Yesterday I sent the following missive to the New York Times:
So America’s
infrastructure has suffered what you describe as "decades of
underfunding and inattention" ("Before Another Bridge Falls," 23
February 2008). This fact should shake the foundations of your faith
in big government. Adequately supplying public goods such as roads and
bridges ranks among government’s least objectionable and most widely
agreed upon duties. And yet government fails even at this core task.
Perhaps
one reason for this failure is that government has loaded itself with
too many other tasks that drain its attention and resources away from
attending well to its chief duties. Or perhaps government, even at its
finest, is incurably clumsy and untrustworthy. Whatever the reason for
government’s failure to supply sound infrastructure, don’t you see the
danger in entrusting this same agency with the power to govern our
diets, to "redistribute" our incomes, to regulate our industries, and,
indeed, to intervene in nearly all of the ways that you famously demand?Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
{ 50 comments }
Ah, but if only we can get the 'right' people into office.
I have this conversation often with a colleague (who agrees with me) and my Eco 1 students (who don't know what I'm on about, half the time).
The problem with Government (big G) is neither that it is big nor small – Government exists to do that which we cannot do ourselves, but value. It should, doing so, be as efficient (in the economic sense) as possible. Taking even one dollar more than is necessary is bad government. The scale of Government is simply a matter of social welfare functions in different countries.
Here, the problem is not Big Government, but the US government. This does not alter your argument, but our governments (I'm Australian, having passed through England for my PhD, now in the US) are in fact able to do these things, efficiently and according to allocative preferences.
E.g. a USD270bn highway bill that does bugger-all for the country's infrastructure. That isn't 'big' government: it's 'bad' government.
Your government is well in advance of the modern trend (politics instead of government), and just is no good at 'being' Government. To me, this is not evidence of a need for "smaller" Government, but evidence that the entire model here needs to be replaced.
You're welcome to debate which of the two is least likely to occur…
– Government exists to do that which we cannot do ourselves, but value. It should, doing so, be as efficient (in the economic sense) as possible. Taking even one dollar more than is necessary is bad government. -
Not everything that we value (i.e. what Government does by this definition) is "necessary." Therefore, Government is too big by your definition, too.
We already have the 'right' people in office, and they're hopeless. We need to replace them with people who will break all of their promises. I don't know how much we need to spend on infrastructure maintenance, but withdrawing from Iraq sounds persuasive to me.
Great point Casey,
I was in Italy last summer and the roads are impeccable…beautiful…a joy to ride on. I understand the Europeans just look at us as adolescents needing to grow up and gain a little experience.
My point would be if you have people who don't think government can work why let them run it?
The contrast of our two most recent administration is exemplary with the Bush administration bumbling alone against expert advice and handing out favors to their donors left and right while the Clinton administration showed how efficiently things can be done from welfare reform to, to balancing the budget, to stopping genocide in Bosnia with out a single soldier lost.
A lot of our inefficiencies results from constant funding changes as the two parties push and pull for power.
Republicans would do good to insist that programs run efficiently as opposed to the impossibility of totally scarping them.
Efficiency is irrelevant to programs that have no value.
Roads should be almost entirely a local & state issue. Since federal government involvement is almost completely unnecessary, the relevance & utility of its funding aren't really important to the process.
So, in the end, we get the constant drumbeat of noise about how bad the infrastructure is, which gives political cover for bringing money home to districts & political lobbies. The actual quality of the nation's infrastructure has no bearing on the complaints about it or the funding that is approved in the face of those complaints.
A lot of our inefficiencies results from constant funding changes as the two parties push and pull for power.
Yeah, when the Republicans spend more on everything and cut nothing, you get all the inefficiencies from not just spending more on everything and adding new things.
Casey, you make a good point. It is pretty obvious that America's government is worse than that in some other countries. But on the whole, its probably still better than average. Even an anarchist would likely prefer big, good government to big, bad government. I worry the EU is going down the road of "big and bad".
