E-money is the ultimate form of Fiat if you ask me. All fiat has a history of corruption and collapse (the american dollar and other world currencies are heading that way as well). Fiat money is the money of the statist, since it allows those in charge of the press to create as much money as they need, while dilluting what the rest of us hold.
The question isn't "what form will money be in", the question should be "what assets will back our money". I don't care if its in the form of rice crispies, as long as it is backed by an asset (gold, food, land, space rocks) and has real value.
Lets look at the currency called the American Dollar.
It is no longer backed by gold, as you said. Instead, it merely is backed by a promise that it is worth something. How is this different from a gold-backed currency like the old American Dollar. Well, since the old dollar did not actually come attached to a piece of gold and in fact was not even exchangable for gold it's last 40 years.
So, what is the difference between the two? Little. Both are backed by promises. The only difference is what the promise is. If you cannot trust the US to back the current dollar, why could you trust them to back the old one, in the absence of proof that it is equivalent to gold?
With E-Money, you have to trust the issuer that they exchanged real money for it and did not just "print it". Do you trust them?
"How is this different from a gold-backed currency like the old American Dollar. Well, since the old dollar did not actually come attached to a piece of gold and in fact was not even exchangable for gold it's last 40 years."
I'm going to ignore the insult to my intelligence in the title to your reply, and just say you made my point for me. In 1933 the ownership of gold by you and I was made illegal to keep banks and the Fed solvent. Since then we have moved toward a fully Fiat system, and under Nixon we achieved full Fiat status. We are allowed to own gold again, but its not the legal currency of the US. Inflation like we have now didn't exist before going Fiat, and depressions usually lasted less than a year. We are very likely entering a new one now, as we are at the end of a K-wave cycle and debt accumulation is strangling growth. This is the result of central control of money supply, as the roaring 20s and the great depression that followed were as well.
"If you cannot trust the US to back the current dollar, why could you trust them to back the old one, in the absence of proof that it is equivalent to gold?"
The US didn't back the old dollar, the US never has backed the dollar. Banks have always been and still are private in the US. Even now, the Fed is a private institution. Our money now is Fiat, that means there IS NO BACKING, even if the US claims otherwise. All the FDIC promises is to print more money if banks get in trouble, which dilutes everyones money.
Before 1933 gold was money. When you carried a note, you could physically walk to a bank and trade it for gold. Money was an asset, and notes were titles to that asset. Now all that makes money valuable is the trust (and law) that others will accept it as payment. If that trust is broken, the dollar collapses. Switching to an electronic dollar only makes it easier for banks to recklessly create money. Without sound policy behind them, all we gain is a loss of privacy, and the banks save a few pennies per dollar on printing costs.
Before you go insulting someone with a statement such as "you have a shallow understanding of the issues", maybe ask them a few questions to make sure you can verify that.
Okay, I guess I misunderstood your understanding of the issues. I assumed your beef was with Nixon's switch from the gold standard.
But you say that the real problem started in 1933 when we stopped exchanging notes for gold. That the dollar became fiat then.
Well, I guess I have to say then that the enormous growth and wealth of the US since 1933 does not support your claims that a fiat currency doesn't work.
Today's economy is impossible without the trust in those that they will pay you what you say. This not only goes for our currencies, but for promissory notes (checks) and other financial instruments.
How could we conduct business without lines of credit and promissory notes? Every transaction would have to be delayed until the payment owed was remitted in real cash the gold that backed it.
I'm sorry, the modern financial system is based upon trust any many levels. There is no more risk in accepting a fiat Dollar than there is in accepting a check, or delivering goods with an invoice for 90 days payment.
Perhaps you should spend less time being insulted and more analyzing the true basis of commerce.
I'm sorry, the modern financial system is based upon trust any many levels. There is no more risk in accepting a fiat Dollar than there is in accepting a check, or delivering goods with an invoice for 90 days payment.
The economy grew more before the fiat currency than after it. The economy grew more before their was a Fed than after it. These are not opinions, they are facts.
I'm sorry, the modern financial system is based upon trust any many levels. There is no more risk in accepting a fiat Dollar than there is in accepting a check, or delivering goods with an invoice for 90 days payment.
Yes, but this risk isn't zero like you think it is. For example, Argentina. With almost no notice, depositors were prohibited from accessing accounts. Governments cannot succesfully manage currencies!! Over three hundred fiat currencies have been repudiated. By that, I mean, made worthless. Why do people think this can't happen here???
As to the "before the Fed" period, we had a Fed during most of the period you spoke of. The "Fed" was J.P. Morgan. He performed most of the functions of the Fed before there was a Fed. So I think your treatise that the period you speak of represents a period without a controlling force such as the Fed is incorrect.
BZZZT! Nice try. No, the economy grew more in the nineteenth century than in the twentieth, pre-Morgan (who only bailed out the govt once, and in no way acted as the "Fed" if you knew the history of his actions). Once again, not opinion, fact.
