind you I never said sound for all time.
Abhilash,
As I demonstrated, combining these two claims makes your argument a meaningless tautology because you redefine chosen by market as any decision you make, i.e. everything that happens is a choice of market. It is probably impossible for act of government to restrict your choice completely. Typically you at least have a choice between obeying one one hand, and disobeying and having to deal with the police on the other. Sometimes emigration is an option too.
Can you clarify this? How do you distinguish between a market choice and other choice? If you cannot, what is the point of your argument?
Peter,
The government influenced the market into accepting its currency. It is fiat money, but it is not forced currency. It is like a referee slowly skewing the rules to the benefit of his favorite player. Can you influence the market out of this currency and into gold? If yes, then we are already going for gold and you have nothing to complain about. If not, then the market thinks it is all the more wiser to continue things the way they are for now. You need to accept that or try a different approach. That is my point.
Wow. Just Wow. You have no clue at all, do you?
It’s illegal to use anything but legal tender in a wide variety of ways. They made it illegal for years to even possess gold coins and they still regularly seize gold coins that were suppose to have been destroyed in the 1930′s.
If you try to create your own currency _you_will_go_to_jail_. It’s completely illegal. Federal prosecutors unabashedly accused a guy of terrorism (and successfully convicted him) because he was selling silver coins that expressly stated that they were not legal tender. They just _looked_ like coins.
http://www.fbi.gov/charlotte/press-releases/2011/defendant-convicted-of-minting-his-own-currency
I don’t know what you think you know, but you are obviously so woefully ignorant of what is going on in the USA that you seriously need to reevaluate things and significantly increase the quality of your education.
Fiat money is not only forced currency, it’s core to how our government runs itself. It’s absolutely critical to their continued political ambitions and they will destroy anybody that attempts to avoid or create alternatives their fiat money system.
Abhilash,
you are trying to wiggle out of a contradiction by distraction. You also avoid answering direct questions.
Do you understand the questions or not? If not, what specifically you don’t understand? If yes, why are you not answering them?
Nate-m,
apparently, according to Abhilash, you don’t need to go to jail. You can attack the raiders and either overpower them or be killed. So clearly you have a choice and the result is not forced. That’s the essence of his argument.
@Nate and Peter
Abhilash is saying neither. It is not the fact that you cannot create your own currency that makes me says that the current fiat money is not forced currency. Rather it is the fact that the fait currency is accepted not from the fear of punishment. Now how do I know that? Because money touches the life of each and every individual. There are not enough enforcers to see that each and every one of them is acting in line. People overwhelming accept and use the fiat currency, except for a few fringe elements. It is hardly an unpopular move. And why should it be otherwise? People do not usually object to obeying laws passed by a representative government.
Did you forget which username you were using when you replied to the post?
People obey when they feel that the risk of punishment outweighs the benefits of breaking the law.
Every single person I have ever met in my entire life breaks the law. Often on a regular basis. Sometimes severe felonies. But the government doesn’t give a shit.. it’s not about breaking the law or not breaking the law, it’s about fear and control. Because almost nobody actually can fully obey the law this means that people in the government can pretty much terrorize anybody they feel like at any point.
And because you can sneak around with secret money doesn’t mean that the federal reserve dollar is not forced… It’s forced because they actually use force to enforce it. That is they use violence to make sure that the only currency that can be widely used is the one that benefits them the most.
Why nate, can’t I call myself by my own name? Is that the best you have?
Abhilash,
Which precisely matches my observation: from the fact that in some situations you can make a choice, you deduce that the result is not forced. However, as I explained, such an interpretation matches any human action. Action presupposes that there is a choice to be made. So your argument is meaningless.
I was curious. Sometimes it is meant as a amusement, but often it’s a sign of mental instability or just plan sock puppetry to refer to yourself in the third person.
@Petar
Which precisely matches my observation: from the fact that in some situations you can make a choice, you deduce that the result is not forced. However, as I explained, such an interpretation matches any human action.
Abhilash,
You assert that somehow the situations with force and without force can be distinguished, but never explain how. There is no apparent foundation behind your claims, you just arbitrarily say that situation A is free market decision and situation B isn’t. I already asked you to clarify, but you didn’t respond. This is an indication that you do not actually want to provide an answer: either you don’t have it, or the error you produce is deliberate.
Do you know what a question is?
Peter
Asking me to distinguish situations with force and without force, is like asking me to distinguish night from day. It is obvious except to willfully ignorant. If your sense of understanding does not allow you to determine something this simple, then there is little you are capable of understanding.
“Asking me to distinguish situations with force and without force, is like asking me to distinguish night from day. It is obvious except to willfully ignorant.”
Your metaphor is actually somewhat useful to show the problems of your argument. When is “night” night and when is “day” day? It’s easy enough to say night is dark and day is light, but how dark is dark and how light is light? At exactly which point is it day and at exactly which point is it night?
This of course spawned intermediary points such as evening or morning but even there there is no universally agreeable point to when one is left and the other starts. I may commonly say “good night” at 2 AM, but yet this can be considered morning, for example.
So in the case of force Peter is looking for you to define force. It really isn’t enough for you to say that it’s obvious. I don’t know why you want to avoid this question by saying it’s so simple to everyone to recognize and insulting your opponent’s intellect by virtue of his asking you for clarification of your position.
Abhilash,
The analogy is incomplete, because you omit the context. It would be more fitting if you were making the claim, for example, that during the night people sleep and during the day they don’t. Obviously that’s not true, no matter how you define day and night, some people are awake at any particular time and some people sleep at that same time.
You are not only making the claim that it is possible to distinguish between presence and absence of force, but also the claim that fiat money falls into the second category. So it’s a compound fallacy: you omit a definition, and from this missing definition you derive a conclusion.
What is obvious is that you do not consider logic to be an important element in claims and prefer mysticism and emotions.
Peter Surda is trying to make something simple look complicated to mask his incompetence. The difference between night and day is simple enough for everyone to understand without explanation regardless of when one goes to sleep or wake up. The difference between being forced and not, is also simple enough in this context. So the claim that I omit context is also dubious.
Hence my insistence not to submit to your phony demands. I am not telling that all fiat money is not forced currency. I only claimed that it is largely true in the case of the US dollar. My exact statement went like this, ‘ There are not enough enforcers to see that each and every one of them is acting in line. People overwhelming accept and use the fiat currency, except for a few fringe elements.’
As for mysticism and emotion, I did not touch on those subjects even in a cursory manner. You just pulled those rabbits out of your hat.
Abhilash,
Well then it’s clear now. You’re stupid or a fraud (or both). You don’t have an argument, and will go at great lengths to mask that.
On the contrary, they seep through your posts. Whenever you are in danger of having to clarify your position, you will instead bring up new metaphors or change the topic.
Metapors where used to clarify things. It takes some vivid imagination to interpret it as signs of mysticism. And now name calling, excellent. I am not too upset. I wanted you to understand me. It is obvious that you have understood me from the fact that you are trying to misrepresenting me. One needs to have a proper representation before being able to misrepresent.
Abhilash,
metaphors might be able to help understanding, but they do not represent the actual argument. It looks like the confusion between the validity and meaning of an argument is symptomatic for you.
No, you didn’t. You’re confused yourself, and wanted to pull me into your confusion. Cognitive dissonance prevented you from confronting arguments rationally.
Nevertheless, I’ll bug you some more. Let’s assume that you are right and there is no apriori reason to conclude that the choice of currency is forced. You still need to cope with the empirical problem of currency choices closely mirroring the political boundaries of states. If the fiat currencies won freely, as you portray it, why do they use US dollars in the US, rupees in India, euro in Greece and rand in South Africa? If this is not the result of the governments exercising force against their citizens, what other explanation for this phenomenon do you provide?
The other explanation is too simple. It is the result of people having enough confidence in the economic policies of their representative government to continue using the currencies that they print. Where that is not the case, people quietly move over to another currency or if that is not possible, there is social and political upheaval.
Abhilash,
your explanation is unsatisfactory. It would only be valid if people had at least as much confidence in their own government’s monetary policies as in other government’s policies. Certainly, this might be the case in some countries, but other countries are in shambles and people still use the local currency. And precisely when the inflation risk starts to increase, that’s when the government’s use of force expands to prevent the use of alternative currencies. When the risk is low, the network effects following from the initial use of force (e.g. taxation) are sufficient to prevent significant switching.
There is actually a nice counterexample. In recent years, a lot of Hungarians have taken mortgages from Swiss banks (denominated in Swiss franks) because the interest rates were low. However, the francs started to appreciate against forint, making their loan payments more difficult. So the Hungarians complained to their own government, which started to muse about interfering in the loan exchange rates (i.e. ripping off Swiss banks). I have not followed up the story recently so I don’t know what the current status is (i.e. if they already forced lower loan repayment rates or not). But it clearly refutes both of your claims: that the decisions are the result of the absence of force, and that Hungarians did expect their government to make the monetary policy sounder.
Another example is the countries that joined the Eurozone after the inception of euro. The euro as a commonly usable currency has existed since 2002 and the initial members joined immediately. In the years afterwards, several other countries joined individually. People’s use of currency shaped itself in parallel to the official government’s “move” to the euro. It did not occur earlier, for example when the exchange rates was fixed (historically, this has been about half a year prior to the official switch). After the rate is fixed and the joining date agreed, why don’t people switch before the joining date? According to you, that is because they trust the local government and central bank more than the ECB. But why would the country be then joining the Eurozone if that was the case? Clearly this is a contradiction. Also, after joining, the national currency is dissolved. It’s not legal tender anymore and you can’t open new bank accounts in it, and the only supply changes are deflationary (central bank exchanges them for euros at no/low fees). All the use of force is absent, yet it magically vanishes from circulation. Why Abhilash?
