Home > Best assets to buy, Miscellaneous Musings, Predictions > When the shit hits the fan, gold is all that’s left shining

When the shit hits the fan, gold is all that’s left shining

Only a select few ‘get it’ – that we are witnessing a once in a lifetime event: The collapse of the international monetary system based on fractional reserve banking fraud.

It is unjust.  It is immoral.  It is economically insane.  It is socially and environmentally unsustainable. 

What will replace it?  The powers that be don’t want to think about it.  So it will happen chaotically, tragically.  Suddenly.

And when chaos reigns, people throughout history have turned to gold. 

Trust no one.  All humans are degenerates.  Trust only pure gold.  Because gold in the end does not lie.

We are in the midst of a shift in international monetary structures, such as happened in Bretton Woods in the 1940s, or in the move to floating exchange rates in the 1970s. The probability is that at least some of the characteristics of globalisation we currently take for granted – free movement of capital, the push to cut trade barriers, independent central banks and free-floating currencies – will not survive many years longer.

Epochal shifts like this happen only once every half-century or so, and usually imply a period of economic volatility, international tension and a general sense of unease over the future. Moreover, there are no silver bullets and there is rarely a clear road-map. Bretton Woods was the exception rather than the rule.

That said, the dilemma is actually pretty simple. In an ideal world, one would like to have fixed exchange rates (so that companies can trade internationally without worrying about currency movements), free movement of capital (so investors can put money where it’s most needed) and independent domestic monetary policy (so you set interest rates dependent on how fast or slow your economy is growing).

Unfortunately, one can only have two of these three at any one time. Under the 19th century Gold Standard, policy makers gave up independent domestic monetary policy in favour of a system of fixed exchange rates (tied to gold) and free-moving capital. Then, from the 1940s to 1970s, the Bretton Woods system again retained fixed currencies but gave up free capital movement in favour of independent monetary policy. From the 1970s to today Western nations swung behind floating currencies and free capital movement, while retaining independent monetary policy.

Unfortunately, this latest iteration (Globalisation III, let’s call it) is beset by the fact that many developing nations (typified by China) have chosen instead to fix their currencies (in an effort to protect their exports), and one of the upshots has been the savings glut that has contributed to the crisis of the past few years. The G20’s problem is less over specific arguments about the level of currencies and more about the fact that the world’s monetary system is being run in two incompatible ways.

What makes it worse is that there is no longer a consensus view about who is right: before the crisis Western politicians could argue confidently that China’s mercantilist policies were simply wrong. But why shouldn’t emerging nations shield their industries from international competition to allow them to develop into full-grown businesses – just as Britain and the US did in a similar stage in their development?

So not only has the international monetary structure broken down; so has the intellectual grounding that might reveal a solution. This wasn’t such an issue in the 1940s, when John Maynard Keynes and US delegate Harry Dexter White could lock themselves away in a New England ski resort; it didn’t matter in the 1870s when central bankers could safely negotiate the terms of the Gold Standard away from the prying eyes of the populace. But this time around democracy is intruding.

In the US, the White House is still reeling after the mid-term elections, in which the Democrats suffered the biggest turnover of members since 1954. It wasn’t merely the scale of the defeat – which is even more stark when you look down to state and county level – or indeed the fact that the White House will no longer be able easily to pass its laws, but that the new intake of Republican politicians (the Tea Party wing in particular) is viscerally opposed to the country’s current economic policies.

The Republicans used to be the party of the Washington Consensus, of free trade and deregulation – in short, supporting Globalisation III. No longer: a recent Pew Research Center report found that the Republican party is now more anti-free trade than the Democrats. Many of the Tea Party’s leading voices want an abolition of the Federal Reserve. The message from the mid-terms was that these voices can no longer safely be ignored. And if the US itself can’t work out a plan to overhaul the international economy, what hope is there for the rest of us?

It is not that anyone is inherently right or wrong. But the worst outcome would be to lurch from one extreme to another without a coherent plan.

Take the idea of a Gold Standard, raised by World Bank president Robert Zoellick last week. There are some instant attractions to tying one’s currency to gold, chief among them that this curtails governments’ ability to inflate their way out of their significant debt problems. But there are also serious drawbacks: referencing your currency to a commodity still leaves you vulnerable to inflation or deflation, depending on how much of that commodity is mined from the earth in any given year.

It would also mean an end to banking as we know it – the 19th century showed us that the Gold Standard malfunctions with our system of fractional reserve banking. But most catastrophically, it would mean governments could no longer adjust interest rates depending on the health or otherwise of their economy. The original system proved incompatible with widespread democracy; given the volume behind the electorate in the US, why should that be any different this time around?

Moreover, why the arbitrary obsession with gold? The chief reason Britain instituted a Gold Standard (and others followed), rather than a silver standard, goes back to a mathematical mistake by Sir Isaac Newton in 1717, then master of the Royal Mint, in overvaluing the guinea in terms of silver.

The Gold Standard is merely another set of rules which determine how countries run their economies: these rules survive only as long as people believe the government, or central banks, will follow them.

In the wake of the G20 flop, it strikes me that there are two conceivable endgames to the current stalemate on international economic reform. Neither, I should warn you, is particularly attractive.

The first is that it will only be after another crisis (perhaps sovereign debt, perhaps a full-blown currency war) that world leaders will confront the issue and try to create a coherent international monetary system.

The second is the theory of hegemonic stability: periods of chaos such as this usually come when one economic superpower gives way to another.

No matter what rules or structures policy makers try to erect, the overriding instability caused by these shifts in global economic tectonics mean that we must wait until China fully surpasses the US before we can expect a return to stability.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: