Sound Money Is Key to Defending Our Liberties

By Thorsten Polleit from: Mises Institute

The title of this article epitomizes what the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) called the “sound money principle.” As Mises put it:

The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market’s choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government’s propensity to meddle with the currency system.

And further:

It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realise that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of right.

Mises tells us that sound money is an indispensable line of defense of people’s liberties against the encroachment on the part of the state and that sound money is a kind of money that is not dictated by the state but is chosen by the people in the free marketplace. The world we find ourselves in is a rather different place. Our monies—be it the US dollar, the euro, the Chinese renminbi, the yen, or the Swiss franc—represent fiat currencies, monopolized by the state.

Fiat money is economically and socially destructive—with far-reaching and seriously harmful economic and societal consequences, effects that extend beyond what most people would imagine. Fiat money is inflationary; it benefits a few at the expense of many others; it causes boom-and-bust cycles; it leads to overindebtedness; it corrupts society’s morals; and it paves the way toward the almighty, all-powerful state, toward tyranny.

Central Banking Is Marxist
It is certainly no coincidence that “the state” has been expanding ever since the world adopted an unfettered fiat money regime back in the early 1970s, and that as a result individual liberties and freedoms have been under pressure ever since. The state feeds itself on fiat money. It simply issues new debt, which is then monetized by the its central bank, which is at the heart of the fiat money regime.

Perhaps you will find it surprising that I believe that the concept of central banking is truly a Marxist concept. (I am not saying that central banking is only favored by Marxists. Not at all! There are also many other ideologies which approve of central banking.)

In their Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx (1818–83) and Friedrich Engels (1820–95) compiled a list of measures necessary to establish communism. Measure number 5 reads as follows:

Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Against this backdrop there should be no doubt that once the state has become the absolute ruler of fiat money, the door is open for it to grow bigger and bigger, eventually turning into the dreaded deep state. And the deep state, as we know well from history, has little regard for individual freedoms and liberties.

Making Money Great Again: Returning to Sound Money
What needs to be done? Well, the challenge at hand is “Making Money Great Again”! This requires, first and foremost, ending the state’s money production monopoly and opening up a free market in money. A free market in money means that people have the freedom to choose the kind of money they wish to use and that people have the freedom to provide their fellow men with alternative goods that may serve them well as money.

As things stand, however, a final solution to the “money problem” has not arrived yet—even considering the emergence of the cryptocurrency space. This is because the financial intermediation problem is still unsolved in the cryptocurrency ecosystem; we will come back to this issue in a moment.

But first let us address the question: How can we get from a state-controlled fiat money regime to a free market in money?

The first strategy is monetary enlightenment—informing the widest possible audience about the evils of fiat money and how it affects their personal lives, families, and communities. This also includes explaining to people that there is a superior and practicable alternative to a fiat money regime, namely a free market in money.

The second strategy is making progress in the field of alternative currencies and payment systems, especially in terms of technological disruptions and their economic profitability. This is the activity space for those among us who are propelled by entrepreneurial spirit.

The Limits of Cryptocurrency
The cryptocurrency community, the bitcoin community in particular, and also precious metals–based payment system providers have been making some headway in this area in recent years, but unfortunately victory has not yet been achieved.

For instance, bitcoin still has some scalability and performance issues. Currently, the bitcoin network settles a peak of around 350,000 transactions worldwide every day, and given its present configuration, it is presumably running at almost full capacity. By comparison, the German fiat money payment system alone processes more than 75 million transactions on average every business day. From the payment processing viewpoint, bitcoin cannot outshine fiat currencies yet.

What is more, a currency in a modern economy must provide for the possibility of financial intermediation (an issue I mentioned earlier). People typically demand payment or storage services for their money, or they want to lend and borrow money—irrespective of the kind of money they actually use. Often peer-to-peer is not enough, a third party is required.

Providing intermediation services outside existing state regulation is difficult. In fact, it would put an upper limit on the financial sophistication of any cryptocurrency. This is a heavy drag on their competitiveness compared to fiat currencies. And if a cryptocurrency comes out into the open space, it will have the state breathing down its neck, drowning it in business-destroying regulations and restrictions. Because the financial intermediation problem is still unsolved, one has reason to remain skeptical that—given the current circumstances—existing cryptocurrencies will succeed in pushing aside the state and replacing its fiat currency just like that.

Precious metals suffer from similar problems. In many countries, the state subjects gold and silver to value-added taxes and/or capital gains taxes. This makes them uncompetitive versus fiat currencies in terms of using them in daily transactions.

The Key to Free Market Money Is Deconstructing the State
In fact, is it possible that a free market in money can ever emerge as long as there is the kind of state we know today? The state is, as most of you probably know, the territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making with the right to tax its citizens. We can rightfully expect that this kind of state will do its best to crush any competitor to its fiat money and prevent a free market in money from emerging.

So if we want a free market in money, the sobering logical conclusion is this: we need to reform, to deconstruct, the state (as we know it today).

Now the uncomfortable truth is out, because the state is possibly the fiercest adversary you could choose. How can we hope to achieve victory?

Well, there is certainly no magic spell. One possible and straightforward strategy might be appealing to people’s inner self, and that is their right to self-determination.

The right to self-determination is inalienable and it is an indisputable truth. Each and every individual is the owner of his or her body and the owner of goods acquired in nonaggressive ways (without violating the physical integrity of someone else’s property). We cannot dispute these words without causing a logical contradiction.

The right to self-determination implies that the citizens of a state have the right (1) to make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to be members of the state and (2) to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state. In other words: the right to self-determination includes the right of secession, that is, people’s right to break up the big state and to deconstruct it into smaller units.

Smaller political units are less powerful, more peaceful, and free market oriented. They keep taxation low, or may even go without it and become wealthier. Just think of, e.g., Shanghai, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, or Monaco. This is because small political units must compete for capital and talents with other political units. They must behave themselves nicely. Otherwise, people and capital will leave their territory. Given a great number of small political units, there is a good chance that some of them will allow for, even encourage, a free market in money, setting an example that creates emulators.

It is hard to say which route would be the most effective in “Making Money Great Again.”

Perhaps the cryptocurrency community will somehow succeed in ending the state (as we know it today), leaving a truly free market in money in its place.

In the meantime, however, it certainly would not hurt if we (1) kept educating the wider audience about what good money is and what bad money is and also (2) kept unmasking the state (as we know it today), showing that it is incompatible with and a violation of the inalienable right to self-determination of each and every human being.

In any case, it is of the utmost importance to wrest the money monopoly out of the hands of the state. Otherwise, there is indeed little hope that the free society (or what little is left of it) can survive.

(The complete article, with footnotes, is located here)

The Dangers Posed by State-Controlled Digital Currency

By Claudio Grass

It doesn’t require too dark an imagination to realize the gravity of the concerns over the digital yuan. China is a true pioneer when it comes to surveillance, censorship, and political oppression, and the digital age has given the state an incredibly efficient and effective arsenal. Adding money to that toolkit was a move that was planned for many years and it is abundantly clear how useful a tool it can be for any totalitarian regime. The ability to track citizens’ transactions, access their financial data, control and freeze the account of anyone that presents a potential threat, it all opens the door to the ultimate oppression: total control over private resources, over people’s livelihoods and their capacity to cover their basic needs.

But we don’t even have to wait for the first signs of abuse of the system. As part of the government’s COVID relief spending packages, digital vouchers were loaded to Chinese citizens’ smartphones to encourage them to spend in their local stores. According to Dr. Shirley Yu, visiting fellow at the London School of Economics: “Digital coupons allow the Chinese government to trace the usage of these coupons,” and they “allow the government to know which sector is most helped, who uses it and where money is actually spent.” Of course, if the government has access to data that allows them to check if their policies were well transmitted and if the money was spent as they intended, they can also use that data to check and trace any transactions for any other purpose.

Xu Yuan, a senior researcher with Peking University’s Digital Finance Research Cen­tre, highlighted the regulatory benefits of making all cashflow in society traceable. “In theory, following the launch of the digital yuan, there will be no transaction that regulatory authorities will not be able to see – cash flows will be completely traceable,” Xu said in an interview. Of course, this thought is scary enough on its own, but it becomes infinitely more terrifying when those who control the system have a very long track record of abuse and blatant disregard for basic rights and liberties.

Read the rest here…

Negative Interest Rates in Sweden a FAIL

The expanding popularity of the employment by central banks of negative interest rate is quizzical. How can so many experts take a wrong turn when it comes to economics? Especially, when these “experts” have learned the fundamentals? Speaking of the fundamentals, I will lay out a proof, in a future blog entry, on how the concept of negative interest rates are simply against nature. It is nonsensical.

Also: These experts use to validate the success or failure of negative interest rates by using the CPI(Consumer Price Index) as support. Using this technique also is fallacious. The analysis on why use of this index is fallacious will come for another essay.

