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.
You seem sharp on these issues so I hope this is my chance to get some free education:D
How does one simply print money? Especially if money is a bank owned thing. I had the idea that Money was like stock in the US Government and the US could print more, but that devalued the existing.
1. Exactly how does new money make it into the market? They cant just give it away right?
2. If the banks are private, and the gov't is not 'backing' the money, again, how can the gov't print more and how do they distribute it?
1. Exactly how does new money make it into the market? They cant just give it away right?
The easiest way to learn about all of this is just do a google search on Federal Reserve System. All money enters the economy as a loan, which is why we call it debt money. Its not based on an asset, so the control of its creation and destruction is interest rates. Low interest rates encourage borrowing, and high rates discourage it. All money put into the economy has to be returned though. When you borrow money from the bank, they create it, and you pay it back and it is removed from the economy. The Fed (private central bank) buys printed money from the US Treasury for pennies on the dollar (to offset printing costs). Through a process thats kind of complex and beyond this question they distribute that to banks for use in extending loans. The US government goes to the Fed to satisfy its budget needs, and the Fed sells securities on the open market. If they can't find enough buyers I believe they would printing in what is called "monetizing the debt". I'm a bit fuzzy on that part of the process, but the end result is...
The government makes its budget, and the Fed funds it, regardless how much it is. Our tax money that is collected every year goes to the Federal Reserve (private bank) to pay interest to those holding the securities they bought, and the remainder is used to pay some securities.
An oversimplified way to look at it I think is that the Government has a credit card with the bank of Federal Reserve, and we (taxpayers) get the bill. The federal government doesn't actually care if there is enough tax revenue to pay for their budget, since on their end it looks the same either way. The only thing that keeps the system in check as far as I can tell is the realization that if they push it too far, investors in securities will pull out and invest in Euros or Yen or other currencies that aren't being inflated as quickly.
2. If the banks are private, and the gov't is not 'backing' the money, again, how can the gov't print more and how do they distribute it?
Same deal, they are allowed to run up as much of a tab with the Federal reserve as congress sees fit. The only limitation being you can only dilute money so much before investors abandon your currency, or start demanding higher interest rates for the increased risk in investing in your money.
Its a fun subject to read up on. One of my favorite guys to read is Senator Ron Paul, who is on the banking committee I think. Just put his name into google with federal reserve and enjoy.
The better system is to just use gold as money. Banks could issue certificates of gold ownership (paper money) and people might use those if they trust the bank to only give those out when actual gold is deposited with the bank and if they trust the bank to redeem such certificates for actual gold. This effectively eliminates the fractional reserve banking system we are cursed with at present.
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.
Re:you have a shallow understanding of the issues (Score:2)
How does one simply print money? Especially if money is a bank owned thing. I had the idea that Money was like stock in the US Government and the US could print more, but that devalued the existing.
1. Exactly how does new money make it into the market? They cant just give it away right?
2. If the banks are private, and the gov't is not 'backing' the money, again, how can the gov't print more and how do they distribute it?
lost...
Re:you have a shallow understanding of the issues (Score:1)
The easiest way to learn about all of this is just do a google search on Federal Reserve System. All money enters the economy as a loan, which is why we call it debt money. Its not based on an asset, so the control of its creation and destruction is interest rates. Low interest rates encourage borrowing, and high rates discourage it. All money put into the economy has to be returned though. When you borrow money from the bank, they create it, and you pay it back and it is removed from the economy. The Fed (private central bank) buys printed money from the US Treasury for pennies on the dollar (to offset printing costs). Through a process thats kind of complex and beyond this question they distribute that to banks for use in extending loans. The US government goes to the Fed to satisfy its budget needs, and the Fed sells securities on the open market. If they can't find enough buyers I believe they would printing in what is called "monetizing the debt". I'm a bit fuzzy on that part of the process, but the end result is...
The government makes its budget, and the Fed funds it, regardless how much it is. Our tax money that is collected every year goes to the Federal Reserve (private bank) to pay interest to those holding the securities they bought, and the remainder is used to pay some securities.
An oversimplified way to look at it I think is that the Government has a credit card with the bank of Federal Reserve, and we (taxpayers) get the bill. The federal government doesn't actually care if there is enough tax revenue to pay for their budget, since on their end it looks the same either way. The only thing that keeps the system in check as far as I can tell is the realization that if they push it too far, investors in securities will pull out and invest in Euros or Yen or other currencies that aren't being inflated as quickly.
Same deal, they are allowed to run up as much of a tab with the Federal reserve as congress sees fit. The only limitation being you can only dilute money so much before investors abandon your currency, or start demanding higher interest rates for the increased risk in investing in your money.
Its a fun subject to read up on. One of my favorite guys to read is Senator Ron Paul, who is on the banking committee I think. Just put his name into google with federal reserve and enjoy.
Re:you have a shallow understanding of the issues (Score:2)
Re:you have a shallow understanding of the issues (Score:0)
The better system is to just use gold as money. Banks could issue certificates of gold ownership (paper money) and people might use those if they trust the bank to only give those out when actual gold is deposited with the bank and if they trust the bank to redeem such certificates for actual gold. This effectively eliminates the fractional reserve banking system we are cursed with at present.
Re:you have a shallow understanding of the issues (Score:1)