4 ms·
> No, not in effect, no one is talking about physically exchanging gold coins, so it doesn't make sense to say "there isn't enough". I think my point still sta
by RealityVoid 6mo ago
> No, not in effect, no one is talking about physically exchanging gold coins, so it doesn't make sense to say "there isn't enough".
I think my point still stands. If you can't create more gold [1] and you say - I am pegging 35 dollars to an ounce of gold. Then you are limiting the amount of dollars to the mass of gold[2]. The money works as an IOU for gold. You aren't exchanging pieces of gold, but the idea that you have 35$ is as if you have 1 ounce of gold, _that is what people pine for_. It's effectively, an IOU for 1 ounce of gold that you keep in a safe. Yes. I think the point still stands that in effect, that's what people are asking for.
[1] - You can, but it's a much slower process, deff rate limited, it's actually what people really seem to like about gold.
[2] - Yes, I am aware about the concept of fractional reserve, but that's exactly the part that goldbugs want to avoid.
- CyberDildonics 6mo agoI think my point still stands. I think the point still stands I'm not sure what point you are making, it seems like you're just describing a gold backed currency and repeating the same things multiple times. If you aren't using gold directly how would there ever be "not enough" unless a penny became worth too much? People did this for hundreds of years, this isn't some theory or experiment, it's basically how the world worked for most of human history.
- RealityVoid 6mo ago> If you aren't using gold directly how would there ever be "not enough" unless a penny became worth too much? If you peg an amount of money to a mass of gold, would you or would you not limit the amount of money in existence?
- CyberDildonics 6mo agoIt worked before, you do know money is divisible right? There is already a quantifiable amount of money in existence, can we at least establish that?