Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: expat_panama
Sorry, but we haven't learned a thing. A stable money supply is not the "death by deflation" problem that modern economists believe it is. There is no problem in business adjusting for slightly lower prices over an extended period of time. Sure a drastic increase in monetary value is a problem, as it has not been planned for. We had a stable money supply for 100+ years during the "pure chaos of the pre-WWI gold standard" and that allowed for some of the greatest periods of economic growth ever seen.

The problems with a gold standard are 2 fold. Firstly, govts. can print as much of it as they like and therefore are loathe to return to such a constraining system. Inflation of the fiat money supply is like a universal tax on all dollar holders. Each newly created dollar makes each existing dollar worth just a little bit less. Secondly, banks don't make nearly as much money on a 100% backed gold standard. The "chaos" you mentioned previously was not an inherant feature of the gold standard. It was caused by the loaning out of more paper gold receipts (money of the day) than they had the gold to back. When the public began to realize this (usually at economic slowdowns) they rushed to the bank to convert their paper into he gold that it promised. Of course not everyone could redeem for gold that simply didn't exist and panics ensued.

Under a 100% backed gold standard, depositors who wish access to their money (gold)on demand, were not paid interest for their deposit, in fact they usually paid a storage fee. This made up for the lack of ability on the part of the bank to loan this money out. The only time a bank could make a loan, was if it had received a time based deposit from a customer. Thus the customer would agree to not demand his deposit until a certain date (much like CDs today). In exchange for this he would be paid a percentage of the interest charged to whomever borrowed the money. When there was greater demand for loans, the interest rate charged would increase and the amount paid to time depositors would follow until there was an equilibrium reached. It was only when deposits were not 100% backed that bank runs and financial panics ensued.

172 posted on 12/12/2005 9:15:11 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]


To: getsoutalive
We had a stable money supply for 100+ years ...

It's good to know you've been studying the money supply over the past 100+ years --please share your numbers/sources with us.  All that I've been able to dig up are employment, price, income, and gdp numbers-- all of which have been relatively flat in recent decades compared to the bonkers gold standard era.

175 posted on 12/12/2005 9:34:29 AM PST by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]

To: getsoutalive
There is no problem in business adjusting for slightly lower prices over an extended period of time.

Would a new gold standard cause slightly lower prices over an extended period?

We had a stable money supply for 100+ years during the "pure chaos of the pre-WWI gold standard"

You have any back up for this claim?

Each newly created dollar makes each existing dollar worth just a little bit less.

Not necessarily.

176 posted on 12/12/2005 9:35:41 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (The Federal Reserve did not kill JFK. Greenspan was not on the grassy knoll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson