William Douglass Quotes

The same argument can be made against the modern paper money supply. What Jefferson and most of the founding fathers, with the exception of Alexander Hamilton. did not realize was that the major stability of any kind of money was not only the silver or gold that backed it but the political and legal stability of the nation and the size of its productive economy. Where Jefferson was right however is that all these banknotes at the time were issued by local private banks. The Government had no responsibility for paper money and had no knowledge of how much paper money any bank issues and whether or not they had any silver to back it up. Banks didn’t trust other bank’s notes and would only redeem them at a discount. A $10 note from a South Carolina bank might only be worth $7 in New York and $6 in Boston. The early American monetary system was a mess.

The assumption was that money would always be backed by gold or silver. In effect, raising or allaying the money was to change the amount of gold or silver that a particular denomination of money would be able to be exchanged for. This is one of the interesting proofs that these processes did nothing economically—for if they could, no one would want the money. This has always been a weakness or a strength—depending on one’s political point of view—of a gold standard.

While devaluation may have been intended to have the effect of stimulating exports and inhibiting imports, many countries have populations which feel “cheapened” by the process—that they are worth less as laborers and their raw materials are valued less in the eyes of the world.

This was a very astute prediction. At the time, the United States gold mining production was second only to South Africa and American currency was based on the gold standard which seemed to all to be permanent. Half a century later, the U. S went off the gold standard.

The alternative would have been for the colonies to borrow English money at high interest rates and use that. Or use money from private banks (which occurred later.) Many conservatives are today a little shocked that some of the American Colonies just printed money with no backing but it worked—at least at the local level. A Boston Bank for example, would take a large commission for a Bostonian to convert Pennsylvania money into Massachusetts money. So it was not a very good system for trade between colonies and International trade. But English money was used for that. The colonists pragmatically got the “best of both worlds” and paid as little interest as they needed to. This system is essentially what we use today on a national scale with no gold or silver backing of the money.

There has always been a fear of inflation and currency debasement by governments. Since ancient times, rulers issued coins and when they were made of cheap metals like copper or iron, the ruler could mint as much as he wanted and when he did so the value went down. By using only precious metals, gold and silver, for coins, there would be a natural restraint on government. Garfield was one of those who believed that we should always have money of gold and silver. The United States would use that principle for the next century even backing its paper money with gold and silver. In the Nixon administration the United States abandoned the gold standard. Today, it is the ability of a country to produce things that maintains value of paper money which has been supplanted in many cases by electronic money.

This is the first major history of banks written in the United States.

“Laid up” means “saved”. “Commutable”means fungible—gold and silver can buy anything else.

Economists they world over have differed as to how critical it was to have a money supply that is based on a gold standard or other precious metal. United States history has had a dispute over whether the money should be backed by gold or silver. Finally, under the Richard M. Nixon administration, the United States went off the gold standard and American money ever since is only backed by the ‘full faith and credit’ of the United States. Some politicians like Paul believe this is a poor policy since it allows governments to control their own money supply irrespective of their gold or silver holdings. Paul goes further than most and sees freedom itself dependent on a precious metal standard. Most politicians disagree.

There actually are restraints on how much paper money a government will issue, but unlike with a gold standard where the restraint is external and controlled by how much gold the country can amass. However, with paper money the restraints area all internal. If too much money is printed, the value of the money relative to gold, silver and other nation’s money will go down and imports will become more expensive. Excessive printing of money can easily produce inflation. However, the internal restraints can be overcome by the government’s need to raise money for war, debt or other purposes. So Paul and many other politicians have a deep distrust of paper money not backed by Gold or Silver. In the United States however, the Government does not control the money supply or the printing policies of money. This is under the control of the Federal Reserve Board which while appointed by President’s as terms expire, have a great deal of independence both from the Executive and Legislative Branches. For that reason Paul is even more distrustful when the Federal Reserve decides to print money. See {629491} for his unsuccessful effort to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank.