5 ms·
> if you consider that the economy almost stopped for two years straight It wasn’t Covid that did this. It was government mandates in response to Covid. Print
by MarkPNeyer 4y ago
> if you consider that the economy almost stopped for two years straight
It wasn’t Covid that did this. It was government mandates in response to Covid. Printing money let everyone who supported these government actions ignore all of the tradeoffs involved and obfuscate what, under hard money, would be a direct comparison.
What you are arguing for is a kind of financial authoritarianism. You are using words like “driver’s seat” and “pilot” to describe an intense amount of power in the hands of unelected persons. Financial authoritarianism can be used to pay for other kinds of authoritarianism like lockdowns, concentration camps, or a war spanning multiple decades and the entire globe. The First World War would have ended much sooner if the belligerents were unable to steal the wealth of their populace by printing money. The arguments you are making, that recessions need money printing - those arguments were going to be made by government-funded academics who obviously have an incentive to argue that governments should not be constrained in their budgets.
Hard money makes the cost of government action immediate and legible. Hard money puts constraints on what the government can do without taking money directly from people who feel the cost immediately. This is why authoritarians really don’t want hard money.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> First World War would have ended much sooner if the belligerents were unable to steal the wealth of their populace by printing money Historically, warring kings just took the money. Our ancestors used hard money. This didn't keep them from being brutal. Pretending hard money saps authoritarians of power or war-making ability is a good pitch, but it's hollow.
- seibelj 4y agoKings were limited by the nobility. The English monarch was an extremely weak king. Not all monarchies were despots like in North Korea.
- MarkPNeyer 4y agoThe kings who stole money from their nobles soon found themselves surrounded by nobles who were all suddenly impoverished, and bordered by newly wealthy neighboring countries whose banking sectors and suddenly and inexplicably took off. See, for example, the fail of Spain and subsequent rise of the Dutch.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> kings who stole money from their nobles soon found themselves surrounded by nobles who were all suddenly impoverished The historical record is littered with banking panics from over-leveraged crowns. The crown didn’t go bankrupt. They just busted their bankers. (If the king asks for a loan, you give it.) > the fail of Spain and subsequent rise of the Dutch Spain lost the Netherlands due to internecine warfare [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Successio...
- ztrww 4y agoyou probably meant to link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War
- ztrww 4y agoThe Netherlands were the richest region in Europe since the late middle ages (at least). They were also the richest province of the Spanish empire during it’s height. So yes if California or NY declared independence and left the US would become economically weaker. Also Spain didn’t exactly steal money from their nobles (generally tax burden in the Netherlands was considerably higher than in most other places) they just flooded Europe with silver from the Americas which over time resulted in massive inflation.
- imtringued 4y agoHard money made the Romans very interested in conquering gold and silver bearing territory.
- ztrww 4y agoThe Great Depression and (almost every financial crisis in the 19th century) would have also ended much sooner and been much less painful if governments had full control of their monetary policies. Hard currency/gold standard is usually only preferable to extremely corrupt and/or incompetent governments however in that case you’re fucked anyway. Hard money combined with non static (i.e. expanding) economies results in permanent boom and bust cycles, massive inflation followed by massive deflation every few years. This creates an unpredictable environment which stymies growth and investment.
- EdwardDiego 4y agoLol yeah, if there had been no lockdowns, then the economy would've carried on just fine, despite rampant illness, despite fear leading to people isolating themselves anyway. > First World War would have ended much sooner if the belligerents were unable to steal the wealth of their populace by printing money. [Citation really needed]