|
|
|
|
|
|
by rsj_hn
1311 days ago
|
|
|
> Money must be backed by something. One of my favorite bond films is Goldfinger (1965), starring Sean Connery as James Bond and Gert Frobe as Auric Goldfinger. In the movie, Goldfinger hatches a plan (they always hatch a plan) to destroy the gold reserves at Fort Knox. This will make his own gold holdings much more valuable, but, Bond intones, it will also destroy the world's economy, since the gold in Fort Knox "backs" our money, and if it were to disappear, we'd have hyperinflation. And I wondered about that a bit. Suppose a meteor filled with gold were to crash onto Federal Property, and they hook up some tractors and drag the thing into Fort Knox. Would this massive new pile of gold cause hyper-deflation? Bottom line, I don't think money needs to be backed by anything. It just needs to be limited in its quantity. For example, if gold is money, then what is gold backed by? Anyway, Goldfinger is worth a watch -- great film. |
|
|
Gold has very weak utility today.
>I don't think money needs to be backed by anything.
Which was empirically tested for the last 13 years. What happens is that people get bored of old ponzi schemes and stop buying them, instead preferring to be early in new ones. Which is why inflation-adjusted btc is at the very early Dec 2017 price. Nobody borrows in bitcoin (denominated in it - borrow x btc, pay back x+y btc) for unrelated investments which is one of the main use cases for money.
>It just needs to be limited in its quantity
Artificial scarcity is infinite. Claiming first artificial scarcity is token is somehow special is just a marketing spiel - one that's visibly losing its effectiveness. Which is why bitcoin dominance is dropping so fast.