The Gold Standard

Now that the dust has settled, red pill me on the gold standard?

Is it actually a good idea to go back to it like the Pauls want to? Or is it just a meme?

How does gold have intrinsic value?

Other urls found in this thread:

abc.net.au/news/2016-08-25/gold-nugget-weighing-more-than-4kg-found-in-central-victoria/7785204
cnbc.com/2016/07/13/germany-becomes-second-g7-nation-to-issue-10-year-bond-with-a-negative-yield.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–specie_flow_mechanism
neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/04/modern-monetary-theory-overview-part-1.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Proponents of the gold standard argue it provides long-term economic stability and growth, prevents inflation, and would reduce the size of government. They say a gold standard would restrict the ability of government to print money at will, run up large deficits, and increase the national debt. They say the economy has historically performed best under a gold standard.

Opponents argue a gold standard would create economic instability, spur periodic economic deflation and contraction, and hamper government's ability to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment during recessions and financial crises. They say returning to a gold standard would be extremely difficult given the scarcity of gold and could severely harm the already fragile US economy

Gold Standard is a meme. Countries without Gold are fucked.

>How does gold have intrinsic value?
Things have either value just because we, as humans, give value to it (value can be a social construct kek), or hit can have value given to it by the free market, i.e. supply and demand for the industry.

We won't go away from the current currency scheme (money backed by nothing). The problem is that money can be created out of nothing through debt in addition to fractional reserve banking.

The gold standard means absolutely nothing provided fractional reserve banking is in the picture.

Nothing has intrinsic value. That's not how economics works

Pretty much this.

Fuck the gold standard

We have automated nearly every aspect of the economy. Pick any industry, product or service. You’ll find that the amount of work done by humans is dwarfed by the labor of machines.

The modern agricultural supply chain spends roughly ten times as much energy to deliver one unit of edible energy to you. That energy is expended by machines, ranging from farm equipment, to manufacturing chemical pesticides, to fueling refrigerated trucks. In other industries, the ratio of machine effort to human effort is even greater, 100 to 1 or more. We have surrounded ourselves with a vast mechanized economy. Indeed, we are dependent on it for our survival.

This quiet transition to a robotic economy raises an interesting question about the nature of money. The machines we’re so dependent on are paid in energy. They have no understanding of human money, and they do not work for IOUs. We may direct them, like a man riding an elephant, but the amount of work they can do is limited by physics. When 99% of the real work is done by machines, would it make more sense to define currency in terms of energy? If so, how might we make that transition, and what can we learn from the technology industry as we do so?

A central law of physics states that in any system, energy can neither be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. A ball resting at the top of a ramp converts its potential energy (the effort required to lift it against the force of gravity) to kinetic energy (motion) as it rolls down. The amount of energy available within any system, whether it is a bacterial cell or an economy, is finite. Unlike money, energy cannot be printed or counterfeited.

What exactly is energy?

Energy is the capacity to do a certain amount of work. It can be stored and transported in many forms. The international unit of measure for energy is the Joule. The table below describes what this equates to in real world terms.

A better question to ask is why we need national currencies at all anymore.

It is interesting to note that, pound for pound, hydrocarbon fuels store vastly more energy in a smaller space than man-made materials such as batteries. Only liquid hydrogen and nuclear fuels, which are very difficult to handle, can store energy more compactly.

Energy storage is only one part of the equation. Every square meter of the earth’s surface receives about 700 Watts in sunlight (700 Joules every second). The actual amount varies by location, time of year and weather conditions, so this is a year-round average figure. This energy drives the growth of green (photosynthetic) plants and the planet’s weather, both of which are natural reservoirs we can tap into. This is precisely what biological systems do.

This. Yes it's a meme. If you see people throw out words like fractional reserve lending they saw a YouTube video

The Wrong Frame of Reference

The problem with our current system is that we are measuring the wrong things, and do not measure significant parts of the economy at all. For example, do you know how much energy was consumed to produce the shirt you are wearing? Measuring this involves metering energy use at every step of the supply chain from the cotton farm to the transport system that brings the finished product to your local store.

The basic issue is that we don’t measure energy use in a systematic and easy to comprehend way, at home, at work or in many industries. Each industry has its own units of measure. Natural gas is measured in cubic feet, therms or BTUs. Electricity is measured in kilowatt-hours. Oil is measured by the barrel. Automotive fuels are measured in gallons or liters. Food energy is measured in calories. Another way of explaining this is that we typically measure everything in terms of money, which has no inherent physical value, and later translate this into energy. We are using the wrong frame of reference for our measurements, like measuring the speed of a passing train from a car traveling nearby.

One industry that pays exquisitely close attention to energy use is the aviation business. Airplanes are uniquely sensitive to energy use. The heavier an airplane is, the more fuel it requires to remain aloft, fuel which adds more weight, which leads to a vicious cycle. On the other hand, a small decrease in weight or small increase in engine efficiency can have dramatic effects on fuel efficiency, reduce the amount of fuel required, which in turn leads to a virtuous cycle.

Because of a lack of labor mobility. A global currency would not work.
Hell, a continental currency (the Euro) barely works, and it really exacerbated the great recession for the eurozone

The aviation industry is also an example of a process called dematerialization, where the goal is to continually reduce the amount of material and energy required to manufacture the finished product. This has been applied to every aircraft component from wings to seat cushions and has driven the long-term productivity gains in the industry since its beginnings. It should be applied everywhere, and with the development of technologies like additive manufacturing, will have a significant impact over the next 10 to 20 years.

We expect most food products to be consistently labeled with their ingredients and nutritional content. We should do the same thing with most products and services, so that people throughout the supply chain can see how much energy was used to produce something and transport it to market. As a general rule, the more energy is used to produce something, the more that item will cost relative to less energy intensive products. Consistently tracking energy consumption at every step of production will enable people throughout the supply chain to find the most energy efficient and low carbon alternatives. This alone should drive significant efficiency gains, as well as promote energy literacy.

There is a widespread misunderstanding that conservation means sacrifice, but that’s not true. If you’ve had a basic business education, you’re no doubt familiar with the concept of compounding interest. This effect applies equally to conservation, as the example below illustrates.

Just as compound interest causes your credit card bill to balloon, small year over year improvements in efficiency produce similarly striking results, especially over long time periods. This trend is currently well underway in the solar power industry, where the cost of solar photovoltaic equipment has been dropping an average of 7% per year for the past 30 years, leading to a nearly ten-fold decrease in unit costs during that period. Or put another way, it has lead to a nearly ten-fold increase in watts (energy output) per dollar, the same sort of exponential curve we see in computing power, albeit over a longer doubling time frame.

The important point is that even small improvements in efficiency can produce large results over the long term. It doesn’t matter if the growth in units of product produced are due to growing the inputs (growth paradigm), or due to shrinking the amount of materials and energy consumed to produce them (steady state economy). The net result to the end customer in terms of utility or value delivered is identical.

Coming from the technology industry, I’ve learned that breakthrough technologies are rare, and often take decades to make their way into products. Nearly all of the progress in the technology industry is the product of many small innovations that are gradually incorporated into products and their manufacturing processes. Progress may seem slow when viewed up close, but over long time frames, compounding effects take over. This is why a computer that would have occupied an entire building in the 1980s now fits in your pocket.

There are two things we can do today that will accelerate this process. One is to define a standard unit of measure for energy across industries. The Joule has been the standard unit of measure for scientific measurement since the 1800s. It makes sense to make it the standard for commercial measurement. A simple way to start is to display the prices for energy commodities and futures contracts in terms of dollars or euros per gigajoule (one billion Joules), a trivial software modification to programs that track energy commodity and futures prices.

A second step is to phase in requirements for companies to measure the amount of energy consumed in each step of the supply chain and to report this information in a standard format. This requirement is not especially onerous because any well run company already tracks its resource and energy usage. Companies are simply measuring energy use inconsistently. Some measure energy use in terms of money. Others in terms of industry specific measures, such as therms or gallons of diesel. Firms will save money and resources by tracking their energy use more consistently, so this will be a good business practice as well as good policy.

>A global currency would not work. Hell, a continental currency (the Euro) barely works, and it really exacerbated the great recession for the eurozone

Oh, you think I meant that we should replace national currencies with regional or global ones. That's cute.

Gold nugget weighing more than 4kg found in Central Victoria

abc.net.au/news/2016-08-25/gold-nugget-weighing-more-than-4kg-found-in-central-victoria/7785204

Its never left. Gold is there as a foundation but the end of the gold standard has allowed financial institutions and the 1% of 1% to create endless wealth for themselves through mountains of leverage on leverage on leverage on... stacked on top of that gold.

The middles class and working class have been getting swindled when comparing the fiat money they earn to gold. The inflated steroid fiat money hides the fact that you make less in gold than a decade ago.

