"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 "
I think part of the disagreement here is one of perspective...ie, money is a medium of exchange which allows an individual to swap his labor or goods for a thing of value...that is what he wants and needs. The discussion you are presenting is from a different view, involving your projection of what will happen if our govt implements various money systems in order to enhance the progress of society.
There are several problems with this: 1)the propositions are complex and hard to validate...ie, much of what you say could be completely wrong as it does not have a direct link to facts, but is rather an arrangement of propositions in your mind. In contrast, a swap of one good for another can be validated by direct observation. 2) Ur argument is based on the value of central planning, ie, economists and govt officials can best decide what is the optimum course for human development...based on observation of history, central planning is usually wrong...and one could argue that the best thing for money would be to separate it from govt, as govt always moves to corrupt money such that it can spend more on its own projects..with gold as money, there is no need for state money..gold is just gold, not a govt certificate 3)even if it was better for society as a whole to have paper money, that does not give govt the right to violate the rights of the individual...ie, to demand that one accept an entity with no value (ie, electronic blip), and prevent the individual from receiving a real compensation in return for goods or labor.
Robin |
