Articles

Let There Be Money

Let There Be Money
Profile photo of Robert P. Murphy

bitcoin pileReprinted from The Freeman

For more than a century, skeptics of government power have rightly focused on the damage caused by interventions in money. As the market’s classic commodity moneys have been displaced by unbacked State-issued paper, libertarians — particularly those versed in Austrian economics — have disparaged fiat currencies and championed commodity-based money, especially gold and silver.

Unfortunately, the complaints against State fiat money can be imprecise at times, leading libertarians to form a faulty understanding of how money works. “Fiat money” is not unique to a coercive State. Neither does the State have the power to force its citizens to use something as money. In other words, it takes more than guns and cages. Until we’re clear on the market’s role in establishing the commonly accepted medium of exchange — that is, until we understand how the community of buyers and sellers gets to decide what counts as money — we will continue to muddy the waters with talk of fiat versus free-market money.

First, we should define our terms. In his 1912 classic The Theory of Money and Credit, Ludwig von Mises distinguished between commodity and fiat money in this way:

There are two sorts of thing that may be used as money: on the one hand, physical commodities as such, like the metal gold or the metal silver; and, on the other hand, objects that do not differ technologically from other objects that are not money, the factor that decides whether they are money being not a physical but a legal characteristic. A piece of paper that is specially characterized as money by the imprint of some authority is in no way different, technologically considered, from another piece of paper that has received a similar imprint from an unauthorized person, just as a genuine five-franc piece does not differ technologically from a “genuine replica.” The only difference lies in the law that regulates the manufacture of such coins and makes it impossible without authority…. We may give the name of commodity money to that sort of money that is at the same time a commercial commodity; and that of fiat money to money that comprises things with a special legal qualification.

Thus for Mises, the crucial distinction between commodity and fiat money was not one involving persuasion versus coercion. Rather, the difference (for Mises) is that an item is a commodity money simply by virtue of its being a unit of that commodity, whereas a fiat money only qualifies if it possesses certain characteristics as established by some authority that are arbitrary and only serve to artificially restrict the quantity of money.

We can make Mises’s distinction clear by contrasting the role of “minting” additional units of a commodity money versus a fiat money. Before making this contrast, we need to clarify what it means for two objects to qualify as units of the same commodity. Using modern subjective value theory, an economist would classify an “ounce of gold” as a hunk of metal that is close enough to any other “ounce of gold” so as to be interchangeable, from gold users’ point of view. In reality, no two hunks of metal are going to possess the same number of atoms, and hence neither will be a canonical “one ounce of gold.” Nonetheless, we can operationally define a unit of gold — picking ounces as our unit, if we choose — as one that can satisfyphysically the possible applications people have for gold.

The above discussion doesn’t mean that every ounce of gold has the same subjective value; a person will value the 15th ounce of gold less than the 14th ounce of gold (because of diminishing marginal utility) even though the particular hunks of metal could be interchanged as far as the person is concerned. Keeping in mind these subtleties, we can understand the sense in which both physical reality and subjective valuation interact in order to meaningfully distinguish “an ounce of gold” from “an ounce of Swiss cheese.”

When gold was embraced the world over as the market’s money, an ounce of gold was an ounce of gold. A private (or State) mint could take an ounce of the yellow metal and stamp it into a coin of a certain shape and with certain markings. But the function of such minting was merely to reassure the public that the object really was an ounce of gold. The stamping process per se did not turn it into money.

In contrast, when a State printing press takes paper and ink and creates new currency notes, those particular pieces of paper (covered with ink) become additional units of money because of the minting process. It’s not that a “genuine” $20 bill can provide services physically that a counterfeit $20 bill cannot. No, the only difference is that one piece of green paper satisfies the (arbitrary) rules for authenticity promulgated by the US government.

With Mises’s distinction in mind, we observe that privately issued, voluntary fiat monies are theoretically possible. Friedrich Hayek imagined private-sector financial institutions issuing competing currencies. I would also argue that bitcoin is a private-sector fiat currency (though in my view it is not a “money” yet).

Finally, we should guard against a mistake that is all too common in libertarian discussions of money. The term “fiat money” sometimes leads critics to declare that the State can turn something into money “by fiat.” At first glance, this assertion seems to follow naturally enough from Mises’s definition of fiat money. But accompanying his definition in The Theory of Money and Credit, Mises also wrote:

In order to avoid every possible misunderstanding, let it be expressly stated that all that the law can do is to regulate the issue of the coins and that it is beyond the power of the State to ensure in addition that they actually shall become money, that is, that they actually shall be employed as a common medium of exchange. All that the State can do by means of its official stamp is to single out certain pieces of metal or paper from all the other things of the same kind so that they can be subjected to a process of valuation independent of that of the rest…. These commodities can never become money just because the State commands it; money can be created only by the usage of those who take part in commercial transactions. (emphasis added)

To illustrate Mises’s point we can use the modern case of the US dollar. The US government can announce rules telling Americans which pieces of paper are and are not authentic US dollars. For example, there are rules (that the tellers at banks know very well) governing how much of a paper dollar can be ripped off, and periodically the dollars are redesigned to stay ahead of counterfeiters.

Even though the US government can tell Americans which pieces of paper are dollars, it cannot tell Americans that dollars are the money that they will use economically. The existence of legal-tender laws and other regulations complicates the issue, but nonetheless it is possible that next Tuesday, nobody will want to hold US dollars anymore and so their purchasing power will collapse, with prices quoted in US dollars skyrocketing upward without limit. This has happened with various fiat currencies throughout history, and these episodes did not occur because the State in question repealed a regulation that had previously ensured its currency would be the money of the region. Instead, the people using that currency simply abandoned it in spite of the government’s desires, resorting either to barter or adopting an alternative money.

In summary, the historical association of private money with commodities and State money with fiat currency does not perfectly line up with economic theory; we can at least imagine privately issued fiat money. (If cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin ever become widely accepted and thus a true money, then they would qualify as such.) Even though a State that issues fiat money has the power to designate particular items as units of it, the unbacked currency in question is not money merely because of the State’s decrees: there must have been a more complex history through which the community embraced the currency as a commonly accepted medium of exchange.

  • Frank Zeleniuk

    "Until we’re clear on the market’s role in establishing the commonly accepted medium of exchange — that is, until we understand how the community of buyers and sellers gets to decide what counts as money — we will continue to muddy the waters with talk of fiat versus free-market money."

    Thank you for discussing this Mr. Murphy.

    I believe the establishing of money's complete definition is one of the most important fundamentals to economics and the fact it has not been completely defined has allowed such fallacies as contained in Keynesian theory to be foisted upon an unwitting world. It is the reason that Americans could accept being legally deprived of owning gold that was used as money like they were in 1933. It is the reason that central banks can print as much "fiat money" as they desire. and the reason economic stability cannot be realized in a centralized economy.

    I further believe that anything decreed to be "money" by fiat falls outside the full definition of money and becomes merely a "currency" by authority. History proves to us that anything decreed to be money by fiat will eventually be devalued, becoming over time no less than a "token". It is the great charade that today's fiat tokens are called "money". They fit the definition of currency as being a medium of exchange. Money, of course must hold medium of exchange as part of its definition but is by no means a full definition.Once control over the issuing of money comes under an authority it loses one of the properties of money which is a store of value. Also, confidence that it will remain a store of value is transferred to an authority, in most cases the government, and governments are such fleeting things. For this reason alone it ceases to be money making the term "fiat money" somewhat of an impossibility. In order for something to be called money it must have the full confidence of the market to remain a store of value, i.e. maintaining its purchasing power, not just for a little while but for as far into the future as one can imagine.

    If we keep in mind that bank notes, i.e., dollar bills, were a "symbol" of a deposit of money in the bank, which in the past has been gold or silver, we would not be confusing the symbol with the thing. Today, the symbol has become the thing and a great fraud has been perpetrated upon civilization.

    I agree with your assessment that bitcoin is not yet money. Some have warmly welcomed its appearance and adopted it as a currency and it very well could gain the confidence necessary to qualify it as money. I believe that confidence must come from the "blockchain" and whether it can exist as far into the future as is imaginable.

Articles
Profile photo of Robert P. Murphy

Robert P. Murphy is the Senior Economist at the Institute for Energy Research, and a Senior Fellow with the Fraser Institute. He holds a PhD in economics from New York University. Murphy is the author of Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action (Independent Institute, 2015) as well as numerous other books and hundreds of articles.

More in Articles

paul

St. Paul and the Communists

Frank ChodorovDecember 14, 2017
fence-and-snowy-field-in-Knox-Farm-State-Park-East-Aurora-NY-300x1991

A Primer on Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics

Hans-Hermann HoppeDecember 8, 2017
books

Literature and the “Class War”

Henry HazlittDecember 7, 2017
federal_reserve

In Fed We Trust

Ryan McMackenDecember 6, 2017
Port-scene-300x225

The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism

F.A. HayekDecember 5, 2017
communism_teaser

What Happens After a Nation Escapes Communism?

Daniel J. MitchellDecember 4, 2017
police-state-300x200

Is it a Crime to Support Government Aggression?

Walter BlockDecember 1, 2017
RothbardChalkboard

Coming of Age with Murray

Hans-Hermann HoppeNovember 30, 2017
unemployed

Resolved: The Welfare State Should Be Abolished

Jeffrey TuckerNovember 29, 2017