Gold Over $800 Per Ounce

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
NEW YORK (AP) �?? Commodities prices skidded Monday as a strengthening U.S. dollar at least temporarily halted a nearly three-month rally in gold, oil and other raw materials. Gold fell below $800 an ounce.

Gold prices slid in the largest one-day decline since the rally began in mid-August. Many analysts have been calling for a serious correction to gold prices, after the metal piled on nearly $200 an ounce in three months to rise to its highest level since 1980. Falling precious metals prices were accompanied by a rebounding U.S. dollar and sharply lower oil prices.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jND4r3B-VBZu2Ogg2_yzjYnPIP8gD8SS8JEO0
[/quote]

Supply and demand?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
NEW YORK (AP) �?? Commodities prices skidded Monday as a strengthening U.S. dollar at least temporarily halted a nearly three-month rally in gold, oil and other raw materials. Gold fell below $800 an ounce.

Gold prices slid in the largest one-day decline since the rally began in mid-August. Many analysts have been calling for a serious correction to gold prices, after the metal piled on nearly $200 an ounce in three months to rise to its highest level since 1980. Falling precious metals prices were accompanied by a rebounding U.S. dollar and sharply lower oil prices.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jND4r3B-VBZu2Ogg2_yzjYnPIP8gD8SS8JEO0

Supply and demand?[/quote]

Seems that should be the way gold is valued, as opposed to artificially pegging a price to it.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
As do markets. As does spending. This is a circular chicken and egg argument. [/quote]

Spending goes up if costs go up or there are more purchases made. They are not mutually exclusive. You can have increased spending but lowered costs…can’t you?

How do markets increase or shrink? They are just an abstract idea to indicate where stuff is traded. Either there is stuff to trade or there isn’t. There is nothing physical about the market that makes it measurable in objective terms.

There is nothing chicken and egg about this argument. First there was a chicken and then there was a farmer who figured out that more chickens means more people can eat which means he can get more wealthy.

Zap, I am not going to give up on you…come to the dark-side.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Supply and demand?

Seems that should be the way gold is valued, as opposed to artificially pegging a price to it.[/quote]

OK, finally a break-thru. When gold is money it does not carry a “price”. It would be like charging a dollar for a dollar – its a nonsensical exchange. On a gold standard paper is just a representation of a weight of gold. For example, let’s call the dollar equal to an ounce of gold (for ease of calculation). The purchasing power of your dollar would be in terms of how much gold someone wanted for some good or service.

The “value” of money would still fluctuate with supply and demand but price would be the cost in terms of gold. For example, a pair of shoes might cost you 1/20 oz of gold which would mean you would just exchange $.05 for a pair of shoes. Prices would still fluctuate normally.

Accordingly, we could not use the same standard that was set in the 19th century without changing the name of the currency because the meaning of the dollar has changed since then. I think the problem you are having stems from the idea that you think setting a standard is price fixing. It is not. It’s just fixing the ratio of one in terms of the other to make calculation possible.

If you asked someone how far it was to the nearest grocery store and he told you one “blubber” you would have no idea how far that is. But if you were told that 10 blubbers equal a mile then you know exactly how far you have to go. Units of measure are just fixed ratios that are understood by convention. That is all a dollar is; we would never change the definition of a foot though we may go to a different standard. Prices are in terms of weights of gold and the equivalent dollar value (or electronic digits) is used to represent it.

Berry Eichengreen, in Golden Fetters:

The gold standard is the key to understanding the Depression.
The gold standard of the 1920s set the stage of the Depression of the 1930s by heightening the fragility of the international financial system. The gold standard was the mechanism transmitting the destabilizing impulse from the United States to the rest of the world. The gold standard magnified that initial destabilizing shock. It was the principal obstacle to offsetting action. It was the binding constraint preventing policymakers from averting the failure of banks and containing the spread of financial panic. For all these reasons, the international gold standard was a central factor in the worldwide Depression. Recovery proved possible, for these same reasons, only after abandoning the gold standard.

Or here’s Ben Bernanke - though you may not appreciate his point of view given his position, his view originates with Milton Friedman:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm

EXCERPT:

[i]The second monetary policy action identified by Friedman and Schwartz occurred in September and October of 1931. At the time, as I will discuss in more detail later, the United States and the great majority of other nations were on the gold standard, a system in which the value of each currency is expressed in terms of ounces of gold. Under the gold standard, central banks stood ready to maintain the fixed values of their currencies by offering to trade gold for money at the legally determined rate of exchange.

