Sukerkin,
If you are a qualified economist in that you have academic (undergrad or grad) or professional credentials (CFA, CIPM, CFP, etc.) then you are a step ahead of me. I have degree(s), but not in finance. My background up against a highly credentialed economist would be akin to putting my background in mathmatics against arnisadors (a mathmatician) because I tutered and taught high school mathmatics while in college. lol... in a nutshell I would metaphorically get my *** kicked in the long run if there were some sort of competition. However, as you know, credentials are just that; and opinions have to be backed by solid argument and proof regardless.
I simply worked in the industry for a couple years at what was at the time the worlds largest private bank. I was looking at getting credentialed and working on the analyst side of things, which would have required a relocation and some sacrifices that I was not willing to make at that time. So I instead worked on the financial planning and investment banking side. Beyond Series 7, 63, and insurance licenses, I don't have any additional credentials. I was interested at one time in taking it further, but I was not really satisfied with the whole thing and left the industry.
It was a good experience, however. I got to spend about a month and a half in NYC working and training. I got to rub elbows with some very brilliant analysts (both tech and fund.), and got access to good research that the ordinary person would have to pay for and I read up. I got a lot of good experience because our client focus was those with no less then 1 million (USD) of investible assets. I was really an investment banker rather then just a "stock brooker" or "insurance salesman" pawning off the latest annuity. I got experience diversifying assets in many different markets such as art, real estate, commodities, and currencies, as well as the normal stuff (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc.). I was not an expert on all of these topics; but I had the direct line of experts all over the world that I would tap into when a client needed something particular.
It was a rewarding experience, and I learned a lot. I would never go back to it, however. I work for the government now (hence you will notice I don't put a lot of quantitative personal details on the net anymore because I am limited in that regard due to my current job), and I am much more satisfied with my current work.
Sorry for the long answer, but you asked!
No offense taken either; Though people should be respected for them, we both know that by itself, credentials don't make the argument.
That said, from what I have read and seen, people who look into this stuff (both the armchair economist and well credentialed one alike) tend to fall into 2 categories: those that want to move back to a commodity based monetary system, and those that feel that doing so would cause more harm then good.
Those that want to see currency backed by a commodity feel that would make currency more stable, and less corruptable. I tend to be more of an anarchist on this subject, and I start asking tough questions that get to the heart of the matter. So we go to a gold standard, but then 'who' decides how much the dollar, yen, yuan, peso, etc. is worth in relationship to gold, and by what standard? And why gold, and not moon rocks or poop of an endangered species? And so on, and so on. And I know that there are answers to these questions (I've looked them up myself), but the point is what it ends up boiling down too is that tieing currency to a commodity of an assessed value (with supply/demand of that commodity now in the picture) ends up being more arbitrary then even our current system. A countries wealth boils down to goods and services; a country is only as weathy as the quality/quantity of these. The value of currency is proportional to this, and remains so in our current fiat system where many economic factors can be not only considered, but can be traded in a marketplace; guided by the 'invisible hand,' yet controlled by a process. More complicated? Perhaps. But this is certianly is better then having a currency tied to a commodity that rises in falls with trends of supply and demand (like mining trends and practical usage) that have nothing to do with real socio-economic factors like employment rates, debt, or GDP. That, plus the added problems of rigidly fixed exchange rates and no way to adjust for risk, panic, and the rise and fall of various markets easily makes me wonder why we would even consider going back to a commodity based system again. Then there is the inevitable introduction to a social contract that would have to further regulate this process, and I am now nervous by the proposal.
The fact is, gold is just a metal. Paper is just thing as well. Neither matters any more or is worth any more then what the collective 'we' thinks it is worth. And that is based on the goods and services that we provide and trade. And backing a currency by a commodity doesn't change the fact that it is still only as viable as our traded goods and services; we accomplish only adding another variable into the mix. And that variable has its own set of problems.
People need to remember that we had major financial crisises while on the gold standard as well (in fact, ones that are worse then the current situation); and there is a reason why we moved to our current system in the first place.
But that is just my opinion; both agreed and disagreed with by people with much higher credentials then I!
} that we appear to hold almost entirely opposite views on this, admittedly heinously complicated, subject.
