3 ms·

I disagree. I think it's failing, live and in color.

• davidw 11y ago
  Nothing's perfect and it could likely be improved. Like democracy, problems do not necessarily mean that the entire system should be ditched. It's more likely that there are improvements that can be made a bit at a time to improve how it functions. Nothing else has worked better: basing the expansion of the money supply on the amount of gold that people dig up did not prove to be a winning idea either. No serious economist regards it as being something we should return to, at least. What alternatives would be worth investigating?
  • branchless 11y ago
    Land value tax and state issuance of money and/or some kind of throttle on credit creation to try to get credit creation to track wealth creation. Right now we have private banks issuing credit against (state blessed) land ahead of wealth creation.
  • mindslight 11y ago
    > No serious economist regards it [the gold standard] as being something we should return to, at least Obviously. A "serious economist" likely earns their living by their advice, so giving less-profitable advice is a good way to go out of business. And the easiest way to create profit is to simply print money! Not that this refutes the commoners' belief that banks and government should be held to the same standard as everybody else, and not simply be able to arbitrarily conjure up money and take the first cut for themselves and their enablers. I'll open my mind to the worthiness of debt-as-money when I personally can freely change IOUs into FRNs. Until then, it's just yet another rigged system of control that's been opaqued enough to not be blatantly obvious.