Long term desirable? Yes. Feasible? Yes. Chance of happening? Effectively zero. The costs of imposing such a system on our giant squid of a financial system? Massive.
In principal it makes sense but it gets down into these deep, convoluted arguments I often have with people about things such as healthcare or government size.
Would the best healthcare system (sub government or economic system if you want) with the best quality and technology and the lowest cost be a purely private organization or a public one?
The answer is the private organization almost 100% of the time. Yet in Canada the mere suggestion is equivalent to raping babies. Talking about the babies would probably be more popular and way less controversial in many circles than bringing up healthcare privatization.
So should we privatize the system? No it is too expensive! But doesn't it cost less? Yes, but reforming the system at this point is untenable even if it is a long term benefit. The system is too bloated so everyone assumes its presence is ubiquitous and permanent. This is true of healthcare or fiat currency, people just do not know of or even consider another way.
Wouldn't we be better off with the other system or a compromise in between? Of course! Will we do it? No, never! Because there is no political will to go through a tough period of transitional chaos. Status-quo, big gov prevails.
My friend told me a story about how he got hurt in a car accident and if it wasn't for "free" healthcare he would have gone bankrupt, despite his relatively minor injuries. Even though under a private system he would have been in no danger of going bankrupt at all this point is completely irrelevant to him and he votes every-time for more handouts, more government, and lower rates so he can buy a bigger house that he doesn't need - exacerbating the very problem he complains about (expensive healthcare). Human society doesn't care at all what is "desirable" or "optimal" they only seem to care about convenience. The propaganda is too pervasive and the system is far too entrenched and the vast majority of people (the voters) will never, under any circumstances (baring complete collapse), vote to place themselves back under the discipline of a gold backed currency.
With a gold backed currency on the same peg as the 1930s our world would look dramatically different. The city skylines would have less structures and there would probably be less people existing on earth. Even though it is perhaps "better" in some metrics it still is not likely to happen. Our world would be more stable but less economically developed because the western world has lived on the excess of fractional reserve banking for nearly a century.
I think I am optimistic when I say there is a one in a million chance we live to see a gold backed currency and if it happened I would almost guarantee that all those holding gold will be demonized and charged huge, arbitrary windfall taxes.
If you want a gold backing the best way is to do it yourself, everyone acting as their own personal central bank. That way we benefit as the system continues its gradual devaluation and have a lot of bullion as insurance should a significant crisis hit.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
