I prefer the Mises solution. GOLD or at least STOP PRINTING MONEY!

...New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people’s bank accounts or under their mattresses. Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money

It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the mine owners and the groups most closely connected with them

This indicates a fundamental aspect of Mises’s monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game. Mises did not use this terminology, but he used the zero-sum concept. Because the free market always maximizes the utility of the existing money supply, changes in the money supply inescapably have the characteristic features of a zero-sum game. Some individuals are made better off by an increase in the money supply; others are made worse off.

At least with gold you have to actually dig it out of the ground instead of just typing a few lines in a ledger!

Mises on Money By Gary North

A very long series but much shorter than Mises book! (You could kill a Bankster if you toss that book at them!)

[QUOTE]
…Mises recommended no “scientific” government monetary policy whatsoever. He recommended private ownership, the State’s enforcement of all contracts, and legal sanctions against private violence. As he wrote in his 1927 book, Liberalismus, “This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace” (Liberalism in the Classical Tradition [1985], p. 37). Providing money of stable purchasing power was not on the list.

No government agency or committee can design and operate a monetary system that would avoid the problems associated with wealth redistribution from those who gain access to new money late in the process to those who gained access early.

“The Return to Sound Money,”

The first step must be a radical and unconditional abandonment of any further inflation. The total amount of dollar bills, whatever their name or legal characteristic may be, must not be increased by further issuance. No bank must be permitted to expand the total amount of its deposits subject to check or the balance of such deposits of any individual customer, be he a private citizen or the U.S. Treasury, otherwise than by receiving cash deposits in legal-tender banknotes from the public or by receiving a check payable by another domestic bank subject to the same limitations. This means a rigid 100 percent reserve for all future deposits; that is, all deposits not already in existence on the first day of the reform (p. 448).

In Human Action, Mises said that the government’s task is to enforce contracts. Among these contracts are contracts for redeeming money-certificates for money metals on demand. He defined a money-certificate a receipt for a money metal that has 100% of the promised metal in reserve. He said that banks should not be favored by the government. They should not be allowed the right to break contracts, which is what a refusal to redeem money-certificates on demand is. “What is needed to prevent any further credit expansion is to place the banking business under the general rules of commercial and civil laws compelling every individual to fulfill all obligations in full compliance with the terms of the contract”

[This is what Economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson are advocating THE BREAKING OF CONTRACTS. -GC]

Back to Gary North:
[QUOTE]
In fact, the attempt by modern governments to regulate in any way an international gold standard is always a political ruse to undermine its anti-inflationary bias. “The international gold standard works without any action on the part of governments. It is effective real cooperation of all members of the world-embracing market community. . . . What governments call international monetary cooperation is concerted action for the sake of credit expansion”

“Now, the gold standard is not a game, but a social institution. Its working does not depend on the preparedness of any people to observe arbitrary rules. It is controlled by the operation of inexorable economic law” (p. 462).

MONEY:
Mises therefore defined money as the most marketable commodity. “It is the most marketable good which people accept because they want to offer it in later acts of impersonal exchange” (Human Action, p. 401.).

Money serves as a transmitter of value through time because certain goods serve as media of exchange.

Money transmits value, Mises taught, but money does not measure value. This distinction is fundamental in Mises’s theory of money.
[UNQUOTE]

[In our present Fiat system, the excessive printing of money means the primary function of money, to transmit value through time is completely compromised. As a kid the dollar I was paid for weeding was backed by gold at $35/oz now it takes $1,996.00 to buy an oz of gold or 57 times as many dollars. — GC]

Back to Gary North:
[QUOTE]
Mises was adamant: there is no measure of economic value.
He was a disciple of Carl Menger. Menger was a proponent of a strictly subjective theory of economic value. Mises insisted that there is no objective way to measure subjective value.

Subjective valuation “arranges commodities in order of their significance; it does not measure its significance” (p. 39). It ranks significance; it does not measure it.
The fact that money does not measure value is a crucially important aspect of Mises’s theory of money.

CREDIT:
Money facilitates credit transactions. What are credit transactions? “Credit transactions are in fact nothing but the exchange of present goods against future goods” (TM&C, p. 35).
[UNQUOTE]

[VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT. Why should I give you the product of my labor and ingenuity – Consideration – if you have no intention of paying me back? This is the concept espoused by Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson and is actually SLAVERY!

This is completely different than a Bankster printing Fiat out of thin air and thus placing you in debt when the exchange has nothing of value (consideration) that they are giving you in exchance for that debt obligation.

SEE: DOLLAR DECEPTION: HOW BANKS SECRETLY CREATE MONEY

…Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank’s foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. “Consideration” (“the thing exchanged”) is an essential element of a contract.… Drexler hadn’t given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank’s president, took the stand. To everyone’s surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money “out of thin air” for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. “It sounds like fraud to me,” intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney…. The court rejected the bank’s claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world.

This is why I see ZERO problem with declaring BANKSTER CONTRACTS (no Consideration) NULL and VOID ON THE BASIS THAT THE CONTRACTS ARE FRAUDULENT! This means contracts would have to be scrutinized and not wiped wholesale.

Back to Gary North:
[QUOTE]
EXCHANGE:
Mises said that every economic act involves a comparison of values A person chooses among several commodities (p. 38). He exchanges one commodity for another. “For this reason it has been said that every economic act may be regarded as a kind of exchange….”Action is an attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one. We call such a wilfully induced alteration an exchange. A less desirable condition is bartered for a more desirable.” (Human Action, Chapter IV, Sect. 4: “Action as an Exchange.”)
Nevertheless, the exchange is not based on someone’s measure of value, merely his comparison of value: more vs. less.
[UNQUOTE]