Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
  • entries
    68
  • comments
    513
  • views
    57,189

Gold Std vs Fiat Cuurency


Gaius Octavius

1,560 views

Gaius Octavius:

 

QUOTE(Moonlapse @ Sep 22 2007, 01:26 PM)

Fiat money...

 

 

I doubt if a modern economy could exist without fiat money. The transaction amounts are much too great.

When the Spanish introduced New World gold to Europe, there was a great inflation!

---------------------------------

Moonlapse:

 

QUOTE(Gaius Octavius @ Sep 23 2007, 12:24 PM)

QUOTE(Moonlapse @ Sep 22 2007, 01:26 PM)

Fiat money...

 

I doubt if a modern economy could exist without fiat money.

 

You are absolutely right, and that is the THE problem. Actually, I should say modern war-driven economies.

 

QUOTE

The transaction amounts are much too great.

 

If a nation has a fixed currency standard and a certain amount of wealth, then all other amounts are relative to that... until you want to force a debt based monetary system in order to sped more money than is available.

 

QUOTE

When the Spanish introduced New World gold to Europe, there was a great inflation!

 

Of course. The supply of the actual commodity which has intrinsic value had increased. Paper money has no intrinsic value, whoever controls the supply has the ability to do what the Spanish did, but all that is involved is the allocation of credit, WITH INTEREST. The only limit they have is the point at which they have sucked out all the value that the original gold currency contained.

-----------------------------------------------

G.O.:

 

Moonlapse, are you advocating a commodity based monetary system?

-----------------------------------------------

Moon.:

 

Absolutely.

 

"Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit, and, with a flick of the pen, they will create enough money to buy it all back again. Take this power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit."

Josiah Stamp

 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson

 

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."

Woodrow Wilson

 

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. ... This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."

Alan Greenspan

 

I would never advocate a fiat monetary system, because it will always be used for its capability to extract wealth and control. Why do you think the system was implemented right before the first World War? Why do you think the dollar is dropping against other currencies? What do you think is happening in the Middle East? We are trying to prop up the dollar with the commodity of oil, because the dollar is becoming worthless. If the dollar becomes worthless, then what happens?

-------------------------------------------

M. Porcious Cato:

 

In his new book, Greenspan repeats his views about the overwhelming benefits of the gold standard for a stable money supply. I'll see if I can find the original quote because it's quite revealing.

 

I should add that a gold standard doesn't mean that people would have to actually carry out transactions in gold. All that matters is that bank notes are redeemable in gold.

------------------------------------------

Moon.:

 

I would love to see a return to the gold standard, with the control of money given back to Congress and the selection of Senators given back to the states, as prescribed in the Constitution.

 

Basically, repeal all the screw-ups made in 1913.

-----------------------------------------

MPC:

 

If bank notes are redeemable in gold, there is no need for a national currency.

-----------------------------------------

MPC:

 

From Greenspan's new book:

 

pp. 480-481: "I have always harbored a nostalgia for the gold standard's inherent price stability--a stable currency was its primary goal. But I've long since acquiesced in the fact that the gold standard does not readily accommodate the widely accepted current view of the appropriate functions of government--in particular the need for government to provide a social safety net. The propensity of Congress to create benefits for constituents without specifying the means by which they are to be funded has led to deficit spending in every fiscal year since 1970, with the exception of the surpluses of 1998 to 2001 generated by the stock market boom. The shifting of real resources required to perform such functions has imparted a bias toward inflation. In the political arena, the pressure to make low-interest-rate credit generally available and to use fiscal measures to boost employment and avoid the unpleasantness of downward adjustments in nominal wages and prices has become nearly impossible to resist. For the most part, the American people have tolerated the inflation bias as an acceptable cost of the modern welfare state. There is no support for the gold standard today, and I see no likelihood of its return. [...]

 

We know that the average inflation rate under the gold and earlier commodity standards was essentially zero. At the height of the gold standard between 1870 and 1913, just prior to World War I, the cost of living in the United States, as calculated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, rose by a scant 0.2 percent per annum on average. From 1939 to 1989, the year of the fall of the Berlin Wall and before the onset of the post-cold war wage-price disinflation, the CPI rose nine-fold, or 4.5 percent per year. The reflects the fact that there is no inherent anchor in a fiat money regime. What constitutes its "normal" inflation rate is a function solely of a country's culture and history. In the United States, modest amounts of inflation are politically tolerated, but inflation rates close to double digits create a political storm. Indeed, Richard Nixon felt the political need to impose wage and price controls in 1971 even though the inflation rate was below 5 percent. Thus, while political considerations mean that the gold standard can be ruled out as a way to suppress a forthcoming rise in inflationary pressures, ironically, politics driven by an irate populace just might accomplish the same purpose."

 

What follows is a very scary scenario regarding the combination of the collapse of social security and currently high inflation, requiring a rise in the interest rate in the double digits and a "return of populist, anti-Fed rhetoric, which was lain dormant since 1991."

 

Greenspan's book is definitely worth a read.

--------------------------------------------

GO:

 

How would a gold standard work? Assume that a bank has 100 ounces of gold (capital and depositor's gold). How would it go about making loans (and protect itself against 'runs')? Would it be a gyro bank?

--------------------------------------------

MPC:

 

QUOTE(Gaius Octavius @ Oct 1 2007, 06:44 AM)

How would a gold standard work? Assume that a bank has 100 ounces of gold (capital and depositor's gold). How would it go about making loans (and protect itself against 'runs')? Would it be a gyro bank?

 

 

Typically, banks made loans and conducted business via bank notes that were redeemable in gold, which were kept in deposit. This is really no different from the fiat currency that we all expect banks to disburse on demand. Then, as now, there was a short-term risk of runs on the banks, which banks dealt with then, as now, by borrowing from other banks. Of course, the cost of a panic isn't trivial, but the benefits of stable currency are well worth it.

--------------------------------------------

GO:

 

Is there any limit to this expansion? Do you think that one could conduct Wall Street's business today and how?

 

Once there were Gold Certificates issued by the Treasury or Fed (no longer remember) prior to the great Depression. They were in circulation. Didn't stop the Great Deflation.

 

The Federal Reserve used (?) to balance check clearance balances with special Gold Certificates. Oddly enough, those districts losing Certificates would find themselves in economic trouble.

---------------------------------------------

MPC:

 

QUOTE(Gaius Octavius @ Oct 1 2007, 11:58 AM)

Is there any limit to this expansion? Do you think that one could conduct Wall Street's business today and how?

 

Absolutely there is a limit to the expansion of gold and thus to the expansion of prices. If we were to go back to the gold standard (at $733 = 1 gold dollar), there would certainly have to be a change in denomination, but there's no reason that one couldn't trade any number (or denominations) of proxies for gold reserves.

 

 

QUOTE

Once there were Gold Certificates issued by the Treasury or Fed (no longer remember) prior to the great Depression. They were in circulation. Didn't stop the Great Deflation.

 

The gold standard doesn't protect against every deflationary pressure known to man. Obviously, if the sum total of goods triples overnight, the gold value of each of those goods will decline.

 

 

QUOTE

-----------------------------------------

Moon:

 

Gaius, here's some related reading on the Depression from a gold standard perspective, if you are curious:

 

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd/contents.asp

 

There's a link to a full PDF text beneath the title.

-----------------------------------------

19 Comments


Recommended Comments

Problem?

 

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York once (today?) held the U.S. gold reserve and that of most of the advanced world, along with some others. Accounts were settled between these nations (Gold Exchange Standard) by physically moving gold bars from one nation's room to another's. How would accounts be settled when one nation didn't have a gold room? If both nations didn't have gold rooms? Would the U.S., Great Britain, etc., allow their reserves to be placed in another nation? How would trade exist between nations without gold reserves?

Link to comment
Problem?

 

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York once (today?) held the U.S. gold reserve and that of most of the advanced world, along with some others. Accounts were settled between these nations (Gold Exchange Standard) by physically moving gold bars from one nation's room to another's. How would accounts be settled when one nation didn't have a gold room? If both nations didn't have gold rooms? Would the U.S., Great Britain, etc., allow their reserves to be placed in another nation?

Just because a nation doesn't have an adjacent 'room' doesn't mean gold can't be transferred. Why should the existence of a room in the same building, or lack thereof, have an absolute effect on a change of ownership of gold?

 

How would trade exist between nations without gold reserves?

If a nation has no gold, or no goods to exchange for gold money, how indeed?

Link to comment

I took the time to read all of it carefully for non has to be ashamed that he's to learn a lot still :ph34r:

Its a MOMENTUS work ,well done, well thought over and excecuted.

It clearly stands far out above the usual gimmi trimmicks one sees in the net!.

 

I can't comment on the supstancial part yet for first I have to grasp WHAT I have read and I happend to be slow for I want (iff?)to say something that makes sence not coment just to do so. :no2:

 

GREAT WORK!

Eich ffrind ce

(Youre friend)

'E

Link to comment

I agree with much of what Moon. and MPC say. I am not an economist. My mind is open to change and correction. Now to work.

 

From: Barron's; page M65 & M66; Dec. 31, 2007.

 

As of 12/26/07:

 

Gold Stock: $11,041,000,000 (@$833 per ounce?)

