Freedomain Radio

in
Latest post Sat, Feb 20 2010 9:35 AM by iGolder. 25 replies.
Page 1 of 2 (26 items) 1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 9:17 AM

    Commodity money is not the answer

    Commodity money is not the answer...Or at least the whole answer.

    As a libertarian I have always thought gold or a commodity based money was our answer.  As I have dived into the issue, I still think that commodity money is part of the answer as a 'storer' of value or measurement of value, however, I think commodity money is not a good solution for transaction...or most the transactions we use in the economy.

    Today most of our money supply is credit.  There is nothing wrong with credit money (i.e. I owe you 3 hours of labor) other than today credit creation is a monopoly [and thus was not subject to market limitations].  What is needed today is to empower people to create and trade their own credit rather than trading the credit as monopolized by the Federal Reserve.

    In other words we need 2 types of money: one to store wealth and one to transact business (credit).  Transactional money should increase and decrease based on the market, nothing else.

    I think these are some of the best videos on money I have ever seen.  " Money as debt"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kpSbkaD4tM&NR=1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sanOXoWl0kc&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTv1fo6sKmo&NR=1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qicabStQkc&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kpSbkaD4tM&NR=1

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 11:16 AM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    I think you might be a little confused. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you...

    Credit is money that is lent out (a debt being incurred to the lender on the part of the borrower), which is not necessarily separate from commodity money. Commodity money does not necessarily imply that people will be carrying around gold and silver in their pockets.

    In a free-banking system, most currencies would likely be backed by gold, silver, or perhaps even agriculture (i.e. grain stores). These widely valued, uniform, easily measureable and divisible goods can be stored/deposited in warehouses (a.k.a. banks) for safekeeping, while currencies (a.k.a warehouse receipts) are used in daily exchanges to represent the actual cash (gold/silver/grain).

    For example, suppose I hold my earnings with Bank X. Bank X issues its currency to me (receipts), which let's say is representative of a certain measure of gold that the bank keeps as part of its reserves. Now, suppose you are a grocer and I buy some apples from you. In order to pay for my purchase, I give you some Bank X receipts. But suppose you aren't a customer of Bank X. Suppose you are a customer of Bank Y. Well, at the end of the day you deposit the Bank X receipts you received from me in your Bank Y account. Then, Bank Y takes the Bank X receipts you deposited and redeems them with Bank X for the gold that they represent. Bank X transfers this gold from its reserves to Bank Y, and Bank Y deposits the gold in its own reserves. 

    Translating one bank certificate into another would not be problematic, as standards of measurement for monies like gold and silver would likely prove to be the basis for determining currency values.

    The British pound, or "pound sterling," originally got its name because it was one pound weight of silver. In fact, nearly every contemporary currency unit originated as a unit of weight of gold or silver. The U.S. dollar has its own history. In 16th century Bohemia, a widely circulated and commonly liked one ounce silver coin was minted in the town of Joachimsthal. They became popularly referred to as "Joachimsthalers," which was later shortened to "thalers," and then, of course, "thalers" eventually became "dollars." Upon the U.S.'s founding, one dollar was the equivalent of 0.8 silver ounces, or 1/20 of a gold ounce.

     

     

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 11:46 AM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    Oneironaut:

    I think you might be a little confused. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you...

    Credit is money that is lent out (a debt being incurred to the lender on the part of the borrower), which is not necessarily separate from commodity money. Commodity money does not necessarily imply that people will be carrying around gold and silver in their pockets.

    In a free-banking system, most currencies would likely be backed by gold, silver, or perhaps even agriculture (i.e. grain stores). These widely valued, uniform, easily measureable and divisible goods can be stored/deposited in warehouses (a.k.a. banks) for safekeeping, while currencies (a.k.a warehouse receipts) are used in daily exchanges to represent the actual cash (gold/silver/grain).

    For example, suppose I hold my earnings with Bank X. Bank X issues its currency to me (receipts), which let's say is representative of a certain measure of gold that the bank keeps as part of its reserves. Now, suppose you are a grocer and I buy some apples from you. In order to pay for my purchase, I give you some Bank X receipts. But suppose you aren't a customer of Bank X. Suppose you are a customer of Bank Y. Well, at the end of the day you deposit the Bank X receipts you received from me in your Bank Y account. Then, Bank Y takes the Bank X receipts you deposited and redeems them with Bank X for the gold that they represent. Bank X transfers this gold from its reserves to Bank Y, and Bank Y deposits the gold in its own reserves. 

