http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017098.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017096.html Folks, please, please try to understand the basics of monetary policy. If a change is required, we'll have to make sound decisions, not succumb to the hysteria that brought the federal reserve, and the New Deal.
The issue with a gold standard is that there is not enough gold in the world. "The total amount of gold that has ever been mined is estimated at ~125,000 tonnes. At the former gold price of around USD $640 per Troy ounce, or around $20,000 per kilogram, the value of this entire planetary stock would be USD $2.5 trillion, which is less than the value of currency circulating. In the U.S. alone, more than $7.3 trillion is in circulation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
That's not the way to look at it. It doesn't matter if Gold is fixed at $2000 per ounce. As long as paper money (bills of credit) are redeemable in hard currency (at any ratio), the government cannot just print money to cover deficit shortfalls. It will have to either tax, or borrow. Taxing would lead to changes in policy to stop deficit spending, as you can only tax people so much before they revolt. Borrowing requires interest payments, again necessitating a tax increase. The whole purpose behind control of the money supply, and why numerous central banks were collapsed by the pre-FED government, was that they would eventually create runaway inflation. The only way to limit the size of government, is to control how much money it has to spend. If they have a blank checkbook, like they do now, they will not only bankrupt the country, they will devalue and bankrupt the money the citizens hold and save. They can make every promise in the world, fight wars anywhere they want, and because they keep increasing the money supply, they never have to levy a direct tax. Think about it for a moment. If the currency devalued, making cash and credit worthless, what would have value? All of your material possessions. You would be trading your spare light bulbs for produce and meat. How do you devalue the housing market? Build too many houses. How do you increase value in the housing market, have less houses than the demand for them. Money has to be a measure of tangible wealth, not a floating pool of paper currency. When the monetary supply increases consistently, any lulls in demand (natural ebb and flow in free markets) will devalue the currency you hold. I'm just planting seeds. If things go sideways (and I hope they do not), hopefully a few more people will be asking as we try to get out the mess, "is it the best policy to have fiat bills of credit as currency and the measure of a person's wealth?" If we can have a rational dialog, we might have a chance to build a better system, not one that totally favors the banks and the special interests on the receiving end of government deficit spending.
When governments print money, buy gold http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/ma...FFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/money/2008/01/18/do1801.xml Excerpt
Even if there was just 1 ounce on earth there would be enough gold for a gold standard. The idea is that a government must set its $/weight level then only have as much currency as this allows.
Thank you. It's the hardest thing to explain about a gold standard to people who don't want to invest the time to learn about or understand it. They inevitably fall back to the status quo arguments of "it's outdated" or "it's too restrictive". In a sense it is restrictive, hence why it is a (in my mind) preferable system. It keeps the government, banks and dealers from being able to debase the currency through monetary inflation. The pro-inflation arguments in my mind are the silly ones, not unlike the illogical argument that we should have a weak currency so we can have cheaper exports.
Well since 1972 M3 increases is more or less exponential. But it takes true production and productivity for wealth. The current growth does not justify the increases in M3. IMHO it is just borrowing future money for today's consumption. You can continue discounting the future but others won't keep subsidizing you for that. The gold standard as I understand, more or less curtailed the ability of reckless government to overspend and print money. There is a forever ongoing debate as to whether adherence to the gold standard cause the 1930s Depression to be more severe than it actually would be, this is something I won't want to touch on as everyone disagree with everyone else. Allow me to add my opinion, it is not adherence to the gold standard or abolishment of it that is the current problem. The current issue here is reckless monetary policy of printing and printing money. With a bit more regulations on the Feds, there won't be any need to reintroduce the gold standard. I stand to be corrected on this, but my general feeling is that Fed just play to the whims of Wall Street and is not really addressing what it is supposed to address.
What's wrong with increase money supply if it increase economic growth without increasing inflation which is what it has done for the last 20 years or so.
Well, is the growth because the monetary supply has grown or because there were real economic gains? New money doesn't necessarily create growth. Malinvestment can destroy productive gains, and I believe that malinvestment is most likely to occur when there is too much fast and easy credit (see Roaring 20s as a precursor to the Great Depression). The reality is, there is a negative savings rate, and a blossoming federal debt. We use debt to consume, not to invest. Investment debt is good debt, it's self-liquidating. Consumption debt is bad debt, it is self-debilitating. The history of fiat currency is that it creates inflation. If anyone can present an example of fiat currencies not causing inflation, please post it and enlighten me.
First and foremost, inflation is not necessarily a bad thing. The main issue as I see is what you already mentioned. "We use debt to consume, not to invest. Investment debt is good debt, it's self-liquidating. Consumption debt is bad debt, it is self-debilitating." There is nothing wrong with fiat currency in theory, with good monetary controls as well as fiscal policies, it can allow for growth with moderate inflation rates. The tool is in the hands of the policy makers, how they use or misuse it is the fault of the policy makers and not that of the tool. You can say that water sinks a ship, but it is the same water that keeps a ship afloat.
Hi guerilla, I have great respect for your knowledge, but there is something that I had been pondering, you had said that inflation was bad. But throughout my postgrad years, the convention was moderate inflation was good and was suppose to be necessary for an economy. Instead deflation is a hideous monster. I would love to hear about your views on inflation, if you can spare me the time. Frankly I don't really trust my professors that much .
This is a pretty big topic. Well first of all, you have to define what inflation is. And then you will also have a definition of deflation. If we define inflation as price inflation (which I do not, that's a symptom, not the disease), then you would define deflation as price deflation. So in the tech industry, we see a deflation in the price of computers and other devices. Generally, this is considered a good thing. You get more for less money, leveraging economies of scale, technological and productive advances, and marketplace competition. But say we have price inflation, that prices are rising. Your milk costs more today than it did last year. Many people might feel that this is a bad thing, because their cost of living is going up. If they are living off of savings, a fixed income indexed for core CPI, or they do not see a quick and commensurate wage increase, then they have actually lost purchasing power. The marketplace is amoral. It neither promotes constant or prolonged inflation or deflation, but trends towards equilibrium. It seeks to liquidate bad debt, encourage competition, and allow for creative opportunities (not all of which will succeed). IMO, inflation/deflation are not price driven. It is driven by the expansion and contraction of credit. In a free market, savings make up credit. They are banked productive gains (effort) and deferred consumption (sacrifice). As prices rises from too much or easy credit, savings have to be used to supplement purchasing power, and credit contracts. Hopefully this makes sense. I'm not running on a lot of sleep right now.