The major problem with fiat currency is the inflationary pressure of the currency. Also, all fiat systems have a very definite lifespan...it can be transfused over and over again, but eventually the system implodes upon itself causing a devastating collapse of the economy.

I am for private minting, private ownership of coinage. Let the market forces keep the private minters honest with their weights and measures of gold content...at least the public would then control the actual monetary system instead of the government. There was one time when this was very prevalent.

The main thing is to take the control of money out of the hands of the Banking Cartel and putting it back in the hands of the people...the same place that the government belongs.

The gold standard i will agree on. Beyond that..... I find it had to believe this idea that they are all "pegged" into the system and would suspect it would be hard to find evidence to support such a strong claim. Untill you do, I will hold hold you claim as invalid.

Republicae,

Yes, the fiat system has the flaws that you mention and is manifested in the business cycle of boom and bust. Not debating that issue.

All I am suggesting is devising some kind of system with built in control. Don't print money needlessly because some government wants to create spending and channel wealth into other areas. Just strict controls. Gold backing is only one option, but I am trying to look beyond that.

You can just say you have a currency backed by gold. It would be something substantial I suppose, but it would be the thing that the paper is tied to. Gold is only the idea that someone came upon because of its pretty and long lasting nature and relative scarcity. Surely there are other things out there which could perform the same function as gold. The gold part is just the restraining mechanism, the part that keeps the system honest. And, as we know we departed from gold in 1971.

The Nixon regime and then the Ronny Reagan regim and the Bush regime. All playing havoc with the currency and creating uncontrollable debt.

The gold standard i will agree on. Beyond that..... I find it had to believe this idea that they are all "pegged" into the system and would suspect it would be hard to find evidence to support such a strong claim. Untill you do, I will hold hold you claim as invalid.[/quote]

Sorry, hit this twice....but since I am editing it now...
Do you consider the claim that taxation is the only reason for fiat currency, or that the fiat system has a definte maximum lifespan and will terminate in collapse?

Both are actually verifiable through both Federal Reserve Publications and a Government Study commissioned by Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s. The Model that Reagan commissioned showed that the system had approximately 25 to Practical Lifespan is reached. The Practical Lifespan is the point at which it is no longer practical or viable for the economy to sustain itself under the weight of the debt created by the system. The economy will reach a point where it is no longer able to viably service the amount of debt it is weighted down with and continue to grow.

If you look at the housing industry and several other industries, they are having trouble coping with minor changes in the economy, such as slight changes in interest rates. The overall economy and indicators are beginning to show a lower threshold for such minor changes. In addition to the weight of government debt, you have corporate and private debt, all of which are weighing heavily upon the economy.

The stock market is heavily overbought and overvalued, many with very high P/E...it reminds me of the Roaring Twenties, in fact if you look at the DJIA of today verses 1928-29...there is a very eerie resembalance, although the numbers are higher now than then of course.

We also seem to be told one thing about the Federal Financial Health and yet the numbers show a very different picture.

Though the Bush Administration's official budget lists the national debt and deficit as being incredibly high, they are actually far worse than reported, according to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN). But don’t just take his word for it, even if Cooper is a Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law graduate.

The following figures appear in the official U.S. Financial Report, released by the Treasury Department:

The true national debt is $49 trillion, not the $8.3 trillion Bush reported That's $156,000 for every citizen, or $375,000 for every working American This figure has more than doubled in the past five years We paid $327 billion last year on interest alone The true 2005 deficit was $760 billion, not the $318.5 billion Bush reported This is 6.2% of the GDP, not 2.6%

Now, on top of all that add in a huge domino layout called Derivatives, each domino is lined up face to back, close enough, of course, to cause the classic domino effect if one fell. An estimated $344 Trillion and growing. Warren Buffet began blowing the horn on the danger of Derivatives back in 2003, stating that they were a time bomb that would eventually bring a massive collapse in the financial world. Of course, Greenspan and others also have been warning the markets about Derivatives, the warnings seem to go unheeded...greed blinds the most rational man.

So, we will see just how this all plays out...my guess is that we have but a short time judging from indicators from all sectors of the economy.

The gold standard i will agree on. Beyond that..... I find it had to believe this idea that they are all "pegged" into the system and would suspect it would be hard to find evidence to support such a strong claim. Untill you do, I will hold hold you claim as invalid.[/quote]

And what is the exact claim that you consider invalid?

