Which do you believe is more important of an indicator of economic well-being: the gold standard (yes) or stock market benchmarks (no)?

  • Gold Is Better

    I honestly do not believe we can measure economic health with stock market benchmarks and it really is not possible with the gold standard either. The gold standard fluctuates on many different measures so the it may be high when the economy is good or bad. I believe the stock market is a bad measure because I truly believe it is being falsely manipulated, which literally creates a ticking time bomb.

  • The gold standard is a better indicator of well being

    The stock market is finicky. We saw recently that Russian stock prices plummeted with the accusations that they were invading Crimea. Does that really indicate that Russia is in financial trouble? Not really. Major corporations that have large changes in staff may have some stock market movement. Does that indicate they really are doing better or worse? Not necessarily. The gold standard is a bit more stable. The changes to that standard tend to happen over time rather than by the hour. This makes it a better predictor.

  • Yes, I believe the gold standard is a more important indicator of economic well being.

    Gold is a more constant commodity, when it comes to it's value economically. Therefore the gold standard is a more important indicator of economic well being. It is less likely to change dramatically, especially in times of economic recessions. Gold has been used for centuries to back the global economy.

  • Gold standard is the best standard

    Gold is a material that always has and always will be valuable. While the value of gold is obviously developed by humans, it is still a more tangible substance than the stock market. Gold fluctuates in value, as any commodity does, but gold is fairly immune to just being gone over night. Stock growth is largely an illusion. It is driven by short term gains without caring about long term gains in many situations. It is prone to bubbles which burst and devastate the economy. Taking the temperature of the economy based on the ups and downs of the stock market is largely absurd as the bulk of the growth is nothing but numbers on a spreadsheet that don't have any real impact on the job driven economy.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.