you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Minimum wage in 1969 was $1.60/hr. Gold was worth $40/oz approximately, so a minimum wage worker earned 83 oz of gold per year.

In today's money that's worth an eye watering amount, but I'll translate that into the pre-USD-death gold spike we're experiencing.

Gold is around $4000/oz right now, roughly double what it was 5 years ago.

83 oz is:

2020ish: $166 000 worth of gold

Now: $334 988

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    See, this is why it bothers me when people roll their eyes when I mention the gold standard.

    Today's dollar is a fiat currency. There's nothing backing it besides the agreement that it represents value. It's worth nothing intrinsically. That's why the finance industry can do apparently whatever the fuck they want with it, bloating their portfolios while diluting the actual buying power of the dollar for everyone else. It's one of the reasons for endless hyperinflation.

    If it was backed by something of intrinsic value, say, precious metals, then that would mitigate a lot of this.

    People ask what I mean when I sat precious metals have intrinsic value. And the argument could be made that it too is only worth something because people agree that it is. But, it's a finite resource and so its rarity makes it valuable by default. It's not like money where we can just print more. And people will always want shiny things. People with a lot of money will always want the prestige of flashy items made of a material that announces their wealth. And nobody is just going to start giving gold away for dirt cheap just because "all it is is stupid metal that never tarnishes."

    And historically as well as economically, it holds true. Gold holds its value. When a currency inflates, diluting its buying power, the price of gold in that currency tends to stay similar to what it was before, when adjusted for the buying power. It's one of the most stable and standard ways to measure the value of currencies. Much better than the petro dollar.

    But people think I'm just being bougie and elitist when I say we should back our currencies with precious metals. There's a rationale behind it, but people usually don't listen long enough to hear that rationale...

    Also, in the absence of macroeconomic solutions like backing currencies with hard assets, you can take your personal finances into your own hands with a microeconomic solution like diversifying your portfolio (hold a variety of currencies, and some in precious metals). Of course, that requires enough surplus income to be able to save, and enough savings to be able to invest in less liquid assets. But starting with silver instead of gold is a much lower barrier to entry, and although it's somewhat more volatile than gold, it's still far more stable than fiat currency.

    And if all of your savings are in US dollars, I would highly recommend holding some in Euros or other similar currency. When the dollar inevitably crashes, it's going to crash hard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah big agree. Gold was also easy since it was a lingua franca commodity, instead of maybe a modern version being a basket of commodities backing a currency.

    I understand the implicit reason they dumped the gold standard. Your industrialized economy can grow a lot faster than you can mine new gold out of the ground. Deflationary pressure meant there was pressure to print more paper dollars than there were gold backing them to stave off inflation. France calling the US' bluff on gold backing by repatriating their reserves certainly didn't help at all.

    The big benefit though is like you said. You can't fuck with gold the same way as fiat. You can't magically make more, much like the current Iran conflict is going to crash the world economy because a bunch of idiots in the US think they can print oil...

    Knowing you can't print gold is supposed to be a stabilizing influence on a country's fiscal policy. Don't fuck with your own currency lest you ruin it, cause a bank run, and debase it to being worthless and need to start over or borrow a foreign currency's stability.

    A basket of commodities could be the way forward though... That's basically what the Petro-dollar is informally. But if you made some kind of international trade currency that was basically a warehouse receipt for X amount of gold, silver, wheat, barley, oil, sulfur, ammonia .et, that basically all countries use, maybe that would work?

    Digital currencies like Bitcoin or other speculative assets just don't work long term...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I mean I understand the context behind abandoning the gold standard. Great depression and all that. And it worked temporarily, but it created more issues down the line, like cutting off the head of a hydra.

    Now we can defer the consequences of bad fiscal policy by punting it down the road every few years, building the tower higher and higher without reinforcing the base. It's going to collapse eventually, and the higher we build it between now and then, the further we're gonna fall.

    It's what enabled the "infinite growth" mentality of Reagan-era economics that still plagues us today.

    Also, printing paper dollars doesn't stave off inflation. It only masks it on paper. The absolute value doesn't magically increase, it just gets distributed across more dollars. Which means each dollar holds less value, less buying power. Which means things cost more dollars. That's literally inflation.

    A basket of commodities could work, if it's well-crafted and not hamfisted or skewed by corporate interests. Precious metals should have a significant portion of it for their stabilizing effect. Maybe 20-30%. Fossil fuels should be excluded, or at least minimized. Everything else should mostly be raw materials, preferably finite. Anything that can be produced has the risk of inflation. Crops, livestock, lumber, etc. should be okay to include, but not exceeding say 20-30%.

    But things like computer chips should be out; use semiconductors and rare earths instead. Use iron and steel and copper, etc., but not springs and pipes and wires. If that makes sense at all.

    And yeah crypto is bullshit, literally nothing that people hallucinate value onto by the magic of consensus reality.

  • source
  • parent