4 ms·

I don't think economists overall, even when generalizing, have a good track record. Too often hidden interests modify the core of their messages. Krugman for ex

I don't think economists overall, even when generalizing, have a good track record. Too often hidden interests modify the core of their messages. Krugman for example has a poor record on predictions, not sure about the other ones. That said, this isn't all "gold" either in my opinion. Money is still tied to productivity. At least it works as long as people believe debts can be repaid. If they wouldn't, there would be runaway inflation. It is more sensible to back that debt with productivity or "economic potential" instead of gold, but the idea isn't that far off as people generally say it is. In general it still is more loosely tied to real productivity though and that is a problem. The solution isn't to return to gold backing though. And there is a development of poor economic ideas, like that creating debt is always good on a national economic level. You should never neglect to mention that this new debt would require something like a hegemonic military position to underline the "securities" of said debt.

grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
The interesting question would be how to tie the currency to real productivity in a way that makes financial engineering, and fraud unattractive. Not a crypto shill but proof of work isn't so terrible, particularly something ASIC resistant. Energy isn't such a bad thing to peg your currency to (lot more flexible than gold). But nonetheless you still end up with a lot of weird distortions. The legacy of ZIRP, and the effects of decoupling the financial and real world, are going to be felt for years to come.
Ekaros 2y ago
I always find gold weird. It has value for exactly same reason any money has. People believe they can later trade it for something else. And main argument for proponents seem to be that it was always valuable so it should also be now and in future. And when market changes drastically(extra gold, or lot of removed supply). The value also swings a lot. Possibly even more than with other currencies. Some level of floating currency is clearly most reasonable solution. But just how is still very open question.
- rsync 2y ago
  “Some level of floating currency is clearly most reasonable solution. But just how is still very open question.” I think the answer is to tie it to lifespan. How many years does it take for a family to purchase a home on the gold standard? 200? 350? In our time, we have turned the dial so far that some families can purchase a home in five years. So it becomes a question of expansion over time for real people - and nobody wants to live in a world where it takes 400 years to save for a house. Perhaps, however, it should take more than five…

grumpy-de-sre 2y ago

The interesting question would be how to tie the currency to real productivity in a way that makes financial engineering, and fraud unattractive. Not a crypto shill but proof of work isn't so terrible, particularly something ASIC resistant. Energy isn't such a bad thing to peg your currency to (lot more flexible than gold). But nonetheless you still end up with a lot of weird distortions. The legacy of ZIRP, and the effects of decoupling the financial and real world, are going to be felt for years to come.

Ekaros 2y ago

I always find gold weird. It has value for exactly same reason any money has. People believe they can later trade it for something else. And main argument for proponents seem to be that it was always valuable so it should also be now and in future. And when market changes drastically(extra gold, or lot of removed supply). The value also swings a lot. Possibly even more than with other currencies. Some level of floating currency is clearly most reasonable solution. But just how is still very open question.

rsync 2y ago
“Some level of floating currency is clearly most reasonable solution. But just how is still very open question.” I think the answer is to tie it to lifespan. How many years does it take for a family to purchase a home on the gold standard? 200? 350? In our time, we have turned the dial so far that some families can purchase a home in five years. So it becomes a question of expansion over time for real people - and nobody wants to live in a world where it takes 400 years to save for a house. Perhaps, however, it should take more than five…