I was always wondering if just quiting printing money would be equivalent to the Gold Standard, since they both cap inflation; both policies can stop and start (Nixon ended the Gold Standard; and I think there would be enough U.S. bills floating around for circulation if strict Austrian Economics came into place.
Also, would quitting printing money permanently (like making a new amendment) be more convenient than restoring the Gold Standard?
But, maybe the gold standard does something other than end inflation, so that's basically why I'm asking.
Well, there is no economic difference (so long as it was somehow possible to keep the fed from printing).
But there is an ethical difference - fiat money requires coercion - who would accept paper as money without legal tender laws?
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Thanks=]
Whatever the results, the primary difference would be that gold could still be mined, so the gold supply would not be completely constant.
At one point Friedman suggested that Central Banks would just increase the money supply 3% every year. This would be probably a mucher better policy than what they do today, but totaly non-adaptive.
the economy would still suffer the cantilion effect and likely encourage malinvestments, and the 3% monetary inflation would be an inflation tax. taxes ain't cool.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap