Subscribe via RSS Feed

Arguments From Centuries-Old Authority

[ 12 ] August 31, 2010 |

Most of the reading I’ve done about the period suggests that claims about the framers hating paper money are accurate. To expand on Matt’s point a bit, the real lesson here is that this kind of “originalist” argument is just stupid. Obviously, we’ve learned a great deal since 1787, and moreover American political economy is so radically different there’s no reason to privilege what the framers believed about the relative merits of paper and metal money at all. Unless the framers specifically and unambiguously prohibited something in the Constitution — which is not the case here, unless you think the money supply is wholly unrelated to interstate and international commerce — there’s no reason to put any more weight on the framers’ opinions about paper money than we put on their opinions about slavery and white supremacy. That is, their arguments are worth considering only to the extent that the arguments remain relevant and persuasive, which in this case they definitely aren’t.


Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Murc says:

    I believe this is another of those situations in which dusting off that hoary old chestnut is appropriate; paper money in a fiat system is a deeply shitty currency system, except for all the OTHER ones.

    • Darth Revan says:

      Yeah; the difficulty with currencies is that they’re all institutional. The only difference between a banknote and a gold coin is a single level of abstraction; if the institution breaks down to the point where people are actually trading their banknotes for gold, there’s no reason to believe that gold will retain any institutional value to prevent you from being completely screwed anyway.

  2. Hogan says:

    Weight supremacy?

    I think the consensus of the Founders would be “if you’re going to have paper money, don’t screw it up the way we did during the revolution.”

  3. Western Dave says:

    Alexander Hamilton wasn’t a Framer?

  4. DrDick says:

    Does anyone have a 2×4 or Louisville Slugger that we can use to drive into these impossibly thick skulls the fact that all money is symbolic and has no actual value other than that arbitrarily assigned by the society? There is really no difference between paper money and gold or sterling currency in this regard. All are valuable only because we say that they are.

  5. Emily says:

    So the only method of payment that is inherently of value is food/barter goods? Maybe that’s what they should be pushing for. The barter economy.

  6. David Nieporent says:

    Unless the framers specifically and unambiguously prohibited something in the Constitution

    Ah, yes. I well remember the tenth amendment: “The powers not specifically and unambiguously prohibited to the federal government are reserved to the federal government.”

    (N.B. I am not endorsing the gold standard as a matter of policy (or even as a constitutional matter, though for some reason you seem to treat those as the same thing.))

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.