If we do move to a finite metals backed currency, wont that mean that their will be a finite amount wealth, making it a zero sum game. To put it another way, In order for me to gain, someone else must lose?It would destroy our ability to create wealth as a nation if we went to a gold standard. Am I wrong?
Understand that the current system is technically a zero-sum game, where central bankers are able to spend the money first and thus steal wealth of others via inflation (amount of printed money is finite). Thus a metals backed currrency hinders their cheating us, which is far more preferable than the current (still zero-sum game) system with cheating bankers.
Do you seriously think that currency IS wealth? That question is like asking how big is yellow?
But I am not talking about a 'gold standard'. I am talking about using gold, silver, platinum and other commodities as currency with a viable option mentioned in the sidebar. Doing so would prevent government confiscation through inflation which is a form of taxation without representation and therefore would limit the State's ability to do what it does best: destroy wealth through violence.
Wealth just gets transferred now. Its always a zero sum game. What makes standards of living better is better productivity like technological advances and the costs of good going down. Making more money solves nothing except creates inflation. Money will always be finite no matter if you use gold or paper backed by nothing. A dinner for two will always cost the same when measured in work whether paper money is used or seashells. A gold standard would solve pretty much all corruption.
I would have to say no it wouldn't. Gold as a currency (along with dozens of other commodities that have been used as currencies historically) has been used for 5000 years. I don't think through any of these historic periods it can be said that wealth of nations decreased. Every time the gold changed hands in a transaction a service or product would be done or created bringing new wealth and the gold would still remain to be exchanged again for another wealth creation etc.
If we do move to a finite metals backed currency, wont that mean that their will be a finite amount wealth, making it a zero sum game. To put it another way, In order for me to gain, someone else must lose?It would destroy our ability to create wealth as a nation if we went to a gold standard. Am I wrong?
jjrglobal 2 years ago
Understand that the current system is technically a zero-sum game, where central bankers are able to spend the money first and thus steal wealth of others via inflation (amount of printed money is finite). Thus a metals backed currrency hinders their cheating us, which is far more preferable than the current (still zero-sum game) system with cheating bankers.
abihateusernames 2 years ago
Do you seriously think that currency IS wealth? That question is like asking how big is yellow?
But I am not talking about a 'gold standard'. I am talking about using gold, silver, platinum and other commodities as currency with a viable option mentioned in the sidebar. Doing so would prevent government confiscation through inflation which is a form of taxation without representation and therefore would limit the State's ability to do what it does best: destroy wealth through violence.
jonahtrainer 2 years ago
Wealth just gets transferred now. Its always a zero sum game. What makes standards of living better is better productivity like technological advances and the costs of good going down. Making more money solves nothing except creates inflation. Money will always be finite no matter if you use gold or paper backed by nothing. A dinner for two will always cost the same when measured in work whether paper money is used or seashells. A gold standard would solve pretty much all corruption.
30percentplusreturns 2 years ago
I would have to say no it wouldn't. Gold as a currency (along with dozens of other commodities that have been used as currencies historically) has been used for 5000 years. I don't think through any of these historic periods it can be said that wealth of nations decreased. Every time the gold changed hands in a transaction a service or product would be done or created bringing new wealth and the gold would still remain to be exchanged again for another wealth creation etc.
Sindyr1974 2 years ago
Id have to agree with you completely
jjrglobal 2 years ago
Finally put it on the air
whiskerchild 2 years ago
Glad to see you had the Balls to say what most people are affraid of saying on TV. Great job !!
ray12970 2 years ago
Nice to see you on TV, Trace! Great interview.
Now if American media could get you on... I'm not going to hold my breath.
MengersDisciple 2 years ago
Best interview I have seen in a long time, a new leet economist on my follow list. 5*
fox20012 2 years ago