SR 68 The Gold Solution is a Lie - Bill Still

[cbc58]

That was much more of a response than I was looking for. My questions were directed to the US dollar.

In practical terms, living in the world we live in now, how are you going to implement this new non-fiat currency on a grand scale and get everyone to go along with it? Please be specific.

 

[Acala]

easy

That was much more of a response than I was looking for. My questions were directed to the US dollar.

In practical terms, living in the world we live in now, how are you going to implement this new non-fiat currency on a grand scale and get everyone to go along with it? Please be specific.

Repeal legal tender laws and tax laws that penalize the use of alternative currencies. Let the market decide. Chances are pretty good it will choose what it has ALWAYS chosen in the past. The idea that international trade partners would prefer paper money to gold is amusing. I suppose some of them might be that stupid, but most of them would not.

 

[cbc58]

Repeal legal tender laws and tax laws that penalize the use of alternative currencies. Let the market decide. Chances are pretty good it will choose what it has ALWAYS chosen in the past. The idea that international trade partners would prefer paper money to gold is amusing. I suppose some of them might be that stupid, but most of them would not.

I am just trying to figure out how this would actually work and what the arguments pro and con would be. Right now you can and do have competing currencies. You can go out tomorrow and enroll 5 million people in a new system if you want... but it can't physically resemble fed money. As far as tax on a currency is concerned - that's more a function of the IRS and Treasury wanting tax revenue. Seems like not being able to pay taxes with gold or silver is a hangup... send it to me and i'll covert it to FRN's for a 5% fee and that takes care of that.

I guess what I am saying is that it's out there already and it's only people making excuses for themselves not practically applying the changes they want. This is the old theory vs. practice debate and ain't nothing going to change unless you put into practice what you preach.

No one really explains how this would be implemented on a grand scale and accepted by people and businesses along the economic lifecycle. That's what people want to know.

 

[Steven Douglas]

The idea that international trade partners would prefer paper money to gold is amusing. I suppose some of them might be that stupid, but most of them would not.

Aye, that has always been the rub. Anyone, if given the choice, would prefer to PAY using a continually devalued paper currency, whilst simultaneously preferring to RECEIVE only that which maintains its value or increases in value relative to the paper currency. Bretton-Woods alone proved that governments never did buy into their own bullshit that they foisted onto their respective unwary public. Anyone who has the power to avoid receiving fiat currency WILL avoid it for sound reasons that should be (but are not) obvious to everyone, even on the surface.

Even the defenders of fiat currency reveal their utter duplicity, their own cognitive dissonance, even if they don't quite grasp the fundamentals, when they attack the very notion of competing currencies.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Right now you can and do have competing currencies.

Incorrect. If any artificial control makes it less competitive, it is not a "competing" currency.

State bank notes were taxed out of existence by an act of Congress in 1864 that imposed a 10 percent tax on them for just that purpose. There was NOTHING afterward that prohibited State banks from issuing those notes, and NOTHING to prevent people from choosing them, and then "converting it for a fee". Having said that, let's scratch our heads now and wonder why they were completely driven out of circulation. And let's be obtuse to the point of suggesting that state bank notes, once taxed, actually counted as a "competing currency".

To be a "competing" currency implies that they are "competitive". A tax on one currency that does not apply to other is like the Olympics committee coming out with a new rule that says Usain Bolt can only enter a qualification round or other race wearing 10 lb. ankle weights. And then, with a straight face, refer to him as a "competitor", even though he could not qualify for any final race.

When you said, "...send it to me and i'll covert it to FRN's for a 5% fee and that takes care of that" as if convertibility was the "hangup", with zero regard for the artificial inefficiency that removes its natural efficiency and therefore desirability as a competing medium. That is not competitiveness - NOT a "free market" where that medium is concerned, as all the advantages of that currency are specially taxed, such that the currency itself, as a common medium of exchange, is taxed (read=economically discouraged) completely out of existence (as a competitive "common" medium of exhange). That is even in the absence of legal tender laws, and outright prohibitions (fines and criminal charges) on creating any medium other than FRN's which are "intended for use as common money".

