The Gold Standard

zebov

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
227
I'm a supporter for most of Paul's issues. The one I'm not too sure of is the Gold Standard. I think this issues is most difficult for me to swallow mostly because of the lack of discussion on the topic in the past, oh, 75 years or so. The problem is, because it isn't being discussed, all I hear is Ron Paul saying "The gold standard is good, sound money," without hearing the reasons why the gold standard is bad.

What I'd like to know is, what are the pros and cons of the gold standard? From my quick research I've found the following two cons:
1) No method of protecting the economy in the short run (the long run always levels out).
2) Inflation and deflation are controlled by the amount of gold within our economy. Thus, if someone brings a truckload of gold into the U.S., our dollar value goes down.

What other issues are there and how are the previous two issues addressed by the pro-gold standard folks? Why did we go off of the gold standard to begin with?
 
i think this question is easy.
paper money = paper
gold standard = gold

you dont want your money to be a piece of paper, you want something to back with it
 
We had a thread on this, like, yesterday. Ron Paul favors legalization of alternate currencies, not a return to the gold standard.
 
i think this question is easy.
paper money = paper
gold standard = gold

you dont want your money to be a piece of paper, you want something to back with it

I see that, but that's the easy answer. The question though is, what is bad about a gold-based monetary system? There had to be significant disadvantages if the entire world decided to change, right?
 
zebov,

look at the issues subforum where this should have been posted. There are several threads there explaining these questions. In short, when politicians spend more than they have (especially for war) and the Fed monetizes the debt--that is the cause of inflation which is a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich special interests.
 
Last edited:
We had a thread on this, like, yesterday. Ron Paul favors legalization of alternate currencies, not a return to the gold standard.

Hmm... does anyone have a video or an article specifically on this? From the rally I went to, it seemed he was very much pushing for a gold-backed dollar.
 
zebov,

look at the issues subforum where this should have been posted. There are several threads there explaining these questions. In short, when politicians spend more than they have (especially for war) and the Fed monetizes the--that is the cause of inflation which is a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich special interests.

I understand the downsides of the current system. My question is, what are the downsides of a gold-backed monetary system.
 
Hey, they're talking 'bout me.:)

Zebov: There had to be significant disadvantages if the entire world decided to change, right?

The entire world = governments needing short-term money for various purposes
I think Bradley in DC is right when he talks about inflating.

Bradley in DC: In short, when politicians spend more than they have (especially for war) and the Fed monetizes the--that is the cause of inflation which is a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich special interests.
 
I've found the following two cons:
1) No method of protecting the economy in the short run (the long run always levels out).
2) Inflation and deflation are controlled by the amount of gold within our economy. Thus, if someone brings a truckload of gold into the U.S., our dollar value goes down.
Actually, those are the two main ADVANTAGES with a gold standard!

"Protecting" the economy by printing more money is a great Evil. It means that the same goods (the money) is sold several times over. It's theft. That's how the gold standard was abondoned. Banks stole the gold people had deposited with them (the government made it legal for banks to do so).

And that inflation is controlled by the amount of gold is precisely why a gold standard works so well. There is no limit to the amount of paper money one can create. There is no cost at all to increase some numbers in the electronic accounting system, and it takes no time at all to make up infinite amounts of money. There is no control whatsoever. Actrually, this very second, a small group of gentlemen have the power to create, say, $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 out of thin air. It would make your salary worthless and erase all our savings. Like that! It has been done in Germany in the 1920s and in Zimbabwe today. And the new money issued is the pure profit for the issuer, so there are huge incentives to create inflation. That's why inflation is created!

But with a gold standard, gold is money and new gold can only be created at market cost of mining it. The profit margin of mining gold might not be better than to mine lead or to perform any other kind of real economic activity. Gold mining just soldiers on at a steady rate and predictable rate. That's the only reliable control, the market control.

The short story is that there is no drawback to the gold standard! Possibly, the industrial use of gold might be reduced because it has to compete with the use of gold as money. But we do indeed have that "problem" already today, because whether politicians like it or not, people value gold highly as a reserve currency even when we have fiat currencies. Gold prices today are not driven by the insignificant industrial demand, but by fear of inflation and even worse things.

EDIT: I put the part in bold which describes the potential drawback with using a gold standard., which is what you asked for.

