If we were taxed in a single commodity, then would speculation go down? I’m not sure if Rothbard was trying to say that paper money was good for speculators and that speculation would go down if the govt couldn’t createmoney. If speculation is not reduced by government inability to create money, then why isn’t it?
I would guess since commodities are limited, there would be less speculation in a world without monetary legislation but I’m not really sure so that’s why I’m asking.
Let me know if my OP wasn’t clear.
I’m curious as to why you care how much speculation there is. It sounds as if you’re of the opinion that there is some “ideal” amount of speculation in an economy.
There isn’t an ideal amount and I don’t want government encouraging it nor do I want govt restricting it. Speculation can encourage people to make more efficient use of resources, so it’s not necessarily bad. Speculation is good for people with low time preference.
Austrian economics says its impossible for there to be an ideal amount of speculation anyway. The actions of the market make it impossible for prices to not fluctuate.
Is it the case that people like Robert Morris didn’t like hard money because it made speculation more difficult?
I’m pretty sure that’s what I was implying.
So, what, fiat money is superior?
never mind.
I don’t mean to shut you down, I’m just not really sure what you’re asking/getting at. So some guy says hard money makes speculation more difficult. So what? What’s his alternative?
As Thomas Sowell says, “Compared to what?”
Much like my point in the murder clinic thread, it’s like arguing that you can’t have freedom because if you have freedom people will die.
I can see where it would be hard to understand what I was asking because I don’t understand what I was asking.
Sorry about that and thank you for your replies. I appreciate them.
And yes, people will die regardless of govt action.