Robert Gore's Article on Money

Posted by dbhalling 3 years, 10 months ago to Economics
9 comments | Share | Flag

Our own Staighlinelogic has a new article on money in SavvyStreet.

Here is my question, does anything have intrinsic value.
SOURCE URL: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/is-our-money-fake/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 3 years, 10 months ago
    "Here is my question, does anything have intrinsic value."

    What is your definition of intrinsic value?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 10 months ago
      In fairness to Robert he admitted on Facebook that he should have said "objective value" instead of intrinsic. I have great respect for Robert.

      The word value implies the question of value to who, which excludes intrinsic. Intrinsic value is an oxymoron.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 3 years, 10 months ago
    Hello dbhalling,

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 10 months ago
      Hi OA

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 3 years, 10 months ago
        Works for me. I do not believe in the central bank. One area of action that President Jackson took that was admirable was his dismantling of the National Bank.
        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?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 years, 10 months ago
          The second National Bank that Jackson stopped (did not renew) was not a central bank. It was a bit of a crony bank.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 3 years, 10 months ago
            Yes. "Central bank"....sometimes the language is used loosely. "A national bank had first been created by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton in 1791 to serve as a "central" repository for federal funds. The Second Bank of the United States was founded in 1816; five years after this first bank’s charter had expired...." Yes, it was a crony institution (Biddle). http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hi... Very interesting. Our nation did start with many different local bank notes.. the problem was the lack of acceptance beyond the local region.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 10 months ago
    I like Robert Gore's suggestion: Ignore what is currently used for money, and think of what money could be.

    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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo