So now someone who purchased an ounce of gold yesterday at $1600 suddenly finds himself with an ounce of gold worth a small fraction of that, whereas someone with a $1600 in greenbacks still has $1600?
In short, you don't get anything out of a gold standard that you didn't bring with you. If your government is a credible steward of the money supply, you don't need it; and if it isn't, it won't be able to stay on it long anyway. (See Argentina's dollar peg). Meanwhile, the limitations on the government's ability to respond to fiscal crises, the necessity of defending against speculative attacks in times of crises, and the possibility of independent changes in the relative price of gold, make your economy more unstable. It's a terrible idea, which is why there are so few economists willing to raise their voices in support of it.
So 256,000,000 ounces of gold divided by $1,200,000,000,000 is something like two one hundredths of a penny per ounce.
Ron Paul is a prominent politician in the same way that Tim Tebow is a prominent quarterback. While he may meet the dictionary definition...
Not to get too Californian on you, but some energy is definitely vibing off this thing. Until now the idea of holding gold as an investment or otherwise hasn't offered the faintest allure, but now I am tuning something in, an unheard, insistent bleating that says, "Gather up a bunch of me and you will be safe from a bad and uncertain world."
If you've got 10 people, and everyone pitches in $10 for pizza, figuring whatever's left over goes as the tip, that's $100 on pizza.
Assuming you magically resolve the storage problem, there are way too many risks. It will overly reward low-cost dirty fuel such as coal. You cannot accurately price long-dated debt (such as home mortgages), due to risks of supply-shocks/discoveries. It encourages hoarding of energy.
« Older will.i.am introduces the Ultrabook Project (SLYT)... | If you like Bob Ross and his h... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt