The Return of Sound Money

[helmuth_hubener]

How can you fund the card?

You mail a check. ACH and automatic deposit will also be options.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Exactly.

With a Midas account and a Liquid Gold card, you can run your life on gold. You can have your main financial account in gold. Then you only convert to dollars at the last possible moment, and you convert the bare minimum of exactly what you need to pay that particular bill.

Here's another cool way of looking at it. The Liquid Gold card is like having your own personal currency exchanger there with you at every check-out line. You hand him the gold coins. He accepts them in his left hand, and with his right he passes the cashier the correct amount of US bills and coins. All of a sudden, for you, gold is accepted everywhere!

What you are selling is the idea of "I'm running my life on gold. woohoo!!"

There is no financial incentive that I can see. Why would I want to bother?

The sh!t has not yet hit the fan, so why would I want to spend my gold, rather than hoard my gold?

Is this not just a clever way for *you* to get *my* gold?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

What you are selling is the idea of "I'm running my life on gold."

Well, actually not the idea but the reality.

There is no financial incentive that I can see. Why would I want to bother?

You divest yourself of dollars, and instead you own gold. Your checking account is in gold.

Is there an advantage to that? Well, it depends on what you think about gold. If you are pro-gold, if you are a big gold fan, you would probably say "Yes, sir!" If you are not, then you may be more happy instead with holding fiat dollars.

Is this not just a clever way for *you* to get *my* gold?

No. That is a serious accusation.

And it is one that needs to be addressed. I am an RIA -- a Registered Investment Adviser. I am registered with the federal SEC. I have my real name and contact info on the page. You can look me up in the SEC database. I live in the United States. I have intentionally made myself eminently sue-able. I am not insulated from my customers' wrath at all. If I do anything wrong, if you have the slightest delay in receiving your funds, all you need to do is call up the SEC and they will be on it.

I believe in good financial governance, that is, having structures and procedures built in to make it maximally difficult, improbable, and indeed impossible for anyone to do anything untoward. When this project gets traction and takes off, good third-party audits for example will certainly be part of the safety regimen. The principle is: don't trust; just verify. Then verify again.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

[MENTION=6690]TheNewYorker[/MENTION], [MENTION=14128]Warrior_of_Freedom[/MENTION], [MENTION=25257]osan[/MENTION], [MENTION=5040]bunklocoempire[/MENTION]? Suggestions?

 

[wizardwatson]

Can you at least keep the gold in the US? Your site isn't very long on transparency and where the gold actually is.

Here's a good read about implementing gold and silver currencies from the Cato Journal.

Gold and Silver as Constitutional
Alternative Currencies
Edwin Vieira Jr
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2015/5/cj-v35n2-3.pdf

Talks a little bit about how we could actually store and protect the gold we're banking with if ever implemented.

But you can see from your responses, people don't really get the difference between gold-backed reserve banking and the practice of burying stuff in a hole in their yard. They are obtuse it appears, simply from their ignorance of the necessity of banking services in general. 'muh gold!!!

Also, what's the April 19th significance for you?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

There is no financial incentive that I can see. Why would I want to bother?

Yea, I've never really understood the appeal of this kind of service (either for PMs or crypocurrencies).

Say I earn and spend $5000 monthly, with the funds usually deposited into a checking account on Day 1 of the month.

A service such as the OP's protects that $5000 (less as the month goes on, as I spend it) from inflation, but that's it.

Unless one is carrying abnormally large cash balances for some reason, it's a pretty minor benefit.

...potentially more than offset by fees, forgone interest, and variation in the gold price.

If we were in the midst of a hyperinflationary episode, with money noticeably losing value on a daily basis, this might make sense.

Till then, I don't really see the point.

 

[wizardwatson]

Yea, I've never really understood the appeal of this kind of service (either for PMs or crypocurrencies).

Say I earn and spend $5000 monthly, with the funds usually deposited into a checking account on Day 1 of the month.

A service such as the OP's protects that $5000 (less as the month goes on, as I spend it) from inflation, but that's it.

Unless one is carrying abnormally large cash balances for some reason, it's a pretty minor benefit.

...potentially more than offset by fees, forgone interest, and variation in the gold price.

