3j
<<I mean really - are we debating whether we should base our modern 21st century economy on how many shiny rocks we have compared to the next guy, rather than how much made up numbers on a computer we have instead?? What's the difference really?? >>
Are you serious?
yes I am totally serious.
Yes, gold is finite and has inherent value. And saying we should use a gold standard is really just saying that we want to stop allowing the government to f&%k us all over by increasing our money supply willy nilly and devaluing our individual wealth as a result.
And since we can't trust government to do that on its own, a gold standard is the way around that. Fine, I understand that. (until of course, they start to use our particle accelerators to synthesize gold)
I just don't like the idea of a nation's wealth being based on a measure of its pile of rocks. It's barbaric. Imagine the wars that would cause... or rather, continue to cause.
There are too many finite things in today's world that also have inherent value and provide a measure of a society's value- energy, food, water, land... and to extend it further... productivity, intellectual capital.
We're already at war to procure energy. We see how that's going. At least a paper currency provides for a war zone whose battlefields comprise the executive offices of world central banks and bond traders rather than deserts and valleys. They've been at war with each other for decades.
I mean, I get your argument. Just playing devil's advocate here.
I don't know if I heard it here or somewhere else... but I think the best idea might be to outsource the running of the US government to the Swiss...
Author