This is the core of the disagreement. With the gold standard, you can put your dollars in a vault and 100 years later your dollars don't lose as much value as they would with Fed management. (OK, we're not talking about what 100-year old mint-condition bills could fetch from a coin collector.)
Our point is that with Fed management there's a much better chance of being alive to open the safe, because the economy will have been so much more prosperous..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks, I am glad someone understands and can respond in an intelligent manner. As for the last part of your post I don't see how that can be proved or disproved, it seems to be purely a matter of conjecture to me. There is a broad range of opinion on the effectiveness of Fed management.
I don't see how that can be proved or disproved, it seems to be purely a matter of conjecture to me. There is a broad range of opinion on the effectiveness of Fed management.From what we can tell, America has been growing as well with the Fed as it did before. That's another way of saying that long range economic growth was just as good with the gold standard as it's been since those bean counter salaries at the Fed got added to our taxes.
There's more to it than that though.
Besides overall growth, we've also got to live with the year to year changes. and that's what the Fed's been able to change. Sure, nobody's completely eliminated economic cycles, but in this age the cycles are more like measles --less often and a lot less lethal than they were a hundred years ago.