South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state.

As the Palmetto Scoop first reported, Pitts, a Republican, introduced legislation this month banning "the unconstitutional substitution of Federal Reserve Notes for silver and gold coin" in South Carolina.

In an interview, Pitts told Hotsheet that he believes that "if the federal government continues to spend money at the rate it's spending money, and if it continues to print money at the rate it's printing money, our economic system is going to collapse."

"The Germans felt their system wouldn't collapse, but it took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread in the 1930s," he said. "The Soviet Union didn't think their system would collapse, but it did. Ours is capable of collapsing also."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6217403.shtml



Isn't it funny the movement Ron Paul started in this country? A politician talking about abolishing federal reserve notes a couple years ago would have been unthinkable.

It makes me hopeful we are finally getting some smart politicians.

Stupid questions:
What would be the cost of not accepting U.S. dollars, and making/ obtaining gold and silver? (I imagine a high start up)
Where would they obtain the gold?
How much money would the state lose and how long would state residents be without currency?
What about bank accounts?
Would the banks accept both gold and U.S. dollars?
Would South Carolina establish currency exchange places?
How much would that cost?
How long would this take, and would be be a period where both are accepted?

Point: It is all pie in the sky rhetoric without simple, concrete answers to these questions.

Not gonna happen. plus from the way the article sounds, this guy thinks 2 wrongs make a right.

Sounds stupid. Dude looking for attention.

If nothing else, let's hope that the federal gov't allows for competition between currencies. If they are going to destroy the value of the one we are forced to use, at least let the American citizens start their own currencies. Competition is a good thing.

Plus, only gold and silver can be used as legal tender, according to the Constitution. Think it outdated all you want, paper money is unconstitutional and should need an amendment before it is used.

Not going to happen.

bigmanbt wrote: If nothing else, let's hope that the federal gov't allows for competition between currencies. If they are going to destroy the value of the one we are forced to use, at least let the American citizens start their own currencies. Competition is a good thing.

Plus, only gold and silver can be used as legal tender, according to the Constitution. Think it outdated all you want, paper money is unconstitutional and should need an amendment before it is used.

in my 5 minutes of research, it says only the states can make coin out of silver and gold. it didnt limit the federal government i believe. and the supreme court ruled that paper money is legal tender. not sure how it can be unconstitutional then. if anything, your first paragraph is unconstitutional.

bigmanbt wrote: If nothing else, let's hope that the federal gov't allows for competition between currencies. If they are going to destroy the value of the one we are forced to use, at least let the American citizens start their own currencies. Competition is a good thing.

Plus, only gold and silver can be used as legal tender, according to the Constitution. Think it outdated all you want, paper money is unconstitutional and should need an amendment before it is used.

Where in the Constitution? Cite please.

Competition? How would that happen? Would it be like old Europe, where a person is going to have to change currencies whenever he crosses another state line? Would there be currency exchanges in every major city?
Would it be a pegged rate or a floating exchange rate?
Who would determine the value?

How long would this take and how high would be the start up cost, because the infrastructure to support a move would be expensive.

The longer I live, the more I am convinced that some people are just completely nuts.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Where in the Constitution? Cite please.

Competition? How would that happen? Would it be like old Europe, where a person is going to have to change currencies whenever he crosses another state line? Would there be currency exchanges in every major city?
Would it be a pegged rate or a floating exchange rate?
Who would determine the value?

How long would this take and how high would be the start up cost, because the infrastructure to support a move would be expensive.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;


It was clear the Founders wanted a system based on material goods like gold and silver. Not fiat money based on nothing.

I also laugh when someone says something the government is going to do will be expensive. We are spending 9 billion a month on a useless war. I don't care about costs all that much anymore.

Swamp Fox wrote: The longer I live, the more I am convinced that some people are just completely nuts.

Yeah completely nuts because people are against unconstitutional big government policies. I can see how that would be considered nuts these days.

There is a really good reason why a gold standard...or a monetary system based on any commodity DOESN"T work. There is a really good reason why it was abandoned in 1933.
I like Ron Paul, but he puts his pants on one leg at a time.

http://blog.ucllibertarians.com/2008/01/22/more-on-the-gold-standard/

HitsRus wrote: There is a really good reason why a gold standard...or a monetary system based on any commodity DOESN"T work. There is a really good reason why it was abandoned in 1933.
I like Ron Paul, but he puts his pants on one leg at a time.

http://blog.ucllibertarians.com/2008/01/22/more-on-the-gold-standard/

The gold standard wasn't officially abandoned until 1971 and the dollar lost 90% of its value since then.

eersandbeers wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Where in the Constitution? Cite please.

Competition? How would that happen? Would it be like old Europe, where a person is going to have to change currencies whenever he crosses another state line? Would there be currency exchanges in every major city?
Would it be a pegged rate or a floating exchange rate?
Who would determine the value?

