• Home
  • About
    • Welcome to the Institute
    • It’s Time
    • What is the Gold Standard?
    • Goals of The Gold Standard Institute
    • The Gold Standard Institute Emblem
    • Meet the People of The Gold Standard Institute
  • Gold Basics
    • Buying Gold and Silver
    • Commercial Paper vs. Real Bills
    • The Definition of Money
    • The Nature of Money
    • What is a Real Bill?
  • Journal
  • Archives
  • Classroom
  • Media
  • FAQ
  • Contact
Home > Classroom > Gold and Silver > Page 23

Quacks and Quackery Through the Ages. A ‘divertimento’

July 28, 2011 by The Gold Standard Institute International

Cortez conquered the Aztec Empire, in August 1521 (490 years ago, next month). When the war was over, the Spanish began to investigate the culture of the conquered people and found, to their amazement, that the people of what is now Mexico possessed a vast body of medical knowledge based on the curative qualities of plants.

The Spanish filed reports and sent back to Spain drawings of the plants with their Aztec names together with information about their curative powers.

The reaction of the doctors in Spain was immediate. They scoffed at the value of the supposed medical knowledge of these newly-conquered “barbarians”. Their argument was: “These primitive people have no medical theory to support their medical claims. They do not know that the human body is governed by four humors or liquid spirits in the body: the choleric, the phlegmatic, the sanguine and the melancholic humors. These humors are affected by the planets, the Sun and the Moon. When there is no balance of these humors in the body, then the body is sick. The Aztecs have only experience upon which to base their medicine; our medicine is vastly superior because we know the true theory of health, and we deduce our medicine from the theory. All that medicine from New Spain (Mexico) is nonsense.”

There is a curious anecdote from the 16th century; an Aztec was summoned before a court of medical doctors, because he was practicing medicine without a license. Faced by an accuser, he pulled out a cutting from an herb from a little bag he was carrying. He asked the accuser to smell it, which he did. The accuser’s nose began to bleed uncontrollably, it was a veritable hemorrhage. Nothing could stop it. The Aztec was implored to stop the bleeding. He pulled out another herb from his bag and gave it to the bleeding man to smell. The hemorrhage stopped immediately. The case against the Aztec doctor was dismissed.

Such is the world, and such it will ever be. Today, Ph Ds in Economics infest the landscape. They are supposed to know a lot more than the rest of us, who refer to experience in our critical view of the world’s illness, and point out what is wrong. However, we are not to be taken into account, like the Aztec doctors, because we do not know the all-important theory. We only have the experience of centuries, or millennia, to back up our considerations, and that of course, cuts no ice: no diplomas and no TV time for people who refer to historical experience; diplomas and kudos and respect are for the theorists, as possessors of arcane knowledge.

Of course, all of us have preconceived notions about everything, we couldn’t manage life without them; but some people are able to see past important preconceived notions, especially those who have spent many years looking at facts and attempting to make sense out of them. Others can look at facts and never really see anything, because they are intellectually lazy or because they just don’t care to set aside generally accepted opinion and decide for themselves. It’s so much easier to go with the flow!

Take the case of the Dutchman Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723). He became wealthy as a cloth merchant. In his youth, as an apprentice to a cloth merchant, he first saw a magnifying glass, which was used by such merchants to examine their goods more closely. Later on, he developed a fascination with lenses; he began to make his own lenses and to apply them to looking at tiny things which had never been examined before. In 1674 he sent a report to the Royal Society for the Advancement of Science in London, about some tiny “animalcules”, invisible to the naked eye, which he had seen in pond water. He wrote to the Royal Society believing them to be open-mined and interested in his work. Well, the Royal Society disbelieved his account of these microbes – the first any man had seen! So he had to send them a letter signed by eight distinguished persons – parsons, doctors and lawyers – who testified that they had seen the “animalcules”. The Royal Society, to their credit, did finally take great interest in Leeuwenhoek’s work, and he sent them 300 letters describing his incredible discoveries.

