As soon as you start channeling the framers and how they understood gold and silver you have gone down a path I do not wish to go down. How did they understand combustion (the phlogiston theory I believe)? How did they understand energy? The framers were very bright and incredibly prescient in many of their deliberations but I will not defer to them on the best way to run a monetary system. They had their reasons for setting it up the way they did and it worked then but the 70s showed the limitations of a metallist currency. We should thank Nixon for having the brains and courage to abandon it.

There are other mechanisms to controlling the Cavaliers of Credit (as Marx first called them) and they certainly are a danger.

It seems to me that at its core the difference between the two schools of thought is that the metallists think if you accumulate currency ,at some point it should be “worth” a certain amount of gold and always have value.
The chartalists on the other hand think money is more of a grease to the wheel of commerce and should be used as such. If you try and hoard it, it will rot. Buy stuff with it, keep the stuff and pass it to your kids if you want but trying to simply keep pieces of paper or electronic bits in a savings account will be counter productive.

I personally think money should have an expiration date.

It’s the fear of the unknown that is worse than the problem. If we can define it, we can solve it. If we cannot even define it, how can we address it?

All the lousy stuff… unemployment etc… are manifestations of the problem. Now we can start solving it one step at a time.

you should look into the idea of ‘Free Banking’, file it under: Ripley’s, if you must, but one of the major problems is that of a Currency Monopoly–currently, in the U.S., given to a cartel of Private Banks, a.k.a. the FedRes, endorsed by the USGov, via ‘Legal Tender’-Statutes.

your point, re: Fiat Currencies–”A fiat currency, by defintion, is not more irresponsible. Its only such when irresponsible people are in charge of it.– is True to the extent that the users, of such, have a ready means of substitution, away from it, if they so desire..

also, this: “Gold standard currency got revalued as well in its time.”, again, can only happen in a ‘Currency Monopoly’-realm..

past that (‘Free Banking’), but with idea in mind, this: “We had all kinds of financial problems when we were gold standard as well, and I think it was the “private” finance sector that drove those problems”, is, no doubt, True. Though, understand that that had more to do with Fractional-Reserve Banking, and, literally, Fraudulent Bank MGMT(leverage-ratios stretched beyond any conceivable viability/ too much Paper, too little Specie)

and, from there, if we care to understand the Framers intent–Gold & Silver were understood as counterweight that would hold the Purchasing Power of the Money of the People v. the ‘Cavaliers of Credit’/Speculators/Projectors/true “Paper-Pushers”.
see: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=History+of+United+States+Currency
to begin with..and, as I said b4, hope that makes some sense, after a little cogitation..

While they may not believe in a zerosum game, I believe its quite clear that it ends up behaving as such in many instances.

Gold standard currency got revalued as well in its time. A fiat currency, by defintion, is not more irresponsible. Its only such when irresponsible people are in charge of it.

We had all kinds of financial problems when we were gold standard as well, and I think it was the “private” finance sector that drove those problems, as it did recently (certainly with help from the govt but who can tell the difference these days. Getting control of the private credit issuers is paramount (in my relatively ill informed view) but that is true no matter what standard we use.

Doesnt your example of $3 or $3000 being irrelevant to the buying power undermine your argument about inflation being the boogey man?

The take home message I get from the “soft currency” people is that we should be less worried about inflation and more concerned with full employment. Most of the arguments against policies to create full employment, using employer of last resort policies if necessary, are that it will be (picture my with my hands clasped together in front of my face right now)…………………..inflationary!! Having people willing to do something, anything, to participate in our market place and not being able to because the “bosses” cant afford to pay them a wage and still make the profit (not that profit is evil) just seems so counter productive. There is much we need done and if we have to run a deficit ( a negative number on the point counting machine) to do so ………SO WHAT!? So some people who are currently trying to take more and more of their money out of the consumption side and live off their interest wont get as much? Well pardon me but………………..boo fucking hoooo!

This is as simple as I understand it ( or mis understand it).

a couple of quick points..the ‘Austrians’ are the last one to believe in ‘fixed wealth’/'zero sum’..

many long for the ‘Gold Standard’ b/c of its, relative, “stable-ness”–can’t be created from thin-air..

much in the same way “Yards” are 36 inches, they’re looking for a unit of account that is, fairly, uniform..

with that, remember, competition drives, relative, Prices down/Purchasing Power up.

if we allow that to happen, the idea that we ‘need’ an ‘elastic currency’ goes away/up in smoke..

the con of ‘needing an elastic currency’ plays into the hands of the Financiers, by way of the ‘heart-strings’ of ‘helping the poor’/'cutting the little guy a break’..

it does nothing, but, allow the Financiers to create even more credit, at interest, of course, forcing, relative, Prices higher/Purchasing Power lower..

in Reality, Inflation, being the first Tax, hitting those furthest from the spigot hardest, eviscerates the ‘poor’/'little guy’ that the ‘elastic currency’ was ‘supposed’ to help..

and, a little differently, it doesn’t matter if one has $3, or $3000, in their pocket, it matters how much that sum will buy..

hope that made some sense..

I agree. The US will lose buying power no matter what decisions are made.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Are you saying this because we will have less money or there will be fewer things to buy? We can “make” all the “money” we wish. The economic issue is how to distribute steadily vanishing resources. As long as the primary thing people are consuming is renewable or ubiquitous ,no problem. When we are competing for something that is diminishing………big problem. Especially if its necessary and diminishing.

There will be less workers per dependant and that is reality. You can give boomers all the money they want, the same number of workers will be there facing them.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Workers are not required to “fund” boomers retirement (I assume you are talking about the boomers who stop producing as much). But retirees will have to make serious choices about spending on resources which may be becoming limited. Again the problem is not one of money but simply resource allocation.

And if the system is not cleaned up and you give them all the money they want, not enough companies will be created and they’ll have too many dollars for the services out there.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Again money is just a grease for the wheels of production/consumption. We have unlimited amounts of it. Companies will be created as long as there are demands for something to be produced /consumed which will probably be for eternity, seeing how our species lives. Having too many dollars for the services out there is better than not having enough….eh?

So something tells me that it’s not just the next generation that will suffer.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
How right you are there. All generations do their own suffering, its part of the human condition. My wish is not to make my grandchildrens life suffer free but to make it coping ready.