Nowadays if you try to use a silver ounce in a business transaction you can go to jail. Essentially we've legalized counterfeiting but only for the government.

I'm almost certain this is bunk. Barter is not illegal.

Originally Posted by davobrosia

I'm almost certain this is bunk. Barter is not illegal.

http://www.fbi.gov/charlotte/press-r...s-own-currency

Not sure, but it might be a development of either the common law or some law Congress passed (i.e. not undermining the currency of the US - only Congress shall have power to make coin or w/e).

Originally Posted by davobrosia

Serious question: doesn't tying a currency to a physical resource put a limit on the total amount of wealth? There's only so many atoms of gold, for instance, which can only be divided so much. I thought one of the great features of late capitalism was that, thanks to the information revolution, wealth could increase indefinitely.

I only have time for a fairly brief answer, but it might suffice. I'll revisit it if it is unsatisfactory. First, it does not limit the amount of total wealth, even though there are only a certain amount of atoms of gold on the Earth. A great feature of capitalism is that production processes become more efficient and thus less costly over time. The price mechanism accounts for this; if the supply (total stock) of a certain good increases, the price of a marginal/additional unit of that good will decrease in price. Thus, it will take less gold than it did before to purchase that good. Wealth is tied to the purchasing power of gold, not the quantity of gold. Purchasing power is allowed to fluctuate, and in an advancing economy will fluctuate upwards such that you can buy more goods now than before with an identical amount of gold.

Purchasing power of money, not the total stock of money available, is the measure of wealth.

I could swear I added in an acknowledgment that currency stock wasn't equal to wealth. If it takes less gold than before to purchase a good, isn't there, conceivably, a point where one atom of gold can purchase a good? What happens past that? Do we move on to a different resource?

Originally Posted by muRda

http://www.fbi.gov/charlotte/press-r...s-own-currency

Not sure, but it might be a development of either the common law or some law Congress passed (i.e. not undermining the currency of the US - only Congress shall have power to make coin or w/e).

Von NotHaus designed the Liberty Dollar currency in 1998 and the Liberty coins were marked with the dollar sign ($); the words dollar, USA, Liberty, Trust in God (instead of In God We Trust); and other features associated with legitimate U.S. coinage.

That seems relevant. The issue seems to be that he was making coins, yeah. It's almost like a trademark infringement, hah.

Originally Posted by davobrosia

I could swear I added in an acknowledgment that currency stock wasn't equal to wealth. If it takes less gold than before to purchase a good, isn't there, conceivably, a point where one atom of gold can purchase a good? What happens past that? Do we move on to a different resource?

Conceivably. And sure, the asset money is backed by is free to change. Currencies would be in a competitive market; those in the market (individuals) would decide what asset works best.

Also, bartering is legal, but you must provide any barter income to the IRS.

Bretton Woods was a psuedo-gold standard.

Even though I strongly advocate a gold standard and believe it to be an economic law that a currency must be backed by gold or it will collapse, a better route to take would just be legalizing competing currencies.

I also think schools and the communities should be allowed to decide what they want to teach. Even if a school did limit themselves to only teaching creationism an easy business opportunity would open to anyone who wanted to make a school around the block that taught both or only evolution; in this day and age most creationists schools would lack funding and ultimately close anyway. This way the federal government wouldn't have control over what your kid learns rather the community and the actual parents would.

in this day and age most creationists schools would lack funding and ultimately close anyway.

That's some mighty wishful thinking. Have you ever been to the Bible Belt?

That's why I said most, I know some would remain open down there. I'm positive if there's any hope for the community there'd be an alternative option.

The outcome I foresee is that there would be a large swath of uneducated adults, concentrated in the Bible Belt, and it would become a perpetual ignorance machine, especially if states are free to do basically whatever they want (like prohibit teaching of certain subjects).