Patrick Crozier wrote a brief account of how governments pervert money. There are a few quibbles- money doesn't have to be metal, but it usually is metal because metal has just the sort of qualities one would want in money. It's generally recognized as valuable, can be rather easily divided into amounts people can use- this is one of the reasons diamonds don't make the cut; you just can't cut a diamond down into recognizable little pieces and pay your groceries with it.
Patrick's explanation of how the government destroys money, though, is very good.
I also think the fact that these particular libertarians in the U.K. are actually reading Rothbard and having discussions about free banking marks a serious change. Many libertarians have been relatively content with fiat money and central banking, until now. This is a shift in thinking among the more knowledgeable.
Evidence that an idea is spreading. I wish the average man in the street, or for that matter Obama would get it, but it makes sense that ideas would first spread to those with a model of the world amenable to it. Libertarians already know the government wrecks things; it isn't too hard for them to realize the goverment also wrecks money.
Now, I have been wondering for some time about the ignorant, or more precisely the people who either don't learn, or don't like to learn, and yet, at the same time, insist on holding positions of power. These ignorant are harmful to others, not only because of their ignorance, but also because of their arrogance. What does it take for them to rethink a position? How many car accidents does it take for a bad driver to admit he shouldn't drive? Can one even hope someone like Bernanke or Geithner would ever come to a similar realization?
No comments:
Post a Comment