This is a continuation of the previous post which you can view by clicking here.


2: Questioning “Trust”


2-0: If someone says “I have trust in the US Dollar,” what exactly does that mean?

2-1: For most people, it probably means that they have trust in the functionality of the dollar as both a means of exchange and a store of value.

2-2: But can we say that the dollar’s functionality is predicated on trust (by consensus) in its value prior to its use?

2-3: If so, what gives the dollar its value?

2-4: After all, isn’t  this “value”–whatever it might be–one of the main reasons we have trust in the dollar as a legitimate and reliable currency?

2-5: Do we still view the dollar as a “promissory note”? If so, what does it promise?

2-6: There was a time when the US dollar was backed by gold. The dollar’s value rested on its “promise” of gold convertibility.

2-7: Gold, once considered the ultimate object of monetary value, was seen to possess the primary characteristics of money: durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, scarcity, and acceptability.

2-8: When convertibility was completely abolished in 1972, so too was the dollar’s “promissory” attributes. Yet trust in the dollar remained.

2-9: But if trust in the dollar was initially based on its promise of gold backing and convertibility, as dollars represented gold, then what values replaced the original promise?

2-10: Did this abolishment transform the dollar from a representation of value into the actual embodiment of monetary value itself?

2-11: As a “legal tender” object, minus gold backing, does the dollar then represent governmental authority?

2-12: Doesn’t this create a weird feedback loop: a “promissory” note whose value rests on government’s “promise” of value?

2-13: Or is value to be found in government’s monopoly over the creation, oversight, and distribution of all monetary assets and activities? (this of course means printing, taxation, surveillance, etc.)

2-14: Let’s back up and consider the implication of money creation (as most recently demonstrated by the Fed’s QE program).

2-15: Doesn’t the “artificial” creation of money violate one of money’s key characteristics: scarcity?

2-16: If you have trust in the dollar, wouldn’t that also require you to have trust in the system of third-party institutions, networks, and processes supporting and facilitating the circulation of dollars (banks, payments systems, technologies, regulatory restrictions, fees, etc.)?

2-17: And the regulations enforcing the entire system?

2-18: At this point, is this “trust” (in the dollar) a matter of choice or coercion?

2-19: If it’s a matter of choice, what is your alternative? (although gold and silver are still “sound” assets, neither make for a convenient means of exchange).

2-20: If it’s a matter of coercion, can we say that the emergence of cryptocurrencies constitutes a movement in which “the market takes care of itself”?

2-21: If so, wouldn’t that mean that at the heart of the cryptocurrency phenomenon is an overwhelming demand for (the creation of) a more reliable, efficient, and effective form of money?



The risk of loss in the trading of stocks, options, futures, forex, foreign equities, and bonds can be substantial and is not suitable for all investors. Trading on margin or the use of leverage is not suitable for all investors and losses exceeding your initial deposit is possible. Supporting documentation is available upon request. Trading futures, options on futures, and forex involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Carefully consider whether trading is suitable for you in light of your circumstances, knowledge, and financial resources and only risk capital should be used. Opinions, market data, and recommendations are subject to change at any time. The lower the margin used the higher the leverage and therefore increases your risk. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.