3 ms·

What theory are you speaking of? My point was that you claim that the USA was better off under the gold standard economically. We weren't -- we were subject to

What theory are you speaking of? My point was that you claim that the USA was better off under the gold standard economically. We weren't -- we were subject to incredibly large booms and busts. Just because there was a railroad boom doesn't mean there wasn't a bust. The ability to control boom and bust cycles by messing with the money supply is the whole point. Of course the gold standard is awesome if we ignore the busts and only look at the booms. Regarding the Spanish -- I fail to see how that refutes anything? They were a poorly run religious monarchy operating in the pre-industrial age. Cool. What's your point? Are you contending that vast amounts of free land are not conducive to rapid economic expansion under capitalism?

WalterBright 4y ago
> The ability to control boom and bust cycles by messing with the money supply is the whole point. Except they're a failure at it. We have boom and bust cycles anyway. Remember 2000, 2008, 2022? Friedman also demonstrates in "Monetary History of the United States" that the hand of the Fed on the tiller results in less stability of the money supply. The "whole point" of fiat money is to be able to spend money without having to tax it first. That's why the European powers adopted it in WW1 - to finance the war. > I fail to see how that refutes anything? It refutes the notion that the quantity of gold in an economy has anything to do with prosperity. > free land Why have Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, S Korea, and New York City become economic powerhouses despite little or no land?
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  > Except they're a failure at it. We have boom and bust cycles anyway. Remember 2000, 2008, 2022? Those cycles weren't nearly as bad as the ones that came before it. > The "whole point" of fiat money is to be able to spend money without having to tax it first. That's why the European powers adopted it in WW1 - to finance the war. Sure. You haven't explained why this is bad except 'inflation'. I think inflation is a small price to pay for relative stability. > It refutes the notion that the quantity of gold in an economy has anything to do with prosperity. No it doesn't. It illustrates that idiotic people with a lot of resources can do stupid things with them. > Why have Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, S Korea, and New York City become economic powerhouses despite little or no land? Poor people do become rich, but that doesn't refute that it is a lot easier to become rich(er) when you already have a lot of money.

WalterBright 4y ago

> The ability to control boom and bust cycles by messing with the money supply is the whole point. Except they're a failure at it. We have boom and bust cycles anyway. Remember 2000, 2008, 2022? Friedman also demonstrates in "Monetary History of the United States" that the hand of the Fed on the tiller results in less stability of the money supply. The "whole point" of fiat money is to be able to spend money without having to tax it first. That's why the European powers adopted it in WW1 - to finance the war. > I fail to see how that refutes anything? It refutes the notion that the quantity of gold in an economy has anything to do with prosperity. > free land Why have Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, S Korea, and New York City become economic powerhouses despite little or no land?

Eisenstein 4y ago
> Except they're a failure at it. We have boom and bust cycles anyway. Remember 2000, 2008, 2022? Those cycles weren't nearly as bad as the ones that came before it. > The "whole point" of fiat money is to be able to spend money without having to tax it first. That's why the European powers adopted it in WW1 - to finance the war. Sure. You haven't explained why this is bad except 'inflation'. I think inflation is a small price to pay for relative stability. > It refutes the notion that the quantity of gold in an economy has anything to do with prosperity. No it doesn't. It illustrates that idiotic people with a lot of resources can do stupid things with them. > Why have Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, S Korea, and New York City become economic powerhouses despite little or no land? Poor people do become rich, but that doesn't refute that it is a lot easier to become rich(er) when you already have a lot of money.