The distinction between gold as "valuable" versus gold as "defining value" cuts to something essential about monetary authority. When Eichengreen and Temin describe the gold ideology as an intellectual cage, they're pointing to how institutional path dependencies can override pragmatic adjustment. The contemporary parallel is striking—today's debates around Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative echo these same tensions between constructed standards and inherent value, suggesting that the question of who defines value remains as contested as ever.
Excellent piece with a wide run over history and specific details on the stops. Can you clarify footnote 1, which simply shows the text of the next paragraph? Thanks again for this Economic Historian.
Nice catch. Not sure how that happened, but I updated footnote 1. Thanks for letting me know. Yeah, it covers a lot of territory, but hopefully it works.
The distinction between gold as "valuable" versus gold as "defining value" cuts to something essential about monetary authority. When Eichengreen and Temin describe the gold ideology as an intellectual cage, they're pointing to how institutional path dependencies can override pragmatic adjustment. The contemporary parallel is striking—today's debates around Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative echo these same tensions between constructed standards and inherent value, suggesting that the question of who defines value remains as contested as ever.
Thanks for your comment. Maybe someone should write a follow-up piece...
Excellent piece with a wide run over history and specific details on the stops. Can you clarify footnote 1, which simply shows the text of the next paragraph? Thanks again for this Economic Historian.
Nice catch. Not sure how that happened, but I updated footnote 1. Thanks for letting me know. Yeah, it covers a lot of territory, but hopefully it works.