Many are questioning now -- for the first time -- the previously accepted dogma that gold is good. Why do smart folks like Peter Schiff, Ed Griffin and refuse to take a fresh look at this question when they are spouting the same philosophy that J.P. Morgan espoused 100 years ago.
My take on Ed Griffin is that he is a patriot and well-intended. He, like Ron Paul, grew up at that time when the von Mises folks were in their ascendency. Their real agenda was hidden. Schiff, Griffin and Paul would have to admit they were wrong. They would have to admit that the von Mises/old school Libertarians were -- at best -- nothing but anarchists -- and worse than that, plutocrats.
The von Mises folk believe that the average person is too stupid to effectively participate in self-governance, so, therefore, all governance should default to non-governance??? History clearly shows that a state of non-governance will quickly default into the hands of the few -- the crown and its banks -- plutocracy. In either case, they do not believe in humanity's thousand-year great experiment in self-governance.
Freedom is a delicate balance between too much governance and too little. What the von Mises folk won't admit is that serfdom exists at either end of that balance. Von Mises folk don't realize that the anarchism professed openly by Prof. Murray Rothbard & company does not yield maximal human political freedom. Nature abhors a vacuum. Every anarchy in world history is followed in short order by tyranny and maximal centralization of power.
Ed Griffin and Ron Paul would rather go to their graves than admit they had swallowed this poison pill of the last 4 decades, hook, line and sinker.
I'm studying J.P. Morgan and the Rockefellers right now. Morgan constantly supported the gold standard calling it "sound money." He also considered himself a pirate -- oops, I mean a "privateer" -- in the service of the British Crown and the City. That's why he called all 4 of his yachts, "Corsair", and painted them black. Not surprisingly, he stopped short of flying the "Jolly Roger", however.
Gold money is the ultimate centralization of the money power. Yes, it IS sound money. The quantity is easily controlled, but it does not democratize the money power to operate to the benefit of we, the people. It centralizes it into the hands of those few best able to buy up the commodity serving as the monetary base -- gold. This would, in fact, be the bankers.
I believe that a sovereign money must serve the public interest -- by definition.
I believe that gold money does not serve the public interest.
I believe power should be decentralized to the maximum extent which is politically practical. Too much decentralization slips over into anarchy and yields the same as too much centralization in the first place.