SDR's 2,200,000,000 ( ditto )

______________

Total $13,241,000,000 (plus Ft. Knox if any)

===========

 

Currency in circulation: $825,624,000,000

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Money Supply as of week ended 12/17/07:

 

M1 $1,361,200,000,000

M2 $7,460,200,000,000

Treasury Gross Public Debt as of 12/28/07(?): $9,139,300,000,000

 

(Hope that I have all these zeros right.)

-------------------

 

I know that many transactions would be settled by balance payments. Do you think that gold could support the above? Would our economy be what it is if not for a fiat currency? My bride reminds me that when she was working at Salomon Bros in 1989/90, gold was trading at ~$800/oz. in then current dollars. Then the market 'collapsed'. Those who held on, are just now reaping a profit.

Link to comment

"Do you think that gold could support the above?" What specifically are you referring to?

 

"Would our economy be what it is if not for a fiat currency?" No. I think it would be far more stable and sustainable in the long term. Market corrections would be fast and short. Our GDP wouldn't be 70% credit driven consumption and we wouldn't be on the verge of stagflation. The government would be limited to a realistic budget. Your retirement funds would retain value over time.

 

I think you are referring to the years 1979/80. Gold prices increased during the 70's after the dollar became completely fiat. Gold price was driven up as a reaction to the huge inflation and political turmoil of those years, until Volker forced a corrective recession with high short term interest rates and individuals and banks sold off much of their gold. Oil prices, along with most other commodities, spiked at the same time.

 

Gold is not a good way to make a profit, its a way to preserve purchasing power because its the most ideal natural means of exchange, as proven by thousands of years of human history.

Link to comment

"Do you think that gold could support the above?" What specifically are you referring to?

If the money supply were not able to expand, how would a company with little money and good credit expand? They couldn't sell gold bonds. How would a consumer with the same attributes, purchase anything? Here I am not talking about companies, nor people with 30 credit cards, and not enough wealth to buy a postage stamp.

 

"Would our economy be what it is if not for a fiat currency?" No. I think it would be far more stable and sustainable in the long term. Market corrections would be fast and short. Not proven. Our GDP wouldn't be 70% credit driven consumption and we wouldn't be on the verge of stagflation. Agreed. The government would be limited to a realistic budget. A budget without corporate welfare. A budget without pork barreling and shrouded ear-marks. Personally, I would take great pleasure in strangling every member of Congress, and his family to the first degree, who voted to increase the national debt. Your retirement funds would retain value over time. Remember what you said about monarchs debasing gold currency.

 

I think you are referring to the years 1979/80. Gold prices increased during the 70's after the dollar became completely fiat. Gold price was driven up as a reaction to the huge inflation and political turmoil of those years, until Volker forced a corrective recession (The only people who paid were the middle class and the poorest.) with high short term interest rates and individuals and banks sold off much of their gold. Oil prices, along with most other commodities, spiked at the same time. As far as oil prices are concerned, in the 1950's, the 'posted' price for oil was about $1.18 a barrel. (gasoline was under twenty cents a gallon). This 'posted price' was for royalty payments to syphilitic Arab kings, (Idris, Ibn Saud), and shieks. The actual trading price was about 50 cents.

 

Gold is not a good way to make a profit, its a way to preserve purchasing power because its the most ideal natural means of exchange, as proven by thousands of years of human history. Thousands of years of history have proven that the vast majority of people could not move out of poverty.

--------------------

Don't feel like editing this now, but I am sure that you get the idea. Bottoms up!

Link to comment
"Do you think that gold could support the above?" What specifically are you referring to?

If the money supply were not able to expand, how would a company with little money and good credit expand? They couldn't sell gold bonds. How would a consumer with the same attributes, purchase anything? Here I am not talking about companies, nor people with 30 credit cards, and not enough wealth to buy a postage stamp.

How does a person have energy without cocaine? Interest rates would be naturally low since prices would tend to deflate instead of inflate and gold production, without intervention, would sufficiently accommodate market demand for money. Any gold overproduction would automatically make mining less profitable and reduce supply. There would be a much higher rate of saving and investing, capital would tend to be used toward its most efficient ends rather than being destructively squandered, trusting in fiat bailouts. It's not as if credit would disappear, it would be allocated more wisely. Once upon a time people saved up and earned interest in order to consume in the future instead of borrowing and paying interest at the expense of future consumption in order to consume now.
"Would our economy be what it is if not for a fiat currency?" No. I think it would be far more stable and sustainable in the long term. Market corrections would be fast and short. Not proven.
We haven't had a real correction in many decades, if you are comparing the deflationary panics in the 19th century to the inflationary downturns we've had more recently. Can I trade the next decade for a typical 19th century panic, please?

