4 ms·
No they didn’t! Economic growth was anemic compared to what we’ve seen since we left the gold standard. Not to mention the economic panics that occurred every f
by bluedevil2k 5y ago
No they didn’t! Economic growth was anemic compared to what we’ve seen since we left the gold standard. Not to mention the economic panics that occurred every few years - “ From 1880 to 1933, there were at least 5 full-fledged banking panics: 1893, 1907, 1930, 1931, and 1933. Including the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, in the past half century, there have been two.”
— https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2016/12/14/why-a-gold-standard-is-a-very-bad-idea https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2016/12/14/why-a-...
- CryptoPunk 5y agoThe graph in the web page you linked to shows the rate of GNP growth was higher in the gold standard era, so you're baselessly claiming the growth was "anemic". And this is especially impressive given the auto-catalytic nature of technological progress, which has steadily caused the pace of technological innovation to pick up. That the gold standard era was able to outperform the fiat era in GNP growth rate, despite occuring during a more primitive technological era where these autocatalytic effects were less pronounced, would suggest that era's policies were exceptionally conducive to economic development. The rest of the claims in that paper are debunked in the article I linked above.