Also, I might add that if the quantity of silver in the world is more stable (quantity mined per year in relation to the quantity already in existance) then that might be better than gold. Actually, in French, the word for "money" is identical with the word for "silver": l'argent. The best way to find out what kind of money is best, is to totally deragulate the phenomenon and let the market discover it! Historically, the market has then always established gold and silver as money. But in the future maybe someone could invent a fail safe reliable electronic currency which is kept at absolutly constant quantity, unaffected by (the small) effect of mining, and which does not interfer with industrial uses of some metal? That would be a small improvement compared to an "antique" gold standard. The big improvement would be to abandon the fiat currency.

(Did you know that fiat is latin for "command" and that hence fiat currency means "command currency" as in "command economy" of the Soviet system?)
 
Last edited:
I dont think there are any downside of the gold standard.
I can only see how we can benefit from it. Which mean a more healthy encoomy bases
 
In a truly free market, without any government at all, a pure gold standard works.

In a truly free market, unbacked paper is worth its paper value and no more.

I give more details in my blog. I'm not repeating all my arguments here. Ask me directly if you have more specific questions.
 
Tally sticks only worked because they were taxation receipts, i.e. not a free market.
 
I'll try....

OK, I'll try play devil's advocate for a sec.

Any sort of metal coins can be cumbersome to use in economic transactions, moreso than paper, so some sort of paper would likely be used anyway for transactions (the paper would be exchangable for some amount of gold/silver).

So there would likely still be stockpiles of gold in certain places (banks, and Ft. Knox), representative of a lot of people's (even a whole nation's) wealth. If something happened to it, like a robbery or dirty bomb or shipwreck en route to the motherland, it's a lot harder for that loss to get distributed into the system evenly (if that is a goal)...and it's more difficult to have confidence in the stability of the system if something can instantly destroy that much wealth. I know, how much confidence do we have now, you are probably wondering....well, stop it.

I bet there are even instances where the Fed's printing an extra few billion on a day to restore the market's confidence is beneficial to the long-term health of the economy. And there are probably times where the federal government spending money it didn't have, boosted economic production enough to instill confidence and temporarily stabilize otherwise shaky markets, for the country's short-term benefit. Were these alleged saviors the creators of the problems in the first place?, I bet you're now asking.

Well whatever, yeah there are 'downsides' to a gold standard. But really only if you're looking at it from the perspective of government as a necessary protector of the economy and individual people's wealth. But they've sure screwed that up, so rather than maybe losing a ton of gold to a shipwreck at some point and affecting the economy, we're getting our wealth stolen every day. So I can't claim that a gold/silver standard is without fault, but our current system is being abused way too much and supporting much more evil than a sound money system would ever be able to.
 
I'll try to make this short. In the short run, our economy will fold if we immediately returned to the gold standard. This is the case because there are too many bills in circulation. In order to compensate for the amount of bills floating around we would have to devalue the ever living sh*t out of the dollar to balance out the spending power of a dollar to gold. So, if we were ever to return to the gold standard we'd have to go through a transition period and slowly return to it. Ron Paul is aware of this so he wouldn't immediately reconnect our currency to gold. You can find his speeches on monetary policy at: http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=9 . Here's a speech he made back in 1981 trying to convince Congress to go back to the gold standard:


Five Myths About the Gold Standard
By Congressman Ron Paul
Congressional Record, February 23, 1981​


Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear before your subcommittee this morning to discuss the feasibility of establishing a gold standard.

As you know, I have introduced, and other members have cosponsored, H.R. 7874, which is a comprehensive bill to place the United States on a full gold coin standard within two years of the date of its passage.

I believe such a standard to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse. But in Washington today we have five myths about the gold standard.

The first myth is, "There isn't enough gold." The second myth is, "Since the Soviet Union and South Africa are the world's principal producer of gold, they could hold our economic system hostage and benefit if we were to establish a gold standard." The third myth is, "The gold standard would cause a depression." The fourth myth is, "The gold standard will cause inflation." Add the fifth myth is, "The gold standard is subject to undesirable speculative influences."

MYTH NO. 1: THERE ISN'T ENOUGH GOLD
I find it amazing that economists can make statements like this, for it is an elementary principal of economics that if one raises the price of a commodity, one will always have enough of that commodity. What we saw in the run up of gold prices is in fact the raising of the price of gold to match the depreciation of the dollar that has occurred, and still is occurring.

Simply put, there will always be enough gold so long as no one interferes with the free market mechanism.

At $700 an ounce the United States government has enough gold reserves to more than cover all the Federal Reserves notes outstanding. If we were to establish a gold standard by the procedure I have outlined in my bill H.R. 7874, then the world would be fully informed of the gold holdings of the United States Government and the price of gold could adjust accordingly, so that when redemption of our greenbacks - our Federal Reserve notes - began, the price would be the market-clearing price. Quite simply, the statement that there is not enough gold is false. It is a scare tactic used by opponents of the gold standard.

