Anónimo

Confused

Revisado: 08-24-21

I am looking forward to a rebuttal to mainstream monetarist economics. I tried to stay open-minded, because I'm well aware that quantity theory of money has its flaws. I really wanna hear the author out because there must be some great uncommon insights for someone to advocate gold standard in the 21st century.

While it opens with a true (albeit cliched) criticism of the contemporary capitalistic system dominated by financial institutions, the main arguments are presented sloppily and not quite convincing.

First the author asserts wealth = knowledge and growth = learning. Then, money should be a medium for information transmission so to minimize noises it should have entropies as low as possible. What's more stable than the constant flow of time? Hence gold should be money because it's stable through time hence it represents time.

Okay the flow of logic is there, but it takes a lot for a reader to accept any of the above statements. I can see his argument but it's just not convincing. Were there no financial crisis back when countries were still using gold standard? Were entrepreneurs more innovative when money was pegged to gold? Would inflation targeting solve the entropy problem? How does Bitcoin come into play? Shouldn't Bitcoin not gold be money? I seriously don't know! Those are not rhetorical but genuine questions to be answered if a reader like me to accept a unorthodox theory.

To me, this book is overly meandering in the theoretical framework which is based on information theory, remotely at best. The concepts, like outlined above, are outlandish to most. I would expect real life examples, data, experiments, or at least historical events to support his theory. Otherwise, a theory as out there like this, I'm not buying it, and I doubt most will.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña