Slashdot Mirror
Book Review: Money: The Unauthorized Biography
jsuda (822856) writes "Most of us know that making money is difficult and saving it is even harder, but understanding money is easy–it's just coins and folding certificates, a mere medium of exchange. That's wrong! according to Felix Martin, author of Money: The Unauthorized Biography. Not only is that understanding wrong but it's responsible (in large part) for the 2007 Great Recession and the pitiful 'recovery' from it as well as a number of previous financial and credit disasters." Keep reading for the rest of Jsuda's review.
Money: the Unauthorized Biography
author
Felix Martin
pages
336
publisher
Knopf
rating
8/10
reviewer
jsuda
ISBN
0307962431
summary
A sweeping historical epic that traces the development and evolution of money
Mr. Martin draws a comparison of the orthodox understanding of money as a mere medium of exchange as typified by material objects–coins, gold bars, measuring sticks, and the like and a different way of thinking about it--as a social accounting construction based on mutual trust. That way of thinking acts as a primary social organizing tool. As such, a monetary system is much more sophisticated than just a logical extension of primitive bartering systems. It is imbued with major political aspects which account, in part, for the differences between the haves and have-nots, the policies selected to address financial/economic busts, and the relationship of the state to the monetary/financial systems.
The differing understandings of money underlie even now the varied explanations by economists of the causes of the Great Recession and the varied reactions of political leaders to it. It is also relevant to the deliberate removal of the government from the monetary system in favor of an impersonal computer network, as in the digital coin system now developing.
The author is a professional economist, bond trader, and analyst with the George Soros Institute for Economic Thinking. The book is a very worthwhile look at the concept of money as a (implicit, at least) political and social determinant and is quite topical as alternative monetary systems (mostly digitalized) like Bit Coin and competitors are garnering much attention. While the book does not address those new developments, it's clear that the digitalized coin systems imply acceptance of the orthodox understanding of money as a commodity. Some of Martin's criticism of the limitations of the orthodox view seem to apply to these alternatives, as well.
Mr. Martin writes in a relatively accessible manner relating stories, mostly, about money in historical and global contexts. His approach reminds of Malcolm Gladwell's books which use elaborate historical stories to illustrate relatively complex topics. Gladwell writes better but, arguably, covers simpler issues. However, this book, too, is relatively simple. It is no treatise on money or systems; it doesn't cover every issue which relates to money and exchange; and it seems a bit thin on theory even on those topics it does focus on. The major topic is the nature of money–a medium of exchange or social/political organizing tool and that issue has been theorized differently for centuries.
Mr. Martin starts his critique of the orthodox view of money by explaining how the early Pacific island Yap culture relied upon the symbolism of large stones (known as "fei.") These stones were kept by individuals as value storage devices, even though they had few of the characteristics which typically would be present in money systems–tokens of some sort small enough to carry and to hide, a consistent look, ease of exchange, a readily determinable unit value, etc. None of that was relevant for the Yaps as they understood money as mere transferable obligations, commercial or otherwise, based on mutual trust. The bigger your stone, the more value you had to trade, even though no stones physically moved anywhere. The Yaps had a small community and violations of community trust were easily discouraged. The stones (including a large one on the bottom of the ocean) were only tangential to the much more relevant element of social trust.
Mr. Martin reviews a large handful of other historical situations involving credit collapses, bank runs, recessions, and big bank/governmental associations to make his main point that when money is rigidly understood merely as a commodity of exchange, bad things can happen to financial, credit, economic, and political systems, especially in difficult times. Take, for instance, the Irish potato famine of the mid-19th century where potential government/social aid to the jobless and hungry was stymied by creditor interests who valued the absolute sanctity of (bond and debt) contracts even at the consequences of millions of deaths. As they saw it, those victims were either responsible for their own problems or just losers in a competitive economy. Some economic thinkers at that time believed that those awful consequences were just part of the natural order and represented (unfortunately for the victims) unavoidable consequences of "good" finance.
While Mr. Martin doesn't address it much, most of the little people in America and elsewhere were also victims of the absolute sanctity of debt contracts. They lost jobs, homes, pensions, and savings in the Great Recession while big bondholders who legally had assumed investment risks lost nothing. Their debt contracts were inviolate. (The personal and social contracts of the little people naturally were worth nothing.)
Some of the major policy implications of money deal with: 1) inflation and deflation where a political decision is implied involving the contrary interests of creditors and debtors: 2) social responses to credit collapses and the role (if any) of government in moderating them; 3) who or what entities are or should be guarantors of trustworthiness (i. e., big banks? government? a computer network? 4) the role of formal contract law versus the principle of the good social good, and more. These are not mere abstract matters of formal theory but highly consequential matters of life and death (as the Irish potato farmers and lots of little people have found out.)
The author spends a lot of time explaining how trust works--in small organizations and communities, nations, and in globalized financial systems. At the top of the trust ladder (even for the most libertarian types) is the sovereign, i. e., government. There are important reasons why governments are generally lenders of last resort, stabilize financial and economic systems, and ultimately, the only potential savior for citizens from total economic collapse (as in the Great Recession.) There are various alternatives for the governmental role, none of which please everyone.
Hence, the political dimension of the money-social relationship. Mr. Martin comes down hard in favor of the flexible, social understanding of money. He praises John Maynard Keynes, Walter Bagehot, and even Salon, of centuries ago for their insights. He blames the great liberal philosopher, John Locke, of all people, for having a decidedly ill-liberal and ill-formed understanding of money. Lock was an orthodox monetarist and helped justify the philosophy which is still prominent. Each of the two philosophical approaches discussed here offer both liberal and conservative themes though rarely opposed as such.
That raises one major objection to Martin's thesis that orthodox monetary theory is wrong. He wants to substitute the social tool concept for it, but it seems pretty obvious that both frames of reference have their utility and truth. It's not easy to discredit respect for contract rights. On the other hand, it's hard to accept the starvation of millions of people to maintain them fully intact.
Nearly all such fundamental frames have their truths, even if inconsistent with the other. The better philosophical view is that we are guided (or not) by multiple, logically inconsistent frames. That is a philosophical point which he doesn't address well enough. He does concede that the orthodox theory mostly works well when times are good (but breaks down horribly when circumstances are bad.) This seems to imply a need for high-level judgment somewhere in the system, e. g., democratic political processes, a conclusion which tends to support his position.
He offers a couple of not very well-explained alternative monetary systems designed to remedy the faults of the orthodox approach while maintaining its virtues. He ends the book by suggesting that even if his thesis is correct, that getting the rest of the world to accept it is difficult–most people have rigid orthodox views, fiercely held. He lamely suggests without any elaboration that the power is within each of us to change those views. That would seem to require another book.
There is a lot of good meat, so to speak, to chew on in this book.
You can purchase Money: The Unauthorized Biography from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
The differing understandings of money underlie even now the varied explanations by economists of the causes of the Great Recession and the varied reactions of political leaders to it. It is also relevant to the deliberate removal of the government from the monetary system in favor of an impersonal computer network, as in the digital coin system now developing.
The author is a professional economist, bond trader, and analyst with the George Soros Institute for Economic Thinking. The book is a very worthwhile look at the concept of money as a (implicit, at least) political and social determinant and is quite topical as alternative monetary systems (mostly digitalized) like Bit Coin and competitors are garnering much attention. While the book does not address those new developments, it's clear that the digitalized coin systems imply acceptance of the orthodox understanding of money as a commodity. Some of Martin's criticism of the limitations of the orthodox view seem to apply to these alternatives, as well.
