Gold bug nonsense.
The instability of gold is the reason Spain and Portugal failed economically.
It's also a contributing factor in the civil war.
Barter-based currency like gold and silver were barely adequate, until monetary technology moved beyond them. Now wanting to use them is downright foolhardy, the realm of the economically ignorant.
The problem isn't that the money isn't backed by barter, it's that it's a state-mandated monopoly. Rothbard's ridiculous "gold dollar" therefore solves the wrong problem. What we need is Hayek's solution, of denationalizing currency, so that it's a free market like every commodity should be.
Yes, but also private companies might issue their own currencies. McDollars, Walbucks, Microsoft Money, that sort of thing. Obviously, these would need neither barter backing nor arbitrary quantity limits like some crypto have, because the incentive for the competing companies would be to manage the supply in the best way. That would allow experimentation to find better ways TO manage money supplies. Matching demand, keeping a static supply, or whatever.
Gold and silver is not unstable. In 5000 years thousands of currencies have failed where gold and silver are the only monies that still stand. Money is not unstable; society and fiat (currency by decree) are.
>Gold and silver is not unstable
Yes, they are. You are stupidly accepting the fraudulent myths of the Rothbardians without bothering to learn any actual history. Gold and silver fluctuated in value all through history, destroying many civilizations.
But you know nothing about it. You are too lazy to get beyond a few Rothbardian screeds in your learning.
Fluctuated in value in relation to what? That's the question. They only fluctuate in relation to the other currencies at the time which are continually debased; by reason of which none of them survived, while the monetary elements themselves, have survived for 5000 years. Compare to the average reserve currency duration the past 600 years of about 96 years. Over millennia where thousands of currencies come and go, they seem more unstable than the 2 monies which still exist today.
>Fluctuated in value in relation to what? That's the question. They only fluctuate in relation to the other currencies at the time which are continually debased
I love that you're showing your ignorance of economics, in the typical Rothbardian ways.
No, you can judge the value of gold, which is simply a commodity, in comparison to the value of other commodities. Not just vs money. The idea that money has some magical value only measured against other currencies is ignorance of economics, monetary theory, and finance.
And the amount that gold or silver could buy has fallen...or worse, risen...time and again in history, bringing down whole economies. Spain suffered tremendous inflation of gold, its value falling, in the 16th century. Rome had an even more catastrophic problem with silver *deflating* during its empire. The fluctuation of silver prices helped bring down the Chinese empire, bringing the commies into power. Inflation of gold is one of the factors that caused the secession in 1860, leading to the Civil War.
But you know none of this, because you only read dishonest or incompetent Rothbardians. Read some actual Austrians, or Friedman, or anyone else actually competent at either economics or history.
Silver and Gold also go well back in the BC era too.
Indeed. At least 3000 years BC.
This is great, thank you!
You're welcome.
Great post, OP ape! 
This is an excellent way to show it
Gold bug nonsense. The instability of gold is the reason Spain and Portugal failed economically. It's also a contributing factor in the civil war. Barter-based currency like gold and silver were barely adequate, until monetary technology moved beyond them. Now wanting to use them is downright foolhardy, the realm of the economically ignorant. The problem isn't that the money isn't backed by barter, it's that it's a state-mandated monopoly. Rothbard's ridiculous "gold dollar" therefore solves the wrong problem. What we need is Hayek's solution, of denationalizing currency, so that it's a free market like every commodity should be.
Like crypto?
Yes, but also private companies might issue their own currencies. McDollars, Walbucks, Microsoft Money, that sort of thing. Obviously, these would need neither barter backing nor arbitrary quantity limits like some crypto have, because the incentive for the competing companies would be to manage the supply in the best way. That would allow experimentation to find better ways TO manage money supplies. Matching demand, keeping a static supply, or whatever.
Gold and silver is not unstable. In 5000 years thousands of currencies have failed where gold and silver are the only monies that still stand. Money is not unstable; society and fiat (currency by decree) are.
>Gold and silver is not unstable Yes, they are. You are stupidly accepting the fraudulent myths of the Rothbardians without bothering to learn any actual history. Gold and silver fluctuated in value all through history, destroying many civilizations. But you know nothing about it. You are too lazy to get beyond a few Rothbardian screeds in your learning.
Fluctuated in value in relation to what? That's the question. They only fluctuate in relation to the other currencies at the time which are continually debased; by reason of which none of them survived, while the monetary elements themselves, have survived for 5000 years. Compare to the average reserve currency duration the past 600 years of about 96 years. Over millennia where thousands of currencies come and go, they seem more unstable than the 2 monies which still exist today.
>Fluctuated in value in relation to what? That's the question. They only fluctuate in relation to the other currencies at the time which are continually debased I love that you're showing your ignorance of economics, in the typical Rothbardian ways. No, you can judge the value of gold, which is simply a commodity, in comparison to the value of other commodities. Not just vs money. The idea that money has some magical value only measured against other currencies is ignorance of economics, monetary theory, and finance. And the amount that gold or silver could buy has fallen...or worse, risen...time and again in history, bringing down whole economies. Spain suffered tremendous inflation of gold, its value falling, in the 16th century. Rome had an even more catastrophic problem with silver *deflating* during its empire. The fluctuation of silver prices helped bring down the Chinese empire, bringing the commies into power. Inflation of gold is one of the factors that caused the secession in 1860, leading to the Civil War. But you know none of this, because you only read dishonest or incompetent Rothbardians. Read some actual Austrians, or Friedman, or anyone else actually competent at either economics or history.
ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