A good way to think about why this analogy he is arguing is nonsense, is to realize that silver would then be less volatile than gold and thus would be the “better money,” because it has a more elastic supply.
Which essentially means, he is arguing that there is some special optimum with gold despite having no fundamental reasoning for it, or anything to compare it to.
It’s not unlike Keynesian central bankers claiming that 2% inflation is optimal, yet it’s based on literally nothing at all.
Replies (2)
That makes sense. His argument assumes prices need to be stable as a general rule in the first place, which I took issue with, but thought it deserved a second look. For a smart guy who has clearly read Saifedean's work, he sure is a devoted goldbug.
Thanks :)
Thank you for laying this out so simply. I had encountered the same basic argument made by George Gilder in Life after Google. He stated that #gold was optimal over #bitcoin because the jewelry stock of gold could be quickly #remonitized in the event of a #liquidity crunch. The argument felt wrong to me but I didn't have a succinct way of explaining why until now. The simple fact that the #market settled on gold over the more easily expanded monies such as #silver shows it's a weak argument.
