Not completely naive, I hope: "Human Action" and "The Theory of Money and Credit" by Ludwig Von Mises are excellent, extremely detailed and informative reads. bokonist presents a good overview of the Austrian case against inflation / monetary dilution elsewhere in this thread, so I won't repeat it.
Good point that hard currency is not a guarantee against economic hardship - quite true. Nothing can provide that guarantee, but specie is often a better option than most: hard currencies like gold are impossible to counterfeit or produce out of thin air, and the supply is constrained by real-world production, which limits pricing fluctuations or sudden inflation/deflation. Prices have been relatively stable for centuries: an ounce of gold today and an ounce of gold 200 years ago could buy the same amount of physical goods, be it barrels of oil or a fine suit. Fiat currency devalues quickly: a few short decades ago, a nickel would buy a soda or a candy bar, at a similar margin to the manufacturer and retailer. No longer.
Debt is what banks sell. Deflation hurts the most when you're highly leveraged, and it's hard for borrowers to pay back debt if money becomes more valuable than when the debt was originated, which is bad for the bank. Under the guise of "fighting inflation," these banks are altering conditions that will help sell more debt and ensure (as much as possible) those debts will eventually be repaid. Control over interest rates is beneficial to the banks because it allows them to sell more debt, which tends to inflate asset bubbles, as bokonist mentioned.
There's a reason the founders of the US set gold/silver as the official currency and fought strongly against the establishment of a central bank - monetary debasement is a centuries-old issue. It's not a huge surprise it happened eventually, since there's a huge incentive for financial interests to establish this control if they can. It's telling, however, that it was done quickly and in secret, and the inner operations of the Fed are private to this day.
In the end, most countries sell out their currency in exchange for the promise of stability and certainty, which the central banks ultimately can't provide - their interventions create massive second/third/fourth order effects, many of which make the system less stable. The banks don't care, as long as more debt is sold - they benefit from the system until it collapses, at which point they move to a new one.
As to ideological slant, I have the same view of monetary dilution as I do of debasement / seignorage / coin clipping - it's theft, the taking of property without consent. The argument "it's for your own good," which seems to be the rationale behind allowing this to continue, doesn't hold much water when the parties that do it are the major beneficiaries.
Good point that hard currency is not a guarantee against economic hardship - quite true. Nothing can provide that guarantee, but specie is often a better option than most: hard currencies like gold are impossible to counterfeit or produce out of thin air, and the supply is constrained by real-world production, which limits pricing fluctuations or sudden inflation/deflation. Prices have been relatively stable for centuries: an ounce of gold today and an ounce of gold 200 years ago could buy the same amount of physical goods, be it barrels of oil or a fine suit. Fiat currency devalues quickly: a few short decades ago, a nickel would buy a soda or a candy bar, at a similar margin to the manufacturer and retailer. No longer.
Debt is what banks sell. Deflation hurts the most when you're highly leveraged, and it's hard for borrowers to pay back debt if money becomes more valuable than when the debt was originated, which is bad for the bank. Under the guise of "fighting inflation," these banks are altering conditions that will help sell more debt and ensure (as much as possible) those debts will eventually be repaid. Control over interest rates is beneficial to the banks because it allows them to sell more debt, which tends to inflate asset bubbles, as bokonist mentioned.
There's a reason the founders of the US set gold/silver as the official currency and fought strongly against the establishment of a central bank - monetary debasement is a centuries-old issue. It's not a huge surprise it happened eventually, since there's a huge incentive for financial interests to establish this control if they can. It's telling, however, that it was done quickly and in secret, and the inner operations of the Fed are private to this day.
In the end, most countries sell out their currency in exchange for the promise of stability and certainty, which the central banks ultimately can't provide - their interventions create massive second/third/fourth order effects, many of which make the system less stable. The banks don't care, as long as more debt is sold - they benefit from the system until it collapses, at which point they move to a new one.
As to ideological slant, I have the same view of monetary dilution as I do of debasement / seignorage / coin clipping - it's theft, the taking of property without consent. The argument "it's for your own good," which seems to be the rationale behind allowing this to continue, doesn't hold much water when the parties that do it are the major beneficiaries.