It should come as no surprise to anyone who reads this blog to learn that I’m not an economist. Without formal training in economics, I sometimes make statements about the subject that may seem pretty dumb. But, my lack of formal training in economics can sometimes be an advantage. Insofar as I’m not formally trained in what to think in the realm of economics, I also sometimes stumble onto what may be insight since I’m inclined to “think outside the box”. Why do I think “outside the box”? Because, without formal education on the subject of economics, I haven’t been formally “conditioned” to know where the “box” is.
What follows may be old news to most economists, but I doubt that most ordinary people have considered the subject. It might be another example of my ignorance—or maybe it illustrates a little common sense.
I haven’t yet made up my mind.
It’s my understanding that most of classical economic theory is based on a time when the world relied on gold and silver to serve as its asset-based money.
It therefore strikes me as possible that modern economic theory could be opposite from classical economics in some regards. Why? Because he fundamental unit of measure of today’s economics is a debt-based currency system.