Quote:
Originally Posted by ibis  This is not an article I am going to accept as having an objective point of view on the gold standard. |
How can you criticise a school of thought that claims to be only value neutral about the subject of economics.
I'll attempt to defend Murray's honour here, just for fun:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Murray Rothbard, The Case for A 100 Percent Gold Dollar 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 arose by government decree, not voluntary market actions. In this sense it was foisted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Murray Rothbard, The Case for A 100 Percent Gold Dollar The Bretton Woods system was an international dollar standard masquerading as a “gold standard,” |
The Bretton Woods system was not a Gold standard in the classical sense. Individuals were not allowed to redeem their dollars for specie. How can this be considered any sort of tangible gold standard. Similarly, the system still allowed the US to print as many dollars as it wished. Richard Nixon, by closing the gold window in 1971, effectively declared the US to be bankrupt.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Murray Rothbard, The Case for A 100 Percent Gold Dollar in order to lend the well-deserved prestige of the world’s oldest and most stable money, gold, |
Is gold not a stable money? Does it not keep it's puchasing power? Has it not been used for centuries?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Murray Rothbard, The Case for A 100 Percent Gold Dollar to the increasingly inflated and depreciated dollar. But this post-World War II system was only a grotesque parody of a gold standard. |
American Governments have consistently debased dollars, as I have pointed out above.