He was the first man to see human spermatozoa and he realized that what he saw was the seed which serves to reproduce all mammals – a fact which he knew was quite at odds with the “scientific” opinion of his times.

Leeuwenhoek’s work was not appreciated by many, who criticized his “lack of scientific preparation”: he had no Ph D. He was only a retired cloth merchant. What could he know?

Then again, we have Galileo, who first saw the moons that circle Jupiter, which convinced him that the Earth circles the Sun – an opinion hateful to the Catholic Church at that time. He barely escaped burning at the stake, a fate which ended the life of Giordano Bruno in 1600, who postulated an infinite Universe and the multiplicity of worlds. An emissary from the Inquisition visited Galileo in his home. Galileo urged him to look through his telescope and see the moons of Jupiter for himself. The official refused to look through the telescope. Theory or dogma had to take precedence. The facts are irrelevant if they do not confirm the theory or dogma. This attitude prevails to our day, and will always prevail as long as human nature is what it is. We see it today, in the rejection on the part of the astrophysics establishment of the new and fascinating theory of the “electrical universe”.

The experience of the Wright brothers is illuminating with regard to the Media. The Wright brothers had been flying their airplane on the outskirts of Dayton, Ohio, for five years before the local newspaper decided to send a reporter to investigate – the idea of a heavier-than-air machine taking to the air was unthinkable, why bother?

Now we have the 9/11 delusion. The vast majority of people do not really see with their own eyes: they “see” what they are told to see, and will swear by it. Competent civil engineers, observing (with sound “off”) the collapse of the Twin Towers and of the almost ignored WTC -7 – a forty seven story building – immediately identified the event as, unquestionably, a programmed demolition. However, hundreds of millions of individuals all over the world attribute the collapse of these buildings to the fact that they were struck by two airplanes, and they will get angry if you suggest that the buildings could not have collapsed as a result of those airplanes crashing into them; the fact that WTC-7 collapsed on its own footprint, like the Twin Towers, and no airplane struck it is – well, beside the point for these people. Facts are supposed to confirm a theory; if they do not – then the facts must be shelved.

Archeologist Michael Cremo has written a thick book, “Forbidden Archeology” which is crammed with facts proving that Man has existed upon this earth in his present form, for many millions of years. However, these facts contradict Darwinism, and Darwinism and Evolution are regarded with religious reverence by today’s archaeology. So the uncomfortable facts that archeologists come up with are filtered out of their reports. In their field of investigation, theory comes first, and only facts which agree with the Darwinian theory of evolution are reported. Other facts are discreetly ignored.

But the ultimate delusion prevailing in the world for the last forty years is fiat money. This delusion is so powerful that only a tiny minority among the close to 7 billion human beings on Earth is aware that it is a delusion, that all the money being used in the world as money, is in fact not money, but a simulation of money. Fiat money is now rapidly destroying the world, but in spite of all the signs pointing to fiat money as the cause, the foremost brains of the world refuse to acknowledge the fact. Their theories, which they were taught in prestigious schools and universities, take precedence over the fact of collapsing economies. As James Grant, publisher of The Interest Rate Observer points out, we are on a “Ph D Standard” – and the Ph Ds are taking the world down with their theories. I suspect that if these Ph Ds were injected with a “truth serum”, they would confess that they don’t actually believe their theories, but that for personal reasons, they prefer not to question them publicly.

To conclude, I present “Prologue for Our Times” which I have written for a Spanish translation of Andrew Dickson White’s masterpiece, “Fiat Money Inflation in France”.

* * * * *

Whoever wishes to understand what is taking place in the world today would do well to read this small but highly important book, which we have translated into Spanish: “Fiat Money Inflation in France”, by Andrew Dickson White, a former President of Cornell University, at one time in the diplomatic service of the United States, a student of economic and social affairs and author of numerous books. This book was first published in 1896, and reprinted in 1933.

This book places before us a microcosm of our present world.

What happened in Revolutionary France in the years 1790 to 1797 is precisely what is taking place in the whole world in 2011. The world is living in a process of monetary degeneration which began, explicitly, with the outbreak of World War I in 1914, though its origin lay in a series of previous financial malpractices dating back years before World War I; the disastrous conclusion of that process is approaching.

The fiat money inflation in France, whose birth and death took place in the short span of seven years, originated in a typically “revolutionary” idea held by the French lawmakers of the period: that human intelligence can dispense with the permanent and immutable laws that govern human action and can substitute them with schemes devised by the intellect, in order to achieve prosperity in the short term without the bothersome need to exercise the “bourgeois” virtues of savings, honest work, prudence and patience.

The lawmakers, impatient to resolve the problem of economic malaise which the Revolution itself had caused, decided to take a short-cut to stimulate the economy. Faced with popular unrest which cried out that “There is no money!” they proposed to remedy the supposed lack of money (a mere symptom) by creating money out of nothing.

Deaf to the warnings of men with financial experience, they confirmed to one another the supposed validity of their fallacious reasoning; convincing themselves of the viability of their monetary scheme, the lawmakers carried forward a project based on fiat money – money irredeemable in gold or silver.

In spite of the negative results which this policy soon produced – a steadily falling purchasing power of this fiat money, reflected in the rising prices of all goods – they insisted on pressing forward on this mistaken road and attributed the bad results to everything but their policy of inflation with fictitious money. That invariable law of finance with regard to fiat money, the law of the acceleration in the issue of fiat money and its concomitant accelerated depreciation, took possession of the French legislature.

Seven years later, France was totally ruined. Manufacturing had closed down. Unemployment was pervasive and consequently the stagnating salaries for labor brought enormous hardship for the poor, amid rising prices of food, clothing and fuel. Unemployment was only relieved by the military drafts which sent millions of Frenchmen to their deaths in the foreign wars. Morals suffered a precipitous decline. All business activity became a game of chance. Speculation enriched unscrupulous men and at the same time swept the poorer classes of the population into misery. Famine forced the government to dole out bread to the population.

What is perhaps most noteworthy in this fateful French experiment is that not one of those responsible for the disaster ever acknowledged having been mistaken. What took place in France, under the régime of fiat money, is precisely what is happening in our world today. The same phenomena observed in France in the 18th century can be seen all over the world, today.

Those responsible for the huge world crisis of the present time insist on continuing down the path that led to this disaster. Not one of those responsible is willing to recognize that they have all been mistaken. They insist, as did the French revolutionaries, on applying greater doses of fiat money: if enough money is created, they say, the problems of the crisis will be resolved.

The destruction of France took only seven years. The same policy that destroyed France now operates around the world. Therefore, the moral and economic destruction has taken longer, since the whole world is the theatre of this tragedy, and not only one country.

The fatal outcome of this experiment with fiat money will arrive, sooner or later; it will have worldwide effects and it will take a century, at least, for the world to regain economic health.

And when this tragic conclusion shall have arrived, the readers of this little book may be quite sure that not one of those responsible for the catastrophe will ever admit that he had been mistaken.


Hugo Salinas Price
July 28, 2011

Filed Under: Gold and Silver, Hugo Salinas Price, Popular Economics

Stock to Flow Ratio – A Primer

July 16, 2011 by The Gold Standard Institute International

The importance of gold’s stock to flow ratio is greatly underestimated. I first came across the concept in 2009 at a lecture by Professor Antal E. Fekete in Szombathely, Hungary. It fascinated me and the more I looked at its implications, the more amazed that I became, not least of which because my search engine couldn’t locate a single piece of writing on the subject anywhere.

The stock to flow ratio of gold and its ramifications are a book in its own right, but as this is a primer I will stick to the basics. It is not possible to fully understand why gold is money without understanding the stock to flow ratio and its significance.


For 6,000 years gold has been used to store wealth. Only a small percentage has ever been used by industry. This means that the vast majority of all the gold ever mined is still available for use. It is generally agreed that 170,000 tonnes of gold has already been mined and is still available for use. This is commonly known as the ‘stock’. This figure is a gross under-representation of the true stock of gold in the world, but it will be used as the working figure to avoid becoming side-tracked.

