[glangdale]

Right, because everything was so much better when you could, for no particularly good reason, relate money to a marginally useful-to-jewellers-and-dentists soft metal. I suppose I shouldn't expect economic literacy on Hacker News, but the twist on the standard goldbug narrative ("social credit backed by surveillance") is at least original, if nutty.

[std_throwaway]

I did not say that gold backed currency is better for everybody. I'm just amazed at the time span over which the dilution is happening. And I don't think that anybody can deny that our money is slowly losing its purchasing power.

[fjp]

it is slowly losing purchasing power. That's called inflation and nobody denies it or is surprised by it.

In fact what people are generally surprised about is how little inflation is has occurred in the USA compared to how much money has been pumped into the system via QE.

[glangdale]

Mainstream economic opinion is not particularly concerned by the fact that our money is slowly losing its purchasing power.

There's a general consensus that a small amount of inflation is useful, although the reasons are pretty cynical (i.e. wage flexibility -> "it's easier to give someone a 0% raise under conditions of 2% inflation than it is to give someone of -2% pay cut under conditions of 0% inflation").

You might make the argument that making it psychologically easier for employers to hand out small 'in-real-terms' pay cuts is wrong in itself, of course, but that's another discussion.