[econjack]

Not true. Gold has nothing to do with it, nor does the gold standard. The Quantity Theory of Money explains it pretty simply:

M * V = P * Q

where:
M is the supply of money
V is the velocity of money (i.e., its turnover rate)
P is the price level
Q is the level of real output

The velocity of money is remarkably stable and has been for decades. Therefore, if you increase the money supply by 3.2% you need to have a corresponding increase in real output. If the change in real output is less, then prices will increase. AOC’s solution is to print more money! Can she really be that stupid? She is no econ major or Boston University needs to reevaluate it econ major.

[Boogieman]

“Therefore, if you increase the money supply by 3.2% you need to have a corresponding increase in real output. If the change in real output is less, then prices will increase.”

Sure, but that is where the gold standard (or any standard based on something of value) comes in. You simply can’t increase the money supply on a whim, since you either need to acquire more of the good that is backing your currency (buy more gold) or devalue your currency in a transparent way (reduce the exchange rate of paper currency for gold).

So, yes, inflation still operates by the same mechanism with or without a gold standard, but it cannot be as easily hidden.

[pierrem15]

I'm not saying that the theory of money quantity and velocity has nothing to do with it, merely that tying the supply to specie puts a limit on its rate of expansion. In the past, that always meant publicly devaluing the currency in order to expand the money supply. In that case, it's fairly obvious that everyone is being swindled.

In addition, by giving up the tie to specie, we also basically gave control of the currency and the economy to the Federal Reserve, a complete dereliction of duty by the US government.