pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @stack_harder OP 4 Jul \ parent \ on: Would life have been better if we had stayed on a gold standard? econ
the simple fact is that for thousands of years, gold was the best form of money, and it wasn't because a gov said so, it was because people valued it.
King's clipping it etc, just speaks to the constant desire of rulers and govs to debase to enrich themsevls.
Anyway, i'm not a gold bug, this was just a question to see if people thought the world would be a better place if there was a hard money standard, imperfections and all
no point asking, would the world be better on a btc standard because it would just be a simple 'yes'
Kings didn't clip, Kings had to mint coins with edges because of what happens in circulation
Change goalposts if you must, your OP wasn't about if gold was the best attempt at a solution available... But "what if" it hadn't been a failure (which it was)
reply
it's just a theoretical question, doesn't matter why it failed or ended per se.
it's like asking, what would the world be like if the Nazis won the war, nobody is debating who won or why, who was the better army, it's a hypotehtical question
reply
To hypothesize then we must distill the question down to its essence...
Since gold failed to sustain itself in human organization, would the world be a better place if humans were less flawed to such an extent that gold were actually an effective money. Then sure the obvious answer is yes, less shitty humans would improve a lot of conditions.
Something we can credit gold with are the lessons learned from it to improve ourselves. It failed, but at least it failed forward.
reply