What if our money supply was more like Hong Kong's?

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
All the notes have the same value (or did, it's been a while since I was there) but look different depending on the issuing bank.

"Since its inception, the U.S. Federal Reserve’s monetary policies have led to a decline of over 95% in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. As a result, there have been several attempts to curtail or eliminate the Federal Reserve’s powers (e.g., the efforts of Rep. Louis T. McFadden in the 1930s; the efforts of Rep. Wright Patman in the 1970s; the efforts of Rep. Henry Gonzalez in the 1990s; and the efforts of Rep. Ron Paul since the 1990s). However, none have proven successful to date, due mainly to the constraints of strong political opposition at the national level. In contrast to these “top‐down” attempts at the national level, this paper proposes an alternative approach to ending the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money: the “Constitutional Tender Act,” a bill template that can be introduced in every state legislature in the nation, returning each of them to adherence to the U.S. Constitution's “legal tender” provisions of Article I, Section 10.

"This approach would have a greater likelihood of success for a number of reasons. First, it is decentralized: rather than facing concerted political opposition at a single Federal level, it attacks the issue at the State level, where strategies and tactics can be adapted to the types and amount of political opposition they encounter. Second, it is diffused: it can be attempted in any number of States, which can cause the opposition to spread its resources much more thinly than would be necessary at the Federal level. Finally, it is legally sound: it relies on the U.S. Constitution’s negative mandate in Article I, Section 10, that “No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Therefore, in contrast to “top‐down” attempts to “end the Fed,” a “bottom‐up” approach using “constitutional tender” laws will find greater success."

Ending the Federal Reserve from the Bottom Up

https://mises.org/blog/ending-federal-reserve-bottom


Colonel Hogan. You still there? What's the legal smell test on an idea like this?
 
All the notes have the same value (or did, it's been a while since I was there) but look different depending on the issuing bank.

"Since its inception, the U.S. Federal Reserve’s monetary policies have led to a decline of over 95% in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. As a result, there have been several attempts to curtail or eliminate the Federal Reserve’s powers (e.g., the efforts of Rep. Louis T. McFadden in the 1930s; the efforts of Rep. Wright Patman in the 1970s; the efforts of Rep. Henry Gonzalez in the 1990s; and the efforts of Rep. Ron Paul since the 1990s). However, none have proven successful to date, due mainly to the constraints of strong political opposition at the national level. In contrast to these “top‐down” attempts at the national level, this paper proposes an alternative approach to ending the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money: the “Constitutional Tender Act,” a bill template that can be introduced in every state legislature in the nation, returning each of them to adherence to the U.S. Constitution's “legal tender” provisions of Article I, Section 10.

"This approach would have a greater likelihood of success for a number of reasons. First, it is decentralized: rather than facing concerted political opposition at a single Federal level, it attacks the issue at the State level, where strategies and tactics can be adapted to the types and amount of political opposition they encounter. Second, it is diffused: it can be attempted in any number of States, which can cause the opposition to spread its resources much more thinly than would be necessary at the Federal level. Finally, it is legally sound: it relies on the U.S. Constitution’s negative mandate in Article I, Section 10, that “No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Therefore, in contrast to “top‐down” attempts to “end the Fed,” a “bottom‐up” approach using “constitutional tender” laws will find greater success."

Ending the Federal Reserve from the Bottom Up

https://mises.org/blog/ending-federal-reserve-bottom


Colonel Hogan. You still there? What's the legal smell test on an idea like this?

Notice the irony of requiring the states to have nothing but gold and silver coin but not the Federal government. Of course initially the Coinage Act of 1792 even carried a death penalty for debasing gold and silver coin, see section 19.:D
 
Read the whole thing?


People would get away from unsound money as it lost purchasing power.
 
I'll let the master explain this [paraphrasing Mises], if an economic event could be accurately predicted and certain date given (a fallacy that a lot of people engage in), then some investor(s) would act to anticipate that date, and in turn another investor(s) would anticipate their move and the date would become unfixed as it would be accelerated towards the present.

It's either gold and silver or bitcoin, but centralized banking creates inflation and booms and busts which preclude people being able to provide for their old age.
 
You think going back on the gold standard would eliminate inflation? LOL.
 
If our money supply was more like Hong Kong's, it would be tied to the Dollar and managed by a central authority.
 
I'll let the master explain this [paraphrasing Mises], if an economic event could be accurately predicted and certain date given (a fallacy that a lot of people engage in), then some investor(s) would act to anticipate that date, and in turn another investor(s) would anticipate their move and the date would become unfixed as it would be accelerated towards the present.

It's either gold and silver or bitcoin, but centralized banking creates inflation and booms and busts which preclude people being able to provide for their old age.

Murray Rothbard makes a good case for a gold standard here:

https://mises.org/library/case-100-percent-gold-dollar-0
 
Thanks, but I've already read a ton of Rothbard to the point that I call myself a Rothbardian...

Funny story, at a conference, Mises called out Hayek for being a Socialist. Some years later, in the classroom, Murray called out Mises for being a Socialist...


:D ;) ;)
 
Is wingbat and cowgirl gonna come save your ass over here freak?
 
Thanks, but I've already read a ton of Rothbard to the point that I call myself a Rothbardian...

No surprise there!

Rothbard supports starving your unwanted children...

Murray Rothbard said:
but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die

or at minimum, selling the rights of unwanted children....

Murray Rothbard said:
Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.[12] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children awayfrom parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.

LINK It's a PDF, but it's from the Mises Institute, so you know it's Gospel, Chief.

There's a reason you were disqualified from adopting children in America, and had to go overseas to adopt..

I pity your "child".

p.s. But hai, the rights of an "unborn child" are sacrosanct, right? Shade of grey glibertarianism! One from column A, One from column B.....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top