 

[cbc58]

Incorrect. If any artificial control makes it less competitive, it is not a "competing" currency.

You are incorrect. Someone just said they can go into any store and pay with any currency they want - just a matter of whether or not the vendor will accept it. Those currencies contain artificial controls placed on them by their own govts. Name one that doesn't. What you are arguing about is the introduction of a true non-fiat currency that people SHOULD want to use. But they don't either because they can't (not accepted) or don't want to. There are dozens of alternative currencies out there already.

Anyone who has the power to avoid receiving fiat currency WILL avoid it for sound reasons that should be (but are not) obvious to everyone, even on the surface.

That would be 95% of the global population that disagrees with you right now. Why are they not avoiding all fiat then? Is it because the value is not only in the currency but also it's ease of use? Why do people go to a dealer to service their cars when they know they're getting ripped off? Because it's easier and they know they will fix it. "Easy" is why people use real estate brokers to sell their house vs. doing it themselves - they pay that premium.

Aye, that has always been the rub. Anyone, if given the choice, would prefer to PAY using a continually devalued paper currency, whilst simultaneously preferring to RECEIVE only that which maintains its value or increases in value relative to the paper currency.

This is exactly the point - no one wants to do it until they have to or until they can't get away with using frn's anymore... theory vs. practice. There are no free markets - none. Yes there should be but there aren't any, unless YOU and others that feel as strongly as you do go out and make it so. Everyone is a hypocrite - including me.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Someone just said they can go into any store and pay with any currency they want - just a matter of whether or not the vendor will accept it.

Ah, then how is that I can (AND DO) use my debit card, which has only FRN's on account, in almost any country around the world, and not bother with directly exchanging currency myself? It does not matter what a vendor will accept, as that is tantamount only to a RATE PEG. They are PRICING things in their currency, while I am PAYING for it using another. I pay in DOLLARS (FRN's), the vendor receives EUROS. The exchange is transparent.

Those currencies contain artificial controls placed on them by their own govts. Name one that doesn't. What you are arguing about is the introduction of a true non-fiat currency that people SHOULD want to use.

No, it doesn't matter if the want to use or accept it, let alone "SHOULD". Like any other currency used, mine would have mechanisms for exchange for clearing it so that it translates to any other currency - automatically and transparently.

Right now there are Bitcoin exchanges popping up that do just that. Forget the exchange rate or cost of using them, people CAN and DO use Bitcoins to pay for things that are priced in other currencies. Those debit cards can be used to purchases goods and services for which a vendor will ONLY accept a given specific currency. Furthermore, those exchanges are established so that IF a vendor chooses, s/he may also accept currency from other denominations. Yay Technology.

That would be 95% of the global population that disagrees with you right now. Why are they not avoiding all fiat then?

That's easy, and has nothing to do with anyone's agreement or disagreement. Fiat currency is made legally and artificially more economical and convenient to use. Remove barriers to entry and it does not matter what you think people agree or disagree with "right now" - or then. It won't be a theoretical discussion where we point to a distorted monopolistic currency market as if that reflected actual individual preferences and choices. If all anyone had to drink was bad water, that would not be evidence that 95% of the population preferred bad water.

Why do many, but not all people go to a dealer to service their cars when many, but not all know they're getting ripped off? Because it's easier to many, but not all who know they will fix it. "Easy" is why many, but not all people use real estate brokers to sell their house vs. doing it themselves - and why many, but not all pay that premium.

There, I fixed it for you.

This is exactly the point - many, but not all want to do it until they have to or until they can't get away with using frn's anymore... theory vs. practice.

Fixed it for you again.

There are no free markets - none. Yes there should be but there aren't any, unless YOU and others that feel as strongly as you do go out and make it so. Everyone is a hypocrite - including me.

I am not interested in "making it so". I am interested in taking away the "deliberately making it NOT SO".

Note that every one of the provisions in H.R. 1098 is either a REPEAL of an existing law that acts as a barrier to entry NOW, or a protection designed to prohibit such barriers. We're not DOING so much as UNDOING.

 

[cbc58]

my brain hurts just trying to follow your logic. i think you are mistaken on many levels with the practical application and implementation of such a system - irregardless of it it being supposed to work - but that's my view. good luck with your endeavors.

 

[Steven Douglas]

my brain hurts just trying to follow your logic.

I believe that the key to that pain and misapprehension is found in your very next sentence. (emphasis mine)

i think you are mistaken on many levels with the practical application and implementation of such a system...

You made three singular references ("application", "implementation" and "system").

Firstly, it's not "a system", and certainly not singular, that you need to wrap your head around, any more than anyone can wrap your head around all the complexities of human behavior, tastes, and subjective preferences in a free market. Secondly it is not single implementation by any one entity. As such it requires no central planning, manipulation or control, and in fact requires that there be none, so that the market itself, through individual risks and rewards, can determine the real practical value of (lastly, and again plural) all implementations, and sort out the practical from the impractical applications each of the systems for itself. As with anything else in a free market.

Most people use PC's with Windows. A great number prefer Apples. But to everyone who prefers Linux or some other hardware/firmware/OS/applications combination, there are choices, and majorities can go take a powder where others' choices are concerned, because their SINGLE economic vote does count in a free market, and does create NICHES. As with virtually anything offered in exchange, including a medium of exchange in a theoretically free and perfectly competitive market, there is no committee needed or desired to decide everything for everybody.

 

[cbc58]

Tks. again for your observations. We'll have to agree to disagree on the practicality of this issue.. which was a main point raised by Bill Still. It's not what you or I want, or what should or can be.. it's what can get done given the current political and economic system.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Tks. again for your observations. We'll have to agree to disagree on the practicality of this issue.. which was a main point raised by Bill Still. It's not what you or I want, or what should or can be.. it's what can get done given the current political and economic system.

Likewise, thanks for yours. I think your observation underscores the primary difference between Bill Still and Ron Paul, Von Mises, and any number of Austrian economists. Bill Still is both a statist and a monetarist at his very core. He begins with the premise that the state must think in terms of "what can get done", employing the very central planning mindset that is now, I would argue, a fatal flaw in our current political and economic system. My view is that it should not be "fixed" (i.e., stop looking for state-imposed solutions to the economy, including a "gold standard"), and very much needs to be broken.

 

[MrWalker]

Couldnt the moderator split this thread up in two? One about Bill Still, and one about Steven Douglas and his personal ideas? Im only interested in the Bill Still part.

 

[whippoorwill]

"Men have chosen the precious metals gold and silver for the money service on account of their mineralogical, physical, and chemical features. The use of money in a market economy is a praxeologically necessary fact. That gold--and not something else--is used as money is merely a historical fact and as such cannot be conceived by catallactics. In monetary history too, as in all other branches of history, one must resort to historical understanding. If one takes pleasure in calling the gold standard a "barbarous relic,"[28] one cannot object to the application of the same term to every historically determined institution. Then the fact that the British speak English--and not Danish, German, or French--is a barbarous relic too, and every Briton who opposes the substitution of Esperanto for English is no less dogmatic and orthodox than those who do not wax rapturous about the plans for a managed currency." XVII. INDIRECT EXCHANGE: 19. The Gold Standard, Human Action -by Ludwig von Mises
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap17sec19.asp

 

[Steven Douglas]

Couldnt the moderator split this thread up in two? One about Bill Still, and one about Steven Douglas and his personal ideas? Im only interested in the Bill Still part.

Mr. Walker, the way it works is, we discuss and debate things that are on-topic in the same thread. Since my posts were on-topic, and were indeed all about Bill Still, what it seems you are really asking for is a thread that is pro-Bill Still only, wherein nobody disagrees with Bill Still's anti-gold, anti-Paul, anti-Von Mises pro-fiat currency position.

