Transitioning to a Gold Standard from the Fiat paper standard.

Economics Economics Questions
1

Hello all,

I was on a political forum and posting in a libertarian thread, and got into a debate about the gold-standard. Although I could articulate the pros of the gold-standard and the cons of the fiat paper quite well, I was pinned down and left wondering how someone more knowledgable in the Austrian school would argue the question [I am about to ask you all]. Given the rest of the world has central banks and fiat currency, how could the United States go about switching to a gold standard smoothly. What would the general process be. I assumed a gold-backed dollar would have to be issued along with the fiat currency to create a “transition period” to a full gold standard. My “opponent” then said:
“Then the value of the money with respect to gold that can be traded for it will go down with each loan, making the whole purpose (to stop inflation) pointless.”
I was told interest rates would have to be locked in order to accomplish the transition, albeit I didn’t really understand why. I was then told the static interest rate could be a problem if “the economy goes south” - which would lead to a decrease in new loans being made.

I watched a debate between Ron Paul and Charles Partee on youtube, hoping to hear some answers to this question from Paul, but he didn’t really mention how the gold standard for money would be put in place. Any help explaining the process, risks, and all, would be appreciated.

Sorry if a question similar to this has been asked already.

-Drew

2

The transition from gold to fiat was accomplished via legal tender laws. In 1933, President Roosevelt confiscated the gold and demanded people use unbacked paper instead.

The transition from fiat to gold is easily accomplished by repealing all the taxes and regulations that prevent people from using gold and silver as money. This is the functional equivalent of a default on the dollar, because nobody would use paper as money when they could use gold or silver instead. The bad guys will never allow this to happen.

3

Repealing various laws and regulations all at once isn’t realistic though, we have a political process that is slow and agonizing. Repealing a few at a time could presumably create many problems given the system we are in (just look at what minimum wage laws did in the early 20th century). I guess I’d expect a lot of economic difficulties by making the switch. Even Jackson’s battle with the second bank of the US had plenty of problems. Can anyone offer a more thorough analysis of the process?

4

Why not go with the civil disobedience route? Ignore all the stupid laws and regulations that prevent you from using gold and silver as money.

Pursuing reform via purely legal means is practically pointless. Are you going to wait 2-4 years for the next election and twiddle your thumbs in the meantime? Do you think your Congressmen cares if you write him to complain?

People have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Plenty of people have complained about the IRS and Federal Reserve. What happens when you petition for redress of grievances, and the response is “Go **** yourself!”? Then what do you do?

5

The civil disobedience route is even less realistic. Maybe 5% of the US population would be willing to do such a thing, and this is a generous estimate. So is there no real way to accomplish a gold standard through some sort of legal process? That is what I’m getting out of this thread:-p

If someone can at least point me in the direction of some literature on this subject (transition to a gold standard from fiat) that would be great. I’m sure there is a book or article on the subject somewhere on here, I just am having trouble finding it.

Thanks.

6

The only way to make the transition from fiat to a gold standard is via complete economic collapse. The bad guys who control the printing presses won’t voluntarily give up their power.

Suppose I practice civil disobediance and avoid capture by the State. I’m protecting my saving from inflation, while everyone else is getting ripped off. Even if I don’t hurt the bad guys, I’m protecting myself!

Don’t underestimate the power of 5%. According to some sources, the original American revolution was backed by 3% of the population. The vast majority of the people didn’t care one way or the other.

7

Thanks, this is the sort of answer I was looking for. Given our current economic outlook, this seems more realistic than the political process indeed[:D]

Cheers.

8

I believe that Hazlitt detailed the steps in one of his works, though I am not home at the moment and cannot repeat his words exactly, the following is to the best of my memory his suggestion for the transition.

  1. The announcement of the US moving to a gold standard

  2. The elimination of the federal deficit

  3. The raising of interest rates

  4. The next year is a gold bullion standard

  5. The following year is now a return to a pure gold coin standard

A Supreme Court case could actually repeal any of the New Deal and post-FDR legal tender laws considering they are all in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was originally written with, and still retains legal tender laws stating that gold and silver shall be legal tender for all debts public and private. Thus any federal statutes stating that a piece of paper not backed by gold or silver are unconstitutional.

