3 ms·
The gold standard was far from stable - just look at the US’s economic history - it was continually swinging between inflation and deflation with regular crises
by stephen_g 3y ago
The gold standard was far from stable - just look at the US’s economic history - it was continually swinging between inflation and deflation with regular crises, panics, recessions and depressions.
The question you need to ask is “would there generally be a relationship between the amount of gold on hand and the amount of money required in the economy?” There is no reason why the answer to that question would be “yes” over an extended period of time - you can set up some kind of sensible exchange rate at the start but it eventually (and invariably) gets out of whack.
It’s the same with fixed exchange rates, pegged currencies, etc. - these things tend to exist for a time and eventually don’t - because they’re ultimately not sustainable.
- maerF0x0 3y agoyes this is a good point. There is little specifically about gold besides rarity and intrinsic value/desirability that makes the gold standard ideal. I actually think the function is that it's tied to _something_ of intrinsic value, that the intrinsic value isn't wildly fluctuating, and that it's roughly fixed in supply. Then by tying the currency to the resource it means that the currency cannot be created (fiat) without addressing those properties of the backing asset.