We need to have a new conversation about money
WASHINGTON, December 25, 2014 — With Christmas on the way out the door at just the right time — Christmas music is just starting to become irksome — the New Year brings new hope.
The news in January will focus on the new Congress and the next two years of divided government. There will be interest in the possibility of compromise and actual governing. We will also start hearing from those who are looking at running for President in 2016.
The New Year is an opportunity to start a new political conversation, a brief window of New Year’s resolutions and a desire to be better than you were the year before. I am going to make an effort in that regard. In this space over the next couple of months I intend to offer a six-part series on the nation’s money supply.
And I will purposefully talk right past the Gruberian — er, academic economists. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber’s YouTube missives on the stupidity of the American voter may well be a significant watershed in our politics. The “experts” have been properly exposed. It is now abundantly clear why we must insist that the faculty lounge does not have the right to tell the rest of us what words mean.
Let’s start with the word “money.”
By wresting the definition of money away from the experts, we can rebuild a political conversation we desperately need to have in the coming two years. I’ll show why the ruler you probably have right there in your desk drawer is the best way to understand the idea of money.
I’ll show how in a truly free market, the money supply actually belongs to us as neighbors. This is not an argument for collectivism, but for the free exchange of the wealth of the nation among its people.
I’ll follow this by explaining the consequences of free money. With the benchmark for borrowing costs pushing below 2 percent, there is very little room left before there will only be one way for rates to go. I’ll show why having allowed the economy to become addicted to free money will only bring a great deal of heartache when rates have nowhere to go but up.
I’ll show why conservatives should take income inequality seriously, and why liberals should take deficits and their aggregate — the public debt — seriously. I’ll show that both have the same origin: an unrestrained money supply.
I’ll demonstrate why a gold standard should be the foundation of what Organized Labor lobbies for.
With an unrestrained money supply, whatever is gained at the bargaining table is lost, and then some, to inflation. Real inflation, that is, not the gimmicked headline number produced by the government.
I’ll then explain how an unrestrained money supply distorts how the economy allocates the money supply. When you can transfer more wealth to yourself at the blackjack table of the commodities markets than you can create by actually improving things, it is no wonder that wages are stagnant and genuine middle class jobs are scarce.
And I’ll wrap it all up by outlining a path to a new gold standard.
And I’ll explain all of this in a way the rest of us can actually understand.Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.