Comment: Here ya go.

(See in situ)


Here ya go.

#1 - No one in their right mind is calling for a "gold standard." That is, it is unwise to consider backing paper bank notes with promises to pay anything. That is, after all, how we got here in the first place. Federal Reserve Notes were originally "backed" by gold and silver coin. (depending on the size of the note) The FED quickly printed more than they had in metal, and a depression ensued in short order. The government did nothing about it, and the depression ended 18 months later. The FED then began printing again, albeit this time, much more slowly. However, they printed so much, they created another depression. This time, the government stepped in, and it lasted over 20 years.

What we need is not a gold standard, but a return to actual silver and gold coin circulating as money again.

Thus your answers:

A) The supply is not finite, but compared to what we have now, practically so. New mines ARE still opened and there is still production from current mines going on. No, there is no tie to GDP. (or properly GNP, as GDP is a Keynesian fabrication)

B) Again, gold will not be used to back anything. It will be used directly in coin and/or bar form. As will silver, copper and perhaps nickel, palladium and platinum, but those others will depend on market demand. Still, this issue needs to be addressed regardless of if the metal is backing worthless paper, or if it is used directly. The question is one of adequate supply. The answer is simple: "price" is merely a ratio. What you will see happen is not a one:one exchange rate, but rather a one:many exchange rate transition. Thus, gold will likely be "priced" in terms of goods at a much higher rate than it is now. Some estimate this number to settle in anywhere between 5000 and 16000 FRNs to the ounce, or more.

However, most likely, depending on how this comes about, there will be some destruction of FIAT currency accounts, and thus gold will likely not rise any higher than it is at the start of the transition, whatever that might be.

If you need more explanation of this, let me know.

C) Government would not be in the money monopoly business in a free market. Coin would come into circulation as needed and as it is produced, which as noted in point A, will be relatively slowly compared to FRNs, and also compared to production of goods and services. Thus, prices will eventually fall over time, which is the natural benefit of improved efficiencies, economies of scale, and specialization. Hence, GDP/GNP is irrelevant here. The market will always make sure that there is enough coin in circulation because prices will adjust to reflect the amount available for demand of goods and services. The end effect is standards of living will rise, rather than spiral downward.

D) Monopolies are not really possible with a free market. Only government privilege, intervention, and protectionism can make them a reality. In a true free market, anyone is open to competition. The more share a business has of a market, the more likely they will face competition in various forms.

Please explain the "notion of letting people die" and this being "all too common."

I don't see what this has to do with a free market.

Conversely, socialism is well documented to cause massive starvation and death at the hands of the government, to the tune of hundreds of millions of people in the last century.