The fact that, under the gold standard, the value of each currency was fixed in terms of gold implied that the rate of exchange between any two currencies within the gold standard system was likewise fixed. As with any system of fixed exchange rates, the gold standard was subject to speculative attack if investors doubted the ability of a country to maintain the value of its currency at the legally specified parity. In September 1931, following a period of financial upheaval in Europe that created concerns about British investments on the Continent, speculators attacked the British pound, presenting pounds to the Bank of England and demanding gold in return. Faced with the heavy demands of speculators for gold and a widespread loss of confidence in the pound, the Bank of England quickly depleted its gold reserves. Unable to continue supporting the pound at its official value, Great Britain was forced to leave the gold standard, allowing the pound to float freely, its value determined by market forces.

With the collapse of the pound, speculators turned their attention to the U.S. dollar, which (given the economic difficulties the United States was experiencing in the fall of 1931) looked to many to be the next currency in line for devaluation. Central banks as well as private investors converted a substantial quantity of dollar assets to gold in September and October of 1931, reducing the Federal Reserve’s gold reserves. The speculative attack on the dollar also helped to create a panic in the U.S. banking system. Fearing imminent devaluation of the dollar, many foreign and domestic depositors withdrew their funds from U.S. banks in order to convert them into gold or other assets. The worsening economic situation also made depositors increasingly distrustful of banks as a place to keep their savings. During this period, deposit insurance was virtually nonexistent, so that the failure of a bank might cause depositors to lose all or most of their savings. Thus, depositors who feared that a bank might fail rushed to withdraw their funds. Banking panics, if severe enough, could become self-confirming prophecies. During the 1930s, thousands of U.S. banks experienced runs by depositors and subsequently failed.

Long-established central banking practice required that the Fed respond both to the speculative attack on the dollar and to the domestic banking panics. However, the Fed decided to ignore the plight of the banking system and to focus only on stopping the loss of gold reserves to protect the dollar. To stabilize the dollar, the Fed once again raised interest rates sharply, on the view that currency speculators would be less willing to liquidate dollar assets if they could earn a higher rate of return on them. The Fed’s strategy worked, in that the attack on the dollar subsided and the U.S. commitment to the gold standard was successfully defended, at least for the moment. However, once again the Fed had chosen to tighten monetary policy despite the fact that macroeconomic conditions–including an accelerating decline in output, prices, and the money supply–seemed to demand policy ease.

As I have already mentioned, the gold standard is a monetary system in which each participating country defines its monetary unit in terms of a certain amount of gold. The setting of each currency’s value in terms of gold defines a system of fixed exchange rates, in which the relative value of (say) the U.S. dollar and the British pound are fixed at a rate determined by the relative gold content of each currency. To maintain the gold standard, central banks had to promise to exchange actual gold for their paper currencies at the legal rate.

The gold standard appeared to be highly successful from about 1870 to the beginning of World War I in 1914. During the so-called “classical” gold standard period, international trade and capital flows expanded markedly, and central banks experienced relatively few problems ensuring that their currencies retained their legal value. The gold standard was suspended during World War I, however, because of disruptions to trade and international capital flows and because countries needed more financial flexibility to finance their war efforts. (The United States remained technically on the gold standard throughout the war, but with many restrictions.)

After 1918, when the war ended, nations around the world made extensive efforts to reconstitute the gold standard, believing that it would be a key element in the return to normal functioning of the international economic system. Great Britain was among the first of the major countries to return to the gold standard, in 1925, and by 1929 the great majority of the world’s nations had done so.

Unlike the gold standard before World War I, however, the gold standard as reconstituted in the 1920s proved to be both unstable and destabilizing. Economic historians have identified a number of reasons why the reconstituted gold standard was so much less successful than its prewar counterpart. First, the war had left behind enormous economic destruction and dislocation. Major financial problems also remained, including both large government debts from the war and banking systems whose solvency had been deeply compromised by the war and by the periods of hyperinflation that followed in a number of countries. These underlying problems created stresses for the gold standard that had not existed to the same degree before the war.

Second, the new system lacked effective international leadership. During the classical period, the Bank of England, in operation since 1694, provided sophisticated management of the international system, with the cooperation of other major central banks. This leadership helped the system adjust to imbalances and strains; for example, a consortium of central banks might lend gold to one of their number that was experiencing a shortage of reserves. After the war, with Great Britain economically and financially depleted and the United States in ascendance, leadership of the international system shifted by default to the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, the fledgling Federal Reserve, with its decentralized structure and its inexperienced and domestically focused leadership, did not prove up to the task of managing the international gold standard, a task that lingering hatreds and disputes from the war would have made difficult for even the most-sophisticated institution. With the lack of effective international leadership, most central banks of the 1920s and 1930s devoted little effort to supporting the overall stability of the international system and focused instead on conditions within their own countries.

