Posted on 01/31/2004 10:21:20 PM PST by I got the rope
The growing disillusionment with politically controlled monetary policies has produced an increasing number of advocates for a return to the GOLD STANDARD - including at times president Reagan.
In years past a desire to return to a monetary system based on gold was perceived as nostalgia for an era when times were simpler, problems less complex and the world not threatened with nuclear annihilation. But after a decade of destabilizing inflation and economic stagnation, the restoration of a GOLD STANDARD has become an issue that is clearly rising on the economic policy agenda. A commission to study the issue, with strong support from President Reagan, is in place.
The increasingly numerous proponents of a GOLD STANDARD persuasively argue that budget deficits and large federal borrowings would be difficult to finance under such a standard. Heavy claims against paper dollars cause few technical problems, for the Treasury can legally borrow as many dollars as Congress authorizes.
But with unlimited dollar conversion into gold, the ability to issue dollar claims would be severely limited. Obviously if you cannot finance federal deficits, you cannot create them. Either taxes would then have to be raised and expenditures lowered. The restrictions of gold convertibility would therefore profoundly alter the politics of fiscal policy that have prevailed for half a century.
Disturbed by Alternatives
Even some of those who conclude a return to gold is infeasible remain deeply disturbed by the current alternatives. For example, William Fellner of the American Enterprise Institute in a forthcoming publication remarks "...I find it difficult not to be greatly impressed by the very large damage done to the economies of the industrialized world... by the monetary management that has followed the era of (gold) convertibility... It has placed the Western economies in acute danger."
Yet even those of us who are attracted to the prospect of gold convertibility are confronted with a seemingly impossible obstacle: the latest claims to gold represented by the huge world overhang of fiat currency, many dollars.
The immediate problem of restoring a GOLD STANDARD is fixing a gold price that is consistent with market forces. Obviously if the offering price by the Treasury is too low, or subsequently proves to be too low, heavy demand at the offering price could quickly deplete the total U.S. government stock of gold, as well as any gold borrowed to thwart the assault. At that point, with no additional gold available, the U.S. would be off the GOLD STANDARD and likely to remain off for decades.
Alternatively, if the gold price is initially set too high, or subsequently becomes too high, the Treasury would be inundated with gold offerings. The payments the gold drawn on the Treasury's account at the Federal Reserve would add substantially to commercial bank reserves and probably act, at least temporarily, to expand the money supply with all the inflationary implications thereof.
Monetary offsets to neutralize or "earmark" gold are, of course, possible in the short run. But as the West Germany authorities soon learned from their past endeavors to support the dollar, there are limits to monetary countermeasures.
The only seeming solution is for the U.S. to create a fiscal and monetary environment which in effect makes the dollar as good as gold, i.e., stabilizes the general price level and by inference the dollar price of gold bullion itself. Then a modest reserve of bullion could reduce the narrow gold price fluctuations effectively to zero, allowing any changes in gold supply and demand to be absorbed in fluctuations in the Treasury's inventory.
What the above suggests is that a necessary condition of returning to a GOLD STANDARD is the financial environment which the GOLD STANDARD itself is presumed to create. But, if we restored financial stability, what purpose is then served by return to a GOLD STANDARD?
Certainly a gold-based monetary system will necessarily prevent fiscal imprudence, as 20th Century history clearly demonstrates. Nonetheless, once achieved, the discipline of the GOLD STANDARD would surely reinforce anti-inflation policies, and make it far more difficult to resume financial profligacy. The redemption of dollars for gold in response to excess federal government-induced credit creation would be a strong political signal. Even after inflation is brought under control the extraordinary political sensitivity to inflation will remain.
Concrete actions to install a GOLD STANDARD are premature. Nonetheless, there are certain preparatory policy actions that could test the eventual feasibility of returning to a GOLD STANDARD, that would have positive short-term anti-inflation benefits and little cost if they fail.
The major roadblock to restoring the GOLD STANDARD is the problem of re-entry. With the vast quantity of dollars worldwide laying claims to the U.S. Treasury's 264 million ounces of gold, an overnight transition to gold convertibility would create a major discontinuity for the U.S. financial system. But there is no need for the whole block of current dollar obligations to become an immediate claim.
Convertibility can be instituted gradually by, in effect, creating a dual currency with a limited issue of dollars convertible into gold. Initially they could be deferred claims to gold, for example, five-year Treasury Notes with interest and principal payable in grams or ounces of gold.
With the passage of time and several issues of these notes we would have a series of "new monies" in terms of gold and eventually, demand claims on gold. The degree of success of restoring long-term fiscal confidence will show up clearly in the yield spreads between gold and fiat dollar obligations of the same maturities. Full convertibility would require that the yield spread for all maturities virtually disappear. If they do not, convertibility will be very difficult, probably impossible, to implement.
A second advantage of gold notes is that they are likely to reduce current budget deficits. Treasury gold notes in today's markets could be sold at interest rates at approximately 2% or less. In fact from today's markets one can construct the equivalent of a 22-month gold note yielding 1%, by arbitraging regular Treasury note yields for June 1983 maturities (17%) and the forward delivery premiums of gold (16% annual rate) inferred from June 1983 futures contracts. Presumably five-year note issues would reflect a similar relationship.
A Risk of Exchange Loss
The exchange risk of the Treasury gold notes, of course, is the same as that associated with our foreign currency Treasury note series. The U.S. Treasury has, over the years, sold significant quantities of both German mark - and Swiss franc denominated issues, and both made and lost money in terms of dollars as exchange rates have fluctuated. And indeed there is a risk of exchange rate loss with gold notes.
