I've been puzzling over how to phrase this question for a while, but I think I've finally found the words for what I'm getting at: Does human achievement (in part) rely on the liquidity of fiat currency? Hear me out.
Gold, as a form of money, has it's absolute minimum value set as the amount of effort it takes to pull it out of the ground. How much is X hours of one man's effort worth? X amount of Gold. Apart from improvements in mining technology, the amount of effort required to get a piece of gold isn't going to change. Gold is hard to come by and exists in a finite amount.
In order to build a large and powerful empire, you will need lots of gold to pay your subjects to build tangible things. Think schools, hospitals, roads, etc. This is assuming you aren't forcing people to do it >for free. That's not what I'm getting at here.
Enter fiat currency. If you can force your subjects to use a particular currency (by threatening them if they don't) then you have the ability to effectively conjure a large amount of money from nothing. As long as you have the muscle to enforce people use your currency, you have immediate access to pay lots of people to build lots of tangible things. This effectively relies on trust because your subjects need to have faith that other subjects will *accept* the currency as payment.
So, my question: could America be where it is today, if it still used a gold-backed system?
Honestly you people laugh at toilet paper hoarders, but you really don't have enough toilet paper yourselves. The average person uses 3 rolls per day. If you have a family of 25, that's 814 rolls a week. Over 6790 a month. TP rolls will be worth their weight in gold in a few months, because everyone needs it...
Hello Hueanon. That is indeed a problem. I don't really see a feasible way out for the current world economy short of a major monetary revolution. That could be me being short-sighted, however. I'm not an economist.
Kevin Baker
This isn't the place to have educated discussions, tons of idiots anything being of a higher level of intelligence leaves the thread barren
Thomas Cruz
3 rolls per day what the fuck
Robert Garcia
good question but we’ll never know
Adrian Price
Throw more money on the body
Julian Long
you memeflags are alright
Kevin White
On your expansion there is no problem with any thing. Fiat included. The issue is human nature and how to achieve certain goals in light of that nature.
Alexander Ross
But to your question, fiat money is the reason all the major powers of ww2 had unprecedented production and expansion Fiat allows you to utilize everyone's labor and resources for expansion, with mineral backed currency you'll be limited to utilize labor and services by the amount of currency available.
Luis Rogers
Where do you suggest? I don't really go on forums much anymore. Yas Forums is the only place I think I can get away with saying "IT'S THE FAULT OF THE FUCKING ROSTHCHILDS/JEWS" without getting insta-banned. Also, most people are sheep and simply don't see the problem.
> Naked chicks and money to catch people's attention Where do you think this is, detroit?
Jace Allen
A firm of fiat is created through debasement and producing smaller amounts of mineral currency and placing it's value not be weight of material but as say equivelant to 5 pounds of wheat.
James Brown
So essentially you would argue that yes, fiat is one of the reasons we have achieved so much over the past 100 years.
I've been watching the "Hidden Secrets of Money" documentary after someone posted it here a week ago. I knew most of what the guy is talking about, but after I realised he literally made the videos to try and sell gold... Made me ponder both sides.
I'm not arguing there's an inherent problem in the current system: fabricating money is making everyone effectively poorer. IF ONLY WE COULD ALL JUST AGREE AND GET ALONG
lmao, perhaps I should opt for tradthots or short-haired /soc/ tomboys instead? Redheads always seem to work, too.
Ayden Russell
Congratulations you just found out something that has been known for over 100 years
t. keynsian
Easton Green
Fiat is good for expansion but it can also cause inflation while minerals are less prone to inflation, for example through great depression mineral and properties/goods increases in price following inflation while the currency lost value.
Jack Long
No way america would be where it is today without fiat. Read Empire of Debt if you want that elaborated.
The more important question is where will america go without their fiat advantage in the near future. Major regression or is there a method to all the madness?
Wyatt Fisher
Enlighten me? I've heard of Keynesian economics before, but honestly never looked into it too much.
If they're good for expansion, at what point does expanding stop being a good thing? Who decides this and when? Is it a natural response?
Arguably there are too many people on the planet today and it's only going to get worse.
>Read Empire of Debt Cheers mate, I'll see if I can find a PDF.
>Where will the US go More wars, I imagine? You'll have to find something to replace the petrodollar.
Ryan Moore
FUCK YOU KIKE FUCK YOU AND YOUR FAKE DEBT FUCK OFF TO ISRAEL AND TAKE YOUR FAKE BANKING WITH YOU EPSTEINBERG
YOU ONLY LEECH
YOU CHEAT YOU ARE FUCKING NOTHING
LEECHING OFF WHITE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
YOUR BIGGEST WAS FUCKING USING NAZI ROCKETS TO FAKE A MOONLANDING YOU MENTALLY ILL BY RELIGION FAKE FUCKS
FAKE MONEY EPSTEINBERGS
FUCK OFFFFFFFF AND FUCKKK YOUUUUU AND THE NIGGER SLAVE BOAT YOU COMMAND YOU CHEATING GOLDSMITH CUNTS GO BACK AND NEVER RETURN HERE
Printing fiat is not fabricating money. Its inflating currency. Currency is not alway money but money is always currency.