Mr. Martin writes in a relatively accessible manner relating stories, mostly, about money in historical and global contexts. His approach reminds of Malcolm Gladwell's books which use elaborate historical stories to illustrate relatively complex topics. Gladwell writes better but, arguably, covers simpler issues. However, this book, too, is relatively simple. It is no treatise on money or systems; it doesn't cover every issue which relates to money and exchange; and it seems a bit thin on theory even on those topics it does focus on. The major topic is the nature of money–a medium of exchange or social/political organizing tool and that issue has been theorized differently for centuries.
Mr. Martin starts his critique of the orthodox view of money by explaining how the early Pacific island Yap culture relied upon the symbolism of large stones (known as "fei.") These stones were kept by individuals as value storage devices, even though they had few of the characteristics which typically would be present in money systems–tokens of some sort small enough to carry and to hide, a consistent look, ease of exchange, a readily determinable unit value, etc. None of that was relevant for the Yaps as they understood money as mere transferable obligations, commercial or otherwise, based on mutual trust. The bigger your stone, the more value you had to trade, even though no stones physically moved anywhere. The Yaps had a small community and violations of community trust were easily discouraged. The stones (including a large one on the bottom of the ocean) were only tangential to the much more relevant element of social trust.
Mr. Martin reviews a large handful of other historical situations involving credit collapses, bank runs, recessions, and big bank/governmental associations to make his main point that when money is rigidly understood merely as a commodity of exchange, bad things can happen to financial, credit, economic, and political systems, especially in difficult times. Take, for instance, the Irish potato famine of the mid-19th century where potential government/social aid to the jobless and hungry was stymied by creditor interests who valued the absolute sanctity of (bond and debt) contracts even at the consequences of millions of deaths. As they saw it, those victims were either responsible for their own problems or just losers in a competitive economy. Some economic thinkers at that time believed that those awful consequences were just part of the natural order and represented (unfortunately for the victims) unavoidable consequences of "good" finance.
While Mr. Martin doesn't address it much, most of the little people in America and elsewhere were also victims of the absolute sanctity of debt contracts. They lost jobs, homes, pensions, and savings in the Great Recession while big bondholders who legally had assumed investment risks lost nothing. Their debt contracts were inviolate. (The personal and social contracts of the little people naturally were worth nothing.)
Some of the major policy implications of money deal with: 1) inflation and deflation where a political decision is implied involving the contrary interests of creditors and debtors: 2) social responses to credit collapses and the role (if any) of government in moderating them; 3) who or what entities are or should be guarantors of trustworthiness (i. e., big banks? government? a computer network? 4) the role of formal contract law versus the principle of the good social good, and more. These are not mere abstract matters of formal theory but highly consequential matters of life and death (as the Irish potato farmers and lots of little people have found out.)
The author spends a lot of time explaining how trust works--in small organizations and communities, nations, and in globalized financial systems. At the top of the trust ladder (even for the most libertarian types) is the sovereign, i. e., government. There are important reasons why governments are generally lenders of last resort, stabilize financial and economic systems, and ultimately, the only potential savior for citizens from total economic collapse (as in the Great Recession.) There are various alternatives for the governmental role, none of which please everyone.
Hence, the political dimension of the money-social relationship. Mr. Martin comes down hard in favor of the flexible, social understanding of money. He praises John Maynard Keynes, Walter Bagehot, and even Salon, of centuries ago for their insights. He blames the great liberal philosopher, John Locke, of all people, for having a decidedly ill-liberal and ill-formed understanding of money. Lock was an orthodox monetarist and helped justify the philosophy which is still prominent. Each of the two philosophical approaches discussed here offer both liberal and conservative themes though rarely opposed as such.
That raises one major objection to Martin's thesis that orthodox monetary theory is wrong. He wants to substitute the social tool concept for it, but it seems pretty obvious that both frames of reference have their utility and truth. It's not easy to discredit respect for contract rights. On the other hand, it's hard to accept the starvation of millions of people to maintain them fully intact.
