[std_throwaway]

It amazes me how long and how slowly the value of our money can be eroded without casing a hard crash. This has been going on for over 100 years in the US. Money used to pay things used to be gold, then fully gold backed, then partially gold backed, then no gold but security backed, then securities are diluted more and more. The next logical steps would be that the central banks buy up the bankrupt economy and introduce social credit as currency which is backed by surveillance.

[glangdale]

Right, because everything was so much better when you could, for no particularly good reason, relate money to a marginally useful-to-jewellers-and-dentists soft metal. I suppose I shouldn't expect economic literacy on Hacker News, but the twist on the standard goldbug narrative ("social credit backed by surveillance") is at least original, if nutty.

[std_throwaway]

I did not say that gold backed currency is better for everybody. I'm just amazed at the time span over which the dilution is happening. And I don't think that anybody can deny that our money is slowly losing its purchasing power.

[IAmEveryone]

Your "next logical step" isn't logical in any sense of the word. You're just recounting a few steps of history (that actually went along with increased stability of the financial system) and then suddenly suggesting it's a preamble to some scenario that's currently en vogue among the paranoid.

"backed by surveillance" simply does not mean anything. At least not in the sense of "backed by" as used in those other cases.

[notfromhere]

This makes way less sense than you think it does.