There have been all types of suggestions to back our currency, one that is very interesting to me is that of The Land Standard...currreny is backed, although not necessarily redeemable with land. It would have to be something that has an intrinsic value. We know that we can't use Oil, or some other commodities to back the currency.

Until we take the government and the banking cartels out of the money business...we will not have good money. I am for free market money, where the market determines the weight and value of money...I happen to be that gold is the perfect commodity metal, but it is possible that a combination of metals would also serve the purpose.

That this is either a conspiracy, or the economists are too deep in the system to see it.

What is a conspiracy? Basically it is nothing more than the manipulation of certain elements or forces to achieve a certain result. We have convinced ourselves that there has to be some ultra secret shadow organization at work to make something a conspiracy.

In order to find a conspiracy you must look at a long line of what must either be considered coincidences or evidence. As you begin to look at history and in particularly the history of banking, you begin to see a lot of coincidences, which are almost too amazing to believe that they occurred by happenstance. My suggestion is that you look at the history of banking, not only in this country, but also especially in some of the European countries such as France, Germany, and England.

One of the best methods is to look at the personalities involved in the banking business throughout history and see how alliances were forged. Interestingly, those alliances are still as solid today as they were then. Also, read what those people wrote, their ideas about what they could achieve and how they would achieve it.

As far as economists are concerned, think about this, they spend years educating themselves in a very narrowly defined subject and usually view that subject from the same vantage point throughout their lives. When you have been taught a certain theory and taught that it is the only valid theory it becomes difficult to see beyond that theory even when it doesn’t make practical sense.

This sounds funny, but you know what? The TYPE of government doesn't matter so much, as the RIGHTS citizens enjoy. Whether the govt. is a dictatorship, democracy, republic, monarchy, or whatever, if the people are left free to pursue commerce w/a minimum of govt interference, the people will be prosperous and happy. We live in a so-called democracy where, as time wears on, we are little more than serfs. On one end of the spectrum you have Tyranny, on the other you have Anarchy. The ideal is Liberty (which is MUCH closer to Anarchy than Tyranny), where govt does little more than protect your life and property, as well as enforce contracts.



Why does there have to be a central bank? Why should one, central body/person be able to decide what We The People use as money? If you've studied the history of central banks, you should realize that the INSTITUTION of central banking is the problem.





Actually fiat currency itself is VERY WRONG, and throughout history, EVERY fiat currency has failed. The current fiat system we have, now, is supposedly "controlled properly". Why would you want to replace a system w/a 100% failure rate with the same kind of system?





I agree that it doesn't HAVE to be gold and/or silver, but there is no denying that gold/silver is Constitutional money, or the fact that they have the best track record. A 100% gold/silver backed currency has never failed. Also, realize that the usage of gold/silver as money came about due to the will of PEOPLE, not governments. Individuals (i.e., the FREE MARKET), over the course of many, many years decided that gold/silver was the best form of money. In today's high-tech world, there is no limit to WHAT can be used as money. I, for one, would just like to see it taken out of the hands of private bankers AND government, and for the FREE MARKET to determine what should be used as money.



Why not repudiate the debt due to it being illegal and un-Constitutional? Why not charge the Banksters with fraud against the public as well as charge them with being traitors to the Constitution--which STILL carries the penalty of DEATH?

An excellent article from the Austrian school of economic theory.


http://www.mises.org/story/2369



Goes on to talk about fiat currency and imperialism.

OLD THREAD but....

ONCE AGAIN THE SOCIAL SECURITY DEBATE RISES FROM THE BUSH CAMP:

[url=http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/25/pf/soc_sec_trustees_report/index.htm?postversion=2008032514]Paulson: Social Security fix needed
[/url]

Treasury Secretary says program is 'financially unsustainable.' Trustee report says government will have to pay back what it owes starting in 2017.

One more thing for those of us who are among the "poor, middle poor, and upper poor" to continue to worry about.

Of course, all the talk is in the form of cutting back benefits, no talk about how borrowing from the program in the first place was a fundamentally BAD idea. The program is fully funded until 2017 and would be fully funded to sometime in the 2040's if not for the borrowing. Just so much NeoCon smoke and mirrors election year BS. If they can think up a way to mess up a perfectly working system, they will promote it as a necessary step.