First you say people continue to use their local currency when their economy is in shambles and then you yourself give me an example of people using Swiss franks in Hungary, a point in my favor, the market choosing a currency regardless of what national sovereignty demands the currency to be. It is amazing the verbal gymnastics you go into to try to spin it as a point in your favor.
No contradiction. They use the local currency because they trust their representative government. They switch to Euro because that same government tells them that it is a good idea.
Abhilash,
The choice however was reverted when it became advantageous to advocate for a government to use force. On a free market, the mortgage takers would have to bear the losses, or attempt to persuade their employers to pay them in francs. That contradicts your claim that the choices are not the result of force.
On the contrary: you are making incoherent arguments and are immune to either logic or empirical data.
I clearly showed that even in cases where the monetary and legal tender policy were in disconnect, they followed the legal tender rules rather than the monetary policy. Your argument is again based on imagination and is supported by no empirical evidence or theoretical reasoning.
My point is that they switch at the time when the legal tender laws switch, not when the monetary policy is switched. It also happens regardless of whether the exchange rate is set below or above the market rate. This refutes your claim.
I’m even ignoring more blatant misuses of force such as redenominations that happen during one weekend, that’s a too easy target.
You seem not to appreciate that people are paying different roles, surely their role as a voter needs to be considered. Asking the government to intervene and asking the government to use force are not the same thing. And besides the fact that people are free to make mistakes, is a sign that they are free. Free-people makes free markets.
My claim is this much, “They use the local currency because they trust their representative government. They switch to Euro because that same government tells them that it is a good idea.” The difference between legal tender laws and monetary policy is of no significance for supporting this claim.
Abhilash,
Of course it is. Only governments claim that it’s legitimate for them to violate property rights.
It is not a sign of being free when our errors are compensated by someone else violating other people’s property rights.
The governments do not tell people that it’s a “good idea” to switch the use of currency to Euro at the same time they legal system switches from ERMII to Eurozone. There is simply no record of this. My examples specifically eliminated factors other than the legal system, and showed that the correlation is with the legal system rather than other factors. You nevertheless claim that the legal system is not the reason for the choices. So how would you propose to distinguish those two factors?
You claim that the choices are the result of factors other than legal tender laws, but at the same time claim that the overwhelming correlation over space and time between the results and legal tender laws is irrelevant. Even if I eliminated other factors and showed that they do not correlate with the outcome, you still maintain your position. You did not provide any theoretical framework for this conclusion either. How then do you arrive to that conclusion?
Maybe. However it does not imply from it that every government intervention is an illegitimate use for force.
Ofcourse it is. Free people are telling ‘we are free, others be damned.’ You think libertarians won’t do that, but I hear it all the time. Their property is not ours, so their problem is not ours. They need to fix their own problem, etc., etc., etc., Then Ayn Rand comes along and writes a book called the “Virtue of Selfishness”, the circle is complete. I know she is no libertarian, but she is admired by many. The error here is in believing of course that your freedom exists independent of the capacity of other people to be free.
Nope. Here is me from a few days back.
When you realize that there is a more than significant overlap between the market participants and the voters, you can see why it is fiat currency is not always forced currency. People as voters empower politicians that pass laws that make fiat currency possible. Same people as market participants accept and use the currency that their representatives have introduced.
Abhilash,
The fact that they complained to the government (who generally is inefficient in anything it does) rather than someone else is a strong indication that they wanted what noone else can give while claiming to be legitimate: a violation of other people’s property rights.
What I mean is that those two assumptions contradict each other. Not that people do not attempt to do one or the other depending on the situation. They cannot want them simultaneously though. Freedom does not mean freedom to violate other people’s rights, that’s tyranny.
You’re clearly contradicting yourself then. Either the decision is caused by the use of force or it’s not. You want those two to be valid simultaneously.
I never said that all the cases where people choose currency X is done under the threat of force by of laws. I said that almost everyone is affected by the force of the law in the choice of currency directly to a large extent: in a lot of situations, the choice is forced. You have not disputed this. You argue though that because it does not affect all situations, force is absent, but fail to provide a coherent definition that would allow the distinction.
In face of the overwhelming correlation of currency choice with legal tender laws on one hand and absence of correlation with other factors, you still maintain that there is no such causal link. You do not answer questions, you just try to wiggle out of the problem.
Most importantly though, you miss the core logical problem: why do the legal tender laws exist in the first place? Based on your claims, the laws are the results of voters’ desires. However, if the voters wanted to use the national currency voluntarily, the laws would be redundant. If they are redundant, then you shouldn’t have any objection to eliminating them. If they aren’t, then it is the desire of either the voters or the politicians to force people to use them. There is no way around it.
The problem is you do not appreciate the fact that people can ask the government they vote in, that represents them and is obligated to work for them on their behalf for their well-being to do just that. You think if people appeal to their government, it must be to steal or kill from someone else. This is what happens when you spend too much time in these forums. If there is a government involved there must be something evil and sinister happening somewhere and if there isn’t you will find it, it has to be spun that way.
The pattern has been consistently noted here. If things are wrong, you will find some way to blame the government for it, whether or not the blame is warranted is another question. And if they try to right it, you will find something to complain about that. If they do not try to right it, you will of course complain about that. All this tells me is about what you hate. You unsurprisingly try to arrange the narrative such that what you decided to hate is always seen in the most unfavorable light. It tells more about you than it does about any government.
Abhilash,
I did not claim this. It is merely a strong indication, not a necessity. The reason why it’s strong indication is that if successful in persuading, governments will usually do it for a lower cost to the lobbyist because the costs are transferred to other people who are the target of the government’s violations of rights. If pleading to the government is a cheaper way of achieving one’s goal, there is a strong motivation to use that method.
My conclusions follow from the premises which you do not dispute. They do not require that all the acts of government officials violate rights.
You however ignore that the governments’ use of force has indirect and often also unintended effects. To call these effects “the result of free market” is misleading and brings up the question unanswered by you about the actual definition of force.
If a businessman buys a government certified cash register, for example, that is the result of government force (I don’t know how it’s in your country, but in some countries this is regulated). If he bought an uncertified register, he would be fined. If he didn’t have a cash register and accepted cash payments, he would be fined too. Neither the act of buying an uncertified cash register, nor the act of accepting cash payments from your customer are violating anyone’s rights, so logically the act of fining is the violation of rights. If someone decides to avoid the violation by submitting to the violator, that’s not a result of a free market. You yourself mentioned that the acts of slaves are not the result of a free market, yet you have a soft spot for the effects of government’s use of force.
As I explained, on the theoretical level, my conclusions follow from the premises (which, again, you do not dispute). On empirical level, I provided correlation, which you also did not dispute. You merely disagree with my conclusions, but are unable to point a logical error in them.
Questioning an interpretation as such does not invalidate the argument based on it. It is possible to use different premises and arrive at different conclusions. But you’re not doing that. You’re alleging that there is some sort of logical error in my conclusions, but cannot explain it, and cannot provide alternative framework either.
It is, of course, possible, that the correlations that I showed are merely incidental, and that it is possible to define force in a way that does not match the situation with fiat money use. If you phrased your argument like this, I would not have a problem with it. But you provide an alternative which is incoherent and construct your assumptions to match your conclusions rather than the other way around. When pressed, you provide neither definitions of your premises, nor empirical data to support your conclusion. You only have your ideological bias.
This is probably a conversation for elsewhere. But for the sake of clarity why not spell out the premise that I do not dispute? As for unintended consequences, it is not just the actions of government; everybody’s actions have both intended and unintended consequences. In the case of the government, it is better documented because in the free world, the government is under scrutiny from pretty much everyone.
Abhilash,
- laws in some cases force people to use legal tender
- the choice of fiat currency correlates with the legal restrictions rather than other variables
Please remember that we are talking about force. If non-force has unintended consequences, that’s not relevant for our debate.
What is well documented is that governments have a very poor record of reaching their proclaimed goals.
Agreed
Disagree. No law can be enforced on a people against their will that they are not already willing to follow to some extent. Otherwise, it will just remain in books and have no impact in the real world what so ever. The legal restrictions promoting the use of fiat currency goes hand in hand with the willingness of people to use it.
Really? So if Ben Bernanke sets the interest rate below what is ‘natural’ and there is a housing bubble, that is not relevant? There is hardly any force involved, but there is unintended consequences.
Or it could be that for ideological reasons, that is the only part that come to your attention.
Abhilash,
Your explanation does not dispute the existence of the correlation, therefore your claim that you disagree with it is erroneous. You merely reject the explanation of the causal relationships underlying the correlation. I already addressed that by eliminating correlation with other factors, as well as I asked you to provide empirical data to support your claim, which you didn’t.
(emphasis added). This is one of the core issues your argument. You claim that because the legal restrictions are incomplete, the result is not the outcome of force. But as I elaborated earlier, it is exceedingly rare for a restriction to be complete. If the changes in costs/income are sufficient to change the ranking order of the affected person’s preferences, he will change his behaviour. And I’m still ignoring the network effect and the economies of scale.
This makes no sense. For situations where people who are willing to accept them, they are redundant. For situations where people who are not willing to accept them, they are a use of force. So either they are redundant or they change people’s behaviour by force.
From the point of view of force, it isn’t. What is relevant are the laws regulating money. The housing bubble was merely an instrument piggybacking on the force.
If there were no legal tender laws and other restrictions on the use of money, central banks would eventually become irrelevant and so would Bernanke’s actions.
An analogy would be tax advisors. Tax advisors are the result of tax laws, but they are not force themselves, they are piggybacking on it. But that is an insufficient reason to condemn them, in fact a lot of libertarians welcome them and support people like Irwin Schiff.
There is plenty of evidence that the acts of government do not correspond to the preferences of their voters. Just yesterday poll results were published that over half of the Germans want to return to the Deutsche Mark:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-eurozone-germany-mark-idUSTRE7941M320111005
while simultaneously, their parliament approved the enlargement of EFSF by 523 to 85 vote:
http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_177700/Content/EN/Artikel/__2011/09/2011-09-29-eurorettungsschirm-zweite-dritte-lesung__en.html
This clearly contradicts your “theory”. You have provided nothing to support your claims: no analytic framework, no empirical data.
Wrong. Because Correlation does not mean causation.
Nah. I claim legal restrictions have no force against popular opinion. I am not talking about popular whim that changes with every opinion poll depending on the way the question is asked. I am talking about popular opinion sustained over several election cycles, even generations. The legal restrictions are only a force against the politically and socially insignificant like the criminal elements and of course libertarians.
So laws against murder are redundant? If not why?
First you said ” If non-force has unintended consequences, that’s not relevant for our debate.” Now suddenly it is. No consistency. And of course we have not even gotten to whether the use of force is legitimate.
People support Irwin Schiff because he welcomes tax advisors!!?
I claimed that for ideological reasons only shortcomings of governments come to your attention and you basically said yes by giving your German anecdote.
Abhilash,
That’s what I just said. You do not dispute the correlation, you merely dispute the causation. You are struggling with basic concepts of logic. Furthermore, you provide no alternative, just empty assertions.
That’s an entirely different argument. Even if something ranks at number one in the absence of force, a minor use of force that affects a wide spectrum of people can shift the ranking so that it becomes number two. It looks like I need to invoke the network effect and economies of scale now after all: these will amplify the effect of the initial force.
In other words, you reject empirical data provided by me, but provide none to support your claim.
That’s precisely where the network effect and economies of scale have an advantage: in the long run. Furthermore, the linked article, had you actually read it, claims that this is a long-term trend.
People stick with national currencies for decades, but when the laws switch (and other factors don’t), people switch their choices in a jiffy. According to you, there is some magical influence guiding both. How do we define it? How do we measure it? You don’t say. You just dogmatically declare it.
That does not invalidate anything that I said. Soviet Union did not send the majority of its citizens to gulags (based on the data from Wikipedia, it probably wasn’t even 10%), yet you can hardly claim that other people’s decisions were not affected by this.
I phrased my argument as: if you want to achieve a goal, laws that attempt to achieve this are either redundant or the use of force. You now formulate a completely different argument. Are you familiar with the set theory, or you just have trouble reading or comprehending?
I am baffled how one can come to this conclusion. It has no relationship to my arguments.
Now you introduce yet another topic to the debate.
Irwin Schiff is a tax advisor.
Where I presented evidence and assumptions you do not dispute, you provided nothing. You have been given many opportunities to provide any support for your claims, but the only thing you provided was denial and ignorance.
Wow. That last statement blew me away. That statement actually made me doubt your sanity. You have spent an awful lot of time, days as a matter of fact talking to a guy who provides nothing. If that is the stand you want to take, you are most welcome to. I am glad you actually wrote it down. Apparently nothing means a lot to you. You should try Buddhism. They are big on nothingness.
For the record I did read your response entirely. Not that I cannot deconstruct it. But given your spectacular final statement, I feel no need to. Again for the record, I think you started out with something you felt was substantial, but then went to clinging hard and fast to your dogmas when I started stripping away your reasons one by one. You can challenge that or dispute that. Frankly, I think it is unnecessary. I am only revealing my thoughts for your benefit, I am not trying to convince you of its truth or otherwise. You have lost my respect. So I just do not care.
Abhilash,
if you at any time decide to start participating in a debate, feel free to do so. There are plenty of open points which you can address.
All fiat monies have been introduced by government intervention and prohibition of the competition of other monies.
What market are you talking about?
Not exactly. Forcing currency on to a market is extremely difficult if not impossible. Here is how it works. You introduce your currency to compete with the currency that the market uses. You help regulator of the market so you are already a referee in this game. But with your own money in it, you are also a player. Slowly you skew the rules in your favor and wean the market players off their commodity currency and to your paper currency. Now the market is addicted to your paper. The government is now part of the fabric of the market.
Or should that read “the markets have chosen paper and electronic money over lugging bags of metal weights around because it’s too time-consuming for the modern economy – however high-velocity money is extremely susceptible to corruption”?
Matthew
This is one of those dopey philosophical points that ordinary people do not have a problem with. It is wasteful to indulge this pondering. It becomes pondering for the sake of pondering, rather than pondering for the sake of clarity. There is a reason I am trying not to get too caught up with definitions. Definitions have their usefulness and limitations. I care for definitions only to the extent that it promotes understanding.
I chose the metaphor of night and day deliberately. I am fully aware that the distinction between night and day is not precise although night and day are itself distinct. Nevertheless that lack of razor sharp precision rarely contributes to misunderstanding. There are places where it is not needed.
Remember that the most salient aspect of the market acceptance of paper money is the desire to foist it off on someone else before the music stops. The evidence of the market acceptance of any kind of money is just as much a desire to get rid of it as it is a desire to hold it.
Regards, Don
Whatever money is used, people are eager to hoist it off as long as they can lay their hands on something better.
Does this mean I paid too much for my 18k solid gold Rolex watch? I mean if it’s not backed by anything….darn. Wow, is all I can say about this, wow.
I’ll take that worthless asset off your hands.
If you bought it thinking it was “solid gold” (24 karat), when it was actually only 18 karat (75% gold), then yes, you paid too much!
No money is truly “backed” as I have no guarantee that I’ll ever get what I want for it. The Federal Reserve cannot guarantee a set, pre-determined physical asset or service to be provided to me in exchange for that currency. Such a guarantee is impossible, especially if new units are continually being printed into existence.
This is why gold isn’t backed by anything. Gold IS the money. If I have 5 oz of gold, all I’m entitled to is 5 oz of gold. Nothing more, nothing less. If I have a Federal Reserve Note, all I’m entitled to with that note is the note itself. Only in the case of a physical certificate for some actual, physical asset (gold certificate) is it backed by anything, and even then, it’s backed only by that very specific item in that specific quantity.
The only kind of money I can trust is the one where I have a great deal of assurance that no one is simply producing more of it absent of a valuable service in which to earn it. Printing and buying with newly printed money is not providing a valuable service, it’s just getting free stuff at my expense.
This misses the point. Real money is not backed (except that it has a pre-money commodity value), but money arises because it is useful. Not because it guarantees purchasing power. THe point here is that the current fractioanl reserve system can produce notes that serve as money only because the fed guarantees to provide the money in the depositor’s “account”, even though most of it is lent out and thus at risk; in a non-insured private fractional reserve system, you could not be sure you would get your money back out, since most is lent out and cannot be insured.
Federal Reserve notes are legal tender for retiring debt, public or private.
If I take a Krugerrand 1 oz gold coin in to any pawn broker, I’m sure I can walk out with a loan for several hundred dollars.
That’s not the same as a guarantee. Your Krugerrand isn’t backed by anything since, at no point, are you ever promised anything specific in return for it no matter the situation or market condition. There is a major difference between being a highly reliable currency and being backed.
Reminds me of a “Twilight Zone” episode where robbers and a scientist steal gold bullion. They then hide in an abandoned mine where they are placed in suspended animation for 100 years. When they wake up, the gold is no longer worth anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx16a72j__8&feature=related
Fiat explained in a clear and concise manner. It would be great if this went viral!
Thanks for posting that video, Charlie, That is an effective way to present the issue to those who can’t understand what is going on.
Well I would first like to point out that gold is not money for it no longer plays the role a the common medium of exchange. However, this is not do to market participation. In the 1930′s gold was confiscated by FDR except in large quantities (baically gold coins were taken but gold bars were still allowed to be held privately) and during the Nixon administration gold was officially banned by “executive order” to be used as the common medium of exchange ( with no congressional approval). However, Utah is fighting back by allowing gold to be used as legal tender and other countries are planning to use precious metals once again. However, this too is not the whole story of the gold standard since the government can still fix the weights and measures of the currency thus causing Gersham’s law to take effect (see Rothbard’s “History of Banking in the United States”). In fact even “free coinage” (the stamping of gold by government central bank) can have disastrous effects much like what occurred in the Tulip Bubble in Holland (see Doug E. French’s “Early Speculative Bubbles”). In order to truly test the validity of gold in the market place we must see if “we the people” will choose it as the societal common medium of exchange.
As for the Constitutional Republic we live under, the system has failed to reach its ultimate goal of the Founding Fathers. First, it hasn’t kept factions from attempting to plunder the people (see Federalist no 10 which by the way mentions paper money as an evil). Furthermore, it has not kept the powers of government so separated as to make them limited only to its designed functions listed in Article 1 Sec 8. This is due to the fact that there is no opt out clause for the states since history (the American people) has forgotten that the original document was established by we the people of the United Sates of… (enter state name here *see Articles of Confederation) not we the people of the United State.
Lastly Lysander Spooner’s No Treason No.6 adequately dispels the myth that the Constitution has the consent of the people. Paying taxes is not proof of consent since one is only choosing either to be taxed or forcibly thrown into a dungeon of rapists and murders while the government gets what it wants anyway (the rapists and murders part is my own opinion not Mr. Spooner’s). Next is that voting also does not furnish the consent of the people since voting is 1. done by secret ballot so that the voters do not have to take responsibility for their choice in candidate and 2. by voting one is really only opposing what another person views as good governance and thus seeks to rule over the other and at the same time not be ruled over. Its like in a war where you choose to shoot or be shot. Yes you choose to shoot, but no one ever asked you if you wanted this war imposed upon you by someone else. So no, the people did not choose, only those secret individuals whose agent won an election chooses which way the country is headed. “We the People” only have a true choice in law and economics when we can voluntarily decide (without any compulsion of force) which system we truly wish to live under (see Bruno Leoni’s “Freedom and the Law”).
I’m afraid that this is the “common knowledge” of today. The vast majority of the public will never hear a voice raised in opposition to this. Doomed, doomed, we’re all doomed.
CTV news … LOL
Whenever this network’s national or local news is on, no matter what story they are covering (or inventing), it is usually so mind-bogglingly stupid and trivial that I immediately curse out loud and start hunting around in the sofa cushions for the remote.
Oddly enough the government-owned CBC network is somewhat more daring and truthful than the privately-owned CTV. I believe this is because they are often under attack from right-wing politicians who threaten to cut back on funding or to privatize the network – therefore in order to get the public on their side they must try a little bit harder than CTV to not bore or p_ss off their viewers.
CTV on the other hand is I believe owned by the largest phone company in Canada so it is merely a cog in a powerful cartel consisting of maybe 4 to 5 horizontally- and vertically-integrated media companies. Because of nationalistic ownership rules and other legal hocus-pocus that preserves the cartel, these companies have virtually no fear of any real competition on any front including Internet, telephone, TV (satellite, cable, broadcast), radio and newspapers. Thus the bland, oligopolistic stupidity of the news reporting.
I would say that the fact that gold is “un-backed” by anything actually means that it is better than currency backed by the full faith and violence of the US government. Governments have to force people to take paper money, but people voluntarily (at times even under risk of imprisonment or death) CHOOSE to accept gold or other commodities as payment. Gold is backed by the voluntary choices of billions of people throughout history.
No one needs to force anyone to take government printed money. We take it because everyone else takes it. The US dollar is backed not just by faith in the US government, but by the voluntary choice of billions of people in the PRESENT DAY. You convince enough of them change their mind, you have a competing currency.
We take it because of legal tender laws.
You’d be surprised, most people do not even know legal tender laws exist.
You are wrong. See what is happening in Utah and the obstacle the law faces with respecto to federal laws.
Seemed largely symbolic to me. Any serious move towards commodity money will need its introduction in world financial markets.
Uh…. World financial markets have used commodity money before. Government intervention is the ONLY reason they do not today. The government “convinced” the people to stop using commodity money by making two “serious moves:” confiscating people’s gold, then telling them their dollars no longer represent a claim to gold. It doesn’t sound to me like people would need any convincing whatsoever to move to commodity money if all legal tender laws were abolished and free coinage instituted.
No matter how it sounds to you, political and economic impetus to go back to a gold standard is currently lacking.
ofcourse the impetus is lacking.i am pretty sure you can apply the same logic to slavery. no impetus to abolish it in the 1800s,so lets have it.the mere willingness of zombies to drink somebody’s blood doesnt make them okay.
if you think that your vote counts,either you are trolling or incredibly naive
Actually what is say about slavery is not true. There was always a strong anti-slavery impetus in this country. Except of course in the deep south. Here is the clause that the delegates from Rhode Island and Connecticut removed from the Declaration of Independence
You may also not know that slavery was legal in all 13 colonies at the time, but was being outlawed in all the northern ones soon after. Also the states being formed by free settlers as they expanded westward where not too conducive to the institution of slavery. The people of the Southern States always lived in fear that the US might become a majority free state country. Then a constitutional amendment would take care of things.
The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to mollify them. But eventually it dawned even to them that slavery cannot endure in the nation without complete legal protection. The Missouri Compromise had to be tactfully repealed. A draconian ruling from Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney in the Dred Scott case also seemed to have decided things. Seemed like they had successfully usurped power. Only the free-state constitutions stood in the way. This was when freedom loving people elected Lincoln in.
But you won’t know any of that from here. Southern history is glossed over and white washed. Slander is resorted to restore a false Southern pride. People are being taught to remember a made up past. Those who did this will be held answerable on judgement day and their posterity will look down on them.
freedom loving lincoln?.
ok.i am convinced you are trolling.thanks very much. you win.
@pravin
You know how cartoons are right? The nose is drawn out of proportion to the face, the head is drawn out of proportion to the body..what is left is not a person, just a caricature. The caricature is drawn for the purpose of mockery for the people who like to mock. Except the element of deception in trying to pass it off as scholarly work amongst gullible people like you.
DiLorenzo would like to present himself as a Lincoln scholar presenting hitherto unknown facts about Lincoln. The truth is, Lincon’s controversial decisions where always well known and never concealed. The supposed intellectual gloss is for the benefit of Lincoln haters who want to appear intellectually superior.
The truth is his books on Lincoln are like a cartoon version of events and real Lincoln scholars know that. Now he tries present himself as a banished scholar because ‘the establishment’ can’t take truth. This same trick was used by creationist in the movie ‘Expelled: No Intelligence allowed.’
Free market is a wonderful thing though. You can get all the works of Lincoln for a measly $0.89 and read it yourself and draw your own conclusions if you are capable of that.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0018O9R8I/
There is lot of things about Lincoln that you won’t know from here, no one here will tell you. Because telling what is not so, makes one a liar, but not telling what is so does not. I can only count on your sincerity to yourself to keep yourself informed.
even if dilorenzo is being selective ,it cant be wise to read Lincoln’s own books to be convinced if his actions vs his words hold up. for example, if you read Greenspan’s ‘age of turbulence’ -you would be conned into believing that he was such a free market proponent and all his nonsense about the inability to see a housing bubble because of cheap money.
whatever be the case: legalization of something should never be put to vote.currently marijuana is banned,but really -banning a naturally occuring substance makes no sense to me at all.just because majority of the people have a visceral reaction towards it doesnt mean it has to be criminalized.otherwise it is holding society to the whims of the lowest common denominator.
i cannot accept that elections and votings are the place to decide what is acceptable and what is not. that is purely to be determined in the demonstrated preferences of FREELY acting people.
in india ,people instinctively know that gold is the best way to protect themselves.
even when ‘well educated economists’ come up with schemes like gold-deposit schemes,the ordinary man on the street is wary of such things.
this doesnt prevent people from using the rupee -but everyone wants to go back to grandma’s times when 1 rupee bought them 100 jalebis or whatever
I am not asking you to read Lincoln’s works uncritically. You can for instance read it to understand details that DiLorenzo left out. You are comparing one book Greenspan wrote with the entire works of Lincoln during his life time. Lincoln was targeting different audiences over the course of decades for different reasons. You could read it to understand how the man presented his ideas and think about why he had to present it that way to the people of that time. Here is what I specifically said, “Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions if you are capable of that.” You think Greenspan can you, but DiLorenzo cannot? Lincoln himself could be conning you, that is why you need to think through these things, not just passively accept whatever you read.
LOL! That’s the dumbest comment I’ve ever heard.
The reason why gold fell is very simple. Market participants were expecting more “help” from the FED and were most likely pricing in future increases of the money supply (i.e. QE3) into gold prices. When Bernanke failed to deliver, that monetary stimulus (at least a part of it) was priced out of all assets (including gold).
The fact that she thinks that fiat money is somehow protected by a government which only has the power to devalue said fiat money is a riot!
I know several people who have been charitable enough to help out by accepting other people’s pieces of unbacked gold and in a spirit of tender concern delivering to those poor souls lots and lots of govt backed bits of coloured paper. In a discussion this morning, one of them informed me that he would be taking his acts of charity to new heights over the next few months, getting as much of the unbacked gold out of harms way as possible. He sure doesn’t want believers in the goodness of their govt being left naked- exposed to the cold winds of being stuck with non-govt backed gold. They deserve to have the protection of govt backing. It is their right to have it and it is his mission to see to it that they do, finally, have it. He mentioned that he has been engaged in this charity, sacrificing the security of government backed paper in return for unbacked gold since the late ’90s. He has assisted many, many, many believers in govt in that duration and expects to see them receive exactly what they deserve.
Sione
My mouth is gaping open. I really have nothing to add but that.
LOL! The video can no longer be viewed because of “copyright”.
Yes, can someone summarize please. It would be nice to have a summary anyway for those of us who prefer plain old fashioned ASCII text.
Europeans can still see this modern form of Newspeek here:
http://dailybail.com/home/must-see-gold-stupidity-from-tv-reporter.html
also not to miss: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRJs5yL62BA
Comments on this entry are closed.