Why socially engineered "experts" loathe a real money worth the name

[Skybird]

https://www.alt-m.org/2017/06/13/experts-gold-standard/

Milton Friedman once hypothesized that monetary economists are loath to criticize central banks because central banks are by far their largest employer. Providing some evidence for the hypothesis, I have elsewhere suggested that career incentives give monetary economists a status-quo bias. Most understandably focus their expertise on serving the current regime and disregard alternative regimes that would dispense with their services. They face negative payoffs to considering whether the current regime is the best monetary regime.
(...)
I propose that many mainstream economists today instinctively oppose the idea of the self-regulating gold standard because they have been trained as social engineers. They consider the aim of scientific economics, as of engineering, to be prediction and control of phenomena (not just explanation). They are experts, and an automatically self-governing gold standard does not make use of their expertise. They prefer a regime that values them. They avert their eyes from the possibility that they are trying to optimize a Ptolemaic system, and so prefer not to study its alternatives.
(...)
... there is no good reason to presume that expert-guided monetary regimes get progressively better over time, because there is no filter for replacing mistaken experts with better experts. We have no test of the successful exercise of expertise in monetary policy (meaning, superiority at correctly diagnosing and treating exogenous monetary disturbances, while avoiding the introduction of money-supply disturbances) apart from ex post evaluation of performance. The Fed’s performance does not show continuous improvement. As previously noted, it doesn’t even show improvement over the pre-Fed regime in the US.

Quite obvious, but still not often spoken out this plain and simple.

The defence of the FIAT money system and the fractional reserve system by referring to an "ideally" managed planned system ("We know it would work if only all and everything would be ideal"), reminds of the way the many failures - free of any exception - of socialism gets excused and relativsed until today. No matter how devastating the empirical and historical evidence is - it is always the same excuse of that that was no real socialism, was no real communism, and that one jujst knows that planned economy and socialism would work if only one would do it perfectly and in an ideal framework of conditions.

That way one frees oneself of any need to empirically prove one'S claims made, and mjst no longer present any hard evidence. Already just the claim made is seen as validation of the pretended truth in it. "I am right because I say I am right."

Also take note of the 27 pages essay linked to at the end by Leland Yeager about forecast-free monetarian institutions.