Finally, the reconstituted gold standard lacked the credibility of its prewar counterpart. Before the war, the ideology of the gold standard was dominant, to the point that financial investors had no doubt that central banks would find a way to maintain the gold values of their currencies no matter what the circumstances. Because this conviction was so firm, speculators had little incentive to attack a major currency. After the war, in contrast, both economic views and the political balance of power had shifted in ways that reduced the influence of the gold standard ideology. For example, new labor-dominated political parties were skeptical about the utility of maintaining the gold standard if doing so increased unemployment. Ironically, reduced political and ideological support for the gold standard made it more difficult for central banks to maintain the gold values of their currencies, as speculators understood that the underlying commitment to adhere to the gold standard at all costs had been weakened significantly. Thus, speculative attacks became much more likely to succeed and hence more likely to occur.

With an international focus, and with particular attention to the role of the gold standard in the world economy, scholars have now been able to answer the questions regarding the monetary interpretation of the Depression that I raised earlier.

First, the existence of the gold standard helps to explain why the world economic decline was both deep and broadly international. Under the gold standard, the need to maintain a fixed exchange rate among currencies forces countries to adopt similar monetary policies. In particular, a central bank with limited gold reserves has no option but to raise its own interest rates when interest rates are being raised abroad; if it did not do so, it would quickly lose gold reserves as financial investors transferred their funds to countries where returns were higher. Hence, when the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in 1928 to fight stock market speculation, it inadvertently forced tightening of monetary policy in many other countries as well. This tightening abroad weakened the global economy, with effects that fed back to the U.S. economy and financial system.

Other countries’ policies also contributed to a global monetary tightening during 1928 and 1929. For example, after France returned to the gold standard in 1928, it built up its gold reserves significantly, at the expense of other countries. The outflows of gold to France forced other countries to reduce their money supplies and to raise interest rates. Speculative attacks on currencies also became frequent as the Depression worsened, leading central banks to raise interest rates, much like the Federal Reserve did in 1931. Leadership from the Federal Reserve might possibly have produced better international cooperation and a more appropriate set of monetary policies. However, in the absence of that leadership, the worldwide monetary contraction proceeded apace. The result was a global economic decline that reinforced the effects of tight monetary policies in individual countries.

The transmission of monetary tightening through the gold standard also addresses the question of whether changes in the money supply helped cause the Depression or were simply a passive response to the declines in income and prices. Countries on the gold standard were often forced to contract their money supplies because of policy developments in other countries, not because of domestic events. The fact that these contractions in money supplies were invariably followed by declines in output and prices suggests that money was more a cause than an effect of the economic collapse in those countries.

Perhaps the most fascinating discovery arising from researchers’ broader international focus is that the extent to which a country adhered to the gold standard and the severity of its depression were closely linked. In particular, the longer that a country remained committed to gold, the deeper its depression and the later its recovery (Choudhri and Kochin, 1980; Eichengreen and Sachs, 1985).

The willingness or ability of countries to remain on the gold standard despite the adverse developments of the 1930s varied quite a bit. A few countries did not join the gold standard system at all; these included Spain (which was embroiled in domestic political upheaval, eventually leading to civil war) and China (which used a silver monetary standard rather than a gold standard). A number of countries adopted the gold standard in the 1920s but left or were forced off gold relatively early, typically in 1931. Countries in this category included Great Britain, Japan, and several Scandinavian countries. Some countries, such as Italy and the United States, remained on the gold standard into 1932 or 1933. And a few diehards, notably the so-called gold bloc, led by France and including Poland, Belgium, and Switzerland, remained on gold into 1935 or 1936.

If declines in the money supply induced by adherence to the gold standard were a principal reason for economic depression, then countries leaving gold earlier should have been able to avoid the worst of the Depression and begin an earlier process of recovery. The evidence strongly supports this implication. For example, Great Britain and Scandinavia, which left the gold standard in 1931, recovered much earlier than France and Belgium, which stubbornly remained on gold. As Friedman and Schwartz noted in their book, countries such as China–which used a silver standard rather than a gold standard–avoided the Depression almost entirely. The finding that the time at which a country left the gold standard is the key determinant of the severity of its depression and the timing of its recovery has been shown to hold for literally dozens of countries, including developing countries. This intriguing result not only provides additional evidence for the importance of monetary factors in the Depression, it also explains why the timing of recovery from the Depression differed across countries.

The finding that leaving the gold standard was the key to recovery from the Great Depression was certainly confirmed by the U.S. experience. One of the first actions of President Roosevelt was to eliminate the constraint on U.S. monetary policy created by the gold standard, first by allowing the dollar to float and then by resetting its value at a significantly lower level. The new President also addressed another major source of monetary contraction, the ongoing banking crisis. Within days of his inauguration, Roosevelt declared a “bank holiday,” shutting down all the banks in the country. Banks were allowed to reopen only when certified to be in sound financial condition. Roosevelt pursued other measures to stabilize the banking system as well, such as the creation of a deposit insurance program. With the gold standard constraint removed and the banking system stabilized, the money supply and the price level began to rise. Between Roosevelt’s coming to power in 1933 and the recession of 1937-38, the economy grew strongly.

