6 ms·

People are still gonna want the new iphone and latest suv. Having a hard money as the reserve currency doesn’t undermine the economy, quite the opposite.

Aunche 4y ago
Yes. People will always demand consumer goods. The problem with deflation is that it incentivizes you to hoard money rather than invest in businesses give out loans. During periods of economic growth with a gold-backed currency, we don't actually see much deflation because the money supply expands when banks naturally give out more loans and people invest a greater percentage of their wealth into equity. The problem comes when there is a recession. People and businesses default on their loans, and lenders are less willing to issue new ones, which effectively contracts the money supply. While it sounds good that your money becomes more valuable, most of the reason for this is that people have less of it.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  I follow your argument but I would argue that incentives to hoard money aren't necessarily bad. I agree with you that hoarding money leads to a reduced money supply, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. For example: the GFC. Central banks bail out bad actors which perpetuates the incentives that caused these actors to make bad decisions in the first place ("bad" meaning not optimal globally, e.g. selling bonds you know are worthless). If a gold standard was in use, this would simply be impossible. The government would need to increase taxes to bail out the banks, which would be rejected by citizens who are busy hoarding gold and cursing the banks, which means the banks that replaced the bad actors would be incentivized to avoid the mistakes their predecessors made. Alternatively, the GFC may simply not have occurred, because under a gold-standard the banks cannot assume they would be bailed out and this knowledge would cause them to be more risk-averse. "Every Battle Is Won Before It Is Ever Fought" The use of fiat currency provides control over the economy, but we shouldn't assume that that control is always used in the best interests of the many. The reason a gold standard is so popular among libertarians is that no institution can have arbitrary monetary control over individuals via printing money.
  - Aunche 4y ago
    Hoarding money isn't a bad thing if that's your normal state, but it's a bad thing to go stop lending and investing during a recession when that is what is needed the most. Mortgage backed securities caused the GFC, but only a small part of the bank dealt with mortgage backed securities. It doesn't make sense to let that drag the rest of the bank and the economy down along with it, which is why the bailouts were necessary. It's not the job of central banks to punish bad actors. Their job is to prevent the next Great Depression. You don't blame the ER doctor who delivers a frightening dose of blood thinners to a heart attack patient. You blame the patient's bad habit of eating barrels of pork, which in this case would be Congress. If Congress did not force the treasury to issue so much debt, the Federal Reserve wouldn't have to buy so much of the debt back in order to lower interest rates.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that a Central Bank (using fiat currency) should punish bad actors; I was suggesting that if the Central Bank used Gold, the bad actors may not have existed, or if they did exist, would have been decimated to the point they are essentially replaced by better actors. I'm not saying that the GFC and huge Government debt are the fault of the Central Banks, but they are much more likely to occur because the Central Bank uses a fiat currency. If we had a gold-standard and the Government issued huge amounts of debt, eventually they would run out of creditors who trusted them, and they would be forced to change spending habits.
      - Aunche 4y ago
        Sure a gold standard is more punishing, and eventually that may force people into better behavior, but by then it may be too late, and you'd be losing out to any country that does bail out their banks. There are always going to be instances in which individual actors don't care about the institutions they're a part of, and the institution isn't guaranteed to catch this bad behavior. For example, plenty of analysts knew that they were screwing over the banks that employed them by buying unsustainable CDOs, but they didn't care because they were making crazy bonuses. Meanwhile, all the C-suite sees is that their underlings making money by buying AAA rated bonds. There's no reason to believe that would have been prevented with a gold standard, just as the Great Depression wasn't.
- eru 4y ago
  It's not actually deflation that's the problem. If productivity grows fast enough, prices can fall, no problem. That's what happened to the computer industry just fine for decades. The real problem is a fall in nominal GDP. And that's a problem no matter whether prices are rising or falling.
imtringued 4y ago
How are they supposed to do that when a rich person A who earns more than he spends accumulates ever greater amounts of gold, leaving everyone else who wants to trade and don't care about trading with A stranded. Think about it this way. Germany keeps saving more euros. Greece and Spain are trading with each other. At some point all the money is in Germany, making it impossible for Spain and Greece to trade with each other even though they would have maintained balanced trade between each other. Greeks can't buy the latest gadgets produced in Spain even if they wanted to.
- rvba 4y ago
  Rich people from Germany come to vacation/retire in Spain and spend money there.

