TED Conversations

Adam Druit

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can anyone here defend the use of metal backed currency in this day and age?

I've read several comments on these boards that suggest something akin to the following:
"If only the US would get rid of it's 'paper' (I assume people mean fiat) currency and go back to gold/silver, everything would be better."
What I have yet to see is any defense of this position. Why? Would someone mind helping me to understand why a backed currency is intrinsically better than a fiat one?

Topics: current events economics government monetary policy monetary system politics society
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Eduardo Martinez

    • 0
    May 4 2012: This might just be the cynical homunculi in my head talking, but those that defend "metal backed currency" are the very same ones that stand to benefit from such a procrustean form of currency. The very notion of displaced wealth carries with it a plethora of unseen and altogether pernicious side-effects. In short, the displacement of value necessarily leads to the asymmetrical distribution; in other words, the wealth always gravitates to those who already have it—hence the significance of initial conditions. I say we get rid of currency altogether, it’s not my idea (Marx beat me to it). The most efficient means of doling out wealth is in an egalitarian fashion. Ad reductio absurdum, if metal backed currency IS reinstated, those that have already invested in metals are looking to double—or even triple—there initial investments. It’s a move on behalf of the speculators in the stock market, that is all.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.