MYTH NO. 2: A GOLD STANDARD WOULD ENABLE RUSSIA AND SOUTH AFRICA TO HOLD US HOSTAGE
The second myth that should be challenged is that the Soviet Union and South Africa could hold us hostage were we to establish the gold standard. It is true that the Soviet Union and South Africa, because they have vast gold deposits, have reaped a windfall in the past decade. Yet we are not today on any sort of gold standard. It is the present inflationary policies of governments the world over that create these windfalls. Rather than giving the U.S.S.R. and South Africa windfalls, we should institute the gold standard.

Stabilization of our monetary system - and perhaps the world monetary system, if the world emulated us - would remove any speculative premium that the Soviet Union and South Africa presently receive. We would see a stabilization of the world price of gold and an end to inflation throughout the world. In such a condition, the Soviet Union and Africa would no longer be in a position to reap windfall benefits.

During the first several months of this year the Soviet Union has withheld gold from the international gold markets. It has recently been rumored that they have sold hundreds of tons to Saudi Arabia at a premium price. Whether or not that is the case, it is easy to see that the inflationary problems that beset us and the rest of the world create the conditions for Russia and South Africa to reap vast economic benefit. The present inflation causes fear and panic among the world's peoples.

Were we to institute a sound money system - a full 100 percent gold coin standard - the fear and panic would be eliminated. There would be no premium to be reaped by the Soviet Union and South Africa, and they would not receive any windfall from the sale of their bullion and their coins. Nor would Russia and South Africa be able to hold us hostage.

The gold reserves of the United States are immense, but no matter what their size, it is extremely difficult to see how Russia and South Africa, either by restraining their production or by dumping gold, could seriously affect us here in the United States. When we reach a full gold coin standard and our unit of account is a weight of gold, as I have indicated in my bill. H.R. 7874, the world's entire production for one year would not influence significantly the value of that weight of gold.

MYTH NO. 3: GOLD CAUSES DEPRESSIONS
The third myth is, "that a return to the gold standard will cause a depression." Now this statement is a half-truth, for if we improperly institute a gold standard, then we might in fact have a depression. Following World War I, the government of Great Britain returned to a gold standard, but in a deflationary fashion. Britain re-established the link that existed between the pound and gold, prior to World War I, not taking into account the increase in the number of pounds that had occurred during the war when Great Britain was off the gold standard. The result was a short depression, because the political experts completely ignored the damage that had been done by their policies during the war.

Were we to establish a gold standard, we would have to pursue a course that would not result in deflation and would not cause a depression. We would redeem at the market price for a period of one year the greenbacks we have printed, and then cease redemption, allowing the gold coins we have put into circulation to function as our money of account.

If we proceed to a gold standard in an orderly fashion, such as I have proposed in my bill H.R. 7874, then there will be no depression. A gold standard cannot be achieved if we do not end our budget deficits as well. The standard must be accompanied by tax cuts, an end to the printing of paper money, and a significant reduction of federal regulations if we expect a restoration of a sound economy.

Unless we are committed to all these things, even the establishment of 100 percent gold coin standard cannot stop our descent into economic chaos. We must cut the federal government down to constitutional size, and the establishment of a full gold standard is part of that process. The Constitution explicitly forbids any state government, and implicitly the Federal government, from making anything except gold or silver coin a legal tender in payment of debt.

MYTH NO. 4: GOLD CAUSES INFLATION
The fourth myth about the gold standard, is that "It will cause inflation." Opponents the gold standard point out that the world supply of gold increases by about two or three percent per year, and such an increase in supply would result in inflation in any country that adopts a gold standard.

I do not wish to challenge the proposition that the world gold supply increases by 2 to 3 percent per year. For the sake of argument, I will accept that as given. The result of such an increase is that prices might stay stable rather than falling. It is useful in this regard to point out the behavior of prices during our history. For most of the 19th century we had an imperfect gold coin standard. In the 67 years prior to the beginning of the Federal Reserve system in 1913 the consumer price index in this country increased by 10 percent, and in the 67 years subsequent to 1913 the C.P.I. increased 625 percent. This growth has accelerated since 1971 when President Nixon cut our last link to gold by closing the gold window.

In 1833 the index of wholesale commodity prices in the US. was 75.3. In 1933. just prior to our going off the gold standard, the index of wholesale commodity prices in the U.S. was 76.2: a change in hundred years of nine-tenths of one percent. The index of wholesale commodity prices in 1976 was 410.2. Today. the index is 612.3. For 100 years on the gold standard wholesale prices rose only nine-tenths of 1 percent. In the last 45 years of paper money they have gone up 536%.

