moda0306 wrote:Now that I think of it, where does the constitution that we have to stay on a gold based currency? It simply states the government has the right to "coin money," does it not?
No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...
(Excerpted from Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1)
The reason they put that into the Constitution was that the states had previously had that power.
The reason they didn't put into the Constitution that the federal government could not make anything else legal tender is that the federal government was explicitly granted powers by the Constitution, and had no power to do anything not granted.
Unfortunately, decisions as to what the federal government can and can't do are made by... employees of the federal government. Thus, it was quite predictable that its powers would grow and grow until eventually they encompass every imaginable power.
And that is where we are today.
Every imaginable power? Really? Aren't we being a little overzealous?
I've said it before, but for all this complaining about theft and coercion, not being recognized as property or a war-monkey by your government alone is worth all the awful taxes, regulations, and even phone record accessing we have today in terms of realizable personal liberty.
The constitution was just some people's idea of how to put firewalls into government to prevent corruption and make sure it only completed the tasks they preferred, but not others. When giving an entity the power to fight a war, you've already crossed a line of coercion so extreme that going on tirades about its ability to be the issuer of a floating medium of exchange seems ridiculous to me.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
I am not sure why I am getting such a vitriolic response. Let's say the US mint issued 1oz gold coin with a face value of $10,000.
*At current market prices would you value it based off its gold content or the nominal value?
*What role would the gold content play in this scenario?
To me its pretty clear. The fiat value of the coin would be higher than the metallic content, so I would see it as a fiat currency that happened to be stamped on gold. The gold content ensures that a counterfeiter would have to spend at least $1,400 trying to create a duplicate.
Last edited by melveyr on Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
everything comes from somewhere and everything goes somewhere
Libertarian666 wrote:
The reason they put that [prohibiting the states from making other things legal tender] into the Constitution was that the states had previously had that power.
The reason they didn't put into the Constitution that the federal government could not make anything else legal tender is that the federal government was explicitly granted powers by the Constitution, and had no power to do anything not granted.
Unfortunately, decisions as to what the federal government can and can't do are made by... employees of the federal government. Thus, it was quite predictable that its powers would grow and grow until eventually they encompass every imaginable power.
And that is where we are today.
Every imaginable power? Really? Aren't we being a little overzealous?
I've said it before, but for all this complaining about theft and coercion, not being recognized as property or a war-monkey by your government alone is worth all the awful taxes, regulations, and even phone record accessing we have today in terms of realizable personal liberty.
The constitution was just some people's idea of how to put firewalls into government to prevent corruption and make sure it only completed the tasks they preferred, but not others. When giving an entity the power to fight a war, you've already crossed a line of coercion so extreme that going on tirades about its ability to be the issuer of a floating medium of exchange seems ridiculous to me.
Ok, perhaps I'm lacking in imagination. Tell me, what powers can you imagine that they haven't seized already?
Are you talking about what the federal government could imaginably get away with if all our armed forces and legal structures simply decided to start committing mass murder/genocide? Or are you talking about the role of the federal government today as it currently exists?
If we're entertaining thoughts about the former, then we have to start thinking outside the box with ANY kind of government, including a "free society," where some quasi-authority could essentially sieze power and kill everyone.
But realistically, there are plenty of things the government doesn't really have teh realistic power to accomplish. I really don't think my neighborhood is going to be round up and executed without a trial, taxed at 100%, or have our babies taken from us. It's not possible in any legal way within our framework.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
doodle wrote:
That is scary that the special assistant to the president for economic policy has no idea how the monetary system works. We might have a captain, but he is blind in both eyes.
One way to look at it, would be the other way around. That is, maybe as a non-insider you don't have all the information available which lets you evaluate how the monetary system really works.
melveyr wrote:
Historically, many of the previous monies that were issued were effectively fiat money that happened to be stamped on to gold. The gold was basically an extra step in the currencies' counterfeit prevention process, not the driver of their value.
That is 100% ignorant of monetary history. You are simply making sh*t up.
Most of the names for money in languages of the world were derived from commodities, or the measurements of those commodities!
AgAu,
I know you'd like to imagine folks of the past as some kind of monetary warriors...
Your comment had nothing to do with mine. Please do not take my comments out of context like that.
Definitely not making it up. You can read more about the history of money in this book:
...
I am not sure why I am getting such a vitriolic response.
Because you are making this stuff up:
The gold was basically an extra step in the currencies' counterfeit prevention process, not the driver of their value.
Money evolved from gold and silver. The gold was not at all or in any way related to "an extra step blah, blah, blah." Money is named after gold and silver. Those are the historical facts. Not some modern mythological reinterpretation about counterfeit protection.
If you say your cited book says otherwise, it is wrong or you are wrong. But given it is about "understanding modern money" I wouldn't expect it to be accurate re. history.
melveyr wrote:
To me its pretty clear. The fiat value of the coin would be higher than the metallic content, so I would see it as a fiat currency that happened to be stamped on gold. The gold content ensures that a counterfeiter would have to spend at least $1,400 trying to create a duplicate.
That difference in value sometimes existed and sometimes did not. When gov't does it, that premium is called seignorage and similar markup existed before and without governments making money.
It still exists today when a mint manufactures silver or gold bars, rounds, etc. The more popular the mint, the greater the difference. Anti-counterfeiting has nothing to do with it whether it is a private or government mint.
moda0306 wrote:
Are you talking about what the federal government could imaginably get away with if all our armed forces and legal structures simply decided to start committing mass murder/genocide?
What do you mean "if [they] simply decided" ?? The decision is done. Those actions have been and continue to be taken. They are not even attempting to keep it secret!
AgAuMoney wrote:
That is 100% ignorant of monetary history. You are simply making sh*t up.
Most of the names for money in languages of the world were derived from commodities, or the measurements of those commodities!
AgAu,
I know you'd like to imagine folks of the past as some kind of monetary warriors...
Your comment had nothing to do with mine. Please do not take my comments out of context like that.
You were saying melveyr was full of shit saying gold was as much a government construct of money as anything else.
I was disagreeing.
How did I take you ou of context? Sorry to offend. My initial inlet to my post was a bit of sarcasm, but it's in your call sign!!
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
JonathanH wrote:
It certainly does feel like that at times!
Definitely not making it up. You can read more about the history of money in this book:
...
I am not sure why I am getting such a vitriolic response.
Because you are making this stuff up:
The gold was basically an extra step in the currencies' counterfeit prevention process, not the driver of their value.
Money evolved from gold and silver. The gold was not at all or in any way related to "an extra step blah, blah, blah." Money is named after gold and silver. Those are the historical facts. Not some modern mythological reinterpretation about counterfeit protection.
If you say your cited book says otherwise, it is wrong or you are wrong. But given it is about "understanding modern money" I wouldn't expect it to be accurate re. history.
Money didn't evolve from gold and silver. Money evolved from barter, ious, and pelts/salt/etc.
Once again, I wish I had the time right now to provide links.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
moda0306 wrote:
Are you talking about what the federal government could imaginably get away with if all our armed forces and legal structures simply decided to start committing mass murder/genocide?
What do you mean "if [they] simply decided" ?? The decision is done. Those actions have been and continue to be taken. They are not even attempting to keep it secret!
AgAu,
Am I reading correctly that you're suggesting we are living under mass murder and genocide by our federal government?
I'm sorry but I can't really interpret our conditions as such.
Maybe once the death panels kick in in 2014?
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