The opposition argument to the gold standard sounds more like the government can't make the economy worse by "stimulating" it with fake numbers via printing more money and adding fake public sector jobs in order to give off the appearance that the economy is better than it actually is.

Going back to a gold standard would be very difficult now and I don't think it would be likely to make things better.

When we get our hands on martian clay I will build us a sanctuary between the deserts and mountains fueled by algae based biodiesel and man made hot springs in the mountains.

Jews are shilling real hard to abolish cash entirely

(((Kenneth S. Rogoff)))

The gold standard is necessary to avoid monetary policies that destroys the currencies by manipulating the supply.
Stuff like bitcoins can do the job though without gold standard.

Non monetary transactions are always inefficient by their very nature. That's why money was invented. Trying to eliminate currency is retarded

It's a lot more complicated than that.

but when people buy 'gold', they don't (usually) purchase actual gold.

For example, if you buy gold through Peter Schiff's investment bank in New York, you don't actually get a lump of gold, you get a certificate that says you can redeem it for x amount of gold from a smelt in Perth, Western Australia

Gold certificates were used as money before fiat money. Gold standard doesn't mean people will use actual gold nuggets to go to the store

And now you think that the only alternative to national, regional, or global currencies is none at all. The cuteness is wearing off, you're starting to get irritating.

have you read the bitcoin whitepaper

yeah but my point is that given that the gold is so physically remote, how is such a certificate worth any more than fiat?

Moreover, the only reason it has any value is because people might be willing to give you fiat USD for it

> fake numbers
I stopped reading there. It's so much more complicated than that.

How about you stop being a prick and just fucking say what your suggestion is. This game you're playing of "no you have to guess" is childish

Supply and demand. The only difference is that with Fiat money, the supply and demand can be more easily managed in order to stabilize the markets

what a moronic pseudo-intellectual post. stop watching sci-fi movies and open your eyes, champ

>How about you stop being a prick and just fucking say what your suggestion is. This game you're playing of "no you have to guess" is childish

If you don't work it out yourself you're not going to learn anything.

Who owns the intrinsic value of gold? Who owns Bitcoin? Why do most retail outlets only take specific brands of credit networks?

>given that the gold is so physically remote

In 19th century America bank notes redeemable in gold were discounted based on the issuer's trustworthiness. Gold certificates will always be slightly discounted compared to physical gold so that solves the problem.

So in other words you don't have an answer.
Thanks for wasting my time, I hope you feel smarter because you probably need it

Also, there's no such thing as intrinsic value you retard.

if one group can just print money, no matter how successful you are, (((they)))) will always have more money and be more successful than you.

That's not how it works. If you were right, then Zimbabwe would be the wealthiest nation in the world.

Stay stupid, keep spending those dollars.

>Another non argument
Underaged b&. You've literally said nothing this entire thread. Why are you still posting?

"more easily managed in order to stabilize the markets" - you are so close to correct!

But think about the supply and demand for MONEY. If GDP grows at 3% a year, do we find enough gold to support the increases in wealth we create?

Obviously the gold/money ratio isn't 100% but at any fixed figure, it would hold back growth a lot.

Because the certificate actually claims to represent however much gold the organization that issues it has. A national currency makes no such promise.

Gold should be seen primarily as an inflation hedge, but also take this into consideration:

Bonds in Europe are currently at NEGATIVE interest rates.

cnbc.com/2016/07/13/germany-becomes-second-g7-nation-to-issue-10-year-bond-with-a-negative-yield.html

Would you rather park your savings in German bonds and take a -0.2% haircut every year, or try your luck with investing in gold or other commodities?

I know what I'd rather.

Does the gold standard exacerbate trade deficits?

Jews in New York are a little bit more complex in their monetary manipulation than niggers in Zimbabwe.

Just look at the valuations of the big stocks in the USA, that's where the money is.

>How does gold have intrinsic value?
How do Blondes have intrinsic beauty?

The britbong gets it.

Add to that the fact that virtually all central banks are privately owned (majority shareholders). Countries are not in charge of their own money supply. Instead they can only borrow money from their central bank. The bankers make money out of thin air, borrow it to countries at interest, and the countries use taxpayer money to pay back the loans and the interest. Its just as ingenious as it is evil.

>do we find enough gold to support the increases in wealth we create?
Depending on who owns these gold reserves and how much they decide to put on the market, they could manipulate the economy in a much more severe way than the Fed ever could.
The fed got caught in a liquidity trap, so they were pretty much powerless. They kept injecting money into the banks, but the banks never loaned it out because interest rates are so low.

Money should also appreciate too. This acts as a reward for savers, instead of spendthrift degenerates throwing money away at interest on chinese goods.

It fixes trade deficits and the debt bubbles they create.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–specie_flow_mechanism

That is how it works. Zimbabwe just over do it :)
The problems are more with blacks fighting blacks, then the currency is on top of that.
In america you have the top 1% own everything, but the population is more well behaved....oh that's right...you're in trillions of debt.....

Do you understand how stocks are valued?
The stock market doesn't control the economy. The stock market are like the vitals of the economy. You read the stock market to get the economies heart rate, blood pressure, hydration, oxygen levels, etc. You don't use the stock market to change the economy

>You've literally said nothing this entire thread.

Listen, it's not my fault you can't connect the dots.

The answer is that we don't need governmental institutions to monopolize or even engage in creating currency. We never have, they don't produce anything that can't be accomplished by private institutions. They only add corruption and graft for the benefit of the elites who dominate the government.

A century ago, this only meant that we could have used private mints and banks to coin and/or store precious metals. Today, with the addition of cryptocurrency and credit card networks, we could use any number of completely private systems with a wide variety of sources and systems to exchange value in an easily-understandable manner.

Let currency systems compete on the free market, let the winners and losers consist of private organizations, not nations whose elites play with the fortunes of their constituencies.

We have a lower debt/gdp ratio than your country. Big countries can have big debts. Who do you think qualifies for a bigger loan, you or a billionaire?
With the US government, our interest rates are so low that our debt isn't even an issue.

Also, the fed doesn't print money.

no thanks ancap

What fucking dots?
All you've said in every post is
>Nope, you're wrong
>Nope, that's not it
>I shouldn't have to teach you what I'm thinking
>You should be able to read my mind.
Sorry I can't connect the dots of your nonsense. Next time formulate an argument if you want to argue

quit the jewish propaganda, the world is far from the futuristic paradise you are describing

>Also, the fed doesn't print money

That's the jewiest thing I have ever heard. The FED creates money through open market operations. It buys assets from the market in exchange of liabilities it can issue out of thin air (aka money)

Good luck making the Chinese and other countries do it. Sorry m8, it's over. It's not even worth discussing.

>The stock market doesn't control the economy. The stock market are like the vitals of the economy.

There has been a delinking of the prosperity of the average worker in the USA relative to the stock market highs due to a variety of factors. De-industrialization, immigration (both legal and illegal) and high regulations.

Having a high stock market might have meant being prosperous in the past, but it certainly isn't the case now in 2016. There is no doubt that the average worker is worse off now than they were when the NASDAQ was at these levels in 2000.

The funny money is in these ridiculously valued tech stocks, which is why I've taken a short position on the NASDAQ 100.

The Fed is competent.

>Let currency systems compete on the free market
They do, it's called currency exchange rates.
If you're advocating for private currencies that compete with one another, then you're talking about regional currencies. And it would be a disaster. The money you use in the Midwest would fuck you over on the coast.

You don't know much about currency, do you? I mean he'll, you believe in intrinsic value ffs

>Opponents argue a gold standard would create economic instability, spur periodic economic deflation and contraction, and hamper government's ability to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment during recessions and financial crises.
>hamper government's ability to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment during recessions and financial crises.

LEL, the government by merely existing already hampers the country's ability to stimulate the economy during recessions and financial crises. Those fucking fags got a feedback loop started and are saying the only way to fix it is more power for the government.

Government authority adds legitimacy to any currency. I do believe that private currencies could have a potential role to play, but if the national currency was in good health with the treasury having little to no debt, good balance of trade status and vast foreign currency reserves (as well as gold), then there is simply no reason for a private currency.

Yeah but you're confusing the cause and effect. The stocks aren't causing these changes. These changes are causing the stocks.

This is correct. It just peeves me when people confuse the money supply with the monetary base. I had a guy last week who thought the fed had literal printing presses hidden somewhere

Stable inflation is better than unstable inflation. Going up by a predictable amount is better than having the inflation rate randomly determined by nature

Russia and China have been covertly buying gold for the last decade.

It will be a component, but it won't be a 100% gold backed currency. Research China issuing SDR bonds this year and the implications it has for the US dollar.

Yeah, but if they start issuing it as currency, then all that gold will flood the market and the price of gold would plummet. That's why they're stockpiling it.

>The stocks aren't causing these changes. These changes are causing the stocks.

