PDA

View Full Version : If Not Gold, What Then--Part II: The Answer




Thom1776
08-07-2007, 11:09 PM
OK, I posed this question about a week ago. I've been formulating this idea for many years now. Today, I unveil it to the world.


With the recent tragedy in Minnesota, now is a good time to bring up an issue that Ron Paul could take to heart.

We all know how the Federal Reserve is a big scam that saps the wealth of our nation. We also know that, once upon a time, gold and silver backed our Dollar. However, while gold is "tangible" and globally recognized as a valuable commodity, its value can still be manipulated by both foreign and domestic influences.

Money is nothing more than an accounting tool used to keep track of commercial transactions in a universally accepted unit of currency. In our case, it is the Dollar, or, to be more specific, the Federal Reserve Note (FRN).

Our infrastructure is what keeps our economy going. We need bridges and tunnels and highways and railroads and air and seaports to transport goods and for both business and personal travel.

The Minnesota bridge collapse alone is going to cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to clean up and reconstruct. But how much money on top of that will be lost because the normal traffic flow will be disrupted during this time? Commuters and commercial transporters will spend more time and burn more fuel traveling, since they now have to take a detour from their usual route. This will also contribute to accelerated depreciation of their vehicles in the form of increased wear and tear, maintenance and replacement. This may also be hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. That is how important our transportation infrastructure is to our economy. Transportation IS our economy.

A well-built and well-maintained infrastructure allows the economy to operate at a higher level of activity and efficiency than a poorly built and maintained one, not only the transportation infrastructure, but the energy, utility and communication infrastructures, as well.

This is why it makes sense to have our money tied directly to the quality and value of our infrastructure. The very health of our economic activity depends directly on the quality and efficiency of our infrastructure.

In 1973, Congress created The Federal Financing Bank (FFB). It is a government corporation, under the general supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury. The FFB was established to centralize and reduce the cost of federal borrowing, as well as federally assisted borrowing from the public. The FFB was also established to deal with federal budget management issues that occurred when off-budget financing flooded the government securities market with offers of a variety of government-backed securities that were competing with Treasury securities. Today, the FFB has statutory authority to purchase any obligation issued, sold, or guaranteed by a federal agency to ensure that fully guaranteed obligations are financed efficiently.

The following is by Wally Kaufman:
http://www.pww.org/past-weeks-2001/HR-1564-Rebuild%20U.S.htm


HR-1564 is the "most significant piece of legislation to be introduced in Congress this year," according to Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Steve LaTourette, the bill's bipartisan co-sponsors.

This bill, which will create a Federal Bank for Infrastructure Modernization, is the product of a massive effort to prevent the collapse of the nation's steel industry after the loss of tens of thousands of union jobs. But it goes much further.

"Our country's infrastructure is sorely in need of repair and rebuilding, with some sectors in a crisis state," said Kucinich in announcing the bill. LaTourette noted, "One billion dollars in infrastructure repair will create 42,000-plus jobs."

HR-1564 draws on the conclusions of a special panel of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in a report that indicates America's infrastructure is crumbling. The panel estimates that taxpayers at the federal, state, and local level need to invest $1.3 trillion in the next five years to remedy "wide ranging bottlenecks" in infrastructure. The ASCE say the country's roadways need $437 billion.

"If we can't get goods to market or people to jobs, our country is going to have a real serious problem," said Robert Bein, president of the 123,000-member ASCE.

Aviation is in a sad state with a 37 percent increase in traffic and a 1 percent increase in capacity.

A study by the Water Infrastructure Network states that the cost of building, operating, and maintaining drinking water and wastewater facilities is $86 billion annually for the next 20 years, for a total of 1.72 trillion. Schools need $127 billion, according to the National Center for Education Studies.

HR-1564 presents a solution to a monumental problem by creating interest-free loans to states and municipalities for investment in infrastructure. "This will cut the cost of most projects in half," Kucinich said.

The loans will be administered by the Federal Bank for Infrastructure Modernization, (FBIM), to be established under HR-1564 as an extension of the Federal Financing Bank under the U.S. Treasury.

Loans will amount to $50 billion annually over 10 years, with 20 percent earmarked for schools. In order to provide money for the loans, the Federal Reserve Bank would transfer some of its Treasury securities to the FBIM

Kucinich and LaTourette don’t realize it, but they have come tantalizingly close to the solution for wresting control of our financial destiny back from the hands of the private bankers who control the Federal Reserve.

All we have to do is eliminate the Federal Reserve and introduce new money directly into our economy through infrastructure projects. We already have the mechanism in place in the form of the current FFB.

Our infrastructure is the ultimate “hard asset”, the very “hard asset” that Ron Paul should embrace as his answer to getting rid of the Federal Reserve.


I first got this idea about 15 years ago after reading about the Isle of Guernsey in Dr. Jacques Jaikaran's book, "The Debt Virus".

Tom Sheehan, August 8, 2007.

jonahtrainer
08-07-2007, 11:16 PM
Our infrastructure is the ultimate “hard asset”, the very “hard asset” that Ron Paul should embrace as his answer to getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

What is your point?

Is your idea to make our socialized transportation infrastructure the legal tender? That seems insane.

Hook
08-07-2007, 11:29 PM
The point of having hard asset backed currency is conversion on demand. That is what prevents inflation, since the banks know that if they lend out more certificates than gold in the vault, people will run on the bank to convert back into gold before it is all gone. If you try to tie it to infrastructure then the value of the infrastructure will be determined by fiat and will be manipulated to inflate the money supply again. Plus you can't turn in your $20 bill for a piece of asphalt out of the road.

Hook
08-07-2007, 11:30 PM
I meant redemption on demand, not conversion on demand.

Hook
08-07-2007, 11:38 PM
Gold still works just fine. All that really needs to happen is issuance of new gold certificate dollars that are fixed to $20.00 an ounce or whatever, and then sell them to public in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes at the current gold spot price. So if gold is at $650/oz in FR notes, you could buy one $20.00 gold dollar for $650 FR notes, plus some transaction fee. This could continue until all pysical reserve gold held by the US was spoken for by gold dollar certificates. At that point no further certificates could be sold, but gold dollars could be redeemable in gold coin.
Eventually, people would start using the gold dollars because they didn't loos value over time. This would be a great way of phasing in hard currency as long as the rule was that you could never change the exchange rate of $20 in gold dollars to 1 oz of gold.

michaelwise
08-07-2007, 11:53 PM
You want some physical asset as redemption for your paper dollar, from the government, if you so choose. Whether it be .001 oz of gold, .10 oz of silver, or 1 gallon of gas. You want the same amount of redemption 10 years from now as would get now. You do not want your saved money to be devalued over the years, and you do not want to have to burden yourself with constantly moving your money around, to keep your savings from loosing value. This is the purpose of an hard asset backed currency.

I think the SPR could serve as one of those hard assets.

Bradley in DC
08-08-2007, 12:03 AM
Thom,

Good that we've got people thinking about important issues. That said, I'm not sure you've got a great grasp of some of the fundamentals. You might want to check out the last chapter (if you don't want to read the whole thing) of Carl Menger's Principles of Economics (http://www.mises.org/etexts/menger/eight.asp), some of Dr. Paul's writings (http://www.mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf) and other parts of the Austrian Study Guide on the Mises.org (http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx) site.

Hook
08-08-2007, 12:05 AM
what is the SPR?

Hook
08-08-2007, 12:09 AM
The think you want to avoid is tying your currency to multiple classes of assets such as a bimetallic standard. That will only artificially fix the relative values of the multiple assets. That was a huge problem with our original gold standard. You need to tie your currency to ONE thing only.

Broadlighter
08-08-2007, 12:16 AM
Some of the guys here know more about hard currency than I do, but I would be willing to bet that if we had hard currency, the cost of those infrastructure improvements would be drastically reduced because of the spending power of the dollar.

Here's a very radical, innovative idea for infrastructure that would solve a lot of problems in a cost effectve manner:

Skytran (http://www.skytran.net/)

nexalacer
08-08-2007, 08:51 AM
this idea is the same as the one in Money as Debt on google video. I prefer gold to this idea as well, but I think this idea is an easier sell to the American people. The idea made a lot of sense to me when I watched the movie...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=money+as+debt&total=1093&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Original_Intent
08-08-2007, 09:30 AM
What you describe is almost exactly how new money gets injected into our economy in the current system.

Congress pays for a bridge to be built that they have not collected revenue for. The fed prints the money, the country goes in debt and the bridge builders get the money that was "loaned" to the US and thus it enters circulation.

So what your proposing is really not that different than what is in place.

nexalacer
08-08-2007, 09:55 AM
The difference is the removal of the debt. Currently its printed out of thin air and charged interest by the private central bank. The interest is the debt.

But if there was no interest because the private central bank was out of the picture, then all you're faced with is inflation and you no longer have to worry about the debt because the interest part of creating the money out of thin air is removed.

"Well, what about the inflation?", you say? Remove all other forms of taxes on people affected by the inflation (everyone) and the inflation becomes the tax. More money in circulation means more inflation means you're buying power went down. So the elected officials then compete to see who can keep inflation lowest by getting the biggest value out of their infrastructure buck. You had a lot of inflation with your last administration? Vote them out, choose an administration that will stop printing money and convert the inflation tax to a sales tax. The tax reduces the supply of the money in circulation by bringing it back to the federal government.

This is my basic understanding of how the system in Money as Debt (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=money+as+debt&total=1093&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) works. I haven't really analyzed it a whole lot, nor do I completely understand this form of economics, but like I said before, it seems possible.

CJLauderdale4
08-08-2007, 10:04 AM
Any commodity with reasonably static amounts in the market can be used. A commodity that is constantly discovered, refined, or consumed should be avoided. Gold and Silver (and the others like Platinum) are discovered and purified at reasonably slow rates, thus there can be no extreme attack on the value by flooding the market.

I'm sure we could intelliently come up with other comodities that fit this criteria.

Bradley in DC
08-08-2007, 10:07 AM
The essential attributes (http://www.blurtit.com/q654575.html) of good money are:
General acceptability:The essential quality of a good money material is that it would acceptable to all without any hesitation in exchange for goods and services.

Stability of value:
Another very important attribute of a good money material is that it should be fairly stable in value. If the commodity chosen as money is subject to violent fluctuations, then that is useless money. Money is the standard by which we measure the value of all other commodities and if the standard itself is influenced by changes in its demand and supply, then how it can serve as perfect money.

Transportability:
The commodity chosen should be easily transportable without any depreciation. It should have a large value in small bulk.

Storability:
Another requisite of good money material is that it should be storable without depreciation. If the commodity chosen as money is perishable, then that cannot as good money.
Divisibility:The commodity chosen as money should be capable of being re united without losing its value.
Homogeneity:The commodity selected as money should be of a uniform quality and capable of standardization.
Congizability:One very essential condition of perfect money is that it should be easily recognizable by the aye, ear or the touch.

nexalacer
08-08-2007, 11:21 AM
Ok, so am I correct in my assessment of the monetary system provided by "Money as Debt"?:

General Acceptability: The fiat currency in the proposed system would be as acceptable as the current fiat currency.

Stability of Value: The currency in the proposed system would be tied to the value that the infrastructure of the United States held. Thus, as long as the status quo was held, it would have a constant value, but if there was a huge shift in infrastructure, it would require a huge influx of money, which would violently affect the value of the money.

Transportability: The paper money, as a fiat currency in essence, would be just as transportable as the current money.

Storability: The essence of the money in the proposed system is prone to depreciation because the infrastructure (the commodity) that it is tied to can deteriorate.

Divisibility: This would not be an issue as it is again, in essence, a fiat currency, being only tied to the value of the infrastructure that supports it. An as paper money is easily divisible, there is no problem.

Homogeneity: I don't understand this at all in terms of the money that is proposed in the film.

Congizability: The proposed currency, as a paper or electronic-based currency, would have the congizability as paper or electronic-based gold(or other hard commodity) receipts.

I am not sure how accurate I am, but this is how I see the picture. Could you explain what I've gotten wrong?