There are always pros and cons to every system no matter which direction you may look at it. Both the idea of having the gold standard and not having our money backed by anything are two very shaky and solid ideas. The current system has no backing of any kind so prices are slanted more toward the government’s whim. This can make the economy more flexible in a hard pinch by just printing more money. The gold standard gives our money more solidarity because there is only so much gold in the world this limits the spending on pointless wars and keeps thing with in their means. The gold standard is the better of the two because it encourages healthy spending and saving habits. Or maybe even anti-matter?
Have no backing to the United States Dollar …show more content…
By limiting the amount of money in the economy if keeps faith in the government. This also stops the government from also printing endless amounts of paper money. Since we left the gold standard 1971 the money in circulation has increased from forty-eight billion dollars one trillion dollars which adds up to a 1,100% increase. Under gold the government could only print more if there was gold to back it. This keeps the government in check and prevents it from becoming god like in its control over life. When we were on the gold standard from 1792-1971 our nation averaged growth was at three point eight percent every year but currently the average growth per year is now two point eight percent. This means we are growing at a lesser rate than if we were still on gold. Because Gold is so rare the value of money under this system would break if we had too much. Asteroid mining could become common enough to where metal rich rock could be mined for recourses and make gold worthless. But that does not make backed currency unviable. You could always switch valuable material to something else like Anti-matter. Anti-matter can be used for weapons with one kilogram equaling to forty-seven megatons of TNT or a source of limitless energy. It is valued at sixty-two point five trillion dollars because it requires expensive technology to make it. If CERN’s Hadron Collider was put at max output, it would only make only ten monograms per year which would power a 60W light for 4 hours. This would provide plenty of time till the next
Have no backing to the United States Dollar …show more content…
By limiting the amount of money in the economy if keeps faith in the government. This also stops the government from also printing endless amounts of paper money. Since we left the gold standard 1971 the money in circulation has increased from forty-eight billion dollars one trillion dollars which adds up to a 1,100% increase. Under gold the government could only print more if there was gold to back it. This keeps the government in check and prevents it from becoming god like in its control over life. When we were on the gold standard from 1792-1971 our nation averaged growth was at three point eight percent every year but currently the average growth per year is now two point eight percent. This means we are growing at a lesser rate than if we were still on gold. Because Gold is so rare the value of money under this system would break if we had too much. Asteroid mining could become common enough to where metal rich rock could be mined for recourses and make gold worthless. But that does not make backed currency unviable. You could always switch valuable material to something else like Anti-matter. Anti-matter can be used for weapons with one kilogram equaling to forty-seven megatons of TNT or a source of limitless energy. It is valued at sixty-two point five trillion dollars because it requires expensive technology to make it. If CERN’s Hadron Collider was put at max output, it would only make only ten monograms per year which would power a 60W light for 4 hours. This would provide plenty of time till the next