The index of wholesale commodity prices emphasizes the stability of these prices during the entire 19th century. This stability was first overturned during the Civil War - the greenback period - then in World War I, and once again in World War II, and with the inflation that has persisted since that war.

Rather than causing inflation, the gold standard has historically been a bulwark against inflation. It is politically-manipulated money such as we have had since 1934 that causes our inflation.

People today have come to expect that prices will continue to rise, and we see the beginnings of a hyperinflationary psychology setting in.

If we are to avoid the horrendous consequences of such a psychology, we must take dramatic action and give our country an historically proven system, a full gold coin standard.

MYTH NO. 5: GOLD WOULD BE SPECULATIVE
The last myth about the gold coin standard that I would like to address is the notion that such a standard would be subject to undesirable speculative influences.

This assertion was most recently made in a letter sent by the Federal Reserve Chairman William Proxmire of the Senate Banking Committee. The letter argued that because gold is a commodity used in jewelry and in industry, it is subject to speculative influences that are undesirable in setting up a stable monetary system.

I find such an argument amazing, for it is precisely because it is a commodity and not subject to the manipulation of a bureaucracy in Washington or London that it is desirable. If one wishes to speak of undesirable speculative influences, one need only look at the speculation that occurs daily in the U.S. dollar.

A gold standard would eliminate all speculation about the political motivations of the monetary authorities in governing the supply of money. The great virtue of the gold standard is that it removes discretionary power over the money supply from any one agency, thus ending the most fertile source of speculation. A gold standard puts the power of the monetary system into the hands of the people and takes it away from the politicians and bankers, thus removing a potential vehicle for establishing a tyranny.

Gold cannot be mined as cheaply as Federal Reserve notes can be printed. Nor can its supply be manipulated on a daily basis. There is a great dispersion of power in a gold standard system. That is the strength of the system, for it allows the people to check any monetary excesses of their governors and does not allow the governors to exploit the people by debasing the money.

The letter from the Federal Reserve System to Chairman Proxmire closed with a call for more faith in the System and its good intentions. For over 60 years the American people have been exercising such faith and they have suffered the worst depression and the worst inflations in their history. Let us hear no more of faith in men, but bind government with the chains of an honest monetary system - the full gold standard.

In the Coinage Act of 1792 the Founders provided the death penalty for any government employee who debased the money. One wonders if such a penalty were enforced today how many members of the Federal Open Market Committee would survive the month.

GOLD: THE MEASURING ROD
In his "Tract on Monetary Reform" published in 1923, the father of the age of inflation, John Maynard Keynes, wrote: "The individualistic capitalism of today . . . presumes a stable measuring rod of value. It cannot be efficient - perhaps cannot survive - without one."

Lord Keynes was correct. Unless we have a stable measuring rod of value, such as a gold coin standard, capitalism and freedom cannot survive. If not vigilant, we will evolve into the sort of fascism that resulted from the great German inflation following World War I.

The choice before us is simple: Shall we have gold and political freedom or shall we have paper and political tyranny?
 
Paper backed by gold works. In a truly free market, you can't have fractional reserve banking and demand deposits at the same time. That's fraud. If you have fractional reserve banking, you can only offer time deposits.

Interest payments are an incentive against gold hoarding. Since the unit of value is stable, interest rates hover around 1%, depending on demand for metal. The average person should always be using metal coins in their transactions. There's enough gold and silver to allow this.

Large transactions don't need to be settled with physical gold. They can be settled by moving goods around that are appropriately priced relative to gold. Large businesses know enough to be using paper. The average person should use gold and silver coins, whose creditworthiness is obvious.
 
There really is no downside to the Gold Standard if it is the only game in town. Gold coin can be inflated by mixing it with other, lesser valued metals as was done in Rome during the period of empire.

Any currency standard that is monopolized and legitimized by government fiat can be abused. History shows that is often abused. The best of all worlds is for the market to offer several competing currencies that would check and balance one currency against the other. This promotes ethical behavior among the suppliers and helps everyone meet their needs.

So, a Gold Standard by government fiat is not a real good idea. Paper money backed by Gold is not a real good idea either.

Ideally, the currency should function as a product of the market, itself, not just as a means to facilitate trade.

The problem governments have with sound money is that it is not convenient for politicians who want to spend lots of money on wars and welfare programs. They will tell you that it is impractical, but I think the 'inconvenient' is more like it.
 
Back
Top