Prudent central bankers are probably more useful. (Good luck).
Possibly that “drag” from a hard asset standard is necessary!
Agree about the prudent central bankers, the real problem are politicians playing with the money supply. Cheap money (Credit available at low interest rates ) brings in the votes. I remember reading an article by Friedman where he suggested computers set the money supply, make it independent of politicians & the judgment of people.
Typical nonsense. It's only difficult for bureaucrats to expand the supply. New gold is continually mined. If there's "not enough," it becomes more valuable and miners work harder to produce more. The whole thing is self regulating.
We CAN'T have that!
ML/NJ
There is no reason to expand the money supply when the ecooomy grows. Thinking so is closely akin to the Keynesian zero sum view of Economy, that the only growth is Inflation and Inflatoin is the decrease in the value of the money which enables one country to steal resources from another country. A true gold standard would take the manipulation of the money supply out of the hands of a committee of men who are much too small a sample of consumers to be able to know how the economy is working. A stable stock of money means that prices decline as more goods are produced. That does NOT mean that profits decline, only that the actual value of a dollar amount of profit rises as prices decline. A stable money supply lends now long missing stability into the system and predictability. Calculation becomes easier. Liberals think that wealth IS the stock of money and the more you grow that stock the richer the nation is. A bit of enthusiasm in that sort of wealth creation gives us Weimar or Zimbabwe or Venezuela.