3 ms·

I am not sure I understand you correctly. Abandoning gold standard is one thing, abusing money after abandoning gold standard is another. When governments need

by shn 14y ago

I am not sure I understand you correctly. Abandoning gold standard is one thing, abusing money after abandoning gold standard is another. When governments need money they can create it out of thin air, and leaving a standard that you can not control gives you this ability. Check the following web site. http://www.paulvaneeden.com/What.is.money http://www.paulvaneeden.com/What.is.money The link you provided (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/) calculated me the following: an item worth $20 in 1933 would cost $469.02 in 2013 and cumulative rate of inflation is 2245.1%. How is that not an inflation?

trevelyan 14y ago
In moderate amounts inflation is healthy: it keeps unemployment down while inducing asset holders to invest in productive forms of growth. This is why most central banks try to keep the inflation rate above one percent, and in cases where monetary authorities have tried to push it lower (Canada in the mid-1990s) economic growth has suffered and unemployment has gone up. Realistically, if you want to talk about hidden taxes on society, the costs of unemployment trump those of low inflation: in addition to affecting the most vulnerable members of society in a disproportionate way, unemployment makes everyone worse off over time because stagnant economies suffer compound losses to growth potential. This is one reason the US Fed has a dual mandate to both currency stability as well as low unemployment. And just look at the numbers. Over the time period you mention (your stats are actually 1913-2013 not 1933-2013), American GDP grew from 39.1 billion to 56.4 billion in the 1913-1933 period where American was on the gold standard, before soaring to 14.5 trillion afterwards. Even adjusting for inflation and population growth, you have a story where the benefits of growth vastly outweighed the costs of the inflation which played a role in delivering it. And it isn't even as if you don't have inflation under the gold standard either (it is just that currency debasement happens through the private sector -- theft rather than a tax). There is still very much an open question of what policies best keep economies balanced in the "sweet spot" between unemployment and high inflation. Unfortunately for goldbugs, while central banks are comparing things like "inflation targeting" or "GDP targeting" as general approaches, economic history clearly shows that economic growth has been far faster and more stable in the last forty years under fiat systems with independent monetary authorities than we saw in the heyday of the gold standard. So accusing Bloomberg of running a propaganda piece (parent poster) is wrong.

by shn 14y ago

trevelyan 14y ago

In moderate amounts inflation is healthy: it keeps unemployment down while inducing asset holders to invest in productive forms of growth. This is why most central banks try to keep the inflation rate above one percent, and in cases where monetary authorities have tried to push it lower (Canada in the mid-1990s) economic growth has suffered and unemployment has gone up. Realistically, if you want to talk about hidden taxes on society, the costs of unemployment trump those of low inflation: in addition to affecting the most vulnerable members of society in a disproportionate way, unemployment makes everyone worse off over time because stagnant economies suffer compound losses to growth potential. This is one reason the US Fed has a dual mandate to both currency stability as well as low unemployment. And just look at the numbers. Over the time period you mention (your stats are actually 1913-2013 not 1933-2013), American GDP grew from 39.1 billion to 56.4 billion in the 1913-1933 period where American was on the gold standard, before soaring to 14.5 trillion afterwards. Even adjusting for inflation and population growth, you have a story where the benefits of growth vastly outweighed the costs of the inflation which played a role in delivering it. And it isn't even as if you don't have inflation under the gold standard either (it is just that currency debasement happens through the private sector -- theft rather than a tax). There is still very much an open question of what policies best keep economies balanced in the "sweet spot" between unemployment and high inflation. Unfortunately for goldbugs, while central banks are comparing things like "inflation targeting" or "GDP targeting" as general approaches, economic history clearly shows that economic growth has been far faster and more stable in the last forty years under fiat systems with independent monetary authorities than we saw in the heyday of the gold standard. So accusing Bloomberg of running a propaganda piece (parent poster) is wrong.