Robert Gore's Article on Money
Our own Staighlinelogic has a new article on money in SavvyStreet.
Here is my question, does anything have intrinsic value.
Here is my question, does anything have intrinsic value.
SOURCE URL: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/is-our-money-fake/
What is your definition of intrinsic value?
The word value implies the question of value to who, which excludes intrinsic. Intrinsic value is an oxymoron.
I like the article. Currently we are not exchanging money we are exchanging IOUs.
A major reason a commodity currency (e.g., precious metals that have objective value), is superior to legal tender notes, is that they are not subject to the same level of manipulation that amounts to theft from the holders of the notes, to the advantage of and by the powers that issue the notes to begin with. Paper fiat currency has the benefit of easy portability. It is not presently as stable as representative or commodity money. For money to be honest and stable it must be backed by and if demanded exchanged for a commodity currency. We should never have left the gold standard. Remember silver certificates? They were not redeemable in gold, but were backed by silver. The form of the backing commodity is not important as long as it is something that retains an independent objective value that is generally recognized. The form of the fiat currency whether paper or sea shell, is also not important so long as people will universally accept it, but that acceptance is tenuous, whereas commodity money does not acquire its value from something as fickle and fleeting as faith. Governments and their credit come and go, but gold/precious metal is timeless.
Regards,
O.A.
I do remember the silver certificates. Certainly gold/silver backing is better than fiat money. However, I don't think the government should be in the business of saying what is money, including gold, which is what the gold standard does.
I like the convenience of paper money, but it should represent something of objective value. Bartering would be my preferred method of exchange if it were not for the difficulty of obtaining the goods one desires and finding traders for one's own goods. The universal exchange medium does solve this issue. Bitcoin is out of government hands for now and sounds good, but it is also not backed by an exchangeable/redeemable commodity held by the issuer and I foresee government meddling potential since it poses a threat to another of their tools of oppression.
What do you see as the best solution for a convenient, universal medium of exchange?
I think bitcoin is very interesting and it has some advantages over gold. For instances it is more transportable, more anonymous, and harder to steal.
I think the market should determine what is money and in fact I doubt that only one thing would function as money in a free market.
We have all heard the story of how Manhattan was purchased, from Indians that actually did not have legal right to it, for $24 worth of beads and trinkets... in this fashion money is whatever the traders accept. Yes?
I am sure there are government agents already planning how to undermine or take over bitcoin once they present an appreciable problem to their power.
Can Bitcoin and cowry shells not be money, under this definition because they have no intrinsic value?
Could packs of cigarettes or reels of capacitors be used since at least part of the population has a use for them?