Is there enough gold in circulation for a Gold Standard?

What keeps China from counterfeiting them, then?

Yes. The situation you describe would have a powerful incentive for collusion. I think collusion would be an inevitable certainty, in fact. The countries wouldn’t check each other … they would cooperate to manipulate the currency supply.

In a free market (a 100% unregulated free market, something we’ve come close to but never completely had), fractional reserve banks have a limited ability to inflate the currency supply. They are a check on each other, however, keeping these effects limited. If one bank lends out a little bit too much, keeping too small of a reserve, then as other banks and the public come to redeem the claims they have on that bank’s accounts, there will be a run on the bank, destroying it. I don’t remember the exact figure, but I think at times when we’ve had freer markets than we have now, bank reserved hovered at something that was at least 15%. Perhaps somebody can correct me. I think the actual figure is somewhere in Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression, which I highly recommend that you read!

If banks can collude together, everything changes. If the banks will not call each other’s claims, then they can loan down to an even riskier reserve level without a run. The problem on a free market is that even if a bank agreed to collude with another bank, it still has an incentive to change its mind and call it’s claims on the other bank. No collusion situation could be stable. No banking cartel could ever form, or if it did, it just would not be stable, because it would not be in any individual bank’s interest to engage in this collusion.

But, with force of law, all banks can collude. In 1913 America established its federal reserve system, the “lender of last resort,” the bank that loans money to banks to manipulate our economy. All banks in America are subject to the federal reserve system. In effect, there is just one bank, with lots of different names and branches, because the banks are all part of the one system. There is no real bank competition. The federal reserve sets minimum reserve ratios for banks. They claim they do this to protect the public from the economic problems that result from banks keeping too low a reserve ratio. But they set this level somewhere around 10%. (Again, someone else can give the exact figure.) We’ve already seen that in a natural market, the reserve ratio would be higher than this! Far from protecting the public, this “minimum” reserve ratio is actually the mechanism by which the federal reserve permits every bank in America to collude together; they can safely keep their reserve levels at a riskier level than the free market would permit them to have, because all other banks are subject to the same standards, and thus there is no incentive to be safer. They are protected from the claims on their deposits and the runs that would occur in a free market if they did this.

Now, this is the situation where every bank in America has colluded to create the modern dollar, which is really just a bank note issued by this federal reserve system. You will notice that your dollars are labelled “federal reserve notes.” (The original dollar was an ounce of silver. A bank note, issued not by the government but by a private bank, was a promise to pay a dollar, that is, an ounce of silver, from the issuing bank to whoever brought in the bank note to redeem. A federal reserve note is similar, but there is no promise to pay anything.)

The situation would be about a trillion times worse if the central banks of every country in the world, or most countries in the world, colluded. Those reserve ratios could be set even lower. The currency involved would have far greater reach, and thus the power involved in manipulating that currency would be far greater. Collusion definitely occurs on a national scale when banks get to collaborate on a central currency, like we have. It is even more certain to occur under a global currency, and the effects will be far worse.

Competition makes everything better. If anyone wants to establish an international currency, they should be free to do so, but they shouldn’t be able to force it on anyone. The free market is perfectly capable of selecting a currency or currencies that will meet the needs of its participants. That might be gold, but it doesn’t have to be. As long as currencies are subject to competition or potential competition from other currencies, the best currencies will rise to the top and outcompete the worst. But use the force of law to establish an international currency, by removing or discouraging competition, and you will see Gresham’s Law come into effect: bad currency will drive out good.

Did you read Rothbard’s Money, yet? You really need to!

By the way, I meant to mention what happens in this weird scenario: suppose that somehow, a single individual succeeds in accumulating all the gold on earth. What happens to money in a totally free market?

In this situation, people will no longer be able to transact in gold. What they will do is pick the next best thing. That might be silver. It might be butter. Whatever they pick will meet their needs in the best way possible among the available choices.