However, I disagree with you that government exists to do things we can't do ourselves. Government exists for positive reasons, not normative ones; i.e. it exists because it is able to tax, in the same manner as a firm exists because it is able to sell its products and services for more money than it costs to produce them. There are ways to voluntary fund public goods, but governments hardly step out of the way when voluntary solutions are offered.
There are systemic reasons that current political structures continually produce bad outcomes. All of the problems the market faces (externalities, agency costs and information asymmetries in general, and of course moral hazards) are also present in politics, in my opinion to much greater degrees.
Give more money to government. That is the message of the day. Another generation is about to be conned.
To me, this is not evidence of a need for "smaller" Government, but evidence that the entire model here needs to be replaced.
The problem with big government, especially in the U.S., is that it is exceedingly difficult for 'the people' to manage it. No one knows what all it does. Few know what it can do effectively and what it shouldn't do.
The amount of wealth the U.S. government is able to control exceeds comprehension.
The only way government 'by the people' can possibly effected is if it is made small enough to be comprehensible, and weak enough to be unattractive to special influences.
Unfortunately, this goal is not, at this time, attractive to enough citizens to make it happen.
Give more money to government. That is the message of the day. Another generation is about to be conned.
Posted by: jorod
No the message of the day is that trillions of dollars have been wasted by the current people in power so now we vote them out. Government just needs to be more accountable. But you actually have people making excuses for the current administration in spite of it waste and pork riders. When people stop looking at politics as a sport were you root for your team no matter how bad they are and put issues ahead of their party then we'll get good government.
No, Murthaduck.
The message of the day is what Professor Boudreaux posted: That government can't even maintain roads and infrastructure, and the Times states that this has been going on for decades.
The last time I checked, "decades" meant two or more, I think even you are good enough at math to comprehend that a decades-long problem is a longer span of time than the current administration has been in power.
Professor Boudreax asked the Times, and I'm going to do something that I know to be a waste of time and ask the question of YOU, Murthaduck:
Given the fact that politicians of both parties can't even see to it that our bridges are safe, why do you have so much faith that they would be any more adept at seeing to it that you get chemotherapy when you need it?
You are free to attend any church you choose, of course, but just like the Islamo-fascists, you feel compelled to convert people to your religion by force.
What's really shameful is that folks are still using this bridge collapse as a rallying cry for more maintenance funding when in fact the investigation has shown that it was a design flaw – not a lack of maintenance.
But hey – why let the facts get in the way of a good money grab.
It occurs to me that Muirgeo's belief should be tested, and that the way to do that is to boycott government. No revolution, no law breaking or tax evasion, just refuse to participate. These people thrive on having someone to blame. Take that away from them and make them face the consequences of their actions. Is it possible that they could do some serious damage if allowed to proceed unopposed? Yes, in fact its almost a certainty – but that's the point of the exercise. It is necessary to destroy the myth.
It occurs to me that Muirgeo's belief should be tested, and that the way to do that is to boycott government. No revolution, no law breaking or tax evasion, just refuse to participate.
Posted by: Randy
Yeah Randy boycott government. Don't drink any water from the tap, don't eat your FDA inspected meat, don't drive the roads or listen to the radio. Also don't use banks to save your money (mason jars under the floor planks aught to work). In fact don't even use US treasury notes to pay your bills just barter for everything or print your own IOU's. Let me know how that goes.
And if it doesn't work every-time you use one of these government services please remind yourself (while thinking of me of course) what a humongous raging hypocrite you are.
fact the investigation has shown that it was a design flaw – not a lack of maintenance.
Part of maintenance is checking for the manifestations of design flaws. And, you are only referring to one bridge failure as opposed to the thousands of bridges that are in various stages of decay. Not to mention steam pipes under the streets that need upgrading.
"Dang Guvmints!"
"Dang Guvmints bridges!"
