zlacker

[parent] [thread] 22 comments
1. 29athr+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-01 14:46:01
The chart is just another "wtf happened in 1971" moment.

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

What happened in 1971? The Nixon Shock, which is when the dollar stopped being convertible to gold after it became evident that the US did not have the gold it claimed to have.

replies(4): >>iancmc+i >>Animal+k2 >>ForHac+l2 >>cmrdpo+43
2. iancmc+i[view] [source] 2023-07-01 14:47:19
>>29athr+(OP)
Turns put he is a crook
replies(3): >>vuln+w >>brvsft+E2 >>luxury+84
◧◩
3. vuln+w[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 14:49:19
>>iancmc+i
They all are.

Edit: Please point out even a single Politician that wasn’t a crook. I’ll wait.

4. Animal+k2[view] [source] 2023-07-01 14:58:17
>>29athr+(OP)
I don't think it's purely economic. I think birth control plus legalized abortion changed relationships, and those happened at roughly the same time. (Roe v. Wade was 1972, IIRC.)

The decline of religion also probably plays a role here. You'd have a hard time blaming that on the end of the gold standard.

I mean, sure, economics almost certainly plays a role. But it's not the sole cause.

replies(1): >>brvsft+s3
5. ForHac+l2[view] [source] 2023-07-01 14:58:24
>>29athr+(OP)
Whoa, you mean if only we were still on the gold standard, then I'd be worthy of love? #Im14&AustrianEconomicsIsDeep
replies(1): >>29athr+gd
◧◩
6. brvsft+E2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 15:00:25
>>iancmc+i
He is, but he is also a convenient scapegoat here.

The US was running up debts with post-WWII behavior for quite a while, especially with wars in Korea and Vietnam. This is what Charles de Gaulle was talking about when he referred to the US' "exorbitant privilege" in 1965 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege) before repatriating France's gold. Multiple presidents preceeded Nixon and continued promoting expansionist policy and meddling in foreign countries with war (that the US could not afford if not for our exorbitant privilege), mostly to compete with or try asserting dominance over USSR.

7. cmrdpo+43[view] [source] 2023-07-01 15:02:47
>>29athr+(OP)
Sorry but it's a lot less conspirational than that. The early 70s is when the long post-war economic boom ended, and corporate profits globally began to contract for an extended period of time, long wave decline. Along with it came a longer term trend of declining take-home earning rights, a huge decline in unionization, waves of inflation followed by severe recessions, etc.

The gold standard stuff is hilariously reductionist.

replies(3): >>brvsft+C5 >>29athr+Tb >>mikem1+HW
◧◩
8. brvsft+s3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 15:04:33
>>Animal+k2
Feminism in general (with birth control and abortion) changed things quite a bit if we consider it including the rise of women in the workforce. Look at the chart of labor participation. I believe its changes at the time mostly reflect women starting to get jobs.

Although, people could maybe speculate that dual income families also became a necessity as a result of worsening economic conditions. I don't know.

(And for the record, I'm not using feminism as a negative word here.)

replies(1): >>amanap+Ye
◧◩
9. luxury+84[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 15:07:55
>>iancmc+i
Nixon made them come clean, they had been printing money they didn’t have gold for long before he came along. After watching the way the establishment and deep state have treated Trump I have become very suspicious about all circumstances surrounding Nixon. I sometimes wonder if (after JFK) they decided to hone their assassination craft to not require bullets.
◧◩
10. brvsft+C5[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 15:16:00
>>cmrdpo+43
> The gold standard stuff is hilariously reductionist.

Not really. Ending the dollar's convertibility into gold obviously had a severe impact on how foreign economies viewed the US and the dollar. I think it's "hilariously" ignorant to pretend that this wasn't a factor.

The economic reality for the US was that, before this, we just had to print money for the value of $100 worth of gold. Meanwhile, other countries had to produce actual goods or services that were valued at $100 worth of gold.

As multiple countries started repatriating their gold, the US does a rugpull and says we're done with that? It was effectively a US default on debt (which would have happened if we allowed repatriation anyway, because we didn't have enough gold to pay back all of our creditors who wanted their gold).

Yes, there were quite a few factors happening concurrently with this. But I don't see how it's simple to disentangle the effective default on debt denominated in the global reserve currency with all the other global economic volatility at the time. Laundry-listing other things that happened at the same time is not an explanation.

Edit: Just want to point out that, IMO, the real problem was the US was defaulting on our debt. What Nixon did was just like an escape hatch for it where the US did not have to call it what it was and we also got to keep the gold. I agree with you in the sense that I think bad things would have happened with or without Nixon ending the gold standard. But I view that event as a clear sign and catalyst or accelerant for all the volatility that ensued immediately after. I still think it's crazy the US ended up on top after this anyway.

replies(1): >>cmrdpo+fK
◧◩
11. 29athr+Tb[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 15:52:12
>>cmrdpo+43
The Nixon Shock is the end of the Bretton Woods system (the post-war economic system) which is how "the post-war economic boom ended".