    Translating one bank certificate into another would not be problematic, as standards of measurement for monies like gold and silver would likely prove to be the basis for determining currency values.

    The British pound, or "pound sterling," originally got its name because it was one pound weight of silver. In fact, nearly every contemporary currency unit originated as a unit of weight of gold or silver. The U.S. dollar has its own history. In 16th century Bohemia, a widely circulated and commonly liked one ounce silver coin was minted in the town of Joachimsthal. They became popularly referred to as "Joachimsthalers," which was later shortened to "thalers," and then, of course, "thalers" eventually became "dollars." Upon the U.S.'s founding, one dollar was the equivalent of 0.8 silver ounces, or 1/20 of a gold ounce.

    Thanks for your well thought out response.  After I have dove more into this subject, I am begining to think that returning to a commodity money (symbolic money) is taking a step backwards.

    It seems that money has evolved in the following manner:

    1 Barter

    2 Commodity Money

    3 Symbolic Money warehouse receipts

    4 Credit Money

    Today we have a system where the Federal Reserve has taken our 'common credit' and is essence printing money on our behalf.  This monopoly is bad.  However, libreterians in the attempt to fix this [which should be fixed] are going back in time to step 3 rather than removing the monopoly element of step 4.  Credit money if done in an open free market is a good evolution like commodity money is a good evolution over barter.

    Lets say there is X amount of commodity warehouse currency money already available.  If I don't have any of that X commodity money, why shouldn't I be able to print my own currency IOU (i.e. if I will give you 3 hours of my work for 30lbs of beef)?  In other words monetize my own credit.  It seems that most of current money supply is these type of transactions (in a very hidden manner by the Fed).

     

    It seems that shorter term transactions should be backed by creditworthiness of individuals as determined in a free market.  This would allow the money supply to increase and decrease in a moral way.

    Longer term transactions should be backed by a basket of commodities.

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 11:55 AM In reply to

    • CaleyM
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Mon, Apr 13 2009
    • Posts 54

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    Money as Debt is popular quackery.  When Stef reviewed Zeitgheist he talked about how an economist was only a phone call away.  These guys missed the same boat.

    The monetary theorist that I regard as best on this is Hans Hoppe, who makes the case that even market issued paper money would likely be short-lived in the absence of monetary fiat.

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 12:20 PM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    I think what you're trying to get at is the possibility for local exchanges derived on the basis of labor, like The Sawayaka Welfare Foundation, which developed a currency of earned credits for taking care of an elderly person to then be spent on the care of their own relatives in distant towns.

    While there is no telling for sure what a future in free-banking and liberalized money markets may look like, local currencies based on specific labor markets, like the one you've implied, will be limited in their exchange to the valuing-participants within the surrounding communities of which such labor is applicable. Given that such a currency lacks sufficient redeemability (and thus lacks checks on insolvency and inflation), and given that it's backed by such a specific form of labor (which is not uniformly divisible, easily measureable, nor readily of value to most of the population) it seems to pose sizeable pricing and circulation difficulties, making it unlikely to find widespread usage or be exchangeable with other goods and services on a broad scale.

    But that's the beauty of having a free-market in money... there are virtually no limitations on the methods people can develop to exchange value with one another.

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 12:46 PM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    3 Symbolic Money warehouse receipts

    this is a money substitute

    4 Credit Money

    this is fiat money.

    Lets say there is X amount of commodity warehouse currency money already available.  If I don't have any of that X commodity money, why shouldn't I be able to print my own currency IOU (i.e. if I will give you 3 hours of my work for 30lbs of beef)?  In other words monetize my own credit.  It seems that most of current money supply is these type of transactions (in a very hidden manner by the Fed).

    You can do whatever you want of course... but how is this any different from barter?

    What has government done to our money? Murray N. Rothbard

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 1:54 PM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    MrCapitalism:

    You can do whatever you want of course... but how is this any different from barter?

