Coinage or Fiat?

Coinage or Fiat?

I think Coinage is better for a stable economy, but it's easier to lose it with no way to replace it.

If that makes sense.

I agree

Gold standard all the way.

Fiat.

Despite the fringe tinfoil hat conspiracies, the gold standard was abandoned for a reason - it was a cumbersome economic system prone to stock market panics and crashes.

Nations having control over their own monetary policies rather than leaving it to random factors like the world production of gold, has led to the largest period of world economic growth we have ever seen.

The period between 1945-1973 has been called the Golden Age of Capitalism for good reason.

Even during the Depression in the 1930s, nations that left the gold standard early on recovered before those that did not.

How exactly would a gold standard prevent currency manipulation?

The rules never stopped anybody before.

/thread

...

Won't most economists, Fisher, Keynes, and Von Mises included, all say that an overextension of bank credit is a bad thing? I mean, cmon. There is literally no economist that argues opposite to that statement. Even J.S. Mill was heavily for Peel's Act, except for some shitty provisions that allowed the bank reserves to be geometrically shrunk by bank runs.

I mean the idea is, the overextension of bank credit is more easy with nonconvertible non-commodity based paper money. What say you?

And here you can see how counter-cyclical monetary policy stabilized the US economy in comparison to the era of the gold standard.

Banks can be regulated, and indeed they were, until the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.

With Glass-Steagall there would have been no subprime crisis, not in that magnitude anyway.