[cjbgkagh]

I’m pretty sure no-one has argued that a gold standard would prevent economic disasters. That sounds like a straw man. My understanding is that there would be more of them but the individual and cumulative impact would be far less. You can still have fractional reserve banking with the gold standard so the gold standard alone is not sufficient to prevent that.

[throw0101c]

> I’m pretty sure no-one has argued that a gold standard would prevent economic disasters. That sounds like a straw man. My understanding is that there would be more of them but the individual and cumulative impact would be far less.

Contrary to popular opinion, the historical record shows that gold does not actually bring price stability; see "Why the Gold Standard Is the World's Worst Economic Idea, in 2 Charts":

* http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archi...

Most of the claimed benefits of gold-backed currencies are myths:

* https://archive.is/https://www.vox.com/2014/7/16/5900297/cas...

Before what we call "The Great Depression" (of the 1930s), that label was applied to another years-long economic malaise, which was in part caused by using gold-backed currency (as was the 1930s Great Depression):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

You'll find that US economic downturns became less frequent as the US went off the gold standard, and the Fed gained more and more independence:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_growth_1923-2009.jpg

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...

[cjbgkagh]

Many things work just fine right until they stop working, our current strategy of blowing ever bigger economic bubbles has worked for a long time and I expect it will continue for long time. It has the very stable property of enriching the already wealthy.

But it will not last forever and I do expect to see the end of it within my lifetime. It is this calamity that I'm interested in diminishing and it is on this basis that I think a weaker federal reserve would be less damaging. Since the federal reserve obscures the true state of the economy uncovering the true state will coincide with a weakling of the federal reserve and will appear causal.

I'm not a gold bug, I don't own any of it, I do own some bitcoin but my main asset is my software company.

[throw0101c]

> Many things work just fine right until they stop working, our current strategy of blowing ever bigger economic bubbles has worked for a long time and I expect it will continue for long time. It has the very stable property of enriching the already wealthy.

The enriching of the already-wealthy is happening because of non-progressive policies (taxes, and others). Plenty of countries have fiat currencies and independent central banks, and yet don't have inequality rates like that of US currently has.

In fact, the US used to not have inequality rates that the US currently has. This is a phenomenon that has a fairly definitive starting point, with particular policies that (US) society has "accepted" and can 'simply' choose to start rejecting:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

The current US rates are the same as during the Gilded Age, and just like they were reversed post-GA, they could also be reversed now.

[cjbgkagh]

The US is a completely different country compared to what it was 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, and economic policy is not the only thing that has changed.

It appears that you see ‘progressive solutions’ as an answer which I would expect to arrive in the form of tax normalization which alongside monetary inflation constitutes the much coveted wealth tax. I am in disagreement with progressives that this would result in a decrease of inequality, for one the state will be completely reliant on the wealth of the wealthy increasing, as opposed to the income of the middle class increasing. I see inflation as a regressive tax, the poor will pay a higher percentage in tax but a lower in relative terms due to the increase in inequality caused.

[throw0101c]

> I am in disagreement with progressives that this would result in a decrease of inequality, for one the state will be completely reliant on the wealth of the wealthy increasing, as opposed to the income of the middle class increasing.

Funnelling more money from the top tax brackets to social programs like childcare, better teacher salaries (to attract better talent), lower tuition for (community) colleges and (public/state) universities would be helpful to the lower deciles of the population IMHO.

> I see inflation as a regressive tax, the poor will pay a higher percentage in tax but a lower in relative terms due to the increase in inequality caused.

Look at the history of the gold standard and deflation (which often happens under gold regimes): it was poorer folks that were mostly against it. Inflation helps those with debt (like mortgages, student/car loans), which I would think is more helpful to lower income folks. Deflation helps creditors.

[cjbgkagh]

It hurts those with debts more, they have to pay a higher interest rate than the wealthy and with things being more expensive they have to borrow more. Wages don’t keep up with inflation.

The problem with large redistribution initiatives is that they invite corruption. When such initiatives can be reliably delivered without corruption then maybe I could have some faith in it. I’m to see how all these Somali ‘learning’ daycare centers shake out. Prima facie it looks rather fraudulent. I fail to see how giving more money to fraudsters will help matters.

[wakawaka28]

Price stability is overrated. Prices must change according to scarcity. Letting the government print money any time prices start to fall is literally letting the government profit off your back. It makes accounting easier, but it destroys market information like "Supply of goods is catching up to demand, find something better to produce".

[throw0101c]

> Price stability is overrated.

Tell that to Biden/Harris. Dissatisfaction about prices helped get Trump elected (and now is causing him troubles with popularity as well).

> Letting the government print money any time prices start to fall is literally letting the government profit off your back.

The vast, vast majority of money that is "printed" is created by private banks through credit creation:

* https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/how-is-money-crea...

* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625

And the money supply that is created by government(-ish) institutions is by central banks, which—in modern times—are generally operated independently from the government (except in, e.g., Turkey; and some folks want less independence). Central banks often work in opposition to what politicians want: just ask Powell.

[wakawaka28]

You are preaching to the choir, for the most part. People just got brainwashed into expecting prices to be "stable" but what is really happening is the price of money is being manipulated for various reasons.

Credit is a very thorny issue. Politicians and banks have promised people impossibly good and contradictory outcomes.

>And the money supply that is created by government(-ish) institutions is by central banks, which—in modern times—are generally operated independently from the government

In all cases the independence is an illusion. Conflicts over policy are manufactured to make the government appear more frugal than it is. Every fiat currency ever has gone to zero.