    At the end everything is barter and/or exchanges of one individual to another. 

    Commodity money & symbolic warehouse commodity money made barter simpler and reflected goods that already existed.

    Credit money (IOUs) represent future products and as long as they are determined in a free market is an evolution above commodity warehouse money.

    Let's say I exchanged something with Stef and Stef gave me an IOU for a one hour Stef speech (a Stef dollar).  I claim that that Stef dollar would have value inside this community (i.e. I could trade the Stef dollar for some sort of real product with somone that trusts Stef).  Stef would not need to back his dollar with Gold, he just backs it with his own creditworthiness.

    This dollar would be community based and would not be subject to inflation, nor interest unless Stef prints too many of them, at which time the market would punish him.  Transparency for accurate market pricing would be crucial.

    Many other vendors like Stef could combine their efforts (credit) into a community currency or a currency of the size and charater that the market determines.  That currency could be used for whatever the communty want and I am sure some member would even do exchanges into commodities that would in turn could be converted into other unrelated currencies.

    What is interesting here that a purely market approach produces a currency that has nothing to do with commodities.  Coming back to my point that perhaps there is nothing inherently bad with credit money, other than today it is a monopoly based on force.

    Don't get me wrong here the current system is immoral.  In addtion to Rothbard, I have read 10+ books on currency alone.  What I am talking about is closer to what Hayek had proposed. I am just wondering if we are concentrating on gold too much and missing what would actually happen in a free market.

    Perhaps rather than trying to convince everyone to go to gold might be harder than for US to go to credit.  As long as it originate and is controlled by the market, we should be able to do whatever we want.

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 2:17 PM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    why not just trade Stef something for his hour of speaking directly?

    (maybe a different example would help)

    EDIT: NM, I think i get it.

    How does one determine the purchasing power of a "stef dollar"?

    Scratch that. Back to your original assertion:

     

    Why do you think commodity money is especially bad at facilitating transactions? Other than the easily managed objection that it is difficult to transport in large quantities; or that the total stock of the monetary material is not sufficiant/ too excessive/difficult to obtain/ wears out over time etc.

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 2:29 PM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    MrCapitalism:

    why not just trade Stef something for his hour of speaking directly?

    (maybe a different example would help)

    EDIT: NM, I think i get it.

    How does one determine the purchasing power of a "stef dollar"?

    Money exists to facilitate barter.  Stef wanted one of my super duper secret machines.  He gave me a Stef Dollar for it.  One of the persons on this community grows corn, which I needed.  That person and myself decided to trade one Stef dollar for 55 lbs of corn--the price was decided by the 2 of us (i.e. the market).

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 2:34 PM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    Why'd you accept only one Steph Dollar for your machine and not 10,000? What's the farmer going to do with that Stef Dollar?

    EDIT: What are the flaws of a commodity based monetary system that make this such a better alternative?

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 3:00 PM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    MrCapitalism:

    Why'd you accept only one Steph Dollar for your machine and not 10,000? What's the farmer going to do with that Stef Dollar?

    EDIT: What are the flaws of a commodity based monetary system that make this such a better alternative?

    In our island (that happens to have no gold, silver, etc) there is no monpoly of force, and thus the market determines the price of things.  It just seemed reasonable for me that one hour/1 dollar (increasing the money supply) of Stef's time was worth the same as my machine...Stef thought the same of my machine.  The farmer is extinsishing the money (reducing the money supply) by having Stef give a speech on anarcho capitalism at the annual corn convention.

    --

    I am FOR commodity money, but it seems that in a true free market at least 2 types of money would exist.  Medium of exchange/currency money and as standard of value measurement/value storage money.

    People should be allowed to trade even if no commodity money exists (if we dropped into  the mythical island or if everyone hoards commodities because they are afraid there might not be enough currency to execute valid trades--but you can always issue an IOU based on your own credit).  This sort of exchange money increase the money supply and in short order is used up or extingished...a community currency is not meant for long term storage.  It allows people / communities to monetize their own credit.

    The problem today is that the monpoly powers have issued paper in an improper basis (today it is issue from the 'credit commons' with no backing whatsoever).  I claim commodities are a valid way to issue one type of currency and I also claim that individual / community credit is also a proper way to issue money.  The ultimate decider is the market.

