Understanding today's convoluted domestic and international fiat monetary
system frankly requires a great deal of time and study. One must understand fractional reserve
banking, which requires that one understand the concept of fractional reserves
and the way this system affects the money supply. One must go through several steps to how this
forced money come into existence in the first place.
One must understand central bank open market operations (raise your
hand if you even understand what these misleading words mean!). Internationally, one must try to understand floating
exchange rates, how they are manipulated by central banks, and the resulting
impact on national economies. For
example, is it best for a country to drive down its exchange rate in relation
to other currencies or do the opposite?
These issues are never understood by politician policy makers, who are
among the most illiterate in economic matters, so monetary policy swings to and
fro according to which economic group has temporary control over the levers of
government central banks.
So
Simple Even a Child Can Understand It
In a sound money environment there is little controversy. Under sound money--in which money is a
commodity (for discussion purposes let us assume it to be gold)--everyone
understands monetary theory. Whether it
be an individual, a family, a corporation, or a nation...either one has money
or one does not. It really is as simple
as that. Even children learn the nature
of money. A child quickly learns that
the things he wants cost money and either he has it or he does not. If he does not, he quickly grasps that there
are ways to get it. He can ask his
parents for an increase in his allowance.
Or he can earn the money he needs by doing chores around the house or
for friends and neighbors. He might be
able to borrow the money for large purchases, promising to pay back his parents
either from his future allowance or from anticipated future earnings from doing
extra chores. His parents can evaluate
this loan request simply by calculating the likelihood that his allowance and
chore income are sufficient.
How is this any different when applied to adults, companies, or
nations? In a sound money environment,
they are the same. One's parents earn
what they spend on the family and may borrow from the bank to buy a home or a
new car. The lender will examine whether
the parents' income is sufficient to pay back the loan. If the family hits hard times, it may ask for
assistance from relatives or a charity.
Companies have more means with which to fund their operations. Stockholders provide the company with its
initial capital. Thereafter, when normal
earnings are insufficient to fund desired expansion, the company can borrow
against accounts receivables and inventories, both of which provide varying
degrees of security for the lender.
So
Simple Even a Politician Can Understand It
A national government's finances, under a sound money system, is no
different than either a household or a company.
It needs to collect in taxes what it spends. If it suffers a budget deficit, it can cut
back spending, attempt to raise taxes, or borrow in the open market. In a sound money environment, there is a
limit to the amount of debt that even a nation can incur, due to the need to
pay back the loan from future tax revenue.
If the market believes that this may not be forthcoming, the nation's
credit rating may suffer and its borrowing costs will rise, perhaps to the
point that the nation is completely shut out of the credit market. But this is a good thing! The market instills practical discipline that
even a politician can understand! Under
sound money one does not need a special education to understand the monetary
system.
Taking the process one step further, anyone can understand
international monetary theory in a sound money environment. The national currency is simply shorthand for
a quantity of gold. A US dollar may be
defined as one thirty-fifth of an ounce of gold, and a British pound defined as
roughly one seventh of an ounce of gold.
Exchange rates become mathematical ratios that do not vary. So an American purchasing English goods would
exchange his dollars for pounds at a ratio of five dollars per pound; i.e., one
seventh of an ounce of gold (a pound) divided by one thirty-fifth of an ounce
of gold (a dollar) equals five dollars to a pound. Through the banking system the English
exporter would demand gold from the issuer of dollars, whether it be from a
central bank or private bank, at thirty-five dollars per ounce. When a currency is simply a substitute for
gold, either the issuer has gold with which to redeem its currency or it does
not.
Money
Issuers Subject to Normal Commercial and Criminal Law
When a nation overspends internationally, its gold reserves start to
dwindle. Money, which is backed one
hundred percent by gold, becomes scarce domestically. Domestic prices fall, triggering a rise in
foreign demand for the nation's goods. The
process of gold depletion is halted and then reversed. This is the classical "currency
school" of international monetary theory.
I say it is no theory at all, but simply a description of how an
unhampered international monetary system actually works. Commercial banks present checks drawn on one
another every day and the same process would exist for gold backed currencies. If a bank issues more script than it can
redeem for gold at the promised price, it is guilty of fraud. Its officers and directors can be sued in
court for any loss incurred by those who accepted the bank's script. Furthermore, the officers and director could
be prosecuted for the crime of fraud. In
other words, banking would be subject to normal commercial laws and bank
officers and directors would be subject to normal criminal laws.
Good
Money Drives Out Bad
The free market monetary system would drive bad money issuers out of
the market. Plus, bad money issuers
would suffer the loss of both their personal finances and, in the case of
outright fraud, loss of their personal freedom.
This would be a sobering incentive to deter criminals and attract only
legitimate money issuers. Money would be
a bailment; i.e., property held for the benefit of another, which must be
surrendered upon demand for redemption. All
around us exist analogous bailment examples of entrusting valuable goods to
complete strangers. We leave our cars with
valets at parking garages, our clothing at neighborhood cleaners, our overcoats
at coat checks everywhere, our luggage to the airlines, valuable merchandise to
the Post Office and other shippers...fully expecting that our property will be
returned to us...and it almost always is!
Likewise money issuers would thrive only when the public trusts their
integrity, which would be enhanced by regular outside audits by respected firms
of the existence of one hundred percent reserves to back the money issuer's
script. How different this would be from
our present system in which the Fed will not allow an audit of its gold
reserves even when held for the benefit of other central banks! It is clear that in a free market monetary
system such a policy would drive Federal Reserve Notes out of the market
through lack of demand. Even were the
Fed to back its notes with its gold reserves, in a totally free market in which
private banks could issue their own gold-backed script, the Fed would suffer
from its past history of blatant money debasement and secrecy in it
operations. The market would prefer the
money issued by a well respected private bank whose operations are transparent
and subject to outside audit by respected accounting firms.
Conclusion
In a sound money environment everyone understands monetary theory. Money is like any other desired commodity,
except it is not consumed. It is a
medium of indirect exchange, which traders accept in order to exchange for
something else at a later time. This is
easily understood, whether the trader is a child, a parent, a company, or a
nation. One either has money or one does
not. The money can be a money substitute,
a bailment, with which one can demand the redemption of the real
money--gold. Money issuers must keep one
hundred percent reserves against their money substitutes in order to abide by
normal commercial and criminal law. No
special agencies or monetary authorities are necessary to make the system work. The system emerges naturally and polices
itself via the normal commercial and criminal legal system.
This is the system that government does not want us to have, because it
provides no special favors for enhancing state power. Sound
money shackles the government to the will of the people and not vice versa. As Ludwig von Mises stated in The Theory of Money and Credit:
" It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the
idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an
instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on
the part of governments. Ideologically
it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of
rights."
Patrick continues failure to relate the Fed to Marxism:
ReplyDeleteIt has been said, “The first thing Keynes did was to disclaim any connection with Marxism. This was an elementary Fabian socialist diversionary move to distract the public from …” relating Keynesian economic theory with Socialist teachings.
It is further said, “Marx’s socialist forces intended to “use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie” and that private savings would be eliminated by the simple expedient of, “centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”(1) This is pure Keynesianism 45 years before Keynes was born. The elimination of private savings … was the touchstone of the entire Keynesian edifice. Government manipulation of credit policies and regulations that control production movements to undermine the principle of property rights was boldly and directly proclaimed by Marx.” http://keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch10.html
What I am saying is there is a failure to relate the American Federal Reserve Bank to Marxism.