From: bright@unlv.edu (Paul Conte)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Organization: Highly Organized
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 21:38:49 GMT

In article <lit1ouINN315@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 13480@unlv.edu, bright@unlv.edu (Paul Conte) writes:

>> The problem is that the U.S. government has a monopoly on the printing
>> of money.  If banks, corporations, whatever, were allowed to print
>> their own money, we could have a competive market in currency.  There
>> would be exchange rates just as there are now with foriegn currency.
>> This would reduce currency to the level of an apple, a pear, a cow, or
>> whatever else one would want to trade with or for.
>
>The existence of a monopoly and the printing of money are irrelevant.

I think it is very relevant.  (Said in a nice manner) :-)

>The demand for US Dollars as a commodity fluctuates. Why do you think
>businesses trade currencies and currency futures?
>
>As a commodity the demand for US dollars fluctuates, and, based on the
>supply, as measured usually by M1-3, the supply fluctuates. This, by
>the way, is not done by printing more currency. It is done by lowering
>the rate at which the Fed. lends money to member banks.
>
>There is of course a separate supply and demand scheme for gold.
>
>Because the two are commodities, with two distinct sets of causes for
>supply and demand, the arbitrary binding of one price to the other will
>have no effect, except hindering trade in the free market.

I understand and agree.

>Currency is a claim, just like a title, stock certificate or any other
>legal document. There is not a dollar in existance for every claim on
>property or service in the world. In fact, anyone with a claim to an
>above-average amount of material knows that only a small percentage of
>that claim is held in currency, hopefully the smallest in their
>portfolio as currency bears no interest.

Okay, currency is not a commodity.  It is a claim.  All the more
reason for the government to stop monopolizing the printing of money
as they can have an effect on the value of anything I own by messing
with the currency's value.  Do you agree?

IF this ever happened, and currency became a private enterprise, would
not the printing of more or less money STILL have an affect on the
value of what I own?  Even if we use ONLY gold coins, the discovery of
or non-discovery of gold will have an affect on the value of my
property.  A person should be able to choose what to use as a claim
for their property.  The government takes away that choice and
distorts the value of goods by monopolizing the press.

Actually, though, couldn't people just not use government currency?
Or do tax laws keep this illegal? :-(

And another thing: we are giving the government money so that they can
make money.  Printing presses and paper cost money.  Hell, money costs
money to make!  That is stupid.  Money should be electronic in this
day and age.  But then the computer networks cost money to maintain ...
Hmmm ... the free market is full of mysteries.

>- Kris Skrinak
>
>------
>
>"This is the best of all economic worlds. We are getting a pickup in
>economic growth with no pickup in inflation."
>
>	- Donald Fine, Chase Securities (Wall Street Journal, Dec. 12, 1992)


Paul Conte	   		"Those who know what's best for us...
bright@unlv.edu	    		 MUST RISE AND SAVE US FROM OURSELVES."
Computer Science					- Rush

	         Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian