I was having a debate with a friend. He said he doesn't see a way off of the FIAT banking system.
That if we goto a gold standard. That would limit the supply of money.
And that would hurt us.
What are your thoughts on this?
Comments (7)
sorted by:
Good luck getting a normie to understand the incredible value of competing free money systems to the average person. Of course, the people fiat money is good for is bankers, government, large swatchs of academia and large corporate entities. But the normie is deathly afraid the world will fall apart if thieves and grifters cant print money to fund wars, medical totalitarianism and multinational government institutions with no allegiance to control us all. -- The only way they build these things is by expanding the money supply - Which of course devalues every dollar in your pocket... Its ingenious, they can steal money directly from every citizen any time they wish.
It is correct, there is a limit on the supply of money. This is limited by physical assets and/or potential labour of the population.
However, this is a GOOD thing. We wont spend what we dont have. It will be very difficult to create huge welfare policies. But the real reason why the Globalists focus on welfare is so they can push us into this debt based system and keep us enslaved. This happened with the New Deal after WW2, which is when the spending started exploding, and in 1971 it went beyond the Gold reserves and had to be taken off that standard.
The opposite. People will be responsible because you cannot spend what you dont have. The entire world will be going into system. There will be no direct taxes, so productivity will shoot to the moon. People will have huge incentive to work hard and they can see the results of their hard work in their own community.
Without debt based investment funding Globalist agenda, more business will be within the community, causing communities to prosper. Economy will be localised and become very hard to subvert. There wont be one guy forcing every fortune 500 company to go woke or have their stocks dumped.
Without debt based system, stocks will reflect actual value rather than speculation. People will own shares for the dividends, so companies need to focus on creating real value. Companies like Amazon, Uber, etc will be wiped out because they are loss-makers, propped up purely by their stocks, which are manipulated.
Dont get be wrong, fren. The society will fundamentally change. It will become more wholesome, and less frivolous. I strongly believe this is what Q meant when he said "The End is not fo reveryone".
A gold standard limits the government's supply of money but preserves the people's standard of living as inflation would essentially no longer be a factor. The gold supply increases regularly with mining the same way the population increases with the birth of additional people to mine for it. More people = more mining = steady increase in gold to supply more money to accommodate the population increase. It's a circular thing.
What do you guys think about this article?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/11/predictions-for-future-of-money-cbdcs-stablecoins-cryptocurrency.html
Of course, "limiting the supply of money" is one of the great benefits of using precious metals for money. When government can't "print up" a trillion dollars anytime it wants, tyranny has at least SOME restraint on it.
Gold for savings and large transactions, although small amounts of gold (tenth-oz coins, for instance) would be useful for medium priced items.
Silver for everyday shopping and other small transactions.
How best to handle the varying exchange rates between the metals is my question. The gold standard of most of our history had silver and gold at fixed rates to each other, but mining output and other variables meant the market price of the two metals did not always match the legal values, and that caused problems, occasionally serious. Having contracts specify payment in either gold or silver (or something else) and letting merchants do the same might solve that problem but would surely cause others.
If you limit the supply of legal tender....
And someone hoards all their money and doesn't spend it....
Then over time the value of the dollar goes up for everyone else.
The wealthy would be incentive-ized to save money, and not spend it -- that is, until they want to purchase something big with their vast buying power. The value wouldn't adjust fast enough and they would have too much buying power and can manipulate the market, therefore screwing over everyone else in one fell swoop.
So that's bad...
That is unless you install a negative interest on hoarded monies, which Trump suggested when he was President.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+negative+interest&oq=Trump+negative+interest&aqs=chrome..69i57.2783j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Doing that would mean the wealthy would have more incentive to invest in start-ups and liquid assets rather than sit on money in the bank while it rots to negative interest.
If you do A (lock in the quantity of a currency in the system) without doing B (install negative interest rates for those hoarding) then your friend is correct, it doesn't work.
But negative interest rates are easy to implement and the draw-backs/loopholes are far fewer than the system we have now.
BTW, read up on the objections people had to ending Slavery in the South. OMG the world was going to f*cking end! Any entrenched system that benefits one group at the expense of others (and which has become normalized and propagandized into an Important Part of Society) makes a LOT of people go crazy at the thought of changing it.
Moving back to HONEST MONEY would break a lot of BAD and corrupt institutions but when the dust settles, honest people will greatly benefit.
Imagine no more $trillions for needless aggressive war, no more $trillions for the Deep State to subjugate us with, no more $trillions being created out of thin air to shrink the value of our every dollar. Imagine prices going DOWN gradually over time, as happened in the first hundred+ years [for the most part] of our history.
That's what happens with a gold standard. There are better and less-good ways to implement such a standard, but as long as it's not fiat, it beats the heck out of what we have now.
The limitation of currency would make it immensely more valuable. The price of everything would be adjusted to accommodate it. The fact that they can print all the fancy paper they want is part of the problem.
The logistics of distributing an equal share to start over would be a bit of a problem, and handing it out based on what you currently possess would be extremely unfair and solve nothing. The amount available isn't really the problem.