I think it is not useful to guess at numbers, without first noting what the assumptions are that are being made to support the guess...
I find yours is at least fully honest in the way you address it... if still deficient in the element of starting with basics in the construction of the guess...
A good place to start, IMO, is to address the reality in the errors in the extremes between the hard money and virtual money camps.
One extreme would have it that ONLY gold (and silver) is money, and that there is no other value that can operate as money... so, sort of denying the entire basis of Keynesian constructs in the extreme that is disproven in our daily experience. Of course, it isn't true... even in the least degree that copper seems it works fine for pennies, nickel for nickels, and trons for transactions, etc.
The other extreme is that of the "barbarous relic" camp... that holds that gold has no value at all... which is just as transparently not true.
It seems clear enough that the barbarous relic types concern is mostly one of the diametric opposite concern of the hard money crowd, in a disagreement over the idea that the value of money should be fixed, rather than a thing that can be manipulated by those with the power to manipulate it...
Boil it down to the core, and the hard money types are really arguing for honest accounting... while the "barbarous relic" types are really arguing to try to sustain a benefit they derive from having the accounting able to be crooked... Layer in that some differences between the use of money as a store of value, and the use of money as a tool in exchange... and it doesn't really change much in terms of the disagreements...
Given we're not ever going to have "only" gold as money... and we're not ever going to surrender the real utility of having "fixed" (really, comparative) standards of value that provide INDEPENDENT, MARKET-BASED functions that help to limit the ability of the dishonest to engage in serial fraud in accounting for value through the manipulation of the currency...
Given both are quite clearly wrong in the extremes, the proper questions for us are ones of where we SHOULD be looking to find a proper balance... while considering what is really possible within a realistic range of potentials...
Remove the extremes, and I still think you can't GET there, without first properly defining what that REAL range in what it is we are talking about IS... the range in what is really possible in any monetary system transitions between the possible limits in moving toward having hard currency values that are pinned to a "barbarous relic" vs fiat currencies with no checks or limits placed on the ability of governments to "counterfeit" their monetary representations of value.
The range needs to be considered in terms of what is possible, what is really likely, and considered relative to the limits in what is being ASSUMED as fixed that is not (for both gold and the fiat forms of money).
Fiat money always has that as a limit... that when you posture as the "basis" in value, trust in the "full faith and credit", as if that is something more solid than gold, you err on the side of dishonesty, as that means the basis in value is really only that of the stability over time in the aggregate value of the promises of politicians.
That is the source of the conflict... and the conflict grows as a function of the fecklessness of politicians. The value of our "paper" money is thus, in truth, a variable that is dependent BOTH on the reality of our national economic performance AND the quality in and value resulting from our representation in Congress.
Might it be useful to compare real measures of inflation, over time, with a multiplier derived from the approval rating of Congress ?
So, that above doesn't provide any answer rather than address the context in which you might find one.
I do think it is unlikely that the monetary system will suddenly fail to the degree that the worst case scenarios are likely to be realized any time soon.
I also think that the problems we face aren't as pure a function of failed monetary systems, or, not in quite the way as the discussion suggests...
Congress makes rules and has discipline, or not, that relates to the value of our currency, but the system of global trade, and the value inherent in the choices of other governments, each also influence the overall monetary system, which isn't just about the dollars...
I think there is plenty wrong in Congress, in the rule sets they've foisted on us, in their lack of discipline, and in the degree of corruption in our systems have entrained. There is even MORE wrong in other nations, and more yet in the systems of trade, that are the larger problems forcing awareness that "something is not right" through the problems being made apparent in the disruptions in the monetary system and currencies.
The lack of awareness of "what's broken" and the general global unwillingness to address any serious effort in fixing it... suggests there are still likely to be many future corrections and some discontinuous market moves, which will be needed to correct the market for realities which become apparent when they do, as they will, when you have markets operating in denial.
See the ongoing correction in the Euro (and in the perception of value in the concept there could be, and in the expectation there WAS, a unified Europe), recently, for a minor case in point...
With all of that as background... it should be easier to discuss the range in what is really possible, and likely, in the prices of gold and silver denominated in dollars... depending on what choices are made, and depending on what there is that CAN go wrong, given current policy, that does go wrong.
AI
.JPG)
