Tag Archives: Gold Standard

The Dollar Dilemma: Where to From Here? by Ron Paul

This is a long but worthwhile article from Ron Paul on money, gold, the financial system, and government. From Paul at mises.org:

Introduction: Where We Are

It’s a fallacy to believe the US has a free market economy. The economy is run by a conglomerate of individuals and special interests, in and out of government, including the Deep State, which controls central economic planning.

Rigging the economy is required to prevent market forces from demanding a halt to the mistakes that planners continuously make. This deceptive policy can last only for a limited time. Ultimately, the market proves more powerful than government manipulation of economic events. The longer the process lasts, the greater the bubble that always bursts. The planners in charge have many tools to perpetuate confidence in an unstable system, but common sense should tell us that grave dangers lie ahead.

Their policies strive to convince the unknowing that the dollar is strong and its status as the world’s reserve currency is secure, no matter how many new dollars they create of out of thin air. It is claimed that our foreign debt is always someone else’s fault and never related to our own monetary and economic mismanagement.

Official government reports inevitably claim inflation is low and we must work harder to increase it, claiming price increases somehow mystically indicate economic growth.

The Consumer Price Index is the statistic manipulated to try to prove this point just as they use misleading GDP numbers to do the same. Many people now recognizing these reports are nothing more than propaganda. Anybody who pays the bills to maintain a household knows the truth about inflation.

Ever since the Great Depression, controlling the dollar price of gold and deciding who gets to hold gold was official policy. This advanced the Federal Reserve’s original goal of demonetizing precious metals, which was fully achieved in August 1971. Today, even though the official position of all central banks is that gold is not money, central bankers constantly rig the dollar price of gold, pretending the dollar is stronger than it really is. Just as the market overrode the artificial price of $35 per ounce in the 1970’s, today’s price will soar when the dollar is dethroned as the king of the world’s currencies.

To continue reading: The Dollar Dilemma: Where to From Here?

Jim Grant Explains the Gold Standard, by Ryan McMaken

Gold standards impose discipline on governments and their monetary systems, which is why governments and monetary mandarins hate the gold standard. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

Earlier this month in the Wall Street JournalJames Grant explored the latest academic attack on the gold standard — this time in the form of One Nation Under Gold by financial journalist James Ledbetter.

Not that the establishment economics profession needs another book trashing gold. Among the university- and government-employed PhDs who hand down their wisdom about economics from on high, few have anything but disdain for the yellow metal.

RELATED: “The United States of Insolvency” — An Interview with James Grant

Grant knows this all too well and notes:

As if to clinch the case against gold — and, necessarily, the case for the modern-day status quo — Mr. Ledbetter writes: “Of forty economists teaching at America’s most prestigious universities — including many who’ve advised or worked in Republican administrations — exactly zero responded favorably to a gold-standard question asked in 2012.” Perhaps so, but “zero” or thereabouts likewise describes the number of established economists who in 2005, ’06 and ’07 anticipated the coming of the biggest financial event of their professional lives. The economists mean no harm. But if, in unison, they arrive at the conclusion that tomorrow is Monday, a prudent person would check the calendar.

Nevertheless, the gold standard has a reputation for being dark and nefarious. It’s backward and limiting, and the sort of thing one ought to associate with crucifixion, as implied in William Jennings Bryan’s famous Cross of Gold speech.

But, as Grant sums things up, it’s not as complicated as all that:

What was the gold standard, exactly — this thing that the professors dismiss so airily today? A self-respecting member of the community of gold-standard nations defined its money as a weight of bullion. It allowed gold to enter and leave the country freely. It exchanged bank notes to gold, and vice versa, at a fixed and inviolable rate. The people, not the authorities, decided which form of money was best.

The gold standard was a hard task master, all right. You couldn’t devalue your way out of trouble. You couldn’t run up a big domestic budget deficit. The central bank of a gold-standard country (if there was a central bank) was charged with preserving the convertibility of the currency and, in a pinch, serving as lender of last resort to needy commercial banks. Growth, employment and price stability took their own course. And if, in a financial panic or a business-cycle downturn, gold fled the country, it was the duty of the central bank to establish a rate of interest that called the metal home. In the throes of a crisis, interest rates would likely go up, not down.

To continue reading: Jim Grant Explains the Gold Standard

Alan Greenspan: Ron Paul Was Right About The Gold Standard, by Tyler Durden

Former Ayn Rand acolyte and gold standard proponent Alan Greenspan is a mess of contradictions. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

As John Rubino eloquently puts it, “when the history of these times is written, former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan will be one of the major villains, but also one of the greatest mysteries. This is so because he has, in effect, been three different people.” Greenspan started his public life brilliantly, as a libertarian thinker who said some compelling and accurate things about gold and its role in the world. An example from 1966: “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.”