Nearly all such fundamental frames have their truths, even if inconsistent with the other. The better philosophical view is that we are guided (or not) by multiple, logically inconsistent frames. That is a philosophical point which he doesn't address well enough. He does concede that the orthodox theory mostly works well when times are good (but breaks down horribly when circumstances are bad.) This seems to imply a need for high-level judgment somewhere in the system, e. g., democratic political processes, a conclusion which tends to support his position.
He offers a couple of not very well-explained alternative monetary systems designed to remedy the faults of the orthodox approach while maintaining its virtues. He ends the book by suggesting that even if his thesis is correct, that getting the rest of the world to accept it is difficult–most people have rigid orthodox views, fiercely held. He lamely suggests without any elaboration that the power is within each of us to change those views. That would seem to require another book.
There is a lot of good meat, so to speak, to chew on in this book.
You can purchase Money: The Unauthorized Biography from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Sure, money is a social construct, however real money, as in money that is not fiat, money that is not declared by the government to be legal tender, namely gold stood in the way of governments destroying value of money by creating inflation (printing money, expanding monetary supply) and stood in the way of government from stealing more and more, since with real money, the innovation always led to higher productivity and lower prices (in the 19th century prices were falling, while money was gaining value, which is in stark contrast with the today's world of huge inflation and very low productivity and extremely high unemployment, all leading to rising prices). Of-course governments hate real money, as it prevents governments from expanding beyond their role of a LUXURY GOOD. Government is a luxury good that needs to be cut first when times are difficult, thus allowing the people to start rebuilding their savings and restructuring the economy, all of this on the backdrop of falling productivity, lost jobs and thus falling prices is what is necessary to fix the problems created by preceding round of inflation and expansion. In a market not controlled by government intervention, these are local phenomena, short-lived, and they allow scarce resources to be reallocated from inefficient uses to more efficient ones.
Governments controlling currency, printing money, taxing income are the reason for deep lived recessions and depressions that eventually worsen, as more and more resource misallocation is accumulated in the system. 2008 recession was caused by the Federal reserve and Treasury, which worked together to monetize USA debt (that Clinton and Rubin managed to push into short term category out of long term bonds). The reason governments are able to rack up the debt that can never be repaid is because they can print money literally, once they default on the honest money, whatever was known as currency (legal tender) becomes money in itself, its only role to be true money place holder is lost and the paper becomes money itself, no longer currency, no longer bank notes, but actual money backed by the con game that the governments run.
In any case, governments have no legitimate role in money manipulation, but this never stops them, because of-course it is so lucrative, to seize power from the people, to destroy the money by declaring paper to be it and then to buy political influence with this new concept - paper money, that can never be backed up by any amount of production. All of this of-course leads to bigger and bigger government, fewer and fewer individual freedoms, more and more oppression, which forces businesses to leave, eventually the money becomes the only product of that system, inflation becomes the only export.
Keynes was not an economist, he was a charlatan. To economics Keynes is what an astrologist is to an astrophysicist.
Yes, you do need to understand what money is, no you will not build any understanding of it from this nonsensical piece of crap of a book, whose author should be ashamed of himself, either for this complete lack of understanding or for the politics he is playing by selling this piece of shit.
You can't handle the truth.
tl;dr
The author is a professional economist, bond trader, and analyst with the George Soros Institute for Economic Thinking...The book is a very worthwhile look at the concept of money as a (implicit, at least) political and social determinant and is quite topical as alternative monetary systems (mostly digitalized) like Bit Coin and competitors are garnering much attention. While the book does not address those new developments, it's clear that the digitalized coin systems imply acceptance of the orthodox understanding of money as a commodity.
So is this:
A) yet another Soros funded attack on Republicans (probably, but it's unusual in that the author doesn't attempt to conceal that connection as is usually done in Soros' political activity).
