Rothbard's Money Podcast, Introduction
[This introduction to What Has Government Done to Our Money? is also available for podcast or download, read by Jeff Riggenbach.]
Murray Rothbard wrote:
Few economic subjects are more tangled, more confused than money. Wrangles abound over "tight money" vs. "easy money," over the roles of the Federal Reserve System and the Treasury, over various versions of the gold standard, etc. Should the government pump money into the economy or siphon it out? Which branch of the government? Should it encourage credit or restrain it? Should it return to the gold standard? If so, at what rate? These and countless other questions multiply, seemingly without end.
Perhaps the Babel of views on the money question stems from man's propensity to be "realistic," i.e., to study only immediate political and economic problems. If we immerse ourselves wholly in day-to-day affairs, we cease making fundamental distinctions, or asking the really basic questions. Soon, basic issues are forgotten, and aimless drift is substituted for firm adherence to principle. Often we need to gain perspective, to stand aside from our everyday affairs in order to understand them more fully. This is particularly true in our economy, where interrelations are so intricate that we must isolate a few important factors, analyze them, and then trace their operations in the complex world. This was the point of "Crusoe economics," a favorite device of classical economic theory. Analysis of Crusoe and Friday on a desert island, much abused by critics as irrelevant to today's world, actually performed the very useful function of spotlighting the basic axioms of human action.
$17 Of all the economic problems, money is possibly the most tangled, and perhaps where we most need perspective. Money, moreover, is the economic area most encrusted and entangled with centuries of government meddling. Many people—many economists—usually devoted to the free market stop short at money. Money, they insist, is different; it must be supplied by government and regulated by government. They never think of state control of money as interference in the free market; a free market in money is unthinkable to them. Governments must mint coins, issue paper, define "legal tender," create central banks, pump money in and out, "stabilize the price level," etc.
Historically, money was one of the first things controlled by government, and the free market "revolution" of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries made very little dent in the monetary sphere. So it is high time that we turn fundamental attention to the life-blood of our economy—money.
Let us first ask ourselves the question: Can money be organized under the freedom principle? Can we have a free market in money as well as in other goods and services? What would be the shape of such a market? And what are the effects of various governmental controls? If we favor the free market in other directions, if we wish to eliminate government invasion of person and property, we have no more important task than to explore the ways and means of a free market in money.
This introduction is also available for podcast or download, read by Jeff Riggenbach.
The latest print edition of the book — including a detailed reform proposal, "The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar" — is available in the Mises Store.






Comments (4)
Mark Brabson
The answer to all of those questions that Rothbard raised and, of course, answered so well.
Divorce government from money, and from the economy for that matter. Allow money to naturally arise on the market as the "market's" preferred medium of exchange. Recognize that "medium's of exchange" are antecedent to banks and banking. Restrict only fraudulent banking practices, (i.e. issuing demand notes in excess of commodities actually on hand in the bank). Require a strict division between loan banking and deposit banking. No "blanket" deposit insurance. If an individual depositer wishes to purchase a policy to cover his individual deposit, of course he would be free to do so.
The choice of a medium of exchange belongs to the market. Let's mercilessly kill the demon of central banking and fiat money.
Published: September 15, 2006 12:35 PM
Mark Brabson
I neglected to mention that the question of credit will answer itself in the free market. In a non-inflationary money supply, savings would determine the availability of credit as the people would determine whether they wished to consume or defer consuming(save). The market determined savings rate would properly signal producers how they should allocate their capital. The market interest rate would be determined accordingly.
All this time, no need for government whatsoever.
Published: September 15, 2006 12:44 PM
gene berman
Mr. Brabson:
I have a short list of names to whom I've promised (almost a year ago) some original thought on a stable monetary system (though not a monetary system of stable purchasing power--an impossibility), which, at least theoretically, would be universally useful, quite impervious to manipulation of its quantity, and, possibly, even more resistant to counterfeit than any current.
I'm a "gold bug," in a way. It was a dilletantish interest in precious metals which interested me in economics and brought me to Mises in the first place--in 1972. But thirty years of thinking about the problems has convinced me that the very idea of a "standard"--the heart of much of the "sound money" movement's thinking on the subject--is itself at the heart of the problem.
I'd like to include you on my list, if you'll send me (gene.berman@verizon.net) your e-mail address; I still can't promise just when this will be possible.
Published: September 18, 2006 10:02 AM
Mark Brabson
I will send that email to you.
Kind of interesting. I just happen to flip to C-Span 2. Howard Phillips, chairman of a group called the Conservative Caucus, was on there talking about fiat money versus commodity money. I didn't hear all his remarks unfortunately. What I did hear of his remarks sounded more Libertarian than Conservative.
On a side note, I do agree with his idea to increase the House of Representatives from 435 to 676 members.
Published: September 18, 2006 12:01 PM