Comment: First, there is no difference between a recession and a

(See in situ)


First, there is no difference between a recession and a

depression.

Since the Great Depression, the government started calling them "recessions" so it didn't evoke panic and fear, and so their policies didn't look to be failing as much as they were.

Looking at statistics alone, some of our "recessions" since WWII were far worse than many "depressions" before 1929.

Second, depressions are the result of burst bubbles of mal-investment.

Mal-investment is what happens when people get the wrong economic signals as to what is going on.

They get these wrong signals from distortions in the market.

They are able to mal-invest because "money" or more likely "credit" is cheap and easy to obtain. This is the primary contributing distortion.

Gold is blamed for depressions because it is wrongly seen that since gold can't be created out of thin air to give to people to prime the pump, then the economic "engine" slows down until confidence restores over a long period of time.

However, gold didn't CAUSE the downturn. A burst bubble did. The bubble was caused by easy credit. (something a HARD currency doesn't allow for - you can't make gold out of thin air, it is hard to obtain, so people aren't likely to speculate wildly with it)

The bubble always bursts because bubbles are essentially pyramid schemes built off of con-games.

A gold and silver coinage - without paper notes, or credit, would preclude any serious possibility of a large or widespread bubble and thus a large or widespread depression.

Certainly, local fools may exist, but their damage will be necessarily limited in scope and size.

Make sure though, you understand and keep clear the distinction between a gold (and silver) monetary system in the form of coinage, contrasted with a paper note system of currency, allegedly "backed" by gold or silver.

The later will ALWAYS collapse, will always give way to easy credit, and will always bring mal-investment, bubbles, and depressions.

A real hard monetary system practically can't.

Remember, the Federal Reserve Notes were initially "backed" by gold. The propensity to inflate, spend, and make war, eventually debased their value enough on the open market that the backing had to be abandoned first for domestic purposes, and finally for foreign ones.

So in that since, yes, gold "backed" paper DOES lead to depressions.

But GOLD itself does NOT.

There is also an important point to consider, that going with gold alone is a recipe for disaster with respect to extreme poverty and gridlock financially.

While prices would adjust, there is not enough gold practically to function as the sole medium of exchange. This was even the case in 1792. Silver has been used as a "poor man's money" for nearly 500 years. It supplanted the vacuum left by gold held by elites.

Now we have the practical problem that with so many more people, and so much more economic activity, to divide up gold small enough to be useful for everyday purchases, you'd have to make it smaller than a gram. That isn't convenient. It's too small.

So silver fills the role for smaller purchases, and there's enough of those two most likely to handle the job.

If not, that's what a free market is for. The market would fill any remaining gaps with copper, nickel, palladium, and platinum coins.

This is why it's okay to have officially minted coins, but we should never allow a monopoly on them. The market should be free to find solutions to omissions in the official line-up or offerings of monetary products.

Does that about sum it up for you?