Originally Posted by
econ4every1
My response was a question it was not an answer, it was an attempt to clarify the question before I answer it.
I concede you and others here are a lot more familiar with this issue than I am in that you've debated the topic and I have not, so it's a little unfair to ask me if I support it or not without knowing exploring the implications. That's what forums, like these, are generally good for.
Having said that, I'd answer (without a yes or no) by pointing out that I just can't see how, if the FRN was still a currency, that anything would change. Well, except the fact that not charging taxes on investment grade metals would create a tax loophole for the wealthy.
Investments make terrible currencies because people are less inclined to spend them and more inclined to save them. When people save they aren't spending when they aren't spending the demand for labor declines and people make less money. When people make less money demand continues to decline...etc, etc.
Let me ask you if you value gold more than you value FRN's, when you go shopping, what would spend, FRN's or gold?
People will hoard gold and spend FRN's just as they do now.
The other thing that bothers me about this conversation is the seemly unspoken assumption that all that needs to happen is to take the money power out of the government's control and utopia ensues. The fact is the money powers that exist now will dominate a commodity based currency regime as Austrian Economics’s ignores the presence of market power.
The goal of this entire effort seems little more than free the capitalists from the constraint of government so they can dominate the economy even more than they already do.
Now, if you wish, convince me that's not the case.
Connect With Us