Folks wondering what relevance history has to current discussion of crypto need to go back to 1896 and William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech, wherein he argued against the gold standard and in favor of “bi-metallism.”
let.rug.nl/usa/documents/…
let.rug.nl/usa/documents/…
Property rights fundamentalists felt gold should be the only valid backing of currency, even as the US had only settled on it as a de-facto standard. Gold was eventually abandoned because it was too unruly and led to boom/bust cycles, abuse, etc.
Now we are going through this conversation again where crypto=gold and the same dumb arguments are being trotted out.
Bryan was on the right track; bi-metallism opened up the path to more flexible currency and banking.
Don’t make the mistake thinking this moment is new.
Bryan was on the right track; bi-metallism opened up the path to more flexible currency and banking.
Don’t make the mistake thinking this moment is new.
We’re basically rehashing property rights, slavery, secession, 1896 (bimetallism), 1933 (New Deal), 1971 (Nixon/gold), 1980 (Hunts/silver) all over again and all at once.
Only this time nearly no one knows or cares about this history and so we have to live it all over again.
Only this time nearly no one knows or cares about this history and so we have to live it all over again.
Bryan lost in 1896 and McKinley instead passed the Gold Standard Act in 1900, which ultimately had to be abandoned multiple times. It just doesn’t work, and by 1933 it was done excerpt for inter-country settlements; Nixon ended that in 1971.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Stan…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Stan…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
