Quote:
Originally Posted by stringjack  If a return to a gold standard were particularly suited to resolving the present difficulties, it wouldn't have been suggested, incessantly, for the past 35 years. |
I appreciate that, which is a large part of why I ask the question. Every gold standard article I've ever read (it's not that many, but it's more than a couple) starts with a ritual denunciation of the evils of everything else, in language rather more suited to propaganda or religion than economics. This is a good example of the genre, from the Mises Institute:
Quote:
|
When this essay was published, America was in the midst of the Bretton Woods system, a Keynesian international monetary system that had been foisted upon the world by the United States and British governments in 1945. The Bretton Woods system was an international dollar standard masquerading as a “gold standard,” in order to lend the well-deserved prestige of the world’s oldest and most stable money, gold, to the increasingly inflated and depreciated dollar. But this post-World War II system was only a grotesque parody of a gold standard.
|
So, we see that gold is ""oldest and most stable", has "well-deserved prestige", while other systems are "grotesque parody", "foisted", "masquerading", "inflated and depreciated".
This is not an article I am going to accept as having an objective point of view on the gold standard.