6 ms·

This zero hedge obsession with the gold standard and simplistic view that if it were reinstated the problems listed would be largely eliminated makes it hard to

by jahnu 5y ago

This zero hedge obsession with the gold standard and simplistic view that if it were reinstated the problems listed would be largely eliminated makes it hard to take them seriously. You know who also is not on the gold standard? Every other country where a large range of conditions exist.

zkomp 5y ago
Fine but zerohedge is not really one author or one agenda, it is an aggregate of many different views and you can’t trust all of them equally…
- hnmullany 5y ago
  It has a fine sprinkling of Russian state information talking points for some weird reason.
  - zkomp 5y ago
    I dont find it weird, just mildly disturbing having to sift through. Still worth it.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
  The have exactly one view - that of a pro**nda bureau of a certain country.
  - zkomp 5y ago
    I disagree, and that is fundamental point. It is not just one view, you can pretty much check the different authors or find the original sources and they are not in agreement. Propaganda is useless, but calling bullshit on another certain countrys propaganda, that is refreshing. It is all your loss disregarding and hating on it
jeltz 5y ago
Especially since the US abandoned the gold standard in the 1930s, and the issues with wealth inequality clearly existed with the gold standard.
- Werewolf255 5y ago
  It's funny how the time of the gold standard was the other time in US history where it was a banana republic but I'm sure that's a coincidence and not a collary.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  The dollar was pegged at $35 from 1933 to... was it 1973? In what sense had the US abandoned the gold standard in the 1930s? What is your definition of the gold standard, where the dollar pegged to gold isn't enough to mean you're on the gold standard?
- Qub3d 5y ago
  What about Bretton Woods? That existed until the Nixon administration.
jseban 5y ago
Yeah using the gold standard limits the pace of progress of society to the pace of which gold can be mined, which is a completely arbitrary unnecessary limit ever since printed money was invented.
- Qub3d 5y ago
  The modern economic concept of tying wealth directly to economic output was a huge step. What it stepped towards can be considered anything from utopia to irrecoverable disaster. Some people closer to the latter end of the scale consider economic limiters like deflationary currency (bitcoin et. al) and gold/silver standards as a good thing. Who is right? I don't know if any individual human can, in the space of a single lifetime, really have the breadth of experience and insight to choose the right option.
- azth 5y ago
  The problem is using an inherently inflationary currency that is tied to usury. Now, every single person is affected by interest whether they deal with it or not. This is immoral.
  - tim333 5y ago
    "Usury (/ˈjuːʒəri/)[1][2] is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender" I'm not sure present interest rates around 0 - 3% really count. Of course you can get an iffy credit card with bad rates but that's your choice.
    - azth 5y ago
      Any rate over 0% is immoral. This is how we have it in Islam. Loans are strictly an act of charity. Otherwise, there are moral and ethical ways to invest your money that are not predatory.
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>This zero hedge obsession with the gold standard and simplistic view that if it were reinstated the problems listed would be largely eliminated makes it hard to take them seriously. You know who also is not on the gold standard? Every other country where a large range of conditions exist. When the developed world went off the gold standard it flipped how taxation works. Without a gold standard, the fiat money + government no longer can tax. Mind you, the 'gold' factor doesnt matter. Maybe it's a crypto standard or oil or something. It doesnt matter but right now it's broken. If the USD and all these other currencies dont go back on a standard, it effectively means a caste system will form. Instead, you have the endless pressure to drop taxation, but the government can only pretend to drop taxation. If you look at the USA, every single tax break has been entirely fake with no actual or real net change in taxation. Fully intentional because nobody can touch that.
Jedd 5y ago
> This zero hedge obsession with the gold standard and simplistic view that if it were reinstated the problems listed would be largely eliminated makes it hard to take them seriously. You know who also is not on the gold standard? Every other country where a large range of conditions exist. I'm unfamiliar with zerohedge beyond this article, but I can empathise with any fond remembrance of a fiscal system that wasn't (intentionally or otherwise) designed to provide a perpetual and ineluctable boom-bust cycle. I wasn't alive at the time, though I was present for Australia's following of the crowd (the global peer pressure was enormous by then) as we floated our AUD. The reason, comically stated at the time, was that 'it hasn't worked anywhere else, so maybe it will work here'. We adopted the same mantra for the introduction of GST (a la UK's VAT). Anyway, I'll often recommend John Ralston-Saul whenever the subject of Bretton Woods comes up - he had this to say, tritely, in his Doubter's Companion (1994): "A system for international financial management and stability which was put in place by the Allies, minus the Soviets, in 1944 and destroyed in 1973 by President Richard Nixon without consideration being given to a replacement. "Nixon hoped in this way to solve some short-term American economic problems by re-creating the sort of financial disorder in which the largest power would be best placed to benefit. It could be said that this was the single most evil act undertaken by an elected leader in the postwar period. Other leaders should not be discouraged, however. The opportunity to do worse is perpetual." His concern (fleshed out much more seriously in his other works) is not so much that the gold standard was by any measure The Best System, but rather that replacing it with a demonstrably even worse system was a horrendously woeful decision.
- criley2 5y ago
  The boom bust cycle was much worse on the gold standard because when it busted, there was no way to stop it, and it could be manipulated by anyone with enough gold. We had the gold standard during the Roaring 20s, and we had the gold standard during the Great Depression in 1929.
  - Jedd 5y ago
    Perhaps. I'm not sure how much of what you're describing was limited to the USA for the span of 42 years, and how far it can be extended to the rest of the world, and a longer time frame? Ralston-Saul's book 'The End of Globalism' is a heavy read, but does dive into this with a significantly more serious tone. There's doubtless many other works on the subject, from myriad angles. Certainly it's difficult to argue that since 1973 everywhere that's abandoned the gold standard, toeing the line as it were, has not suffered a sinusoidal cycle. EDIT: Apologies, I failed to properly respond to your assertion: > The boom bust cycle was much worse on the gold standard because when it busted, there was no way to stop it, and it could be manipulated by anyone with enough gold. Is there a way to stop a bust in the a post-Bretton Woods? Are there some examples that you could cite where this has been done? (Australia's relative success through- and post-GFC I think is often held up as an example of something -- however it was, as is often the case, some accounting shenanigans whereby the selling of assets was shuffled into the revenue column.) Follow-up -- do you consider the point of TFA to be that anyone with 'enough money (gold)' can manipulate the system to ensure legislative, and therefore legally binding, retention of that wealth (gold) is better, worse, or much the same?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
over_the_raibow 5y ago
> You know who also is not on the gold standard? Every other country where a large range of conditions exist. Every other country follows usa. After the second world war finished europe was reconstructing and depleted of any financial power so america set the tone in finance since it was the biggest winner. That s how we got the removal of the gold standard and dollar as the reserve currency for every other country.You make it seem as if every country reached the conclusion that gold standard must go by itself.

