Gold, Peace, and Prosperity, by Ron Paul, a PDF file. The book too will soon be in the bookstore.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/6658/ron-pauls-monograph-on-gold/
Ron Paul’s Monograph on Gold
Previous post: The Market Function of Piracy
Next post: A Circus But No Bread
{ 10 comments }
Excellent. Thanks for posting this!
Ouch. That PDF info not only complained of the danger of fiat notes but also showed the danger of fudiciary notes whereby the note becomes less and less convertible to gold. The obvious safest solution would have to be direct gold bars weights as currency.
whats wrong with using gold as currency?
Wrong with using gold? Most people aren’t good with fractions.
Didn’t finish the monograph. Did Paul suggest a dollar price for gold if the world was to return to a gold system? In other words, what would be the unit price for gold if there was was to be sufficient cash in circulation for each worker to be paid once a month? At current the price, the U.S. govt probably holds less than $100 worth per capata.
Would the price be high enough so our large criminal population would consider murdering me for my half dozen gold crowned teeth?
The current dollar to gold exchange rate would probably do just fine, especially if adjusted upwward (more dollars per oz of gold) to account for past Fed monetary expansion that has not yet distorted price levels.
I think we would rapidly reach an equilibrium between the price level and the availability of golf.
“Most people aren’t good with fractions.”
That’s why the gold and/or silver and/or copper standards – bullion standards – weren’t decimal but had things like pounds, shillings and pence. It worked better with twelve pence to the shilling and twenty shillings to the pound, with some additional coins like farthings, halfpence, threepenny bits, sixpences and half crowns (thirty pence), with notional coins like guineas (twenty-one shillings). That was because there far more ways to split amounts evenly.
Aw come on P. M. Lawrence how can base 10 maths be harder than imperial gobbledegook? When multiplying and dividing by 10, 100, 1000, etc., you just bung in more or less zeroes. I cringe at the days before 1966 when Australians had to figure prices with 212 pence to the pound, as well farthings, shillings, floren, etc. Er no thanks. Besides why do ingots have to be measured in ounces when we can use grams? Dang it, when are Yanks going to go demical with measurements, weights, volumes, etc.?
TLWP, it’s not the maths, it’s the actual divvying up of coins. It doesn’t help to know that you are owed 3.3333…. recurring coins, if there’s no convenient way of getting that.
But what’s more, if you are only up to counting but haven’t any formal education, you can’t do fractions, let alone decimals (a late invention). In the Middle Ages division was a university level subject, and it stayed that way until Arabic numerals came in. Before decimals, fractions were all you had even with Arabic numerals.
If someone is not good at basic maths then having too much money won’t be an issue.
I don’t think you’re following this, TLWP.
Where we came in was with the idea billwald raised, that many people aren’t good with fractions. What I brought up was the historical background for convenient integer based systems. In those days, it was quite possible to be both innumerate (i.e. with no more than the ability to count and maybe add or subtract), yet sensible enough to work and to know that you shouldn’t waste your gains. What is more, it wasn’t a cash based economy – for most people, cash holdings were savings between occasional transactions, not what they lived by. So it was far more important to get the amounts apportioned than to work with numbers efficiently.
Comments on this entry are closed.