If we were in the midst of a hyperinflationary episode, with money noticeably losing value on a daily basis, this might make sense.

Till then, I don't really see the point.

Is John trying to sell you his wares outside a Walmart after you stopped by to pick up some milk?

No, this is a real-world sound money banking initiative under discussion in a grassroots activist subforum named after the man most associated with sound money.

Of course sound money isn't going to have an immediate financial benefit for you. It's going to be extra work, a lot of extra work for whoever tries to get it off the ground. Perhaps even dangerous. Maybe you could leave your name, and when he's giving people free movie tickets for signing up, he'll shoot you an email.

...

See, helmuth. Not to pick on our misnomer-ed friend r3volution 3.0, but it's a perfect example of what Rothbard talked about in Ethics concerning people more attracted to the idea of liberty than the goals:

"It might be thought that the libertarian, the person committed to the "natural system of liberty" (in Adam Smith's phrase), almost by definition hold the goal of liberty as his highest political end. But this is often not true; for many libertarians, the desire for self-expression, or for bearing witness to the truth of the excellence of liberty, frequently takes precedence over the goal of the triumph of liberty in the real world." - Murray Rothbard

Now, again, maybe this isn't who Rev3 "really is", you know... "deep down" or whatever, but the sentiments he expresses are spot on for the comparison. And I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume both that they mean well generally (until they make it otherwise clear) and that they generally aren't aware of their spreading of rationalizations for inaction, and overall divisiveness.

I'm sure you've noticed the gatekeeper effect before. I've not focused on your posts, but you've been around long enough I have a general impression of your post quality.

The do-nothing armchair intellectuals are really the primary blocking factors to any grass-roots activity. You can always count on them to be there at your moment of glory to tell you "I don't see the point."

So I'm going to stick around on your thread. I've subscribed and what-not so I'll do my part to thwart the gatekeepers. You've actually done something, and you're aware I have as well, and neither of us are anonymous. So that's something to build on.

I'm very much interested in sound money strategy, and we've both put a lot of effort into it, so perhaps if nothing else, we can learn something and cause others to learn something.

Still waiting to hear about April 19th. Also, very curious that you are the first "sound money" project I've seen from a member here in the 10 years this site has existed. Thought I would be the first, but you beat me by 2 days. Kinda spooky.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Is John trying to sell you his wares outside a Walmart after you stopped by to pick up some milk?

No, this is a real-world sound money banking initiative under discussion in a grassroots activist subforum named after the man most associated with sound money.

Of course sound money isn't going to have an immediate financial benefit for you. It's going to be extra work, a lot of extra work for whoever tries to get it off the ground. Perhaps even dangerous. Maybe you could leave your name, and when he's giving people free movie tickets for signing up, he'll shoot you an email.

What in my characterization of the OP's proposal is incorrect?

 

[wizardwatson]

What in my characterization of the OP's proposal is incorrect?

Your implication that in order for his proposal to be valid, it must have some financial benefit for the user. It is a complete tossing aside of the context of his project.

He is framing is at a sound money implementation, and you are framing it as an investment you don't want to invest in.

 

[wizardwatson]

Helmuth, what about this:

What if, in addition to auto-conversion to dollars, you passed this through bitcoin as well, or any other crypto for that matter.

I buy gold, and in addition to my account being useable with the card, I also have a bitcoin wallet to spend my gold. If you tie the gold vault to the bitcoin wallet on the bank side as well, it gives a level of transparency and auditing that the blockchain provides, and also removes this stigma everyone's throwing at you that "it's really just dollars behind it all isn't it?"

You could peg a crypto as a gold weight, heck, there might already be one. I haven't really ever looked.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Your implication that in order for his proposal to be valid, it must have some financial benefit for the user. It is a complete tossing aside of the context of his project.

Yes, I was assuming the purpose of the service was to provide some benefit to the people using it.

He is framing is at a sound money implementation, and you are framing it as an investment you don't want to invest in.

If you mean that this platform is expected to somehow bring about the end of the current monetary system (bring society at large onto the gold standard, rather than just the platform's users), that's unrealistic, especially if the only incentive to adopt the platform in the first place is altruism (i.e. if it provides no immediate benefit to its users).

