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?
First you have to understand that most of the money doesn't have to be printed. It doesn't exist in any real sense.
We tend to assume that because we have $5000 in the bank that somewhere there is $5000 in 20's stacked away somewhere. There isn't. Only a very small percentage (too lazy to search for accurate figures right now) exists as tangible money.
So in answer to 1) How does new money make it into the market? Money is created when someone borrows money. Debt creates money. Make sense? Bear with me. If you have $5000 in the bank the bank can lend out a certain amount. They only set aside a percentage of the money they actually have, the rest is loaned out. So you have $5000, I borrow $2000, a some others borrows $1000. Pretty soon $50000 exists for that $5000. And some of that gets deposited and more is loaned out. New money is born.
But wait, this creates inflation. What to do? No problem, just raise interest rates. People don't borrow for that new car, businesses don't expand, people concentrate on paying off that debt and new money isn't created. In fact the opposite happens.
When you pay off your student loans or your mortgage where does that money go? It just disappears. Poof.
But now businesses aren't expanding, capitol investment is down. Just to keep up with costs they have to cut back. Jobs are lost, the economy starts to slide. Now what? Raise those interst rates back up.
Who makes these decisions, giving our economies a daily dose of fiber to stay regular? The government I hear you say. No.. the banks do. But thats ok, because the banks have our best interest at heart. Oh and OPEC exists to help us with a healthy supply of oil too.
In answere to number 2, how can the gov't print more and how do they distribute it? They don't. That would be bad and cause inflation. So instead they borrow it. The central bank prints it for them. This is good because while it still has the same effect, it means it costs them more and creates debt. And since the only way to pay off this debt is by taxing the people more, no sane government would want to do this.
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)
First you have to understand that most of the money doesn't have to be printed. It doesn't exist in any real sense.
We tend to assume that because we have $5000 in the bank that somewhere there is $5000 in 20's stacked away somewhere. There isn't. Only a very small percentage (too lazy to search for accurate figures right now) exists as tangible money.
So in answer to 1) How does new money make it into the market? Money is created when someone borrows money. Debt creates money. Make sense? Bear with me. If you have $5000 in the bank the bank can lend out a certain amount. They only set aside a percentage of the money they actually have, the rest is loaned out. So you have $5000, I borrow $2000, a some others borrows $1000. Pretty soon $50000 exists for that $5000. And some of that gets deposited and more is loaned out. New money is born.
But wait, this creates inflation. What to do? No problem, just raise interest rates. People don't borrow for that new car, businesses don't expand, people concentrate on paying off that debt and new money isn't created. In fact the opposite happens.
When you pay off your student loans or your mortgage where does that money go? It just disappears. Poof.
But now businesses aren't expanding, capitol investment is down. Just to keep up with costs they have to cut back. Jobs are lost, the economy starts to slide. Now what? Raise those interst rates back up.
Who makes these decisions, giving our economies a daily dose of fiber to stay regular? The government I hear you say. No.. the banks do. But thats ok, because the banks have our best interest at heart. Oh and OPEC exists to help us with a healthy supply of oil too.
In answere to number 2, how can the gov't print more and how do they distribute it? They don't. That would be bad and cause inflation. So instead they borrow it. The central bank prints it for them. This is good because while it still has the same effect, it means it costs them more and creates debt. And since the only way to pay off this debt is by taxing the people more, no sane government would want to do this.
Re:you have a shallow understanding of the issues (Score:2)