That’s not an example of the gold standard, instead, it’s an example of state-issued money.
Yes.
Thats bogus. Its left over sentiment from the days(late 1800s) when the pro-inflation crowd thought that printing more silver coinage would alleviate “the problem of too little money”.
Trouble with that is there is no such thing as too little money. Any quantity of money is sufficient for it to perform its function as medium of exchange.
Because we, meaning the Austrian economists, are not inflationists.
Any “standard” is about using the force of government to control others, we propose economic freedom.
So the title is the Money Masters, and the ‘solution’ is to have government do X instead of Y?
It seems to me that if the problem are ‘money masters’, the solution is to NOT have someone have the power to control money. If someone, anyone!, gets control over money they’ll abuse it. Even if they wanted to help people they couldn’t because needs are personal so you need a market-place. This is no different for money as it is for hotdogs or pianos.
So watch this instead:
What Is Money?
The purpose of the gold standard is to prevent monetary authorities from suppressing interest rates and inflating. When they create inflation, they push down the price of gold (under a gold standard) to the point where its industrial demand sky rockets. People flood the banks for gold in order to sell it on the commodity market, and this causes bank runs. Furthermore, if international banks inflate, there are international gold flows which restore equilibrium. Thus the gold standard is a cap on monetary interventionism and perpetual inflation. Commodity money is real money which has emerged through voluntary transactions and mutually beneficial exchange–there are self-correcting mechanisms. Fiat money is theft, and it’s used to finance the welfare/warfare state.
It’s simply really, when gold is monetized it belongs to the people. You are free to redeem all of your money substitutes and hold the gold forever. You can roll around in it, melt it down and make a statue of yourself, or whatever. Plus, the government can’t simply print more gold. The video you watched is pure nonsense made by anti-semitic lunatics who don’t know the first thing about economics/banking. None of them ever mention actual economic theory; they just continuously talk about some conspiracy and evil bankers who “are really in control.” When they say “banksters” they really just mean Jews.
Aragon,
Excellent link. I just read the critic and this is exactly what I was looking for. As Griffin points out, the author of Money Masters has great points but then ascertains the wrong solution. This is what astounded me that he proposed yet another fiat currency but rather than the central bankers printing it our trusted politicians would do it and of course they would never be tempted to inflate.
For anyone on this discussion thread I recommend the link below that Aragon presented.
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=meetstill&refpage=issues
This critic concludes my exploration and I appreciate the input of everyone. Once again, the mises forum is a great source for answers.
So the govt can’t tax without a revolt, therefore it borrowed, but in order to borrow, it had to tax so that the bankers could make sure they get paid back.
This makes as much sense as the whole movie.
DD5, who would a central bank rather lend to…a small country with a small gov’t or a big country with a big gov’t? The gov’t can only tax so much, but the bank wants no limits on its loans. For instance, Gov’t takes in 1 million in taxes but spends 1.2 million. This way bank can loan 200k. But if gov’t takes in 5 million in taxes but spends 6 million, bank can loan 1 million. In other words, the bank wanted a bigger gov’t pie to sink it’s teeth into knowing that the gov’t can always outspend in revenues.
Anyway, thanks for the input.
The video has some fascinating history, but it’s highly pro-government. States and banks are two sides of the same coin. The fallacy is that politicians are more trustworthy than bankers because they are somehow “accountable” because of democracy. To see that it doesn’t work that way, spends some time here at mises.org.
?
Central banks don’t choose who to lend to. They are created by the state, for the state. Its job is to monetize government debt and keep interest rates low.
I don’t understand the question. The federal Reserve is part of the government. When it prints money, the government is printing money.
Jack, the FR is a private bank and not part of the U.S. govt. Search the FR topic in mises bookstore and read about it.
Who beats me up when I try to start my own currency?
What will happen to you when you refuse to accept its bank notes?
Who created it? Who appoints its chairman?
How many private companies have their heads appointed by the President and approved by the Senate? How many heads of private businesses have term limits set by law? How many private companies give their profits (not a percent due to taxes, but all of their profits) to the U.S. Treasury? How many heads of private companies are required by law to report their activities to Congress? How many heads of private companies draw salaries from the U.S. Treasury?
Bankers control the government.
The Federal Reserve controls the monetary system, and the Federal Government is there to protect that system.