Your comments about the failure of fiat currencies are misleading. It isn't as if backed currencies were never repudiated. If you use currency issued by a government, you lose that money if the government fails, whether the currency was backed or not. At the moment the backing government fails, it becomes a fiat currency. And thus your argument is circular.
The point is that gold-backed currencies fail much more rarely, and technically you could have redeemed the currency for gold to wait through the crisis. In no way is this circular.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
What is BEHIND that money... that is the question. (Score:5, Interesting)
E-money is the ultimate form of Fiat if you ask me. All fiat has a history of corruption and collapse (the american dollar and other world currencies are heading that way as well). Fiat money is the money of the statist, since it allows those in charge of the press to create as much money as they need, while dilluting what the rest of us hold.
The question isn't "what form will money be in", the question should be "what assets will back our money". I don't care if its in the form of rice crispies, as long as it is backed by an asset (gold, food, land, space rocks) and has real value.
you have a shallow understanding of the issues (Score:0)
It is no longer backed by gold, as you said. Instead, it merely is backed by a promise that it is worth something. How is this different from a gold-backed currency like the old American Dollar. Well, since the old dollar did not actually come attached to a piece of gold and in fact was not even exchangable for gold it's last 40 years.
So, what is the difference between the two? Little. Both are backed by promises. The only difference is what the promise is. If you cannot trust the US to back the current dollar, why could you trust them to back the old one, in the absence of proof that it is equivalent to gold?
With E-Money, you have to trust the issuer that they exchanged real money for it and did not just "print it". Do you trust them?
This is one of the largest obstacles for E-Money.
Re:you have a shallow understanding of the issues (Score:1)
Where to start...
I'm going to ignore the insult to my intelligence in the title to your reply, and just say you made my point for me. In 1933 the ownership of gold by you and I was made illegal to keep banks and the Fed solvent. Since then we have moved toward a fully Fiat system, and under Nixon we achieved full Fiat status. We are allowed to own gold again, but its not the legal currency of the US. Inflation like we have now didn't exist before going Fiat, and depressions usually lasted less than a year. We are very likely entering a new one now, as we are at the end of a K-wave cycle and debt accumulation is strangling growth. This is the result of central control of money supply, as the roaring 20s and the great depression that followed were as well.
The US didn't back the old dollar, the US never has backed the dollar. Banks have always been and still are private in the US. Even now, the Fed is a private institution. Our money now is Fiat, that means there IS NO BACKING, even if the US claims otherwise. All the FDIC promises is to print more money if banks get in trouble, which dilutes everyones money.
Before 1933 gold was money. When you carried a note, you could physically walk to a bank and trade it for gold. Money was an asset, and notes were titles to that asset. Now all that makes money valuable is the trust (and law) that others will accept it as payment. If that trust is broken, the dollar collapses. Switching to an electronic dollar only makes it easier for banks to recklessly create money. Without sound policy behind them, all we gain is a loss of privacy, and the banks save a few pennies per dollar on printing costs.
Before you go insulting someone with a statement such as "you have a shallow understanding of the issues", maybe ask them a few questions to make sure you can verify that.
your conclusions are unsupported by your facts (Score:0)
But you say that the real problem started in 1933 when we stopped exchanging notes for gold. That the dollar became fiat then.
Well, I guess I have to say then that the enormous growth and wealth of the US since 1933 does not support your claims that a fiat currency doesn't work.
Today's economy is impossible without the trust in those that they will pay you what you say. This not only goes for our currencies, but for promissory notes (checks) and other financial instruments.
How could we conduct business without lines of credit and promissory notes? Every transaction would have to be delayed until the payment owed was remitted in real cash the gold that backed it.
I'm sorry, the modern financial system is based upon trust any many levels. There is no more risk in accepting a fiat Dollar than there is in accepting a check, or delivering goods with an invoice for 90 days payment.
Perhaps you should spend less time being insulted and more analyzing the true basis of commerce.
Wrong again (Score:2)
The economy grew more before the fiat currency than after it. The economy grew more before their was a Fed than after it. These are not opinions, they are facts.
I'm sorry, the modern financial system is based upon trust any many levels. There is no more risk in accepting a fiat Dollar than there is in accepting a check, or delivering goods with an invoice for 90 days payment.
Yes, but this risk isn't zero like you think it is. For example, Argentina. With almost no notice, depositors were prohibited from accessing accounts. Governments cannot succesfully manage currencies!! Over three hundred fiat currencies have been repudiated. By that, I mean, made worthless. Why do people think this can't happen here???
Re:Risk zero? (Score:1)
BZZZT! Nice try. No, the economy grew more in the nineteenth century than in the twentieth, pre-Morgan (who only bailed out the govt once, and in no way acted as the "Fed" if you knew the history of his actions). Once again, not opinion, fact.
Your comments about the failure of fiat currencies are misleading. It isn't as if backed currencies were never repudiated. If you use currency issued by a government, you lose that money if the government fails, whether the currency was backed or not. At the moment the backing government fails, it becomes a fiat currency. And thus your argument is circular.
The point is that gold-backed currencies fail much more rarely, and technically you could have redeemed the currency for gold to wait through the crisis. In no way is this circular.