Should we do it and return to gold and silver currency? Aside from going against basic morals, being a buerocratic cancer and exploiting those in need, banks produce jack shit. They are also the ones who started replacing actual, valuable, currency with worthless scraps of paper.
It started as an alternative to transporting large amounts of money over seas, but now the are pushing the digitalization of currency.
Get me off this ride.
Other urls found in this thread:
macrotrends.net
twitter.com
Should we collectivize banks ?
No.
Please open an economy for retard book.
We switched over because 1) it eases the changes between contries
2) bank creat growth by printing money and loans
3) the reason today's economy is shit is due to poor state management (contries not breaking monopolys for example)
Depends how you do it
If you're xi jinping (the current chinese president) you'd know how to do it right
If you're a SJW you'd just fuck up your country
>eases changes between countries
This is true, but there are waysa round it.
>creates growth by prinding money and giving loans
Pinting money increases inflation. Having silver and gold for currency would beat down inflations.
Loans are alright, the problem is the high interest and the fact that banks have the habit of screwing over their customers with hidden costs.
>the economy is shit because governments can't break monopolies
In the US, yes. And if you took down private banks and, along with them, lowered the interest rates you'd see a lot more entrepreneurs trying their luck. The reason these monopolies exist is because people are either brought to their knees by debt or because they are afraid to compete with the giants.
No, that would be stupid.
Oh look, it's lolbertarian meme fantasy thread #273726282. Remember, sage grows in all fields.
Since when is collectivization of anything a libertardian fantasy?
I don't have a fuckong clue what you're talking about nigger. I stopped reading after
>Should we do it and return to gold and silver currency?
and I'm not going to go back and read it now. Closing the tab now, thanks for the (You).
Very mature.
We should more to a dick sucking based currency. Each bill entitles the bearer to one blowjob backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. There would have to be strict regulations on the counterfeit blowjobs which might be difficult to implement though.
Golden post friendo
>21th century
>gold coins
errmm no
>using imaginary currency
You realize that this sets a pretty fragile system, based on the illusion of value, which will eventually fail.
It's true that gold is less practical, but unlike other types of currency, it's valuable in itself and not because some bureaucrat says so.
Kek
>banks produce jack shit
Banks provide many financial services. They are an important part of a first world economy.
>printing money increases inflation. Having silver and gold for currency would beat down inflations.
Printed currency can be regulated to control the rate of inflation while gold would necessitate restrictions on mining companies.
Gold itself does not have any inherent value beyond what we place on it. It's just a metal, the same way our current currency is just paper.
>it's valuable in itself
Oh my god, they really believe this?
Gold is pretty scarce. Its price hadn't dropped in a long time and needs to government intervention to control inflation.
Give me an argument why that's not the case.
Because gold and silver are just elements. What about it makes you think it is unique in that it has 'value' as an inherent property?
What makes gold and silver an exception to everything gaining value from what people are willing to pay for it?
If you cannot answer this, then I see no reason to believe such an outlandish claim.
>Its price hadn't dropped in a long time
macrotrends.net
It's price doesn't look very steady to me.
>replacing actual, valuable, currency with worthless scraps of paper.
The value of currency is what we give it. Of course you can argue that metals like gold have certain functions (e.g. use in electronics) but this can be easily substituted for something else.
pretty goddamn fine metals for electronics which are now in every fucking thing more complicated than a spade.
silver is the best conductor gold is good conductor and pretty resistant to corrosion.
Gold is used in electronics, but that doesn't mean it has an inherent value. The same argument can be made for any material.
A practical use is not an inherent value. The original statement I was disputing was that gold is "valuable in itself"
>a practical use is not an inherent value.
i think it is the only inherent value if there is a need for something and it is scarce.
practical use creates demand and scarcity + demand = value
simple as that.
Let me get this straight, you want the entire world to use only gold and silver as currency?
i think he means more like 100% reserve banking based on physical metals to back it up.
everything could work the same in theory just the free money-printing goes out the window.
The transition would be next to impossible.
i agree the balloon have been inflated so bad it's impossible without it popping first.
Again, you aren't looking at the claim I was disputing which was that gold is 'valuable in itself'
>Gold itself does not have any inherent value
>Ignoring several cultures from all over the country put a huge value on gold and silver because their properties.
>Not knowing about medical and industrial applications of gold and silver.
Let me guess, you still believe the jewellery industry is the biggest consumer of silver on the world, right?
Go back to jerk over your imaginary cryptomoney, kid, adults are talking here.
I use USD, not a cryptocurrency.
Practical uses create a demand for a commodity, in this case gold, but that does not mean it has an inherent value. The value comes from the demand of the commodity, it is not a property of the commodity itself.
The advantage of a fiat currency over using a commodity like gold is that the fiat currency gives greater control over inflation rates.
Do you have any arguments that are formulated against the points I am making rather than an imaginary opponent?
Ive just vested 25k in gold and silver. Upon the next crash, we will see a sure rise in these metals. Look what happened 08 laides and gentlemen.
>practical use is not an inherent value
Is there any other kind of value aside from that which we imbue? In this case, by "practical use"?
buy physical, son.
[Rhetorical question presented as a lead in to rant. Demonstration of lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Vaguely populist statements regarding modern institutions. Alt-right talking point in brief. Vast oversimplification of institutions and transactions. Complaint about monetary system that isn't particularly well developed.]
[Desire to return to literal medieval economics.]
i guess it depends on what the fuck do you mean by "itself".
everything is only valuable if someone wants it and value is subjective on the individuals level and dependent on the situation.
>demand for a commodity,
>that does not mean it has an inherent value
>Implying ANYTHING can have value without existing a demand for it.
>Putting together inherent and value.
>Using it seriously as your main argument.