[4er_transform]

Gold Standard is probably a force that acts against inequality but the forces pushing inequality today are just much stronger. Technology that creates winner take all markets and incredible leverage with few people being one.

[throw0101d]

> Gold Standard is probably a force that acts against inequality […]

Is there evidence for this?

During the Gold Standard era there were many periods of deflation, which is bad for people with debt: back in the day this was often farmers, nowadays it'd be anyone with student loans or a mortgage.

[clates]

> Is there evidence for this?

A simple and logical pattern.

1) Unconstrained spending without commensurate taxation leads to a required inflation of the money supply

2) An inflation of the money supply with increase the price of assets relative to the value of the currency.

3) Asset owners thus become "more valuable" by measure of currency.

4) Renters / non-asset-owners have to eat the costs of inflation while benefiting by none of the inflationary pressure on assets.

ergo - a gold standard is just a proxy for "constraints on debt" is a force that acts against inequality between asset owners and non-asset owners.

[throw0101d]

I would think it would be the opposite, as the old joke-y "Golden Rule" goes: He who has the gold makes the rules.

> 3) Asset owners thus become "more valuable" by measure of currency.

Under the Gold Standard the currency itself is also an asset, much more so than under (so-called) fiat.

In a supply-demand situation where supply is finite, and demand is potentially limitless, then the suppliers can charge higher prices. When the demand is for money itself, the price is the interest that is charged by the suppliers (lenders, financiers) can be higher.

And not just in good times when everyone is trying to get a piece of the action: the historical records shows interest rate hikes during major economic events (e.g., 1857, 1873, 1893, 1896, and 1907) when risk was higher.

> 4) Renters / non-asset-owners have to eat the costs of inflation while benefiting by none of the inflationary pressure on assets.

Inflation helps debtors:

> If wages increase with inflation, and if the borrower already owed money before the inflation occurred, inflation benefits the borrower. This is because the borrower still owes the same amount of money, but now they have more money in their paycheck to pay off the debt. This results in less interest for the lender if the borrower uses the extra money to pay off their debt early.

* https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/does-inflati...

[mctaylor]

Yup. I'm extremely unconvinced that a non-distributionary constraint (ex: limiting the money supply one way or another, i.e. the gold standard, bitcoin, etc.) fixes a distributionary problem.

You know what would fix a distributionary problem? A (re)distributionary solution.

The most obvious one is progressive/wealth taxation (a ceiling) and UBI (a floor).

Keep competitive market dynamics, narrow the window in which they're allowed to operate and add some hard constraints.

[saalweachter]

Or, if you're scared of UBI: government work programs, like the good old Works Progress Administration.

Tax, and hire millions of people for a good living wage to do things that either need to be done and aren't (infrastructure repairs and improvements, inspections of all flavors, etc), or that don't really need to be done but make some fraction of the population happy (unnecessarily beautiful post offices).

[clates]

> Yup. I'm extremely unconvinced that a non-distributionary constraint (ex: limiting the money supply one way or another, i.e. the gold standard, bitcoin, etc.) fixes a distributionary problem.

Well, that's good because that's not what limiting the money supply does. It _acts as a force against inequality_. It doesn't _fix_ or _prevent_ inequality that already exists and doesn't claim to stop organic inequalities from arising - but it does put a limit on inequality resulting from an inflation of the money supply.

[red-iron-pine]

> probably

bro your argument hinges on "probably" and then completely ignores it