This makes me think of how Austrian Economists talk of their theory of credit and the business cycle (also known as 'hangover theory' in some circles I think). I can't help wonder what they mean. If you get drunk you won't get a hangover? If you don't climb a tree you won't fall out and break your arm? If you don't try you won't fail?
Well I s'pose the only way to solve roads and bridges problems is privatise the infrastructure and disband the Guvmint. But Austrian types have wondered if the Guvmint wasn't involved in infrastructure (assuming there is such as thing) in the first place would the car have been the primary mode of transport? Or, on the other hand, was car travel heavily subsidised by the Guvmint? Some suggested that rail and public transport would have probably emerged instead of cars and, therefore, little in the way of required roads, highway and bridges . . .
Given the fact that politicians of both parties can't even see to it that our bridges are safe, why do you have so much faith that they would be any more adept at seeing to it that you get chemotherapy when you need it?
Brotio
Again brotio our highways were once great when we funded them properly. Indeed they ARE a great success but they could be better. I can think of all sorts of successful government projects. Likewise the success of the roads and mass transit and health care in Europe suggest to me that government can work well.
I also worked in government health care when I was in the military and it was a very good system.
muirgeo:
do you think it's a huge victory for you that we depend on SOME of the functions of government? Does that justify every wasteful thing they do? Or are you an all-or-nothing type of guy?
Wow, you were in the military muirgeo? Vidyohs is not going to like that!
Murthaduck,
Thankyou for making my point! By your logic, the roads of New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut should practically be paved with gold since those states have been run by big-government lefties like you for generations. But even there, highways haven't been funded PROPERLY for decades.
Again, as Professor Boudreaux asked: If politicians can't properly fund infrastructure even though there's little opposition from the electorate to do so, why are you so determined to give them absolute control over your life?
And more importantly: How dare you try to force me to do the same!
brotio:
It's because muirgeo is addicted to the government teat. At least 125 million Americans are.
Muirgeo,
I don't mean that we should stop using government services. In fact, I think we should take advantage of government services to the greatest extent possible, and demand that they be done to our specifications. We are paying for them afterall. By a boycott, I'm talking about not voting, not serving, not running for office, and not supporting those who do hold office until and unless they perform to our specifications. What we're testing is your theory that government failure is caused by not having the people that you think are the right people in office. The idea is to give your people no one to blame for government failure but themselves. The expected result is a rapid transition to a police state, and ultimately the destruction of the facist mythology.
Muirgeo said: "No the message of the day is that trillions of dollars have been wasted by the current people in power so now we vote them out. "
Well, I have been old enough to have paid attention to politics since the Johnson administration. Each one has claimed that they would run government better than the incompetant administration that preceded them. Not one administration was successful in running the federal government efficiently.
I can understand the naivete of youth because I also was once naive. I now just shake my head whenever anyone talks about "reinventing government", "doing things differently", "change" or whatever.
Muirgeo says" Don't drink any water from the tap, don't eat your FDA inspected meat, don't drive the roads or listen to the radio. Also don't use banks to save your money (mason jars under the floor planks aught to work). In fact don't even use US treasury notes to pay your bills…"
M, are you aware that every one of the goods you describe have been well provided by the private sector in the not so recent past without government intervention?
LOL! Gilduck,
"Wow, you were in the military muirgeo? Vidyohs is not going to like that!
Posted by: Gil | Feb 25, 2008 2:17:22 AM"
—-
You must've been out on a sick day, but this subject has been addressed.
I believe my reply to muirduck's revelation of being in the military, implying dangerous service, was to express that I was not impressed because as a vet I know there are many ways and places of serving. The odds are great that muirduck spent his service in a dangerous place such as Hill AFB at Ogden, Utah. I can also guarantee you that as muirduck saw his paycheck he couldn't wait until his contract was up and he could resign his commission and then go work for "real money".
To be specific I agree with muirduck on this one, the Navy, at least, provided excellent complete medical care for me and my peers (note I am careful not to speak to eras and places of which I am ignorant), but free it was not, payment for that healthcare was negotiated as part of the original contract the individual signed; futhermore I can speak highly of the USAF in terms of medical care.
However, and this a huge however, it is typical of muirduck to take that fact and twist it to testimony in favor of his heros desire for government owned, controlled, operated, and taxpayer funded healthcare for the entire nation. Using the military's health care as an example or template will not work because the military healthcare system was strictly targeted to a select group of people plus each individual in the military paid for that health care by accepting reduced wages for their productive work.
If this were not true, as an example, commercial airline pilots would be lined up at the recruiter's door clamoring to join the military; not the true fact of military pilots counting the days until their contract expires and they can go get more cash by flying for commercial airlines.
Furthermore, if that military system was such a great example of what muirduck really wants, why did he resign when his contract was up? Why isn't he still a doctor in what he considers a fine "socialist" system? I'll tell you why, it's because as a civilian in a for profit sector of healthcare muirduck gets far more money (think rich) and his healthcare is of no concern because he too is probably taking slightly less in salary or fees and getting that value in employer provided healthcare.
No matter how you shake it or bake it, to intelligent people, muirduck is a totally 180 degress out of phase fool.
You see, Gilduck, no matter what the subject, just look at muirduck's words or stance, take the polar opposite, and you'll have made a great decision.
Nope, didn't think you would. X)
P.S. Were US treasury notes provided by the private market not so long by the private market? :)
Quote from muirgeo: "I also worked in government health care when I was in the military and it was a very good system."
So as the provider of a monopoly service, you thought it worked fine. Why doesn't that surprise me. Did the customers of the monompoly service feel the same way?
Based on my own experiences with the military health care system, "very good" would be far from my characterization of the services. But as with all monopolies, the opinion of a customer is irrelavant, and evidence of it's most significant flaw.
Gil: "Or, on the other hand, was car travel heavily subsidised by the Guvmint? Some suggested that rail and public transport would have probably emerged instead of cars and, therefore, little in the way of required roads, highway and bridges "
Oh, sure. The fact that people through their elected representatives have continued for a century to demand better roads – and that the people through their dollars have continued for a century to demand better personal transport – means nothing. It's the fact that government built highways that's responsible for the widespread use of automobiles. Never mind that rail mass transit didn't stop the use of horses and buggies in all but a few very large cities. Never mind that public funding for mass transit in the first four decades of the 20th century did nothing to slow the acquisition of personal vehicles. Never mind that consumers overwhelmingly desire the freedom from congestion in suburbs, and that the sprawl of suburbs makes rail transit infeasible.
It wasn't the public financing for highways that induced consumers to purchase personal vehicles. That's completely backwards. It was the demand for personal vehicle transport – and the affordable supply of such transport by entrepreneurs – that induced politicians to build roads and highways.
Well, of course, who knows? But still, when people bought cars, demanded public bitumen roads and the government provided it, then there could have been a snowballing effect whereby the car take-up was faster then it perhaps would have been if bitumen roads were provided by private road-builders? It might be argued that car-owners who demanded the new fancy type of road were stealing from those who were quite comfortable with their horses and buggies weren't going to switch until a decade or two later. It's a similar argument to those who want the government to lay down the infrastructure that would allow for very-high-speed Internet. It could be said that those who want the very-high-speed Internet are stealing from those who have little to no need for newer infrastructure and if the demand was really that high then private operators could do the necessary work anyway.
But it's all history and speculation, duh!
BTW The 'public transport' I referred should have been better worded as 'private mass transit' as I meant private operators of, say, buses, taxi cabs, etc. . .
Gil; "It might be argued that car-owners who demanded the new fancy type of road were stealing from those who were quite comfortable with their horses and buggies weren't going to switch until a decade or two later."
