Yeah. I was being a bit hyperbolic. But 261.6 million ounces of gold is more than enough. That’s what the Treasury has on hand. Even if this is an outright lie, and they only have 1/10 of that, or even 1/100, it’s enough.
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant an amendment that allowed backing a currency by other metals than “gold and silver”. I hope that we all return to paying attention to the Constitution. That’s an important part of the overall argument.
What else then preciouse metals could be used as currency?
Other metals which have widely recognized value could be combined into a multiple-metal currency unit. Please read my other posts to understand the context.
Yes, about 12.8 billion atoms of gold per dollar [:)] - it would be ridiculous, but it is possible. Though maybe you could encapsulate the gold in some sort of nanotech container (e.g., inside a Buckyball) to make coins without losing it, and the “tiny speck of gold dust” wouldn’t be so ridiculous after all.
But why? Why not have a free market in money? Why not revert to money’s origins as the most commonly accepted means of exchange? If the government must exist, and it must be funded, then it can accept gold, or silver, or gold or silver, or whatever. But I think history shows that a government-controlled or defined currency cannot avoid abuse, debasement, and ultimate destruction.
Good afternoon,
I dont know if this has been offered as a solution yet but, Rothbards book, The Case for the 100% Gold Dollar does show how to convert all the current dollars into gold.
Really? That’s the argument your professor raised against gold as money? What kind of school do you go to?
Gresham’s law. The fact that legal tender is declared equal to gold has driven gold from circulation.
Easy. Warehouse receipts.
I often wonder why these gold conversations turn into there’s only 1 ounce of gold or one dust particle of gold on the planet scenarios. It seems to be more of a phantasy game than anything for mere entertainment.
If it hasn’t been pointed out yet (or even if it has) the fact is this: the amount of gold is pointless. The fact is that the gold is just another commodity which is so commonly held as currency, that it’s priced in relation to other commodities rather than itself because it’s supply is relatively fixed at any given moment in time. Compared to unbacked currencies (tally sticks, wooden nickels, paper bills, and etc) it’s viable on those grounds. Thus, prices will valuate no different than if we used unbacked analogs as the mechanism is the same (but without the perpetual artificial expansion of credit that accompanies unbacked currencies).
I swear people that are anti-gold are downright idiotic in terms of the theory of money that it makes me wonder if they even know what money is in the first place.
They don’t.
The simple answer is, without legal tender laws, the free market would determine the best money system to use. In the absence of the government monopoly on money, the free market in money is guaranteed to serve consumer needs better for everything people look to money to do.
You can hardly use warehouse receipts as cash. How in the world do you pay for the costs?
The cost of what? Please be specific.
It doesn’t work that way.
How much gold is there?
How many dollars are there?
Divide and keep it that way. Use that ratio to define the dollar in terms of gold, and only create more money as more gold comes into either the government’s treasury/mint, or the open market (depending on whether it’s the government or the free market that has the power to coin money).
A warehouse has operational costs. It even tries to make profit. Who is supposed to pay for this while the receipts are exchanged?
So you want to enact monetarist style inflation with a set percentage? I understand it may be difficult to conceptualize that a monetary supply need not expand because the point is to increase its purchasing power, not its overall abundance.