Each year about 2,400 tonnes of newly mined gold arrives in the market. This is known as the ‘flow’. It is from these two amounts that the ratio is derived. When the stock is divided by the flow we arrive at 71. This means that the stock to flow ratio is 71 to 1. As I said, it is simple. It is the ramifications of this simple ratio, when compared to the stock to flow ratio of other metals, that is so startling.

That amount of flow (2,400 tonnes) is about 1.4 percent of the stock. Even if gold production were to be doubled, then the annual growth in the stock of gold would still be less than three percent. It is almost impossible to imagine how mine supply could be doubled. Enormous new ore bodies would need to be discovered. The stock of gold is far, far greater than the amount of new gold arriving in the market each year. What this leads to is a situation where the value of gold is very stable.

If for some reason the mine supply of gold (the flow) were to completely cease for a couple of years, then again it would have no effect on the value of gold. It is the large amount of easily available stock that gives gold its stability of value. Because there is so much stock it is uninfluenced by the amount of gold that is, or is not, entering the market each year.

Nothing else (except, arguably, silver) has anywhere near this stock to flow ratio. All other metals have a stock considerably less than the flow; as fast as they are mined they are used. Commodity stocks are rarely sufficient to last more than a couple of months. The reason that other metals are mined is entirely different from the reason that gold is mined. Most metals are mined to be used in manufacture; gold is mined because it is money. Whilst readily available gold is equivalent to 71 years worth of supply (stock to flow ratio of 71 to 1), most other commodities have far less than 71 days worth of readily available supply.


Because of its scarcity, platinum has been suggested by some as a new monetary metal. However, in the event that flow was to stop, then stocks of platinum would be exhausted in a matter of weeks. In those circumstances the value of platinum would skyrocket. That makes platinum far too volatile for use as money. Platinum is a precious metal; it can never be a monetary metal. Likewise if the flow of copper were to stop, easily available stock would be exhausted in a matter of weeks and the price of the copper would also skyrocket.

© The Gold Standard Institute

It is ironic that there is a common belief that gold is money because it is precious… because there is so little of it. Gold is money because there is so much of it… relative to flow.

When there is only a small stock of a metal (or any commodity) compared to flow, then the price of that commodity can fluctuate enormously. A new large mine would increase the flow and drop the price of the metal. A sudden closing of a large mine would increase the price dramatically. Such volatility in supply would cause great instability in the perceived value of any metal with a small, above ground stock.

It is the stock to flow ratio that ensures that gold continues to hold a steady value. Because of its high stock to flow ratio, gold holds its value with a stability that is matched by nothing else, and can be matched by nothing else. Because gold has been successfully used as money for so long, it is now impossible to imagine how anything else could ever succeed as money.

Even if a new commodity appeared that satisfied the many functions and requirements of money, it still would not be able to achieve the high stock to flow ratio necessary for real stability of value over time. It is the high stock to flow ratio of gold, higher than anything else, which ensures that gold holds its stable value over the longest period of time. Gold has been accumulated for over 6,000 years to achieve the stock to flow ratio that it has today. How could anything else ever match this?

Gold has a stock to flow ratio, with the consequent stability of value, sufficient to ensure that it will forever remain the only money. That is the significance of the stock to flow ratio. The stock to flow ratio underpins the whole theory of gold as money; it doesn’t get any more important than that.


Philip Barton
16th July, 2011

Filed Under: Gold and Silver, Philip Barton, Popular Economics

You Can’t Eat Gold. But Can You Eat Real Bills?

July 12, 2011 by The Gold Standard Institute International

http://www.professorfekete.com/articles%5CAEFYouCantEatGold.pdf

I have received the following letter from a reader.

Professor:

I have been reading your essays on real bills for several years with great interest. If there were any contemporary examples of such credit in circulation, it would be easier to understand how real bills work. Also, have you considered editing the real bill entry on Wikipedia, to give it a less pejorative sense?

