Bill Still criticizing Ron Pauls idea about sound money

[Brian4Liberty]

What do you guys think?

Some very interesting ideas in that video, and I like many of them. Bill Still was also in the Libertarian Debate, and he said something there that made a lot of what he says more reasonable. At one point in the debate, he said that gold and silver would be fine as a competing currency. If he truly believes in competing currencies, then his proposal for a US Federal fiat currency, with no debt involved, makes a lot of sense. Until he said that, it was a little scary. It would be good to have confirmation that he believes in competing currencies.

Details:

- He was being an ass by setting himself up as "opposed" to Ron Paul and Austrian economics. Even Ron himself is a bit vague about what the appropriate solution is, other than competing currencies. Obviously we all agree on the problem.

- Abolish the Fed. Sounds good.

- No US Federal Debt. Who can complain about that?

- Gold backed US currency: When establishment shills like Larry Kudlow call for a "partial gold backing" of US dollars, there should be concern. Bill seems to have that concern.

- US Federal Notes, backed by nothing: I like the idea, as long as there are competing currencies. It has been done before, and people are comfortable with it. It also takes care of the concern that people have when they say "but there isn't enough gold for it to be a currency".

- No fractional reserve banking with the US Federal fiat currency. This makes sense, and is in essence, a prohibition on counterfeiting currency.

- State Banks. I don't know all the details, but it sounds good.

- My idea for the first competing currency: Have the US Mint continue it's gold and silver bullion programs, and expand them. Coins will be "denominated" by weight. For example, one once, 1/2 ounce and 1/10 ounce bullion coins. No other value given. No "US Dollar" face value, no built-in exchange rate, no predetermined value relative to anything. Just coins marked with metal content.

[Steven Douglas]

- My idea for the first competing currency: Have the US Mint continue it's gold and silver bullion programs, and expand them. Coins will be "denominated" by weight. For example, one once, 1/2 ounce and 1/10 ounce bullion coins. No other value given. No "US Dollar" face value, no built-in exchange rate, no predetermined value relative to anything. Just coins marked with metal content.

That's all the 'standard' you need for anything, monetary or otherwise. If it's US minted, it can still be distinguished from foreign minted specie (like our original dollar, declared to be the value of the Spanish milled dollar, as defined by content - weight and purity).

That same weight and purity standard can be applied to anything - because STANDARD weights and other measures are already applied to everything else of exchange value. Fluid oz. and ml. for liquids, square feet for tiles and such, linear feet for boards, weight and mass for dry goods, and so on. We already do the converting in the market for all these things, to know what the real per unit costs are - even to the point where grocery stores will give you a "per oz." or "per fl. oz." or other breakdown on the shelf label.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

you mean to say, that bailouts are OK as long as money is finite?

You mean to say that no matter what I say, you'll misconstrue my words?

Look, let's say we were on gold-standard, where would all the gold come from for government to bailout everyone? They'll have to tax it out of the people & people would go crazy! Fed loaned 16 trillions to various institutions around the world after the collapse, they wouldn't have been able to raise that kind of money had they not had the power to "create" more money out of thin air

Going a little deeper into the issue, in a free market, there's no room for "corporate personhood" & "limited liability" which, right now, protects institutions & those who run them but under a free market, those running them would be held PERSONALLY liable for all of the institutions dues which would prevent them from taking the kind of risks & engaging in frauds the way they do right now because right now, they know they'll get their nice salaries, bonuses & what not while everything is going up & they won't personally have to bear the losses, & if they're big corporation with a lobby then they'll be bailed out anyway

The people own a LOT of gold. Especially in the form of jewelry. But it wouldn't matter if the banks owned ALL the gold because if gold is remonetized, they would have no choice but to spend it. And that puts it back into circulation. The banks wanted a fiat system rather than a gold standard because they want to be able to CREATE money. That's where the action is. When money can't be created out of thin air, it is much harder to get it without earning it and even then you have to spend what you have, not just create more.

Bankers have to eat and wear clothing and live in a house and drive a car etc. If gold is money, all of those things must be paid for in gold. And voila! The bankers' gold is in circulation.

