After 1787 the many banking corporations of each of the 13 states were allowed to continue issuing their own notes, some of which were redeemable and some not, but Article 1, Section 10 forbade state governments from accepting these paper notes in payment of taxes. The original intent of Article 1, Section 10 was to stop STATE or STATE BANK issued paper money.
Smiles And in 1792 under George Washington the coinage act was established and stated anyone caught debasing the nation’s currency by using anything other than gold or silver to make payments was punishable by death.
In that regard, there likely should have been an ammendment codifying the changes in the 1930s and the 1970s. However, due to the (purported) gold reserves still forming a key part of the Federal Reserve System's imperative of price stability (in the event of a major collapse in the current ruling role of the USD), maybe there is no need for an amendment.
@@LapisGarter Those articles were clearly overhauled - if there was any remaining ambiguity - by the federal reserve act, the income tax amendment, and the implications of the debt clause of the manumision amendment... right? just hunches.
The rate of crises and panics during the free banking era before the Civil War and the gold standard following it has been greater than during the Fiat era. Indeed regular consumer price inflation occurred throughout the 19th C in the US. There is little empirical validation to back up the claims that real prosperity is aided by the Gold Standard. That said, there is likely higher average general inflation under our current fiat systems than in the 19th C. Then again, so many other dynamics of the contemporary economy versus that time are at play that empirically isolating the monetary system as the root cause of good or bad developments is difficult.
Our Govt. depends on devaluing the dollar ... this is the way they hope to pay for the debt our Govt. is racking up ... If you borrow $100 and then decrease the value of the dollar by 10% ... you owe $90 ...(called inflation ...the Govt. wants at least 2% inflation every year)
I'm still rooting for an algorithmically run Bancor as an international currency, one in which a complex but member-certified AI system would both monitor and calculate various lead indicators on exports, imports, and a range of assets, liabilities and circulation factors within participating nations and dynamically determine the national currency composition of Bancor as a result. While the general outline of an AI-driven international common currency might be better overall than the current system, its design would invariably reflect the same tyrannical preponderance of one geopolitical power over another, one trade interest over another, one class over another. We'll never solve the chief problem that an idealized currency, trade, and logistical regime seeks to - to make goods and services of an equal type and quality cost the same thing everywhere simultaneously. That said, we could certainly improve upon the current disequilibria, with the goal of improving both the fairness and social equity of the global system broadly - not saying I know how to do that!
After WWII there was no trade deficit and exchange rates were stable and great wealth was created. This was attributed to high US productivity but then unions drove productivity down at the same time foreign productivity increased this created trade account deficits that caused US gold reserves to dwindle until there was not enough to support the dollar. The US had no choice but to come off the gold standard and float the dollar. It was low US productivity due to unions that ultimately created poverty and the destruction of wealth.
When describing the period of prosperity during the Brenton-Woods era, there’s no mention that we exported our deficits to Europe to fund the prosperity. We were forced out of the BW agreement by those European countries because the deficits became unsustainable.
"Exported our deficits"? This is completely inscrutable. "Forced out" of the Bretton Woods agreement? With all due respect, I don't think that you have the faintest idea of what the Keynes-White "false gold standard USD reserve currency" scheme actually was. The US Dollar was and still is (but not for long) the World reserve currency. And why? Because the US won the Second World War.
@@soapbxprod it's not that it won the second world war. It's that 2/3 of the world's gold was centralised in the US,giving it a a power to dictate the rules of international trade like no other. This ofcourse may equate to winning the war.Because gold was power in that world order
The key word is not Gold (or Silver- or Copper- or Titanium- or Uranium)... the key word is STANDARD. Just try to build a house- or anything at all- without a standard of weights and measures. Imagine using a tape measure made of bubblegum or a graduated cylinder made of molasses... that's the same as trying to build an economy using fiat currency (paraphrasing Jim Tamny and Henry Hazlitt). Viva Austrian and Chicago Schools!
The first speaker claims there's no problem with deflation under the Gold Standard and then completely ignores employment: the way the vast majority survive. He makes an oblique reference to the wage price spiral as a counter argument, but ignores the fact that real median income and HDI stats were better under the worst phases of the wage price spiral periods that in the periods were there was minimal intervention. At least he is mature enough to realize that isolating majoritarian prosperity as the result of this or that monetary regime is a specious endeavor, pardon the pun.
