you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's not rewarding scarcity. Gold isn't just scarce. It's a traditional means of portable wealth transfer. It's valuable because it's universally accepted as valuable. It would be good if we had more gold. It does have some uses and would probably be used more if it weren't the agreed upon medium of exchange. Once we had a lot more of it some other genuinely scarce and uniquely portable and fungible medium of exchange would become the universal. Industrial societies are moving beyond precious metals as mediums of exchange anyway. Crypto or a fiat created by a more stable and less corrupt government will probably become the new medium regardless of an influx of gold.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If the price system doesn't reward scarcity then why does artificial scarcity exist?

And we need to move beyond a medium of exchange.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Crypto or a fiat created by a more stable and less corrupt government will probably become the new medium regardless of an influx of gold.

The issue with banking isn't gold or fiat. Most libertarians don't get this. The issue is fractional reserve banking. It allows private bankers to control the money supply and effectively drown the country in debt. It creates inflation and it's mathematically impossible to pay back the debt because when considering interest, you will always owe more to the banks than the entire existing stock of money.

It also gives bankers undue profit as they are the first to get access to freshly printed money before the effects of inflation kick in.

That's how the banking class became the dominant faction in Western capital rather than the oil or steel owners.