Economists are the only obstacle to returning to the gold standard

At least 66 countries overlook their coins on the dollar. The previous number underlines the actual number.

The form that the development of cryptocurrencies is largely a dollar PEG story (you think Stablecoins), which means that even more than the world is associated with the US dollar. What is the point.

As Nathan Lewis has long observed, the arguments “yes, but” against a golden model are completely false. To see why, think about the dollar once again.

From 1944 to 1971, the dollar was linked to gold at 1/35^th A golden ounce and coins of the world were largely connected to the dollar. Assuming that the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance Scott Bessent will announce a plan for significant coins stability, linking the value of the dollar to a constant amount of gold constant, it is not accessible to assume that much of the world would follow such a move by linked to their coins.

These percentages report the consequences of a recent Monetarium event set by Confusion Capital in Washington, DC entitled “The Debt, Our Dollar and Our Choices From Here”. Participants included some former senators, billionaire, chief executives, types of think tank, etc.

While the conversation focused on what to do if and when national debt leads to a crack-up in dollars (my upcoming book, The illusion of deficitHe argues that the narrative of the crisis is backwards, that the real problem is too much tax revenue now and in the future), the gold standard rated only a reference (with some frequency) to the extent described as one Fix that would never happen. He did not do this, not even this blow.

Economists in particular reject the golden concept for obvious, easy -to -use reasons. For one, they claim that a dollar associated with gold will limit the so -called “money supply”. No, it’s not true. The only limit for money in traffic is production. Money is a result of production (therefore there is so many in Palo Alto, Ca, and so little in El Monte, Ca), and it is always where production is.

This would be even more true with a dollar associated with gold. After all, the dollars in circulation will rise to reflect the cheerful fact that savers would no longer need to offset currency exposure to wealth already exists (Think hard assets such as land, rare art, housing and – yes – gold) and you will feel more freely investing in shares that represent wealth that There is still no. Under such a scenario, production would grow rapidly, as did the dollars that facilitate the same. Purchases at work.

Still others argue that all debt would make a golden model of non -starter, that debt itself was only possible without a gold standard. The opposite. National debt is only income streams in dollars, years and decades in the future. If the dollar was more reliable thanks to a gold definition, the interest in Treasury’s income streams would be much greater.

This brings us to economists. They do not want a golden model precisely because money with a strict definition through gold would make their reason for anything else. Even the “free market” economists (see the ridiculous religion of the “market” on the PhD Crowd) see a central designer when they look in the mirror, so the supposed “weakness” of a golden pattern. Call the supposed weakness of a golden model.

The world is connected to the dollar either implicitly or explicitly. This will become more viable and developed if the dollar had a more reliable definition. The obstacle to a golden model is economists who make even more irrelevant than one, nothing else.