Well, dear readers,with 100 published posts, it’s time for a rethinking. Here’s what’s going on:
1. While writing part two of the gold standard, I felt that although I could refute the rest of that article in a general way, it behooved me to learn a bit more before publishing. And so, I feel it’s time to hunker down and hit the books.
2. I fear I may start repeating myself.
3. I’m not sure what my loyal audience [and I mean you, the fellow who seems to be reading all I ever posted, and you, the people who come here from mises.org, and of course my faithful four followers] wants me to write about.
4. Bottom line, until inspiration comes either from within, in the form of an urge to write, or from without, in the form of a request from my dear readers, Smiling Dave will hit the books.
5. And I’ll tell you what’s stopping me from finishing the gold standard article. The National Review argues that returning to the gold standard will bring about deflation. Now normally, deflation is a good thing. But as I pointed out in my articles on deflation [the good, bad and ugly], when it happens because of a return to the gold standard, it can be ugly indeed.
I’ve seen Rothbard write that the ugliness happens because the return is not done correctly, but did I not see what the correct way is.
So for some unspecified while, I’m going to educate meself, one eye on the laptop to see your feedback.
EDIT: Today, 11/16/11 I heard an answer on the Peter Schiff Show from his guest, James Rickards. He said that the wrong way to return to a gold standard is how Winston Churchill did it when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1925. He set the price of gold too low compared to the mountain of paper money the govt had printed during WW1.
Sadly, I don’t remember the continuation of Rickard’s thinking. Time to hit the books some more.