How long would this take and how high would be the start up cost, because the infrastructure to support a move would be expensive.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;


It was clear the Founders wanted a system based on material goods like gold and silver. Not fiat money based on nothing.

I also laugh when someone says something the government is going to do will be expensive. We are spending 9 billion a month on a useless war. I don't care about costs all that much anymore.

Swamp Fox wrote: The longer I live, the more I am convinced that some people are just completely nuts.

Yeah completely nuts because people are against unconstitutional big government policies. I can see how that would be considered nuts these days.

Ok, great. But, I'd argue the removal of the gold standard saved the economy as pegging to the gold standard was killing the economy. It lead to high inflation in the late 60's.

But, regardless of that tidbit, you have still failed to answer my stupid questions. How would this happen? Give me concrete answers on the implementation of this. Otherwise, it amounts to nothing to me and is just pie in the sky.

eersandbeers wrote:

HitsRus wrote: There is a really good reason why a gold standard...or a monetary system based on any commodity DOESN"T work. There is a really good reason why it was abandoned in 1933.
I like Ron Paul, but he puts his pants on one leg at a time.

http://blog.ucllibertarians.com/2008/01/22/more-on-the-gold-standard/

The gold standard wasn't officially abandoned until 1971 and the dollar lost 90% of its value since then.

Relative to what? the Pound...the Yen...the Mark? NOT. What you see are fluctuations depending on fiscal policies/strength of the countries involved based on the FREE MARKET. Why should value be set by government FIAT (real fiat)? Curious position for a libertarian don't you think?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Ok, great. But, I'd argue the removal of the gold standard saved the economy as pegging to the gold standard was killing the economy. It lead to high inflation in the late 60's.

But, regardless of that tidbit, you have still failed to answer my stupid questions. How would this happen? Give me concrete answers on the implementation of this. Otherwise, it amounts to nothing to me and is just pie in the sky.

The so called "good economies" we have had since 1971 are artificial inflation and manipulations of the market by the Federal Reserve. All while running up trillions of dollars in deficit.

We have already had this so the implementation wouldn't be all that difficult. I can't argue each and every intricacy of the economy.

HitsRus wrote:
Relative to what? the Pound...the Yen...the Mark? NOT. What you see are fluctuations depending on fiscal policies/strength of the countries involved based on the FREE MARKET. Why should value be set by government? Curious position for a libertarian don't you think?

Not curious because I did not even come close to implying the value should be set by the government. You are also somewhat misguided if you actually believe the fluctuations in our dollar are natural responses to the free market. Our dollar and inflation are manipulated at will by the Federal Reserve.

The value of commodities like gold and silver will be set by the free market.

eersandbeers wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Ok, great. But, I'd argue the removal of the gold standard saved the economy as pegging to the gold standard was killing the economy. It lead to high inflation in the late 60's.

But, regardless of that tidbit, you have still failed to answer my stupid questions. How would this happen? Give me concrete answers on the implementation of this. Otherwise, it amounts to nothing to me and is just pie in the sky.

The so called "good economies" we have had since 1971 are artificial inflation and manipulations of the market by the Federal Reserve. All while running up trillions of dollars in deficit.

We have already had this so the implementation wouldn't be all that difficult. I can't argue each and every intricacy of the economy.

Ok, you think the macro economic system established after 1971 was a fake. Ok, fine, I disagree and have macro economics texts and standard literature to back up my argument, but whatever.

But, you still have not answered how this implementation would happen.

What would happen in South Carolina if this happened? How would it go down? Really, I am waiting. Otherwise, the idea is meaningless.
It means nothing but some wackjob rep trying to get news.

I'll just post them again:
What would be the cost of not accepting U.S. dollars, and making/ obtaining gold and silver? (I imagine a high start up)
Where would they obtain the gold?
How much money would the state lose and how long would state residents be without currency?
What about bank accounts?
Would the banks accept both gold and U.S. dollars?
Would South Carolina establish currency exchange places?
How much would that cost?
How long would this take, and would be be a period where both are accepted?

eers, are you for a gold backed currency or a pegged currency? Please elaborate. The 2 are very different.

eers wrote:
"The value of commodities like gold and silver will be set by the free market. "

You mean like now?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: What would be the cost of not accepting U.S. dollars, and making/ obtaining gold and silver? (I imagine a high start up)
Where would they obtain the gold?
How much money would the state lose and how long would state residents be without currency?
What about bank accounts?
Would the banks accept both gold and U.S. dollars?
Would South Carolina establish currency exchange places?
How much would that cost?
How long would this take, and would be be a period where both are accepted?

this is really the most important question.

I'd argue Vietnam and the Great Society caused the inflation because we were exceeding what we could afford as a country. This continued into the 70s.

number of countries that back their currency with gold.....Zero...nada.....nil....zip.

^ Because that allows them a free hand to spend and increases the power of the government. So not too shocking no government wants to restrain their power. A gold standard forces a smaller and more responsible government.