PDA

View Full Version : Think Progress says "Gold Standard...a fringe view"




TNforPaul45
11-29-2010, 09:25 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/29/pence-gold-standard/




Rep. Mike Pence Suggests That The U.S. Return To The Gold Standard
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), a top House Republican and possible 2012 presidential contender, gave a speech at the Detroit Economic Club this afternoon outlining his “prescription for a fresh start for the American economy.” The Detroit Economic Club is a “popular venue for candidates testing the presidential campaign waters,” and Pence is “working hard to cultivate support among the fiscal conservatives that are driving the tea party.”

The first item of Pence’s five-point plan for the economy is a “sound monetary policy.” Pence elaborated that he believes a return to the gold standard could create such a policy:

PENCE: Before I move on, I’d like to note, in the midst of all that’s happened recently — massive borrowing and spending, QE2 — a debate has started anew over an anchor to our global monetary system. My dear friend, the late Jack Kemp, probably would have urged me to adopt the gold standard, right here and now in Detroit. Robert Zoellick, the president of the World Bank, encouraged that we rethink the international currency system including the role of gold, and I agree. I think the time has come to have a debate over gold, and the proper role it should play in our nations monetary affairs. A pro-growth agenda begins with sound monetary policy.

Currently, the global financial system does not assign any value to gold, and the U.S. Federal Reserve is not required to tie the value of the dollar to anything. A return to the gold standard, which would tie the value of the U.S. dollar to the value of gold, is a fringe economic position that could lead to a drastic reduction in prices. “Very few economists think this would be a good idea,” Paul Krugman has noted. It would prohibit the government from adjusting interest rates, which it often does based on the health of the economy — instead everything would be tied to the value of gold.

The U.S. abandoned this policy in 1971, and as Krugman notes: “Since then the price of gold has increased roughly tenfold, while consumer prices have increased about 250 percent. If we had tried to keep the price of gold from rising, this would have required a massive decline in the prices of practically everything else — deflation on a scale not seen since the Depression. This doesn’t sound like a particularly good idea.”

Moreover, as Matthew Yglesias has observed, the idea of the enforcing a gold standard doesn’t exactly fit into the Tea Party’s free-market ethos. As none other than Milton Friedman wrote: “I think those people who say they believe in a gold standard are fundamentally being very anti-libertarian because what they mean by a gold standard is a governmentally fixed price for gold.”

Returning to the gold standard wasn’t the only far-right economic proposal Pence offered in his speech. The Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel details Pence’s call for the elimination of the U.S. tax code in favor of a “flat tax.”

UPDATE: CAP economist Adam Hersh explains further why the gold standard would be extremely unwise: "Gold makes for a maddeningly inconvenient means of exchange. Try making change for a bar of gold. Gold as money would severely raise the costs of transacting for goods and services, and that is bad for the economy. Paper money tied to gold side-steps this problem to an extent, however the volatility of gold prices makes unpredictable just how much gold-backed paper currency one would need to carry around to conduct daily transactions. Consider U.S. international trade accounts. In 2009 we had a trade deficit of $375 billion. If gold were our money (or our foundation for paper money), we would have to ship about 8500 tons of gold overseas."



I'm glad they quoted Krugman a lot. I would have doubted the intellectual veracity of the article had it not been for those cites.

NYgs23
11-29-2010, 09:46 PM
Moreover, as Matthew Yglesias has observed, the idea of the enforcing a gold standard doesn’t exactly fit into the Tea Party’s free-market ethos. As none other than Milton Friedman wrote: “I think those people who say they believe in a gold standard are fundamentally being very anti-libertarian because what they mean by a gold standard is a governmentally fixed price for gold.”

This is largely true. A government-enforced gold standard isn't a free market arrangement. Rather, we should abolish the legal tender laws and allow currencies to arise in the marketplace and compete with each other.

Sentient Void
11-29-2010, 09:50 PM
^^ Correct.

Competitive currencies FTW. However, it would be fairly natural for something like Gold to automatically become a sort of standard via the free market...

At the same time, when it comes to government-currencies, a true gold standard is MUCH better than what we have now in limiting government...

Travlyr
11-29-2010, 09:52 PM
It seems to me that a fixed dollar defined by one PM would create the most stability.

For example, the Coinage Act of 1792 fixed the dollar at 24.057 grams of pure silver. And it fixed gold to a value of 15 times silver. Bimetallism was a mistake. Nonetheless, it was still superior to our monetary policy today.

When an employer paid an employee a dollar, then the employee could purchase any good or service worth 24.057 grams of pure silver. He, or she, could save the dollar for years, or spend it anytime, and his/her dollar would hold value indefinitely. The dollar would be a store of value. Savings maintained purchasing power. Saving was encouraged by policy.

The fiat money that we endure fluctuates with the decisions of central bank policy. Inflation is prominent. When an employer pays an employee a dollar, then the employee is better off spending the dollar right away because inflation is virtually guaranteed by central banks. Savings lose purchasing power. Saving is discouraged by policy.

sailingaway
11-29-2010, 10:26 PM
Think Progress outright lies. Or 'mischaractorizes' in a deceitful way. I never read it much, but during the campaign I noticed they'd play something Rand said in speeches as being something totally different, and objectionable, then the entire leftist echo chamber would pick it up as if it were actually a credible source. This happened over and over and is still happening even with the election behind us.

If any source I relied on lied that much, I'd stop reading it.

TNforPaul45
11-29-2010, 10:35 PM
Think Progress outright lies. Or 'mischaractorizes' in a deceitful way. I never read it much, but during the campaign I noticed they'd play something Rand said in speeches as being something totally different, and objectionable, then the entire leftist echo chamber would pick it up as if it were actually a credible source. This happened over and over and is still happening even with the election behind us.

If any source I relied on lied that much, I'd stop reading it.

Oh SA dont worry, I just stop by there occasionally for fun. I know they are a tricked out hit piece operation big time. It's just amusing to read their drivel occasionally.

It tempts me to comment there, but i pull back at the last sec.

HOLLYWOOD
11-29-2010, 10:54 PM
yeah... Keep that FIAT COUNTERFEITED Paper Welfare rolling!