Why is abandoning the gold standard good for countries?

instituting an unbacked fiat currency does create an economic boom in the short term. The problem is that it never works in the long run as fiat currency always eventually reverts to its intrinsic value (a piece of paper).

absolute power corrupts absolutely. There has never been a time in history where the fiat-issuing authority has acting in a manner to guarantee the purchasing power.

The gold standard wasn't abandoned until 1971 - and even then it was temporarily suspended. Nice try though Keynesian subhuman. Please, go fund your underground child trafficking operations with more Federal Reserve money somewhere else. Subhuman fucking rat piece of shit, kike cock sucking jew loving nigger subsidizing cunt.

Attached: 1470615592072.jpg (1455x837, 317.52K)

fractal banking and derivatives are the problem, along with the stock market... not the inherent value of what we choose as currency

The problem I suppose would be simply put as growth. If the economy is to grow at a stable rate so must Gold. Gold is not as easily accessible as printing

Hitler did not use gold or any metal to finance and fuel his never before seen rise to power, from Zimbabwe tier inflation to global superpower in half a decade. Faith in your people, putting money to good use for God and country. That is wealth.

Because the gold standard is retarded. For starters, gold has little intrinsic value. More crucially, money supply is a vital lever of economic control, and tying your nation's currency to a scarce resource dependent on mining is hamstringing your ability to control your economy. It's very similar to the situation Greece and other Southern Euro-zone countries put themselves in by joining the Euro.

The gold standard only serves to create economic depression, preserving the wealth of the already rich, while destroying the opportunity of anyone else to get a leg up. People that claim to be jew-woke nationalists while pushing the gold standard are economically illiterate retards that got duped by Jews. They present the situation as a choice between the current situation where Jews dominate central banking, and the equally retarded situation of a monetary system that devastates economic activity and preserves Jewish wealth, as if the third option of taking control of central banking and running it for the benefit of the people doesn't exist.

That third option was exactly what Hitler did, and it produced the Nazi economic miracle that lifted Germany from a parlous state to a force to be reckoned with in just a few years. Specifically, money issuance to fund works programs like the autobahns got Germans off the bread line and back into work. That simply isn't possible while on the gold standard.

Also note, even when the US was supposedly "on the gold standard", it was actually cheating by issuing non gold-backed "United States Notes" in parallel to gold-backed Federal Reserve notes.

wtfhappenedin1971.com/

historically a fiat currency has never worked. it has always collapsed within 100 years.
fractional reserve banking, effective derivatives contracts, and fairly-valued markets would all be facilitated under a commodity money regime.

Making up a metric is hardly proof

chinese intelligence + mexican drug dealers = gold-backed juan?

Attached: clovid19.jpg (417x392, 40.89K)

Complete ignoring military spending, the main reason they wanted gold standard killed.

France was in political chaos when Hitler took power.

Attached: 1585140558313.jpg (125x120, 2.33K)

Hitler was a bad leader and his regime only lasted 12 years. Had the Nazi regime persisted under a fiat currency regime, trust in the currency would eventually have collapsed.

gold is actually a great trick to hide inflation. NPCs also like the sound of "gold backed standard" which serves integrity.
it's all fiat... fiat has a bad rep bc ruling bankers usually call themselves legit and their rivals fiat, but it's all an illusion.

This. If you have productive people and no gold then under a gold standard your people are just slaves to people who have nothing to offer but shiny rocks. Fuck that.

Hitler was a great leader undermined by Churchill, the Jews and Roosevelt

>Because the global gold supply grows only slowly
It’s much slower than population growth, meaning the gold standard would by necessity be deflationary. A deflationary economy would be destructive as it would discourage both consumption and investment.

God fucking damn are you retarded
>gold has little intrinsic value.
Gold is a natural resource which can neither be produced artificially nor harvested on a grand scale, thereby already putting it above the average good due to its scarcity. You fucker even admit this in literally the next sentence. In addition, it looks nice, which is already more than enough to convince the average person to value it above other supposedly more useful resources

>The gold standard only serves to create economic depression, preserving the wealth of the already rich, while destroying the opportunity of anyone else to get a leg up
Replace "gold standard" with "inflation" and you've got a correct statement, for once. The gold standard binds the value of a currency over a long (or rather longer) period of time than a fiat currency would, it erodes slower. This in turn incentivizes the average person to invest in the long term instead of spending it all on consumption, thereby allowing him to keep up with the richer part of society since he does not suffer a loss by keeping the money he has earned.

>Germany from a parlous state to a force to be reckoned with in just a few years.
The nazi state would've collapsed by the mid- to late 1940s due to its unstable economic situation and expansionist policies. This "miracle" consisted of munition factories, infrastructure for the military and loans to anyone in the party. The nazi's sucked the German economy dry and relied on the conquest of others, since they didn't actually produce anything of value both on the national and international market. If you put 4 million unemployed men into the army or let them produce useless weapons, of course you'll see an upturn in the short run. Guess we'll all just eat bullets then, literally and figuretively.

Attached: 1586587588490.png (784x795, 417.45K)

These shiny rocks have been valued ever since humans came to be and even to this day are highly sought after by any state. Guess why the US just didn't hand their gold away once they abolished the standard, it being useless and all

good leaders don't have to blame their failures on others. Hitler's hubris and his failure to take advice from his military on several occasions jeopardized his regime. Had he consolidated slowly over several decades, he would have built something more sustainable. The invasion of Poland was a small-dick move. The Anschuss and the Sudetenland themselves were risky -- and he pushed his luck too far.

The numbers get bigger.... And?
1 2 3 4
Easy. You can just type them in and there you go. Bigger numbers.

How you have a sad knowledge of German history. Hitler revived the economy long before the war and so-called expansionism. They had to play catch-up to refortify their military. It all happened after the German economy was booming again.

in a commodity money, people are rewarded to save. it implies that capital is only efficiently allocated when interest rates are high enough. it discourages bad capital investments. furthermore, people are assured that the money in their pocket retains its purchasing power as they approach retirement.

big line go up yay

Germans were being slaughtered. The UK was privately encouraging it because they wanted war. The invasion was perfectly justified. If the UK acted rationally everything would have been fine. Churchill was the leader that screwed things up for everybody.

Sooner Jews can get it power and turn your economy into an artificially overvalued house of cards

This is great except it avoids all the points I make above. He invaded 3 countries in under a decade, drew too much attention to himself as a regional power, then instigated a two-front war (Barbarossa) when he could barely manage on one. An objective historian can't come to a conclusion other than he was a megalomaniac who was making war and diplomatic decisions that were not based in reality.