9

Great, I’ll try and search through some of his works on this website to see if I can’t find such information. If, at some time when it is convenient for you, you could find what piece of literature it was, that would be quite helpful. If I find it myself I will post where it is. Thanks.

-Drew

10

I’ve always thought that the only way to bring us back to the gold standard was through government legislations, which is possible but very hard to do with the kind of governemnt we have right now. Ron Paul ran for president with the intention to bring us back to the Gold standard, but I believe his main purpose in running for president was to promote and educate people about liberty, which he has already accomplished. That’s why Ron Paul need help from people like us to continue the great job he’s been doing. In my opinion, Ron Paul wouldn’t be able to bring us back to the GOLD STANDARD even if he became the president, but he would have defintley woken up a lot of people about the truth in liberty.

So I wouldn’t say that CIVIL DISOBIDIENCE to promote liberty is less realistic because that is a sign that people are waking up. If you really want us to go back to the GOLD STANDARD, then do yor part in promoting liberty!!

Lewrockwell wote an article on " what should freedom lovers do?"

11

I think I have found the Hazlitt piece to which you were referring. “What You Should Know About Inflation”
The link is here:

The “minimum reforms needed” section that begins on page 59 (65/158 on the pdf) is the area I think you were speaking of.
.

And to the post above me (Peter Griffin)

Yeah, the Ron Paul presidency I was all for. I am a very enthusiastic supporter at that. And civil disobedience is something I take part in, but only to a marginal exetent. I’m not going stop paying taxes to the IRS, for example. Given the system we are in, that is just begging to go to jail. I will, however, be a strong critic of the military establishment, the military industrial complex, and military keynesianism.

Unless you have a president, like Paul, who would pardon people for not paying the IRS, you can’t really stop paying taxes. I’ll wait for the economic collape, then jump on board with civil disobedience when it is more socially acceptable.

Cheers.

12

Maybe 5% of the US population would be willing to do such a thing, and this is a generous estimate

Can you direct me to your sources for how they arrived at this figure that only 5% of the US population would be willing to do such a thing, and what critera was used in drawing the conclusion, and finally, in what respect it is considered a generous estimate? Thanks.

Just to add this: debating and discussions on the ways and means of motivating the government to agree to destroy that which it uses to feed is 100% pointless. The sources I used to arrive at this calculation can be summed up in two easy words: COMMON SENSE. Plus, there are mountains upon mountains of credible, valid evidence that this would be the case, based on a history of it being the case. Voting for this or that representative will never ever change anything because even the few politicians who manage to slip inside the belly of the beast are still completely surrounded, thwarted by the operatives of that beast that is only serving its own interest at the expense, not just of the American people but at this stage of the game - and especially with this particular makeup of government on all levels, at the expense of the human race.

Protesting is not effective. Requests are denied. Demands are ignored. Emails are dismissed. Phone calls are rerouted. Even lawsuits will meet their deaths against a court system designed only to serve the master. The reality is that ALL of these channels are futile and will not work, things have gotten too far out of control and it’s entirely too big to even get a handle on.

It’s pretty clear that while it might sound appealing in theory, in application nobody is seriously going to provoke an all out murderous assault on this entity. Those who would jump out with sporadic revolts and riots might get some attention but ultimately it would not make a dent. If anything, the isolated events would cause the beast to swell, spewing out more of its BS laws that the general population will deal with.

There is no way on this planet that the federal government will EVER allow - as long as it breathes - any competition in currency because it knows, as we all know, it would lose in 0.1 second…thus any and every possible method that involved in any possible respect, asking, requesting, demanding, seeking permission, authority, ability, granting, any sort of measure for it to 1. change how it works or 2. to not abuse the people DO NOT AND WILL NOT WORK AND NOTHING WILL CHANGE THAT EVER. If you’re involved in any measure containing that criteria you are wasting your time and you will fail.

