Well of course they are right? I mean, like how else could we all know who was rich and who we are supposed to hate right? Economics are certainly important to a degree and this holds especially true in a global market with global trade. What is not so certain is whether or not this is an absolute necessity down at the individual level.
Economic principles are certainly necessary but that is not necessarily to say that economics themselves are an absolute requirement for the survival of society. How do I differentiate between the need for economic principles while at the same time saying that actual economics should not be as prevalent as they are? Again, it breaks down to varying degrees depending on what part of society people live in.
I will reiterate a common misconception here that remains true whether or not people are actually pedantic enough to be willing to accept the truth.
Currency is a medium of exchange and does not have any actual value other than whatever value it is perceived to have. Currency is a measure of worth or value and should not be confused with money.
Money on the other hand does have an intrinsic value or worth.
When we went off the gold standard, a troy ounce of pure gold was about enough to get you two, very nicely hand-made, tailored suits. Today, even at the inflated rates, a troy ounce of gold is about enough to get you two nice, hand-made, tailored suits. Do you want to hazard a guess how much the currency has fluctuated in that same amount of time?
While this is an ongoing, oft-heated debate between myself and a few friends, it brings to mind some very interesting questions. We tend to all agree that some degree of currency is a necessity though all of the forms we have looked at seem to have as much potential for abuse as the current system we are using now.
For government accounts and for the purposes of global trading, some form of currency backed by some type of “money” seems to be almost certainly a necessity but again, the room for abuse by whoever controls the economy just seems too pressing a matter to casually dismiss. Was Lincoln’s effort at creating the “Greenbacks” a viable alternative?
Could localized currencies work without the same banking problems we saw in the 1840s leading to the French Revolution and the American War Between the States as well as other minor conflicts around the globe?
Oddly enough perhaps … especially considering it is me writing this, I am not really writing to express a definitive position as I am to ask for insightful, informative and alternative opinions for consideration.
How much control would the political class be able to retain if it was separated from the economics?
How much freer could the world be without the people of the earth being enslaved to debt and dollars?
How do we do away with the currency on a global scale without crashing the economy?
The possibilities are endless here but hopefully this will at least get the ball rolling on a discussion of sorts.
Let us know what you think please!