The broader point I would make is that none of these agorist-type strategies are going to work.

They're based in a misunderstanding of the nature of state power.

 

[wizardwatson]

Yes, I was assuming the purpose of the service was to provide some benefit to the people using it.

Well, now you say "assumed..benefit" but before you wrote "financial benefit". I can't yet read the minds of anonymous agents which may or may not be one or more humans, so I'm forced to make judgements based on what those agents actually post.

If you mean that this platform is expected to somehow bring about the end of the current monetary system (bring society at large onto the gold standard, rather than just the platform's users), that's unrealistic, especially if the only incentive to adopt the platform in the first place is altruism (i.e. if it provides no immediate benefit to its users).

The broader point I would make is that none of these agorist-type strategies are going to work.

They're based in a misunderstanding of the nature of state power.

Is not the goal to End the Fed? If you say "especially if.." doesn't that imply some strategies will work better than others?

But I'm actually more interested in the broader point you make. Isn't 100% reserve community banking the most ideal candidate for an agorist approach?

Start a community bank, market why the community is better off with it, grow it into the next community. Rinse. Repeat.

What is it that you imply is not understood about state power? If this state power truly wishes to crush any competition, but operates in the shadows, then it seems to me a viable sound money system that starts catching on is a good strategy to flush them out and force them to act.

On what front do you suggest we confront the tyrannical state power? The electoral process? That's even more hopeless. As an agent of change I'd say Bitcoin has been far more influential than Trump, some crypto supporters would probably say more than Ron Paul.

I myself am convinced that taking the money power from the hands of a few and making it accessible and controlled an enlightened public is the most suitable course of action. It goes to the root of the problem. What other strategy gets to the root problems as completely?

 

[osan]

@TheNewYorker, @Warrior_of_Freedom, @osan, @bunklocoempire? Suggestions?

For what? I thought I'd posted here, but I can't find it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Is not the goal to End the Fed?

That's one important goal, sure, but how does this help accomplish that?

If you say "especially if.." doesn't that imply some strategies will work better than others?

It means just it what it says.

A parallel monetary system is not likely to succeed; even less so if it can't deliver concrete benefits to the people expected to adopt it.

But I'm actually more interested in the broader point you make. Isn't 100% reserve community banking the most ideal candidate for an agorist approach?

Start a community bank, market why the community is better off with it, grow it into the next community. Rinse. Repeat.

No, I don't see that working, for much the same reasons as the OP's platform.

FRB is popular (and full reserve banking basically non-existent) because people would rather earn interest than pay fees on their demand deposits.

What is it that you imply is not understood about state power?

That it can use violence to stifle any of these market-based initiatives.

On what front do you suggest we confront the tyrannical state power? The electoral process? That's even more hopeless.

Electoral politics is hopeless in the long run, though worthwhile as a delaying tactic. I favor education, not of the masses (truly hopeless) but of a libertarian elite: create a libertarian Eton, as I noted recently in another thread. Stage our own long march through the institutions. And this is entirely doable, just requires money.

As an agent of change I'd say Bitcoin has been far more influential than Trump, some crypto supporters would probably say more than Ron Paul.

I don't see that BTC has had any effect at all in terms of reducing state power.

I myself am convinced that taking the money power from the hands of a few and making it accessible and controlled an enlightened public is the most suitable course of action.

The problem is that none of these strategies involving BTC- or PM-based transaction systems is remotely capable of accomplishing that.

 

[wizardwatson]

That's one important goal, sure, but how does this help accomplish that?

It means just it what it says.

A parallel monetary system is not likely to succeed; even less so if it can't deliver concrete benefits to the people expected to adopt it.

No, I don't see that working, for much the same reasons as the OP's platform.

FRB is popular (and full reserve banking basically non-existent) because people would rather earn interest that pay fees on their demand deposits.

That it can use violence to stifle any of these market-based initiatives.

Electoral politics is hopeless in the long run, though worthwhile as a delaying tactic. I favor education, not of the masses (truly hopeless) but of a libertarian elite: create a libertarian Eton, as I noted recently in another thread. Stage our own long march through the institutions. And this is entirely doable, just requires money.

I don't see that BTC has had any effect at all in terms of reducing state power.

The problem is that none of these strategies involving BTC- or PM-based transaction systems is remotely capable of accomplishing that.

Most people don't earn interest on their deposits.

And who said BTC "reduced state power"? I'm simply referencing that it created "change" in the educational sense, hence the Ron Paul comparison. Education, you say is your goal, no?

So a market-based approach on the monetary side of things, you think is unrealistic. But isn't education also a market-based approach?

In fact, I'd say it's exactly the same. "Educate a core group of people how to build this and that societal system." You admit monetary system is a component of that. In fact, I think Helmuth and I both have in mind to try these monetary systems out, "theoretically" here in this forum precisely because of its "elite libertarian" (emphasis on the quotations there) status.

So you have other components and strategic ideas, but the idea of libertarian smartie-farties is still the game plan, and really, if we're serious we're only discussing components and priorities.

Well, after you assemble your first batch of Avengers anyway.

Where do I sign up?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Most people don't earn interest on their deposits.

They earn more interest and/or pay lower fees than they would with full reserve banking; that's just in the nature of the two systems.

A bank which provides services to demand deposit holders, but doesn't loan out those deposits, has to make up their costs somewhere.

There's a reason that essentially every bank in the world holds fractional reserves.

And who said BTC "reduced state power"? I'm simply referencing that it created "change" in the educational sense, hence the Ron Paul comparison. Education, you say is your goal, no?

I haven't seen that effect.

So a market-based approach on the monetary side of things, you think is unrealistic. But isn't education also a market-based approach?

The distinction I'm making is between:

(a) taking control of the state

and (b) trying to become free while leaving the state in enemy hands

 

[wizardwatson]

They earn more interest and/or pay lower fees than they would with full reserve banking; that's just in the nature of the two systems.

A bank which provides services to demand deposit holders, but doesn't loan out those deposits, has to make up their costs somewhere.

There's a reason that essentially every bank in the world holds fractional reserves.

I'm in the camp that thinks fractional reserve banking should just be illegal. It's counterfeiting. So yeah, of course it's popular because counterfeiting is lucractive business. Any society that is going to transition is going to have to be educated about why this particular brand of counterfeiting needs to be outlawed and is bad.

But we're still discussing why "it wouldn't work in the market". But what's stopping the libertarian elite from setting up the prototypes? If the end game for everyone is to cease and desist fractional reserve banking, shouldn't we be doing this now? Or ASAP? Cost would be minimal. No it wouldn't no less than zero but it wouldn't be much cost.

I haven't seen that effect.

Well, honestly, I haven't either, at least not to a degree that I would like. Bitcoin has definitely amplified the "Fractional Reserve Banking is bad" meme, but the communities attempts to pass bitcoin off as a viable alternative has had some negative effects in that department, to be frank. But it has raised hopes that alternatives are possible, and hope is certainly an important part of any group strategy.

The distinction I'm making is between:

(a) taking control of the state

and (b) trying to become free while leaving the state in enemy hands

Clearly, we have to kick the bums out. But the systems we would put in place, the rules and regulations, can be applied in the organization itself which intends to usurp the established organization, no? So again, what's the hold up?

Forget any agenda but yours. You say you only need money. What are you obstacles besides money? What is the structure of your organization?

For years, I haven't been convinced there are any real obstacles but the beaten spirits of regular men. I did have some technical unknowns for how to set up decentralized banking, but I resolved the remainder of those a few months ago.

But now I'm pretty much set on the idea that men simply have no faith, and live in fear. Because there isn't really anything we can't do with the freedoms we still possess here in the US. Of course when/if the US gets Venezuela-ed that may all change, but at the moment, we have ideal circumstances in the United States for peaceful revolution.

Problem is Americans have a slave mentality about escaping tyranny. So they make all sorts of excuses why they "can't do this and that".

Now admittedly, many of the old fogies here on this forum have an "on average" greater amount of spirit. But these days, right back into captured slave mentality. But I'm always excited to be proven wrong. Helmuth's idea might be wonky, he might be doing it for personal gain to some degree, but clearly there's an activist component. That gives me hope. Wish more people were doing stuff instead of wallowing in despair dressed up as indifference.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm in the camp that thinks fractional reserve banking should just be illegal. It's counterfeiting. So yeah, of course it's popular because counterfeiting is lucractive business. Any society that is going to transition is going to have to be educated about why this particular brand of counterfeiting needs to be outlawed and is bad.

FRB is not inherently fraudulent as Rothbard claimed. It's only fraudulent if the banks misrepresent themselves as holding full reserves.

The problem with our present banking system is the central bank, the FDIC, the SEC, etc - not the practice of FRB.

If the government were entirely removed from banking, you'd still have 99.999999% of banks practicing FRB - without causing any problems.

But we're still discussing why "it wouldn't work in the market". But what's stopping the libertarian elite from setting up the prototypes? If the end game for everyone is to cease and desist fractional reserve banking, shouldn't we be doing this now? Or ASAP? Cost would be minimal. No it wouldn't no less than zero but it wouldn't be much cost.

Ending FRB isn't the end game (see above).

Well, honestly, I haven't either, at least not to a degree that I would like. Bitcoin has definitely amplified the "Fractional Reserve Banking is bad" meme, but the communities attempts to pass bitcoin off as a viable alternative has had some negative effects in that department, to be frank. But it has raised hopes that alternatives are possible, and hope is certainly an important part of any group strategy.

If so, then that's a mark against BTC.

Forget any agenda but yours. You say you only need money. What are you obstacles besides money? What is the structure of your organization?

The long-term strategy is to create a libertarian elite to infiltrate all of the important institutions in society, just as the socialists did (long march). As a starting point, I'd set up a school which charges no tuition, offers the best of everything, and accepts only the tippy-tippy top of the bell curve. The graduates would go on to the top ranks of business, academia, the professions, media, and government - taking their ideals with them. Over time, as the alumni network grew, it would become a major funding source, to fund other, complimentary operations: think tanks to develop strategy, grants to capture other organizations, etc. Again, think about how "they" did it over the past century or so. There's no magic to it; just clear thinking, patience, and (alas, what we don't have) $$$.

 

[wizardwatson]

FRB is not inherently fraudulent as Rothbard claimed. It's only fraudulent if the banks misrepresent themselves as holding full reserves.

The problem with our present banking system is the central bank, the FDIC, the SEC, etc - not the practice of FRB.

If the government were entirely removed from banking, you'd still have 99.999999% of banks practicing FRB - without causing any problems.

I disagree, but I've been wrong before. Even if we assume FRB isn't economically unsound, you have to admit it would be nearly impossible for 100% reserve banking to coexist. The money multiplier effect allows startups to easily inflate the local currency and buy up assets. It would be a competition between the reserve and non-reserve banks. And if they are on even intellectual footing as "acceptable" then 100% reserve banking is out because FRB can just use part of the money multiplier to bribe customers.

Anyway, FRB has got to go, in my opinion. It's economically unsound and prone to abuse, and there's nothing other than arbitrary rules that tell us what the reserve fraction should be. It's going to take more than "it was fine before centralization" to convince me. I would say it led to centralization.

...

To your "long term, clear thinking, patience" strategy. Just sounds like wishy-washy gradualism to me. You don't seem to have a problem with current systems, just want to be closer to the circle of power.

Just go join the masons, or the jesuits, or any of the other fancy fraternal orgs. Work your way up to black pope then dissolve the organization. Seems simpler than trying to start your own Xavier school for the gifted.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Can you at least keep the gold in the US? Your site isn't very long on transparency and where the gold actually is.

That would certainly be possible. I see having it outside the United States as an advantage for Americans, as I believe having some money outside of the jurisdiction you live is a wise course. The gold is in Zurich, Switzerland, which is a particularly good jurisdiction for storing gold. But if there is demand for it, it would be relatively easy to add additional vault locations, including in the US.

Here's a good read about implementing gold and silver currencies from the Cato Journal.

Cool, thanks. I'll have to check it out.

But you can see from your responses, people don't really get the difference between gold-backed reserve banking and the practice of burying stuff in a hole in their yard. They are obtuse it appears, simply from their ignorance of the necessity of banking services in general. 'muh gold!!!

Yes, well, I am just happy for responses. Keep them coming, everyone!