Read more here:’s-negative-interest-rate-experiment-failure

Americans: The Increasing Consumer Debt Balance

An excerpt from the article, titled, “The State of the American Debt Slaves, Q4 2019“:

Consumer debt – student loans, auto loans, and revolving credit such as credit cards and personal loans but excluding housing-related debts such as mortgages and HELOCs – jumped by $187 billion in the fourth quarter 2019, compared to a year earlier, or by 4.7%, to a record $4.2 trillion, according to Federal Reserve data released Friday afternoon:

My Two Cents:

The concept of debt is amoral. Too many financial experts place a “bad” vs “good” label on financial products.(I will explore that in another blog). Debt can be used as leverage to obtain assets needed for a variety of reasons. In real estate, debt is used to acquire income producing property. Is debt “bad” in that instance? If one is not a real estate investor, let’s take the worker earning $50,000 per year. And they live in an area where public transit isn’t a viable option; is buying a car via a loan a “bad” thing?

The deeper issue isn’t if debt is “bad” or “good”, but more about why more and more debt is being used to acquire things. One of the reasons, in my estimation, is inflation. Albeit it’s not the only variable, but it plays a large part in this scenario. As the monetary base is expanded, the value of the currency declines, giving the illusion that prices of goods are rising. The amount of currency units to purchase that good has increased due to the declining value of the currency. Based upon this activity, consumers must work more jobs, and acquire more and more consumer debt to maintain a lifestyle.

Read the following:

Chinese Currency Manipulation and Price Controls


The curious claim made against the Chinese about “Currency Manipulation” is gaining momentum. Many believe that the United States are “losers” in trade relations with China.  Somehow these modern day mercantilists believe that this impacts the trade deficit with China. In reality, the United States benefits from China’s “currency manipulation”, at the expense of the Chinese citizens. To have a deeper understanding why this is true, “currency” must be analyzed as a good, and the Chinese government, in effect, is placing price controls on its currency. When analyzed under this light, the outcome is pretty clear: the Tax Payer class in China pays the economic cost of this action.

Economic Theoretical Considerations of Price Controls

In economics, there are two types of price controls. The first type is where the Government places a price maximum on a particular good or service. When this happens, the price maximum is above the equilibrium price. Based on the law of demand, the stock of the goods will increase, thus creating a surplus of that particular good. An example of this is the “ghost” cities in China. There are many buildings that are empty because the prices of those buildings are above the equilibrium price. The second type of price control is where the Government places a price minimum on a particular good. In the event of having the Government implements a price control that is below the equilibrium price, a shortage occurs. An example of this situation is the long gas lines that occurred during the 1970s when the Government implemented price controls.

Currency Manipulation is a form of Price Control

To move forward in this analysis, one must look the currency as a “good”. Looking back at the claim that China is manipulating its currency, let us look at the ways that this falls under the two forms of price controls, as mentioned previously. When the Central Bank decides to increase the money supply, based on the Central Bank’s estimates, and not what the market demands, it is placing a price maximum on the currency. This creates a surplus of currency in circulation. On the other hand, if the Central Bank decides to remove currency out of the circulation, but not based on what the market demands, it is creating a price minimum on the currency.

The Case with China 

The Chinese currency, relative to the US dollar, in this exchange, is a victim of price controls. There is an exchange ratio between the US Dollar and the Chinese Yuan. That ratio is “fixed”(sort of). When the Chinese central bank increases the Yuan supply, it creates a surplus of Yuan in circulation. Since there is an increase of Yuan in circulation, this devalues the Yuan, in terms of the US Dollar. Since the US Dollar is not commonly used by the vast majority of the Chinese citizens, and those citizens use Yuan to purchase goods and services, the Chinese citizens pay the price for the increase in the money supply. This is inflation. The Chinese citizens will see the prices, as expressed in Yuan, increase. This also usurps their savings, and it impacts citizens that are on fixed incomes. The goods they normally purchase take more Yuan to purchase, yet the dollar becomes stronger, relative to the Yuan.

Who Benefits from Chinese Currency Manipulation? 

It is obvious that the Chinese citizens are not benefiting from currency price fixing. The savers lose out, and the folks on fixed income also lose too. But, the folks who can hold US Dollars are “winners” in this scenario. Why is this true? Since the Yuan is being held to a price maximum, and a surplus is created, this drives down the value of the currency. Yet, assuming the US Dollar stays constant, this raises the value of the Dollar, relative to the Yuan.  The holders of the US Dollar, who live in China, they all benefit greater than the other residents who use Yuan.


This dynamic is simply an expression of Gresham’s Law. The higher valued currency, drives out the lower valued currency, albeit in a “black market”.  In this case, the US Dollar and Gold are held by a minority of individuals, political class and the tax consumer class–and the Chinese Tax Payer is using the devalued Yuan to use to purchase goods and services. This entire scheme is all set up by the Chinese central bank and Chinese government.