Some important lessons emerge from the story. One lesson is that ideas are critical. The gold standard orthodoxy, the adherence of some Federal Reserve policymakers to the liquidationist thesis, and the incorrect view that low nominal interest rates necessarily signaled monetary ease, all led policymakers astray, with disastrous consequences. We should not underestimate the need for careful research and analysis in guiding policy. Another lesson is that central banks and other governmental agencies have an important responsibility to maintain financial stability. The banking crises of the 1930s, both in the United States and abroad, were a significant source of output declines, both through their effects on money supplies and on credit supplies. Finally, perhaps the most important lesson of all is that price stability should be a key objective of monetary policy. By allowing persistent declines in the money supply and in the price level, the Federal Reserve of the late 1920s and 1930s greatly destabilized the U.S. economy and, through the workings of the gold standard, the economies of many other nations as well.

[/i]

Let’s hope Bernanke remembers his most important lesson from above: price stability should be a key objective of monetary policy.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Berry Eichengreen, in Golden Fetters:

The gold standard is the key to understanding the Depression.
The gold standard of the 1920s set the stage of the Depression of the 1930s by heightening the fragility of the international financial system. The gold standard was the mechanism transmitting the destabilizing impulse from the United States to the rest of the world. The gold standard magnified that initial destabilizing shock. It was the principal obstacle to offsetting action. It was the binding constraint preventing policymakers from averting the failure of banks and containing the spread of financial panic. For all these reasons, the international gold standard was a central factor in the worldwide Depression. Recovery proved possible, for these same reasons, only after abandoning the gold standard.

[/quote]

Translation: so long as the dollar is tied to gold, they couldn’t print massive quantities of dollars for fear of losing the gold. Since the populace still thinks of dollars as long-term stores of value, we can use their ignorance to print up a bunch of these and stimulate the economy.

The problem is that then the race is on — can the authorities print dollars faster than the public’s perception of the debasement of their currency? Yes. But eventually, everyone recognizes what is going on and the formerly desireable currency becomes the nation’s supply of paper napkins.

Old Russian joke:

How do you give value to a Russian coin?

Drill holes in it and use it as a button.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Berry Eichengreen, in Golden Fetters:

The gold standard is the key to understanding the Depression.
The gold standard of the 1920s set the stage of the Depression of the 1930s by heightening the fragility of the international financial system. The gold standard was the mechanism transmitting the destabilizing impulse from the United States to the rest of the world. The gold standard magnified that initial destabilizing shock. It was the principal obstacle to offsetting action. It was the binding constraint preventing policymakers from averting the failure of banks and containing the spread of financial panic. For all these reasons, the international gold standard was a central factor in the worldwide Depression. Recovery proved possible, for these same reasons, only after abandoning the gold standard.

Translation: so long as the dollar is tied to gold, they couldn’t print massive quantities of dollars for fear of losing the gold. Since the populace still thinks of dollars as long-term stores of value, we can use their ignorance to print up a bunch of these and stimulate the economy.

The problem is that then the race is on — can the authorities print dollars faster than the public’s perception of the debasement of their currency? Yes. But eventually, everyone recognizes what is going on and the formerly desireable currency becomes the nation’s supply of paper napkins.

[/quote]
Bingo…money is about trust. It’s only so long before people quit trusting the ability of man to adjust the value of money that can be done more efficiently by a free market gold standard.

[center]Treatise on Property Tax Through Fiat Currencies
By Clayton Slade[/center]

Property Tax
The United States has a property tax that applies to the entire world. In fact, all countries with fiat currencies do, but the extent to which they can tax is directly related to the distribution of currencies in circulation. This tax is called a fiat property tax. The tax rate varies between different currencies.

First, it must be understood that at any given moment, there is a finite total value of resources and services. Second, there is a total amount of currencies in the world, which can be manipulated. These two values form a ratio of Currency:Stuff. If more of a currency is created, such as new federal reserve notes, the total economic value of everything is not increased; this merely increases the currency side of the ratio, meaning that in the long run, it takes more currency to get the same amount of stuff. This amount of time is the response time or lag time of the market to realize the increased currency.

When more federal reserve notes (FRN) are created, the ratio of FRN:Stuff shifts accordingly, making it take more FRNs to get stuff. This means that each individual FRN is worth less than it was originally. The value of the “new” FRNs is derived from taking value away from the original FRNs. This is true for all fiat currencies when the quantity of a given currency in circulation increases.

The devaluing of each FRN is more than mere inflation. This is a property tax. It takes value away from assets, in this case currency owned by the holder, and redistributes it to the entity that creates the new notes (e.g., the Federal Reserve). Whomever has the power to create new currency inherently has the power to tax anyone and everyone who is holding that currency.

History
When the United States used the gold standard, people saw the US dollar as a sanctuary. The dollar was no more than a receipt (certificate) for a certain weight of gold, and the gold was protected in a safe location, which allowed the dollar to permeate throughout the world. When we moved off the gold standard domestically, we still met our obligations for foreigners who had gold certificates, and we also used relatively responsible monetary policies. This kept foreigners comfortable with using the US dollar.

At the same time, a very real economic boom after WW2 made the United States rich and a marketplace that other nations want to sell to. When the United States imports, it also exports federal reserve notes, which further serves to spread FRNs to all parts of the world. Some other consequences of WW1 and WW2 were that the borders in the Middle East were redrawn, and other political changes ensued that, for better or worse, involved making the US dollar the currency used in all major petroleum transactions. If anyone wanted to buy oil from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc, they first had to buy US dollars (now FRNs) on the foreign exchange market.

As a consequence. the world has been saturated with dollars, and then federal reserve notes, during the past century.

Real World
When the federal reserve creates new notes, it steals value from all existing notes. Since many existing notes reside outside of the United States, the property tax effect applies to anyone holding a FRN. This is a property tax on all notes that exist, and thus, the world.

When this newly taxed money is spent domestically, there is a net benefit to the United States. This has worked well for 30-50 years and is one reason why the trade deficit is not so bad. Money flows out of the country, but the value of it is then just taxed right back when new money is created. One must also consider that this is a tax on holdings, and not just cash flows. A country such as China that possesses a large quantity of federal reserve notes and treasury securities is taxed not only on the trade deficit, but also the notes from all previous trade deficits that are still held by the country.

Downfall
That sounds great, right? The United States gets to tax the whole world and spend it in ways that benefit itself! All moral issues aside, it would be wonderful if this could be done forever. However, other countries are not stupid and are wising up to this.

This most recent round of bail outs (paid for by fiat property tax) in the financial markets (sub prime, etc) is really waking people up. Take a look at the dollar against other competing currencies or even gold and silver. On it�??s present course, the FRN will not be able to maintain reserve currency status much longer.

It seems like every year or two, another oil producing country moves away from the FRN in favor of other currencies that are destroying themselves slower. Most notably, Iran has been switching to Euro and Yen for oil transactions.

Effectively, all fiat money has a property tax rate associated with it. This system of fiat property tax only works when people are willing to accept a given currency. They have to either be naive to what is going on (general public), accepting it because it is the best option available (central banks, foreign governments, investors), or coerced (OPEC?). The Europeans are destroying (taxing) their currencies in order to help their exports, but they are doing it slower than the United States, making the Euro and [Pound Sterling] the current better choice for maintaining value. This is why treasuries, central banks, regular banks, etc are shifting away from the federal reserve note to currencies such as the [Lb. Sterling], Euro, and gold – the fiat property tax rate is lower with those currencies.

It is a fragile system. Once the international community stops accepting federal reserve notes, the decline will be rapid. The decline may have already started. Depending on how widespread this rejection and decline is, the United States could experience massive inflation (WW2 Germany style).

Solutions
There are a only few ways to stave off a total rejection of the federal reserve note. One way is more conservative fiscal policies in congress that involve balanced budgets.

The other is to float some sort of commodity based currency that forces the value of individual currency units to be finite and relatively unchanging true value over time. If an option like this were adopted, it would be key for the new currency to be issued in a “natural” and non-obligatory manner in order to not shock financial markets. One such way would be to simply allow such currencies to float freely on the foreign exchange markets. If consumers of currencies wish to use that currency as a sanctuary, such as the dollars of old, they should be free to do so in a liquid manner.

The United States and some other super powers have had the luxury of a lifestyle that is subsidized through the taxation of the world with the practice of fiat property tax. One way or the other, those who currently are accustomed to the benefits of this system should begin to wean themselves off of it on their own terms as more and more people and organizations realize how this system works and refuse to participate.

Seigniorage is alive and well. Why should someone choose to hold federal reserve notes if there is an alternative that has a lower tax rate?


Aside: There is probably only one candidate running for president who is concerned about this or even understands the situation. That person is Ron Paul. If someone does not understand how taxation through inflation works, they should not be president.

All conservatives, especially rich ones and those who would like to become rich, should be opposed to this system. It is a progressive tax that directly attacks savings, affecting those with more cash more than those with less. Such a property tax is contrary to conservative or libertarian principles. Anyone who wants to save money should be opposed to this.

This is a tax just like any other. The only difference is that congress does not have to pass a bill to raise or lower the tax rate and the general public does not even know what the rate is. It is meaningless to focus on marginal income tax rates, capital gains, dividend tax, etc while at the same time the government can tax all the money it needs regardless. And they do not even have to ask you for a dime. They simply confiscate it from your bank account.

No, per Friedman and Bernanke, the use of the gold standard was directly tied to the severity of the Great Depression, because it lead to a shortage of money. Countries that stayed tied to the gold standard longer had deeper, longer depressions.

