Skip to content

Additional resources for earning interest in gold

4 responses to “What Can Kill a Useless Currency?”

  1. OK,” you say, “they can fix this by banning cash francs. Everyone will be issued a card and must use the card to debit and credit their accounts.” We will not address the sinister overtones of totalitarianism implicit in this idea.
    ____________
    Ah, so you will not address the sinister overtones… how convenient. Then there is no reason to finish the article because everything that follows will not exist.

  2. Several years ago I wrote piece on my blog about Debt and Gold. I have not been able to believe how well financial repression has worked without engendering protest. And as for @Bruce and his totalitarian concerns about the cashless society, I would say it is somewhere between highly likely and a sure thing. I have grave concerns that the citizenry is not up for democracy, it is too hard. We will get what lazy people get and that is what we deserve….
    http://alabikedr.blogspot.com/2014/05/some-reflections-about-debt-and-gold.html

  3. Keith, a few authors have made some distinction between a currency being “backed” and being “redeemable”. [Sproul 1998 UCLA for example]. Redeemability is a very strong property requiring the issuer itself to provide equal value for (statistically speaking) every piece of currency issued. Backing is somewhat weaker, but not to the point of uselessness: the issuer of a currency note must sustain reserves of value sufficient to (statistically) retire the base currency it issues, but not necessarily on immediate demand of a note holder. Clearly it is the intention of most central banks of issuance that their monies are “backed.” This is why they hold reserves at all, and why we study the size and structure of those reserves when developing a valuation (a gold bid) for said currency. The central bank’s reserves must be understood to be sequestering market-testable values and tying up resources now conveyed by the currency notes (as a more fungible, efficient proxy for said reserves, or for some fraction thereof), New currency issuances are supposed to encourage value holders to part with their (reserve-quality) assets for the convenience of more liquid cash. That concept in the abstract is clearly acceptable to a fairly high degree in modern economies. It appears to be at least as relevant as the “legal tender” statutes. It is, of course, much more vulnerable to corruptions and counterfeits than on-demand redemption schemes, hence your (and others’) incessant questioning of the “check-kiting” loophole it leaves open for the inflation of badly structured credit (i.e. boom bubbles). There being no free lunches, the weaker, more vulnerable, system can usually operate with less transactional friction. Pricing the extra risks it adds then becomes a topic of concern. Should that risk premium wipe out the increased efficiency of merely “backed” currency, we should assume that fully redeemable systems would take their place, at least until some credible way to lower the risk of issuance abuse that is simpler than full redeemability comes along. Keeping all this clear in the minds of the public is really impossible given the background noise of the monetary debates. To those who believe markets run the world, however, we must allow that imperfect schemes can have sustained success, but that civilization depends on keeping all options open and all failsafe schemes in good working order.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?

Feel free to contribute!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Gold Outlook Report 2025