On Mar 7, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I've found that opposition to gold (or other commodities) as
> a basis for the value of money is often couched in the
> religious terms we see above, that is, "everyone knows" that
> only crazy people believe in the gold standard.
>
> This is curious because money is supposed to be a sort of
> abstraction or generalization of commodities. One has to
> ask what they think the value of money _should_ be based
> on. Most people have no idea. If they ****tray themselves
> as economists, though, you may get some answers --
> very peculiar ones. Let's give it a try. Al, if a gold standard
> is crazy, what _should_ the value of money be based on?
Money can be anything that is popularly
accepted as currency. Historically, it has
been all kinds of stuff, with gold the most common.
But to ask "what should money be based on?"
is really vacuous. It needn't be "based on"
anything... it merely needs to be difficult to
counterfeit.
Hence, the suspicion against paper money...
also the appeal of paper money, to those who
own the printing press... witness the current
horrid spectacle, as 200 million Americans are
raped, to pay off the Wall Street puppet masters...
yes folks, turning dollars into Kleenex "guarantees
liquidity" and "promotes stability" and "restores
confidence in the economy"...
Pardon me, I have a sudden urge to retch violently...
Mark
|
