Talk:Sound money

Why no article on copyright payments for music downloads, Napster etc? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

'Sound money advocacy is slightly less insane than gold buggery' - is this not agin Teaparty/Conservapedia priciples? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is biased and irrational. See also: ShadowStats.com article on U.S. inflation. Andydude (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Drive-by Crank

This sounds like it was pilfered from wiki, instead of written by a person with logic aka rational person. 1. The article misses and does not touch on or explains the concept of money as needing to be not just a convenient medium of exchange, but that it needs to be very hard to inflate aka create more off easily, or even created without any limits out on the volume of said medium. This is a natural regulation mechanism, which allows self-regulation and usually precludes money forgery by criminals outside and within a government.

2. It was never about "free and unlimited silver" but rather it being not restricted by the government. If the government forbids silver and gold from being money, it is only done so that the monetary value can be inflated away, effectively creating infinite debt and enslavement of people subjected to said system. Claim to the contrary is supplied with a ridiculous "example" of a straw-man argument, which makes 0 sense in Austrian (aka real) economic theory.

3. Gold and silver were both used in several thousand years of human history, as sound money before the concept of "sound money" was created. It was done by humans because it was recognized as having all necessary qualities needed for those to be easy to transact, recognize and protect against inflation. BTW the fact that modern banking system hoards gold and recognizes it as Tier 1 no-liability asset, should tell every actual rational person, what it means for gold. Comex manipulation done by big banks via paper "gold" to suppress prices of both also indicates the importance of the price of said assets on the economy, otherwise it would not be done.

4. This wiki's Rules state that any bigotry is be removed, yet this entire article is effectively bigoted. It is literally written by an economic retard who thinks that paper money is sound money and that the entire sound money concept is "woo", putting it into "conspiracy category". Rational wiki is one step behind main wiki, which has been taken over by malicious forces. I suggest instead of of fixing this article, just remove "rational" from this wiki's name, as no proof exists that the word was ever used correctly, and hence it only serves as a disinfo tool. You can say that calling this wiki claim - "rational" has been disputed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Suna / talk / contribs} 14:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. 1) No, it is not a requirement that a currency be 'hard to inflate', except in the opinions of cranks. 2) Equating fiat in principle with 'enslavement' is absurd hyperbole; you seem to be conflating the idea of goverment debt with personal debt, although there's no requirement for a government to issue debt in order to issue currency. In fact, inflation (distinct from interest rates) actually helps people who are already in debt, by making their outstanding debt smaller in real terms. 3) The idea that people thought that money needed to be inflation-resistant in antiquity is frankly hilarious. In modern times, banks actually have to manipulate the price of gold because otherwise it would be too volatile. It has always been volatile, it's just that on the gold standard that volatility was inextricably linked to the prices of everything. You only have to look at how Mansa Musa screwed Egypt's economy by turning up with bags of gold to understand that specie is no more resistant to an influx of supply than fiat. 4) Equating an economic viewpoint you disagree with with 'bigotry' makes you look like an absolute tool. Please learn some actual economics. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have emerged as "sound money" in memes, even though crypto ended up being highly centralized (sorry, crypto-anarchists) and is based on no physical asset, demonstrates in my mind that "government bad" is the resounding principle of the crowd that tends to use "sound money", and not much else. Maybe after enough crypto scams, the libertarian bros can start reading the financial history of the gold standard days (pre-1930s) and figure out why we are no longer on it. Perhaps after enough crypto pump and dump scams, they can also figure out why some of these modern "pesky" financial regulations they detest exist too. (Or, maybe they'll just cling to their fantasy economic cult, drive by sites, and exclaim that since we're not promoting bullshit like Austrian school or gold standard junk, we're no longer "rational". Hah!) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"No, it is not a requirement that a currency be 'hard to inflate', except in the opinions of cranks" Someone does not understand the difference between currency and money. This does not make it equal, but it makes you unqualified to talk about anything economy related. Yeah, this is why I did not say anything about crypto. Because unlike crypto, PM cant be created out of thin air or multiplied like crypto was in the past several years. Like I said, there is reality and then there is "Keynesian "economic" model" . The reality always trump everything delusion-based. Please continue to be deluded and suffer as a result. The bad thing about the uneducated is that they never know what hits them and why, but they sure as hell think they know it was not what smart people warned them about a long time ago. Money have to be rare and valuable. This is a prerequisite which anything easily obtained and created out of thin air does not satisfy. Why is this a requirement? Well, of course, this is because you are exchanging your time for something that has to be valuable. So, stating anything contrary to that, only shows how delusional a lot of people are about the economy or what constitutes MONEY. Now, the fact that you confuse money and currency already shows you are way behind the curve. ^{— Unsigned, by: Suna / talk / contribs}

I have a degree in economics. And at least I know how to edit a wiki talk page without messing it up. Sign your posts, indent correctly, and don't insert your response into the middle of other people's comments. If you can't make even a token effort to do that I'll just delete what you write, it's a pain in the backside to fix.

"there is reality and then there is "Keynesian "economic" model"" the Keynesian consensus was only dropped when stagflation couldn't be explained by it. It still has predictive power, and its still part of the modern synthesis. If you're rejecting it out of hand, you're pushing an extremely heterodox angle and you don't get to claim to be the voice of reason in this.

"Money have to be rare and valuable." this just makes it clear you don't understand what money exists for. It's a means to an end. Its value is arbitrary but kept stable by social factors. This sounds like pure goldbuggery. Fiat is strictly superior to backed money precisely because it is more flexible to adjust through policy.

If you want to be a crank, go ahead and be a crank. Please don't try and pretend that established economic theory supports your crankery, it just makes you look like a loon. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Not to be confused with

Recording rights payments for music/hiring a live performance and relevant technicians. Anna Livia (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)