Until then it has the benefit of acting as a discipline to power grabbing money grubbing pols,
That's the prevailing theory advanced by "hard money" advocates.
But the fact remains that human population has vastly outpaced the production of noble metals like gold. And thus, those who control that gold control the medium of exchange and capital required for the progress of humanity around the world..
Thus, what you're saying is that if the production of gold is only increasing by, say 1-2% per year, and the human population is increasing by 3%, then we should only permit a 1-2% increase in money supply and that increasing demand for money should be ignored.
And REALLY what is being said here, by suggesting a return to a gold standard, is to reduce the money supply to meet the actual quantity of global gold supply, which would be inherently deflationary and only benefit those who physically control that gold. The rest of humanity, with its need for having access to that medium of exchange, be damned in the process all in the name of "sound money".
And that, ultimately, suggests that we, as human beings, should have our needs subordinated to the concept of sound money, rather than the other way around.
I'm all for capitalism, but I'm an American first. I recognize that capitalism is an inherently non-democratic system that advances the interests of it's shareholders over the interests of the labor force. Thus, it can be just a tyrannical as any totalitarian system. So, as an American, I firmly believe that any economic system should best represent the needs and requirements of our citizens, rather than subordinating our sovereignty to supra-national profit motivated gold based financial system.
Hawk |