Someone educate me on this please. On any past gold standard we had, banks could create money by issuing credit. Whether it was free banking or after the government got involved , the money supply was not fixed. So really even though you could cash your paper in for gold, there really wasn’t enough gold available if everyone cashed in and dropped the paper dollars. So other than the government creating more money (even though they issued bonds) what makes the gold standard superior?
Johnny Jr, anyone can issue credit. Your “bar tab” is credit. Credit expansion is fun until everyone is over leveraged. Then you have contraction. That’s the credit cycle. Google “Ray Dalit How the economy machine works”. With a “hard money” you can have credit cycles and recover from them. With endlessly printed fiat currency the money taxes you
It has to do with fractional reserve banking... if banking were truly a free market, consumers of banking services could choose between banks with high or low reserve ratios, and be paid low or high interest on their deposits...
Well i suggest you research that for your self . You can find a historical comparison . After the roman empire split into 2 . The 2 monetary systems lived next to eachother . The western roman empire held on to the ( still on a silverstandard ) denarius ( debased to fiatcurrency ) . While the eastern roman empire returned to a goldstandard ( the solidus ) . The western roman empire dies in 476 . And the eastern roman empire died in 1453 . Gold outpreforms fiatcurrency.
What metal is used is not all that important. Doesn't need to be metal at all so long as the system is "Sound." Paper is fine so long as the system it represents has integrity and the money is based on reality - not fiat fractional reserve currency - which is legalized fraud. The reason the gold standard was ditched - the real reason - was to make room for the welfare state and debt based economics; namely Keynsianism. There cannot be a vast government expansionary state on a sound money system - it cannot be afforded. Fiat currency is perfect for the welfare state. Doesn't matter how big the state gets - just print the money.
That is fine when the system is properly applied but when it is not it can mean massive manipulation. Gold cannot be manipulated as it is a physical object.
Anything that is traded can be manipulated, there were several appempts to coner the gold market in the 1800s. This is not an acidemic discussion it is political add for trickle down economics.
I would have to partially agree that by depegging from metal- which is a finite tangible resource- versus value which can be infinite in measure, it is easier to create more wealth and in the same token more debt. I disagree that the need to pile-up debt was the reason they de-pegged from gold. I think that the relationship of easy paper currency to the accumulation of debt is more a consequence of the easier creation of value.
Exactly! The key word is not Gold (or Silver- or Copper- or Titanium- or Uranium)... the key word is STANDARD. Just try to build a house- or anything at all- without a standard of weights and measures. Imagine using a tape measure made of bubblegum or a graduated cylinder made of molasses... that's the same as trying to build an economy using fiat currency (paraphrasing Jim Tamny and Henry Hazlitt). Viva Austrian and Chicago Schools!
All the money in the world is borrowed Money. Population growth should not increase a countries wealth. People should be paid the amount they would have borrowed if they had children. The money that is paid to them is money that has never been borrowed. Only borrowed money in the economic system is stupid because core inflation can decrease, the worlds people can’t create or improve product or business because a large percentage of all the borrowed money was paid back to the bank. Only borrowed money in the economic system is stupid. I like the words Core Inflation.
The gold standard what they don't tell you. The total gold known to exist is less than 175000 tonnes. Acording to the U.S. treasury (if you believe them) there is a total of 261,498,926 ounces held by the United States Treasury. www.fms.treas.gov/gold/current.html The U.S. population is 317,000,000. Do the math. That is .8 ounces per person. These numbers are even worse globally. So according to the official numbers that is about $1000.00 per person at present prices of gold. Under the gold standard even if that money was equally distributed, which it is not, and you did not have millionairs and billionairs, the buisness sector would need much more then that just to do buisness. So we can see with simple math that the Gold standard is impossible either in the United States or the world, unless we rob the rich, and killed off 95% of the population. The answer lies with Bill Still's solutions.
bibleprophecy1st When you're first "argument" is a personal attack on the intelligence of someone you don't even know, you reveal the weakness of your argument.
yea the price of gold would have to go ujp massivelyh, or the value of teh dollar would increase massively, its not like that wouldn't get figured out.
So gold got smaller, no money lost its value, a pork chop is not going to become 4 pork, an hours work takes the government 1mill sec to do. I rember when an oz of gold weighed 1gram except in india. Found a load in my grandads cupboard but wasn't worth anything in todays value except its scrap value plus costs and he had to sell it he offered me 1gm for my 3gm he went to 2gm cos he liked me bonus
i don't think it would work because America consumes to much imports compared to what they export. if America went back to a gold standard your standard of living would decrease alot. America has a big debt your best to inflate it away. you could not inflate it away on a gold standard.