by jahnu 5y ago

zkomp 5y ago

Fine but zerohedge is not really one author or one agenda, it is an aggregate of many different views and you can’t trust all of them equally…

hnmullany 5y ago
It has a fine sprinkling of Russian state information talking points for some weird reason.
- zkomp 5y ago
  I dont find it weird, just mildly disturbing having to sift through. Still worth it.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
The have exactly one view - that of a pro**nda bureau of a certain country.
- zkomp 5y ago
  I disagree, and that is fundamental point. It is not just one view, you can pretty much check the different authors or find the original sources and they are not in agreement. Propaganda is useless, but calling bullshit on another certain countrys propaganda, that is refreshing. It is all your loss disregarding and hating on it

jeltz 5y ago

Especially since the US abandoned the gold standard in the 1930s, and the issues with wealth inequality clearly existed with the gold standard.

Werewolf255 5y ago
It's funny how the time of the gold standard was the other time in US history where it was a banana republic but I'm sure that's a coincidence and not a collary.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
The dollar was pegged at $35 from 1933 to... was it 1973? In what sense had the US abandoned the gold standard in the 1930s? What is your definition of the gold standard, where the dollar pegged to gold isn't enough to mean you're on the gold standard?
Qub3d 5y ago
What about Bretton Woods? That existed until the Nixon administration.

jseban 5y ago

Yeah using the gold standard limits the pace of progress of society to the pace of which gold can be mined, which is a completely arbitrary unnecessary limit ever since printed money was invented.