No, of course not. I don't blame a high stock valuation for the destruction of the American worker, I blame the jewish monetary system that favours socialism for big jewish banks/minorities and then demands laissez faire for the rest of us.

They are stockpiling it because they want to diversify away from US treasuries so as to not be as reliant upon the dollar.

I never said they'd issue it, it makes no sense to.

I just spelled it out for you and all you can do is sputter about your failures. As I said, stay stupid.

>They do, it's called currency exchange rates.

Finish the thought. "Let the winners and losers consist of private organizations." Right now, our currency doesn't compete. If GBP is a better deal for you than USD, it doesn't do you any good. You can't pay your taxes in pounds, it would be hard for you to carry on your daily life using GBP. If USD was owned by USD, Inc., it'd be sued by the government for monopolistic practices. But since it's a national currency it's perfectly OK for the government to carry on currency wars with any number of other nations for the purposes of enriching international merchants at the common man's expense.

>If you're advocating for private currencies that compete with one another, then you're talking about regional currencies. And it would be a disaster. The money you use in the Midwest would fuck you over on the coast.

This is already the case. I can't earn a year's worth of wages in the Midwest and live off those expenses for a year on either coast. But this is even worse than regional currency, there's no exchange rate between Midwest USD and coastal USD.

In any case regional currencies have the same problem with monopoly. However, if there are a number of competing privately-backed currencies, then the issue of geography goes away, it's simply a matter of exchange rate.

>if the national currency was in good health with the treasury having little to no debt, good balance of trade status and vast foreign currency reserves (as well as gold), then there is simply no reason for a private currency.

If I had wings I wouldn't need a car, but that's not the case, now is it?

What backs your national currency? How is that different than from your average ultra-cap corporation? Or Bitcoin? Or any number of commodities? Or a credit card network of sufficient size?

If you don't want the gold standard back you are a cuck

Redpill me on why you think the dust has settled. It hasn't even started to settle.

That's fine, buying gold as a hedge is what everyone does. It doesn't mean the dollar is ready to fail.

If there were 2 different currencies for the coast and Midwest, it would simply make the goods in the Midwest more expensive. Sure the cost of living varies by region, but creating different currencies for each of these regions would be a nightmare for trade. It's needlessly complicating the system and provides no benefit

>What backs your national currency? How is that different than from your average ultra-cap corporation? Or Bitcoin? Or any number of commodities? Or a credit card network of sufficient size?

None of those examples have the ability to use force to obtain a constant stream of revenue via taxes and tariffs.

>Opponents argue a gold standard would create economic instability, spur periodic economic deflation and contraction, and hamper government's ability to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment during recessions and financial crises. They say returning to a gold standard would be extremely difficult given the scarcity of gold and could severely harm the already fragile US economy
History has pretty much proven this.

Can't eat it

fpbp
this swede gets it. A central bank makes (mostly the poor) debt slaves and should be abolished

>It doesn't mean the dollar is ready to fail.

I would argue that it's closer than many think it is. 8 years of unprecedentedly low interest rates, and yet America can't raise rates without triggering stock market reversals. Yellen is stuck in a trap and the US is almost due for another recession anyway!

A central bank actually helps alleviate the debt problems of the poor. What do you think happens to debt when there's inflation? It gets cheaper.

The benefit of a gold standard is that it holds value since it's mined in such little quantities. Fiat currency can be inflated by government any time they decide, which means the value of the assets you hold in that currency go down due to inflation.

Since you cannot dig up more gold in great volumes quickly and the cost of doing so is often close to that of what it sells for, it means that assets held in gold devalue at a much steadier and predictable rate.

Anything that is desirable by humans has value, gold is used in many luxuries and many electronic components and so is generally in high demand with low supply, it's also easily divisible, it doesn't degrade or react with anything which makes it ideal for a currency base.

Libertarians want gold back because it limits the power of government to start wars and debase currency, in fact it limits government to stop them doing all sorts of stupid and expensive things they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.

>If there were 2 different currencies for the coast and Midwest, it would simply make the goods in the Midwest more expensive. Sure the cost of living varies by region, but creating different currencies for each of these regions would be a nightmare for trade.

Again, the point is to not limit currency usage by geography.

>It's needlessly complicating the system and provides no benefit

Following that logic, a supranational or global currency should be even better, yet you've said that would be a disaster yourself.

>None of those examples have the ability to use force to obtain a constant stream of revenue via taxes and tariffs.

