The Real Issues: Economics
A Return to the Gold Standard?!?
By Charles Kirchofer, Nov. 12th, 2008


Home    Economics page

I have recently noticed a disturbing trend. You may have thought it ended when Ron Paul lost the Republican nomination, but those who would like to return to the gold standard are still out there. In these times of financial crisis, it may even be possible that they manage to get their plan implemented. This is very unlikely however, because luckily most governments take economic action based on sounder arguments than those the proponents of the gold standard have to offer. But what is the gold standard, why did we move away from it, and why would it be such a bad idea to go back to it?

The gold standard used to be the, well, standard for monetary policy. Governments agreed to exchange their currencies at a set rate per ounce of gold. This standard thereby guided the interest rates central banks set: with a specific value in gold in mind, central bankers set monetary policy to maintain that value. For example, if a government has a currency called blings, it might agree to exchange an ounce of gold for 10 blings. That way, everyone knows exactly how much a Bling is worth.

The problem with this system is twofold. For one, It is inflexible. For two, it does not take into account the fact that gold can rise and fall in relative value just as any other commodity can due to changes in supply and demand. There is also a third problem: setting a gold standard means standardized exchange rates. This is essentially a world currency. A world currency is also a bad idea due to its inflexibility and the fact that not every economy in the world will need the same things at the same time. Let's look at our country with blings again. Let's say the country is an oil producer. Let's say oil starts off at 10 blings per barrel (equivalent to $10 per barrel). Due to rising demand and declining supply (sound familiar?), the oil price shoots up to 50 blings per barrel (= $50 per barrel because the gold standard assures fixed interest rates). This means a lot of money is flowing into the oil producer's economy via the oil sales, and a lot of investors are pouring money in there as well. A government would normally raise interest rates in that situation to prevent the inflation that would come from such an inflow of cash. This would raise the value of the currency, however, which is not permitted on a gold-standard system. If the currency becomes more precious, then the price of gold in that currency would drop. At the same time, the United States, suffering an economic slowdown partly due to high oil prices, would like to cut interest rates. With a gold standard, the two countries could not diverge on monetary policy, even though their situations are completely different. The result? High inflation in Bling-land, or a heavy recession in the United States, or quite possibly both.

In fact, the gold standard is partly to blame for the Great Depression, which is why claiming the gold standard as a remedy for the current economic crisis is absurd. In 1929, the demand for gold began rising as some investors began getting nervous. They were essentially betting that if anything happened, the Federal Reserve would cut interest rates and abandon the gold standard, making gold much more valuable. As the financial crisis hit, more and more began buying gold. This meant the Fed had to raise interest rates to stabilize the value of the dollar compared to gold, rather than cutting them drastically as it should have to stave off a depression. The result: the value of the dollar remained stable compared to gold, but since gold had become considerably more valubale, the dollar gained in value compared with just about every other good. The result: deflation. Deflation means less and less money is available, meaning people demand less and less money for the same goods. This is the opposite of inflation. "So things got cheaper? That sounds good!" It is not, the effect is devastating. The incenstive to save during deflation is very high, since your money becomes more valuable in relation to the goods it can buy with every passing minute. That means people buy as little as possible, and shops and industry suffer. In addition, if you had taken out a loan, the value of the loan would steadily have increased, making it nearly impossible to pay it back (this lead to an increase in default rates). The shops and industries going under meant higher unemployment and much smaller paychecks for those lucky enough to have jobs. This is why deflation is scary. Every economy that abandoned the gold standard began recovering again within a year. This is why we departed from the gold standard.

One of the gold standard proponents' arguments is that because many countries currently peg their currencies to the dollar, the whole world was forced to follow the Fed's moves in cutting interest rates, exacerbating the debt crisis. This is indeed a problem, but the solution is nearly the opposite of what proponents of the gold standard propose! The solution would be to let those currencies float. A gold standard would only serve to further link them to the dollar. In addition, any agreement on fixed exchange rates would require governments to (obviously) agree on them. At the moment, many governments utilize currency manipulation to keep their currencies low (exporters like China, Japan, Norway, Russia, and Saudi Arabia). Many U.S. government officials would be happy to see them stop doing that, since this pushes the dollar abnormally high (largely responsible for the U.S. trade and current account deficits). In addition, some countries (like Norway) must engage in currency intervention, otherwise their currencies would become so highly valued due to their natural resource exportation that all of their other exports would dwindle, as they would be far too expensive denoted in other currencies. The gold standard would allow those economies to peg their currencies to the gold, but it would not allow the governments the flexibility to react to changing conditions.

Part of the solution to the current financial problems in the world would be to let currencies float more, not less, or at least to peg the currencies to a basket of others, not just to the dollar. This would give countries a more sensible and accurate target than either the dollar or gold. Returning to the gold standard would unnecessarily choke world economic growth, and would not even be able to prevent another world financial/economic crisis, as the case of the Great Depression clearly shows. Its advantages then? Very few. The potential damage? Extreme.

Comment View Comments

Economics page

Home

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1