Paul Dadford

Seattle

Here is my answer:

Hello Paul:

I am not responsible for the real bill entry on Wikipedia. I understand it was written by Mike Sproul, the author of the pamphlet There’s No Such Thing as Fiat Money .

I shall give you more than what you have asked me for: I give you a futuristic example of real bills in action and how you can put them in circulation. I hope it won’t come to that, but if we find out that the dollar has no dispensation from heaven exempting it from being fiat money and, hence, it can lose all its purchasing power as has every other fiat money in history within a generation, then my epistle may come handy some day.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the U.S. dollar has already lost all its purchasing power. (My apologies to Mike Sproul, but I was in Germany on August 15, 1971, the very day the dollar was declared fiat money. In trying to check out of my hotel, the cashier declined my Federal Reserve notes. He sent me to a bank across the street to change my money. At the bank I found a long line of other people with the same problem waiting for their turn. The teller was on the phone nonstop, waiting for the latest instructions from headquarters. To put it mildly, the bank did not welcome the opportunity to do business with us wanting to sell dollars, and we were treated accordingly: you were asked to produce 3 picture ID’s, provide your address and phone number, the name and address of your employer, your mother’s maiden name, your next destination, etc.)

Going back to our futuristic story, we have assumed that the dollar has died. It would be outrageous to assume also that the American people, and people of other countries where the dollar used to circulate, would now have one great death wish: they would all want to die along with the dollar in sympathy. No, they would want to eat, to get clad, shod, and to keep themselves warm in winter as before. Admittedly they have a problem. Here is what they will do.

Let’s say you are the maker of some consumer good (say, a small whisky dispenser that can be attached to any cell-phone) that you are selling through Macy’s Department Stores; and your brother is producing some semi-finished goods (say, cigarette lighters to be built into cell-phones) that he is selling through Walmart. As neither Macy’s nor Walmart is accepting dollar bills from their customers, they won’t try to pass off dollar bills to you. Macy’s offers you two choices (the procedure at Walmart is very similar):

(1) you can have Macy-vouchers in any combination that you can use in store as cash, or

(2) you can bill Macy’s for the goods delivered.

A bit suspicious, you take the second choice. Then the clerk at Macy’s gives you a form to fill out, indicating date, quantity and quality of goods delivered, and your instruction that they pay the bill at their chief cashier’s office ‘in legal money’ no later than 91 days to you or to whomever you may transfer the title through endorsing in the meantime. The receiving department takes your bill, stamps it on the other side with the legend “I accept” over the signature of the receiving clerk, date, address and phone number of Macy’s. Then the bill is returned to you.

Congratulations: you have just drawn your first real bill!

The receiving clerk apologizes for the inconvenience and gives you a flyer suggesting supermarkets and clothes outlets in the neighborhood that will accept your bill drawn on Macy’s as cash in payment for your purchases.

He also gives you another flyer listing those firms, including Walmart, whose bills (i.e., bills drawn on them) are received as cash at all the cashiers in any Macy’s store. This means that if your brother endorses his bill drawn on Walmart, then you can use it as cash at Macy’s.

As you leave Macy’s, you get a terrible toothache. You go the dentist’s office nearby where you are informed by the receptionist that the doctor no longer accepts dollar bills in payment. She gives you a flyer listing supermarkets and department stores whose bills the doctor will take. Luckily, Macy’s is on that list and you are on your way to the dentist’s chair. The professional charges are lower than your bill drawn on Macy’s so the receptionist offers you change in the form of a bill drawn on the dentist that you can use to pay for further professional services of his, but is also receivable by hundreds of medical offices nearby, as well as by many retail outlets including Macy’s.

Congratulations: you have just put your first real bill into circulation!

Incidentally, all the banks have by then closed their doors for reasons of insolvency. Nobody feels sorry for them. They got such a bad name during the death-throes of the dollar that the few of them that tried to re-open for business were avoided by the people like they avoid the plague. According to the latest report some succeeded, but their officers shun the name ‘banker’. They call themselves ‘bill mongers’. Sounds much more honorable.

Real bills are second only to gold. But sometimes they are safer. When you try to eat them, for example. True, it is a hassle trying to eat your real bill. But when you try to eat your gold, you may get killed for it!

Detractors of real bills, beware! One day your life may depend on them!

Yours, etc.,

Professorfekete

Come to Munich, the capital of Bavaria, for the next ten-day course of the New Austrian School of Economics, from August 20-29, 2011, where I shall answer any questions you may have on the origin of money, origin of interest, hoardability of monetary metals, opening the Mint to silver. Also on hand will be Sandeep Jaitly to tell you about the gold mine of the silver basis, and about the last contango in Washington. For details, consult: See also my website:

Also on the drawing board we have a Seminar in Hong Kong, as well as one in Auckland, NZ, coming up in November. Stay tuned for details.

Filed Under: Antal E. Fekete, Gold and Silver, Popular Economics

Government Deficit Spending is Paid Every Day

July 11, 2011 by The Gold Standard Institute International

There is a lot of public concern in the US, about the “excessive borrowing” by the Government; it has to go on borrowing in order to continue in a spending mode, and Congress is locked in a debate: Republicans want to cut (some) spending, Democrats want to raise taxes. Neither side wants to budge on raising the National Debt Limit.

Part of the argument against increased borrowing is that “future generations will be burdened” by the future payment of the borrowed funds.

The main argument against government spending appears to be unmentioned.

The main argument goes like this: “Forget about future generations being burdened by the National Debt. Government spending is actually paid here and now, every day, by all Americans.”

Government spending is actually paid here and now, every day, because all government spending is a call upon present wealth. When government spends money, it is taking away part of the present wealth of all Americans, to use as it sees fit.

So out-of-control spending is actually impoverishing Americans every minute of every day. In this very real sense, government spending is making all Americans poorer, every day: they are paying for this spending today; not tomorrow, when the Bonds come due, but today.

If the American people were freely, of their own accord, purchasing Treasury Bonds out of their savings, the situation would be somewhat different – the government might be “crowding out” borrowers in the private sector, which would be negative for the health of the US economy, but not directly impoverishing the people.

But this is not the case. QE2 proved this fact. There were not enough buyers of US Government debt, to sustain the pace of spending, so the Fed had to purchase the Treasury Bonds, not out of savings, but with funds created out of thin air.

The printing of money to provide cash for the Government to continue its spending spree is a call upon the wealth of the American people, a disguised expropriation of a part of their present wealth. The unlimited spending of the US Government is today grinding the American people into poverty.

The payment of spending is going on now! Just as if a tax collector were going into every house and home in the country and carrying off its wealth.

Forget about “future generations” paying for today’s spending! Government spending is being paid for every passing minute, by today’s Americans. Americans are poorer today, than they were yesterday, and tomorrow they will be poorer than they are today.

Government spending is paid in the present! Dick Cheney said: “Deficits don’t matter” and he was right – the National Debt will never be paid in the future, so the deficits that create the National Debt don’t matter.

What does matter is that the Trillion dollar deficits are paid today, by the American people, as their wealth is sucked away by government spending.


Hugo Salinas Price
July 11, 2011

Filed Under: Gold and Silver, Hugo Salinas Price, Popular Economics

Krugman: “Gold bugs have taken over the GOP”

July 11, 2011 by The Gold Standard Institute International

 

http://www.thegoldstandardnow.org/key-blogs/558-krugman-in-the-new-york-times-qgold-bugs-have-taken-over-the-gopq

Krugman: “Gold bugs have taken over the GOP”
Written by Ralph J. Benko
Monday, July 11, 2011

This just in:

In a July 6 New York Times “Conscience of a Liberal,” in an entry entitled The Armageddon Caucus, columnist and Nobel economics laureate Paul Krugman — perhaps the most vociferous living foe of the gold standard — says:

So consider, now, what’s going on politically. Gold bugs have taken over the GOP; even if they can’t reimpose the gold standard, they will make it very hard for future Bernankes to do even as much as the current one did to fight the crisis. And there’s a big push on not just to downsize government, but to convert federal programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance into block grants, more or less ensuring that they will be cut rather than expanding in a slump. (Emphasis supplied.)

Mr. Krugman, unequivocally one of the left’s most gifted polemicists — with a Nobel Prize in Economics with which to establish his prestige — has a long history in opposition to gold. In 1996 he wrote:

THE GOLD BUG VARIATIONS

SYNOPSIS: The Gold Standard is an Economic myth whose only benefit is it sounds good

The legend of King Midas has been generally misunderstood. Most people think the curse that turned everything the old miser touched into gold, leaving him unable to eat or drink, was a lesson in the perils of avarice. But Midas’ true sin was his failure to understand monetary economics. What the gods were really telling him is that gold is just a metal. If it sometimes seems to be more, that is only because society has found it convenient to use gold as a medium of exchange–a bridge between other, truly desirable, objects. There are other possible mediums of exchange, and it is silly to imagine that this pretty, but only moderately useful, substance has some irreplaceable significance.

But there are many people–nearly all of them ardent conservatives–who reject that lesson. While Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, and Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley are best known for their promotion of supply-side economics, they are equally dedicated to the belief that the key to prosperity is a return to the gold standard, which John Maynard Keynes pronounced a “barbarous relic” more than 60 years ago. With any luck, these latter-day Midases will never lay a finger on actual monetary policy. Nonetheless, these are influential people–they are one of the factions now struggling for the Republican Party’s soul–and the passionate arguments they make for a gold standard are a useful window on how they think.

There is a case to be made for a return to the gold standard. It is not a very good case, and most sensible economists reject it, but the idea is not completely crazy. On the other hand, the ideas of our modern gold bugs are completely crazy. Their belief in gold is, it turns out, not pragmatic but mystical.

There is an irony here. Today’s chief proponents of gold take the position that gold has a much better track record, as Lewis E. Lehrman puts it, “in the laboratory of history” than does the fiduciary currency standard of which Mr. Krugman is among the most celebrated champions. We “gold bugs” take the position that the proponents, like Mr. Krugman, of monetary policy managed in the discretion of experts are the ones engaged in magical thinking. In last week’s July 9th Washington Post gold standard proponent (and TGSN senior advisor) James Grant writes an elegant analysis of why faith-based money is bad for the economy and why the gold standard is good, noting:

“’Deficits without tears,’ the French economist Jacques Rueff called these seductive arrangements.”

So the argument now is joined and neatly framed.

Are the proponents of the gold standard being “mystical?”

Or are the proponents of a fiduciary system managed in the discretion of elite civil servants “seductive.”

We cannot both be correct. In the 40 years since President Nixon abandoned (“temporarily”) the remnants of the gold standard an enormous amount of data has been accumulated.

Yes, Mr. Krugman. The gold bugs have taken over the GOP. The critical question now is being tried in the supreme court of public opinion.

We “gold bugs” could not have hoped for a worthier adversary as “counsel for the defense” in the indictment of inconvertible paper money than Paul Krugman.


Ralph J. Benko – Monday, July 11, 2011

Filed Under: Gold and Silver, Popular Economics, Ralph J. Benko

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • …
  • 27
  • Next Page »

Categories

Navigation

  • Home
  • About
  • Gold Basics
  • Journal
  • Archives
  • Classroom
  • Media
  • FAQ
  • Contact

Recent News

  • Virginia Ends All Taxes on the Purchase of Gold and Silver
  • Recession, Inflation and Gold
  • Keith Weiner Discussing the US Dollar and Gold
  • Ukraine and the Next Wave of Inflation - Part 1
  • The Politics of Sound Money With Stefan Gleason

Contact Us

philipbarton@goldstandardinstitute.net

Related Websites

Gold Standard Institute US

Copyright © . The Gold Standard Institute International. All rights reserved. Disclosures.
Website by Claire de Jong