Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bmcg.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice From: bprice@bmcg.UUCP (Bill Price) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: The gold standard. Message-ID: <1600@bmcg.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 14:15:11 EST Article-I.D.: bmcg.1600 Posted: Mon Feb 11 14:15:11 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 03:37:04 EST References: <613@ukma.UUCP> <> Reply-To: bprice@bmcg.UUCP (Bill Price) Organization: Burroughs Corporation, San Diego Lines: 31 Summary: draves@harvard.ARPA (Richard Draves) asks: >If the gold standard was working so well, why did we give it up? "We" didn't give it up: the government did. (Notice the clever way I tell you of part of my attitude, right off.) Seriously, it is necessary to distinguish between the government and the population, at least in this case. That's because the government (Congreess, specifically) is given the responsibility to "coin money and regulate the value thereof, and of foreign money [possible minor misquote]." Whether the gold standard was "working well" is a value call. Thus, it depends on the point of view of the caller. The gold standard is quite effective at preventing inflation. From many points of view, that is good. If we judge by results, though, governments do not think so. [I have not done an exhaustive study of the following conjecture, but what I have done supports it to 1.000: all inflation (overexpansion of the money supply) has been caused by government.] In short, the government gave up the gold standard because the gold standard prevents the government from debasing the currency. >(This is a genuine request for information.) > It's good to see a genuine anything on the net. Thank you. >Rich >-- -- --Bill Price uucp: {decvax!ucbvax philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc