The Hidden Motive Behind Quantitative Easing

I suppose that you are referring to the era from 1815 to 1914 when Great Britain was supremely powerful and the Bank of England ran the gold standard and was the de facto central banker to Europe and the world. Yet such eras of singular economic and political power are the exception rather than the rule.

Moreover, even then, the gold standard and the related use of silver as specie at times forced Britain into what in retrospect are odious decisions and policies. For example, a principal cause of the First Opium War (1839–1842) was that the Chinese imported little and insisted on silver as payment for their exports of tea and porcelain to Europe. This precipitated a decline of gold and silver stocks in Britain and Europe.

The remedy fashioned by the British was to force China to admit opium as a trade good. Soon, the demand for opium from millions of addicts in China was enough to reverse China's accumulation of silver.

The crux of the problem is that under the gold standard, shifts in national gold reserves impact the supply of money in circulation, which in turn affects the wider economy. It cannot be assumed that shifts in national gold reserves will always be managed wisely.

Notably, there is a line of reasoning and evidence that attributes the severity and worldwide scope of the Great Depression to a policy of gold accumulation by France and, to a lesser extent, by the US, without equivalent new issues of national currency. The result was that the supply of money declined as well, which prompted a decline and then a collapse in world trade.

On balance, the gold standard offers a critique of our current monetary system and a hedge against it but not an alternative to it.

I suppose that you are referring to the era from 1815 to 1914 when Great Britain was supremely powerful and the Bank of England ran the gold standard and was the de facto central banker to Europe and the world.

No. Actually, I was referring to the period from 1873 to 1913 when the U.S. had rejoined the world gold standard after having left it during the Civil War and was ascendant economically and politically.

Notably, there is a line of reasoning and evidence that attributes the severity and worldwide scope of the Great Depression to a policy of gold accumulation by France and, to a lesser extent, by the US, without equivalent new issues of national currency. The result was that the supply of money declined as well, which prompted a decline and then a collapse in world trade.

But surely you understand that Europe never returned to a true gold standard [though, they insisted on calling it one] after WWI. It was an ersatz gold standard that permitted nations to redeem their reserves for gold in London but not individuals.

Such a sytem could never be counted on to function because, if individuals cannot redeem specie for gold when inflation threatens, the monetary system becomes completely political -- and did.

In addition to which, the Europeans [the English foremost amongst them] returned to the gold standard at their pre-war values vastly overvaluing their currencies. Sterling, for example, had inflated by about 10% to 15% during the war.

To save face, though, the British re-entered the gold system at the pre-war value which immediately caused a grinding deflation to take place which saw the economy crushed as British exports became exhorbitantly expensive.

Now, while the British maintained the illusion of a gold standard with the U.S., the European countries used Sterling as their reserves allowing them to balloon their paper currencies.

In short, none of this had anything to do with gold but with the machinations of government to get around the discipline the classical gold standard imposed.

As you point out:

It cannot be assumed that shifts in national gold reserves will always be managed wisely.

There is no cure for corrupt and ignorant politicians.

(1) The US was uniquely at peace, secure, and prosperous from 1873 to 1914 due to a combination of territorial expansion, agricultural development, immigration, technological advances, and rapid industrialization. Resting your case for the gold standard on the US experience in that era is cherry picking the evidence.

The true test of a monetary system is whether it can withstand the stresses of wars and economic crises. And the record there is mixed at best.

(2) Your argument ignores the point that even the modified gold standard after WW I had major economic and financial consequences. As it was, Britain returned to the gold standard in 1925 the form of convertability to bullion instead of the prior policy of convertability to more accessible specie (coin). As predicted, this put Britain and her Empire economies into a painful deflation.

(3) My point remains: France's policy of gold accumulation in the 1920s and 30s without issuing additional currency helped cause the collapse in the world's gold-backed money supply that made the Great Depression so severe and global in scope. The US went off the gold standard during the Depression in order to issue additional money so as to counteract the severe deflation that the country had experienced.

On balance, whatever the merits of the gold standard in the abstract, it made the world vulnerable to the errors of a single country. As bad as our politicians may be, I prefer to be governed by them than by those of other countries.

(4) Although convertability was suspended, Fort Knox continues to hold a massive stock of gold as implicit backing for the dollar. In a supreme emergency, that gold would be available.

Resting your case for the gold standard on the US experience in that era is cherry picking the evidence.

And your denying the influence of a stable currency during that time is to make the entire purpose of this discussion null. Telling.

Your argument ignores the point that even the modified gold standard after WW I had major economic and financial consequences.

Nonsense. The fact that Europe adopted a modified gold standard which had major economic and financial consequences was my point. How could I have possibly ignored it.

As predicted, this put Britain and her Empire economies into a painful deflation.

Yes. That is what I said. Did you even read it?

On balance, whatever the merits of the gold standard in the abstract, it made the world vulnerable to the errors of a single country. As bad as our politicians may be, I prefer to be governed by them than by those of other countries.

As do I. But your analysis is wrong, though I'm sure you'll cling to it. It was the last period in which individuals owned their money and governments were constricted [even by a bit] to debauch it.

Once the Federal Reserve had been created and WWI begun, government took over the "responsibility" for managing the currency and it's been downhill ever since.

Not sure what you mean here.

The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind (In 7 Easy Steps)

Worth a watch in my opinion. It will answer your question.

The weaknesses of the gold standard cannot fairly be disavowed by claiming that such weaknesses occur only in regard to modified or limited gold standards. Doing so permits but a few examples of a perfect gold standard -- too small a number to support a credible case.

Moreover, your preferred measure -- price stability -- can be and often is accomplished by a fiat currency combined with sound economic policies. The supposed advantages of the gold standard are not unique to it.