Talk:Monetary sovereignty

SPECIFICO: Please refrain from further disruptive editing

Despite my previous warning, you have continued to follow me through my edits and to vandalize Wikipedia by pushing your point of view.

• The term monopoly is indeed notably used to describe monopoly over money issuance. Just google "monetary monopoly" if you remain unconvinced.
• A paper from an International Monetary Fund economist, called "Current Legal Aspects of Monetary Sovereignty", is indeed a relevant source for the Monetary Sovereignty article.
• Claiming that an article about a century-old political proposal to be undistinguisable from the "Goodyear Blimb" is fairly unconstructive.

As a friendly advice, may I recommend you focus on tasks you would be better-suited for, such as recent changes patrol? Or at least, contribute to articles you don't have such strong emotions about. Thank you. Alfy32 (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Monetary Monopoly"

Alfy32, you recently reverted my edit of the unsourced term "monetary monopoly" from the article. The word monopoly does not appear in either of the sources that are cited in the lede. Furthermore, the source your edit comment attributes to the official voice of the IMF is marked on its first page with the following disclaimer: "This paper is not for publication. It does not necessarily reflect the views of management or the Executive Board of the IMF." The author of that paper is clearly and prominently identified as an attorney, not an economist. The other source currently cited is a non-notable POV blog page. I thought that I had made clear the reason for my clean-up in removing and tagging this content. If you have WP:RS citations and explanations of the term "monetary monopoly" as it relates to "Monetary sovereignty," the most constructive course would be for you to make the effort to improve the article in a way that takes account of other editors' (in this case my) contributions rather than to dismiss them, especially with gratuitous ad hominem statements which do not support the improvement of WP. Please refer to this guidance [5]. I now ask you to undo your revert of my edits, and if you believe that the term monetary monopoly is widely used and relates to the subject of this article, please find appropriate sources to provide the relevant content. My own effort to find such sources, before I tagged the two currently cited, resulted in only a limited number of uses from marginal, POV sources.

Since your edit history indicates that you are a new contributor here, let me suggest that you review WP:FIVE and keep in mind that the editors here include some of the most expert, disciplined, and critical scholars and editors in the various topics covered. The WP community sets a very high bar for these articles, and as you become familiar with the standard of neutral, well-sourced and encyclopedic content, I think that you will find other editors comments and contributions -- even when you disagree with them -- to be a valuable guide for your own efforts. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

World History section

I have tagged this section, which recites a series of sourced and non-sourced assertions and opinions without relating them to the topic "Monetary sovereignty" There are already other WP articles on topics such as Legal tender, Monetary policy and the like. SPECIFICO talk 05:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

On monopoly

Lawrencekhoo,

The IMF paper, eventhough is not endorsed by the organization's board, is extremely well sourced. About the monopolistic prerogative of the State over money as a characteristic of monetary sovereignty:

"The State theory of money is the necessary consequence of the sovereign power or the monopoly over currency which over a long period of history the State has succeeded in assuming and which modern constitutional law almost invariably establishes. To permit the circulation of money that is not created or at least authorized by the state would be tantamount to a denial of the state’s monetary prerogative" The Legal Aspect of Money, F.A. Mann, Fifth Edition (p. 14)

Similar arguments (i.e. that the right to issue and manage money, or to grant that right to a third party, are an exclusive prerogative of the State) are found (as referenced in the IMF paper) in D. Carreau Souveraineté et coopération monétaire internationale (Paris, 1970) and G. Burdeau L’exercice des compétences monétaires par les Etats (Academy of International Law, Recueil des cours, 1988)

This government monopoly over money issuance/management is furthermore defined in the Bank Acts of different states. For example:

• No person shall make or issue any bank note or coin, other than a bank note or coin issued under this Act [...] Every person who contravenes [this] commits an offence against this Act, and shall be liable on conviction on indictment. Source: Central Bank of New Zealand

• The Bank has the sole right to issue notes and those notes shall be a first charge on the assets of the Bank. Source: Central Bank of Canada

Unless you believe these sources to be unreliable, non-notable, or biased, may I kindly ask you to undo your reversion? Or alternatively, explain your rationale.