Why would those "who were quite comfortable with their horses and buggies" switch to cars at all? Once Henry Ford made personal vehicles affordable, every family – other than the misguided Amish – wanted one. Furthermore, mass transit was available in almost every city at the same time that automobile usage was exploding.
Gil, personal automobiles represent freedom and convenience. History clearly shows that's what is important to consumers. That's why mass transit – despite heavy subsidies today – continues to fail miserably.
And, duh!, it's not speculation, Gil. One only has to look at the empty seats on buses and trains traveling down HOV lanes and rails – and at the congested adjacent freeways – to see that freedom and convenience win out over collectivist planning every time consumers have the choice.
John
Don't get me started! Transportation here in WA state is an utter disaster under the (D) rule. These people have no fucking clue how to perform the most basic functions of government. They sure are good as passing out the goodies to their cronies though.
Casey Quinn,
It is always interesting to read the perspectives of those who didn’t undergo our particular enculturation and indoctrination here in the U.S.A.
My viewpoint differs from yours considerably. Government is the problem, it is always the problem, and it is generally the real major problem we free individuals have. Big, small, it doesn’t matter, the fact that it is government is reason enough to distrust it and fear its existence. How many people can convince themselves that the ancient Egyptian farmer felt real joy at giving up half his grain crop year after year so the Pharaoh could build a massive monument to his ego and seeing his sons marched off to war in a distant land because someone over there disputes his Pharaoh’s magnificence? Preferences of allocation are no different today either here or in England and Australia, just different monuments; such as the beautiful Autovon constructed in West Virginia, that takes people to nowhere but exists to glorify Sen. Byrd’s ability to “bring home the bacon”.
What makes it horrible is that government is a necessary evil, and therefore I agree with you that it should be 100% efficient with every single penny; but it isn’t, never has been, and a sure bet to never be. Has there ever been such a thing as an efficient government in the historical record? I respect our founding father’s obvious efforts to craft one that would come as close to being controlled as possible.
The problem is power. A necessary evil must be given a measure of power or else why suffer it? The skill is in keeping the necessary and dealing with the evil, a skill that we lost long ago, if we ever had it. Now what we have is not only gone way beyond necessary but has also become evil incarnate it its greed for more wealth to squander and more control over each life
In any debate regarding the different levels of efficiency between governments, in my opinion one should always include the cost to the individual in terms of loss of finances and personal freedoms given up to attain alleged superior efficiency. The loss of personal freedom in England and Australia preceded at a far more rapid rate than it has here, and it will become worse as England at least is forced into the EU.
The total tax take of the individual’s fruits of labor by the English government has been, and still is, far greater than that experienced here in the U.S.A. For instance in 1978 the cost of a liter of petrol in England was running over $3 the largest portion of which is taxes, while in the U.S.A. a gallon of gas was still well under a dollar with a lower tax rate taken by government. Can we say with surety that it was different when comparing the U.S.A. to Australia, I can’t, but I suspect it was because I saw no difference anywhere else I went in the world.
Not in defense of my squandering evil government or it handles the following, but in interests of fairness in debate, let me point out that infrastructure in the U.S.A. undergoes far more extremes of climate than either England or Australia and therefore more stress. Considerable parts of our nation undergo temperature swings of up to 150 degrees plus on an annual basis, whereas the temperature swing in England is on average no more than 40 degrees, and in Australia an approximately half that of the U.S.A. Different places different problems.
Thank you very much but, I’ll carry a pocketknife and sell bananas by the pound rather than the liter, and risk seeing some infrastructure decay.
I don’t understand that politics instead of government is a modern trend. My study of history tells me that government and politics are intertwined so as to be inseparable.
I disagree that the model here needs to be replaced, the model isn’t broken it is just no longer in use and hasn’t been since 1860 if not earlier.
If the government functioned as constitutionally intended, I could support it with reluctance. The government is no longer a constitutional government in fact and therefore I can not support it, not even reluctantly.
What is evident is that the model needs to be restored.
Gilduck,
Do you have any idea of what you wrote here because I assure you no one else does.
—–
P.S. Were US treasury notes provided by the private market not so long by the private market?
Posted by: Gil | Feb 25, 2008 9:39:29 AM"
Federal Reseve Note (FRN).
Is not money as it has no real value in and of itself.
The FRN is an instrument of debt, debt pledged on your labor.
The word Note in its label tells you that it is an instrument of debt.
Black's Law 7th Ed. pg 1085:
Note, n 1. A written promise by one party (the maker) to pay money to another part (the payee) or to the bearer.
The FRN is a promise to pay money, it is not money.
The FRN does not belong to the U.S.A. or its government, it belongs to the privately owned Federal Reserve Banks. Try going to a Federal Reserve bank (there is one here in Houston) and exchanging your FRN for money. Ha Ha Ha, fat chance.
So, as we go about our daily lives we are working for debt, exchanging debt, and trying to save debt.
God, that is so brilliant!
Money is funny.
Currency doesn't need to have intrinsic value to perform it's function, but intrinsic value minimizes counterfeiting, both legal and illegal.
FRNs are fiat money, value as declared by government.
Sam,
Only as long as individuals have faith, no longer.
As more and more people are discovering the truth the lack of faith builds slowly oh so slowly but it builds none-the-less.
Money is an accounting device with no real value in and of itself. The bank notes we used under a gold standard were also accounting devices with no intrinsic value. They weren't gold, and they weren't simply deposit receipts for gold either. We've never this sort of gold standard. We've always had fractional reserve banking.
A gold standard fixes the price of gold. That's all. The U.S. gold standard was a law fixing the price of gold. You can see the law as fixing the "price" of a dollar in terms of a quantity of gold, but this view is only a mirror image of the same thing, and it's less intuitive since the "dollar" is just of a unit for measuring price by definition.
If people don't find other people with gold to extend them credit, they'll extend each other credit regardless.
Martin – when you say the instruments [gold standard notes] were of no intrinsic value, what do you mean? I'm confused by your explanation; I was under the impression that for a time, you could exchange the note for the underlying metal (gold or silver) at a defined rate. The gold and silver backing the note were held in a 1:1 proportion at the defined rate of exchange.
I'm not well versed in monetary policy and history so your clarification may remove my confusion.
A gold standard fixes the price of gold. That's all.
If gold and silver coin are used as currency, then counterfeiting is very difficult, though there have been efforts to fake it, which is why many coins have ridged edges.
The bank notes we used under a gold standard were also accounting devices with no intrinsic value.
As much value as a piece of paper with printing on it.
Many people entertain the illusion that money is equivalent to wealth, hence muirgeo's complaint about the rich sitting on "piles of wealth".
What really matters from day to day is that people go to work and produce the stuff of consumption. The real collapse comes when people stop doing that.
martinduck,
The FRN is not money and it doesn't even represent money.
Money is indeed defined in our laws and it isn't paper. The gold and silver coins we once used is what is/was legally money. Now that the liberty Dollar was squashed by a jealous government, we have no money in the USA.
Hard currency (coins of noble metal) is not just an accounting device, it has value in and of itself.
Paper indeed has no value, the value comes in what each piece represents.
Martinduck, the FRN has no real value because it represents debt. You can only move debt around when you use it. You can only get more fake money (debt) with it when you go to the bank, even the coins are worthless. There is not even a promise of obtaining anything tangible with the FRN.
The treasury note that the FRN replaced was indeed paper and as paper had no value, but its value was in representing real money, i.e. gold and silver, which one could get by going to the bank and exchanging a treasury note for equivilant silver dollars. Couldn't get gold thanks to our socialist/commie president FDR. But, you could get real money.
That money was fixed in weight and purity, a standard set in our nation's beginnings and holding true until the treasury note was collected and replaced by the FRN.
