As
part of the recent political debate for the presidency as well as the overall
party platforms of the Democrats and the Republicans, an idea that has only
provoked mild interest since 1984, again saw light. At the Republican National
Convention in Florida back in August of 2012, the decision was made to set up a “gold commission” as
part of the official platform to examine the feasibility of returning the US to
a gold standard, a system by which the US dollar would be fixed to some
quantity of gold. The United States, has been off a “gold standard” since 1971
when U.S. President Richard M. Nixon, “facing huge budget and trade deficits,
and a plunging dollar – enacted a series of economic moves, including the
unilateral cancellation of the direct convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold”[2]
According to a recent CNBC article, the RNC’s recent shift “shows how five
years of easy monetary policy — and the efforts of congressman Ron Paul — have
made the once-fringe idea of returning to gold-as-money a legitimate part of
Republican debate.”[3]
Despite its recent resurgence in the media and in the Republican Party, what
would a return to the gold standard mean for the country?
Largely absent from public discourse for decades,
the last time a return to the gold standard was mentioned in the Republican
Party’s platform was back in the 80’s. The Republican platform in 1980
references a “restoration of a dependable monetary standard," while the
1984 platform states that “the gold standard may be a useful mechanism” for
national stability.[4]
Ron Paul and his supporters in the Republican Party are not the only ones
pushing for this idea. Indeed, Marsha Blackburn, a Republican congresswoman
from Tennessee and co-chair of the platform committee, said the gold commission
was not adopted merely to placate Paul and the delegates that he picked up
during his campaign for the party’s nomination. “These were adopted because
they are things that Republicans agree on,” Blackburn told the Financial Times.
“The House recently passed a bill on this, and this is something that we think
needs to be done.”[5] In
addition to prominent politicians on Capitol Hill, some in the business
community are also taking up the banner. In a recent interview with Steve
Forbes, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Forbes Media and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, said “I try to promote free-market economics every
chance. In addition to chucking our tax code, one of the key issues in the next
few years will be getting this country on a gold standard. That's just
beginning but, sadly, I think circumstances are going to propel this
happening.”[6]
Clearly there is a growing interest in the US to returning to the gold
standard. Right? Satyajit
Das, a former banker and author of Extreme Money and Traders Guns & Money,
states that the
revival of interest in gold in general is “underpinned by debate of a return to
the gold standard. Advocates as varied as Libertarian US presidential candidate
Ron Paul and the Islamic Liberation Party (Hizb ut-Tahrir) have argued that the
gold standard is a solution to the deep problems of the global economy.” He
goes on to say that “the gold standard, it is argued, would foster economic
stability and prosperity, primarily by creating price stability, fixed exchange
rates and placing limits on government deficit spending as well as trade
imbalances. It will also limit credit driven boom bust cycles through
constraints on the supply of money.”[7]
To make some sense of what
returning to the gold standard would mean for the country, it's first important
to have some background on our current financial system of money referred to as
"fiat" currency. Instead of having currency pegged at a fixed rate
against a tangible good, i.e. gold, the fiat system is largely influenced by
the actions of the government. Since government actions largely determine the
value of the currency, these “currencies aren't backed by commodities, but
rather by the reputations of their governments.”[8]
According to Bruce Watson, writing for DailyFinance.com, the fiat system allows
a government to “control the flow of money into the economy. When prices are
dropping too fast (think of the housing bubble burst, for example), the
government can "print" more money, slightly inflating the currency
and steadying prices. Conversely, when prices are rising too rapidly, the
government can decrease the flow of money, making the currency slightly more
valuable and steadying prices again.” He goes on to state that “in the U.S.,
the Federal Reserve controls this ebb and flow by regulating banks, adjusting
the flow of money into the economy, and lending capital to banks when
necessary. Chartered to prevent and temper the sorts of massive financial
panics that were once regular occurrences.”[9]
Because a return to the gold
standard in the US would significantly limit the government’s ability to use monetary
policy to temper highs and lows in the global markets, many opponents of the
gold standard argue
that the limited “flexibility of governments and central banks in managing
economies, restricting the ability to adjust money supply, government budgets
and exchange rates”[10]
are ample enough reasons to stay with the fiat system. Additionally, a return
to the gold standard would “confer a natural financial advantage to countries
that produce gold, such as the US, China, Russia, Australia and South Africa.”