B) yet another bit coin thread
C) Both A and B
(obviously the answer is C)
You spelled Judas wrong.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
A George Soros employee is a Republican? Not likely. You must have meant Stupid Democrats.
Bits and bytes.
So what's the readily determinable unit value of gold? If I have a gram, can I trade it for a cow the world over? Or will it net me one cow here, three cows there, no cows somewhere else? What about over time - does that value of gold vary?
Probably for the same reason they omit words from sentences...
Somewhere between "they" and "everything" was an idea. Alas, it must be inferred, since it wasn't stated outright.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
And there's where I stopped reading.
And also where you stopped thinking.
I like C. H. Douglas's Social credit definition of money:
s/Meteorology/Meteorological
Wouldn't all biographies of money be unauthorized? In what way would one acquire the "authorized" biography of money.
You spelled Judas wrong.
I did not. Why do you Republicans refuse to tell the truth? That Republican misspelled his own name. Please just stop posting. You people are ruining this site.
He accidentally the whole everything.
There are (at least) two kinds of money, and they work differently.
Commodity money is based on some thing which is in limited supply. We don't use this anymore.
Fiat money is created by the Government out of nothing. It gets it into circulation by Government spending. It gets it out of circulation by taxing. People use it because they have to pay taxes in it. If the total amount of wealth is increasing the Government must run a deficit or there will be deflation. If it runs a surplus there will be inflation and recession.
See MMT for more info.
Part of our economic problems come from people (including policy makers) being stuck in commodity money mind-sets when we are using a different kind of money entirely. Currently there is a deficit and a recession because the deficit isn't big enough and there is too much tax! There are structural reasons too, like the Government spending on the wrong things.
The trust creates the money and the money must ENFORCE the trust, whether that starves all the poor or not. BALONEY!
Since you're already modded to +5 I won't bother, but - Kudos for not being one of the mindless cumwads who automatically reject anything that anyone else says just because they are associated with ${political party or person's name who we've been conditioned to hate by propagandists}. Without critical thinking, there is no thinking possible at all.
Contracts are torn up all the time when circumstances change. There is practically no case where a a party of a contract will be required to drive themselves to ruin to fulfill a contract.
The same is true of money IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF IT. If you don't have a lot of money, you're screwed.
I blame Reagan for everything (War on Drugs, ripping solar panels off the White House, Meese the Pig, etc.). The only good thing Reagan did was prove that deficits don't matter.
Why are you calling me a republican? I'm Canadian you insensitive clod!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
And I suspect they will continue to be.
In my opinion, the REAL issue with money stems from two things.
1. Detachment from actual worth. A lot of people harp on gold back and many other schemes but that's not what I'm talking about. In times like ours, where money truly is nothing more than a perception of value, it can be manipulated much like religious talismans have been manipulated throughout history.
2. Positive interest systems. Positive interest promotes hoarding and a overall m.o. of only contributing money when you are statistically likely to get more in return. In order for people to be remotely successful is such a structure, they must find ways to generate or guarantee economic growth. When that happens you being searching for anything and everything that can make you more money. Many of these things may not have tangible worth. See first point.
See Charles Eisenstein's "Sacred Economics" for more on this. Not to say I agree with everything he has to say, but he hits on some very major points.
> monetary systems (mostly digitalized) like Bit Coin
Why do those people refuse to spell 'digitized' correctly?
Economics is based on biology. Lots of different organisms trade resources back and forth. In fact, if you don't trade and you can't find resources, you die.
Basic economics and it applies equally to protozoans, elm trees and human global civilization.
As far as money per se, that is an illusion or artifact of civilization. People who think credit or cash or the gold standard drives economics don't actually spend any time thinking about the concepts or limits. Consider--what is the total dollar value of everything in the world? Let's assume it is 500 trillion dollars.
Now assume it is only 5 dollars.
What actually changes about how people trade things or what things are traded for what other things? Nothing changes.
Money itself actually is just interpretation. It's a scorecard; not a driver.
