Vampiro27Mr. Jacobs, you said “but so long as the State is going to be involved in monetary affairs, something like the gold standard is necessary to impose discipline on government spending”. Wouldn’t it be far more effective if individuals were free in monetary matters? A gold standard would not prevent the government from adopting a pseudo gold standard such as the Bretton Woods agreement. A far more effective measure would be to repeal all unconstitutional legal tender laws, thereby allowing individuals to be free in monetary matters. This also brings up other roadblocks to liberty, such as taxes being collected in dollars, which still could be inflated at the behest of the state. There too, changes would have to be made, to include the elimination of the income tax, and subsequently a government that is funded voluntarily. Though the latter are far off due to a liberty minded individual not having the pulpit of the presidency to promote and defend liberty, repealing legal tender laws is something that could possibly pass due to the nature of it’s unconstitutionality.
To the perfect economy website, I find this quote “Yet this very moment you have your finger on proof of singular solution” rather illogical due to the nature of the economy being dynamic as it is. For the author to label interest as causing a perpetual debt is I believe wrong.
He constantly misrepresents Ron Paul as well. Ron Paul has advocated for complete freedom in monetary matters, and a gold standard only as an option for government based upon the constitution, along with removing the coercive force of government and central banks in relation to money as well. The author also mentions that gold’s limited supply is a problem, when historically it has been an asset. It’s no wonder that gold has a 6,000 year history as a media of exchange.
Take this quote: “In the case of a $100,000 home with a hundred year lifespan, we would pay for the home/debt at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month — a mere fraction of present costs.
Simply by re-financing all debt under mathematically perfected economy, we would immediately achieve full employment and *multiples* of our present “prosperity,” because so much *existent* cash could be devoted to commerce, versus its present dedication to servicing debt.”
This is nonsensical. So, not only is the individual unable to charge interest for the money loaned out, but they are now forced to accept a payment of only 1,000 dollars per year for 100 years. How a payment plan would achieve full employment and prosperity goes beyond logic. Also, contracts would be rendered null and void through force, therefore causing individuals to go bankrupt in the process, as other contractual obligations were based off of the lending agreement, which now could not be fulfilled, and myriad of economic problems would stem from this.
Where would this freed up money that “would immediately be available to sustain all the industry we are capable of” wind up? How would it be distributed? What about the new unemployed? How would they be compensated for the theft that took place against them? Why should the builder make a profit on building the home in the first place?
We have individual A whom works hard, and expends energy in order to earn money. This individual then saves money. Individual B doesn’t work nearly as hard as individual A, yet desires a loan in order to make a purchase. So what happened to the “but to the very economic justice of receiving for an equal measure of our own work, the equivalent work of others” So if individual A lends out 100,000 dollars, they only are allowed to receive in return 100,000 dollars. This therefore invalidates the equal measure of individual A’s work, as it was far greater than individual B’s efforts in acquiring the 100,000 dollars, and individual B need not expend much effort in order to receive the 100K. Individual A would be compensated for their efforts through interest on the earned $100,000. It is up to individual B to accept the terms, if not the transaction never takes place. This “mathematically perfected economic system just doesn’t add up.