And that current geopolitical considerations and global competition would make
this an unlikely, if not untenable situation.[11]
Paul Krugman, a prominent economist in the US
and professor at Princeton University, in an article in the NY Times this
summer stated in no uncertain terms that a return to the gold standard is a “very
bad, no good, truly awful idea.”[12]
To make his point Krugman noted that
under a gold regime, the US had financial panics in 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893,
1907, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933.[13]
Matthew O'Brien, associate editor at The Atlantic covering
business and economics, detailed in a recent article “Why the Gold Standard Is
the World's Worst Economic Idea, in 2 Charts” His first chart shows the volatility of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
during June 1919 to March 1933.
The second chart shows the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 2008 to today.
Based on these charts, it seems that the gold era is characterized by deeper price swings, and more crises. According to O’Brien, the gold standard “should guarantee price stability in the long run, but you know what they say about the long run -- we're all dead. In the short run, prices can change violently under the gold standard, as the balance of trade changes or the physical stock of gold changes. Remember, price stability isn't just about avoiding inflation; it's about avoiding deflation too. The gold standard wasn't good at either -- especially compared to our modern inflation-targeting system.” [14]
So if stability is not a likely goal what is the
appeal of a return to the gold standard? For Joe Weisenthal, “It's actually pretty simple. The ability to
create fiat money out of thin air is a stealth form of taxation, because the
creation of more dollars diminishes the value of those already in existence.
Conservatives have a constitutional opposition to taxation, ergo a system of
money that makes it hard to create more money is pretty logical.”[15]
Add to that the fact that a recent survey conducted at the University of
Chicago Booth school of business, concluded that exactly zero economists (of those
surveyed) endorse a return to the gold standard,[16] and that it may be impossible to actually
acquire enough gold bullion to once again fix the price of the US dollar, and
the reality of the situation starts to sink in.
Under the gold standard, the government must have
enough gold on hand to redeem every single dollar in circulation. According
to John Waggoner writing
for USA Today, there is 170,000 metric tons of gold in the world. This
translates into about “5.5 billion troy ounces. (Troy ounces are 1.1 ounces.)
All that gold would be worth roughly $9 trillion at $1,639.10 an ounce. U.S.
gross domestic product is about $15 trillion. Even if the U.S. had the entire
world supply of gold, the gold standard would run into practical problems” For Waggoner,
the only way this deficit could be bridged would be if the “price of gold would
have to soar to accommodate U.S. trade in goods and services.”[17]
While the rhetoric and the prominent personality fervor
over a return to the gold standard has ignited interest and passion among some
in the US. It seems clear that a return to the US dollar being pegged against a
commodity is doubtful. Putting aside the challenges of actually acquiring
enough bullion to make it possible, there is little evidence to support that a
return to the gold standard would actually stabilize the national or
international markets. Indeed, a return to the gold standard actually has the
ability to further destabilize the American dollar and the world in general. To
borrow the concluding remark of Matthew O’Brien from his article, “Whether
it's 1896 or 2012, it doesn't make sense to crucify our economy on a cross of
gold.”[18]
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/gold/8117300/Bring-back-the-gold-standard-says-World-Bank-chief.html
[6] http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012112517457/editorial/rsn-pick-of-the-day/steve-forbes-on-the-future-of-the-gop-obamas-next-four-years-and-the-advent-of-a-gold-standard.html
[14] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the-gold-standard-is-the-worlds-worst-economic-idea-in-2-charts/261552/
[17] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/markets/story/2012-04-23/return-to-the-gold-standard/54493710/1
[18] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the-gold-standard-is-the-worlds-worst-economic-idea-in-2-charts/261552/