It is pure folly to think that one country could go to a gold standard in the international market and make it work. It’s even purer folly to think that you could go to a gold standard without first completely dismantling the welfare state. Dismantling the welfare state may be a good goal, but if you put the cart before the horse with the gold standard you would force a massive economic catastrophe.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No, per Friedman and Bernanke, the use of the gold standard was directly tied to the severity of the Great Depression, because it lead to a shortage of money. Countries that stayed tied to the gold standard longer had deeper, longer depressions.

It is pure folly to think that one country could go to a gold standard in the international market and make it work. It’s even purer folly to think that you could go to a gold standard without first completely dismantling the welfare state. Dismantling the welfare state may be a good goal, but if you put the cart before the horse with the gold standard you would force a massive economic catastrophe.[/quote]

Thank you for a dose of reality.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No, per Friedman and Bernanke, the use of the gold standard was directly tied to the severity of the Great Depression, because it lead to a shortage of money. Countries that stayed tied to the gold standard longer had deeper, longer depressions.

It is pure folly to think that one country could go to a gold standard in the international market and make it work. It’s even purer folly to think that you could go to a gold standard without first completely dismantling the welfare state. Dismantling the welfare state may be a good goal, but if you put the cart before the horse with the gold standard you would force a massive economic catastrophe.
[/quote]
A money shortage did not prolong the Great Depression. Messing with the interest rates and causing undue uncertainty to banking customers did, though.

I have read Friedman extensively in my quest to understand the free-market and he never subscribed to the idea that Bernanke equivocates. Bernanke is mistaken in what he thinks Friedman’s analysis is. He states quite clearly that government intervention prolonged the Great Depression. Read, “Free to Choose.”

I think we need to clear something up. There is no way we would eliminate paper money and replaces it with a new standard. We have too many debts to currently do that. We would, however, keep the fiat system but offer a new standard like the gold standard to compete against it. People would be free to buy out their debt in a new standard which would automatically lead to credibility to the new currency.

We could use any amount of any commodity for the standard as long as it is maintained and not inflated. The value is maintained in that it remains scarce. The amount or properties of the substance we choose is irrelevant. Why would it matter?

It doesn’t matter if other countries choose to use the same standard or not as long as the exchanges are voluntary it doesn’t matter. For example, what is the difference if people chose to trade steel for goose feathers if that is what the desired exchange is?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No, per Friedman and Bernanke, the use of the gold standard was directly tied to the severity of the Great Depression, because it lead to a shortage of money. Countries that stayed tied to the gold standard longer had deeper, longer depressions.

It is pure folly to think that one country could go to a gold standard in the international market and make it work. It’s even purer folly to think that you could go to a gold standard without first completely dismantling the welfare state. Dismantling the welfare state may be a good goal, but if you put the cart before the horse with the gold standard you would force a massive economic catastrophe.[/quote]

A country that uses fiat money has an advantage over another country in a war situation: the country using fiat doesn’t have to raise taxes, it can print up all it needs.

The trouble is that politicians get a taste of that and its off to the races with spending…as our history shows.

Anyone advocating fiat money is grasping at an empty dream and has no knowledge of economic history.

That’s a dose of reality.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

A country that uses fiat money has an advantage over another country in a war situation: the country using fiat doesn’t have to raise taxes, it can print up all it needs.

[/quote]

Why would you want to leave the US vulnerable? As you know war is constant. Do you really think the US would be left alone if we were weak militarily?

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
No, per Friedman and Bernanke, the use of the gold standard was directly tied to the severity of the Great Depression, because it lead to a shortage of money. Countries that stayed tied to the gold standard longer had deeper, longer depressions.

It is pure folly to think that one country could go to a gold standard in the international market and make it work. It’s even purer folly to think that you could go to a gold standard without first completely dismantling the welfare state. Dismantling the welfare state may be a good goal, but if you put the cart before the horse with the gold standard you would force a massive economic catastrophe.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
A money shortage did not prolong the Great Depression. Messing with the interest rates and causing undue uncertainty to banking customers did, though.

I have read Friedman extensively in my quest to understand the free-market and he never subscribed to the idea that Bernanke equivocates. Bernanke is mistaken in what he thinks Friedman’s analysis is. He states quite clearly that government intervention prolonged the Great Depression. Read, “Free to Choose.”

I think we need to clear something up. There is no way we would eliminate paper money and replaces it with a new standard. We have too many debts to currently do that. We would, however, keep the fiat system but offer a new standard like the gold standard to compete against it. People would be free to buy out their debt in a new standard which would automatically lead to credibility to the new currency.

We could use any amount of any commodity for the standard as long as it is maintained and not inflated. The value is maintained in that it remains scarce. The amount or properties of the substance we choose is irrelevant. Why would it matter?

