I agree.... he makes no sense and I've also been battling back and forth... possiblities: 1. his original writings were a lie. (he didn't believe a word and simply felt they were socially advantageous) 2. his original writings were naive. (he has somehow surpassed his youthful daliances and has come to understand that monetary policy is something else. Some new unknown economic ideal and we have entered a new era and he will soon be writing a book to enlighten us.) 3. he believes his earlier ideas, but has since succumbed to the temptations of power. 4. he has been drawn into a larger institution (the BIS, the global central bankers, etc) and has a greater ambition for himself. 5. he believes his earlier ideas, understands exactly how money works and who its beneficiaries are and believes it is his moral duty is to destroy all FIAT! In my mind, I'm hoping it's #5. But it could be he's a social climbing POS with world domination plans. BUT I KNOW what you're saying. He's a smart man. He knows the consequences of his actions. What the hell has he done? I have a hard time believing he's just simply EVIL.
Just wondering what the consensus is among ETers. Is having a fiduciary money system a bad thing or a good thing? It seems from the above quotes that Gspan was against it in his earlier years. Is the creation of money by requiring only a fractional reserve damaging, or does it allow for increased and more stable growth? Would it be best if we backed our paper monies with precious metals like gold? In my younger years I thought that monetary policy was a bunch of bologna. Having seen what the lack of this type of policy creates in other countries, I'm glad that we attempt to smooth out the cycle. Trading in a world of such wild swings would be very difficult to say the least.