The History of Money

Before Alan Greenspan retires I thought it might be worthwhile hearing what he thinks of money. Three years ago he gave a speech at the opening of an American Numismatic Society exhibition that I found on the Federal Reserve Bank website(1).

Greenspan reminds us, in no uncertain terms, that a monetary system based on fiat money amounts to no more than a confidence game. The value of fiat money is determined solely by our confidence in the issuers of that money or, more specifically, on how well the supply of fiat money is managed. If too much money is created the public will lose confidence in its purchasing power and the perceived value of the money can collapse. Remember, fiat money has no intrinsic value; it only has perceived value.

After you have read Greenspan’s speech, read the excerpts from a speech that Ben Bernanke made later that same year, and remember, he is going to be the next Federal Reserve Chairman.

The History of Money (1) by Alan Greenspan “The other day I told a spendthrift friend that I had to deliver a short address on the history of money. He responded, "I understand the history of money. When I get some, it's soon history." Fortunately, not all market participants are as spendthrift as my friend. Savers have been in sufficient abundance since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to enable investment to further material well-being. Money, as a store of value, was an early facilitator of savings and one of the great inventions of mankind. Saving and investment is very difficult in a barter economy.

“The history of money is the history of civilization or, more exactly, of some important civilizing values. Its form at any particular period of history reflects the degree of confidence, or the degree of trust, that market participants have in the institutions that govern every market system, whether centrally planned or free.

“To accept money in exchange for goods and services requires a trust that the money will be accepted by another purveyor of goods and services. In earlier generations that trust adhered to the intrinsic value of gold, silver, or any other commodity that had general acceptability. Historians, digging deep into the earliest evidence of human practice, link such commodities' broad acceptability to peoples' desire for ostentatious gold and silver ornaments.

“Many millennia later, in one of the remarkable advances in financial history, the bank note emerged as a medium of exchange. It had no intrinsic value. It was rather a promise to pay, on demand, a certain quantity of gold or other valued commodity. The bank note's value rested on trust in the willingness and ability of the bank note issuer to meet that promise. Reputation for trustworthiness, accordingly, became an economic value to banks--the early issuers of private paper currency. “They competed for reputation by advertising the amount of capital they had to back up their promises to pay in gold. Those banks that proved trustworthy were able to broadly issue bank notes, along with demand deposits, that is, zero interest rate liabilities. The profit that accrued from investing the proceeds at interest was capitalized in the banks' market value. In the mid-nineteenth century, equity capital/asset ratios were often several multiples of today's ratios.

“In the twentieth century, bank reputation receded in importance and capital ratios decreased as government programs, especially the discount window and deposit insurance, provided support for bank promises to pay. And, at the base of the financial system, with the abandonment of gold convertibility in the 1930s, legal tender became backed--if that is the proper term--by the fiat of the state.

“The value of fiat money can be inferred only from the values of the present and future goods and services it can command. And that, in turn, has largely rested on the quantity of fiat money created relative to demand. The early history of the post-Bretton Woods system of generalized fiat money was plagued, as we all remember, by excess money issuance and the resultant inflationary instability.

“Central bankers' success, however, in containing inflation during the past two decades raises hopes that fiat money can be managed in a responsible way. This has been the case in the United States, and the dollar, despite many challenges to its status, remains the principal international currency.

“If the evident recent success of fiat money regimes falters, we may have to go back to seashells or oxen as our medium of exchange. In that unlikely event, I trust, the discount window of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will have an adequate inventory of oxen.”

I suspect that Alan Greenspan deliberately used oxen, and not gold, in the above paragraph so as not to cause panic buying of the yellow metal.

Now read Ben Bernanke’s comments and then decide for yourself whether you should own some gold, or not. Bernanke was talking about combating deflation, and we should not take his remarks out of context, but they are still instructive of the way our new Federal Reserve Board Chairman thinks. The full text of his talk is also available on the Federal Reserve Bank website(2).

“…under a fiat (that is, paper) money system, a government (in practice, the central bank in cooperation with other agencies) should always be able to generate increased nominal spending and inflation, even when the short-term nominal interest rate is at zero.

“The conclusion that deflation is always reversible under a fiat money system follows from basic economic reasoning. A little parable may prove useful: Today an ounce of gold sells for $300, more or less. Now suppose that a modern alchemist solves his subject's oldest problem by finding a way to produce unlimited amounts of new gold at essentially no cost. Moreover, his invention is widely publicized and scientifically verified, and he announces his intention to begin massive production of gold within days. What would happen to the price of gold? Presumably, the potentially unlimited supply of cheap gold would cause the market price of gold to plummet. Indeed, if the market for gold is to any degree efficient, the price of gold would collapse immediately after the announcement of the invention, before the alchemist had produced and marketed a single ounce of yellow metal.

“What has this got to do with monetary policy? Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

“Of course, the U.S. government is not going to print money and distribute it willy-nilly. Normally, money is injected into the economy through asset purchases by the Federal Reserve. To stimulate aggregate spending when short-term interest rates have reached zero, the Fed must expand the scale of its asset purchases or, possibly, expand the menu of assets that it buys. Alternatively, the Fed could find other ways of injecting money into the system--for example, by making low-interest-rate loans to banks or cooperating with the fiscal authorities. Each method of adding money to the economy has advantages and drawbacks, both technical and economic. One important concern in practice is that calibrating the economic effects of nonstandard means of injecting money may be difficult, given our relative lack of experience with such policies. Thus, as I have stressed already, prevention of deflation remains preferable to having to cure it. If we do fall into deflation, however, we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press example must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation.”

As I mentioned, we should not take Ben Bernanke’s comments out of context. At the time there was a real threat that the US could collapse into a deflationary depression following the bursting of the tech bubble. A deflationary depression is the last thing anyone wants and so, to prevent it, the Fed was dropping interest rates as fast as possible. The Federal Funds Rate (the rate at which banks lend federal funds to each other on an over-night basis) fell from 6.5% in 2000 to 1% in 2003. It was during this time that Bernanke made the speech I quoted above, in part to alleviate fears of a deflationary collapse.

The reason I think his speech is important is that the Federal Reserve had to take extreme measures in the aftermath of the tech bubble which, in the big scheme of things, was not all that big. To prevent a slowdown the Fed dropped the Federal Funds Rate from 6.5% to 1% in just three years and in doing so created a real estate bubble that dwarfs the tech bubble in every imaginable way.

As I mentioned last week, I think the US real estate market is ready to roll over and if it does the Federal Reserve will not have 5.5 percentage points by which to lower the Federal Funds Rate. The Effective Federal Funds rate is currently at 4%, and that brings us to Ben Bernanke’s speech. What will Ben Bernanke do to prevent a slowdown in the US economy when the real estate market finally cools down?

I'd love to get Greenspan alone and ply him with drink, and discuss when and how he was seduced away from his 1966 clarity.

What he said about the credit induced boom of the 20s leading to the crash and the depression is about to be repeated.

PS: Don't look at it as gold nearing $500/oz.

Gold is just gold, it hasn't changed since before the Pharoahs!

In truth, to Dollar is DOWN to $500 per oz of gold!

"The Fed purchases US government securities from the public (banks and others). In the process, money is injected into the economy."

Thanks for the explanation.

When he said "assets" I almost thought he meant something solid.

"Normally, money is injected into the economy through asset purchases by the Federal Reserve"

Can anyone explain what that statement means?

Money is borrowed into existence on a promise to pay back more money than was created by the act of borrowing.

LOL

The mention of "injected" got me thinking that drugs may have replaced gold as the underpinning of our currency.

I thought Rocky and Bullwinkle proved in 1959 that box tops were the true basis of the economy?

(We *love* Moose and Squirrel. We give Season 1 four stars... and it's only $30! (Or 6/100ths of an ounce of gold at current prices.))

"A supply that increases, oh, 1/10 of 1% a year. "

WRONG! It increases 2% per year. But it is an asset not debt.

Now we have to increase our debt 8% per year to get 4% GDP growth.

But fiat money is a "confidence game" that enables rapid creation of wealth

Printing FIAT does not create wealth. It creates DEBT!

Hi Trav,

I see where the price of gold is going up because the Russian Central Bank has decided to raise its reserves from 5% of its assets to 10 %, and that change means they will require about 300 Tons more gold. That represents about 3 years of the gold output for the Soviet Union. World wide gold consumption is between 4000 - 7000 tons annually for jewelry, with SA producing the cheapest gold, selling Krugerands for the spot price, all other coins have a coinage markup. The next hi-point for pricing gold will be about 510 in early December, then about three weeks later you will see a correction to about 475. I've studied the trends for a few years now, and somebody is running the market in a way where the movement is complex but predictable. Funny.

Welp, them's the breaks. So does increasing the cost of capital.

The fact is, no matter WHAT standard we choose, somebody's going to get hurt. The only thing to do is chose the standard that does the most good for the most people most of the time.

The U.S. economy is, oh, about 8x what it was since we dumped the gold standard. I daresay the printing presses have helped made us the richest nation on Earth. In short: fiat sit!

"Printing FIAT does not create wealth. It creates DEBT!"

“Printing” fiat money helps creates wealth when the price of capital is too restrictive on investment, development and production.

"WRONG! It increases 2% per year. But it is an asset not debt. Now we have to increase our debt 8% per year to get 4% GDP growth."

You’re confusing borrowing dollars with owning gold. $500 in your pocket is as much an asset as an ounce of gold in your pocket. Borrowing an ounce of gold is as much a liability as borrowing $500 dollars.

Yes, gold has been "run" for at least 5 years, no big secret there to traders. Here's one pretty good current
explanation of the way it's worked:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051118.wbarrick1118/BNStory/Business/

But I think the central banks and their cooperating agents (Goldman Sachs etc) have finally capitulated in the last several weeks. It's over, nothing but clear running now to 500 and far above. I don't think they have the means left to beat it back to 475 once it breaks above 500. External forces are much too great now, with the Russians doubling reserves, China playing in a big way, etc.

“Printing” fiat money helps creates wealth when the price of capital is too restrictive on investment, development and production.

Keep chugging that green Koolaid, and don't forget to pick up a wheelbarrow or two, for when Helicopter Ben starts tossing out his bales of money, as promised.

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.