Well I love Browne, but let's analyze his list.Kshartle wrote:I advocate no use of force. Therefore, no standard. The standard should be only what two individuals agree on. I'm confident that together people all over the world will discover what works best as money. I'm certain it won't paper backed by nothing. That is laughable. It might be gold, might not.MediumTex wrote:Why are you not an advocate of returning to the gold standard?Kshartle wrote: I really don't know. I'm not even an advocate of the gold standard.
Perhaps China will peg the RNB sometime in the next few decades.
So many factors, I can't even be sure it'll ever happen. It's more likely some government might allow people to use gold without taxing them on it, or just not enforce the rules.
According to your worldview (as I understand it) that would seem like an obvious cure for many of the problems we are facing.
I like the following little chart from page 70 of Browne's book yada yada:
Advantages of Gold and silver as money: Advantages of paper as money:
1. Durable 1.
2. Divisible 2.
3. Convenient 3.
4. Consistent 4.
5. Accepted Value 5.
1. I guess my bank account isn't durable in a traditional sense
2. My fiat money is divisible.
3. My fiat money is far more convenient than carrying around a metal.
4. My fiat money is the world's reserve currency... not sure if this counts as "consistent" or not.
5. My fiat money has a very accepted value. In fact, the markets around my money are unbelievably dynamic and efficient and people have tons of other options of stores of value to use.
So yeah it seems to me he was getting a little hyperbolic in bringing his political opinions into his writings here.
Let's also not forget that people can choose to hold gold/silver as a store of value and index their contracts to them or CPI or whatever they wish, but usually choose not to. So that indicates to me society sees huge advantages not only to paper money as a medium of exchange in the short term, but a store of value and unit of account in the longer term.