However, unless the price of gold doubles over a five-year period (16% compounded annually), interest payments on the gold notes in terms of dollars will be less than conventional financing requires. The run-up to $875 per ounce in early 1980 was surely an aberration, reflecting certain circumstances in the Middle East which are unlikely to be repeated in the near future. Hence, anything close to doubling of gold prices in the next five years appears improbable. On the other hand, if gold prices remain stable or rise moderately, the savings could be large: Each $10 billion in equivalent gold notes outstanding would, under stable gold prices, save $1.5 billion per year in interest outlays.
A possible further side benefit of the existence of gold notes is that they could set a standard in terms of prices and interest rates that could put additional political pressure on the administration and Congress to move expeditiously toward non-inflationary policies. Gold notes could be a case of reversing Gresham's Law. Good money would drive out bad.
Those who advocate a return to a GOLD STANDARD should be aware that returning our monetary system to gold convertibility is no mere technical, financial restructuring. It is a basic change in our economic processes. However, considering where the policies of the last 50 years have eventually led us, perhaps there are lessons to be learned from our more distant GOLD STANDARD past
CPI has gone up by a factor of 6 in the last 40 years. Gold prices have gone up by a factor of 10 in the last 40 years.
So gold has held it's value (and more) over the last 40 years, while the dollar is worth 80% less.
I picked 40 years, because that's the first chart I could find on google.
If you have data to the contrary, or over a different time span, I'd like to hear it.
I think you got my point, exactly.
Both internationally, and domestically.
Peg the dollar at $400 an ounce today, and if we dont have the gold, then we cant spend any more money. If we dont have the gold to give Iraq a half trillion, then we have to get out. If we dont have the gold to pay for prescriptions, then we cant have federal paid prescriptions. etc.
Cool. Steganography in a FR post!
It was a speech given by William Jennings Bryan on July 9, 1896 at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Read it here.
I can see mechanically how this could be *potentially* pulled off, though I wonder what will happen to the existing issues when the first installment of gold-backed ones hits the market...
and then there is the implicit demand for gold once this idea gets traction (if ever)...
i think it could be geopolitical suicide... and possible grounds for a bona-fide world war...
it's a big bet which might even be winner take all....
there still is the question of, 'why gold?' gold's value is largely sentimental. praytell, why should we unpeg the dollar from the standard of 'the full faith and credit of the US government' only to peg it to the 'full faith and credit of a shiny rock that is held largely under the ground of foreign nations?'
why not the 'oil standard?' (rhetorical question).
similarly, the free market system is often acknowledged (if almost as often misunderstood) as the only system for facilitating the exchange of private property at a fair price.(and rightly so -- it is the only system for free people).
Yet, why they cannot trust the free market to assign proper value to a currency, when that currency is marked to the market each and every day, all day, by market participants the world over. The dollar is probably the most accurately valued 'commodity' there is.
The Constitution gives the Congress the power to coin money. They have to refine the ore themselves, right there in the Capitol. Even their aides cannot participate.
But it's already a de facto reality. If the US ever defaults on Treasury bonds, we will be transferring title to large tracts of government-owned western land to foreign bondholders to make good the loss. If that tacit understanding weren't already in place (with a wink and nod governments), I doubt that foreign governments would be continuing to buy as much US paper as they have in recent years. They aren't keeping our economy afloat out of charity.
If we peg the dollar to $400 an ounce today, and if we keep federal spending below tax receipts, if we produce/export more than we buy/import, we will have nothing but positive benefits, and we will be come a stronger and stronger nation, and deservedly so.
Returing to the gold standard, and becoming fiscally responsible, and becoming a producing nation, is all positive,a nd can only benefit all americans and all of our grandchildren. It made our nation the most prosperous nation in the world. We accomplished a lot as a country from 1789 to 1970, and esp a lot from 1789 to 1933 when even domestic transactions were pegged to gold.
I'd like to clarify this statement:
similarly, the free market system is often acknowledged as the only system for facilitating the exchange of private property at a fair price.(and rightly so -- it is the only system for free people). the free-market system, while acknowledged by conservatives as the only right system, is often misunderstood and it's power is widely underestimated.
You want to create a fiat price control on a commodity. doomed from the start. then you want to tie the value of a curreny to that commodity's value, by fiat.
The purpose of a gold standard was to establish the value of a currency. There are other, more realistic ways to value the currency of a mature, productive nation. GDP, debt ratios, asset estimations,etc. are all factored into the daily market value of the dollar. What has the price of gold got to do with any of that.
I also disagree with needing to 'produce/export more than we 'buy/import.' Much of what we 'import,' we own. American enterprises own manufacturing facilities abroad. It's similar to a someone in NY buying a car that was made in Michigan.
Returning to the Gold standard is not synonymous with becoming 'fiscally responsible.' Fiat money in the hands of responsible management is at least as responsible, and arguably more so, than an arbitrary peg to jewelry.
Can a free market system not be trusted? Yes or no? If yes, then it can be trusted to accurately value the currency of a nation. The issue isn't the means of valuing the currency, the issue is the management of that value. And gold is not a cure-all for poor management.
I think it would take a collapse of a major currency like the dollar or the Euro to create any sort of interest in resumption of a gold standard. Especially in an era of low inflation, it looks to most people as though "fiat dollars" are working just fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.