What does that have to do with establishing and maintaining the value of a currency, particularly when the same entities with these abilities debase their own currencies through printing?

Look at the basic requirements of a currency. You need something fungible, portable, easily quantified and relatively stable in value. There are any number of items or systems that meet this requirement. Physical gold and silver did for thousands of years, but there are many examples. Ultra-cap stocks and bonds meet it. Bitcoin meets it. Hell, Visa's airline miles meet it.

You could theoretically use any number of these in your daily life with little disruption but you rely on the state to provide you with a unit of value that they can easily distort as needed to meet their (not your) goals. It doesn't matter if they collect taxes from you or not, they can (and do) fund their activities simply by debasing the value of the national currency you use.

Europe and Australia is in the same situation as well. China is going hard but they're building a house of cards that's ready to collapse. The first world is just focusing on slow and steady growth before we can really dust ourselves off and get back to work. If we tried to jumpstart the economy, Wed fuck up everything. What were doing now is fine

>Is it actually a good idea to go back to it like the Pauls want to? Or is it just a meme?

Is that even their stance? I thought they wanted that competing currency stuff.

Gold standard is dumb. Your money supply is limited by how much gold you have, and it expands and contracts when gold is discovered and sources run dry.

Fiat currency is fine. Just print it at like 2-3% inflation a year and stop this QE bullshit.

Cheap debt doesn't alleviate poor people, it just makes them more indebted when they go buy their useless shit on credit.

Ignore everyone in this thread and start here: neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/04/modern-monetary-theory-overview-part-1.html

MEaning all currency would be gold? Or what?

If so its stupid, how to you pay with credit card? how do you pay for bread with gold?

It has intrinsic value because it can control inflation but that's about it

>the point is to not limit currency usage by geography
That's where you're wrong due to a lack of knowledge on currency. The effectiveness of a currency is based on labor mobility, so it is by its very nature limited by geography.

I never said a global currency would be better. Don't commit strawman now

Inflation cheapens existing debt. They're still paying the same amount, it's just a lot easier. If interest rates were higher, or if there was deflation, debt would be harder to pay off. And considering almost everyone has debt (rich and poor), that would be a bad thing

Jesus fuck what is that

this is how I also feel

Look at it this way: how much time, energy and human effort did it take to extract and refine an ounce of gold?
Currency is not just a medium of exchange but also a store of value. Gold objectively has value because it is rare and difficult to extract and refine.

>You could theoretically use any number of these in your daily life with little disruption but you rely on the state to provide you with a unit of value that they can easily distort as needed to meet their (not your) goals. It doesn't matter if they collect taxes from you or not, they can (and do) fund their activities simply by debasing the value of the national currency you use.

Just because it is issued by the state doesn't mean that it has to be corrupted though. Monetary policy can and should be a transparent exercise. If it's a gold standard, let it be a 100% gold standard. No politician can get around that.

Australia's currency is backed indirectly by our resource sector, we're not in the same boat at all. Same with New Zealand and Canada.

I'd argue that we could actually benefit from a realignment, at least financially.

There are 3 requirements for a currency to be money
It needs to be a unit of account ($1 is always worth $1 no matter what)
It needs to be a store of value
And it needs to be a means of transaction

It's also one of the most important components of the portable jew.

Yeah but that's not intrinsic value. That's supply and demand. Consider all of the opportunity costs in every step of the process. All of the time, energy, and human effort could have been used elsewhere, but it was used on gold. Not because it has intrinsic value, but because peoples desire for it gives it value

That just means you have a very high amount of wealth. You guys still have low interest rates and low growth.

But we're not talking about existing debt, we're talking about future debt. Low rates encourages risky behavior by facilitating MORE debt purchases.

>The effectiveness of a currency is based on labor mobility, so it is by its very nature limited by geography.

You're skipping a step in your reasoning. How are labor mobility and geography linked? Is it simply a matter of raw distance and means to relocate? Is it a coincidence that the boundaries of use of a national currency are roughly coterminous with boundaries that limit mobility?

>I never said a global currency would be better.

I know, you said it would be a disaster, and I agree. But if you're going to criticize regional currencies as unnecessarily inefficient within a national economy then the same reasoning holds against national currencies in an (increasingly) globalist economy.

>Just because it is issued by the state doesn't mean that it has to be corrupted though.

This is true, yet history is showing that it inevitably is. Again, the best way to combat corruption in the state regarding currency is the same as it is in all other regards: take away their monopoly.

That's the same thing I said, it doesn't change the applicability of the other examples I listed.