<The problem that you and so many other gold standard enthusiasts seem to suffer under is the delusion that artificially setting a value on a physical object will solve the world's economic ills.>
Actually, I'm not a 'gold standard enthusiast'... I don't give a rats ass if we have one or not. Know why?? Because as long as one can compare a currency to gold [ie. gold trades freely], people have the option to hold gold if they don't trust the currency. What more could one ask for. The reason I continue to post in response to you're anti-gold standard ravings is that there is NO reason we couldn't have a gold standard if we wanted one, we had one and could do it again. You're the one who seems very dogmantic about the whole thing.
The rest of your post is the same old drivel about how gold would 'hold the economy back' in some way... where in reality that's horsepucky. No one says you would have to hold gold/$ constant just because they used to, you just use these old examples as to why it's 'impossible' or 'ludicrous'.
In addition, you are missing one of your most potent arguements for dismissing the gold standard... ie. we currently have 'the dollar standard'... all other currencies are measured against the dollar... if they free fall, everyone knows, and can see, just like the olden days with gold. Good currencies drive out bad, etc. The dollar standard has worked the way the gold standard used to. All gold standard supporters are worried about is their own government screwing everything up [one could argue they have already, and it's just a matter of a small loss of $ confidence to spiral out of contol... ie. set things off]. Hell Ron, we could go on the 'Rock Standard', but I'm afraid mining companies would have a price on your freakin head!!!
So, in sum, do you want the U.S. government in control of the money supply... in complete control of 'policy makers'?? Gold standard people don't.
DAK |
