Originally Posted by
Krugminator2
Money printing isn't inherently dishonest. The money supply should grow by roughly the average rate of population growth + economic growth. The money supply would expand greatly even under Ron Paul's competing currencies. There is nothing free market or moral about holding the money supply fixed.
Most people don't realize the money supply increased greatly under the gold standard.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanl.../#698df0136c09
The money supply never needs to increase or decrease* (in the sense that some economic problem will result if it doesn't), but there's also no problem in the money supply changing, provided it's changing for the right reasons. If money is a good (like gold) as opposed to a pure medium of exchange (like dollars), an increase in the money supply is a result of increased production of that good, and the people who benefit from the new money are those who produced those goods and sold them to willing buyer in a mutually beneficial exchange. It's no different than people producing gold now (when it is not money), thereby profiting, while driving down the price - nothing wrong with that at all. In contrast, if money is a pure medium of exchange, which people are being compelled to accept, the new money spenders are getting something for nothing. The money might as well be a note from the Army saying "give this guy your $#@! or we'll going to jail you."
*Unless money is a physical good, in which case the supply of the good either needs to increase over time, or society needs to turn away from the physical good and toward notes redeemable for increasingly small quantities of that good, since otherwise prices would be too low for the smallest denomination of money to be practically useful (i.e. a gold coin can only be made so small, as a practical matter).
Connect With Us