|
It's good that we at least agree that the gold standard is worthless for controlling inflation during times of war. Maybe we can also agree that it's no good between the wars either.
Compare the last two decades of inflation to that of the two decades before WWI. Inflation went higher with the gold standard -- over 5%. That's bad enough, but what was truly unacceptable was the fact that it could just as well plunge without warning into an even worse rate of deflation. The peace time gold standard gave us a price growth range of 11 percent versus our recent spread of just 3 percent. Gold standard insanity versus Federal Reserve success.
Earning interest on a loan of a non-existant assest is fraudulent and should be illegal.
What I was referring to is what happens when you go to the bank, and you see the gold lettering (one of the few sensible uses for gold) that says "Assets of more than $10,000,000". When you deposit $100, you have not increased the bank's assets --the bank now owes you money. You have given the bank a liability. This is why they want to loan out your $100 to someone else. When this happens you still have $100 in your bank account. After all, it's your money isn't it? What's different is that there's this new guy that borrows the $100 and now he has $100. The bank has created additional money and the nation's money supply has just increased.
Wait a second (I hear you interject). That guy has $100 money and he also owes $100. Nobody is saying that wealth was created. Wealth is what happens when the new guy goes out and invests the money and makes twice the rate of return that the bank is charging. This kind of wealth creation happens with or without the gold standard. The only difference is that there's more wealth creation now than there was then.