It's interesting because it seems that democratizing money is what we should be good at based on founding principles - rather we have bunch of flawed central planning disasters and bailouts.
> Under a system with hard money and free banking we would instead have occasional emergent disasters and nothing could be done about them.
And my understanding is that such disasters used to happen with some regularity, but they weren't wars so people don't typically learn about them in school.
That would be natural selection, which might be preferable in a free market. Small constant corrections, rather than larger distasters we experienced the last 50-100 years (bailouts and going to war every 10-12 years)
It would arguable allow people to safe their wealth rather than being forced to spend money all the time.