John Stossel‘s latest column explains how Americans could benefit if the federal government lost its monopoly over currency.
The Federal Reserve prints so much money that since it opened its doors in 1914, the dollar has lost more than 90 percent of its value.
OK, I won’t really sell Stossels. Americans get jailed for offering alternative currencies. The government insists on a monopoly. So even though I am unhappy about holding money whose value evaporates, there’s not much I can do about it. Printing my own dollars would be healthy competition, but the government calls it counterfeiting.
Why? Why must our government make currency competition illegal? If I did print my own money, no one would have to use it. But people could if they wanted to. Competition is generally good. Why not competition in currencies?
Most people I interviewed scoffed at the idea. They said private currency should be illegal.
But impressive thinkers disagree. In 1975, a year after he won the Nobel Prize in economics, F.A. Hayek published “Choice in Currency,” which has inspired a generation of “free banking” economists. Hayek taught us that competition not only respects individual liberty, it produces essential knowledge we cannot obtain any other way. Any central bank is limited in its access to such knowledge, and subject to political pressure, no matter how independent it’s supposed to be.