 

Our GDP wouldn't be 70% credit driven consumption and we wouldn't be on the verge of stagflation. Agreed. The government would be limited to a realistic budget. A budget without corporate welfare. A budget without pork barreling and shrouded ear-marks. Personally, I would take great pleasure in strangling every member of Congress, and his family to the first degree, who voted to increase the national debt. Your retirement funds would retain value over time. Remember what you said about monarchs debasing gold currency.
That's why any form of debasement or fraudulent expansion should be outlawed, and politicians should not be able to get their foot in the door on this matter.

 

Gold is not a good way to make a profit, its a way to preserve purchasing power because its the most ideal natural means of exchange, as proven by thousands of years of human history. Thousands of years of history have proven that the vast majority of people could not move out of poverty.

Indeed, our republican experiment was something new, and our 19th century monetary system, while flawed, accommodated an unbelievable amount of immigration and some of the most impressive gains in the standard of lower class living ever seen, simultaneously. Despite the unavoidable social turmoil, I seriously doubt any other system could have accomplished the same. Consider how long gold has been used and its particular usefulness as currency, and consider the times in history when debasement was most limited, and consider the short lifespan of fiat monetary systems.

Link to comment

"Indeed, our republican experiment was something new, and our 19th century monetary system, while flawed, accommodated an unbelievable amount of immigration and some of the most impressive gains in the standard of lower class living ever seen, simultaneously."

 

Yes, but largely due to the 'open west'. Fully one third of the immigrants returned to their home lands. Gold did not help the eastern ghettos, the former slaves, the mill and mine workers. The most were not shunted out of hand to mouth living until the mid 20th century. Then there is W.J. Bryant's "Cross of Gold" speech.

Link to comment

A population boom of that magnitude is hard to overstate, considering that most of the country was undeveloped. What do you think would happen if in 1865 a central bank with fiat policy was created? Towards the end of the century, US dollars were appreciating and prices were decreasing. Would it have been better if dollars depreciated and prices rose?

Link to comment

But remember that we were accommodating a huge influx of immigrants. We had excellent GDP growth and slightly dropping prices at the same time. If the currency had been inflated, it would have taken a horrible toll on the poorest people by devaluing any savings and driving up prices. Inflating currency benefits those who get their hands on the newly created money first, the bankers. By the time it makes its way into the economy the cost in terms of value has been socialized to the people who get their hands on it last. Any savings they have are devalued and anything they want to buy is more expensive.

 

The point is, those people would have been poor regardless. Many came to America with practically nothing. Inflation would have made them poorer. Despite the fact that they were poor, their standards of living grew considerably.

Link to comment

We don't, and can't know that there would have been inflation, back then, with a fiat currency. I fear that we shall commence going around in circles. I am on to de Soto.

 

Just to wander a bit, (and effectively support your arguments), the talk is now about the Collateralized Debt Obligations pertaining to car loans and credit card debt. Between this and sub-prime, we are talking about trillions. Bond insurers can't cover their obligations, and are being bailed out in N.Y. Other insurance companies (life) certainly own these CDO's. And the banks (again), and pension funds. The rating agencies are in for it. The lawyers are commencing legal actions against everybody. The Supreme Court's ruling about aiding and abetting may stymie these suits. The polloi are really in for it, if this whole thing starts to unravel.

 

Some forty years ago, a noted economist at Salomon Bros. & Hutzler, warned against the coming gimmics, i.e. such as derivatives and CDO's. I wonder what else is hiding in the woodpile?

Link to comment

From historical observation, when control of fiat money is in the hands of politicians and bankers, the temptation to create money from nothing has always been irresistible. Show me an exception, and I'll consider otherwise.

 

Some forty years ago, a noted economist at Salomon Bros. & Hutzler, warned against the coming gimmics, i.e. such as derivatives and CDO's. I wonder what else is hiding in the woodpile?

I'm not sure I want to know...

Link to comment
From historical observation, when control of fiat money is in the hands of politicians and bankers, the temptation to create money from nothing has always been irresistible. Show me an exception, and I'll consider otherwise.

 

Can't think of one. Can only say that gold notes were discounted in many instances, and on occasion, bankers were known to print up a few more notes than they had backing for.

Link to comment
AKA, fractional reserve banking.

 

AKA, fraud or felony.

=================

Do you know if the morning (starting) price of gold is still set by the London gold dealers?

 

Just as an aside, one of the curators at the Brooklyn Museum, once told me that the gold miners in the jungles of South America knew the above price shortly after it was set each day.

------------------------------

 

Here is something to think about today:

 

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB120153...html?mod=djemBF

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...