Message from @Will not respond
Discord ID: 575110648321540096
@Deleted User thanks for the informed opinion, so in a nut shell file that under "nice idea but wouldn't work"
can we replace the gold standard with another type of hard backing?
But uhmmm lemme see what we could use as a hard backing
Cant think of anything atm
What it means that the US cannot return to the gold standard under capitalism, it is quite simply mathematically impossible. Destroying the system of international Capitalism and the replacing the current US economy of a planed protectionist market socialist one would be possible however.
The hard backing of the US dollar is oil at the moment, but that doesn’t help the citizenry since Citizens can’t exchange dollars for oil unlike how under the gold standard citizens can exchange dollars for gold.
Part of our modern society, and by extension international trade, is understanding that money itself only has the value we give it
Gold is exactly the same, but simply more antiquated. What actual value does gold have besides the value we give it? Can you eat it? Forge it? It has some use in electronics but that's about it and only relevant for the past 40-50 years or so.
gold's use is it's great amount of stability and unreactivity
So it's sort of silly to say we should throw away modern international trade since our currency is, without governmental backing, worthless, and instead base it on an item that is also as worthless in terms of practical application
It might have some uses, yea, especially in a modern context, but is it enough to base a currency off of?
That's why many ancient civilization had a "grain standard," as opposed to gold, with grain even being the currency at times
Wasn’t that the same time they used gold coins as currency
lol watch this UK:
@McBacoon Seem to have a thing against the UK, aye?
😘
Ye mate
Why is that?
Don't see any valid reason unless you're going to invent an insult?
lets here
it
Side A: Raise Min wage. Side B: But then the cost of everything would go up
valid points
but
The answer is to set a cap on how much more CEO's can make than their employees
you know back in the day they made 30% more
nowadays they make 300%+ more so
interesting
the answer is to cap it so they can only make like 50% more or something so then they won't lose profit by raising the wages
so the more their employees are paid the more they get paid, the less their employees are paid they less they are paid
I feel like there would be loopholes
like would this include bonus' and stipends?
no but you could only allow a certain amount of those per year
per person
Interesting for sure
if that could work its a shame we would never see it. That would be lobbied into the dirt
Like take the Walton family for example they make 25,000$ per MINUTE most people make that in a YEAR if they are lucky. So make them not make such a significant difference
then buried 6 feet under
yeah