>
So we must trust
that money printing is better, yet I have not seen any evidence of such a system being any better for average people than a gold-based system.Do you trust the historical record?
> What about economic growth? Again, the gold standard was associated with greater volatility, not less. The following chart plots annual growth as measured by gross national product (gross domestic product only came into common use in the 1991.) The pattern looks quite a bit like that of inflation: the standard deviation of economic growth during the gold-standard era was more than twice that of the period since 1973. And, despite the Great Recession, the past quarter century has been even more stable. To use another, simpler, measure, in the period from 1880 to 1933 there were 15 business cycles identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research. That is, on average there was a recession once every 3½ years. By contrast, since 1972, there have been 7 recessions; one every 6 years.
* https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2016/12/14/why-a-...
Do you trust economic historians (like Bernstein)? Have you read much economic history?
> 1. Group A has tons of gold because it's the ultimate (physical) store of value. Group B has nothing.
It is debatable whether gold (or sea shell or giant stones (like in Micronesia)) are a useful or "ultimate" stores of value given they're completely arbitrary and a social constructs. Pre-Columbian societies (e.g., Actecs) were quite fond of gold for jewelry, but were puzzled by the Spanish fetish for it. The Chinese used silver as money because gold was for ceremonial purposes; see Goldstein:
* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/50358103-money
The Chinese used paper currency successfully for many years/decades until it was stopped because the Imperial Court wanted to exert more control over people.
> 6. Group B ends up with tons of paper, zero assets and zero gold.
So Group B has absolutely no possessions? No clothes? No consumer goods (computers, cars)? No homes?
The easy availability of credit allows for economic activity, and when folks gets "money" (however defined) for their labour, they can trade it for goods and services. A non-fixed money supply allows for greater monetary and fiscal flexibility so that people can prosper and be happy (which is the point of society; see Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics).
What you want in life is not money (however defined) in itself, but the things money can get you; see Housel:
* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/41881472-the-psycholo...
I would hazard to say that the modern monetary system has helped to create more material prosperity for more people than any other period of time. By allowing private banks (née central banks or governments) to create money on an as-needed basis it has allowed for more economic activity by more people to create wealth for a larger portion of the population:
* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625
All that even with the wealth equality levels being what they are (i.e., roughly the same as in the Gilded Age).