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