Comments (25) | Add a comment
Vin Suprynowicz
In favor of annual flooding and the Liberty Dollar
Lots of media coverage of flooding in the Midwest and South this spring, presumably because there was lots of flooding.
I'm sure this either proves or disproves that the globe is warming, or both.
The coverage of these floods in the mainstream media -- and especially on TV, which loves footage of stop signs and other incongruous objects looming up out of what appear to be displaced alpine lakes -- concentrates on the human costs, urging empathy with the suffering of those forced to abandon their homes, sculling away in an old rowboat with only their most important electronic gadgets and (if remembered in time) the family hound.
Fine.
Of course such human-interest stories should not be ignored. But something is obviously missing in this coverage.
Where's the guy or gal with some historical perspective to ask, "Why do you suppose people live in this floodplain, in the first place? Why have they built their towns here? Has it occurred to you the major industry in most of these areas is agriculture, and that -- if you want nutritious produce -- this routine flooding is not only no surprise, but actually a good thing?"
Civilization developed in the Nile and Tigris and Euphrates valleys because annual floods inundated the lands with fresh silt, which fertilized the soil and allowed farmers to grow huge surpluses of nutritious produce, which allowed for the specialization of labor. (It also allowed taxation and the development of a ruling class claiming divine powers, a stage I hope we can grow out of, soon.)
But to the extent we eliminate natural fertilization of these lowlands by regular inundation, commercial farmers tend to substitute chemical fertilizers lacking in many vitamins and trace minerals, and our food -- even if bulbous and pretty -- becomes progressively less healthful.
"A better solution than 'taming the rivers,' " such an expert might suggest, "and especially a better solution than tax-subsidized 'flood relief' to rebuild these settlements exactly where they were, might be to encourage farmers to build their permanent homes and even their market towns clustered on higher ground, so the natural flooding of the rivers can be welcomed without so much distress."
How come we never hear that viewpoint on TV?
-- -- --
The Garden Club had a rummage sale last weekend. When we arrived, we were handed handy color-coded cards to help us figure out the pricing. Big plastic pots with red stickers were a dollar; the prices of things bearing blue or yellow tags could be decoded just as easily.
We are not merely "at risk" for inflation. The inflation of the money supply has already been accomplished, in a (probably vain) effort to bail out mal-invested megabanks that otherwise would have faced some serious problems with their reserve requirements.
Ironically, as the economy "gets better," that money will start to move, and this inflation already purposely created by Washington will start to send prices through the roof. As that happens, watch for this "priced by color code" approach to become far more common.
The "red tag" items that cost $19.95 last week can easily be repriced to $24.95 this week, and $29.95 next week, without churning out thousands of new individual price tags, simply by changing the master "color code identifier" on the wall.
In fact, because most retail establishments are now online, there's no reason said list couldn't be an electronic readout, specifying that a "red tag" item now costs, say, one ounce of silver, or 1/40th of an ounce of gold, with such prices updated electronically every day or even every hour, shifting as the commodity prices shift against each other.
This would eventually allow us to bypass the cumbersome and increasingly worthless "dollar," altogether.
Of course, since people have always sought an alternative to carrying around weighty leather purses full of jangling gold and silver coins, anyone could start issuing paper notes readily exchangeable for ounces of gold and silver on demand. Heck, we could even carry plastic debit cards that would delete, say, 1.39 ounces of silver from our accounts when making what we would previously have called "a 50-dollar purchase."
There are only two obstacles to public acceptance of such an arrangement:
1) "Fractional reserve" banking would have to be outlawed as fraud in regards to the issuance of such "certificates of hard money deposit."
2) As soon as they threaten to gain any wide acceptance, the federal government now actually treats such helpful "honest money" systems as criminal. Witness the recent criminal prosecution of Bernard von NotHaus for minting his "Liberty Dollar" one-ounce silver coins.
I was always somewhat doubtful of the "multi-level" aspects of Mr. von NotHaus' business, in which he tried to establish a "face value" considerably higher than melt value for his coins, allowing a profit for those who agreed to operate his "redemption centers." I make no plea for the ethicality of that aspect of his business -- though plenty of legal multi-level marketing operations still prosper in this country, and that's not what they prosecuted him for, anyway.
I myself am perfectly willing to accept "Liberty Dollars" in private barter at current melt value for an ounce of silver, and welcome the fact that no one can force me to accept them for more than I consider them to be worth -- unlike paper "Federal Reserve Notes" backed by nothing.
But the idea that the government would prosecute this fellow (and seize millions of dollars worth of gold and silver he legally owned) for the "offense" of circulating one-ounce silver rounds worth more (not less) than any generally circulating coin they mint, is appalling, just as appalling as the fact that I can no longer bypass the government's purposely created inflation by entering into a contract -- agreeable to both parties -- to lease real property for a monthly rent of "one ounce of gold."
Given what our dollars will soon be worth, they should have given this character an award, saying, "Thank you, Mr. NotHaus, for providing Americans a more solid currency and store of value than our increasingly worthless paper Monopoly money."
What do they expect us to use for barter when our once-proud American dollar finally resembles something out of Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic? Cowrie shells?
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal, and author of the novel "The Black Arrow" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
GhostCoyote and Reis: After being released from the hospital yesterday, I took time to reply to your comments. Included was the wonderful care -- saving my life from a deadly disease under Israel's socialized medicine system -- but apparently the Vin Suprynovicz censorship machine is alive and well. Neither reply has yet been posted. Does he need shielding from the truth?
As usual, Vin hits the nail on the head, but the argument is wrong: he is talking about civilizations - not the mess we have in our country today. And as for "real" money compared with worthless paper money, perhaps Madam Obama can change the currency to cowrie shells from Africa (where, at tax payer expense, she continues to disgrace the office and the country). We need a gold/silver currency and a return of this "democracy" to a republic.
Ray, just because Europe does it, doesn't mean everyone should. San Francisco's socialized healthcare now results in over 40 days of wait time for a first consultation for a condition. I don't know the wait time overall from initial contact to final contact with healthcare professionals, but I'd wager its exceptionally long. I won't say that nothing is wrong with the current system, but Socialized Medicine certainly isn't the answer. Europe has a long history of 'sheepery' and serfdom, even to the modern age. America has traditionally been a much more individualistic society. If Europeans are doing it, I don't automatically assume its stylish, progressive, or better. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees as the saying goes.
An old expression, now long obsolete, was "good bottom land" to describe excellent farmland. "Bottom land" was low-lying land subject to regular, annual flooding, from which it received rich silt and hence grew abundant, nutritious crops. Common sense dictates that, on a floodplain, cities and towns should be built on high ground, leaving the lowlands to flood and produce abundant crops. The government policy of erecting huge levees along major rivers is both expensive, and deleterious to our nutrition. And rivers held in by levees have to be continuously dredged as silt builds up and raises the river bottom. Nature smart; government stupid.
David: You are using Ronald Reagan BS. How come every industrialized country in the world can have universal health care at half our cost and get better results? Why do we need for profit health care? Why is "socialized medicine" OK for people that count -- like Dick Cheney?
Straw man there Ray Cohn, Paul did point out there are other causes along with his theory of depleted soils. Good luck with that government single payer health care. That should work out for soooo well as we all know how well government does things.
Paulweber: You don't think our tendency to eat food loaded with sodium, sugar, especially corn syrup, and all in gigantic portions is the real culprit? Sarah Palin logic. She is upset that Michelle Obama has campaigned against obesity and suggested eating the right kind of food. Sarah said the government shouldn't tell you what to eat. Mrs. Obama has not used government to mandate what to eat. She has encouraged people to eat food with nutritional value. That Sarah doesn't comprehend that or deliberately twists that around shows what kind of demagouge she really is. And somebody with the kind of family record she has shouldn't talk. But then she is a journalist who thought asking her what magazines she reads is a trap question.
Vin Suprynovicz needs to study what the Dutch did to deal with flooding in low lying lands. If we had done that in New Orleans, we would not have had the damage we had as a result of Hurricane Katrina. But a government hater like Suprynovicz would not understand that with his horse and buggy logic, Just like he doesn't understand that for profit health care run by insurance giants with only a bottom line mentality for their stockholder will not result in either better or cheaper health care. In fact, it has resulted in just the opposite, We pay twice as much as the rest of the industrialized world and rank 37th in quality. We are the only ones that don't have universal health care. Why do you think Republicans let by the special interest Karl Rove machine are fighting so hard to kill the universal, single payer system Vermont just approved? If Vermont has one it will be so popular other states will adopt them. That is why Republicans are determined to kill it now. Their belief in state rights doesn't apply when the experiment doesn't suit them and their medical industrial complex allies. You should not have to die because you have bad genes/and or can't afford care. And an analogy to food is bogus. And, yes, government does help feed people if they are too poor to feed themselves. BTW Vin never mentions the government funded health care to keep Dick Cheney alive. Why? Nobody in the corporate press has reported how much that has cost America's taxpayers. Socialized medicine for people that count doesn't bother Republicans. Why don't you government haters ask VP? To me it is a real government double standard. Vin is clearly a believer in Social Darwinism.
Some human actions are fraudulent, even if all parties agree to them. For example, everyone agrees to take part in a "Ponzi Scheme," hoping they will be able to get in and get out before the scheme crashes. Even though everyone who participates does so knowingly and voluntarily, the scheme is still fraudulent. The same is true of FRB, in which all parties (to some degree) understand that the depositor has the right to demand his money at any given time, even though that money has been lent out to another party. In an honest system (see libertarian writer Walter Block for more insight on this), you could lend out money only from TIME deposits, but not DEMAND deposits. The depositor, in time deposits, voluntarily agrees to let the bank handle his money for a specific term, in exchange for a portion of the interest earned. This is the honest, up-front way to lend money. But to say BOTH the depositor AND the borrower have the right to the money, at the same moment in time, is contradictory to the laws of logic, and hence inherently fraudulent--even if all parties involved agree to the fraud, on the hope THEY will be the one to profit before the scheme collapses.
One possible explanation for the gigantic rise of obesity in America is our farming methods, which Vin alludes to. Instead of letting nature provide fresh, nutrient-rich silt every year, we instead do everything we can to PREVENT natural flooding. We can make plants grow nice and pretty using little more than nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus for fertilizer. But the plants lack the many trace minerals our bodies need. Therefore, we eat more and more, instinctively trying to get enough of the nutrition lacking in the food we eat. There are other reasons for obesity, too, but the fact our food is of such poor nutritional quality is a major factor.