Cameron Craig: “Libertarians are non-interventionists and strong advocates for property rights, free immigration, legalizing all drugs and prostitution.
“Libertarians are against taxes, any form of social benefits and believe everyone must pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
“The core tenet of libertarianism is that one’s liberty and right to own property should never be infringed upon.
Reason.com, is a voice of Libertarianism. Read what they say about the National “Debt.”
Hey, Nancy Pelosi: ‘National Debt Should Be a Top Priority’
A bipartisan group of lawmakers are calling for two deficit-reduction ideas to be included in this year’s federal budget bill.
ERIC BOEHM | 2.23.2022 2:40 PM
Immediately, you see that Eric Boehm is spouting ignorance, and I’m not referring to his incorrect use of “are” rather than “is.”
The national “debt” isn’t a priority; it shouldn’t even be a mild concern.
In fact, it’s not “debt.”
It’s the total of deposits into Treasury security accounts, which resemble interest-paying, bank safe-deposit boxes.
When you invest in a T-bill, T-note, or T-bond, you deposit your dollars into your T-security account.
The federal government neither needs, uses, nor touches your dollars, and when your account matures, your dollars are sent back to you.
No tax dollars are involved.
As with the contents of safe-deposit boxes, the government doesn’t owe anyone the deposits in T-security accounts. Neither do you owe them. Nor do your grandchildren owe them. They are not a financial burden on anyone or anything.
So why would a thinking person tell you they are a “priority”?
And as for so-called “deficits,” they represent the net growth dollars our Monetarily Sovereign government pumps into the economy.
The U.S. government has infinite dollars to give; the economy needs growth dollars in order to grow. Without federal “deficits” we have recessions and depressions, all of which are cured by “deficits.”
Recessions (vertical bars) follow REDUCTIONS in deficit growth. Recessions are cured by INCREASES in deficit growth.
Mr. Boehm’s article begins with faulty premises, and only goes downhill from there. He asks:
How are we actually going to pay for all this?
“We” (you, and I, and the government) are not going to pay for “all this.” As each T-security account reaches maturity, the dollars that reside in those accounts will be transferred to the owners’ checking accounts, upon request.
It’s a simple dollar transfer. No new dollars are needed.
And even if the federal government did owe the money, it has infinite dollars with which to pay any financial obligation.
Mr. Boehm’s (and the rest of the Libertarians’) deficit/debt concern is based on the Big Lie that federal finances resemble state/local government finances and personal finances.
But the federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign, while you, all local governments and all businesses are monetarily non-sovereign.
The Libertarians don’t want you to understand that a Monetarily Sovereign entity never unintentionally can run short of its own sovereign currency. Even if the federal government collected $0 taxes, it could continue spending, forever.
(The purpose of federal taxes is not to finance spending. The purpose is to control the economy. Taxes discourage what the government doesn’t want, and tax breaks encourage what the government does want.)
The federal government does not borrow dollars. The so-called “national debt” is not a debt to be repaid.
In a letter sent on Tuesday, 24 members of the House of Representatives called on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) to take some small but important steps to rein in America’s out-of-control national debt.
The misnamed “national debt” (that isn’t a debt), also isn’t “out of control” and doesn’t need to be “reined in.” The federal government controls to the penny, how many T-security dollars to accept from the public.
To prevent the public’s T-security account deposits from growing higher than desired, the federal government can lower interest rates. That discourages further deposits.
Or the Federal Reserve can use its infinite dollar-creation abilities to take the public’s place (what the uninformed would term “borrowing from itself.”)
Similarly, if in its wisdom, the Federal Reserve decides deposits should be higher, it can increase interest rates, or again, the Federal Reserve can increase deposits.
The source of Mr. Boehm’s disinformation is the wrongheaded belief that the federal government borrows when its tax income is insufficient to pay its bills.
That “income vs. borrowing” scenario is true of state and local governments. It also is true of businesses. And it is true of you and me. We borrow when cash at hand is insufficient.
It is not true of our Monetarily Sovereign, U.S. federal government. It has infinite cash at hand.
Here is what knowledgeable people say about Monetary Sovereignty:
Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”
Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
Quote from Ben Bernanke when, as Fed chief, he was on 60 Minutes:
Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.
Statement from the St. Louis Fed:
“As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”
Press Conference: Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, 9 January 2014
Question: I am wondering: can the ECB ever run out of money?
Mario Draghi: Technically, no. We cannot run out of money.