If it's just my personal opinions in general you're interested in not seeing, however, here is your equally personal solution (and the decidedly libertarian one at that):

1) Click on my name and click "View Profile" (or CLICK HERE for that same link)
2) From the menu on the left on that page, click "Add to Ignore List" (or CLICK HERE for that same link)
3) Confirm by clicking Yes when prompted.
4) Voila! Personal censorship filtering of all posts by Steven Douglas, with no more of your sensibilities offended by them.

Hope that helps.

 

[matt0611]

What are the barriers to using gold and silver right now?
(I know there are some I'm just trying to pin down what they are).

I know there are:

1. Federal and state capital gains tax when you exchange gold or silver.

2. State sales taxes?

3. Legal tender laws? (I know each FRN is legal tender but what does this mean in practice?) Can a merchant accept gold and silver for payment? Is anyone "forced" to accept FRNs?

4. I'm sure there would be all sorts of SEC problems with banks trying to set up accounts that held gold instead of dollars, same with debit and credit cards etc. I know Peter Schiff offers a gold debit card at his international EuroPacific Bank but not to Americans because of regulations.

5. Others?

 

[rhelwig]

What are the barriers to using gold and silver right now?
(I know there are some I'm just trying to pin down what they are).

I know there are:

1. Federal and state capital gains tax when you exchange gold or silver.

LOL

2. State sales taxes?

If you have to pay sales taxes, you'd pay them the same with an alternative currency - just add it on.

3. Legal tender laws? (I know each FRN is legal tender but what does this mean in practice?) Can a merchant accept gold and silver for payment? Is anyone "forced" to accept FRNs?

Yes, you can accept anything you want, and can refuse to accept FRNs. The legal tender laws state "debts", and so if someone owes you money they can pay it with FRNs; but for regular sale type events you can use whatever.

4. I'm sure there would be all sorts of SEC problems with banks trying to set up accounts that held gold instead of dollars, same with debit and credit cards etc. I know Peter Schiff offers a gold debit card at his international EuroPacific Bank but not to Americans because of regulations.

That's why we shouldn't bother with even trying it here. Use bitcoins for digital/electronic transactions and Shire Silver for in-person anonymous transactions.

5. Others?

Education mostly. Most people don't care (and never will) about sound money so we need to make the business case. How does our supposedly better money actually improve their lives? And we need to defeat the gold-bug near-sightedness on spot price. They need to understand that you can't produce and sell a product (and money is a product) at the price the raw materials cost you. Any free market money needs to have an added value over the commodity its based on.

 

[Steven Douglas]

What are the barriers to using gold and silver right now?
(I know there are some I'm just trying to pin down what they are).

I know there are:

1. Federal and state capital gains tax when you exchange gold or silver.
2. State sales taxes?

Yes, and add local taxes, including personal property taxes, if applicable, and also markups from the "sales" of hard specie, rather than a simple direct monetary exchange.

3. Legal tender laws? (I know each FRN is legal tender but what does this mean in practice?) Can a merchant accept gold and silver for payment? Is anyone "forced" to accept FRNs?

Legal tender (and related) laws create a number of barriers to entry, but that gets obfuscated with strawman framing, like "forced at gunpoint to accept FRN's", which is not at issue. Legal tender for all debts (private) means that if someone tenders/offers you FRN's in the payment of a debt, and you refuse payment in that form of currency, your debt can be declared discharged by the courts, given that "legal tender" was offered and refused. So it's not a question of "We will force you at gunpoint to take it". It's more a case of "Accept this paper, or consider yourself screwed."

On the taxes and other public debts side, there is a monopoly on FRN's as the only medium that is acceptable to federal, state and local governments required for payment of taxes (with the exception now of Utah, which is gearing up for U.S. minted gold and silver coin. So it is impossible to "opt out" of the Fed's monopoly, because at some point you will be on pain of loss of life, liberty and/or property, coerced into valuing something relative to fiat currency, as well as "buying" legal tender to use as payment of public debts.

On the capital gains question (and even, to a lesser degree, the progressive graduated income tax) the government plays deliberately stupid as it rides both sides of value/price question. Any increase in price (in FRN's), including income, automatically equates to an increase in value (as in the case of a capital "gain"), even though it may only reflect a devaluation of the currency alone. The unwritten presumption is that the deliberately inflated currency is somehow a value constant of its own. Thus, a circulated silver dollar stuff in your mattress for 50 years is said to have appreciated in value , which is utter bullshit -- as we pay no attention to the real culprit; namely, the value depreciation of the Fed notes that "value" is reckoned by. That is a barrier to entry because, once again, it is punishing the holder of a currency or commodity that merely maintained its value. So you get taxed twice -- once when the fiat currency you hold is inflated, and once again for holding a currency that has not been inflated.

4. I'm sure there would be all sorts of SEC problems with banks trying to set up accounts that held gold instead of dollars, same with debit and credit cards etc. I know Peter Schiff offers a gold debit card at his international EuroPacific Bank but not to Americans because of regulations.

Yep, and that mountain of bureaucratic red tape and attendant fees is an ENORMOUS barrier to entry.

5. Others?

Yes, actually, as if any one of those wasn't enough. Here's a whopper: 18 USC § 486 - Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal

Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money ... of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

So go ahead design your own palladium or platinum coin (or even zinc or bronze or copper), of your own design, with the intent that it start circulating alongside Fed notes and compete as "current money" is subject to fines and/or imprisonment. A GARGANTUAN barrier to entry. Technically, any of the creators of "community" money circulating as coinage is in violation of this statute. But it would be unpopular to prosecute, so our government takes a very Chinese "one eye opened, one eye closed" approach, while throwing the book at the creators of the Liberty Dollar for "counterfeiting", even though there was no intent to defraud, but rather to give people a way out of fraud.

 

[rhelwig]

Yes, actually, as if any one of those wasn't enough. Here's a whopper: 18 USC § 486 - Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal



So go ahead design your own palladium or platinum coin (or even zinc or bronze or copper), of your own design, with the intent that it start circulating alongside Fed notes and compete as "current money" is subject to fines and/or imprisonment. A GARGANTUAN barrier to entry. Technically, any of the creators of "community" money circulating as coinage is in violation of this statute.

And this is another advantage of Shire Silver, as it is in no way a "coin". While I'm sure the gov/fed lawyers could stretch the definition of coin to include small ingots or bars of silver, the strips of silver and wires of gold embedded in Shire Silver cards are so far from being coins that no jury would convict.

 

[MrWalker]

Mr. Walker, the way it works is, we discuss and debate things that are on-topic in the same thread. Since my posts were on-topic, and were indeed all about Bill Still, what it seems you are really asking for is a thread that is pro-Bill Still only, wherein nobody disagrees with Bill Still's anti-gold, anti-Paul, anti-Von Mises pro-fiat currency position.

"Bill Still is leftist conspiracy theorist moron with a "libertarin-ISH" agenda from a far left fringe."

That was the first thing you wrote. It strongly discouraged me from reading the remaining.

If it's just my personal opinions in general you're interested in not seeing, however, here is your equally personal solution (and the decidedly libertarian one at that):

1) Click on my name and click "View Profile" (or CLICK HERE for that same link)
2) From the menu on the left on that page, click "Add to Ignore List" (or CLICK HERE for that same link)
3) Confirm by clicking Yes when prompted.
4) Voila! Personal censorship filtering of all posts by Steven Douglas, with no more of your sensibilities offended by them.

Hope that helps.

I forgot the level of egocentrism that you libertatians allow yourselves. You definetly cured me of any remaining libertarianism i had left.

 

[Steven Douglas]

I forgot the level of egocentrism that you libertatians allow yourselves. You definetly cured me of any remaining libertarianism i had left.

If that is all it took, then your 'libertarianism', as you put it, could not possibly have been rooted in principle to begin with. So here's to your cure, and my part in that; or, as Hannibal Lecter put it, "Best thing for him really, his therapy was going nowhere."