So you see there’s no problem of there not being enough gold. And as others said, on a smaller scale, gold may serve part of the market while silver or other commodities simultaneously serve as money in other situations.

Also, in the “one man owns all the gold” scenario, what’s he going to do with the gold? He might hoard it, but likely he’ll use it. Either he’ll build it into something he finds useful, or he’ll … spend it. Putting it back into circulation. And if he built useful things out of it, he’s likely to sell those, in which case people have a roundabout way to recover some gold, if it’s still valuable. And if he hoards it, gold will have no value any more at all.

Of course, even though you entered this discussion asking about the situation of there being enough gold, you’re now saying you just don’t like the idea of “a useless metal” being used for transactions. I’m not sure why you think it’s useless … the free market will never select anything as money unless it has had a previous value of some sort. In this case, gold has been valuable as jewelry for centuries, but it also has properties that make it useful for industrial applications. It’s not useless. Federal Reserve Notes, meanwhile, are basically a waste of linen.

Regardless, if other people want to base their transactions on a metal you find useless, what business is that of yours? Can’t two consenting adults make whatever transaction appeals to both of them without your (and the government’s) permission? Do you want the government regulating what people do in their bedrooms, too?

Nobody’s saying you would be required by law to have your transactions based on gold. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to use it. Other currencies would compete on a level playing field.

Yes

I like the idea of competing currencies. It solves all problems.

However I doubt if people who hold the status quo will allow it!

In “The Case Against the Fed” Rothbard says:

“There is nothing sacred about any initial definition of the gold dollar, so long as we stick to it once we are on the gold standard.”

Makes sense-- what does it matter how much gold backs a unit of currency? As long as we don’t keep changing the definition (how much gold does a dollar represent) it crushes the inflation tax.

One scary thing is how fast what that definition would be is changing–at the time, I believe he was saying that a dollar would have been 1/1555 of an ounce of gold. Now, I’m kind of afraid to find out what that ratio would be.

I can’t quote proof, but I suspect that even a country with gold reserves like South Africa won’t be able to take too much advantage of that. I would think that the rate of gold mining is too slow to be of any major impact. Perhaps someone else can follow that up with some evidence…

But I really wanted to respond to your comment about gold being a “useless metal”. This is actually one of gold’s strengths as a currency. What better material to use as money than one which has almost no other uses? There’s a term for the “cost” of using a material as a currency, but I can’t remember what it is. (Someone help?!) The basic idea is that using something that is useful for other purposes, such as copper, makes that resource unavailable for the industrial uses.

Just a minute, here. Gold is NOT a useless metal. If gold had NEVER been sanctioned by any government, it would still be Ideally suited for money. The element Au, gold, has certain properties that make it very important. Were gold as plentiful as copper, there would be little use for copper in electricity conveyance since gold has superior conductivity to gold. This is why gold is used instead of copper in many computers’ components. Gold’s resistance to corrosion is superior to copper’s, and gold and gold-based alloys would replace copper and lead in your plumbing fixtures and everyone elses. Gold’s utility in jewelry may be replaced by copper were their roles reversed, perhaps, but in this world I believe you would get a different reaction to proposing marriage with a copper ring instead of a gold ring. As for gold’s use for money, when different countries governments make payments to each other, and they do not trust each other’s currencies, gold has always been accepted, and will continue to be so, precisely because competing uses will keep it from the fates of the Tsarist ruble or American Confederate dollar. In other words, gold has properties which are inherent and not subject to any declaration or law by any government anywhere in the world. And as for gold-producing countries having an unfair advantage, remember that no country will spend 2 ounces of gold (or legitimate gold tender) for the production of one ounce from the mines. There are incredible amounts of gold in the world’s oceans, for instance, that no one collects since the cost of processing ocean water to obtain the gold is greater than the value in the market of the gold.

FYI

That should have read “since gold has superior conductivity to copper” and not, obviously, “since gold has superior conductivity to gold”. Sorry for the error.