Joseph Lewis
>is there a measure to this Increase amount of services and goods produced as increase of fiat currency inflates.
For example Japan 100 yen is equivelant to 1 dollar.
Jaxon Morris
>So, my question: could America be where it is today, if it still used a gold-backed system? I would say no, because people could vote with their "gold wallets" to avoid things like wars country doing something you don't like? make a run on the banks to withdraw metals but without the ability to do that, with the ability to force the entire populace to keep accepting fiat, you effectively get the ability to tax the population at any time, for any amount, whenever you see fit and the US without its war machine would be nothing at all the same way that banks, via fractional reserve banking, are able to perpetually extract wealth from the world around them, countries that use banking to maintain a massive military are able to perpetually extract wealth from the world around them of course now there are multiple world actors doing the same, and now there is very serious competition on the horizon for things like oil and rare earth metals. you can tax your local population all you want (to build war machines) but eventually you come up against someone else's war machines
anyway I digress. but to answer your question, without fiat I think we'd have a far more prosperous population, completely federated and local-scale. but if you want to finance gigantic, nationwide projects, you have to have the power to "deep tax" the population. people can escape consumption taxes or property taxes by changing their behavior, but there is nothing you can do to escape a devalued currency short of leaving a country ... to another country which practices the same thing.
PS thanks for posting something of value on this board
Adam Smith
Keep expenditure high and if there's nothing to expend on then you can't inflate.
The problem is that while achieving a lot, fractional reserve banking via FIAT currencies forces humanity down a satanic pathway. People spend their entire lives focused on how to make more money. This is not our reason for existence. Given benevolent international bankers this system would be better than many others, but we know they are the opposite.
Juan Turner
Fiat currency is usury as the basis for every financial transaction which uses it.
Your reading comprehension needs work; I'm not advocating fiat - I'm putting forward a question.
>banks, via fractional reserve banking, are able to perpetually extract wealth from the world around them This is one of the inherent problems with fiat, IMHO. Power requires currency, which allows you to enforce your own arbitrary currency ... It's a broken system. Who owns the federal reserve? :^)
>thanks for posting something of value thanks for replying. have this in return
There's really no reason to ever stop spending via inflation, if you take loans from other countries or your own I dependant banks then that is a problem by inflation I meant taking the wealth from.bsnks and every citizen and not exclusively taking wealth of people for banks profit
Easton Cook
There is no truth to the line that you can tax your population all you want. See “The Laffer Curve” and “revolution”
Ryan Russell
In an ideal economy the state owns money creation to inflate all of the banks wealth taking that money for the country. But the banks own and profit off inflation not lose money so we are missing their money for expenditure, but if you try to take banks money for the state you'll get attacked.
Nolan Diaz
Technically, Banks are required to pay taxes on income as are other corporations. ... It is not that they don't pay taxes on their income. They simply use the tax code to define their taxable income as zero or less.
Independant Banks gimp states power as does the fed gimp the fiat power of the state until they desire
Aye; I quickly came to the realisation that given benevolent operators of the fiat - it wouldn't actually be too much of a problem, provided they actually made sure to reign in the inflation. The federal reserve technically has a means to do this; but it isn't used... not enough, anyway.
I mean, the bank of england literally publicly state their target inflation YoY is 2%. what the fuck? why is it so commonly accepted that money becomes less worthwhile over time? THAT is what I don't understand. People just can't imagine another system.
Throwing another reply at this; can you explain your statement "without it's war machine the US would be nothing at all"? The US has birthed a great number of world-changing scientists. It's not all about war. (Although war did drive most of that science...)
Gold doesn't possess some magical intrinsic quality called "value" though. It's literally just a shiny metal that's handy to use. Why do you brainlets need to base all your economic systems on a metal though? The current system is shit, but gold-backed isn't much better.
Grayson Cruz
what the heck is that thing? can we get rid of these?
Nathaniel Long
The fed and banks in general should be government owned, as in the government has the right to print money and do the duties of banks.
Jack Sanchez
Anything that isn't completely nonsensical could work, letting jews print money then asking for it back plus interest is peak retard.
Cameron Butler
(1) Good on you for pondering money. You're on the right track
(2) You're making a lot of silly assumptions still. "minimum value ... effort ... of the ground." No. Even if it took me a year to scrounge up an ounce of gold, if I am starving I'll trade it for a day's worth of food.
(3) There is nothing inherently wrong with fiat, in fact it is better than gold because it is dumb to dig holes in the ground to find gold when paper is cheaper.
(4) The US runs an empire that imports lots of goods for free (steals them) by printing more and more fiat. The reason for complex things like the drug trade is that it soaks up excess fiat that is printed and spent overseas. The Brits did the same thing, printing money then torching it via drugs. This is where a lot of the "problems" are that people sense with money. Like Brits before us, US has turned into a financialized economy. 20% of US GDP belongs to finance sector (which produces almost nothing, and shouldn't even show up in GDP as a result) and less than 5% of workers are in this sector. This drives up prices and puts pressure on the average person, destroys social mobility, social cohesion, etc. Smart people can easily see that the negative externalities such as these far outweigh the amount of stuff being stolen, and therefore financialization of the country is an act of treason carried out by a smart person.
Angel Clark
I'm aware it has no intrinsic value. It has, however, been used as a form of money since time immemorial. As I said, it has an absolute lower bound of "value" as the effort it requires to obtain. People are also happy to use and trade with it, so it functions well as a currency. Or it did, pre-fiat anyway.
I'm not suggesting a return to gold-based currency. I'm just voicing my thoughts.
Nationalise banks? hmm.
agreed
gonna bump the thread first while I read your post, before replying
and how would WW2 have gone without the US joining in? and why did they do so? not everybody believes the pearl harbor story.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be other accomplishments (science etc), just that its economic position has been maintained by war or the threat of war for a very long time. by steamrolling anybody who doesn't play along with US/Israel policies (eg Iraq and Libya), they intimidate everybody else to play along as well.
Luis Phillips
Is this bot posting?
William Sullivan
Yeah, and as you know, this is the tip of the iceberg. The GDP pumping is destroying us.
No, it can't, because corporations exist. Gold backed nations only work if all the gold is technically owned by who ever is the ruler, and they put a value on it. Corporations deal with tangible capital, which is then purchased with the middle man, money, supply and demand dictate how much value that middle man is worth. You'd need a king, or something to make gold work again, even at that, some other rare material might be worth more then gold.
Brody Wright
>if I am starving I'll trade it for a day's worth of food If you're starving, I'm sure you'd give away a lot more than a single ounce. But generally speaking (assuming neither party is starving) is it not possible for a universal good like gold to have a widely-accepted value range? This is what I meant.
>There is nothing inherently wrong with fiat I agree, as long as the people running the system (the ones who control the supply) aren't malicious actors. I don't think there has been a single example of this in human history; IIRC every single fiat currency has eventually failed.
>financialization of the country is an act of treason carried out by a smart person also agreed.
Lastly; >on the right track care to expand this?
Parker Edwards
Asset backed currency doesn't have to be metallic backed--just asset backed. The asset could be infrastructure, or agriculture, or raw energy even. It has to be a fixed growth economy.
Also: deflation isn't bad--unless your a kike. Fiat only exists to fund unpopular wars and prop up corrupt corporations.
ah right; gotcha. yeah, I touched on this earlier () -- without the military might to enforce the dollar's use, I'm not sure where the world economy is gonna go. It will tilt toward China or Russia, I imagine.
Anthony Brooks
Funny how banks aren't taxed and their profit and wealth are immune from inflation as they recurve free money from the fed.
>Gold backed nations only work if all the gold is technically owned by who ever is the ruler why? if Paul knows that David will sell 10 eggs for 1oz gold, and that David *will accept* 1oz gold for those 10 eggs, why does gold have to have an arbitrary price set by somebody? It's essentially barter with extra steps.
yeah I realise I made a misstep in the money-girls. I'll find hotter ones
Jayden Gray
Someone has to set the value of the gold. Who ever got the gold out of the ground starts the chain. I guess, the markets might work it out in th end, but someone usually always dictates it.
Look at diamonds.
Thomas Collins
I see your point. I guess that's where supply/demand comes in.
hmm, i have a lot of reading to do. this thread seems to be slowing down. shame
Of course it could. The banks and government would be less rich is the only difference. That wealth differential would be pretty equally distributed among the citizenry also, as our spending power would be increased relative to banks and government due to the lack of an engine for infinite inflation (aka stealth tax).
Justin Evans
Diamonds are a straight up monopoly, that is a bad example of markets at work.
Lucas Gonzalez
>Gold is hard to come by and exists in a finite amount. Then let the Treasury print it, not some private Soviet of international Jew-British banks retards.
The only people who lose in a gold backed system are the bankers, who now have to actually have the money they are lending or be subject to bank runs. This is the only real advantage of fiat, that bank runs are not really possible since there is no real limit to how much money the government and banks can create.
Jack Parker
there's the question about the practicality of gathering and delivering all that gold to your subjects when you need them to do stuff.
this brings up another question I suppose. what do you do if you have a static monetary supply, but an ever-increasing population?
do you think a fiat currency offers any utility?
Jace Taylor
If America kept it's gold system, they would be fine now. Also bitcoin is cool. The very point of a gold standard is scarcity: you constrain the government so you force individuals to do. Government intervention is the problem.
Leo Richardson
All the gold that was ever mined: 190,040 metric tons Market value of gold today: $53.85/g (or $1675.00/oz) Market value of all the gold in the world: $10.23 Trillion Size of the US economy: $22.32 Trillion
There is not enough gold in the world for half of the US economy to even run... Guys, there's a reason why we don't use the gold standard anymore.
Dylan Smith
>Guys, there's a reason why we don't use the gold standard anymore. To kill capitalism? Seems like a good working plan to me! Works like a charm.
Dominic Powell
If gold was used as a currency it's market value would increase to match the states demand for it.
