Patrick,
> No. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. > Force and verbiage are two different things. Not everybody will agree that words cannot harm. Just ask the people who sue in court for public slander. But since Jim has agreed with your definition, I have now asked him some questions, so he can answer for himself if he chooses so. > > At least he could have cared to mention where I advocated use of force > > against somebody or something... > > Actually looking through your posts I see quite a bit of laissez-faire > attitude. I think our communication difficulties arise from a > fundamental disagreement on the nature of fiat systems. The advocates > of fiat systems flatly deny that brute force is necessary to float > those systems. For example, in a previous post you gave a chronology > of how a fiat system evolves, starting with gold and notes for gold, > but ultimately culminating with this: > > > And finally the curency was made independant from the gold backing. Indeed, but making it independant from gold backing is not necessarily done by force. It may have been done by force in the past, but that does not mean it is the only way. The people who manage a currency (which can be a private group or a government), can simply announce a change in the 'terms of use' effective a certain date in the future. If the currency is operating in a free market, people have the possibility to redeem their currency for gold while they still can, or exchange them for another currency of their choice. I have always stated that the free market is a conditia sine qua non for the fiat currency system to work. After the change people can still exchange their currency for gold, but not at the old fixed rate, they can do so at a rate that is decided by the free market. This rate can be higher or lower. Needless to say that this operation will only succeed if the currency has sufficient reputation capital , is managed in a sound way, and has gained enough widespread acceptance. > What a sweet, passive, neutral way to portray an act of theft, fraud, > and extortion. It would not be theft if the people are told up front about the coming change and have possibility to exit the currency before the change in policy. Somebody who had $35 in 1970 could redeem it for one ounce of gold. If we take into account storage costs that person will now have something like 0.8 ounces left Had he invested the $35 conservatively in all 500 stocks of the S&P, he could now buy an ounce of gold for it, and he would also have enjoyed dividends over the years, which would probably allow him to buy another half ounce at current prices. The person who stayed in dollars is richer now! And that includes a period of very high inflation during the 70's You might say that the price of gold is far too low today. Okay, but gold producers currently take it out of the ground at an average cost of about $300.. > While the historical record > does not prove that there could be no noncommodity money on the free > market, Austrian economists have argued that money must be a commodity > by its nature." Maybe these Austrian economists are wrong. A money can have value, just based on its widespread acceptance and a sound 'open books' management. If the free market accepts the US dollars and prices its commodities in this currency, then by this very acceptance the currency becomes backed by these commodities and by all of them, not only by the gold. It means that you can go to the market and exchange your dollars for these commodities. The users back the currency by offering goods and services in exchange for it. It is based on trust. I accept dollars because I know I can go to the market and exchange them for something else, even for gold if I want. Bad management of the money can break this trust of course, and that's the main disadvantage of the system. But when there is a free market nobody is forced to keep all his wealth in the same currency, and plenty of stores of value are available as well. > Note that in the second paragraph, the author states that the > introduction of paper money always took the form of a privileged group > gaining "permission to suspend the redemption of its notes." Or as > Danny so blithely puts it: "And finally the currency was made > independent of its gold backing." Yes, so that means that until this 'gaining permission...' gold (or commodity) backing was imposed (probably by some government). What kind of laissez-faire is that? That's a point that many advocates of hard money seem to miss. Enforcing commodity backed money only, is not laissez-faire. > So when Jim discusses a "vicious thug who insists on imposing paper > money on these workers," he is referring to a paper money system that > was originally imposed on the people by force and is now maintained by > force. Ok , but that's not me. Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