Of course it matters. There could be huge inflation or deflation.

Anyway, Is the Gold Standard a Viable Policy Option?.

Today it would be 1/878.60.

What are you talking about?

Have you read Murray Rothbard’s Money? You really need to:

Gold is a metal, leave it alone. Gold thinking is like thinking about mercantilism. What matters is a country’s economic system and ability to produce goods and services. “money is everything/anything people agree to use as a medium of exchange”

Well, maybe not, but people keep taking the red pill nowadays, so the trend is toward it happening some day. I certainly hope so, for myself or for my children.

Meanwhile, I’m glad to hear you feel this way, and I’d like to encourage you to keep running with your thoughts! Even though some of them might not stand up to examination, after awhile you might be qualified to compete in a free currency market some day. My guess is that’ll actually involve finding ways to build currency off of gold and/or silver, rather than actually inventing “pink dollars,” but who knows? If it’s profitable for you, it’ll be profitable for everyone else.

And read Murray Rothbard’s Money book! Seriously! Rothbard is so good at explaining things, and he is exceptionally clear in this book. The way you are thinking, you will be so glad to have read it.

You might also like Henry Hazlitt’s novel Time Will Run Back, in which toward the end society is using straight goldgrams as currency.

I’m not sure that was the actual question. Today’s market price of gold may be around $880.00 but the ratio of dollars to ounces of gold will yeild a different value. Basically, we assume that gold demand = dollar demand to eliminate that variable, then divide the supply of gold by the supply of dollars.

Using ~140k tons, or 4.5 billion ounces of gold and ~$8.2 trillion (M2), we get 1/1,822. Using ~$5.5 trillion (TMS), we get 1/1,222.

Yes. And if given the choice people choose gold or a similar commodity.

Error again! Copper has BETTER conductivity than gold!

Gold also has the disadvantage of having more than double the density of copper (gold is even heavier than uranium) , so electric cables of gold would be less practical to handle, and much more expensive to support with poles. As for gold use in plumbing, it is inferior to most metals because it is so soft. You don’t want water pipes to break easily and cause water damages. Gold is pretty much useless for other purposes than money, mostly because it isn’t chemically reactive (other than in the shape of some very rare poisonous salts).

However, one potential use for gold would be as replacement for depleted uranium in armour piercing ammunition. And in any bullets. Gold is mostly only useful as a “place holder”, such as substituting a missing tooth. For contacts and heat reflectors, it can be made extremely thin, since it is only its surface property which is of interest. That’ll never be a substantial market.

Do you actually believe any of it? I want to peg that as sarcasm…but considering the source…

Are you still on about that?

Gold is used for contacts in electronics because it does not corrode.

http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml

Of course it’s sarcasm! The idea that “there’s too little gold” for it to function as money is laughable. The only potential “problem topic” I can come to think of, is that gold prices might increase alot if it became money (if fiat currencies were abolished). But since gold is pretty much useless as a “higher order good”, that would have almost no consequences at all for any industrial investments. But if for example copper became money, and hence increased very drastically in price, it would seriously disrupt large sectors of the industrial economy, substantially lowering output during the transition.

  • you are attempting to describe a free market irrationally allocating resources.

i could make equally ridiculous statements. suppose we had a free market. and suddenly buttons were money, and their value increased exponentially, people would suffer wardrobe malfunctions and be walking fashion disasters. deadweightloss to society etc etc.

Okey, try to understand my pont like this then:

Imagine that gold had had any industrial usefulness, and the governments had illegalized its use as money during a longer period of time. That’d reduce the market value of gold to that of its industrial usefulness. Now that law is abolished. So people smash their computers and cars, and factories melt their machinery in order to use the gold in them as money instead of as functional components. That’d be the transition costs I refered too.

Since gold is useless as a higher order good, there can be no such transition costs, and that is one important practical argument for why gold should become money (instead of for example copper).