What you do not grasp is that gold isn’t depreciated intentionally, with the purpose of secretly obtaining the wealth of people. It is not produced for the express purpose of confiscation.
I do grasp the concept very well. I simply don’t agree that the gold standard is a good monetary system.
What you are describing with your theft analogy is the Federal Reserve system.
There is no other way to depreciate a fiat currency without printing more currency. This being a necessary evil, the only appropriate place for the money to be created is into the public treasury for necessary services and infrastructure.
You really want to defend legalized looters by claiming it is some sort of entropy?
I will never defend any private central banking system. They should all be abolished.
A fiat currency must be owned by the people, and all benefits of artificially-generated inflation must go back to the people via public treasury, accounts which are held in trust for the common good.
What is in place in the United States is a private inflation-tax system that steals the wealth of the people and puts it into the hands of a few super-rich banking families.
That is absolutely indefensible.
A publicly-owned and generated fiat currency allows for healthy inflation as well as sufficient money supply for public security, basic infrastructure, and national defense.
Under the gold standard, these services would have to be paid for with taxes, and instead of the peoples’ wealth being transferred to Fed bankers, it would be transferred to gold mining companies who would functionally be doing nothing more than digging a hole and “printing” up new gold currency.
What I see as being the crucial difference between our positions on the issue is that I think you believe that any and all government spending is always a theft from the people.
I don’t see it that way. Things like police, fire, military, roads, and other basic infrastructure for the maintenance of civilization need to be paid for collectively. Yes, people need to be “forced” to pay for it. If someone doesn’t agree, they can apply political pressure to change it, or bloody well leave our civilization’s territory and emigrate elsewhere.
What you’re describing is a very barbaric society, essentially a society of cannibals. If all the cannibals vote that you are tomorrow’s lunch, then it is somehow your job to convince the cannibals to change the system or to flee.
Societies invent fiat money to transfer wealth from one group to another. Whether it be bankers or the swarming herds of unemployables makes no difference, except in which group of cannibals benefits.
Waht happens when you run out of victims?
Now another problem: The hidden premise in all this is the freedoms you grant in a civil society must spell its doom: what if I don’t want to produce anything for parasites? Well, according to you, I’ll be forced. You intend to hand a seedy little bureaucrat a gun, have him point it at me and scream, “Now produce!!” What if I don’t? Will I be sent to the Gulag?
The Soviet Ubion tried exactly what you propose. It failed. Despite your dreams of a peaceful industrial society with plenty for all, it can’t have cannibalism at it’s core. It self-destructs, just like the Soviet Union.