So we’re back to the definition of insanity doing all this over and over and over and each time expecting a different result.

Only solutions left:

  1. We just wait and wait and wait and wait, until we can manage to install a full Libertarian body of government that will, upon its creation, implode so that there is no longer any government - which won’t happen and we all know it won’t happen.

  2. We just wait until all these old goobers die off - 20 years, this whole body will be either dead and gone or dying slowly, and then attempt 1.

  3. Massive violent revolution where the majority of those guilty are eliminated by brute force, causing the rest to resign immediately - which is still a giant potential tripwire when they push one law too far trapping the people into a cage of impossible compliance.

  4. When some such event triggers the predicted economic collapse and the demise of the dollar - provided that when the fedgov attempts to corral the people by promising to install a brand new currency called an Amero, backed by nada, the people have had enough and refuse, instead of thinking the fegov fixed it in the end and saved the day

  5. Gradual build up and promotion of private currency chosen by communities and established off the radar until the numbers are great enough the people will absolutely refuse to change back, which could help spark 4, protected by 3.

  6. Just deal with it and accept our fate, continuing to follow fedgov into our enslavement and doom.

  7. Move to another country that isn’t linked in directly to the USD and whose own economy won’t be affected by its collapse.

The only reasonable alternatives available are the ones that are pretty cut and dry to most lucid people, and they each can be considered civil disobedience. The others are bound by spinelessness and fear, negativity and a cowardly refusal to take responsibility for your future, your own interests, that of your own family and friends, the community in which you live, and the country as a whole.

Those who would not choose civil disobedience as a reasonable alternative at this stage of the game - as it FACTUALLY has become - are

  1. children

  2. the mentally disabled

  3. the elderly dependent

  4. the shallow clueless who know more about Britney’s kids’ names than what’s going on outside their nearest mall, and who only parrot off what they hear to sound cool and informed but when things come to push, their inevitable response is: DUDEZ!!! Watz upppp, why do u even worry about dis sheez maain anywayz, nuttin u can do so y r u gitt en so wound up? Juss take a bong hit and mellow. Bush Rulez!

  5. those who are interested but still lack the education and information necessary to form a solid position either way, who don’t understand the problem

  6. the traitors who deliberately cause confusion and fear mongering to scare, what I presume are those in 3, 4, and 5 into staying dependent and clueless, and uneducated as to the reality of the FACTUAL state of things.

We would be fighting for those in 1,2, and 3 regardless and not faulting them for their inability to assist and join. We would continue using various means to educate groups 4 and 5…and countering and exposing those in group 6. So really, the only real numbers in support of a government beast ruling us all with BS money would be those in 4, and those ones aren’t even plugged in enough to do the dirty work - they’re so utterly focused on shallow idiotic pursuits they’re not a threat either way to anybody - and are unlikely over 18, and if they are, then they fall in group 2.

So it’s those left in group 5, which consist of genuinely reasonable people who are genuinely looking to get a full, lucid, correct picture and an array of options, who will almost assuredly come to the obvious conclusion. I’m gonna wager that the real numbers who are willing to bust out with civil disobedience would instead be about 95% of the population…and half of those are already actively doing it in their own ways. It’s harder to reach a majority out there without some very specific, focused option they can all adopt at once. Many people all over adopting it happens every day.

13

I already answered your question of where I got my sources with the word “maybe”. I was clearly making a ball park estimate, so asking for some scholarly source is a strange way to start your reply. But 5% of the population being in favor of civil disobedience to bring about the gold standard seems reasonable, and, as I said before, probably a generous estimate. I’ll just use your logic to justify my own reasoning: " The sources I used to arrive at this calculation can be summed up in two easy words: COMMON SENSE."

I’m only going to respond to some of your numbered responses, as many of them go really off topic, leading me to wonder why you even posted.

  1. your wait wait wait idea is a complete contradiction of what you were saying above the numbers… even if number 2 was fulfilled (which I will adress just below)

  2. “Old goobers” aren’t the only people that disagree with the ideals of moving to a gold standard. Be realistic.

  3. Guilty of what? What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the thread?

  4. The Amero… so are you agreeing with what I said then? That an economic collapse would be the time for change, if we expect any?

You actually think 95% of people are in favor of a gold standard for the economy, and half of those people are practicing civil disobedience to do so as we speak? I think I’ll stop arguing with you right now… this isn’t an argument really. This is ridiculous.

Did you even read through the thread before typing up your message? We were talking about civil disobedience to affect an economic change to a gold standard. We are not talking about any general form of civil disobedience, which must be what your thinking.

Of course the vast majority of people practice civil disobedience in some form or another against some policy the government stands for. That is, again, common sense.

Cheers.

14

Was not [:P]

Okay let’s try to just break it down to the bottom line. It’s clear that fedgov doesn’t work. It’s also clear that fedgov isn’t ever going to allow its own demise - which would effectively happen should the people opt for a gold standard over FRNs. It is also clear that due to the 2nd fact, that fedgov will immediately begin outlawing anything that threatens it.

Solution 1:

We need a revolution! Yay! Let us petition the government to beg its permission to let us have a revolution on some such level to make it go away and to be granted by the government the power to choose what we want! And we don’t want to be unruly or anything, so let’s not break any laws in the process of our revolution to make real change and get what we want - with the government’s approval, of course.

Solution 2:

Have a revolution and be willing to break the laws as necessary, without asking permission, and choose to think for yourself and make your own choices regardless of what the government thinks you need to do, including being willing to confront the criminal enforcement they would impose to keep you from doing that very thing.

Solution 3:

Go watch the Simpsons

15

You should not treat the government as if it were a person. “Government” is an abstract fictional entity. Corporations are an abstract fictional entity. Saying “I have a dispute with the government.” is as silly as saying “I have a dispute with Santa Claus.”

Your actual enemies are the people who use force to impose their will on you, and the politicians/judges/lawyers/media/bureaucrats who use lies and trickery to make the violence seem legitimate.

Who is more evil? The policeman who kidnaps/arrests you to enforce an illegitimate law, or the politicians and lawyers who make that law seem legitimate? If politicians and judges didn’t have policemen blindly obeying their orders, then they would just be irrelevant paper-pushers.

16

In Rothbard’s “The Case Against the Fed” (which I currently have loaned out, so I can’t give specific page references), he proposes that if the US Gov had the political will (which, MsPatriot, I acknowledge they do not), the total outstanding stock of real dollars (the paper kind that were issued, not the credit created by fractional reserve banking) divided by the amount of gold ounces the Federal Reserve claims on their books they have in storage amounts to a ratio of 1555 federal reserve notes per ounce of gold.

His proposal (please forgive my paraphrasing, I think the main gist is correct) is to immediately dismantle the Fed and sieze the gold assets to distribute to the depositor banks who have deposits at the Fed. Use gold as the currency, with an immediate exchange rate of $1555 FRN to one ounce. Make future fractional reserve loans illegal. Give the depositors at the normal banks (you and me) their money in the form of gold.

I do not recall how he proposed to deal with the problems inherent in unwinding the existing loans funded by fractional reserve banking.

I am personally afraid that only an underground economy or a violent revolution will ever affect the status quo. I am doing my best to prepare for either.

17

I do not belive that this is as hard as it appears. The Fed must simply stop creating money. Then the nation is on a gold standard of sorts. This is of course the hardest step as the Government/Financial Industry/Regulation machine will fight this with deadly force if necessary. Once the creation of new money stops then it is an easy step to withdraw the monopoly currency laws as they will not matter anyway. Once the government loses its monopoly on the currency then it is all over and good wins.

I don’t believe that this is likely as the Fed will not stop inflating for anybody. The Fed after 1979 when inflation was in the high teens of percent the Fed after less than a decade forgot this and we on increasing the money supply.

18

FSK -

I understand the semantics, but the same use and context is found all over this forum and scores of others. The government in whatever subject matter it is used is presumed to have an inherent understanding that it refers to any and all of the individual parts involved in the subject matter. If there are 35 crooked cops out of a 45 unit department, I would probably refer to the entire department as corrupt, as it is clear the ones remaining are either too inept or too scared or too stupid to do much to change the fact.

Now here’s my question using cops. If your town had 1 PD, and over half of those cops refused to do their job - everything from patrolling traffic to following up burglaries, to domestic violence to drug running to homicide to child abuse to employee fraud and whatever else - no matter how many times you called in for police assistance nobody showed up, or you got a form letter, and you’ve called, protested, demanded, begged, and all this other stuff to make the police department (which implies each individual part), and instead they are caught extorting money from the public and each other, they’re involved in overwhelming numbers of crimes, and the one thing that gives them this power is that they’re controlling everyone’s use and possession of money…and asking them if they would - or even telling them they better - start letting you use this other currency, or to stop using what they use (which will implode them) is nonsensical outside theoretics. And even then it’s not real bright. Mostly amounts to debating whether Spideman is a better kisser than Batman.

At what point do these things happen:

  1. The people get fed up and launch vigilante justice, start handling their own business their own way…if Joe shoots Sue in a domestic matter, Sue’s brothers just go handle Joe and hide the body. However it’s handled, fairly or otherwise, the people take an underground off the grid covert approach to handling matters of justice by people who WILL do it. If Joe happens to be a deputy, OH WELL, that’s the risk Joe chose to take.

  2. The people get fed up and start sniping off the police department (implicit of the indiivdual units involved) which would very likely include those who weren’t actively corrupt but whose silence and refusal to stop it makes them just as guilty in a just principle exectution.

  3. The people establish their own currency, defund the police department and are prepared to break any law that crops up to destroy the PD.

These are the only real alternatives short of calling in outside foreign forces, which you know would never happen anymore than Santa showing up to help.

What seems to be happening now is illusory, it’s the part where during the futile protests, you by chance get an opportunity to make an alliance with one of those who keep silent or refuse to stop it, and they privately tell you they know but don’t know what to do or it’s too big, and there might be a few others who agree…so this sounds like hope but the end result is a lot of the public get connected with the minority who STILL DO NOTHING AND AREN’T GOING TO DO ANYTHING EVER, so it’s wasting time. At some point down the road you’re all right back where you’ve begun, having exhausted all other means…which is where people are here and now…still trying to presuade a few freedom minded politicians to do something it is impossible for them to do, because “the government” in its entirety of every individiual unit bound and determined to prevent it even by violent bloodshed, will prevent it.

Believing the Fed should stop printing money is a correct solution for what can only be a theoretical problem. But it is irrelevant whatsoever to the actual material factual reality problem - that the fed just isn’t…period, anymore than tomorrow at noon you’re going to jump off your house and fly to the moon. In theory we could come up with scores of easy bake solutions on how to do that, but at some point we will find something else to do. If we can vote X amount of people in, is good in theory. It’s still irrelevant in the factual reality of the situation.

Either we ignore their laws, disavow them on the whole, which will just require/demand by definition breaking laws, vigilante justice, civil disobedience, brut force protection, and general lawlessness against their book of rules, which would be revolution (which by definition does not include asking the permission of the ones being revolted against), or we kill the guilty ones…which nobody wants to do, but that would probably end up happening in a revolt, so whether you “go to prison” or not becomes entirely moot…the question becomes more, are you even capable of taking another life that is threatening to take away yours - nevermind the ways and means?

If you seriously say no, because it goes against your beliefs of freedom for all men and you’re actually putting THAT GUY’s right to freedom over your own, you’re pretty useless overall, and the real reason is probably you’re just a coward and scared somebody will hurt you.

You=general, not anyone specific, or specifally FSK

I know this is about return of the gold standard but that supposes that the compliance is possible, and I just went to the reality of the situation, because in fact - not theory - even asking this question is irrelevant unless it was simply for casual discussion of theory of economics. If that was the case, then I apologize and won’t disrupt the topic - I just took it seriously.