Russel Kerr that's why China is selling dollars for gold right now. If the US goes back to a gold standard the price of gold would have to be $5000-10000/oz. It's not about the amount of gold, but the price. You divide the amount of dollars in circulation with the amount of gold the US has.
+Russel Kerr Who says the "value" of our gold reserves are 600b? All we have to do is say the price of gold is $2500 per oz. and hey, presto, we've got all the gold we need to start with. The problem is the gold standard is pro-cyclical. It requires you to tighten money during economic slowdowns and expand money during inflationary periods. You don't really want to do that.
+Russel Kerr Deflating the debt away is only preferable if you are the bankrupt entity that owes the debt. It is not desirable if you are the person or entity that issued the loan. If you own dollars, U.S. bonds, or treasury bills you get the short end of the deal with inflation.
There is no Austrian dynamic model of money and credit. There are no equations to check. Anything this guy says could be true or false - there is no way to tell.
The second speaker in particular struck me as an unnuanced ideologue incapable of deferring either to data that actually measures the average person's well being - HDI measures (including REAL median income) - or to the obvious notion of economy as a complex dynamic system where the mere monetary regime is but one prong in a multiprong interaction. The entire 70s crisis is dealt with in isolation of the Oil Crisis, giant counterproductive war expenditures, trade and energy exacerbations resulting from no one taking Nixon's engagement and detente ideals seriously, etc. The so-called golden window of growth from the late 1980s (he is dead wrong about 1980-7), through 2007 completely overlooks the dramatically falling labor's share of income, and - for a 40 year change - stagnating real median income during all that growth for the rich but not the rest. Reagan vastly balooned our debt with imperialist war budgets bent on seizing the developing world for US domination and to battle Soviet-allied efforts in a similar direction (the only president in the last 50 years who hasn't done so is Clinton). During the so-called golden years of growth from Reagan to Bush2, union density decline, vast deindustrialization via NAFTA, China's admission to the WTO, and CAFTA, unchecked inflation due to federal inaction on joining the developed world by passing universal health and higher education programs (despite the emergence of a knowledge and services economy due to aforementioned deindustrialization), and the Neoliberal policies that led to the evisceration of pensions across the private sector, and the reduction of social welfare and transitional assitance all contributed to the declining real wealth of the majority of Americans during this period, at least by many standard measures, in particular when seen as a proportion of productivity gains.
Gold is the only thing that truly holds it’s value over time. Its price remains stable throughout time. So that’s why we need to equally distribute wealth across all nations and people.
Equally distribute wealth across all nations and people? Give everybody a dollar? How about 10 dollars, maybe 1 million dollars each? Or what about 0 dollars? Ow you mean equity in the form of giving people different amounts so they all have equal wallets? So we all have 1 dollar? 10? 1 million dollars each? - Waste of time you all get back to 0 dollars in the first situation and in the second you just slow down money velocity a little while those who are most creative take back the same money they had before. Why? Because money isn't the answer, education and culture, values and interests, those are what puts us where we are. Not money.
@@juletwells9844 I think you mean the fiat currency it is measured in is unstable. Old gold or silver coins buy as much or more than when coined, try that with fiat.
if we human need go back to use "metal standard"，gold and silver is not good enough. I think "Titanium (Ti) standard " is the best way . [1] Titanium is much more than gold and silver in the earth . [2]Titanium is stable , no toxicity ，easy to store . [3] Titanium is useful in military Industry and living sector.
The problem is the still the same with any finite currency. You lost autonomy with monetary policy meaning that the economy will be more vulnerable to shocks. As economies grow via population, you will face an ever increasing problem of liquidity. Lastly, deflation is an incentive against investment which means economic growth gets slow down relative to what it would be under a fiat system
Bitcoin, but not a actually bitcoin, the government or a private e-curreny could be set at a set rate to trade with the US dollar & be backed by it. Blockchain technology solves this problem perfectly.
It is a scam. The solution is currency match by the economic activity with the currency produce the government. The Gold standard would put a stiff jacket on the economic.
central planning doesn't work. they tried it in soviet russia. a lie to say gold straitjackets the economy, when it worked for thousands of years. gov't intervention with money is unnecessary and downright harmful/ thieving.
