A Modest Enquiry Into The Nature And Neccesity Of A Paper Currency

Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago to Economics
20 comments | Share | Flag

Ben Franklin, 1729. Lots of good stuff here that 's controversal. Check out number 3 where he slams lawyers and objectivist concepts. Ultimately his goal was to secure the major contract for currency printing in Penn. Which he did. The contraversy over less than 100% reserve ratio continues. Anyway, rainy day reading
SOURCE URL: http://etext.virginia.edu/users/brock/webdoc6.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 8 months ago
    A currency, even a fiat currency, is viable and a good store of value so long as the ability to increase/decrease that supply is not easily manipulated by those seeking to gain advantage. It has often been tied to a physical medium - gold being the most popular. In order for this to work, the currency would need to be directly convertible into the basis for the currency. Since an ounce of gold (at the same purity level) is ubiquitous, it easily fills the need. Land, however, is more difficult. An acre of land on a waterway would be more valuable to most than an acre of land in the middle of the waterway, but regardless of this, no single parcel of land is going to be valued the same by everyone. Therefore it is not a good basis for a currency as the "value" would not be stable or easily established.

    Franklin wasn't the best economist.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago
    It's interesting that Franklyn ties value to land as the commodity that measures money.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      I think this goes back to Europe. All the lords who were tied to their land, but no cash-and lots of it entailed to the crown so they couldn't sell it off. They did gamble it away. bad way to raise cash...unless you count cards I guess.
      This is a positive argument for fractional reserve banking...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago
        And I still can't understand why fractional reserve banking isn't fraud and even theft.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago
            Thank you for the reference. A good article, but it leaves me still convinced that the lending multiplier of the money or asset held, which is in essence the creation of commercial money by the deposit bank, most banks are running a multiplier of 1/.03 = 33.333.. is somehow crooked and dangerous. True that helps the borrowers, but allows the bank (illustrating with only one bank) to end up on an initial deposit of $100 to generate income in excess of $3,233 + the interest earned on that $3,233 from the re-lending, with only $3 of the original $100 kept as a reserve. As the loans close out and the accounting tapers to a close, the bank has earned from the original deposit of $100, on a APR basis of 1yr @ a nominal 5% interest, (5%)$3233=$161.65.
            So the bank now has $3394.65 earned from the original depositor's $100.

            Assuming any of those loans fault and the collateral is seized, the value of that seized collateral will typically exceed the value of the loan outstanding, therefor allowing the bank to make even more. All from a depositor's $100.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 8 months ago
    Counterfeit is counterfeit is counterfeit no matter who prints it. And unbacked paper currency is counterfeit.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      ok. this currency was backed by land
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 8 months ago
        k
        Gold and silver are:
        1) Widely traded commodities whose current value is easily ascertainable
        2) Portable
        3) Almost infinitely divisible. You can buy 1/10 oz.gold coins.
        Land exhibits none of these conditions.
        A portion of a letter written by Jefferson to son-in-law expresses his thoughts on paper money...
        "If the debt which the banking companies owe be a blessing to anybody, it is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight or ten per cent on it. As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which, before their institution, we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred million of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest, until it shall vanish into air... We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on the principle of 'a public debt being a public blessing,' and its mutation into the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculous as the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, that capital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy; but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper."
        - Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:423

        Regards j
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
          Please see db 's post on fractional reserve banking.
          http://hallingblog.com/did-midas-mulliga...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 8 months ago
            Fractional reserve banking is a double-edged sword. Highly useful, as d points out, for promoting economic growth while being open to abuse. I'd like to get d's take on this link contending that the Fed is indeed privately held and Monsiour Rothschild's remark...

            The Fed is a privately owned bank
            http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm...

            "Give me control of a nation's money
            and I care not who makes the laws."

            Mayer Amschel Rothschild

            The Creature From Jekyll Island P. 218
            G. Edward Griffin , Peter Klimon 1994
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 8 months ago
              1) The Fed is a privately owned bank, in the same way that Fannie and Freddie were private. On paper it is private and its profits are private, but it has government functions and we the tax payers are on the hook.

              2) The non-delegation case has been overturned. While it is probably correct Constitutional interpretation to say Congress cannot delegate its powers, this has not been the prevailing attitude of the courts for a long time. If it were, almost all the regulatory state (FCC, EPA, SEC, IRS, etc) would have to go away or be significantly modified.

              3) I certainly agree that most people do not understand the Fed or what it does and they like it that way

              4) I have no idea about the ownership of the FED. Many of the comments about the FED contain economic fallacies also.

              5) This statement " By 1790 Hamilton and his bankers had created a privately owned central bank and converted the public debt (interest-free) into interest bearing bonds, payable to the bankers." Makes no sense. Money at the time was not generally issued by the government and there was no legal tender laws in the US. So the scripts that were circulating were for services rendered in the Revolutionary War. The US government had a debt, so these scripts were partly backed by that debt and therefore not interest free.

              Hamilton's Bank of America was not a Central Bank. Hamilton's scheme to nationalize all the states war debts and then tie them to a revenue source was brilliant in general (although not fair to some states such as Virginia) and brought great prosperity. The US went from a third world dead beat, who no one would lend to at any interest rate, to having one of the highest bond ratings in Europe and everyone wanted to lend to at low interest rates.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 8 months ago
    It sounds in some ways like it could have been written in more recent times.
    - In modern times when we have loose monetary policy (as Franklin advocates) we see more borrowing b/c rates are lower. I don't understand his comment about this in #3.
    - In his time land accounted for much of the means of production. So he relates value to land and human labor on land. The main means of production was in the process of changing to factories and human labor there. In our time, automation is replacing much labor, creating increasing GDP w/o increased labor costs.

    This is interesting stuff.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo