How commerce became a shell game.

Commerce, as typically defined, refers to the trade of goods and services for something of value. The problem is that modern day currency has no value. Moreover, although currency is associated with the issuing entity, so we have U.S. and Canadian dollars, currency is anonymous in that there is no person to vouch for a value it does not have. Talk about a double negative, which is definitely not a positive.

How did modern day currency come to have no value? I am going to blame Richard Nixon, not only because he officially severed the tie between U.S. currency and a precious (useful) metal, but because he told me he gave no thought to ancillary effects. Besides, I do not doubt that Nixon had no antagonistic intent. He just thought it would be better if the supply of currency were not limited by being tied to a naturally limited mineral. Nixon did not anticipate unexpected consequences. He was not very good at thinking ahead.

Now we have a currency which has no value and whose supply is theoretically infinite. Which should mean that it is readily available to anyone who needs to use it to mediate transactions and trade. But, if the supply is infinite, how are the people whose traditional income is derived from lending out something that is scarce going to make a living?

At first, you may recall, Richard Nixon tried to affect the demand for the supply by instituting price controls. That did not work well. Then the bankers, who have first dibs on what the Treasury issues, tried increasing their designated cut of what they lent out (called charging high interest) and that did not work, either. Finally, Congress, which is tasked with distributing currency into the economy came to the rescue by pledging to ration distribution on the basis of what that sqme Congress authorized the Internal Revenue Service to collect. In addition, though the distributions to elderly retirees could not be halted entirely, Congress legislated to restrict the increase in currency owed. People had to work lnger to get anything back. If a working person expires prematurely and the Treaury pays nothing out, that’s good.

Can we conclude that the pervasive disinterest in how long people live is related to the desire to maintain the value of something (currency) that has none? That might be unfair.

Currency, being anonymous and having no value, makes it possible to commit thievery almost unnoticed. If one translates a good or service into something that has no value and then seeks to translate that into something else that does, how does one tell if, where or when value has been lost? How is this not just like a shell game, but one that is being run by an entire commercial class of persons?

Presumably, what is being traded away by whoever made, produced or invented it was/is not needed; is surplus. So what is the problem if, during the transaction, a portion of that surplus is siphoned off for the benefit of some non-productive middleman, the operator of the shell game/scam? No problem, unless the operator is a crook and absconds with the currency.

Are all currency traders thieves? No. However, it is an attractive form of thievery and Poor Donald’s apparent expertise recommended him to the confederacy of commercial theft.
P.S.
I am reminded that commerce lening itself to theft is an ancient realization and led to the invention of accoounting via a bill of lading comprised of fired clay balls containing tokens to indicate the quantities being sent in a shipment of grain. So that, if the recipient of a shipment doubted it was complete, he could break open the balls to check what was originally sent.