Qub3d 5y ago
The modern economic concept of tying wealth directly to economic output was a huge step. What it stepped towards can be considered anything from utopia to irrecoverable disaster. Some people closer to the latter end of the scale consider economic limiters like deflationary currency (bitcoin et. al) and gold/silver standards as a good thing. Who is right? I don't know if any individual human can, in the space of a single lifetime, really have the breadth of experience and insight to choose the right option.
azth 5y ago
The problem is using an inherently inflationary currency that is tied to usury. Now, every single person is affected by interest whether they deal with it or not. This is immoral.
- tim333 5y ago
  "Usury (/ˈjuːʒəri/)[1][2] is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender" I'm not sure present interest rates around 0 - 3% really count. Of course you can get an iffy credit card with bad rates but that's your choice.
  - azth 5y ago
    Any rate over 0% is immoral. This is how we have it in Islam. Loans are strictly an act of charity. Otherwise, there are moral and ethical ways to invest your money that are not predatory.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

Jedd 5y ago

> This zero hedge obsession with the gold standard and simplistic view that if it were reinstated the problems listed would be largely eliminated makes it hard to take them seriously. You know who also is not on the gold standard? Every other country where a large range of conditions exist. I'm unfamiliar with zerohedge beyond this article, but I can empathise with any fond remembrance of a fiscal system that wasn't (intentionally or otherwise) designed to provide a perpetual and ineluctable boom-bust cycle. I wasn't alive at the time, though I was present for Australia's following of the crowd (the global peer pressure was enormous by then) as we floated our AUD. The reason, comically stated at the time, was that 'it hasn't worked anywhere else, so maybe it will work here'. We adopted the same mantra for the introduction of GST (a la UK's VAT). Anyway, I'll often recommend John Ralston-Saul whenever the subject of Bretton Woods comes up - he had this to say, tritely, in his Doubter's Companion (1994): "A system for international financial management and stability which was put in place by the Allies, minus the Soviets, in 1944 and destroyed in 1973 by President Richard Nixon without consideration being given to a replacement. "Nixon hoped in this way to solve some short-term American economic problems by re-creating the sort of financial disorder in which the largest power would be best placed to benefit. It could be said that this was the single most evil act undertaken by an elected leader in the postwar period. Other leaders should not be discouraged, however. The opportunity to do worse is perpetual." His concern (fleshed out much more seriously in his other works) is not so much that the gold standard was by any measure The Best System, but rather that replacing it with a demonstrably even worse system was a horrendously woeful decision.

criley2 5y ago
The boom bust cycle was much worse on the gold standard because when it busted, there was no way to stop it, and it could be manipulated by anyone with enough gold. We had the gold standard during the Roaring 20s, and we had the gold standard during the Great Depression in 1929.
- Jedd 5y ago
  Perhaps. I'm not sure how much of what you're describing was limited to the USA for the span of 42 years, and how far it can be extended to the rest of the world, and a longer time frame? Ralston-Saul's book 'The End of Globalism' is a heavy read, but does dive into this with a significantly more serious tone. There's doubtless many other works on the subject, from myriad angles. Certainly it's difficult to argue that since 1973 everywhere that's abandoned the gold standard, toeing the line as it were, has not suffered a sinusoidal cycle. EDIT: Apologies, I failed to properly respond to your assertion: > The boom bust cycle was much worse on the gold standard because when it busted, there was no way to stop it, and it could be manipulated by anyone with enough gold. Is there a way to stop a bust in the a post-Bretton Woods? Are there some examples that you could cite where this has been done? (Australia's relative success through- and post-GFC I think is often held up as an example of something -- however it was, as is often the case, some accounting shenanigans whereby the selling of assets was shuffled into the revenue column.) Follow-up -- do you consider the point of TFA to be that anyone with 'enough money (gold)' can manipulate the system to ensure legislative, and therefore legally binding, retention of that wealth (gold) is better, worse, or much the same?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

over_the_raibow 5y ago

> You know who also is not on the gold standard? Every other country where a large range of conditions exist. Every other country follows usa. After the second world war finished europe was reconstructing and depleted of any financial power so america set the tone in finance since it was the biggest winner. That s how we got the removal of the gold standard and dollar as the reserve currency for every other country.You make it seem as if every country reached the conclusion that gold standard must go by itself.