Skip to main content

Should We Go Back on the Gold Standard?

Image
By
If you watched the Republican presidential debates, you might have noticed that a number of  candidates yearn for a return to the gold standard—that is, that every dollar issued by the government would be backed by a comparable value in gold bars that were stashed away in a government vault. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas argued that the dollar should have a fixed value in gold, and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky added that printing money without backing in the precious metal destroys the value of our currency. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, thinks that if not gold, then the dollar could be pegged to a basket of commodities. All are mostly concerned that printing money will cause runaway inflation.
 
But there may be several problems with this return to the fiscal system of the late 1800s and early 1900s. One is that inflation has barely budged even as the Federal Reserve Board was piling one QE stimulus on top of another, and the government was adding records amounts of currency to the money supply. Why? Because the velocity of money has been low—meaning, essentially, that banks have been sitting on growing piles of cash instead of lending it into the economy where it might have an inflationary effect.
 
Another problem is that, if pegged to gold, the money supply would be tied to one of the most volatile commodities in the world. In 2006, gold was selling for less than $600 an ounce. Then it peaked at $1,800 an ounce in late 2011. (See accompanying chart.) That means that the amount of currency floating through the global economy could have tripled in those five years. Today the price is in the $1,050 range, meaning an automatic 70% reduction in the amount of currency that would be available to the economy. Does it make sense for the number of dollars to be tied to the variations in a commodity whose value is sometimes called the “fear index?”
 
When the University of Chicago asked 40 leading economists whether a gold standard would improve the lives of average Americans, all 40 said no. They pointed out that the heyday of the gold standard actually experienced far greater economic volatility than we do today, and the nation’s unemployment rate, on average, was almost a full percentage point higher than the period since President Nixon abandoned the gold standard once and for all.

Best Regards,

Kevin Kroskey, CFP, MBA
This article adapted with permission from Bob Veres.
 
Sources:
R&utm_medium=social&utm_channel=Business&linkId=19242237

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

By
Disciplined diversification works when you do and even when you don't want it to. Diversification in effect forces you to sell the thing that has been doing so well in your portfolio and to buy the thing that hasn't. While this makes rational sense, it is emotionally difficult to execute. Think back to the tail end of 2008--were you selling bonds and cash to buy stocks? Most likely you weren't unless your advisor or some sort of automatic trigger did it for you. Carl Richards of www.behaviorgap.com provided a good reminder of how diversification works in a recent NY Times blog post. The diversification he discusses here is more so related to equity asset-class diversification but also touches on the three basic building blocks--equities, bonds, and cash. He doesn't discuss alternative asset classes -- an asset class that doesn't fit neatly into the three basic categories -- being used to further diversification, but that's a detailed topic for another day.
Read more

The Value of Double-Checking & Monitoring Your Retirement Strategy

By
Motivational speaker Denis Waitley once remarked, “You must stick to your conviction, but be ready to abandon your assumptions.” That statement certainly applies to retirement planning. Your effort must not waver, yet you must also examine it from time to time. 1       Perhaps you may realize that you under-estimated your health insurance costs and will need more retirement income than previously assumed. Or perhaps, with today's low interest rates you are not getting the level of investment returns you counted on. With those factors and others in mind, here are some signs that you may need to double-check your retirement strategy.     Your portfolio lacks significant diversification. Many baby boomers are approaching retirement with portfolios heavily weighted in U.S. equities. As many of them will have long retirements and a sustained need for growth investing, you could argue that this is entirely appropriate. Yet, U.S. equities by some measures may be over-valued by
Read more

65-80 Year Olds … A New and Exciting Demography

By
Should today’s 70-year-old American be considered “old?” How do you define that term these days? Statistically, your average 70-year-old has just a 2% chance of dying within a year. The estimated upper limits of average life expectancy is now 97, and a rapidly growing number of 70-year-olds will live past age 100. Perhaps more importantly, today’s 70-year-olds are in much better shape than their grandparents were at the same age. In most developed countries, healthy life expectancy from age 50 is growing faster than life expectancy itself, suggesting that the period of diminished vigor and ill health towards the end of life is being compressed. A recent series of articles in the Economist magazine suggest that we need a new term for people age 65 to 80, who are generally healthy and hearty, capable of knowledge-based work on an equal footing with 25-year-olds, and who are increasingly being shunted out of the workforce as if they were invalids or, well, “old.” Indeed, the a
Read more