So that paragraph reads like "You are wrong because [essentially the same thing you said phrased differently]".

replies(1): >>cmrdpo+CG
◧◩
12. 29athr+gd[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 15:59:36
>>ForHac+l2
No.

It means that the Bretton Woods economic system was very favorable for Americans while it lasted. And the middle class could afford a house, a car, have multiple kids, send those kids to college, and have the living standard referred to as "the American dream".

You could even get a job without a college degree, marry in your 20s and sustain a household on one job.

replies(1): >>ForHac+CZ
◧◩◪
13. amanap+Ye[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 16:07:54
>>brvsft+s3
I suspect that it is longer term economic trends that are driving the changes. For thousands of years humanity was primarily agrarian, and all of our social structures were built around that. Before that, as Hunter-gatherers our social structures were something else.

The industrial and agricultural revolutions have only recently allowed most of us to live in cities and do other work than trying to grow enough food to survive. And so new ways of living are arising that work for people in the new era.

We are probably going to see a lot more variety in living arrangements before things settle into a new normal. I wish I could be around for the next couple hundred years to see it all happen!

◧◩◪
14. cmrdpo+CG[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 18:22:56
>>29athr+Tb
Nonsense, the boom didn't end because of the end of the gold standard, it was in decline long before that.

Sounds like cryptobros politics.

replies(1): >>29athr+x51
◧◩◪
15. cmrdpo+fK[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 18:39:45
>>brvsft+C5
You just made a long circle to come back to the same fundamental point which is that the backing of the currency is tangential to the main issue: industrial capitalism in the west was heading into a new phase. Really a kind of return to the "normality" of the pre-war, 1930s, really. Because after WWII the US especially got paid a huge dividend by being able to capture and control all sorts of of the world market. But there were natural limits to how far this could go before it was saturated.

Reconstruction of Europe, huge population boom, control over new overseas territory, massive reduction in competition from European nations which had lost their colonies (and a large part of their own native labour force), huge investments in housing & infrastructure, it's hard to overstate just how massively growth focused the years from 1945-1965 or so were. The closest comparison would be the massive growth that China has from the mid-90s til recently.

The outburst of left wing and cultural radicalism in the late 60s, the Vietnam war, heavier US involvement in central America, the decline in corporate profits in the 70s, the development of computing technology and information automation, all of these are connected with the fundamental saturation and then decline in the growth capacity of US imperial economic power...

When limits to growth are hit, the response is usually some kind of crisis -- because capitalism requires continuous growth. War either colonial or against other colonial powers, social turbulence, etc. etc.

Dropping the gold standard was just one of the panic-moves performed by US capital interests to try to salvage things. And honestly, it likely had little to no effect.

After the mid-90s there was a reprieve from this for a bit, as the collapse of the USSR and the opening of China to western industrial interests opened up new economic horizons. Which now seem to be closing off.

replies(1): >>29athr+X41
◧◩
16. mikem1+HW[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 19:48:50
>>cmrdpo+43
I agree, at least partially. The U.S. had half the world's GDP at the end of WWII, most other advanced economies had their manufacturing base bombed to smithereens. The couple decades after the war were boom times in the U.S. And an anomaly. This was surely one of the bigger factors amid several.
replies(1): >>cmrdpo+i11
◧◩◪
17. ForHac+CZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 20:04:08
>>29athr+gd
Might also have a little something to do with the fact that the USA was the only major economy that didn't have its industrial base bombed out during the war. The monocausal explanations from mises.org and friends have always seemed less than compelling to me.
replies(1): >>29athr+841
◧◩◪
18. cmrdpo+i11[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 20:11:50
>>mikem1+HW
Yep, green field with little competition, with massive scientific advances & unharmed industry after the war, educated populace, giant labour force, new overseas territories == huge boom.
◧◩◪◨
19. 29athr+841[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 20:26:30
>>ForHac+CZ
Again, we are talking about the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system#Wartime_d...

◧◩◪◨
20. 29athr+X41[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 20:30:38
>>cmrdpo+fK
"It likely had little to no effect"

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

I don't see manned missions to the moon every year from NASA anymore, do you?

◧◩◪◨
21. 29athr+x51[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 20:32:50
>>cmrdpo+CG
The real question here is: what causes what?

The US was living beyond its means throughout the entire time, subsidized by the other members of that system. The end of the Bretton Woods system affirmed that.

How it ended? by Nixon preventing a bank run on the system because he didn't have the equivalent gold for all the currency he issued.

The US was clever enough to use its economic advantage to invest in its military to a point in which that move could be tolerated by the rest of the countries.

Any further replies from you will be read out loud in chicken voice.

replies(1): >>cmrdpo+0e1
◧◩◪◨⬒
22. cmrdpo+0e1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 21:22:39
>>29athr+x51
It's ok, I'm already reading your comments out loud in a mock Lyndon LaRouche voice, and it's hilarious.
replies(1): >>29athr+7i1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
23. 29athr+7i1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-01 21:48:49
>>cmrdpo+0e1
Just so that you know, I did read that out loud in chicken voice.
[go to top]