Thanks,

Alfy32 (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the "monopoly" point in the recitation of monetary sovereignty powers. I believe that the expression "monetary monopoly" is another way of referring to the combination of the two other powers, issue and legal tender. Remember the subject of this article is not about monetary theory, policy or law, it is about the term "monetary sovereignty" If you disagree we can continue to work on this. SPECIFICO talk 12:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For your information, I have invited the biggest contributor to this article to participate in this discussion. See here. Alfy32 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

While technically not needed, full disclosure is appreciated. I've removed the section heading posted by Alfy so that the discussion can continue here. – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Srich, may I ask you to restore the section heading? Seems like that message did not relate solely to Monopoly and it appears there may be additional discussion on Monopoly. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Undos, Edits, References

• Currency monopoly is an aspect of monetary sovereignty. The original ECB link was good enough, but we added a few more.

• As a groundbreaking electronic currency, Bitcoin is obviously relevant to monetary sovereignty. I added a reference from the ECB that discusses some of these issues.

• We can reference the above issues all day, but, if you're not happy with the current references, please look up better ones and add them yourself.

• The "Examples" section was admittedly a mess, but replacing it with "USA is monetary sovereign!" is a joke. I've edited most of the examples into the previous section, but I left "threats" and "free banking" under a new "Related Concepts" section... Please try to make constructive edits and not just delete sections.

• Thanks for help and advice!

Chetrasho (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, user Chetrasho. I see that you have reverted several of my recent edits to this article. I stated the reasons and supporting WP policies in my edit summaries for those changes. Your reverts, on the other hand, have summaries such as "wrong" "wrong again" and statements of your own opinion, e.g. "Bitcoin is certainly a sovereign issue."

The edit cycle here is discussed at WP:BOLD. Please review that. If you disagreed with my deletes of certain unsourced and non-RS material, the next step for you would be to discuss on talk and seek consensus, not to state your opinion on talk and then make multiple reverts.

If you will please review my original edit summaries, you will see that I gave policy-based reasons for my edits. If you disagree or do not understand the policies or my application of them, the talk page is the place for us to work that out, along with any others who care to join the discussion. The talk page doesn't serve its purpose if it's used for imperatives like your "if you're not happy with the current references, please look up better ones and add them yourself." That is not discussion.

I'm going to reinstate my removal of the material sourced to the Sill blog (I am not the only editor who has deleted that material) and other edits, and please do engage in discussion if, for example, you wish to assert that these blogs should be considered WP:RS. Please consider my comments. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin

• Bitcoin is a part of monetary sovereignty. I have reworded this section and added several references to emphasize the relations. I can add more arguments or references as necessary.

• If you believe that bitcoin is NOT a part of monetary sovereignty, then please provide counter arguments or counter references before deleting.

Chetrasho (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello User Chetrasho. Please review WP:BOLD. After text is reverted it should be discussed prior to any prospective re-insertion. Please undo your re-insertion and the community can discuss your view and your proposed re-insertion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello User SPECIFICO, This IS the discussion on Bitcoin. I have already presented one viewpoint. If you have an opposing viewpoint, then please present it. Otherwise, the community has spoken on this topic. Please review WP:Editing_Policy. Stop simply deleting material and try the more constructive editing techniques listed here. Chetrasho (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment above. Discussion should occur before you undo the reversion, i.e. bold-revert-discuss is the policy, not bold-revert-undo revert-discuss. I note once again that I am not the only editor who removed the bitcoin text. See here. Repeated reinsertion constitutes WP:EW and needlessly disrupts the resolution of disagreements and misunderstandings. Please review the relevant policies. If you have a secondary source which characterizes bitcoin as sovereign issue, I would welcome the opportunity to see it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the bitcoin section, you will see 4 secondary sources discussing bitcoin's relevance to monetary sovereignty.

Discussion should occur before deletion. Please add a citation needed tag to any controversial statements and then allow ample time for discussion/correction before you delete things unilaterally. If you have any valid reasons for deleting bitcoin, please state your reasons or drop it. Chetrasho (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Look, I fix many many problems, including many many problems I found in this article the first time I saw it. The policy "fix problems" which you have twice cited does not list the problem that pertains to the bitcoin text. Bitcoin is not sovereign issue. The mere fact that it may loosely be called related, by virtue I presume of its claim to be a non-sovereign form of money, does not qualify it to be listed, without elaboration, in a recital of sovereign issues and events. In short, you have linked a policy which does not describe the current situation. The bitcoin text is not "that" kind of problem. Please reconsider my several messages to you here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin is not plainly connected to Monetary Sovereignty. Several editors have made their concerns clear. Why should this be included? If it were to be included how would we frame it so that it was clear to th reader that it should be included. It is currently not clear to me. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, not connected. Omit. – S. Rich (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ARGUMENT: Bitcoin is connected to monetary sovereignty because (1) it is a currency, (2) it's a technological currency innovation, and thus (3) it has a somewhat unique legal/sovereignty status.

REFERENCES: I have provided 4 references backing this up.

PLEASE STOP DELETING BASED ON YOUR OPINION. "Bitcoin is not part of monetary sovereignty" is an opinion and not an argument. Again, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Chetrasho (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Chetrasho, your repeated insertion of the bitcoin text, prior to consensus and contrary to the views of multiple other editors who have come here to engage in discussion with you, is disruptive and will not help us all to improve this article. I would like to see reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the direct and significant role of bitcoin in "monetary sovereignty." An unexplained mention of bitcoin does not help describe its relation to the subject here. So far we have neither reliable sources nor a secondary statement that would justify the inclusion of the bitcoin paragraph. That is the current consensus, but you could change the consensus by engaging in responsive discussion here. Please revert your last re-insertion of the deleted bitcoin text, review relevant WP guidance, and help further this conversation by providing such sources and a clear, explicit theory as to why such material is part of an encyclopedic article on "monetary sovereignty. If you do so, you will find others ready to respond to such efforts. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Chet. You are wrongly reverting. If you want you re-add the bitcoin stuff you have to get consensus here first. Read WP: BRD. In the meantime you should undo your edit. Period. 97.147.107.48 (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, your comments to Chetrasho about "obtaining consensus" don't really mean obtain consensus. Instead, they mean "Go away Chetrasho and stop bothering us." I observe that a WP:Checkuser has already been directed to Chetrasho and there are now accusations of "meatpuppetry" (i.e. for non-Wiki techies, this is an accusation that other third party users are not "legitimate" users but "tools" of Chestrasho.) Chetrasho has inserted a well sourced article and deserves a voice. You, SPECIFICO, have used the tools of the Wiki system for suppression. Shame on you. 99.117.61.154 (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of Minor Edit designation

Chetrasho, I see that you've marked some recent edits as minor. Please review WP:MINOR I believe that this edit violates that guidance because the edit changes the meaning of the text (incorrectly in my opinion, because English usage generally ascribes rights to non-governmental agents and powers to legally authorized entities.) Please consider and undo your reversion. Again, this text went through bold and revert and should now be discussed on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Monetary Rights of the State

• The right of issuance and retirement always includes the legal tender, but generally does not include ANY currency. For example, a govt usually does not reserve the right to issue/retire another govt's currency, as this might be considered an act of economic warfare.

• The right of issuance and retirement does not subsume the "right of currency monopoly", but I agree that "monopoly" might be too strong. So I've replaced it with the right of "currency regulation." It's more accurate and matches the original reference better. Chetrasho (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You have stated your personal views above. In WP articles, we need to state the views of notable experts as cited in reliable sources. I have previously provided links to the relevant policy. To improve the article, the text should move in the direction of being more specific, more well-sourced, and better differentiated from general discussion of other topics which may involve or refer to money, monetary policy, related institutions law and history, but do not define or describe "monetary sovereignty." Disagreements should be resolved on talk. Stating your view starts that process, but others may disagree or use your comment to advance new solutions none of us previously considered. Please undo your edit and review the policies. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning behind your initial, unilateral deletion was flawed: Issuance/Retirement does not subsume monopoly, but vice versa. Furthermore, your personal description of issuance/retirement is factually wrong (see above) and does not match the referenced resources.

So, there is no need for me to replace an accurate description of a reference with your personal opinions. If you have an alternative source supporting your opinions, please provide them. Thanks for your suggestions regarding monopoly versus regulation. PLEASE STOP UNILATERAL DELETIONS BASED ON YOUR UNREFERENCED OPINIONS. Chetrasho (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: "your personal description of issuance/retirement is factually wrong (see above) and does not match the referenced resources."

Please cite the specific text of the citations to which you refer. We have yet to determine whether any of those citations are RS or whether they support the text. Do you have specific passages in the last two, French language, sources that support your statement? Any editor who checks the references can see the last two cited in the other reference, but I have not found text to support your view. It would be helpful for you to provide the specific passage that WP:V reguires for verification. Please review that linked verifiability policy. Please remember, this is not a dispute. Editing is a collaborative process. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Governments usually do not reserve the right to issue/retire ANY currency. For example, the United States government does not claim the right to issue/retire Mexican Pesos. This would generally be considered economic warfare. So, the edit was largely incorrect.

