I simply assume that after cutting dollar from gold that financial instability has drastically increased, as actors will have a hard time guessing the future value of money.
Are there however any empirical work done on this as I imagine it has been ?
Tom Woods provides a number of links in
"Life with the Fed: Sunshine and Lollipops?"
There's also Hazlitt's From Bretton Woods to World Inflation
I'll add more as I think of them
Thank you for the answer. The question really is about post-Bretton Woods Instability, althought pre-Fed vs post-FED is more relevant to the question of having a central bank in the US. The point I am trying to make is that the use of derivatives, hedging etc has played a much bigger role because the value of money is worse because the money is inherently more instable(the possibilty exists for increasing the money supply more easily).
So the Woods article doesnt really apply.
My impression is that the mainstream also agrees on this issue, although they like to celebrate that money is a token and not a commodity is somehow satsifactory for them......
I'm aware the Woods article was not exactly on the topic you're looking for, but you asked for imperical information. There are links provided in that article that offer that.
More importantly, did you notice the other link to the entire book whose title is basically "post-Bretton Woods Instability"?
And thank you for your reply John James, you have many posts and undoubtedly helped many questioneers.
I saw the links now and I am reading Seglin and Whites paper.
The Hazlitt book is unfortunately only the last chapter from 1980s, and does not empirically address my interest which is the higher fluctations on the financial markets and growth of derivatives and hedging practices as a result of that inflation and uncertainty.
I can simply cite the growth in currency futures and other derivatives along the timeline of course, but for my purposes it would help immensly if I could refer to a good, serious paper on it.