Tweet
Re: Fed buying more treasuries
jtabeb,
I already did, twice. In the 1870's and the 1930's. Its simply a historical fact. Read any material on both Depressions. Money that does not naturally degrade like all other capital becomes a super commodity that is hoarded and destroys commerce. Silver has proved to be abundant enough to prevent it but the Hunt brothers gave it quite a ride. People are hoarding dollars right now so I don't know why I need any more evidence but here it is. Since all other capital debases its going to be what people save. Its too bad is nearly useless for anything else.
This was written not coincidentally after the long Depression. in the 1890s
Originally posted by jtabeb
View Post
I already did, twice. In the 1870's and the 1930's. Its simply a historical fact. Read any material on both Depressions. Money that does not naturally degrade like all other capital becomes a super commodity that is hoarded and destroys commerce. Silver has proved to be abundant enough to prevent it but the Hunt brothers gave it quite a ride. People are hoarding dollars right now so I don't know why I need any more evidence but here it is. Since all other capital debases its going to be what people save. Its too bad is nearly useless for anything else.
This was written not coincidentally after the long Depression. in the 1890s
SILVIO GESELL
Gesell recognized money's contradictory dual role as a medium of exchange for facilitating economic activity on the one hand, and as an instrument of power capable of dominating the market on the other hand. The starting point for Gesell's investigations was the following question: How can money's characteristics as a usurious instrument of power be overcome, without eliminating its positive qualities as a neutral medium of exchange? He attributed this market-dominating power to two fundamental characteristics of conventional money. First, money as a medium of demand is capable of being hoarded, in contrast to human labor or goods and services on the supply side of the economic equation. It can be temporarily withheld from the market for speculative purposes without exposing its holder to significant losses. Second, money enjoys the advantage of superior liquidity to goods and services. In other words, it can be put into use at almost any time or place and so enjoys a flexibility of deployment similar to that of a "wild card" in a card game. These two characteristics of money give its holders a privileged position over the suppliers of goods and services. This is especially true for those who hold or control large amounts of money.
Money hoarding produces nothing but always wins the game of economic chicken. Gold is BTW not some ancient standby of money. There was never enough. All the gold in the world is a tennis court 17 feet deep. Its too rare and too easy to corner. Its has no historical success and is in fact a rather new concept yet with proven failures. However we should never allow a currency to severely depress. The only time gold did well is with bi-metal systems. Gesell recognized money's contradictory dual role as a medium of exchange for facilitating economic activity on the one hand, and as an instrument of power capable of dominating the market on the other hand. The starting point for Gesell's investigations was the following question: How can money's characteristics as a usurious instrument of power be overcome, without eliminating its positive qualities as a neutral medium of exchange? He attributed this market-dominating power to two fundamental characteristics of conventional money. First, money as a medium of demand is capable of being hoarded, in contrast to human labor or goods and services on the supply side of the economic equation. It can be temporarily withheld from the market for speculative purposes without exposing its holder to significant losses. Second, money enjoys the advantage of superior liquidity to goods and services. In other words, it can be put into use at almost any time or place and so enjoys a flexibility of deployment similar to that of a "wild card" in a card game. These two characteristics of money give its holders a privileged position over the suppliers of goods and services. This is especially true for those who hold or control large amounts of money.
The Romans are said to have had nothing but copper money till within five years before the first Punic war, when they first began to coin silver. Copper, therefore, appears to have continued always the measure of value in that republic. At Rome all accounts appear to have been kept, and the value of all estates to have been computed either in asses or in sestertii. The as was always the denomination of a copper coin. The word sestertius signifies two asses and a half. Though the sestertius, therefore, was originally a silver coin, its value was estimated in copper. At Rome, one who owed a great deal of money was said to have a great deal of other people's copper.
The northern nations who established themselves upon the ruins of the Roman empire, seem to have had silver money from the first beginning of their settlements, and not to have known either gold or copper coins for several ages thereafter. There were silver coins in England in the time of the Saxons; but there was little gold coined till the time of Edward III nor any copper till that of James I of Great Britain. In England, therefore, and for the same reason, I believe, in all other modern nations of Europe, all accounts are kept, and the value of all goods and of all estates is generally computed in silver: and when we mean to express the amount of a person's fortune, we seldom mention the number of guineas, but the number of pounds sterling which we suppose would be given for it.
Originally, in all countries, I believe, a legal tender of payment could be made only in the coin of that metal, which was peculiarly considered as the standard or measure of value. In England, gold was not considered as a legal tender for a long time after it was coined into money. -Adam Smith
There was a big fight over it because the gold Shylocks kept gold hoarding.The northern nations who established themselves upon the ruins of the Roman empire, seem to have had silver money from the first beginning of their settlements, and not to have known either gold or copper coins for several ages thereafter. There were silver coins in England in the time of the Saxons; but there was little gold coined till the time of Edward III nor any copper till that of James I of Great Britain. In England, therefore, and for the same reason, I believe, in all other modern nations of Europe, all accounts are kept, and the value of all goods and of all estates is generally computed in silver: and when we mean to express the amount of a person's fortune, we seldom mention the number of guineas, but the number of pounds sterling which we suppose would be given for it.
Originally, in all countries, I believe, a legal tender of payment could be made only in the coin of that metal, which was peculiarly considered as the standard or measure of value. In England, gold was not considered as a legal tender for a long time after it was coined into money. -Adam Smith
In the years immediately after 1890, a combination of pressures sharply reduced the amount of gold in the U.S. Treasury, precipitating a panic in the spring of 1893. Conservatives charged that the Sherman Act was the cause of the panic, and in the summer of 1893 Congress repealed that act. Farmers in the South and West condemned this action, blamed the greed of eastern bankers for the depressed state of the economy, and resumed their demand for the unlimited coinage of silver. This had been an important objective of the Populist Party in the election of 1892, and in 1896 the Democrats, despite strong opposition from President Grover Cleveland, made unlimited coinage of silver the principal plank in their platform. They then nominated William Jennings Bryan, the most effective champion of free silver (see Cross of Gold speech), as their candidate for president. The Republicans won the election, and in 1900 a Republican majority in Congress enacted the Gold Standard Act, which made gold the sole standard for all currency.-Britannica
I would also like to know how we would not sell out a huge chunk of the county with a gold standard. We don't have all the gold. That would mean we gave away at least a few states. We would also lose one of the best places to hide. I don't want the benevolent powers messing anymore with the gold alternative more than they already do.
Comment