It doesn’t matter if other countries choose to use the same standard or not as long as the exchanges are voluntary it doesn’t matter. For example, what is the difference if people chose to trade steel for goose feathers if that is what the desired exchange is?[/quote]

A money shortage did prolong the Great Depression - and it was caused by adherence to the gold standard. The banking system problems and tight interest rates were separate, aggravating factors. See the Bernanke speech above.

The money system is definitely highly dependent on trust - that’s why we have the independent central bank in place. Whether that’s enough of a safeguard is debatable - but putting golden handcuffs on the money supply is too restrictive.

Separately, one of the main reasons you get long-term price stability under a gold (or commodity) standard is that you get both periods of inflation and periods of deflation, which cancel each other out in the long run but which each bring unique problems - and that can exacerbate the business cycle. A lot of the bubbles and panics prior to the fiat currency were followed by deflationary periods. One a comparative-level basis (i.e., 3% inflation v. 3% deflation), deflation is usually considered more damaging to an economy than inflation. We haven’t had any deflation in this country since the Depression, when we went off a true gold standard. There’s a reason for that.

Particularly given current circumstances - at least two generations of people who have never seen deflation and are thus comfortable carrying debt - deflation would be catastrophic. HH might pine for the return of the $0.05 movie ticket, but not if his mortgage continued to be for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Any deflation would lead to serious increases in bankruptcies - both corporate and individual - as well as an aversion to taking on debt for risk-taking and entrepreneurship.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
A money shortage did prolong the Great Depression - and it was caused by adherence to the gold standard. The banking system problems and tight interest rates were separate, aggravating factors. See the Bernanke speech above.
[/quote]
People make bad decisions based on information that is distorted by government intervention in the market place – it has happened so many times since the creation of the Fed how can you not see it? That is what prolonged the Great Depression.

What happened to all the money when the stock market crashed? Did the money just disappear? Did it vaporize. We hear about everyone who went broke…but surely someone made money…? Money, like energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed but rather transferred from one state to another.

There is no such thing as a money shortage. Any stable supply will do.

Yes. Money is trust but the absolute money supply is irrelevant. Prices are all that matter and they would always be represented by the current money supply. If the quantity remains constant then information will always be correctly conveyed by a sound pricing structure – not that the information will be interpreted properly.

Deflation is just an inability to produce – usually because of misallocation and high prices. It has nothing to do with low prices. Low prices are good. Neither deflation nor inflation can happen on a gold standard.

I don’t know where you get the inflation figures but total inflation is much greater than that. They don’t even print M3 anymore so we cannot calculate it.

Prices are relative to the money supply…tweak it in any direction prices will follow. Just look at the trends.

If the fed never touched the money supply again and returned interests rates back to the banks to figure out and quit incentivizing fractional reserve banking we would be ok eventually…but let’s be honest. The government will always want its handouts and that is why we don’t have a gold standard.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
A money shortage did prolong the Great Depression - and it was caused by adherence to the gold standard. The banking system problems and tight interest rates were separate, aggravating factors. See the Bernanke speech above.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
People make bad decisions based on information that is distorted by government intervention in the market place – it has happened so many times since the creation of the Fed how can you not see it? That is what prolonged the Great Depression.

What happened to all the money when the stock market crashed? Did the money just disappear? Did it vaporize. We hear about everyone who went broke…but surely someone made money…? Money, like energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed but rather transferred from one state to another.

There is no such thing as a money shortage. Any stable supply will do.[/quote]

The money doesn’t go away - it’s just that it’s taken out of circulation. The velocity of money is a key. Particularly if there is a deflationary pressure, those who have cash have a lesser incentive to lend it (it’s growing in value risk free), and people have less incentive to borrow (they will owe a greater value than they get). Thus there is recession in economic activity.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The money system is definitely highly dependent on trust - that’s why we have the independent central bank in place. Whether that’s enough of a safeguard is debatable - but putting golden handcuffs on the money supply is too restrictive.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes. Money is trust but the absolute money supply is irrelevant. Prices are all that matter and they would always be represented by the current money supply. If the quantity remains constant then information will always be correctly conveyed by a sound pricing structure – not that the information will be interpreted properly.[/quote]

The quantity in existence may remains constant while the quantity in circulation fluctuates; back in the days when people didn’t trust banks and stored money in their mattresses, that money existed, but was out of circulation. And the quantity in existence can change too: the government can’t take action to add liquidity if a large amount of cash is taken out of circulation because it’s redeemed for the commodity backing the currency.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Separately, one of the main reasons you get long-term price stability under a gold (or commodity) standard is that you get both periods of inflation and periods of deflation, which cancel each other out in the long run but which each bring unique problems - and that can exacerbate the business cycle. A lot of the bubbles and panics prior to the fiat currency were followed by deflationary periods. One a comparative-level basis (i.e., 3% inflation v. 3% deflation), deflation is usually considered more damaging to an economy than inflation. We haven’t had any deflation in this country since the Depression, when we went off a true gold standard. There’s a reason for that.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Deflation is just an inability to produce – usually because of misallocation and high prices. It has nothing to do with low prices. Low prices are good. Neither deflation nor inflation can happen on a gold standard.

I don’t know where you get the inflation figures but total inflation is much greater than that. They don’t even print M3 anymore so we cannot calculate it.[/quote]

The 3% was just illustrative for my point - trying to explain what I meant by “comparative-level basis”.

The U.S. was on a gold standard for a long time - are you telling me there was no inflation or deflation during that time? Or is this one of those arguments like trying to argue with people who say Communism never failed because it was never really implemented properly?

Deflation can be caused or exacerbated by a currency crisis. Just as inflation can be caused by printing too much currency, deflation can be caused by taking a lot of currency out of circulation.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Particularly given current circumstances - at least two generations of people who have never seen deflation and are thus comfortable carrying debt - deflation would be catastrophic. HH might pine for the return of the $0.05 movie ticket, but not if his mortgage continued to be for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Any deflation would lead to serious increases in bankruptcies - both corporate and individual - as well as an aversion to taking on debt for risk-taking and entrepreneurship.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Prices are relative to the money supply…tweak it in any direction prices will follow. Just look at the trends.

If the fed never touched the money supply again and returned interests rates back to the banks to figure out and quit incentivizing fractional reserve banking we would be ok eventually…but let’s be honest. The government will always want its handouts and that is why we don’t have a gold standard.[/quote]

We didn’t have a Fed during the 1800s. Somehow there was still inflation, deflation, bubbles, burst bubbles, and bank runs.

This video belongs here:

A link to Bernanke’s old academic paper from when he was at Princeton demonstrating how the adherence to the gold standard worsened the Great Depression:

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w3488.v5.pdf

ABSTRACT:

Recent research has provided strong circumstantial evidence for the proposition that sustained deflation – the result of a mismanaged international gold standard – was a major cause of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Less clear is the mechanism by which deflation led to depression. In this paper we consider several channels, including effects operating through real wages and through interest rates. Our focus, however, is on the disruptive effect of deflation on the financial system, particularly the banking system. Theory suggests that falling prices, by reducing the net worth of banks and borrowers, can affect flows of credit and thus real activity. Using annual data for twenty-four countries, we confirm that countries which (for historical or institutional reasons) were more vulnerable to severe banking panics also suffered much worse depressions, as did countries which remained on the gold standard. We also find that there may have been a feedback loop through which banking panics, particularly those in the United States, intensified the worldwide deflation.

Description from Jim Hamilton:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html

[i]

Ben Bernanke and Harold James, in a paper called “The Gold Standard, Deflation, and Financial Crisis in the Great Depression: An International Comparison” published in 1991 (NBER working paper version here), noted that 13 other countries besides the U.K. had decided to abandon their currencies’ gold parity in 1931. Bernanke and James’ data for the average growth rate of industrial production for these countries (plotted in the top panel above) was positive in every year from 1932 on. Countries that stayed on gold, by contrast, experienced an average output decline of 15% in 1932. The U.S. abandoned gold in 1933, after which its dramatic recovery immediately began. The same happened after Italy dropped the gold standard in 1934, and for Belgium when it went off in 1935. On the other hand, the three countries that stuck with gold through 1936 (France, Netherlands, and Poland) saw a 6% drop in industrial production in 1935, while the rest of the world was experiencing solid growth.

A gold standard only works when everybody believes in the overall fiscal and monetary responsibility of the major world governments and the relative price of gold is fairly stable. And yet a lack of such faith was the precise reason the world returned to gold in the late 1920’s and the reason many argue for a return to gold today. Saying you’re on a gold standard does not suddenly make you credible. But it does set you up for some ferocious problems if people still doubt whether you’ve set your house in order.[/i]

To quote Brad Delong:

If your government doesn’t have monetary-policy credibility, attempting to establish that credibility by going on the Gold Standard is a recipe for disaster. If your government does have monetary-policy credibility, going on the Gold Standard doesn’t gain you anything.

You gents are ignoring the bigger picture: Britain was no longer able to secure international investments. South American countries, for ex, began defaulting on their bonds because they knew no one would come calling.

Capital fled to the ‘center’ leading in part to a speculative boom in advanced capitalist societies, a bubble. This was not helped by the USA agreeing to inflate its own currency to help protect the British gold supply.

When the bubble burst, even the newly instituted Federal Reserve was unable to stop it.

Bernanke is wrong about gold. All countries were inflating and putting up trade barriers. If each country inflates about the same way (we did), there won’t be much demand from overseas for your gold. Further, FDR raised the price of gold from $20 to $35 in 1933. The Depression kept on in its merry way.

This also shows why we can’t leave Iraq: if we pull back, governments around the globe will default on their bonds, perceiving that we are wimps. Great Depression 2 would follow.