    I claim that today 'trade money' is a much larger part of the money supply and one that we could start issuing today without worrying what people are or are not doing ot the dollar.  We don't have to wait for commodity money to get on with monetary reform.  Monetary reform can be a grass roots effort.

    I am working on a project related to furthering this idea.

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 4:32 PM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    SteveVe:

    MrCapitalism:

    Why'd you accept only one Steph Dollar for your machine and not 10,000? What's the farmer going to do with that Stef Dollar?

    EDIT: What are the flaws of a commodity based monetary system that make this such a better alternative?

    In our island (that happens to have no gold, silver, etc) there is no monpoly of force, and thus the market determines the price of things.  It just seemed reasonable for me that one hour/1 dollar (increasing the money supply) of Stef's time was worth the same as my machine...Stef thought the same of my machine.  The farmer is extinsishing the money (reducing the money supply) by having Stef give a speech on anarcho capitalism at the annual corn convention.

    --

    I am FOR commodity money, but it seems (this is a 'watch out' word btw) that in a true free market at least 2 types of money would exist.  Medium of exchange/currency money and as standard of value measurement/value storage money.

    People should be allowed to trade even if no commodity money exists (if we dropped into  the mythical island or if everyone hoards commodities because they are afraid there might not be enough currency to execute valid trades--but you can always issue an IOU based on your own credit).  This sort of exchange money increase the money supply and in short order is used up or extingished...a community currency is not meant for long term storage.  It allows people / communities to monetize their own credit.

    The problem today is that the monpoly powers have issued paper in an improper basis (today it is issue from the 'credit commons' with no backing whatsoever).  I claim commodities are a valid way to issue one type of currency and I also claim that individual / community credit is also a proper way to issue money.  The ultimate decider is the market.

    I claim that today 'trade money' is a much larger part of the money supply and one that we could start issuing today without worrying what people are or are not doing ot the dollar.  We don't have to wait for commodity money to get on with monetary reform.  Monetary reform can be a grass roots effort.

    I am working on a project related to furthering this idea.


    I hope you take this in the best of intentions and respect for the thought you put into this idea:

    I suspect you are fairly new to the studyies of economics, especially those based on praxeological reasoning.

    Regardless of my opinions of your ideas, I am supportive of your methodology of free competition and non-violence, and am willing to admit that I would adopt your system if I saw a benefit in it.

    My objection for your further consideration is this: If there are 100 people on our island "monetizing their own credit," as you say, will we have to navigate a land of 100 simultaneous competing currencies?

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 5:16 PM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    MrCapitalism:

    My objection for your further consideration is this: If there are 100 people on our island "monetizing their own credit," as you say, will we have to navigate a land of 100 simultaneous competing currencies?

    As you stated you would not want 100 currencies, also I wouldn't want 100 currencies, I would think the market would see this and aggregate to a community currency of the size the market wants where the value is tied to a basket of commodities.  Obviously this aggregation would need to be market based, not force based.

    As somone issues more of their own currency they would attempt to peg to the community currency.  If they issue too much then market exchanges might devaluate their currency.  In actuality, probably about one to three months of sales/income would be the approximate number that could be issued.

    Alternatively , the strongest store in the area could transparently issue currency (like a gift certificate) and everyone just use it for trading.

  • Sat, Jan 16 2010 5:22 PM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    Excellent response, thank you for the explanation.

  • Sun, Jan 17 2010 8:10 AM In reply to

    Re: Commodity money is not the answer

    Hi folks, I hope this is not too late and that is relevant to the discussion:

    Part 1     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vPobjqA1yE
    Part 2    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BML6d8VXNkI
    Part 3    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB0Vg1arDpA
    Part 4    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDQHYtALDs0
    Part 5    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyRNETZKXro
    Part 6     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHJ3CxYvXmo
    Part 7     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNv1_57RwUE
    Part 8    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eckb-r2LgAs
    Part 9    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHVOiPQe8fI
    Part 10    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F27XNDpPeF4

    Documentary    http://www.themoneyfix.org/content/video-money-fix

Page 1 of 2 (26 items) 1 2 Next >
Copyright 2005-2012 By Stefan Molyneux
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems