[al3xandre]

Please. He obviously meant gold or gold-backed currencies. Which indeed ended in 1971 with Breton-Wood.

Let’s be kind and “assume the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.”

[mshron]

Gold-backed currencies are, similarly, a historical aberration. They only came into being around the 1870s!

States have picked all kinds of units for accounting and tax purposes for literally millennia. Wheat, silver, wool, gold. They adjusted standard weights and measures all the time to manage their debts and the economy. Fiat is the historical norm, going back about five thousand years.

Separately, some governments have made coins out of various things for a little over two thousand years. And separately still, people have traded gold throughout history as a commodity.

But it's just not true that gold and silver were de-facto money somehow until 1971.

[jkhdigital]

The original article is itself an incredibly long-winded exercise in this kind of bad faith argument... also called a “straw man”. The final paragraphs make that clear, when they claim that the inflation fearmongering is just a front for anti-statists. So if that’s what this is all about, why not just write an article about the merits of a state-directed economy and dispense with the charade?

[gjm11]

That itself seems like a straw man. "Anti-statists" is your term -- neither "statist" nor "anti-statist" appears anywhere in the article. And it doesn't say anything at all about a "state-directed economy"; I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that but on the face of it it sounds like a Soviet-style command economy, which scarcely anyone wants (including, I think, Richard Murphy) and certainly isn't the only alternative to the sort of small-government right-libertarianism he seems to be complaining about.

But let's suppose that what Murphy really wants is a "state-directed economy", and that he's concerned that opponents of that are making bad arguments about inflation to oppose it. In that case, why shouldn't he write an article explaining why he disagrees with the key premise of those arguments, namely that there's a real danger of problematically high inflation?

It seems like the principle you're appealing to ("why not just ... and dispense with the charade?") is that if you want X, you should always just argue for X rather than addressing bad arguments against X. I think that principle is very wrong. People are often persuaded by bad arguments, and if someone has been persuaded by a bad argument against X then they will likely not listen willingly when you present your arguments for X. (Because they already know X is bad.) But if you write something about the specific argument they've been convinced by, they might pay attention, and you might convince them.

[foerbert]

That was how I was interpreting it. Again, I refer to the book mentioned.

[pessimizer]

If the strongest possible interpretation is that gold and gold-backed currencies were universal throughout human history until 1971, that is also wrong.