Michigan Libertarian for U.S. Senate Scotty Boman has released a new YouTube video touting his support for a non-interventionist foreign policy, a federal government that does not exceed the authority granted to it by the Constitution, and the legalization of competing currencies, among other issues.
33 Comments
Comments are closed.
In other words, another reason the Constitution is NOT “the greatest civil document ever written” is because it gives the government a power it absolutely should not have — the power to define the monetary unit.
A return to the gold standard would cause so many problems… Everyone has made investments with the expectation of inflation: How screwed is the guy who took out a 30-year-mortgage 10 years ago, with 3% inflation built in?
The last time the U.S. went from fiat money to gold, the poor and middle class got screwed so badly they built the movement that eventually gave us the Fed and the Progressive Era and all of its horrors.
GE,
Darolew’s point was that a gold standard is better than a fiat “standard”.
Fiat money is the imposition of a standard.
It’s a better idea than fiat money.
No it’s not.
And the imposition of any standard at all is a bad idea.
Silver standard is more realistic then the Gold standard.
Self-educated?
I have a degree in Business-Finance and a Series 7 stockbroker’s license. I have been working as a financial analyst for two years.
What are your credentials?
Gresham’s Law does not go against my point. Bad money drives out good money in a regime where they’re both required to be accepted by law. If bad money is merely “allowed” to circulate along with good, it will NOT drive out good money. If you think it will, then I have an infinite number of paper notes, created by the Bank of Seagraves, backed by my future bowel movements to trade you for goods and services of actual worth.
“Ever heard of Gresham’s Law?”
Gresham’s law go against your point GE.
“Ever heard of Gresham’s Law?”
Bad money drives out the good…?
G.E.,
You, like some of the less-educated Gold Bugs, believe that the U.S. dollar is worthless. It’s not, unless you consider credit money “worthless.” As long as people have confidence in the currency and the backing institution (in this case, the Fed), they have little incentive to use anything else. Unfortunately, Gold Bugs fail to recognize that most of the public doesn’t give a damn about the nature of their money, provided they can transact with it.
If the fiat dollar could compete in its own right, then why the need for legal-tender laws, for the banking cartel, etc.???
Because the limited Jacksonian free banking experiments were not exactly successes.
Not worth debating someone who’s simultaneously dumb and arrogant.
You’re right. Why am I responding to a haughty, self-educated Gold Bug?
If the fiat dollar could compete in its own right, then why the need for legal-tender laws, for the banking cartel, etc.???
Not worth debating someone who’s simultaneously dumb and arrogant.
mscrib – You think people would continue to accept worthless depreciating paper when they could have something real? Ever heard of Gresham’s Law?
You = moron.
G.E. has a difficulty bridging Gold Bug theory with reality, or . Sure, you COULD have currencies competing with the federal dollar, but do you think alternative currencies would be widely adopted and circulated if the U.S. dollar is still the de facto currency? This would almost positively mean a failure of the free banking experiment and this is my problem with people who seek to go back to 1830s New York (there are good reasons to a monopoly on the currency supply base). This is one of the few things that you likely have to go “all the way” in order to see an measurable positive change. Unless you shock the currency system (by winding down federal banking), people’s preferences to transact with the “standard” currency, even if not de jure currency, will not change–especially if the standard unit of measurement in national and global financial markets remains the U.S. dollar (even if it is commodity-backed). This will not lead to a system of anonymous banking, which is what I would (ideally) like to see at least attempted.
Ah yes, Greenspan…the self-described “lifelong Libertarian Republican”.
GE is correct. WAS.
And only because he was a Randian for awhile.
He WAS for gold as money.
Alan Greenspan is for a gold standard? Did he do anything while in power to get it back?
We’re having problems with the definition of “standard.”
The federal government could declare that each Federal Reserve Note is to be backed by 1/1000 ounce of gold.
I’d actually prefer they didn’t.
mscrib has it wrong, as usual. The feds could do the above and there could still be competing currencies. Even better, the feds could do nothing new with the dollar, but simply allow competing currencies — and the FRN would quickly fall out of use.
“Competition is incompatible with a “monetary standard†imposed by government.”
Of course,but once again you are missing the position in the middle. Paul suggests competititon as the official government policy (or non-policy), but suggests that people use Gold UNDER that system.
Separation of currency and state FTW.
My deal with currency is less about what it’s backed by and more about how it is banked. Financial cryptography is more my interest than GOLD! GOLD! GOLD!
Well, call me the principled one for once. I would be willing to seriously examine adopting a free banking system, provided the federal government is out of the game. The feds aren’t normal players. Thinking you can have real competing currencies when they’re involved in this day and age is… delusional (you’re right, G.E., but Ron Paul still talks in terms of “gold standard” and “U.S. dollars”–you are misinformed about Paul’s positions).
Free banking would be most likely to lead to a de facto gold standard. Free banking would be optimal; a regime based gold standard is not optimal, but better than a regime based fiat standard.
It’s criminal that we can’t get that ad on TV. I look forward to being able to vote for Scotty on the fourth.
Competition is incompatible with a “monetary standard” imposed by government.
GE,
He’s actually for both. He is for legalized competittion,but SUGGESTS a gold standard.
mscrib is lying. Ron Paul is not for a gold standard. He’s for free-market money.
I can think of at least two economists offhand who are for a gold standard. Alan Greenspan and Barro.
Also, All Austrians and All Objectivists.
G.E.,
Ron Paul pushes for a “return to the gold standard.” Presumably, he means returning the U.S. dollar to a commodity-backed currency (although a “true” gold standard hasn’t existed for going on 80 years in the U.S.). This really has nothing to do with free banking. It satisfies the gold bugs, but no one else. Anyone who thinks, given our time period and the reality we live in, that a return to the gold standard will resolve any of the issues facing the U.S. economy is beyond ignorant.
The gold standard, ceteris paribus, doesn’t solve anything. Free banking would be an interesting experiment, but Ron Paul really has no idea what he’s rambling about. It might be his dementia talking, but he’s been crazy since the 1970s, so maybe he’s just… crazy, autistic, retarded, or all of the above. It’s sometimes hard to tell with libertarians…
By the way, notice how few economists are calling for a return to the pre-Bretton Woods system of gold-dollar parity? Probably not, because you’re spending too much time at the Mises website instead of, you know, reviewing contemporary economic literature that’s been published during the last 50 years.
“Bob Barr won’t be the downfall of the party. Asperger syndrome will.” — Anonymous
mscrib shows his ignorance again.
Ron Paul does NOT support a national monetary standard. Scotty Boman is echoing Ron Paul’s views here.
Good work. Phrasing the argument for free banking on the benefits of competing currency is far superior to Ron Paul’s tendency to focus on returning to a commodity-backed U.S. dollar (even if Boman himself may support such a proposal).
And here’s John Murphy’s Youtube video!
(I made it…)