Congress is fully aware of, condones, and authorizes the Federal Reserve's creation of the money supply. Congress is not a victim of the Federal Reserve, somehow being forced against its will to participate in the fiat scheme. Congress is a full partner in the Federal Reseve/banking scam. Why on earth anyone would think that simply transfering the money-creation function from one partner in crime to the other would result in any meaningful difference is beyond me.

+1

Well, obviously, there are idiots like Bill SHILL who do Unfortunately, a lot of people (including Paul-supporters) have caught on to that belief that - "oh, the government & politicians are all great, it's the Fed & banksters that are the problem so we should take the money-power away from them & hand it to those honest angelic politicians & bureaucrats in the government"

He's peddling lies that Fed "charges" interest to the govt without realizing that Fed hands over its "profits" back to the Treasury, which includes the interest "paid" by the Treasury He also IRS is used to "pay" Fed Again, unfortunately, too many people buy into this non-sense

Even Ron himself is a bit vague about what the appropriate solution is, other than competing currencies. Obviously we all agree on the problem.

I don't know about "vague", I wouldn't think competing currencies is vague.
If government was in the business of providing monopoly-shoes or monopoly-TVs or whatever then would we go - oh, gee, who would produce shoes or TVs now! - The MARKET WOULD
"Money" was NEVER a creation of governments but it automatically evolves out of barter by people simply exchanging things & then "most marketable commodities" become money, that's how people came about using seashells, salt, tobacco, animal-skin & what not as "money", most civilized societies used gold & silver for all the special features which have been mentioned before.
So again, once competing currencies are allowed, "money" will automatically be chosen by the market & we just try not to be presumptuous about it because we don't know for sure what the markets will choose.

- No US Federal Debt. Who can complain about that?

He's too stupid realize what WOULD be there right now if it wasn't the debt. If there was ~15 trillions of debt, & let's say we were on HIS system, then there would be "no debt" but all those 15 trillion would be in circulation & the value of the US dollar would be worth Zimbabwean dollar , may be even worse because politicians are much more short-sighted & stupid than bankers

Again, he doesn't even understand that the interest "paid" by Treasury to Fed is returned by Fed as its "profits" + other Fed's incomes like interest on loans given to other institutions, etc

- Gold backed US currency: When establishment shills like Larry Kudlow call for a "partial gold backing" of US dollars, there should be concern. Bill seems to have that concern.

Get the government out of it period

- US Federal Notes, backed by nothing: I like the idea, as long as there are competing currencies. It has been done before, and people are comfortable with it. It also takes care of the concern that people have when they say "but there isn't enough gold for it to be a currency".

Get the government out period

And there's no such thing "not enough gold", it's another theory peddled by Keynesians & money-monpolist shills like Bill Shill; as supply goods & services increases with regards to gold then prices/wages start falling in NOMINAL terms & it creates higher profit-incentive for minors & others to bring in more gold than usual due to falling production-costs until there's no such additional incentive as the costs move towards equlibrium

- No fractional reserve banking with the US Federal fiat currency. This makes sense, and is in essence, a prohibition on counterfeiting currency.

Oh yeah, people with power to create money out of thin air won't do so

- State Banks. I don't know all the details, but it sounds good.

There's no need for state-chartered banks That was one of the problems with 19h century American free-banking If banks must obtain "charters" from government then they'll only be issued to those who bribe government
In a true free-banking system, you should be able to set up your bank on your property & start banking, of course, people will only deposit with you if they think you're someone who'll honor your promise to pay it back with interest
So let's say even if you're not that well off but you've a reputation for honesty then people who personally know you may start depositing in your bank & as your reputation grows, more people will deposit with you & your bank grows but if you'd obtain a permission from government then you may have had to go through the whole drill which would add to your expenses & you as well as your customers would make less profits than otherwise had

- My idea for the first competing currency: Have the US Mint continue it's gold and silver bullion programs, and expand them. Coins will be "denominated" by weight. For example, one once, 1/2 ounce and 1/10 ounce bullion coins. No other value given. No "US Dollar" face value, no built-in exchange rate, no predetermined value relative to anything. Just coins marked with metal content.

