Gold standard - Should we go back?
 

I think we should. I don't like the way the FED messes with the economy. All they have done since their inception is cause a vicious cycle of bubbles and massive crashes.

I think we need to go back to a gold standard to have a concrete foundation for our currency and economy and stop messing with interest rates.

and do what? It is too late for that. You go back to the gold standard now and a dollar would be worth 10 cents instead of the 50-60 cents it is worth now. Anyone ever seen the British pound it is like twice what the dollar is worth. We are screwed.

Take a macroeconomics class to figure out why the gold standard isn't a viable alternative for modern times.

We are screwed because that is where the FED put us. We can go back.

By going back to a gold standard we can see the real value of the dollar and build from there.

dude, gold standard is NOT a magic bullet that solves all economic ails.

boom bust cycle will still happen under gold standard. root cause of boom bust cycle is not federal reserve or fiat currency. it's caused by people acting like a herd of cattle. when times are good everyone overspends or gets loans. bam rapid growth. when times are bad everyone saves, money circulation drops. bam recession.

real argument for gold standard is denying government ability to deficit spent (i.e. tax wealth via inflation) and deny gov control over the money supply.

second bit is also its downfall. control of money supply in gold standard is basically tied to the rate of gold production. no way to implement monetary policy.

there's nothing inherently wrong with a central bank or monetary policy... the problem is making sure the central bank uses that power responsibly. debate of fiat vs gold is really debate on how much power to allocate to central bank. fiat = alot; gold = very little.

I'm not against a fiat currency in general just ours.

uh okay. i'm not even sure what that means.

you don't need sweeping governmental changes to bet on your position.

solution: don't save in dollars. save all your money in gold (i.e. buy GLD or hold physical gold assets).

only keep enough cash on hand as needed for your normal expenses.

It means a fiat currency CAN be done properly but ours clearly isn't in my opinion.

it could be better, the degree to which varies from person to person

but if you want to see really fucked fiat currency run wild, there are better and far crazier examples

Relatively speaking, the dollar has probably been one of the
more stable currencies in recent history.

Inflation has been rampant in the last 10 years or so.
But that has prob been more indicative of fed policies and spending from the govt.
Im inclined to think a change in policy is a more realistic alternative.

Think the economy is healthy enough for an increase in rates.

aznpoopy

I know all about the Zimbabwean Dollar.

ronmcdon

We have seen sharp inflation since the Korean War and the price of gold in America has steadily increases since the inception of the FED. That steady increase is due to the inflation of the currency not a higher demand for gold.

i think some degree of inflation is not unhealthy.
the economy grows and it's not unreasonable to expect there is a need for more currency to circulate as a result.
Imo, there should be a cap as to how much bills can be printed, as to discourage inflation.

About the gold standard,
I'm skeptical the very limited supply of gold, as a commodity, could sustain the size of any large economy.
Gold is around 1,200-1,300-ish/oz (very low supply relative to demand).
If this was enacted, I can see very high de-flation, and that isn't great either.
Maybe a more modest commodity like silver ($13/oz, higher supply relative to demand, essentially as stable) would be more practical.

Interestingly even the Euro isn't doing all that great these days.
It's just inevitable that paper currency is volatile to some degree.

Gold's "value" comes from the exact same place that the "value" of a dollar comes from.

there have been some awesome posts so far... gold standard seems like a nice idea

but as other posters mentioned, it wont work. exchange rates and gold hoarding by countries (i.e. france during the interwar period) really mess with gold-blacked currency. as previously mentioned, increasing gold supply via mining is another issue.

the OP really just wants monetary policy to be less less inflationary. that can be accomplished via means other than the gold standard


my partisan opinion on excessive govt spending is that its politicians making their jobs easier... i.e. throwing money at the problem rather than fixing it the hard way.

Gold has an intrinsic value. Fiat currency has no value in and of its self.

Are we talking Numismatic or Financial Intrinsic values?

Both. You can't argue against the fact that gold is valuable.

Same can be said for anything?

so lets assume the dolllar tanks


what's to say gold will replace it? who's to say that SeaShells won't become the next popular thing?

even an intro to macro class covers this


I find it funny that some of the biggest supporters of the gold system often have the least (if any at all) economics education

Why would seashells be more valuable than gold?

Unless you find a magic formula to cheaply create gold it's value will not drop.

Platinum is more valuable then gold. Should we go to that instead?

If we have enough to backup the amount of currency in circulation. I don't think that is the case.


Why don't you actually make some kind of counter argument. Implying that I am uneducated and asking me loaded questions is getting old.

So you're saying you HAVE taken a macroeconomics class of some sort?

WAIT .. seashells aren't worth more then Gold?

I don't need to take a class to be educated.

Well shit, in that case I'm Professor Emeritus of Horsemanship, seeing as how I've googled about horses and watched my wife take care of one.

I get that you don't need a professional education to be 'educated', but taking a class that covers all the details/upsides/downsides/pros/cons/causes/effects of a subject GENERALLY helps give a person a very good perspective on a subject.

On the other hand, reading websites that are skewed toward a certain perspective tend to NOT make a person 'educated' on a subject.

I would offer to illuminate your ignorance via a copy/paste from a macroeconomics textbook, but to be honest, this is kind of fun.
Kinda like watching a dog locked into a hot pursuit/fight with its tail.

You have made A LOT of assumptions about how I got the knowledge I have, non of which are correct.

For all you know I am a published and well respected author on the subject.

I have spent many an hour researching many points of view on the subject. I have read a few of the books that are used for references in many text books. I know all about Keynes and Hoppe as well as how their views differ.


Just because I don't agree with you does not make me ignorant. If you don't wish to even have a semblance of a discussion here then please don't post.


EDIT:
Also formal education is just one of many ways to gain knowledge and in many respects isn't the best.

1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold
10 oz of gold = 10 oz of gold
100 oz of gold = 100 oz of gold

What's the physical difference between 1 dollar and 100 dollars? Nothing.

The difference between 1 oz of gold and 100 oz is 99 oz a tangible different.

Because sea shells aren't rare and there aren't armies guarding them in reinforced concrete and steel vaults with 20 ton doors.

Most college economic professors are academic blowhards who spent their entire lives in academia. I know mines was.

How is that any different than university professors skewed towards their own perspectives?