Messrs. Greenspan, Bernanke, and Draghi, and the St. Louis Fed, were describing Monetary Sovereignty, the unlimited ability of a Monetarily Sovereign entity to create its own sovereign currency.
The U.S. government not only has this unlimited ability, but it also has the unlimited ability to determine, by fiat, the value of the U.S. dollar, an ability it has exercised many times over the years, when fixing the dollar to varying amounts of silver and gold.
Thus, the U.S. federal government has the absolute power to control inflation.
So why do T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds even exist?
The federal government’s spending and income are recorded in what is known as the “General Fund.”
It’s not really a “fund.” It’s just a bookkeeping record. But for historical reasons, having to do with a young nation needing acceptance for its money, this record is not allowed to have a negative balance.
It’s an obsolete law. There is no current reason why the General Fund, or any bookkeeping item can’t have a negative balance. But the convoluted workaround for this obsolete law is to pretend to borrow by issuing Treasury securities, and allowing the public to invest in them, with the balance being purchased by the government itself.
It’s all bookkeeping hocus-pocus, to satisfy an obsolete set of rules, originally designed to prevent what mathematically cannot ever happen: Unintended federal insolvency.
Today, the functional purpose for issuing T-securities is to provide a safe interest-paying parking place for unused dollars, which helps to stabilize the value of the U.S. dollar.
The letter highlights the fact that policies enacted during the past five years—including pandemic relief, but also “Congress’ perennially broken budget process and fiscal policies”—have added $13 trillion to the projected levels of debt in 2031, at the end of the 10-year window Congress uses for budgeting.
Mr. Boehm is referring to $13 trillion federal growth dollars, without which the economy would fall into the deepest depression in world history.
“It has been over a decade since Congress enacted any legislation that significantly addressed these longstanding structural problems or improved the nation’s fiscal outlook,” the lawmakers wrote to Pelosi.
“Our national debt should be a top priority for both parties and addressed on a bipartisan basis.”
The misnamed “debt” neither is a structural problem, nor a “priority,” and it has nothing to do with a “fiscal outlook.” It’s all lies.
Yes, the letter represents the view of just 24 of the House’s 435 members. Still, any discussion of the debt and the need to address it is welcome.
It is encouraging that only 24 of the House’s 435 members are misinformed or dishonest enough to sign such a letter.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now forecasts that the debt will be twice the size of the economy by 2051, while the Government Accountability Office (GAO) predicts that the debt will grow to four times the size of America’s economy before the end of the century.
Here, Mr. Boehm referred to the most ridiculous, nonsensical, meaningless ratio in all of economics: The debt/GDP ratio. It is a ratio that says nothing about the health of the economy (see Debt to GDP Ratio by Country 2022). It is a ratio that predicts nothing.
It isn’t even mathematically logical, because it describes different time sequences. “Debt” is the net accumulation of deficits during the past two centuries, while GDP refers to one year.
“U.S. fiscal policy today is not sustainable,” argue Veronique de Rugy and Jack Salmon, researchers at the Mercatus Center, a free market think tank, in a new report published Wednesday.
“Not only is our debt ratio at the highest level in peacetime history, but also our future budgetary outlook is even bleaker.”
The two researchers from the Libertarian Mercatus Center imply that the federal government can run short of its own sovereign currency, a fiscal impossibility. And the “not sustainable” trope has been disseminated, without evidence, since at least 1940.
See: “Your periodic reminder. After 80 years, the federal debt still is a ‘ticking time bomb.’
Libertarians were wrong then. They are wrong now. The federal “debt,” far from being a priority, or a problem or a burden on future generations, is an absolute necessity for economic growth — the larger the “debt” (i.e. net deficits), the faster the growth.
Perhaps it was the symbolic $30 trillion debt threshold that has prompted some lawmakers to call on Pelosi to take action.
But another factor is the high levels of inflation America is currently experiencing.
As Reason has previously explained, inflation and high debt create a trap for policymakers: higher inflation could lead the Federal Reserve raise interest rates, which would increase the payments owed on the debt.
Because Libertarians seem to think that all federal spending is excessive, the notion that the federal government would pay more interest into the economy upsets them.
In reality however, there is no downside to increased federal interest. The government has infinite dollars, and the economy benefits from additional dollars.
Contrary to the Libertarian philosophy of ignorance, federal spending is stimulative, and also contrary to popular wisdom, not inflationary.
Inflations never are caused by “too much money.” Inflations always are caused by shortages of key goods and services. Those shortages, and the resultant inflation, can be cured by increased federal spending to encourage the availability of the scarce goods and services.