Economics, according to Sowell is the how we value _scarce_ resources. That truly identifies most of the issues we have as a society. When clean air or water is plentiful, then there is no cost/value associated with it. When we pollute the water or air, now it becomes more valuable and as a society, we either say goodbye to clean air or figure out how to value it as an externality and pay for the use of it.
Still go nothing to do with money and everything to do with resource trading which is something all biological communities engage in.
Have you heard the good news about Das Kapital? I actually should re-read this, as it's one of the better treatises on money, capital, etc ever. Ignore that communist part if you want, since that part from what I remember was pitched as a logical conclusion but is more of a future prediction.
The only good thing Reagan did was prove that deficits don't matter.
sarcasm: And apparently that has now been "disproven" by Tea Partiers, fundamentalist Libertarians and Texans (except for when they want their Federal handout).
Once upon a time, gold money may have been wealth in itself, but today that quaint method of business is long gone. Money, holes, facilitates the movement of wealth, but is not wealth itself. Frankly the last thing any rich person wants is a big pile of money sitting around doing nothing. To a large degree our fascination with money has caused us to lose sight of the wealth it really represents. Money today is just a measuring stick of wealth, and an elastic one at that. Had more people looked not at the loans, but at the real property and wealth it represented, the real-estate bubble could have been avoided. Indeed most bubbles could deflate if people better understood what they really had bought.
Sisters : I will use two pieces of paper as an example. Can you see this?
Human : I see one piece of paper, the other's money.
Sisters : Two pieces of paper.
Human : What ?
Sisters : Here are two pieces of paper. Both the same size. Both just paper... Humans are obsessed with money.
Human : Not all humans; Just some of us... Most of us.
Sisters : One piece of paper is worth 500 solar credits, the other is worthless; Not even worth a solar centavo. Do you know why?
Human : Sure! One's a piece of money, the other's a piece of paper!
Sisters : They are both paper !
Human : Yeah... Right.
Sisters : One has been *blessed* by the treasury wizards, the other has not.
Human : That's it?
Sisters : That's it.
In the words of Jerry Dandridge " You have to *believe* for that to work"...
In his book "Stranger in a Strange Land", a human raised by Martians finds himself trying to understand the ways of Earthly humans. One day he groks the concept of "money". Good stuff!
"The only good thing Reagan did was prove that deficits don't matter."
He "proved" that, did he? And how, pray tell, is he supposed to have proved that?
No discussion of modern money can proceed without referencing the following people? Marriner Eccles http://mikenormaneconomics.blo... Beardsley Ruml http://www.constitution.org/ta... Abba Lerner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... William Vickrey http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp... Wynne Godley http://www.levyinstitute.org/s... Warren Mosler http://moslereconomics.com/man... Randy Wray http://www.levyinstitute.org/p... Bill Mitchell http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... and CH Douglas, already referenced in another comment
it's printed right on the money: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". You're legally required to accept US Currency. It's up to you how much, but if you have a debt you don't get to say no. You can require that the currency be in certain denominations (e.g. you can decline a jar full of 10,000 pennies) but that's about it.
If you say no and it's enough money to go to court over than sooner or later a judge is going to make you take the money. If you tell a judge no he throws you in prison for contempt of court.
I suppose you could overthrow the US Gov't, but other than that our money is pretty sound.
Oh, gold's intrinsic value is that rich people like to wear it. It's one of the few metals that won't leave marks on your skin. Since rich people are, by definition, the most important players in any economy they sorta set the value. It's been a long time since we were the sort of hunter-gathers that couldn't see the intrinsic value of gold...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There are many things to pick on in this administration; make no doubt about it. But several of the things you bring up are either silly or stupid.
1) Obamacare that nobody wanted; I'm sorry -- you don't like health insurance? Clearly, large segments of the population don't want it, but "nobody" is such a sweeping, wrong-headed generalization that it shows your huge bias.
