just wanted to note that they are using a 20-year history window as an argument, while the gold standard existed for about 3500 years before that, across very different cultures.
We call the thing in the 1930s the "Great Depression", but before it occurred there was another time period that held that label, which has since been renamed:
It's just most folks accepted that this is how things were "supposed" to be because they didn't know any better, but there was great dissatisfaction on how things were:
It took until the likes of Irving Fischer, Keynes, and FDR until the old habits could be thrown off (too late in some places, like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan):
The Chinese used silver (as the Spanish learned post-1492). The Incas had gold (as the Spanish happily learned) but not for currency (of which they had none) but for ornament/jewelry. Other cultures simply used other things, like non-shiny rocks:
It is actually the gold standard—the convertibility between paper money and shiny rocks—that is the historic anomaly, existing between (depending on how you count things) between one and two hundred years:
Even the very meaning and nature of what is meant by "money" has changed over the millennia, starting with Aristotle and continuing to the present day:
Who trusts China enough to sign on board with them to do this?
> 2. BTC becomes the reserve currency
Given what we know of history, why would anyone go towards a new (digital) gold standard? It's a bad system:
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/775143.Golden_Fetters
that limits monetary and fiscal flexibility and helped usher in and prolong the Great Depression.