Today’s inflation is an example: Current shortages of oil, computer chips, food, shipping, and lumber can be cured by federal aid to oil production, computer chips, farming, and lumber.
Current shortages of labor can be cured by the elimination of FICA and income taxes, which serve only to reduce the reward for work.
Fighting inflation with deficit reduction, would lead to recession.
Regardless of the reasons, the 24 lawmakers who signed this week’s letter are asking for two policies that are the lowest of low-hanging fruit.
First, they are seeking the creation of a bipartisan debt commission, similar to one implemented during President Barack Obama’s first term that helped trigger modest reductions in annual budget deficits following the Great Recession.
I’m not sure what economy Mr. Boehm lives in, but the Great Recession was cured by massive increases in federal deficit spending, which then returned to average levels, only to rise again to combat COVID.
Mr. Boehm closes his article with a summary of ignorance and disinformation:
Lawmakers are asking Pelosi to include in the budget changes to how the debt ceiling operates.
The proposed changes would allow the president to unilaterally lift the debt limit as long as Congress has passed a budget resolution that contains certain debt-reduction measures for the current year.
Raising the debt ceiling is not the same as adding to the debt. The debt ceiling merely authorizes the Treasury to borrow funds to pay for spending already approved by Congress.
Objections to increasing the debt ceiling amount to little more than a refusal to pay overdue credit card bills—a temper tantrum that doesn’t address the actual problem of overspending.
Mr. Boehm is correct that the debt ceiling doesn’t address anything, much less the mythical problem of “overspending.” Rather than recommending the end of this laughable anachronism, Mr. Boehm supports Presidential fiddling with the debt ceiling:
“(Deficit cuts) . . . won’t fix America’s fiscal mess, but they are “commonsense ideas” that “would be important steps in the right direction,” according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates for reducing the deficit.
And they are steps that the country will have to take, sooner or later. “We owe it to our children,”the lawmakers wrote to Pelosi, “to acknowledge our country’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory and work together, across the aisle, to address it over time.”
Yes, Boehm delivers a final dose of utter BS. The ideas neither are “commonsense” nor are they “important steps in the right direction.”
Our children do not owe, nor will they pay for the federal “debt.” Instead, if the debt is reduced our children will be punished by the resultant recessions and depressions.
And, the country’s “fiscal trajectory” (presumably, he means rising “debt”) is not “unsustainable.” It’s necessary. Here is what happens whenever we reduce the “debt.”
1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.
Libertarians are the kissin’ cousins of Republican conservatives. Birds fly. Fish swim. Libertarians lie. Apparently, those are three constants in nature.
Why do the Libertarians lie about the federal “debt”?
Go back to one of the tenets of Liberalism: “Libertarians are against taxes, any form of social benefits and believe everyone must pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.“
Libertarians want the federal “debt” reduced, and the easiest way to accomplish that is to cut such social benefits as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, poverty aids, etc.
Rather than complain about social benefits, which the populace loves (and the government has the infinite ability to provide), Libertarians find it easier to complain about so-called “debt” and deficits.
By convincing the public that “debt” and deficits must be cut, the Libertarians are able to justify cutting benefits to the middle- and lower-income groups.
It’s the backdoor way of making the rich richer by widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.
Thus, Libertarians are Republicans in disguise, pretending to be a middle-ground compromise between liberals and conservatives, but in fact, being as right wing, pro-rich, anti-middle, anti-poor as any Republican, perhaps more so.
[Why would any sane person take dollars from the economy and give them to a federal government that has the infinite ability to create dollars?]
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.
The most important problems in economics involve:
- Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
- Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics. Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
- Eliminate FICA
- Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
- Social Security for all
- Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
- Salary for attending school
- Eliminate federal taxes on business
- Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.
- Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
- Federal ownership of all banks
- Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
34 thoughts on “What Libertarians want you to believe”
Economically, Libertarians build delusional castles in the sky….and expect us to inhabit them. Not!
Maybe your best column ever!
That was quite a read! I’m on the fence regarding both opposing views/theories. Excellent writing and quotations! Much to ponder. That being said, to believe that Gold is Money and Fiat is Fiat is Fiat, Ad nauesum.
Also, I applaud the invention of Bitcoin in 2008. And see it as “Digital Gold”, making Gold itself even more practical.
Gold is just a metal, having no more monetary significance than platinum or water.
One must agree on a Definition of “What is Money”, in order to defend or oppose “Gold I’d just a metal”.
Site logo image Musings of a Retired Papa
What Is Money? Part 2 of “3 Things Most People Don’t Know About Gold, Bitcoin, and Money”
What Is Money?
Ask your average Charlie Brown:
“Well for Birthday Parties, of course! “
Although people use money daily, few consider what it actually is or what makes for a good money.
“My Bank Statement, ugh! I got so many Bills to pay!”
Asking people, “what is money?” is like asking a fish, “what is water?”
“Pardon me, Mr. Trout. What is water?”
The fish probably doesn’t even notice the water unless it becomes polluted or something is wrong.
“I’m swimming in it,” he would say. It’s just ‘here’. I guess I just takeout for granted.”
Money is a good, just like any other in an economy. And it isn’t a complex notion to grasp.
It doesn’t require you to understand convoluted math formulas and complicated theories—as the gatekeepers in academia, media, and government mislead many folks into believing.
Understanding money is intuitive and straightforward.
Money is simply something useful for storing and exchanging value.
Think of money as a claim on human time. It’s like stored life or energy.
Money is like Larry. (Chronos)
Unfortunately, today most of humanity thoughtlessly accepts whatever their government gives them as money.
However, money does not need to come from the government. That’s a total misnomer that the average person has been hoodwinked into believing.
“Hey! Are you saying the government uses us Gnomes to Wink ? And I don’t wear a hood! It’s a printed hat!”
Okay. Here a better analogy:
(In the days before Ronald Regean… )
It would be similar to transporting yourself back in time and asking the average person in the Soviet Union, “Where do shoes come from?”
They would say, “Well, the government makes the shoes. Where else could they come from? Who else could make the shoes?”
It’s the same mentality here regarding money today—except it’s much more widespread.
The truth is money doesn’t need to come from the government any more than shoes do.
People have used stones, glass beads, salt, cattle, seashells, gold, silver, and other commodities as money at different times.
However, for over 2,500 years, gold has been mankind’s most enduring form of money.
Gold in the Bible is mentioned 417 times and silver is mentioned 320 times.
Gold didn’t become money by accident or because some politicians decreed it. Instead, it became money because countless individuals throughout history and across many different civilizations subjectively came to the same conclusion: gold is money.
It resulted from a market process of people looking for the best way to store and exchange value.
So, why did they go to gold? What makes gold attractive as money?
Gold has a set of unique characteristics that make it suitable as money.
Gold is durable, divisible, consistent, convenient, scarce, and most importantly, the “hardest” of all physical commodities.
In other words, gold is “hard to produce” relative to existing stockpiles and the one physical commodity most resistant to inflation of its supply. That’s what gives gold its monetary properties.
But this is the Computer Age you might say! It’s the Age of Technology ….
And so? The Year of Our Lord 2008 , as the BIG BANKS failed in the US and then globally and had to be bailed out – the greatest innovation since Electricity was harnessed , and the Internet evolved … maybe bigger than Gutenberg and the printing press….
Think Computer Chip
Bitcoin shares many of the same attributes of gold that make it attractive as money. That’s why it is often referred to as “digital gold.”
Like gold, Bitcoin does not have counterparty risk, and nobody can arbitrarily inflate the supply.
At this point, some people might say, “wait, Bitcoin doesn’t have intrinsic value or industrial use. It’s more like fiat money. So how can it even be compared to gold?”
Before I go further, it’s important to make three clarifications to address common misunderstandings.
1.There is No Such Thing as Intrinsic Value
2. Bitcoin is Not Fiat Money
3. Industrial Use Doesn’t Make a Good Money
The goal is to see the forest for the trees.
Next BLOG: “Three clarifications to address common misunderstandings. Part 3 of “3 Things Most People Don’t Know About Gold, Bitcoin, and Money”
Tip icon image You can also reply to this email to leave a comment.
Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Musings of a Retired Papa.
Change your email settings at manage subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
Powered by WordPress.com
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play
Gold is not money and never was money. It’s a barter medium like diamonds, platinum, salt, oil or wheat.
Even a gold coin is not money. It doesn’t have an agreed upon value. A ten dollar bill always is worth exactly ten one dollar bills. But is a $20 gold coin always worth 20 $1 coins? Is a gold coin more valuable than an aluminum coin? If so, that proves gold is not money.
The value of a dollar relies on the full faith and credit of the United States government. What does the value of gold rely on?
Even a dollar bill is not money. It is a title to a dollar, but not a dollar in itself — just like a car title is not a car and a house title is not a house.
Today’s money is nothing more than balance sheet notations. It has no physical substance. You can’t see, smell, taste, feel, or hear money.