Again, get government out of it period
Many governments in the past had devalued their coins & they'd force people to take a coin as worth 1 oz gold even though may be it has only half an ounce of gold & so on
So "separation of money & State" should be the goal

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't know about "vague", I wouldn't think competing currencies is vague.

The constant rhetoric is that Ron wants a gold standard. That is not necessarily true.

He's too stupid realize what WOULD be there right now if it wasn't the debt. If there was ~15 trillions of debt, & let's say we were on HIS system, then there would be "no debt" but all those 15 trillion would be in circulation & the value of the US dollar would be worth Zimbabwean dollar , may be even worse because politicians are much more short-sighted & stupid than bankers.
...
Oh yeah, people with power to create money out of thin air won't do so

If you watched the whole video, he addresses the idea of hyper-inflation at the very end. He said it's a possibility, but how is it much different from what we have right now? If the US Fiat currency was in competition with other currencies, they would have to limit how much they create, otherwise it would become worthless, and it wouldn't be used. Now wouldn't that be a tragedy?

Again, get government out of it period
Many governments in the past had devalued their coins & they'd force people to take a coin as worth 1 oz gold even though may be it has only half an ounce of gold & so on
So "separation of money & State" should be the goal

Getting government out is always good.

"Force"?! Who is advocating force? Competing currencies is the basis for this whole discussion. Force would negate that.

As far as government coined bullion, I don't hear anyone complaining about One Ounce Silver Eagles. If they are competitive and desired, why not continue with them? Yes, government out of business is a good thing, but this is an example of a product that is desired. As long as it is not subsidized by taxpayers, why not continue? If people start to prefer one ounce silver rounds produced by the Sunshine Mint, then that would be fine too. Competing currencies.

There needs to be a reasonable and realistic transition period. Once competing currencies are in place, we will see whether or not a US Fiat currency or US Mint bullion program will remain competitive.

[nedomedo]

Okay, I stumbled upon this video, not sure if anyone has seen it here. But how can anything here be disproven? After watching this you will feel weird in your stomach I promise! Has anyone seen this doc?

[Steven Douglas]

The first 28 minutes or so is dead on the mark. I could nitpick the historical "Goldsmith's Tale" toward the beginning, but the essence of it is correct.

Where the author loses it is at 28:45

QUESTION 1: Why do governments choose to borrow money from private banks at interest when it could create all the interest free money it needs?

ANSWER: This was answered by QUESTION 2: Because unlike debt money created by central and commercial banks, money that is merely SPENT, rather than LENT, into circulation, IS PERMANENT.

Zimbabwe wasn't the first government to have this bright idea.

As pointed out in the video (go to 24:30), debt money temporarily devalues the currency in circulation. It temporarily expands the money supply, but that debt money is consequently destroyed as the principle is paid, which ultimately contracts that same supply even more as the interest is paid. That is the case where fictitious debt money is LENT into circulation, and is part of the "business cycle".

By contrast, fictitious debt money that is created out of thin air and simply SPENT into circulation permanently devalues the money supply, because that money remains permanently in circulation.

While fractional reserve lending BORROWS value from currency holders everywhere without their knowledge or consent, money that is spent directly into circulation STEALS that value.

Spending money permanently into circulation merely redistributes wealth within an economy, forcing savers/currency holders to pay for things which may or may not be of any value or benefit to them. It is the ultimate hidden taxation without representation, as it confiscates wealth from FUTURE currency holders, not present, because the devaluation of the currency supply on the whole takes time to propagate. So it is not a tax on today, but tomorrow.

One other problem. Spending money into circulation doesn't "grow" the economy - nor is a "growing economy" required for prosperity and survival except to an economy, the money supply of which is driven entirely by credit expansion. Only Ponzi schemes rely on perpetual growth for survival. Not ordinary people and their all-important micro-economies.

MOST IMPORTANT: Fictitious money that is put into circulation, temporarily or permanently, by lending or spending, TAXES SAVINGS. It forces savers onto an artificial treadmill, as they must SPEND IT OR LOSE IT - because its value is being steadily eroded either way. Private accumulation of capital, critical to a NORMAL economy and a sound money supply, COMPETES directly with credit expansion. If you don't like the cost of money through debt instruments, you can choose to save and accumulate it instead. You can borrow and pay interest to have something now, or you can save and pay for something in the future, debt free. The choice is always yours, as Savings (not deposits for loan, but actual HOLDINGS), should place downward pressure on prices, and upward pressure on the value of all like currency in circulation.

Under a counterfeiting regime, one that manipulates the aggregate money supply (lending or spending into circulation), the question is not whether favorite winners will be selected, but only who does the selection. With commercial banks, the "credit worthy" and well connected are the favorite children, while government has its warfare/welfare favorites of all kinds to choose from as well. Not everyone is a channel for new money infusion. Those who are not direct recipients are forced to pay "interest" on money that they never borrowed, as their savings are eroded over time.


The author of the video also falls into a common trap - that of thinking in terms of "needing", in the aggregate only, a "stable money supply", or "optimum" amount of money needed; a fallacy on its own. But he further goes into Aggregate/Collectivist/Socialist/Communist Insanity mode when he states: (32:24)

"...only if the proceeds of lending and interest rates are evenly distributed among the population would the central problem be solved." (emphasis mine)

Evenly distributed among the population. Central problem.

It is very much like the Dennis Kucinich argument that the Fed be placed under Treasury. That way politicians don't actually have to be bothered with politically unpopular taxes - where everyone can see clearly what is being demanded of them. It would be far more convenient to spenders in government if we dispensed with tax bills altogether, and just instituted an invisible tax, where wealth is merely confiscated (from future currency holders) instead - a regime that hits the poor and working classes the hardest. You have the same QUANTITY of money, a quantity that even grows year after year, as it MUST, given that the VALUE, or QUALITY of that money is steadily eroded, and you are forced demand a greater quantity just to have the same value as before. You can directly budget for taxes - not price inflation, which is distorted, unpredictable, and you're going to be lied to about it anyway.

The idea proposed that government act as a non-profit banker which lends without interest to "society" (READ=GOVERNMENT), paying "universal dividends to citizens" is about as whack and misleading as it gets.

The quick gloss-over of the "gold standard" or using gold as money, was dismissed as unsound because it can be abused by others (counterfeiting, shaving coins, etc.,) -which, it was claimed, "contributed to its fall" - without acknowledging that it was GOVERNMENT+BANKS+FRAUD (as shown earlier in the video) that actually did the counterfeiting that collapsed these systems - not coin shaving and private counterfeiting, the TINIEST of contributors.

Then the blithering idiot says, dishonestly and disingenuously, "no one wants to go back to carrying heavy sacks of coins to go shopping" - as if we didn't already have the technology in place which makes this a non-isuse. But he doesn't stop there. He actually goes so far as to say that "Commodity Money" a) DISTORTS the value of the commodity!!! (34:16), b) is easily stolen, and MOST fallacious of all, c) supply cannot be controlled beneficially.

He says, correctly, that "if gold became the sole legal basis for money, those who have no gold would have no money". That is an argument against a "legal basis" for money, as well as ANY money as the "sole basis" for money. But he doesn't argue for competing currencies, OR the abolition of legal tender laws "the legal basis for money".

The moronic, logically, factually incorrect statements continue from there, too many to cover here, but here is an example:

"Inflation in place of taxation might be politically acceptable, if well spent and kept within limits. Or, governments could choose to counter inflation by collecting tax moneys that it then takes out of use, thus reducing the money supply and restoring its value."

So government gets around direct taxation by inflating the money supply directly (choosing its favorite darlings as infusion channels), but then, THEORETICALLY, directly taxes for not other purpose than to destroy some of the money supply. In other words, get all currency holders to THROW SOME OF THEIR MONEY AWAY, so that the value of the over-inflated currency supply can be restored. DEFLATION (falling prices and wages) is still seen as evil, from a decidedly Keynesian-spawned distortion lens.

The video starts off fine - lays a more or less accurate foundation, with strictly positive statements about what has occurred to create the predicament we are in. Then it completely loses it as it shifts to NORMATIVE statements about what OUGHT to be done to solve the problem. But the solution is only a tautology of the CORE foundation of the original problem, as keeps the fictitious counterfeiting machine fully intact, while shifting control of it from the public/private sector alliance of today, to one of strictly government control.

SAYS IT ALL

37:55 - "With no competing private debt money creation, governments would have more effective control of the nation's money supply. Everyone would know whom to blame if things went wrong. Governments would rise and fall on their ability to preserve the value of money."

"There could be no national debt if the government could simply create the money it needed".

WRONG. The debt would exist, and it would STAGGERING. The only difference would be that the PAYMENTS for those debts would be automatically extracted/deducted from currency holders. Savers, who would always lose, and could never compete.

A well-deserved slap-down is in order for anyone who suggests that quantity or value of ANYTHING need to be centrally controlled, publicly or privately.

I stopped watching at 38:47 - sickened by all the stupidity. Cut it off at around 28:45 and you have a decent statement of the problem, from which everyone can draw their own normative (ought) conclusions.

[nedomedo]

You obviously know your stuff, but couldn't we all technically hold gold and precious metals as a hedge against the inflation anyway?

We know that milk used to cost 30 cents a gallon back in the day when our money was backed by gold, but today it costs $3.50. Every normal person would see the devaluation of our money in this example and why fiat currency is bad. However, back in the day our hourly wages were only $1.00 per hour, and today its $10.00 per hour....its still the same. It takes about 1/3 of an hour of labor to earn enough money to buy a gallon of Milk. So what is the difference if it says milk costs $3.50 or $3.5 million dollars a gallon if our wages and earnings are still proportional? If it costs 3.5 million, then our wages would be $10 million per hour.

Obviously you couldn't inflate that much, there would have to be some control, but steady inflation wouldn't be that bad. Sure it would affect savers etc. but those people can just buy gold or anything else that is valuable and use it as a hedge against the inflation.

Without eliminations of the federal debt, what is another way we can pay it off without doing this? Looking at our debt its clear that no cuts will be enough. They can cut everything completely and we could still not pay down our debt.

[onlyrp]

Is it partially true Paul wants to go back to a gold standard? How about GE Griffin? P Schiff?

The constant rhetoric is that Ron wants a gold standard. That is not necessarily true.



If you watched the whole video, he addresses the idea of hyper-inflation at the very end. He said it's a possibility, but how is it much different from what we have right now? If the US Fiat currency was in competition with other currencies, they would have to limit how much they create, otherwise it would become worthless, and it wouldn't be used. Now wouldn't that be a tragedy?



Getting government out is always good.

"Force"?! Who is advocating force? Competing currencies is the basis for this whole discussion. Force would negate that.

As far as government coined bullion, I don't hear anyone complaining about One Ounce Silver Eagles. If they are competitive and desired, why not continue with them? Yes, government out of business is a good thing, but this is an example of a product that is desired. As long as it is not subsidized by taxpayers, why not continue? If people start to prefer one ounce silver rounds produced by the Sunshine Mint, then that would be fine too. Competing currencies.

There needs to be a reasonable and realistic transition period. Once competing currencies are in place, we will see whether or not a US Fiat currency or US Mint bullion program will remain competitive.

[Steven Douglas]

You obviously know your stuff, but couldn't we all technically hold gold and precious metals as a hedge against the inflation anyway?

HEDGE? If I am circulating, actually trading in precious metals, the only "hedge" I would want to see are MORE precious metals, independently circulating as competing currencies, each one keeping all the others in check. Let a fictitious paper currency even TRY to compete with that on a free market, with no legal tender laws to back it. No, I mean really - let it try.

We know that milk used to cost 30 cents a gallon back in the day when our money was backed by gold, but today it costs $3.50. Every normal person would see the devaluation of our money in this example and why fiat currency is bad. However, back in the day our hourly wages were only $1.00 per hour, and today its $10.00 per hour....its still the same. It takes about 1/3 of an hour of labor to earn enough money to buy a gallon of Milk. So what is the difference if it says milk costs $3.50 or $3.5 million dollars a gallon if our wages and earnings are still proportional? If it costs 3.5 million, then our wages would be $10 million per hour.

The biggest difference is in what people had to go through, every artificial, savings eroding, uphill treadmill step of the way, to get their wages and earnings adjusted upwards - only AFTER it was apparent that both their savings AND wages AND other earnings had already lost value relative to the paper currency. Wage earners, the poor, currency holders, and those living on fixed incomes are the PERPETUAL losers, always late to the party - while first-time users of currency (public OR private) are the winners.

So no - the fact that everything appears to have adjusted in the long term says NOTHING about what was actually siphoned/STOLEN in between, including all of the market distortions that happened as a result, all along the way.

Obviously you couldn't inflate that much, there would have to be some control, but steady inflation wouldn't be that bad. Sure it would affect savers etc. but those people can just buy gold or anything else that is valuable and use it as a hedge against the inflation.

Well, that is the conventional wisdom in a nutshell - complete with a marginalizing dismissal of "savers, etc.", (and the hidden thefts therefrom) as somehow taken care of because they can take their "disposable income" only (if any, whatever the hell that means) - and convert that to a "HEDGE" against the future.

Nah, the horse is already out of the barn by then, and since PM's are viewed by the government, not as money, freely exchangeable with other currencies, but just another commodity "investment", the Capital Currency Value Loss Tax (AKA Capital Gains) applies. When the fictitious currency loses value, the government interprets the "price increase" of the commodity as a "gain" in value. Because it's "profit", doncha know. So not only is your currency taxed, you get to pay an ADDITIONAL tax on top of that for anything that even appeared to increase in price (interpreted as value).

And the idea that a little inflation "wouldn't be that bad" ignores the fundamental principle. If I STEAL just a little bit from YOU (personally, me from you) each day, but not enough for you to really notice, is it really all that bad? If we steal 90% of Bill Gate's wealth, will he miss any meals, or have any change in lifestyle? If not, what's wrong with taking it? We could do SO many wonderful things, if we could just get around that little thing called IT IS THEFT - without regard to degree. NO FUCKING STEALING. PERIOD.

Without eliminations of the federal debt, what is another way we can pay it off without doing this? Looking at our debt its clear that no cuts will be enough. They can cut everything completely and we could still not pay down our debt.

I don't buy into viewing Ponzi scheme debt as a valid Catch-22. It is IMPOSSIBLE for those debts to be paid (in the precious aggregate that aggregate thinking morons are so wont to invoke), under the current scheme, using only fiat money. But that does not mean that the debts cannot be paid. They CAN.

Federal Reserve Notes are NOT my money. They are not OUR money. That form of currency is PRIVATELY CONTROLLED (and therefore privately owned), quite apart from the "public" debts that are backed by them. So here is how that would work:

Competing currencies go into MASSIVE circulation, with legal tender laws repealed/abolished. Thiers Law (the opposite of Gresham's Law) goes into effect, as sellers PREFER to receive payment in something other than fictitious notes, which are backed by nothing and guaranteed to lose value long term. Even as competing currencies flow into circulation, Fed Notes get devalued in a steady, massively inflationary spiral - as EVERYONE sells them, en masse. But they are only selling them to buy currencies having different fundamentals for their value. But it works the opposite way as well. Hard specie can LATER be used to buy enough devalued paper currency to discharge current debts. Debts can now be PAID in full, in those fully devalued (actually, finally correctly valued) notes. That is without creating ANY new debt money. Millions of people with counter-party claims to fictitious wealth WILL take an enormous haircut in the process - one that CAN NOT be avoided, and was designed into the Ponzi system to begin with. Meanwhile, we have stable currency SUPPLIES (plural), which insure that deflation OR inflation of one supply will not adversely affect the value others.

That's how you pay down the debt - until Fed Notes are finally "not worth a Continental" - but the debts can still be paid in those soon-to-be-worthless Continentals.

The only fear of deflation - or even paying of the aggregate debt, is that it would dry up the money supply. Get competing currencies out there, and that becomes an impossibility - because the value of the current fiat currency will very quickly move toward its intrinsic value. Nothing.

[Brian4Liberty]

HEDGE? If I am circulating, actually trading in precious metals, the only "hedge" I would want to see are MORE precious metals, independently circulating as competing currencies, each one keeping all the others in check. Let a fictitious paper currency even TRY to compete with that on a free market, with no legal tender laws to back it. No, I mean really - let it try.

Exactly!