If we return to the gold standard and adhere to the structure, which existed until 1913, it would be good. Recall, for the period since 1870 the United States by 1913. He was one of the most aggressive in economic terms - it was the golden age of the gold standard.
Alan Greenspan, Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
I would like to ask the distinguished Mr. Greenspan: where you were before, being in the position of controlling the most influential central bank of the planet? Like all meynstrimschikov, for such people in the first place is a pit. The state apparatus, as is known, provides it with a vengeance. The adverse effects, broken lives and the future of many people at the same time of course no one cares. However, none of the crisis and no depression is not robbing people as robbed inflation generated by the central bank.
The ability to preserve capital in a country where rampant nomenclature, destroyed by all possible means. Therefore there is nothing surprising in the fact that hordes of speculators were able to see the potential and make it cryptocurrency money. In this case, they are only unconsciously meet the demand for capital preservation growing appetites nomenclature. I got to bitcoin spread, if not strained state of the current monetary system of central banks? Many people confuse it with the Bretton Woods monetary system, according to which the currency of the world were provided with US dollars, which in turn are secured by gold. Which explains the hegemony of the United States. However, nothing much out of this situation, Americans did not win, but on the contrary, during the action of these agreements (1944 -. 1971) has been taken out of the country for about two-thirds of the gold reserves. Today, the world exists at the Jamaican currency system, which does not oblige anyone to any binding, causing a look at the issue of each other.
At the same time, no country in the world we are seeing now a conservative policy of central banks. In varying degrees, stimulated by the intervention everywhere, simply because it posits the need for populist economics. Deprivation of the ability of people to decide for themselves what currency they use, and what not, stems from a fairly prosaic logic. Take, for example, a baker and a fisherman: here is one ispёk pie and the other, at the same time, I caught a fish. Furthermore, if the cake is exchanged for fish, then we have a price: 1 cake = 1 fish. Following this logic, ceteris paribus, the exchange of 1 to 2 fish pie is unequally. The same rejection of the exchange will not mean a change in price. According to the logic of price change is justified only if the occurrence of changes in the good conditions, for example if the fisherman began to catch a lot of fish shamelessly over the same period of time. In other words, if the change of labor productivity. The Government shall provide itself with the authority to correct this injustice arising from the taking away of those who benefited from the exchange, or those who do not want to share, "returning" to those who have lost the exchange, or was not among their manufactured goods. This is reflected in subsidies, protectionism, and of course the issue of money in favor of government social projects. In every possible way "punish" users of other currencies, thus the state is trying to compensate for the shortcomings of its currency against the background of higher quality, which are used in a clearly speculative purposes in that State.
Of course, everything is not so simple. When exchanging fish cake baker for the fisherman and good data are not identical, that is, do not have an equal sign between them. The fact of the exchange have already said that its members assess the resulting benefit is higher than that which parted. That is, 1 pie> 1 fish, along with the position of the pie 1 <1 fish. How can vary the proportions of the data each other assessments - is unknown. Maybe the fisherman is ready to give a thousand fish in a single pie (but only one) at the same time when the baker is ready to give a maximum of two pies per fish.
To understand how this quality of analysis of exchange is important in the application, you should try to check a result of the previous logic, in which one single fish pie is identical. Exchange 1 cake 2 fish is no longer unequal, as is the proportion of a baker and fisherman estimates. Rejection of the exchange would mean just totally insufficient to change the exchange product evaluation. According to this logic changes in the conditions of occurrence of the good is not important, the central location is only a subjective assessment, and the final price is formed only if the other party to a potential exchange will more appreciated. The change in labor productivity at the same time only "facilitate" one scale.
completely natural becomes an explanation of voluntary Exchange, even if the previous logic it could be "unequal", just because it is such is not. unreasonable becomes in such conditions and the need for regulation and redistribution as question arises in that it is aimed? on transfusion of empty in порожнее, on the go generating costs in society? to ensure accuracy of it is this logic, it is enough to address to practice and to make sure, where the regulation of the economy minimum - society richer. where the regulation of more - society poorer, respectively. at first glance it seems obvious and slight difference approach to such a trivial things. but those changes to the society that occur or not occur to this day, in mind the existence of the confrontation between these positions, huge. enough to say that for the sake of promoting the first thesis, for the last century were killed tens of millions of people. as for the sake of one only alignment trade balance, negative value of which is regarded as the problem - the population of the world today грабится billions of dollars every day. hypocrisy specialists, when they knowing about the accuracy of the second option, justify the logic of the first, it is enough common. in the conditions of execution whims of power even there was a special term - экспертократия. currency regulation, which aims to the fact to redistribute funds from abroad in the country and of the pockets of citizens their country in the Treasury, is one of the main objects around which spinning all this roundabout. fashion on the Central banks not утихала even in the era of unbridled liberalism. no one of the functionaries not even came in the head that money of the same face value that is investing or saves the population, have different value for their owners. people on the ground have more information may be better to anticipate trends and Consequently adjust their expectations regarding the surrounding the world. as a result, the free treatment of capital and pushes progress forward that noticed more Adam Smith. at the official same in front of a point of view on the part, and someone long-term investments for him look as "capital outflow", and someone optimization of production - as "crisis overproduction." the second problem arising from the action of power, is all the same subjective evaluation of the surrounding the world, but as a distributor benefits. taking away someone else's capital, it is directed to those projects which for official seem to be subjective important.
However, no matter what kind of paper can not express the evaluation of these projects other people. Full of benefits from the redistribution nomenclature evaluates benefits beyond their own consumption as a more meaningful. Luxury foreign cars, mansions and foie gras go by the wayside and never allure now official wants his city was a beautiful statue and along the borders of his country has a powerful armored divisions. It is, quite naturally, appreciates these benefits as paramount for him, translating those its values on the whole society. At the same time, society itself, respectively, of little interest to the acquisition of such public goods, when it can not afford to buy conventional products to dinner for her family, suffering from poverty and despair.
In the conditions of modern feudalism, gde not working democratic institutions, feedback loss most acute, and sometimes reaches extreme senility. In North Korea, in an environment where people are immersed in total poverty, living from hand to mouth, and walked in rags, he presented a magnificent stucco Pyongyang Metro, the military might of the Armed Forces, twenty-four hours the struggle against the external enemy, flying in orbit, statues permanent Clan Kims and regular parades as a valuable public goods. At the time when such benefits for the local elite quite rightly appreciated, the bulk of the population, they can be largely indifferent. The consequence of this situation is when an ordinary Korean exchanges without thinking holy book "Juche" a pack of rice, thus demonstrating disregard for the values of the elite - in fact responding to them in return.
The movement of capital is one of the methods of saving their own subjective values of such obscurantism and abuse. A more developed state, listening to the demands of the population, allows the use of the tools by which generated new wealth (while maintaining the basic tools of robbery). The fact that people are using the permitted methods of wealth creation, including in the struggle with the mechanism of the state robbery, is not accidental. Those public goods offered nomenclature, so do not get support among their sponsors - the population itself. His demand for hard money did not disappear, and for a hundred years, it would not broadcast the power of the court functionaries and economists about the harmfulness of money hardness.
Would allow the government to development of the Internet, if I knew that in this environment there destruction of the financial system in the form cryptocurrency? Yet the thirst for progress takes precedence over the desire for stability, making these processes inevitable and irreversible, which means the future is bound to the prosperity of mankind even by democracy.
Feel the Freya comments op argue, Il baa happi the discussion. (Im music and Nativ Englisch speker, Im sorry odds Tkhe Tipo op grammar)