That is why the U.S. federal government instantly could, if it wished, create a trillion, trillion, trillion dollars today. It’s why you can wire money without actually sending anything. It’s why you can write a check that transfers money from one bank to another without physically transferring anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agee to disagree but I appreciate your point! My point is that anything that is acceptable for trade or exchange, in the broadest sense, is money. Yesterday I had a young boy come over and help me wheelbarrow mulch. He would not accept payment when I offered him “money”, which is to say a $5 dollar bill. But then I brought him out an snack and soda and we sat and talked. You can argue that it was not money if you wish. But to me it was an exchange – a transfer of a good for a service.
Yes, it was an exchange. Snacks and sodas are not money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As to Gold, it has the longest history of use as “money”. It has distinct properties, it can not be duplicated, though many made an art of trying. Today Central Banks hold a massive store of Gold, and claim it as a reason why we should believe their fiat should keep being accepted.
Fewer today have the smarts, but I have “traded” gold coins for a classic car. AKA “money”.
Thank you for making my point. What was the NOMINATIVE value of those gold coins? maybe $100?
If they were money, you just would have paid $100 for a car. But, they were not money; they were a barter medium.
Is a $10 gold coin worth more or less than a $10 silver coin? If more, then gold is not money, but a barter medium, like silver, platinum, copper, nickel, etc.
The value of gold stored in central banks is laughably small compared to the value of the money issued by those nations. Only a fool would think that millions or billions of dollars worth of gold (at today’s prices) somehow supports the trillions of outstanding dollars — especially since you have no right to obtain that gold.
Do you really accept U.S. dollars because Fort Knox has gold? Really?
Interesting reply! Two questions arise;
1. When fiat was backed by gold, pre 1930’s , was it better or worse?
2. Are you not at all concerned that fiat is also just a paper paradox?
1. Better or worse in what way?
2. All money is fiat in that it is created by a money creator’s fiat. What’s the paradox?
I mean, would you have had any greater or lessor confidence in fiat then? I still have some worthless Confederate fiat Money , a Billion Mark fiat from Turn of the century Germany and a Trillion Zimbabwean Note – I keep them to remind me not to trust in gov fiat. Had I the same amount in gold priced at that time , I’d be kinda happy!
The value of money is based on acceptance, which in turn is based on the full faith and credit of the issuer.
AS MONEY, the Confederate, or German, or Zimbabwean currencies may have no value, though as historical paper documents, some may be quite valuable.
And that is the whole point. AS MONEY, a ten-dollar gold coin is, and always has been, worth exactly ten U.S. dollars, neither more nor less. The Confederate, German, and Zimbabwian currencies are worth exactly what their government say they are worth.
Perhaps this will make it clearer. These days, gold is worth about $2,000 per oz, so imagine the federal government creates a 1 oz gold coin stamped “$2000.” How much IN MONEY is that coin worth? Answer: Exactly $2,000.
Now visualize that the price of gold drops to $500 per oz. How much IN MONEY is that coin worth? Answer: Exactly the same $2,000.
The point: Money always is worth its NOMINATIVE value, no matter what substrate is used. A dollar is worth a dollar, whether in a balance sheet, a computer printout, a check, or a $1 coin.
If you have more confidence in gold than in U.S. electronic dollars, feel free to exchange your electronic dollars for bars of gold. Enjoy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks I will if I ever get ahead! Here’s a better side of my point. The US GOV MINT produced $1, $5, $10 and $20 coins up to the 1930’s. Fort Knox may actually ha as many once at their fixed rate for gold per ounce, say $20 green back = a $20 per ounce of gold. Back then, I’d have an extra feeling of confidence. Point 2: fast forward to 2023. Give me the one ounce $20 Liberty from that year – I’ll buy $2,000 at COSCO just as quick as I exchange it for fiat and get rid of the fiat and go home with real goods !
What will you go with the wrinkled dirty 1880’s piece of paper in 2023 ?
I’m sorry I was unable to explain to you the difference between money and an ore. As MONEY, that $20 Liberty is worth exactly $20.
Precious metals expert predicts gold and silver will rise in 2023 as government spending results in increased inflation and U.S. hits debt ceiling. | Fox Business
Oil experts predict oil will rise in 2023. So, I guess oil is money, too. Right?
Stock expert predicts S&P will rise in 2023. That makes the S&P index money?
The question was, “Is gold money?” Am I not getting through?
The paradox might be: The US gov prints so many more trillions of fiat that no one wants it. If that day happens, you can call it barter, but when I can exchange a couple of One Ounce Eagles for a month of food from a Farmer and he can “spend” them on a good used tractor from a Dealer uses them to pay his landlord (etc). So he doesn’t have to vacate, I call that money.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
You may choose to call a used tractor “money,” but I doubt you would find many believers. As have so many before, you now have switched from the question of gold being money to the question of whether money creation is inflationary.
First, the government can create (and has created) trillions of ELECTRONIC dollars, no paper involved. So, paper or not makes no difference. The money has been created.
Second, I have written several posts showing that federal deficits are not inflationary. Inflations are caused by shortages of key goods and services.
Third, you just as well could have given the example of someone discovering a massive gold mine, and suddenly the dollar value of gold drops precipitously.
Again, consider that $2,000 face-value coin made from 1 oz. of gold. The gold is worth $2,000 in market value. What is the coin worth in money value? Answer: $2,000
Then the price of gold drops in half. Now, what is the coin worth in money value? Answer $2,000. The money value always is what is printed on the coin. The exchange value may be more or less.
You have a perfect opportunity to test your beliefs. You can use so-called “fiat” money to exchange for gold. Your $5,000 worth of “fiat” money always will be worth $5,000. If you believe gold to be safer, go for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, that has been an interesting tit for tat! I’ve enjoyed it!
Your viewpoints make me wonder – why you write and how you arrived at your staunchly held positions? Did you serve in the US Military? How do you feel about those who do or did?
I write because on rare occasions, I help someone learn something.
I served in the military and have no special feelings about those who do. A relative handful risks their lives during combat. The vast majority are just employees, like any business employees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you will find, if you trust and invest only in fiat, you may find your nest egg is insufficient to maintain your lifestyle. And perhaps even struggle to provide food and shelter. I pray that day never comes to America , but if you are good with printing (paper and digitally) Trillions and Trillions upon Trillions, Zimbabwe is what you’ll get.
I served over 50 years ago. I was there when we went off the Gold Standard. I saw the Berlin Wall come down and the Fall of the SovietvUmion. 9-11. And so much since that words fail.
I’ll believe in Gold – from biblical ages past to the present – as a “Standard” on which money is measured . As nations and currencies rise and fall, I think for me and my house , God has provided Gold.
Gold, is like other commodities. It has had massive price swings. See: https://onlygold.com/gold-prices/historical-gold-prices/#:~:text=Over%20200%20years%20of%20historical%20annual%20Gold%20Prices,%20%20%24333.00%20%2038%20more%20rows%20
If you get caught near the bottom of a swing, you will be hurt badly. Or, if you are smart enough to sell near the top, you will do well.
And that is the point. Gold is like other such commodities as silver, oil, aluminum, pork bellies, S&P units, copper, soybeans, etc. Many are traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
Gold is just another commodity. It’s not special in any way. The problem with gold is it pays no dividends or interest, but you must allow for insurance, storage, and transportation costs.
Depending on start date, you might have done better by investing in the S&P 500 index than in gold. See: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=Z2Dx
LikeLiked by 1 person
And by the way, Zimbabwe’s inflation had nothing to do with printing paper. All inflations are caused by shortages, not by currency printing.
The background is: The Zimbabwe government stole farmland from white farmers and gave it to blacks who didn’t know how to farm. The predictable food shortage caused the massive hyperinflation. Gold or the lack thereof had nothing to do with it.
I am familiar with the Z backstory. I would make the case that unlimited fiat printing, by definition “inflates” – increase the size nd amount – and as a result, devalues the base , to the harm of the fiat holders. But agree that the actual cause is as you stated.
As the gov-sanctions and messed up supply chains are proof.
I would argue that INFLATION is man made, and not a victimless crime,
Yes, that is the common belief, but the data does not support it. See: https://mythfighter.com/2022/11/19/does-federal-deficit-spending-cause-inflation-the-absolute-proof/
Commodity , yes , agree. Nothing different or special? Disagree. I’ve already mentioned 2,500 plus years of acceptance. Got a nothing that matches that?
Add rare, hard to find , costly to minor, this controlled supply, mailable , never oxidizes, I could go on and on.
Compare to unlimited printing and digitizing of fiat ? History speaks for itself in that.
Please don’t go on and on. You aren’t proving gold is money. You’re proving people find gold valuable. I don’t know how to make it simpler, but there is a huge difference between a valuable commodity and money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will end going on and on. Best wishes to you as well. Thanks for a bit of intelligent repartee !