The issue then becomes of how to have "well administered flexible money supply". Is it working in the US? EU? China? Turkey? Lebanon? Japan? Argentina? Brazil? Venezuela?
Besides the financial elites, are people seeing their work turn into prosperity? Are people from lower income nowadays more capable of saving and investing, or is it becoming something available only for the rich?
Even if we consider the rich countries: do we really want to live in a world where the majority of people depend on welfare and a perpetual money printer running to keep people consuming crap that no one really needs and enabling governments to fund armies to fight over resources across the globe? How sustainable is this?
> So, let central bankers do their job, unimpeded by politicians.
You might have trust in a bunch of technocrats, I don't.
Alternatively, let people make experiments with different crypto currencies, different governance models, different technologies, different requirements and different values. Evolutionary processes are more reliable/less fragile than a rigid central-planning structure. Haven't we learned anything from the almost-century-long experiment called USSR?
This is not to me saying "all flexible money supplies are crap, let's get rid of it." Only Bitcoin maxis would say something silly like that. What I am saying though is that Bitcoin was the first successful attempt at decentralized governance and that has a lot of value and (to some) is better than many of the existing central banks.
Central bankers are unelected wonks with no more idea about what is happening than the politicians. The cult of central bankers has become a religion.
It's like putting your faith in the pope rather than Henry the Eighth.
well administered flexible ms > fixed ms > badly administered flexible ms.
So, let central bankers do their job, unimpeded by politicians.
Case in point: the USD your father bought were fiat with a flexible money supply, administered by the Fed.