The FRN is only useful as long as people have faith in it. Gold and silver are useful whether there is government or not, as a matter of fact unlike FRNs gold and silver will increase in value in times of instability or even more so in total meltdown.
this:
"What really matters from day to day is that people go to work and produce the stuff of consumption. The real collapse comes when people stop doing that.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 25, 2008 2:47:06 PM"
Unlike gold and silver, when people stop doing, they stop doing; where you can put away gold and silver, how do you save yesterday's use of personal energy? When that energy is spent it is gone and the only thing you have to represent it is FRNS, buddy you are screwed.
When that energy is spent it is gone and the only thing you have to represent it is FRNS, buddy you are screwed.
Even if you have 'real' money, if you have confiscatory taxation, for instance, then, when people see that there is no reward for their efforts, their productive output will drop to the minimal needed to survive…or turn to looting.
An entire economy is feasible with mere accounting, but then you must place a great deal of faith in the accountants.
"An entire economy is feasible with mere accounting, but then you must place a great deal of faith in the accountants."
Amen, brother.
I don't know if there's any truth to the notion that gold and silver coins were hard to counterfeit since the punishment for any one caught counterfeiting in the days of precious metal coinage was very severe. But vidyohs points out the real reason for gold and silver coinage – if the currency of the day is no longer recognised then your coins still have value as most other countries place roughly the same value to gold and silver.
However the notion that the government is only allowed to have gold and silver coins
http://www.nowpublic.com/debunking_gold_standard_myth_legality
Gilduck.
Matey, be ye having trouble with your keyboard?
"However the notion that the government is only allowed to have gold and silver coins
http://www.nowpublic.com/debunking_gold_standard_myth_legality
Posted by: Gil | Feb 25, 2008 9:29:29 PM"
did we drift off without completing the thought?
. . . to circulate as currency as opposed to paper (fiat) money . . .
Well, Gil, I agree with the analysis on the constitutionality of the government issuing of currency, but as to the wisdom of allowing government to monopolize such activity, there can be much discussion.
For instance:
but the actual Federal Reserve Banks are privately held entities that themselves regulate the money supply to member banks as market pressures dictate
This would indicate that the FED is supposed to respond to market pressures, but being quasi-governmental, we must infer that the FED also responds to political pressure and is frequently utilized to pressure the market rather than respond to it.
It is now also known to economists that the FED bears a great deal of responsibility for the great depression, both in its excessive inflation of the money supply before the trigger event, and its clamping down on the money supply thereafter.
I suggest that the theories of ideal responsiveness, maintenance of note value, and fiscal responsibility that are attributed to a government central banking/credit monopoly are removed from reality.
You may exhange dollars for gold now. The only difference is that the price is not fixed.
No. This idea is widely held but mistaken. The gold standard only fixed the price of gold. The price of gold today is $939/ounce. If I know the number of ounces of gold above ground, can I determine the money supply by multiplying by $939? No. I can't. Could I do that in the nineteenth century? No.
The gold banker's obligation was to trade gold at a fixed price, not to keep an ounce of gold in a bank vault for every bank note issued. This 1/1 correspondence is not a gold standard. It doesn't even effectively fix the price of gold. By law, you could take your dollars to a bank and exchange them for gold at a fixed price; otherwise, the bank was insolvent, which sometimes happened.
If I know the price of a gallon of milk, I can't multiply this price by the number of gallons milk to determine the money supply either. I can't do it with silver or platinum or copper either. Why gold?
We create as much money as we need to extend credit. No law prevents you from extending me as much credit as you like, so you may create your own money. If you own a store, you may credit me with a right to purchase $100 worth of merchandise at your store by giving me a coupon. If you price goods like other stores and honor this commitment, you've created money. If others accept your pledge, I may use your coupons like Federal Reserve Notes. You probably shouldn't call them "dollars" or make them look like FRNs, but that's just a technicality.