19

I’ve seen two different attitudes on the subject of corrupt policeman.

One says “If you wear the colors, you’re part of the gang.” If one policeman does a bad thing, they’re all responsible.

Another philosophy says “You’re individually responsible for what you do.” It’s possible to have some policemen that are sincerely doing their best and some that are totally corrupt.

Suppose a judge ordered police to arrest me for not paying taxes. There are few or zero policemen who would disobey that illegitimate order. There are zero policemen who would agree to defend me from other policemen trying to enforce that illegitimate order.

Currently, I have no police protection at all, because nobody can protect me from police trying to enforce illegitimate laws.

You don’t need monopolistic State police to enforce obvious crime, such as theft and murder. Almost everyone agrees they are crimes, so you don’t need a State to enforce these laws. The problem with government is the subtle crimes it encourages, such as a ban on marijuana, the requirement to have a license to work as a doctor, taxes/stealing, or an unsound monetary system.

I prefer the tax resistance strategy. If you don’t pay taxes, then there’s no funding for corrupt policemen.

A hundred years ago, some anarchists adopted a strategy of assassinating State employees. That didn’t work. In the eyes of most people, that created sympathy for the State. Besides, if one State employee dies then someone else just takes their place. By the time this becomes a viable strategy, the bad guys will have already lost.

I can’t see any strategy that would work better than civil disobedience. You should boycott taxes, use sound money, and avoid the stupid regulations that discourage free trade. Cooking and selling food without a State licensed oven is a crime. If you want to start a legal business, you have to incorporate and do proper accounting; either you hire a lawyer and accountant or do it yourself. Regulations are a huge restriction on the market. If you pay taxes, then part of the profits are used to subsidize your larger competitors.

I haven’t put my free market theory into practice yet, but I plan to do so in the next few years. Right now, I’m spending more effort raising awareness. I’m pretty convinced agorism is the right strategy, but the only way to be sure is to conduct an experiment. If you know people willing to experiment with free markets, go ahead and do it and let me know how it goes.

20

I have to agree there.

Just a note on the good cops - that’s all well and fine but of those good ones who do nothing, they are allowing the bad stuff to grow. That makes them guilty of aiding and abetting really, or even of negligence…and when the oppression gets so bad for the ones victimized, even the good cops would be targets for that reason. Add to this that all cops act in a just manner in some circumstances - even during corruption (of the law, whether the law is right or wrong), such as a friend of ours for years became a deputy sheriff…we’ve known him since he was 19…he’s mid/later 30s now. He’s fundamentally a good person, he doesn’t victimize people and he does his damndest to remain within the bounds of the same laws he enforces. Because he’s our friend before he’s a cop, if some other person had an agenda against cops and started sniping them off, and killed him - it’s my friend being killed and we’d probably want retaliation on some level - justified or not. But by the same token, everyone we know practically smokes or deals pot. He is well aware of this circle that had been his friends long before he put on a badge. He has chosen in this case to look the other way and not set them up or bust them. He has even been present as the same friends were getting high and disregarded it, because he personally does not feel this is a just law.

Nevertheless, technically he is breaking the laws he would enforce on strangers, and that is corrupt on its face. It’s subjective. On a personal level I appreciate his measure of handling it, since none of us want to see any of our friends go to prison…but as an approach to solving the problem, it not only doesn’t work, it will one day backfire and cause more destruction. One solution would be that he uses the same approach to strangers alike and simply refuse to enforce a law he feels is unjust on its face…and given his rank, he could very easily take the approach with the sheriff - who would be close to him as we are to have a rational conversation and come to an agreement to refuse to enforce laws that are unjust on their face…and instruct the rest of the departments to do so.

Unfortunately, he is still a cop, still has a cop’s mentality and is still caught up in the reality the entire issue of laws and government restriction would prevent them from pulling it off without major repercussions from the federal level - as the entire department and any others could easily be demonized…and the cycle continues!