3 ms·
You haven't intellectually engaged with anything I said, you've just called it a "conspiracy" and tried to laugh at it. That's says a lot. You totally ignored
by javert 5y ago
You haven't intellectually engaged with anything I said, you've just called it a "conspiracy" and tried to laugh at it. That's says a lot.
You totally ignored the essential point of my post which is that many things have changed since the gold money era and you can't extrapolate directly from that era to this. In particular, we have instant communication and much better ways to verify institutional financials.
(I'm leaving the conversation now. I know you'll do your best to make it look like I'm wrong, but I'm going to ignore it.)
- arcticbull 5y agoI actually responded to, I think, each of your points. (1) I don't support ending US hegemony because it's the least worst option. (2) US hegemony doesn't depend on the dollar. (3) All major historical wars were fought on hard money so there's no reason to think reverting to hard money would somehow end war. In fact we live in roughly speaking the most peaceful time in recorded history. (4) Fiat works fine. (5) Variable supply is ideal because it creates stability and separates long-term store of value (volatile) from short-term store of value and medium of exchange (predictable). (6) Inflation is useful because it incentives productive allocation of capital. (7) Banks aren't stealing huge quantities of money from Americans, they make a 1% annualized return on assets on deposit, which is returned to bank shareholders. Money circulates. (8) Honestly its up to you to explain what changed and why you think there would be a different outcome. Quantifiably.