PDA

View Full Version : Forbes: US on gold std within 5 years



FBD
05-11-2011, 01:01 PM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43439


A return to the gold standard by the United States within the next five years now seems likely, because that move would help the nation solve a variety of economic, fiscal, and monetary ills, Steve Forbes predicted during an exclusive interview this week with HUMAN EVENTS.

“What seems astonishing today could become conventional wisdom in a short period of time,” Forbes said.

Such a move would help to stabilize the value of the dollar, restore confidence among foreign investors in U.S. government bonds, and discourage reckless federal spending, the media mogul and former presidential candidate said. The United States used gold as the basis for valuing the U.S. dollar successfully for roughly 180 years before President Richard Nixon embarked upon an experiment to end the practice in the 1970s that has contributed to a number of woes that the country is suffering from now, Forbes added.

If the gold standard had been in place in recent years, the value of the U.S. dollar would not have weakened as it has and excessive federal spending would have been curbed, Forbes told HUMAN EVENTS. The constantly changing value of the U.S. dollar leads to marketplace uncertainty and consequently spurs speculation in commodity investing as a hedge against inflation.

The only probable 2012 U.S. presidential candidate who has championed a return to the gold standard so far is Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Tex.). But the idea “makes too much sense” not to gain popularity as the U.S. economy struggles to create jobs, recover from a housing bubble induced by the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policies, stop rising gasoline prices, and restore fiscal responsibility to U.S. government’s budget, Forbes insisted.

With a stable currency, it is “much harder” for governments to borrow excessively, Forbes said. Without lax Federal Reserve System monetary policies that led to the printing of too much money, the housing bubble would not have been nearly as severe, he added.

“When it comes to exchange rates and monetary policy, people often don’t grasp” what is at stake for the economy, Forbes said. By restoring the gold standard, the United States would shift away from “less responsible policies” and toward a stronger dollar and a stronger America, he said. “If the dollar was as good as gold, other countries would want to buy it.”

An encouraging sign for Forbes is that key lawmakers besides Rep. Paul are recognizing that the Fed is straying well beyond its intended role of promoting stable prices and full employment with its monetary policies.

Forbes cited Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.), who, he believes, understands monetary policy better than most lawmakers and has shown a willingness to ask tough but necessary questions. For example, when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared before the House Budget Committee in February, Ryan, who chairs the panel, asked Bernanke bluntly how many jobs the Fed’s quantitative-easing program had helped to create.

Politicians need to “get over” the notion that the Fed can guide the economy with monetary policy. The Fed is like a “bull in a China shop," Forbes said. “It can’t help but knock things down.”

“People know that something is wrong with the dollar," Forbes concluded. "You cannot trash your money without repercussions.”

Muddy
05-11-2011, 01:03 PM
So is this good or bad?

Teh One Who Knocks
05-11-2011, 01:08 PM
Yeah, this is never gonna happen

Godfather
05-11-2011, 03:25 PM
Really really interesting... I wouldn't rule it out

Deepsepia
05-11-2011, 03:40 PM
Its a crazy idea.

We're a massive debtor nation, who presently have the ability to contract debts in a currency we control.

The very last thing that a debtor wants is to have to pay debts in a currency that they don't control, and which is scarce.

The move to a gold standard would be a gift of wealth from the US to China, if it could work at all, which it can't.

The reason it can't work -- completely aside from the issue of whose interest it would serve-- is that the world economy is very large, and wealth is essentially unrelated to gold. Moving to a gold standard would have the effect of dramatically contracting the money supply.

Put another way, there simply isn't enough gold in the world for it to usefully serve as "money".

No one can say precisely but there are estimates that if the US were on the gold standard, that would push gold to $4K per ounce, or more.

The folks who'd benefit from that would be our creditors, and also gold producers-- would be a transfer of US wealth to South Africa, Russia, Canada. If you don't like the Federal Reserve controlling changes in the money supply . . . does that mean you're more comfortable with South Africa?

FBD
05-11-2011, 04:07 PM
Good points, deep. Lots of unintended consequences from *really hamstringing our gov from spending too much via gold*

then again, with how obsessive certain parties are about trashing the dollar, it eventually might wind up looking like a good thing...in which case, we'd already be in a terrible spot.

Deepsepia
05-11-2011, 04:25 PM
Good points, deep. Lots of unintended consequences from *really hamstringing our gov from spending too much via gold*


That's incorrect. What a gold standard does is to limit the money supply. It has no impact on the government's ability to borrow. In other words, it impacts monetary policy, not fiscal policy.