Aunche 4y ago

Yes. People will always demand consumer goods. The problem with deflation is that it incentivizes you to hoard money rather than invest in businesses give out loans. During periods of economic growth with a gold-backed currency, we don't actually see much deflation because the money supply expands when banks naturally give out more loans and people invest a greater percentage of their wealth into equity. The problem comes when there is a recession. People and businesses default on their loans, and lenders are less willing to issue new ones, which effectively contracts the money supply. While it sounds good that your money becomes more valuable, most of the reason for this is that people have less of it.

brutusborn 4y ago
I follow your argument but I would argue that incentives to hoard money aren't necessarily bad. I agree with you that hoarding money leads to a reduced money supply, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. For example: the GFC. Central banks bail out bad actors which perpetuates the incentives that caused these actors to make bad decisions in the first place ("bad" meaning not optimal globally, e.g. selling bonds you know are worthless). If a gold standard was in use, this would simply be impossible. The government would need to increase taxes to bail out the banks, which would be rejected by citizens who are busy hoarding gold and cursing the banks, which means the banks that replaced the bad actors would be incentivized to avoid the mistakes their predecessors made. Alternatively, the GFC may simply not have occurred, because under a gold-standard the banks cannot assume they would be bailed out and this knowledge would cause them to be more risk-averse. "Every Battle Is Won Before It Is Ever Fought" The use of fiat currency provides control over the economy, but we shouldn't assume that that control is always used in the best interests of the many. The reason a gold standard is so popular among libertarians is that no institution can have arbitrary monetary control over individuals via printing money.
- Aunche 4y ago
  Hoarding money isn't a bad thing if that's your normal state, but it's a bad thing to go stop lending and investing during a recession when that is what is needed the most. Mortgage backed securities caused the GFC, but only a small part of the bank dealt with mortgage backed securities. It doesn't make sense to let that drag the rest of the bank and the economy down along with it, which is why the bailouts were necessary. It's not the job of central banks to punish bad actors. Their job is to prevent the next Great Depression. You don't blame the ER doctor who delivers a frightening dose of blood thinners to a heart attack patient. You blame the patient's bad habit of eating barrels of pork, which in this case would be Congress. If Congress did not force the treasury to issue so much debt, the Federal Reserve wouldn't have to buy so much of the debt back in order to lower interest rates.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that a Central Bank (using fiat currency) should punish bad actors; I was suggesting that if the Central Bank used Gold, the bad actors may not have existed, or if they did exist, would have been decimated to the point they are essentially replaced by better actors. I'm not saying that the GFC and huge Government debt are the fault of the Central Banks, but they are much more likely to occur because the Central Bank uses a fiat currency. If we had a gold-standard and the Government issued huge amounts of debt, eventually they would run out of creditors who trusted them, and they would be forced to change spending habits.
    - Aunche 4y ago
      Sure a gold standard is more punishing, and eventually that may force people into better behavior, but by then it may be too late, and you'd be losing out to any country that does bail out their banks. There are always going to be instances in which individual actors don't care about the institutions they're a part of, and the institution isn't guaranteed to catch this bad behavior. For example, plenty of analysts knew that they were screwing over the banks that employed them by buying unsustainable CDOs, but they didn't care because they were making crazy bonuses. Meanwhile, all the C-suite sees is that their underlings making money by buying AAA rated bonds. There's no reason to believe that would have been prevented with a gold standard, just as the Great Depression wasn't.
eru 4y ago
It's not actually deflation that's the problem. If productivity grows fast enough, prices can fall, no problem. That's what happened to the computer industry just fine for decades. The real problem is a fall in nominal GDP. And that's a problem no matter whether prices are rising or falling.

imtringued 4y ago

How are they supposed to do that when a rich person A who earns more than he spends accumulates ever greater amounts of gold, leaving everyone else who wants to trade and don't care about trading with A stranded. Think about it this way. Germany keeps saving more euros. Greece and Spain are trading with each other. At some point all the money is in Germany, making it impossible for Spain and Greece to trade with each other even though they would have maintained balanced trade between each other. Greeks can't buy the latest gadgets produced in Spain even if they wanted to.

rvba 4y ago
Rich people from Germany come to vacation/retire in Spain and spend money there.