Yet everything changed a few decades later when Greenspan was put in charge of the Federal Reserve in the late 1980s, instead of applying the above wisdom, for example by limiting the bank’s interference in the private sector and letting market forces determine winners and losers, he did a full 180, intervening in every crisis, creating new currency with abandon, and generally behaving like his old ideological enemies, the Keynesians. Predictably, debt soared during his long tenure.

Along the way he was also instrumental in preventing regulation of credit default swaps and other derivatives that nearly blew up the system in 2008. His view of those instruments:

The reason that growth has continued despite adversity, or perhaps because of it, is that these new financial instruments are an increasingly important vehicle for unbundling risks. These instruments enhance the ability to differentiate risk and allocate it to those investors most able and willing to take it. This unbundling improves the ability of the market to engender a set of product and asset prices far more calibrated to the value preferences of consumers than was possible before derivative markets were developed. The product and asset price signals enable entrepreneurs to finely allocate real capital facilities to produce those goods and services most valued by consumers, a process that has undoubtedly improved national productivity growth and standards of living.

To continue reading: Alan Greenspan: Ron Paul Was Right About The Gold Standard

This Trump Economic Advisor Wants America to Go Back to the Gold Standard, by Chris Matthews

The only rational “monetary policy” is for the government to get out of the money business entirely (governments have repeatedly demonstrated they can not be trusted with any monetary role) and let private individuals, businesses, and markets decide on what will be money and how it will function in the economy. That prospect, of course, petrifies both central bankers and governments. A Trump advisor suggesting a return to some sort of gold standard has to know she’s playing with fire. From Chris Matthews at fortune.com:

Q&A with Dr. Judy Shelton, the only female economist advising the campaign.

Donald Trump is no policy wonk.

He is pitching himself as the best man for the presidency based on his track record as businessman, and his ability to surround himself with the “best” people—not on his knack for writing white papers. This, of course, means that it is important for voters to understand whom he is surrounding himself with, and what sort of ideas they hold.

With this in mind, Fortune reached out to Dr. Judy Shelton, one of two economists recently named to Donald Trump’s economic advisory team, and the only woman to hold that title. Shelton is a senior fellow and co-director of the Atlas Sound Money Project, whose mission is to promote the principles of sound money and raise awareness of what they see as the inherent problems of our current monetary system. Dr. Shelton first rose to prominence when she predicted the economic collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, two years before it transpired.

Fortune discussed with Dr. Shelton what sort of advice she is passing along to the Republican nominee and what she thinks about the biggest economic questions of the day. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How did you become involved with the Trump campaign?

Dr. Shelton: I have over the years advised a number of Republican candidates, going back to Jack Kemp and more recently Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson. I’ve worked for a long time with Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow, and Larry asked me if I had some thoughts for the Trump campaign on the issues I discuss most, namely international monetary relations, currency, and trade issues. I’ve been intermittently sending Larry my thoughts in the form of memos on these issues.

Have you spoken with Mr. Trump directly?

I met him back in the early nineties at some gatherings, both social and business related. But I haven’t spoken directly with him since he’s been a candidate. I have been communicating through [Trump national finance chair] Steve Mnuchin and [economic advisor] Larry Kudlow.

Your first book was on the economic collapse of the Soviet Union: How does that experience inform how you look at the world?

Four years ago I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal titled, “The Soviet Banking System—and Ours.” What concerns me is that central banks around the world, the ECB, the Bank of Japan are now buying corporate assets. I’m wondering how far away we are from the Fed thinking it needs to branch out and buy corporate assets. Will these corporate assets be those from firms that are politically connected?

My work on the Soviet Union was an analysis focused on the banking system, and how the banking system in the Soviet system became a way to channel credit to state-owned institutions and state-owned enterprises. And I worry that banks are becoming partners with the state in managing the economy. I’m very uncomfortable with how complicit banks are becoming through the their mandatory membership in the Federal Reserve.

To continue reading: This Trump Economic Advisor Wants America to Go Back to the Gold Standard

 

The Government Must Stop Printing Phony Money, by Richard M. Ebeling

From Richard M. Ebeling at the Future of Freedom Foundation, fff.org:

If advocates of freedom were to make up a list of New Year’s resolutions for 2016, one of the most important items should be ending government’s monopoly control over money. In a free society, people in the marketplace should decide what they wish to use as money, not the government.

For more than two hundred years, practically all of even the most free market advocates have assumed that money and banking were different from other types of goods and markets. From Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, the presumption has been that competitive markets and free consumer choice are far better than government control and planning – except in the realm of money and financial intermediation.

This belief has been taken to the extreme over the last one hundred years, during which governments have claimed virtually absolute and unlimited authority over national monetary systems through the institution of paper money.

At least before the First World War (1914-1918) the general consensus among economists, many political leaders, and the vast majority of the citizenry was that governments could not be completely trusted with management of the monetary system. Abuse of the monetary printing press would always be too tempting for demagogues, special interest groups, and shortsighted politicians looking for easy ways to fund their way to power, privilege, and political advantage.

To continue reading: The Government Must Stop Printing Phony Money

History Lessons, by Robert Gore

Finding the present somewhat tedious, SLL decided to rummage through the historical attic. We found all sorts of interesting facts, some of which seem contrary to received wisdom. Our advice is to trust the experts, no matter what the historical record purportedly says.

Thousands of books have been written about the Civil War; if there’s an authoritative history of the period that followed we couldn’t find it. Of course, that time, known as the Industrial Revolution, is a dark chapter and it’s understandable why nobody would want to write about it. After extensive rummaging we found a few facts that can only be dismissed as anomalous oddities. The trend growth rate of both the economy and incomes was the highest in U.S. history, with the 1870s and 1880s marking the apex. Somehow this was achieved while the federal, state and local governments’ combined spending was less than 5 percent of the GDP. They did spend money on the railroads, but curiously, the only transcontinental railroad that didn’t go bankrupt was James Hill’s Great Northern, the one line that received no subsidies or land grants.

In addition to crisscrossing the country with railroads, the Industrial Revolution gave us a number of advancements that, while they don’t hold a candle to our Internet, are still of some minor significance, including mass production, automobiles, airplanes, telephones, elevators and the skyscrapers they made possible, the McCormick reaper and the mechanization of agriculture, standardized petroleum distillation, epic philanthropy, breakneck progress in chemistry, medicine, biology, zoology, botany and physics, the phonograph, the motion picture projector and the light bulb. The inventor of the last three, Thomas Edison, had 1093 U.S. patents and unbelievably, no Ivy League degrees. He had three months of formal education and was home schooled by his mother.

Of course the period had its booms and busts. Researchers are still unable to determine how the economy recovered from its busts without quantitative easing, deficit spending, unemployment insurance, safety nets, TARP, TALF, HAMP and the rest of our enlightened acronyms, but somehow it did. It’s a mystery, but capital poured into this country from around the world, especially after the gold standard was reinstated in 1879, although there was no SEC, CFTC, FINRA, SIPC or FDIC to protect it. Some have argued that the gold standard was responsible for the rising real value of the dollar that characterized the period—a dollar bought more in 1912 than 1879—but there’s a gold nut in every crowd. By the way, a dollar in 2014 buys what a few pennies did in 1912. Another mystery—labor poured in as well, although there was no Department of Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act or minimum wage to protect it. Millions of immigrants encountered widespread discrimination and exploitation with no welfare state benefits, and attempts at unionization were often met with armed force, but still they came.

Yet another mystery—houses were built and bought without Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA or the FHLBs, and people operated under the delusion they were to live in, not speculative investments. One aspect of that time surely garners the approval of most of us, and certainly Warren Buffet and President Obama—tax equity. Both John D. Rockefeller and his secretary paid income taxes at the same rate—zero. Some anti-tax curmudgeons have argued that the lack of income taxes had something to do with those millions of immigrants suffering steerage to come to our shores, but the rest of us know better. Regrettably, with limited wherewithal, the government couldn’t do many of the things we now expect it to do. That would include waging war. The Spanish-American War was an odd-lot skirmish compared to World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

This dark time drew to a close in 1913, with the passage of the income tax and the Federal Reserve Act. The 1920s and 1930s offered a laboratory test that demonstrated the superiority of these innovations. Both decades opened with economic downturns, debt contraction and deflation. In the twenties, President Harding and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon reduced federal spending, tax rates, and the budget deficit, and believing that debt could be reduced and savings promoted by higher interest rates, didn’t fight the market as interest rates rose. The contraction was over in a year. In the thirties, President Hoover and then President Roosevelt, providing the playbook for Presidents Bush and Obama, increased spending, set up new regulatory bodies, ran deficits, pressured the Federal Reserve for lower interest rates, and raised taxes. Roosevelt, like Obama, excoriated businesspeople for not paying enough taxes or investing enough in the economy. At the end of the decade the unemployment rate was still in double digits, but the value of the new macroeconomic methods had been proved. That’s why we know the twenties as the Great Depression and the next decade as the Roaring Thirties.

Every year, the high and the mighty descend on Davos, Switzerland. Since the financial crises, the number one item on the agenda has been to consider cures for the world economy, which seems to have lost its get up and go. The phrase “secular stagnation” gets tossed around a lot. Fortunately, the Davos worthies have learned the lessons of the past. Every proposal includes more spending and debt, more central bank play money, increased regulation, new agencies and new duties for the ones we already have, more transfer payments from the rich to the poor—with a cut for the bureaucrats—and, just coincidentally, more power for the high and the mighty. Neither: Leave Us Alone, nor: Get the Hell Out Of The Way has been on the agenda, but everybody knows those remedies, straight out of the benighted Industrial Revolution, would just make our problems worse.

This is a reprise, with some revisions, of an article that originally appeared on Straight Line Logic on January 31, 2012, on the predecessor platform to its current WordPress platform.

A GOLD STANDARD NOVEL

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK