posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by randomname
It still impacts the value of gold. They are essentially taking something of less value,that is found in nature and toxic, and turning it into
something that has more practical applications and decreases its scarcity. That would drive the price of gold down.
My point still remains valid.
At this point in human development, we still need currency. Pegging currency to something tangible only means that anyone who can create, hoard or
find said item has the power and the money. This allows for greater manipulation than fiat. Yes, both can be manipulated, but a strong nation
economically and morally is far less likely to suffer that problem based on fiat, but could easily if based on a tangible good.
This brings up another aspect of consideration on the matter. A currency should be internal to a nation. Multinational currencies cause problems when
multiple governments have different economic policies and practices.
There is a natural progression of exchange as society develops. We started out with trade or bartering. We then settled on common currency (metal).
This led to backed paper currency. This became fiat. This evolution occurs as society progresses, develops and grows both in size and in civility.
Ultimately the most advanced society would have no cash or economic system, as everyone would have access to anything and everything they need and the
individual is guided by being in a perfect state of responsibility, morality and ethics. That is likely a long way off, if we as a species can ever
achieve it. I could however see a point in our near development where time is somehow used as a currency.
edit on 3-10-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)