21–29 of 29 posts
A monopoly was developed because it's easier, and I'm sure that's why there isn't anywhere in the developed world that successfully made use of multiple currencies, or private printing of the dominant currency. For example, the American colonies operated without standards for the first few decades and it was a huge pain in the ass for everyone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_American_currency
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should read about it a bit more if you believe that would help protecting against banksters and private money.
Plenty of actual data to suggest it was a disastrous mistake. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Leaving the gold standard has been a disaster for the working class (i.e. anyone who has to work for a living) https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
The article puts it very succinctly: > As people like David Glasner have pointed out, the idea that the state monopoly on money is really about emergency financing for things like wars can also help us to understand why counterfeiting has historically been treated as treasonous. Gave me a new perspective on money: as being a weapon of war. Of course it's not the only use of money but it does give food for thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just crypto too. Back in the day banks issuing their own gold promise notes didn’t end well because once you can promise you can make false promises. The government can also do that and some countries currencies have collapsed but in general it is fairly solid! Inflation aside.
In bitcoin (not crapto which is 99.99% scam) you can't make false promises and definitely can't "govern" bitcoin. Not even the charlatan "Saint Saylor". This is a huge difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of actual data to suggest it was a disastrous mistake. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
We're talking about private banks issuing their own money, which stopped in the 19th century (around 1860 in the US). The gold standard (bimetallic standard at that time) did _not_ help at all, instead had a negative impact in the long depression, keeping people poor and productive investments at their lowest.
Putting control of currency in the hands of the Federal reserve vs some neutral store of value has been utterly disastrous for the country and everyone but the rich.
Leaving the gold standard has been a disaster for the working class (i.e. anyone who has to work for a living) https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Why take 71 and not 73? The graph are pretty bad, but it seems to me takin 1973 would be a more accurate date?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about private banks issuing their own money, which stopped in the 19th century (around 1860 in the US). The gold standard (bimetallic standard at that time) did _not_ help at all, instead had a negative impact in the long depression, keeping people poor and productive investments at their lowest.
Not according to actual data. Putting control of currency in the hands of the Federal reserve vs some neutral store of value has been utterly disastrous for the country and everyone but the rich.
I understand not everyone is interested in the French Victorian era, but if you try to sell the gold standard (btw it ended in 33 and not 71, Bretton-Woods was a clever post ww2 bastardization of the original), you ought to know what came before, what came after, and why. I do not know about post-WW1 history (I read Paxton at most), but considering your interest, you can narrow your field of book to read by limiting it to trade and economics from 1820 to 1980.
The 30 year era of free banking was like the past 8 years in cryptomoney+nft world, a few legitimate ideas, a lot of scams, legit idea that ended up like scams, and almost any city worker had to participate. I only read incidentally about the US on that time period, so maybe my vision is skewed, but you have to read about it if you want to speak about it.