MRB said:
This writer doesn't know economics or history. One hundred years ago, the world
was still operating on a predominantly gold monetary standard and international
trade was far, far less than it is today. ... This is why a gold standard is so
good: it puts salt on the tail of the speculative bird. Also, this writer may
not be not indexing for inflation.
dmb says:
Actually, the gold standard presents a very similar problem. The size of the
economy grew to be much larger than the world's gold supply. Paper currency was
backed by gold and silver by an increasingly small percentage as the years went
by it became increasingly meaningless. The political decision was largely a
matter of acknowledging or catching up with the facts of history.
And really, gold is hardly more than a symbol. It has some real uses, besides
adorning and hoarding, but it's not the most practical material in the world
and you sure can't eat it. Sure, it's pretty and it doesn't rust but it's value
is mostly derived from the fact that everyone thinks it's valuable. The people
who want to sell you gold on talk radio shows offer it as if it were a promise
of safety and security. It's not. It's just soft metal.
Don't get me wrong. If you're giving brick of it away, I'll take one.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