Nonsense the key is that private bankers are printing our money and that is the problem. Get rid of private bankers printing our money and have the printing of money correspond with the physical problem in the economy as physical problem grows money supply grows.
+Katherine Hans Von Rotes schild Zitler The gold standard creates stable pricing and allows purchasing power to increase. On a gold standard one gold mark would buy 10 loaves of bread today and in 10 years time it would buy 15 loaves of bread. What this means is that the consumer would have their purchasing power increased. That means real wealth would increase. Workers under a gold standard would not actually need a monitory pay increase as their existing pay would just allow them to buy more. Under the last gold standard gold could be bought for $35 in 1947 and in 1967 it was still $35 even though real wages in that period increased from about $1800 to about $5000. The very private banks you criticize are the ones telling you that a gold currency is a straight jacket.
Honest money is disliked by dishonest men.
My view: Gold and silver in the money supply is gold and silver in your Hand, your Control. Real Wealth belonging to you.
+Silver Schooner Gold and silver are only worth something because people say it is. There's nothing "real" about it.
+royms2000 Money is what people think it is.
Taylor Moskalyk
Exactly. That's why gold/silver are nothing but shiny money. They're both equal in the "real" department.
There are practical uses for gold and silver.
堂溪先生
Very limited, niche practical uses which are a negligible determinant in its price. It's not like oil.
Great info on the fact that a gold standard monetary system serves the people. Peace
It doesn't!!
Thank you for posting. Very informative.
Buy the debt --> encourage more behavior that led to the debt to begin with... including making laws that legalize extortion...
Second historian guy gave impressive speech. Words of wisdom.
Only problem with gold was its cumbersome movement for exchange.
3rd guy was even more phenomenal. I think its great discussion. His last lines just describe existence of Bitcoin.
The U.S. Constitution specifies the country's monetary system will be based on gold and silver.
After 1787 the many banking corporations of each of the 13 states were allowed to continue issuing their own notes, some of which were redeemable and some not, but Article 1, Section 10 forbade state governments from accepting these paper notes in payment of taxes.
The original intent of Article 1, Section 10 was to stop STATE or STATE BANK issued paper money.
Smiles
And in 1792 under George Washington the coinage act was established and stated anyone caught debasing the nation’s currency by using anything other than gold or silver to make payments was punishable by death.
In that regard, there likely should have been an ammendment codifying the changes in the 1930s and the 1970s. However, due to the (purported) gold reserves still forming a key part of the Federal Reserve System's imperative of price stability (in the event of a major collapse in the current ruling role of the USD), maybe there is no need for an amendment.
@@LapisGarter Those articles were clearly overhauled - if there was any remaining ambiguity - by the federal reserve act, the income tax amendment, and the implications of the debt clause of the manumision amendment... right? just hunches.
The only difference between gold and copper is it's abundance.
The rate of crises and panics during the free banking era before the Civil War and the gold standard following it has been greater than during the Fiat era. Indeed regular consumer price inflation occurred throughout the 19th C in the US. There is little empirical validation to back up the claims that real prosperity is aided by the Gold Standard. That said, there is likely higher average general inflation under our current fiat systems than in the 19th C. Then again, so many other dynamics of the contemporary economy versus that time are at play that empirically isolating the monetary system as the root cause of good or bad developments is difficult.
Our Govt. depends on devaluing the dollar ... this is the way they hope to pay for the debt our Govt. is racking up ... If you borrow $100 and then decrease the value of the dollar by 10% ... you owe $90 ...(called inflation ...the Govt. wants at least 2% inflation every year)
Spot on.
I'm still rooting for an algorithmically run Bancor as an international currency, one in which a complex but member-certified AI system would both monitor and calculate various lead indicators on exports, imports, and a range of assets, liabilities and circulation factors within participating nations and dynamically determine the national currency composition of Bancor as a result. While the general outline of an AI-driven international common currency might be better overall than the current system, its design would invariably reflect the same tyrannical preponderance of one geopolitical power over another, one trade interest over another, one class over another. We'll never solve the chief problem that an idealized currency, trade, and logistical regime seeks to - to make goods and services of an equal type and quality cost the same thing everywhere simultaneously. That said, we could certainly improve upon the current disequilibria, with the goal of improving both the fairness and social equity of the global system broadly - not saying I know how to do that!