Instead, the original references (and actual governments) separate the right to issue/retire legal tender and the right to regulate any currency. Potentially, regulation could include issuing/retiring ANY currency or even establishing a currency monopoly, but this isn't usually the case. Thanks,Chetrasho (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You are in the realm of WP:OR with that. You may continue to discuss your concerns or to provide secondary WP:RS sources to support your arguments on talk but the content in my edit was properly sourced from two RS, unlike the earlier version which was circular, poorly sourced, and un-sourced. Therefore, I am reinserting the edited text that Capitalismojo and have vetted. If you continue to feel uncomfortable about it, please be as detailed and specific as possible in your discussion here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

side issue

See here for discussion. A. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Monetary_sovereignty&oldid=537302752 vs B. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Monetary_sovereignty&oldid=537303351 Chetrasho (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Unnecessary to split that discussion off. Also inappropriate, anyway. See WP:NOTVOTE. Thank you.-- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I agree, a vote is inappropriate. Chetasho, I ask you to strike through that and let's move forward. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

History Section copied here for improvement.

The following was moved here from the article. In its present form it does not describe "monetary sovereignty" and is poorly-sourced and un-sourced. Please discuss and improve for possible use in the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

World history

Over the course of history, nations have declared various forms of money to be legal tender.

Shell Money: Historically many people around the globe have used sea shells, particularly cowry, as money. Starting over three thousand years ago, cowry shells, or copies of the shells, were used as Chinese currency. The Classical Chinese character for "money/currency", 貝, originated as a pictograph of a cowry shell. The cowry was also widespread in Africa up until the mid-19th century. Huge amounts of Maldivian cowries were introduced into Africa during the period of slave trade. For several decades of the early 20th century the French colonial government in West Africa attempted to replace the cowry with its own monetary system of francs. The present-day currency of Ghana, the cedi, is named after the cowry.

Jewish–Roman wars: After the Roman Empire seized control of Jerusalem in 63 BCE, they usurped the monetary sovereignty of the Jews by forcing them to use the Tyrian shekel for payment of their Temple tax, despite the fact that the Tyrian shekel bore the image of the Phoenician god Baal. This was probably a contributing factor, when Jesus physically forced the money changers out of the Temple in the new testament story of the Cleansing of the Temple. In addition the thirty pieces of silver later given to Judas for the betrayal of Jesus to the Romans are likely to have been Tyrian shekels. After the Jews captured Jerusalem from the Romans both in the First Jewish Revolt of 66 CE and again in the Bar Kochba Revolt of 132–135 CE, they restored their monetary sovereignty by issuing the First Jewish Revolt Coinage and then the Bar Kochba Revolt coinage.

Tally Sticks in England: A tally stick was an ancient memory aid device used to record and document numbers, quantities, or even messages. For hundreds of years the British Monarchy issued a currency of royal tally sticks (i.e. debts to the crown). In the 17th century, the Bank of England began to add royal tally sticks to their capital reserves, but the royal tally system was officially retired in 1826.

Plano Real: In 1994 Brazil issued a new form of legal tender, the Unidade Real de Valor or Unit of Real Value as part of a set of measures, known as the Plano Real, intended to stabilize inflation of the Brazilian Real.

European sovereign debt crisis: When the European Union was formed in 1993, most member states chose the euro for legal tender. Since the European Central Bank controls issuance, retirement and to some extent monopoly rights on the euro, these states have partially transferred their monetary sovereignty to that bank. The current debt crisis has sparked debates about whether debtor states should reclaim full monetary sovereignty by leaving the euro. Some communities have begun to supplement the euro with local currencies and local exchange trading systems like the TEM currency in Greece.