It would make deficits more expensive to the taxpayer though-- which is a bad thing, if you're a taxpayer.

Going on the gold standard to limit government spending is a bit like shooting your dog to stop him from barking.




then again, with how obsessive certain parties are about trashing the dollar, it eventually might wind up looking like a good thing...in which case, we'd already be in a terrible spot.

No one is "obsessive about trashing the dollar". Its a simple fact that the dollar should be lower against the Chinese RMB. We run massive trade and financial deficits with them . . . instead of thinking of a "lower dollar", what we're really seeking is a higher RMB.

I do expect the dollar to depreciate against the RMB, but would expect it to appreciate against the Euro, and the $C. The dollar is too expensive relative to some currencies, too cheap relative to others.

Currency exchange rates should reflect balance of payments -- that's the Chicago School/Milton Friedman point of view. In a free market, if you continually run trade surpluses with another country, over time your currency should appreciate, and the surpluses should come down.

What's happening today is that the Chinese are intervening to keep the RMB cheaper than it would be under a market float.

Teh One Who Knocks
05-11-2011, 05:03 PM
What's happening today is that the Chinese are intervening to keep the RMB cheaper than it would be under a market float.

And therein lies a huge problem for us and the rest of the West. The Chinese unfairly manipulates the value of its currency to keep it at an advantage over everyone else.

FBD
05-11-2011, 05:48 PM
That's incorrect. What a gold standard does is to limit the money supply. It has no impact on the government's ability to borrow. In other words, it impacts monetary policy, not fiscal policy.

It would make deficits more expensive to the taxpayer though-- which is a bad thing, if you're a taxpayer.

Going on the gold standard to limit government spending is a bit like shooting your dog to stop him from barking.




No one is "obsessive about trashing the dollar". Its a simple fact that the dollar should be lower against the Chinese RMB. We run massive trade and financial deficits with them . . . instead of thinking of a "lower dollar", what we're really seeking is a higher RMB.

I do expect the dollar to depreciate against the RMB, but would expect it to appreciate against the Euro, and the $C. The dollar is too expensive relative to some currencies, too cheap relative to others.

Currency exchange rates should reflect balance of payments -- that's the Chicago School/Milton Friedman point of view. In a free market, if you continually run trade surpluses with another country, over time your currency should appreciate, and the surpluses should come down.

What's happening today is that the Chinese are intervening to keep the RMB cheaper than it would be under a market float.

and you dont think a limiting monetary policy will impact fiscal policy? :razz: yeah, I skipped a step or two in the process, but I was hoping you'd follow ;)

I certainly wasnt suggesting this as a path towards fiscal sanity, I just thought it was an interesting take, and something which might inevitably make sense especially if by some ungodly reason Obama gets reelected...we're basically done for as "great america" if that happens, because we'll have voted for America's decline.

Ostensibly, if your dog gets cancer, it will shut up of its own accord, sooner or later - no shooting necessary!


and as to trashing the dollar,
...you do remember pretty much everything Obama has done that has any sort of fiscal impact, dont you? ;) of course we can go back further with a great many more things - but you cant say with a straight face that the democrats have given any indications whatsoever that they are fiscally responsible, their primary concern is that they are socially responsible, and who gives a crap about anything else?

and while we're at it, we *really* need an audit of the fed. Centralized direction for...damn near anything when implemented on an absolutely massive scale is proving to be a disaster over and over again regarding government's attempts to manage things - and when its done in the crony-ish manner that's been so prevalent....quite a recipe...

Deepsepia
05-11-2011, 09:56 PM
and you dont think a limiting monetary policy will impact fiscal policy? :razz: yeah, I skipped a step or two in the process, but I was hoping you'd follow ;)

No. Monetary and fiscal policy are different things, made by different actors, and with different constraints.

What a government can borrow has very little to do with money supply, and much more to do with anticipated revenues, debt levels, etc . . . eg fiscal issues. When you look at the truly distressed sovereigns out there (Greece, Ireland, Iceland), the variables determining whether they are able to finance their deficit do not include monetary policy . . . its the fiscal issues that dominate.

Monetary policy principally impacts inflation and deflation, and can serve as an accelerant or a brake on economic growth. Its impact on fiscal policy is a third order effect, as I say, rather like shooting your dog to stop him barking. If you plunge the economy into depression and bankruptcy by insisting on repaying US Treasury obligations with gold, yes, the government will spend less. They'll also take in less, and from your vantage point on the bread line, you'll be able to ponder the linkages.