I'm not even in the gold standard camp really, but LOL if you think that that article somehow "defeats" the gold standard camp.

It's not like the gold standard advocates are saying, have a gold standard and then the government can go into debt, print money and bail out banks all they want. The gold standard only has meaning in conjunction with fiscal and financial responsibility and lack of a moral hazard.

If you're only saying that the gold standard is besides the point, that the real issue is fiscal and financial responsibility and without it things would get ****ed up even under a gold standard, then I can see myself potentially agreeing as discussed before in this thread. But come on, noone thinks that a gold standard without fiscal and financial responsibility would achieve anything.

Please note that I'm not in favor of a gold standard run by the government, as convertibility could still be suspended at any time. I would like to see actual gold (and/or silver, etc.) used as money. Not everything needs to be transacted in actual precious metals directly, but bank accounts, debts, contracts, credit cards, shares, bonds, etc. should all be denominated in it.

Sure I could protect myself from inflation with precious metals and other tangible goods if I felt the need, but the point is to protect the people I trade with as well. No longer would the government be able to surreptitiously commandeer resources by exchanging them for something it can create for free, thus bidding up the prices we all have to pay for those same resources.

Wow nice post. When I get some time later I will address the slate article point by point.

Threads like this kind of make me think we should have some sort of recorded debates like the one they had on mises.org with the (pretty cool) Keynesian dude

This is still basically run by the government though- they just declare debts payable in paper (like California IOUs, lol) and creditors can suck it. The advantage (to either version) is that the shenanigans are much more obvious when something like that is declared, or redemption is suspended, but even that hasn't seemed to much matter as far as political consequences go.

Each individual or entity would be responsible for their own promises of redemption, just as they are currently required to be with dollars. And anyone lending to someone who defaults in this way you described would be solely responsible for their losses. There could still be things like deposit insurance, but where actual premiums are paid.

I deposit gold with a bank or buy treasuries with gold. The government says they (or the bank) can keep the gold and pay withdrawals with paper. GG me. It's the opposite process of suspending convertibility. As long as there is debt, whoever enforces the contracts can make the rules regardless of what the debt is nominally denominated in.

Governments can do a lot worse things than this, obviously.

But is it really such a big worry that we could possibly end up right back where we are now?

Keep telling yourself that and enjoy lala land, good day to you also sir.

It took you a month to come up with that?

Not all of us are sitting around waiting eagerly at the keyboard for a chance to defend our internet honor. Clearly that's your agenda as evidenced by your last post claiming you won't be responding to further posts of mine (right, lol) and then insta responding within the hour. I didn't even bother checking the dates and just saw the post now. Not the first time in this thread I respond later when I get around to it. There was nothing to even try to come up with since all that needed to be said was already.

Translation: blah, blah, blah.

I did put you on my ignore list. Forgot why. Saw your post in this thread and thought "why'd I put him on the ignore list". Clicked show post. Was quickly reminded why you made my ignore list.

I do apologize for forgetting about you and what happened a month ago. Clearly the universe revolves around you and now I'm going to hell because I didn't respect that fact of nature.

Right, sounds plausible. Cool story.

there should be a dis-engage join rather than an ignore list imho