|
Money by Jim Davies
February 1, 2008 Although
two thirds of a century has passed since he wrote it in 1963, Murray
Rothbard's classic What
Has Government Done to Our Money?
still has no equal as an explanation of what money is and how government
distorted it. Rothbard called
for free-market gold, which was of course impossible while government
remained in control--but when it evaporated, three years ago, the market
almost uniformly chose gold as its primary medium of exchange, so he has
been handsomely vindicated. The
change was not instant. There had been a great deal of preparation--of
quiet though illegal trading with gold--for several years, in what
government called the "black market." As soon as people
graduated from the Academy, they knew that government paper was as doomed
as it was completely fraudulent, so when they had enough left over to
save, they bought gold coin and bullion and squirrelled it away somewhere
known only to themselves and their heirs, or used it for trade with those
they knew and trusted. What a wise move! During the last few years that
government existed, its currency went South in a massive way, making the
heavy inflation of 1979 seem trivial. In the last few weeks of its
miserable life, the paper dollar became as worthless as the 1923
Reichsmark, and dollar millionaires were two a penny. "Money"
had to be spent the very hour it was earned, while it would still buy
something. So those with a little gold in storage were much better placed,
and they were the ones who had graduated earlier than in that final year. Following
E-Day
gold immediately served its proper purpose, and those without any quickly
earned some by exchange of goods and services--and inflation stopped cold
because the supply of gold is more or less fixed. True, for a few months
there was a brisk trade in minting; that is, people scoured their attics
for unwanted jewelry and had it melted down and pressed into coins. That
did increase the amount in circulation, and so there was some mild
inflation for that period. Mining of gold continued worldwide, and by that
means too the supply has increased by 1% or 2% a year--but productivity
meanwhile has risen so very much more sharply than that, that prices have
generally fallen--that is, there has been a net deflation of several
percentage points a year. It makes a pleasant change! The
exchange rate with the old US Dollar became infinite--there were no buyers
of paper--so I can describe its value only by reference to goods and
services. It's been found that the metric system is far easier to use than
the old one with 16 ounces to the pound, 112 pounds to the hundredweight
(so why "hundred"?), 20 hundredweight to the ton, etc, so the
coins are stamped with weights like "100 grams" and "25
grams" (respectively equal to 3.512 and 0.878 ounces). A good wage
rate for skilled work is about one gram per hour, or 40 grams for a
typical work week or 2 kilograms a year. At once, you can see a problem:
the smallest gold coin (10 grams) is too valuable for the purchase of
small items like bread, beer and pizza--for it represents the value of
nearly two days' wages (you folk back in 2008 saw exchange rates of around
$30 per gram). That
has been neatly and quickly solved by the use of electronic gold, which
was first seen in 1996 but which was savagely suppressed
by government after a decade and a half. With an account at any of the
competing online gold banks (actually all banks are gold banks, so
that's redundant), the customer carries a debit card with which to
purchase anything priced as finely as to hundredths of a milligram.
Variants on the idea have the balance carried electronically within
the card--one can have it "recharged"
by handing over a 100-gram coin to an exchanger, for example, and
then spend the 100 grams in small amounts over time. Banks
and other exchangers charge fees for their services, since they like to
eat, but competition keeps fees affordable and reputation keeps
them honest. A "good name" in business is everyone's primary
asset, for in this online era, it's perfectly simple to check what A has
said about B, rather in the way that eBay pioneered in the early years of
the century except that the writer of an adverse report had better be
ready to justify his words if its target reacts with a denial. Everyone is
"armed" in this way--his keyboard is a powerful weapon--but as
was often truly said about guns, an armed society is a polite one. So it
has proven. Reports made to the public database are worded with care, and
disputes (and their outcomes) that can't be resolved by negotiation are settled
in court. Banks
are primarily warehouses, which store gold for customers and normally
charge a small fee and issue warehouse receipts in the form of
certificates (one genuine form of paper money now in circulation) and
provide plastic cards as above. Some lend out or invest gold entrusted to
them, but if so, it's made clear in the deposit contract and such banks
(rather like the old Savings & Loan banks) pay interest to depositors
rather than charging fees. That interest rewards the depositor for the
risk he is taking, and he closely oversees the bank's investments to
ensure he's happy with its policy. Hence, banks have evolved into two main
types already: those that do and those that do not lend out depositor
property. I notice that the former type is having a hard time at present;
it seems depositors are much more interested in the safe keeping of their
gold than in making upon it a modest return. That's understandable, for
there are so many other, more lucrative investment opportunities available
in the market. The
old practice of lending out more money than was on deposit (nine
times more, in a typical case in the old world!) was made possible only by
the Fed's fractional-reserve rules, which were endorsed by government and
made the whole banking system inherently unstable while helping cause
sustained inflation. That now never happens. Reason: banks can attract
depositors only by demonstrating honesty. No sane person would lend a gold
kilogram to someone who then printed up a "certificate" for nine
kilograms and loaned it out for interest at risk! Such a scheme was
absolutely mad--and is now universally understood to be mad. The
biggest single expense for most people remains our homes, but their prices
have begun to fall because in the old world, they were artificially
boosted by several
factors triggered
by government. Here's how I've seen this rather complex change. First,
the basic cost of a regular house is about 3 gold grams per square foot of
living space, and has been for a very long time, but since about 1950 that
has been inflated by those factors to about 4.5 grams in recent years.
Naturally, a premium has always applied in addition, if the home is in an
especially desirable location or has exceptional construction quality,
etc., and a discount applies in the contrary case that it is old and
poorly maintained, etc. Now,
over time several other factors "ought" to have brought that
natural price of 3 grams down some--so the government-caused inflation has
been greater than it seems, and now that its cause has gone away I think
we shall see in the next few years a fall that continues down past 3 to
around 2.5 grams/sq. ft. or not much more than half the present prices;
some believe they will fall even further. Those other factors are: -
building techniques, productivity and construction materials have improved
steadily over a couple of hundred years -
construction "codes" that made building artificially expensive
have been shredded; buyers now get only what they want -
land is abundant ( -
telecommuting has steadily reduced the need to live close to cities, and
the booming personal-aircraft industry now promises to reduce it much
further yet, so the city land-price premium will apply less -
the tax content buried in both labor and material prices has vanished -
mortages are harder to get, as below Homes
can be mortgaged as before--though that expectation of falling prices
means the days of 90% loans are long gone--and only when lenders place
their own (or their shareholders') money at risk. The folly of lending
large sums to borrowers with a poor credit record on the security of an
ill-kept, grossly overpriced building therefore does not happen; the '08
recession took place because that kind of irresponsibility was forcibly
underwritten by taxpayers. Today, there is neither force nor taxpayer, so
the industry is rational. So,
housing remains a big expense but it's already falling and has much
further yet to fall. That will mean more money is available to each family
for other spending and investing, which signals a healthy economy for many
years to come. A
further, one-time boost to the economy has come from the widespread
practice I mentioned in my report on Ownership;
during the months preceding E-Day, many of us took the government's
hyperinflated "money" and paid off our mortgages. Lenders got
all they were entitled to--dumpsters full of paper--while we were left
with nice houses, free and clear, each initially worth perhaps ten
kilograms--and any cars, boats and other boys' and girls' toys
which had been bought with the ubiquitous "home equity" loans
the banks had touted for so long. Good deal! That meant we have needed to
spend nothing on housing, so we've had much more available to spend on
other things, or to save; only the bankers were losers, and since they had
always been in bed with government that licensed the paper and forced
creditors to accept it, the justice of that never struck me as anything
but poetic. The
rate of investing, or saving, was for many decades very low in America
because so much was siphoned off to the banks by those large mortgages and
to the government by high taxes--which used the money to prop up failing
industries so as to maintain voters' jobs, rather than in stimulating
innovation--so the growth that only free capitalism can deliver was
hindered. That brake has now been released. The extra money everyone has
is invested in just such a way, and although three years is too short a
time in which to see the fruits of that investment, I've no doubt that it
will bear a rich harvest in the decades to come. People invest without
Nanny's supervision! There
is no longer a brokerage cartel governed by stifling regulations; if John
Sovereign wants to buy a share in the ABC Company, he goes ahead and does
it online, using whatever eBay-like service brings him the best price. He
is, of course, exercising responsibility as well as his freedom--the two
go together, as always. There are still a few charlatans on the Net as
well as honest dealers, and the good old principle of caveat emptor
continues to apply. However, thanks to the transparency of information
there, no such charlatan survives long; even the novice investor knows to
check out the facts before parting with money. In my view, that
transparency will virtually eliminate misrepresentation a very few years
hence--with infinitely greater efficiency than the old system of
regulation. Bottom line: a lot more money is placed in ventures which, in
the opinion of the individual taking the risk (than which there is none
better) will yield the most benefit. This is capitalism at its best! There
are about 140,000
tons of gold in the world, including that used in jewelry. About 10% of it
is in Therefore,
it didn't much matter what happened to the 4,000 tons of gold stored at So
it was; the new company staked claim to the gold and its enormous vault,
and title was recorded in the usual way, the contract specifying that all
350 million in the new society would be allocated one equal share of 11.4
grams, minus a 0.1% administration fee to the company. Wind of the plan
had reached the Pentagon early in 2027, and there might have been a nasty
fight over it, but by then the Army was very short staffed and the
fulminations of the top brass never came to much. By now in 2030, 300
million of the expected 350 million shares have been distributed, and as
the contract provides, any surplus remaining in 2035 will be divided among
those who by that year have staked their claim. Most account
holders are content to keep their asset in electronic form backed by gold
in the vault, but the Thus, our economy grows at a healthy rate (more goods and services are produced), and because the supply of money is stabilized by the market itself, prices are gradually falling. In this free society members all know better than to accept in payment anything other than genuine money, no legal-tender laws force us to do otherwise, and for the first time in over a century, we all enjoy knowing that the money in our pocket has true, intrinsic worth with which no government can meddle. For the first time ever, a large society has a rational way to store and exchange value. Jim Davies is a retired businessman in New Hampshire who led the development of an on-line school of liberty in 2006, and who expects to experience a free society in his lifetime. |