United States history

Main article: Economic history of the United States

1776–1790

Colonial Scrip and Taxation Without Representation: As the economy of the thirteen colonies developed, the early Americans utilized a heterogeneous mix of both foreign and domestic currencies. The domestic currency, generally known as colonial scrip, was issued by colonial governments, individuals and corporations. Since colonial scrip increased the liquidity of colonial debtors relative to the British pound, these currencies were widely popular within the colonies but strongly derided by the British. For example, Adam Smith denounced colonial currencies in his book, "The Wealth of Nations", as a "violent injustice" to the creditor and a "scheme of fraudulent debtors to cheat their creditors" (Book II, Chapter II). The British Empire reasserted its monetary sovereignty over the colonies with the Currency Acts of 1751 and 1764, which prohibited the use of colonial scrip as legal tender. As a source of further tension, the British Empire, heavily indebted from the Seven Years' War and seeking revenues to support British troops in North America, issued the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767, thereby intensifying taxation upon colonists lacking representation within the British state. This system of "Taxation without Representation" was explicitly forbidden by the Rights of Englishmen. In 1774 the First Continental Congress asserted the monetary sovereignty of the colonies by demanding redress for these and other Intolerable Acts.

The War of Independence and Continentals: In 1776 the Second Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence and then partially financed the ensuing war by issuing continental currency. However, these "Continentals" rapidly devalued due to overproduction, poor management and economic warfare in the form of rampant counterfeiting. After the collapse of the continental currency, the War of Independence was primarily financed through the Bank of North America, established in 1781 with loans from France, Spain, the Netherlands and the "Financier of the Revolution", Robert Morris.

The Constitution and Bimetallism: In 1787 the Philadelphia Convention ratified the constitution. The contracts clause established a free bimetallic standard for legal tender, partially in order to avoid a repeat of the continental currency's inflation debacle. The export clause granted the regulation of international commerce to the federal government.

1791–1811

Alexander Hamilton – Debt, Taxation and Fixed Bimetallism: In 1790 President George Washington appointed Alexander Hamilton as United States Secretary of the Treasury. During his time as Treasurer, Hamilton wrote a series of reports and letters promoting the expansion of federal sovereignty. Hamilton's proposals were generally opposed by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others who favored a small federal government with limited sovereignty as outlined by the United States Constitution. Although this conflict ultimately led to the formation of the American two-party political system, Hamilton was largely successful in extending the monetary sovereignty of the federal government through the passage of following policies:

• Hamilton Tariff – The Tariff of 1789 was the second statute ever enacted by the new federal government of the United States. Most of the rates of the tariff were between 5 and 10 percent, depending on the value of the item. Hamilton was anxious to establish the tariff as a regular source of government revenue and as an indirect subsidy to domestic manufacturers in order to counteract the United States' heavy dependence on foreign goods. However, the tariff was also seen as an indirect tax on Americans in the form of generally higher prices for both foreign and domestic manufactured goods. Farmers were particularly hurt by the higher prices, and this has been cited as a contributing factor to the American Civil War. The tariff also led to Hamilton establishing the United States Revenue Cutter Service in order to enforce tax collection.
• The Compromise of 1790 – In 1790 Hamilton promoted a series of controversial bills, generally known as the Compromise of 1790. Since many states were indebted to both domestic and foreign creditors, Hamilton proposed consolidating the states' debt under the federal government in order to more efficiently finance its payment. He further argued that the expectation of federal debt payments would create a vested interest in the success of the federal government among creditors and therefore a federal debt would be beneficial to the credit rating of the federal government. In opposition, Jefferson and others argued that, since many states had already paid their debts, it was unfair to hold them responsible for their neighbors' debts via the federal government. Since many of the solvent states were in the Southern United States, Hamilton offered the compromise of moving the capital south from Philadelphia to Washington DC, in exchange for southern support of federal debt assumption. In 1790 this compromise was enacted into law by the passage of the Funding Act and the Residence Act.
• The Bank Bill of 1791
• The Mint Act of 1792 – The Mint Act or Coinage Act of 1792 established a mint, the United States Mint, providing free coinage at a fixed bimetallic exchange rate of 15:1. Hamilton argued that the American economy would benefit from standardized exchange. While Jefferson agreed that the federal government should regulate weights and measures, he argued that the arbitrage engendered by a fixed exchange rate established an indirect tax on Americans, while indirectly subsidizing international money changers. The federal government passed several more coinage acts in the 1800s, but had difficulty maintaining a fixed exchange rate within the context of global free markets. Silver was ultimately demonetized by the Coinage Act of 1873 (aka "The Crime of '73").