After WWII there was no trade deficit and exchange rates were stable and great wealth was created. This was attributed to high US productivity but then unions drove productivity down at the same time foreign productivity increased this created trade account deficits that caused US gold reserves to dwindle until there was not enough to support the dollar. The US had no choice but to come off the gold standard and float the dollar. It was low US productivity due to unions that ultimately created poverty and the destruction of wealth.
When describing the period of prosperity during the Brenton-Woods era, there’s no mention that we exported our deficits to Europe to fund the prosperity. We were forced out of the BW agreement by those European countries because the deficits became unsustainable.
"Exported our deficits"? This is completely inscrutable. "Forced out" of the Bretton Woods agreement? With all due respect, I don't think that you have the faintest idea of what the Keynes-White "false gold standard USD reserve currency" scheme actually was. The US Dollar was and still is (but not for long) the World reserve currency. And why? Because the US won the Second World War.
@@soapbxprod it's not that it won the second world war. It's that 2/3 of the world's gold was centralised in the US,giving it a a power to dictate the rules of international trade like no other.
This ofcourse may equate to winning the war.Because gold was power in that world order
The key word is not Gold (or Silver- or Copper- or Titanium- or Uranium)... the key word is STANDARD. Just try to build a house- or anything at all- without a standard of weights and measures. Imagine using a tape measure made of bubblegum or a graduated cylinder made of molasses... that's the same as trying to build an economy using fiat currency (paraphrasing Jim Tamny and Henry Hazlitt). Viva Austrian and Chicago Schools!
Fiat can always be manipulated because it is all down to human management.
Just make a banana standard .
The first speaker claims there's no problem with deflation under the Gold Standard and then completely ignores employment: the way the vast majority survive. He makes an oblique reference to the wage price spiral as a counter argument, but ignores the fact that real median income and HDI stats were better under the worst phases of the wage price spiral periods that in the periods were there was minimal intervention. At least he is mature enough to realize that isolating majoritarian prosperity as the result of this or that monetary regime is a specious endeavor, pardon the pun.
Someone educate me on this please.
On any past gold standard we had, banks could create money by issuing credit. Whether it was free banking or after the government got involved , the money supply was not fixed. So really even though you could cash your paper in for gold, there really wasn’t enough gold available if everyone cashed in and dropped the paper dollars.
So other than the government creating more money (even though they issued bonds) what makes the gold standard superior?
Johnny Jr, anyone can issue credit. Your “bar tab” is credit. Credit expansion is fun until everyone is over leveraged. Then you have contraction.
That’s the credit cycle. Google “Ray Dalit How the economy machine works”.
With a “hard money” you can have credit cycles and recover from them. With endlessly printed fiat currency the money taxes you
It has to do with fractional reserve banking... if banking were truly a free market, consumers of banking services could choose between banks with high or low reserve ratios, and be paid low or high interest on their deposits...
Well i suggest you research that for your self . You can find a historical comparison . After the roman empire split into 2 . The 2 monetary systems lived next to eachother . The western roman empire held on to the ( still on a silverstandard ) denarius ( debased to fiatcurrency ) . While the eastern roman empire returned to a goldstandard ( the solidus ) . The western roman empire dies in 476 . And the eastern roman empire died in 1453 . Gold outpreforms fiatcurrency.
21:42 Sweden did have a central bank. As a matter of fact, it is the oldest central bank in the world, founded in 1668.
Only a few years earlier than Bank of England.
What metal is used is not all that important. Doesn't need to be metal at all so long as the system is "Sound." Paper is fine so long as the system it represents has integrity and the money is based on reality - not fiat fractional reserve currency - which is legalized fraud.
The reason the gold standard was ditched - the real reason - was to make room for the welfare state and debt based economics; namely Keynsianism. There cannot be a vast government expansionary state on a sound money system - it cannot be afforded.
Fiat currency is perfect for the welfare state. Doesn't matter how big the state gets - just print the money.
That is fine when the system is properly applied but when it is not it can mean massive manipulation. Gold cannot be manipulated as it is a physical object.
Anything that is traded can be manipulated, there were several appempts to coner the gold market in the 1800s. This is not an acidemic discussion it is political add for trickle down economics.
I would have to partially agree that by depegging from metal- which is a finite tangible resource- versus value which can be infinite in measure, it is easier to create more wealth and in the same token more debt. I disagree that the need to pile-up debt was the reason they de-pegged from gold. I think that the relationship of easy paper currency to the accumulation of debt is more a consequence of the easier creation of value.
Exactly! The key word is not Gold (or Silver- or Copper- or Titanium- or Uranium)... the key word is STANDARD. Just try to build a house- or anything at all- without a standard of weights and measures. Imagine using a tape measure made of bubblegum or a graduated cylinder made of molasses... that's the same as trying to build an economy using fiat currency (paraphrasing Jim Tamny and Henry Hazlitt). Viva Austrian and Chicago Schools!
@@AL692
Gold is gold. You cannot make lead look like gold and call it gold.
Tell us how would you manipulate gold as a substance?
All the money in the world is borrowed Money. Population growth should not increase a countries wealth. People should be paid the amount they would have borrowed if they had children. The money that is paid to them is money that has never been borrowed. Only borrowed money in the economic system is stupid because core inflation can decrease, the worlds people can’t create or improve product or business because a large percentage of all the borrowed money was paid back to the bank. Only borrowed money in the economic system is stupid. I like the words Core Inflation.
Money in French is " argent " , silver in French is " argent "
Say no more
Must peg the dollar amount of gold to whatever the average cost to produce an ounce of gold is or the miners go out of business. Peace.
The gold standard what they don't tell you.
The total gold known to exist is less than 175000 tonnes. Acording to the
U.S. treasury (if you believe them) there is a total of 261,498,926 ounces
held by the United States Treasury.
www.fms.treas.gov/gold/current.html
The U.S. population is 317,000,000. Do the math. That is .8 ounces per
person. These numbers are even worse globally. So according to the official
numbers that is about $1000.00 per person at present prices of gold. Under
the gold standard even if that money was equally distributed, which it is
not, and you did not have millionairs and billionairs, the buisness sector
would need much more then that just to do buisness. So we can see with simple
math that the Gold standard is impossible either in the United States or the
world, unless we rob the rich, and killed off 95% of the population. The
answer lies with Bill Still's solutions.
bibleprophecy1st When you're first "argument" is a personal attack on the intelligence of someone you don't even know, you reveal the weakness of your argument.
yea the price of gold would have to go ujp massivelyh, or the value of teh dollar would increase massively, its not like that wouldn't get figured out.
Haha, the last panel comment.
So gold got smaller, no money lost its value, a pork chop is not going to become 4 pork, an hours work takes the government 1mill sec to do. I rember when an oz of gold weighed 1gram except in india. Found a load in my grandads cupboard but wasn't worth anything in todays value except its scrap value plus costs and he had to sell it he offered me 1gm for my 3gm he went to 2gm cos he liked me bonus
i don't think it would work because America consumes to much imports compared to what they export. if America went back to a gold standard your standard of living would decrease alot. America has a big debt your best to inflate it away. you could not inflate it away on a gold standard.
plus Americans owe China alone 1.2t and the value of your gold reserves are 600b.
Russel Kerr that's why China is selling dollars for gold right now. If the US goes back to a gold standard the price of gold would have to be $5000-10000/oz. It's not about the amount of gold, but the price. You divide the amount of dollars in circulation with the amount of gold the US has.
+Russel Kerr Who says the "value" of our gold reserves are 600b? All we have to do is say the price of gold is $2500 per oz. and hey, presto, we've got all the gold we need to start with. The problem is the gold standard is pro-cyclical. It requires you to tighten money during economic slowdowns and expand money during inflationary periods. You don't really want to do that.
+storbynatt They changed direction and started selling gold. Already.
+Russel Kerr Deflating the debt away is only preferable if you are the bankrupt entity that owes the debt. It is not desirable if you are the person or entity that issued the loan. If you own dollars, U.S. bonds, or treasury bills you get the short end of the deal with inflation.
Pretty outdated would love to see a new version of this with data from Trump and Biden administration
There is no Austrian dynamic model of money and credit. There are no equations to check. Anything this guy says could be true or false - there is no way to tell.
+wraft they do have a trade theory.
You are a MORON. Mises wrote "The Theory of Money and Credit" in 1953.
The second speaker in particular struck me as an unnuanced ideologue incapable of deferring either to data that actually measures the average person's well being - HDI measures (including REAL median income) - or to the obvious notion of economy as a complex dynamic system where the mere monetary regime is but one prong in a multiprong interaction. The entire 70s crisis is dealt with in isolation of the Oil Crisis, giant counterproductive war expenditures, trade and energy exacerbations resulting from no one taking Nixon's engagement and detente ideals seriously, etc. The so-called golden window of growth from the late 1980s (he is dead wrong about 1980-7), through 2007 completely overlooks the dramatically falling labor's share of income, and - for a 40 year change - stagnating real median income during all that growth for the rich but not the rest. Reagan vastly balooned our debt with imperialist war budgets bent on seizing the developing world for US domination and to battle Soviet-allied efforts in a similar direction (the only president in the last 50 years who hasn't done so is Clinton). During the so-called golden years of growth from Reagan to Bush2, union density decline, vast deindustrialization via NAFTA, China's admission to the WTO, and CAFTA, unchecked inflation due to federal inaction on joining the developed world by passing universal health and higher education programs (despite the emergence of a knowledge and services economy due to aforementioned deindustrialization), and the Neoliberal policies that led to the evisceration of pensions across the private sector, and the reduction of social welfare and transitional assitance all contributed to the declining real wealth of the majority of Americans during this period, at least by many standard measures, in particular when seen as a proportion of productivity gains.
Gold is the only thing that truly holds it’s value over time. Its price remains stable throughout time. So that’s why we need to equally distribute wealth across all nations and people.
Gold is unstable. Watch the facts
Equally distribute wealth across all nations and people? Give everybody a dollar? How about 10 dollars, maybe 1 million dollars each? Or what about 0 dollars? Ow you mean equity in the form of giving people different amounts so they all have equal wallets? So we all have 1 dollar? 10? 1 million dollars each? - Waste of time you all get back to 0 dollars in the first situation and in the second you just slow down money velocity a little while those who are most creative take back the same money they had before. Why? Because money isn't the answer, education and culture, values and interests, those are what puts us where we are. Not money.
@@juletwells9844 I think you mean the fiat currency it is measured in is unstable. Old gold or silver coins buy as much or more than when coined, try that with fiat.
And of course you've heard about he inflation in Japan.... oh wait..
if we human need go back to use "metal standard"，gold and silver is not good enough.
I think "Titanium (Ti) standard " is the best way .
[1] Titanium is much more than gold and silver in the earth .
[2]Titanium is stable , no toxicity ，easy to store .
[3] Titanium is useful in military Industry and living sector.
I guess one of the reasons why gold was chosen to be money was its scarcity.
Gold and silver are money because they’re scarce. That would get rid of the point of a sound money system if the supply was incredibly plentiful.
The problem is the still the same with any finite currency. You lost autonomy with monetary policy meaning that the economy will be more vulnerable to shocks. As economies grow via population, you will face an ever increasing problem of liquidity. Lastly, deflation is an incentive against investment which means economic growth gets slow down relative to what it would be under a fiat system
Bitcoin, but not a actually bitcoin, the government or a private e-curreny could be set at a set rate to trade with the US dollar & be backed by it. Blockchain technology solves this problem perfectly.
Gold and silver is fine. Just let Currency be divided into smaller denominations if it's Values goes up. Simple as that
Smart people who know nothing common sense is better lol crazy so confusing
It is a scam. The solution is currency match by the economic activity with the currency produce the government. The Gold standard would put a stiff jacket on the economic.
central planning doesn't work. they tried it in soviet russia. a lie to say gold straitjackets the economy, when it worked for thousands of years. gov't intervention with money is unnecessary and downright harmful/ thieving.
Nonsense the key is that private bankers are printing our money and that is the problem. Get rid of private bankers printing our money and have the printing of money correspond with the physical problem in the economy as physical problem grows money supply grows.
+Katherine Hans Von Rotes schild Zitler
The gold standard creates stable pricing and allows purchasing power to increase. On a gold standard one gold mark would buy 10 loaves of bread today and in 10 years time it would buy 15 loaves of bread. What this means is that the consumer would have their purchasing power increased.
That means real wealth would increase. Workers under a gold standard would not actually need a monitory pay increase as their existing pay would just allow them to buy more.
Under the last gold standard gold could be bought for $35 in 1947 and in 1967 it was still $35 even though real wages in that period increased from about $1800 to about $5000.
The very private banks you criticize are the ones telling you that a gold currency is a straight jacket.
Debt based economics (Keynesianism) doesn’t work as we’ve very clearly seen.