Monetary theory

[docoftheworld]

Given that Uncle Rip is the smartest person I know of, I would love his take on this issue; please indulge me in this and explain to me why I am wrong:
The move away from the gold standard in the 1970s was controversial, but it allowed the economy to grow without being restricted by the amount of gold available. If the currency had remained tied to gold, the economy's growth would be limited by the amount of gold that could be mined. The supply of gold would not keep pace with economic growth.

This is similar to the issue with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. There's a fixed amount of Bitcoin, just like there is a fixed amount of gold. If new products, services, and growth opportunities emerge, having a limited supply of currency would make it difficult for the economy to grow.

As a result, cryptocurrencies might end up being more like collectible items, similar to baseball cards or precious metals. Their value could be high, but their ability to drive economic growth would be limited due to the fixed supply and lack of regulation.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I'd just like an explanation of how and why we have a $35 trillion national debt.

[mkm5]

Given that Uncle Rip is the smartest person I know of, I would love his take on this issue; please indulge me in this and explain to me why I am wrong:
The move away from the gold standard in the 1970s was controversial, but it allowed the economy to grow without being restricted by the amount of gold available. If the currency had remained tied to gold, the economy's growth would be limited by the amount of gold that could be mined. The supply of gold would not keep pace with economic growth.

This is similar to the issue with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. There's a fixed amount of Bitcoin, just like there is a fixed amount of gold. If new products, services, and growth opportunities emerge, having a limited supply of currency would make it difficult for the economy to grow.

As a result, cryptocurrencies might end up being more like collectible items, similar to baseball cards or precious metals. Their value could be high, but their ability to drive economic growth would be limited due to the fixed supply and lack of regulation.

Cumulative inflation.

Gold has increased in value 100x in 100 years. That means a 1924 paper dollar is worth 1 cent now. A 1924 Double Eagle is worth $2400 just in gold value.

The $35 trillion National Debt is a signal for the end of the fiat dollar. Now that the Petro dollar has ended after 50 years, it's just a matter of time before hyperinflation.

[Satch12879]

Given that Uncle Rip is the smartest person I know of, I would love his take on this issue; please indulge me in this and explain to me why I am wrong:
The move away from the gold standard in the 1970s was controversial, but it allowed the economy to grow without being restricted by the amount of gold available. If the currency had remained tied to gold, the economy's growth would be limited by the amount of gold that could be mined. The supply of gold would not keep pace with economic growth.

This is similar to the issue with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. There's a fixed amount of Bitcoin, just like there is a fixed amount of gold. If new products, services, and growth opportunities emerge, having a limited supply of currency would make it difficult for the economy to grow.

As a result, cryptocurrencies might end up being more like collectible items, similar to baseball cards or precious metals. Their value could be high, but their ability to drive economic growth would be limited due to the fixed supply and lack of regulation.

Why is the limited quantity of gold a problem?

What happens to the price of a desired rare thing?

(This is basic supply/demand.)

[Jeff Hazeltine]

For context, I recommend “The Collapse of Antiquity” by Michael Hudson. Set aside the author’s political leanings and enjoy the display of history repeating itself — fascinating. Debt is an integral part of expanding and eventually collapsing empires. The working class’s willingness to pay their taxes and the oligarchs determination not to pay any taxes make it all possible.

[Subby]

Given that Uncle Rip is the smartest person I know of, I would love his take on this issue; please indulge me in this and explain to me why I am wrong:
The move away from the gold standard in the 1970s was controversial, but it allowed the economy to grow without being restricted by the amount of gold available. If the currency had remained tied to gold, the economy's growth would be limited by the amount of gold that could be mined. The supply of gold would not keep pace with economic growth.

This is similar to the issue with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. There's a fixed amount of Bitcoin, just like there is a fixed amount of gold. If new products, services, and growth opportunities emerge, having a limited supply of currency would make it difficult for the economy to grow.

As a result, cryptocurrencies might end up being more like collectible items, similar to baseball cards or precious metals. Their value could be high, but their ability to drive economic growth would be limited due to the fixed supply and lack of regulation.

Is this a real person or a bot? Bitcoin "inflates" by being broken into smaller and smaller units of the original 21 million coins.

Economic reasons aside, I believe the US coming off the gold standard was largely as a result of the French calling the US's bluff and trying to get it's gold back after the US pinky promised not to do anything while they held it.

[BareSteel]

Perhaps doc intended his question to be limited to monetary supply, but I think economic growth is greatly affected by "game-changer" inventions: the assembly line, internal combustion engine, commercial flight, the internet and of course the Shake Weight

[JJ23]

This is why I hate GDP. It's a measure that tricks people into thinking 2% inflation is required for growing.

TVs are my favorite example. They get bigger, better and more fancy. One could say that the TV economy is booming, however, the nominal cost of TVs continue to decrease.

Long and inelegant way of saying that economic progress is not completely correlated to the nominal growth of the economy.

[docoftheworld]

I respectfully disagree. The pace of gold value inflation does not keep up with economic growth. The world economy has clearly increased more than 100 times over the past 100 years. My question remains: cryptocurrency appears to be a Ponzi scheme in this regard. Regarding the petrodollar, I believe this is misinformation. I have yet to see a single article in a respected source such as the Wall Street Journal, The Economist, or Foreign Affairs that addresses this issue with the petrodollar.

[mkm5]

Here's some interesting history on gold and inflation:

https://youtu.be/LdyHso5iSZI?si=j_zLBbzEBR6MkW_R