Land Speculation and the End of the First Bank of the United States: When Hamilton left office in 1795, his successor, Oliver Wolcott, Jr., informed congress that more funds were required to service the federal deficit. He offered the option of increased taxation but instead recommended that congress sell their shares in the First National Bank. Congress agreed and sold their shares. From this time until the War of 1812 the federal government operated on deficit for 2 years and on a surplus for 14 years. When the real estate bubble collapsed in 1796–1797, thousands of Americans went bankrupt, many of them were also punished with years in debtors' prison, including Robert Morris and the father of Robert E. Lee. This led to the passage of the Bankruptcy Act of 1800, which was repealed only 3 years later. In 1811 congress chose not to renew the charter of the First National Bank, thereby removing the monetary rights granted by the Bank Bill. The First Bank of the United States became a regular private bank and was ultimately bought out by Philadelphia philanthropist, Stephen Girard.

1812–1831

War of 1812 and the Second Bank of the United States:

1832–1860

The Bank War: President Andrew Jackson fervently opposed the Second Bank of the United States. He vetoed the renewal of its charter in 1832 and in 1834 he famously declared, "Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!" When the charter of the Second Bank expired in 1836, it became a regular bank and eventually collapsed 5 years later.

1861–1900

Demand Notes: In 1861–62 Abraham Lincoln authorized the Dept. of Treasury's to issue debt-free demand notes as part of financing the United States Civil War.

Crime of '73 and (un)Free Silver: After silver was demonetized by the Coinage Act of 1873, the Free Silver movement aimed to remonetize silver and restore the bimetallic money system. The movement generally pitted debtors, who hoped that silver would provide them with an increase in liquidity, against creditors, who largely controlled the gold supply. Bimetallism was promoted by the Populist Movement, and William Jennings Bryan famously condemned the monometallic gold standard in his Cross of Gold speech. The Farmers' Alliance also promoted bimetallism, since many farmers had fallen into debt through the crop-lien system. Bimetallism was opposed by a powerful group of creditors including railroad monopolies, banks, and commodity brokers, who eventually defeated the Free Silver movement with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System at Jekyll Island in 1910.

1900–Present

The Gold Standard and the Federal Reserve System:

Executive Order 6102 and Gold Reserve Act: On April 5, 1933, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States" and thereby criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation. The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 reinforced state control of gold both by ordering the transfer of all gold and gold certificates from the Federal Reserve to the Department of Treasury and by changing the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. In 1935 the Supreme Court judgment, Norman vs. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., reaffirmed the state's currency monopoly by invalidating gold clauses.

Executive Order 11110: On June 4, 1963 President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110 granting the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue debt-free silver certificates. However in March 1964, a few months after President Kennedy was assassinated, the Secretary of the Treasury halted redemption of silver certificates for silver dollars and all redemption in silver ceased on June 24, 1968.

Nixon Shock: In 1971 U.S. President Richard Nixon ended the direct convertibility of the United States dollar into gold. In 1977 Congress reaffirmed the state's immunity from gold claims but legalized the use of gold clauses for private obligations (new contracts) in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 5118(d)(2).

Sovereign Money Redirect?

I'm currently trying to find the appropriate redirect for sovereign money as the current one seems incorrect based on the way that the term is used in articles. From my limited understanding of the term, it appears that this article on Monetary Sovereignty would be the most correct, but I'm unsure about whether or not the article really defines the concept of "Sovereign Money" correctly as it now appears to be used. More specifically to my concern, it seems like the term "Sovereign Money" has more recently been taken to mean "a system where only the state (government and central bank) can create or issue money, which is in contrast to the bank system in existence in 2018 where commercial banks issue most of the money in circulation." That is to say, the term "Sovereign Money" most commonly seems to come up in discussions of monetary reforms that propose doing away with fractional-reserve banking. This article does not seem to indicate that the creation of money by commercial banks via the practice of fractional-reserve banking is an impingement on a country's monetary sovereignty, so I'm not sure if this is really the correct place for this redirect. The pages on full-reserve banking or monetary reforms promoting it also would not be appropriate as they contain links to sovereign money. However, the term overall seems to be based on the concept of monetary sovereignty that is defined in this article, so the redirect may still make sense. In any case, I think it would make more sense going here than where it currently goes, so I am planning to move the redirect. But I guess that still leaves me with one question: would it make sense to expand this article to include information about monetary sovereignty as it pertains money creation by commercial banks, or would it make more sense to create a new article on Sovereign Money? Ovenel (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Why the British State does not issue Britain's currency debt free?

The intro acknowledges that Monetary sovereignty is the power of the state to exercise exclusive legal control over its currency,... the exclusive authority to control the issuance and retirement of the legal tender Janosabel (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)