2) Errr... the economy isn't recovering? Unemployment is down, the market is way up. Which metrics do you use? Yes, it could be *better*, even a fair bit better, but pretending it *isn't* is just stupid.
3) "Inflation rate that is only now beginning to hit home." WAT. After GWB left office, we haven't had inflation break 3%. Honestly, if you'd made point #2 well, you could have used the low inflation rate as a sign of a weakly growing economy. Instead, you're just speaking out your a**.
4) "Wildly expanded NSA surveillance." Citation, please. I'm not saying it's *not* true... but I won't believe it is until you prove it. What *is* true is that Edward Snowden let the cat out of the bag. Much of what he let out of the bag, however, predated Obama, and I see no particular reason to believe government snooping has changed much since... well, Hell, since before J. Edgar Hoover.
5) "Imaginary climate change." Okay, again -- screw what the politics of *anyone* is. Show me objective, not-cherry-picked proof. I'd say it's objectively demonstrable that the climate is changing; the only thing that is left to debate is whether its cause is humans or not. If you actually think the climate isn't changing, however, you may be immune to facts. Indeed, I think we've probably already demonstrated that.
Please. Informed debate is one of the things that makes this country great. Ill-informed spouting of kneejerk $PARTY talking points only shows your bias, and inability to objectively consider multiple points of view. Perhaps you don't *care* to consider multiple points of view, and that's your prerogative... but don't bother trying to ever convince anyone of anything.
... of money a long time ago. How money interacts with the law (concepts of property) is what's at issue. Money acts as a substitute for the earths energy and resources. The problem comes when you add rules to the game and add in exploitation, greed and the whole nine yards.
Good points, but you are using faulty numbers to dispute #2. Unemployment is down only if you exclude those that dropped out of the labor force. But that may (probably) can't be blamed solely on the administration. I'm looking at the Fed for pumping money into banks, and banks not lending the money out to small businesses (which has pushed the market up somewhat).
Being a puppet for Wall Street? Sure, that seems like a valid criticism. Of this and every other administration in recent times, I suppose.
hated, most likely
Oddly enough though, when I went to the DMV to renew my drivers license. and again when I went to the court house to renew my conceal carry permit, they would not accept legal tender, and required a check, credit card, or money order....
The new style is to randomly omit words from English sentences (especially "to", "had", "have", and "be"), and then randomly rearrange the order ("I rowed slowly the boat"), as Yoda does. Nevermind that none of this is valid English -- if a cool kid does it, it's legit.
Commodity money is based on some thing which is in limited supply. We don't use this anymore.
Yes we do, it's just that you're not supposed to pay any attention if you're part of the working class. The evidence?
* Governments, especially superpower governments, own physical gold, and lots of it. Lots and lots and lots of it. This isn't because they trust the fiat system; on the contrary, it is precisely becaue they don't trust the fiat system, even though they themselves are the primary administrators and beneficiaries of the fiat system. After all, if the gold has no purpose anymore, why in the world wouldn't they sell it?
* Governments deliberately mint and distribute their own official forms of gold (american eagles, canadian maple leafs, chinese pandas, etc), and most of these programs came after the abolishment of the gold standard! Why in the world would they do this, if fiat currency is here to stay and gold is merely a useless metal? Because the elite at the top of the pyramid understand gold. They know that in the event of a financial catastrophe, gold is the only ticket out. But what use is gold if you don't have a liquid market for it? That's where the official bullion coins come in. They leveraged the authority of government to create that market, so that individual elites will have a standard unit of gold and somebody to sell it to if the need arises. (In other words, individual elites will trade in the same gold market that other individuals trade in, rather than deal with the scrutiny of "big league gold" (400oz "good delivery" bars).
Note that I haven't given my opinion on fiat currency here. I'm just pointing out the reality of the system.
I am totally agree with you. Great post. Thanks and best regards... www.hediyealternatifi.com