I know gold standar is a good way for citizens to be free and all of those things. But, being realistics, what would be the impact in a country if it starts to use a gold exchange standar and the other countries don’t? I mean, Could Chile go through a gold standar while other countries use Fiat money? I think Chile would be exchanging gold for paper and that’s why gold standar could not exist as long as all countries use it.
Opinions?
What we want is not a nationalized gold standard, but we want people to be free to exchange in whatever they want.
If people then trade gold for paper or gold for goods, then they obviously feel they benefit. So there’s nothing wrong with that.
You are know free to trade your money in gold, paper, goods, or anything! I do not think that gold standar is about it. Gold standar is used to control goverment spending and Central Bank printing money like crazy, so finally is about keeping your money’s value. My point is that If “chile” or any country, go trough a gold standar it will probably give its money a value that no other currencies have, so it would not be sustainable, even unfair for chilean citizens.
A simple repeal of legal tender laws and abolishing capital gains taxes for trading gold would be enough to allow for every market agent to freely decide what to use. Everyone would still be free to use paper if they wanted to.
Z.
It’s “Gold Standard” and gold does not give monies value.
Better option is to get rid of central banking altogether. Free market is the way to go, and I think you’ll find the most successful banks will establish a standard - either gold, silver or whatever - and not go overboard on fractional reserve practices.
I don’t really see how “unfair” it would be for people to have money that has value that no other country has. That seems to be a benefit, no?
My point is that If “chile” or any country, go trough a gold standar it will probably give its money a value that no other currencies have, so it would not be sustainable, even unfair for chilean citizens.
Explain.
Josh please forgive me for missing a “D”, I did not know that was the big deal in this forum! Gramatic! I hope you and your wider knowledge could forgive me sometime.
I mean unfair if you start from the actual situation, if now every one “trust” in chile’s fiat currency, if every country accepts it, Has chile any benefit if it starts to back its money up in gold? NONE!!! it Would be useless, and very expensive, it will cost gold instead of paper when chile has a deficit!!! there is no motivation for a country to use gold standar"d" (in the current situation) beyond control the instability of central banks and goverments, but trading will cost more when Chile imports more than exports, now chile can print money, but in gold standar it will give gold, in the reverse situation, if chile exports more than import, it will still receive just paper, not gold (like it gives) and that’s why I think it would be unfair to a country (just one country) to go through a gold standard.
Thinking more about it!!! it is not even necessary to have a trade deficit!!! every product that chile imports can be paid in gold (perfect and brilliant) or paper, but every product chile exports will be paid just in paper (with all its defects), so Chile is not “good” or idiot enough to trade paper for gold, and then everyone is going to keep in fiat currency until everyone starts to use a gold standard. If now we have paper why we must give gold???
haha, “gold standar”
Would you care to explain how gold gives money value?
You seem to be claiming that “paper currency” and “fiat currency” are the same thing. Fiat currency is paper that is backed by the word of government, whereas under a gold standard, paper currency could just be backed by gold. It is still probable that Chile’s imports would involve the exchange of a good for paper monies.
But, I’m not sure what the relevance is of discussing trade deficits on this topic. And, not many users of this forum advocate a gold standard.
Free competition in money is where it’s at.
Gold standard is a stability insurance you are giving to your currency that any other country is giving! that’s what I meant with value. And about your definition of fiat and paper, I have always meant Fiat currency. And about not so many people in this forum advocate a gold standard, I tought austrian economist (and austrian economics readers) advocate for a gold standard, but if you say they do not… I will have to trust your amazing knowledge…
If you want to read a large collection of posts by economic illiterates, go here:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3562991
The good (and bad) thing about that forum is there is no registration, so anyone can post anything immediately.
Thanks Mtn Dew, I will check it!
I tought austrian economist (and austrian economics readers) advocate for a gold standard
Most of the prominent Austrian Economist from the past two generations have advocated a free market in money. You probably think Ron Paul advocates a gold standard, right?
As for Austrian Economics Readers, I’m sure many of them would love a gold standard. As for the adherents on this board, not so much.
- antonioecc: “every product that chile imports can be paid in gold (perfect and brilliant) or paper, but every product chile exports will be paid just in paper (with all its defects)”
That makes no sense whatsoever. “Chile” does not export anything - individual exporters do. If some exporter wanted to trade his goods abroad in exchange for gold, what’s to stop him? Why would he have to accept paper money if he did not want to?
If some exporter does want to be paid in foreign paper currency, or postage stamps or kisses, or just donate charitably for no compensation whatsoever - who’s business is that?
Really? go and tell your buyer to pay you in gold! and then hear very well what he tells you… I am not against gold standard, I just do not see it possible anymore unless every country uses it. And the fact that “chile” does not trade (of course it does not) does not remove the fact that a nation is giving the possiblity (an a free political insurance) to exchange paper for gold. It is even more unfair for individuals if you put it that way, does not matter if “they can trade using any kind of money they want because is a decision” but a goverment is giving some benefits no goverment is giving to its citizens…
but a goverment is giving some benefits to foreign citizens no goverment is giving to its own citizens…
the post said being realistics??? i guess they meant realisitc…???
with a very real government how would competition in monies work come tax time???
one tqaxpayer paying in otter skins while another pays in gold???