Talk:Gold standard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old talk

"The return to the gold standard is supported by many followers of the Austrian School of Economics and libertarians, perhaps most notably 2008 U.S. Presidential candidate Ron Paul." This statement is incorrect. Dr. Paul certainly advocated hard currency "such as" gold or silver, but has stated repeatedly that he belives that gold is not the best option. He does however, advocate that either 1) the US returns to a gold or silver standard in order to comply with the US Constitution, or 2)ammend the constitution to not require gold or silver currency.Gawain VIII (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I added the copyedit tag because some of the text is duplicated and some of the grammar is questionable. I haven't the time to fix it at the moment.

---

I presume that "reasons why" in the article as it was were those given by the Nixon Administration - the opposing view is attributable to nearly everyone who commented on the Euro-dollar. Pick your source. I'll stand by the fact that there was no way there was enough gold in Fort Knox to redeem the notes in 1975, and no way to test for it, since US citizens couldn't own gold and Europeans couldn't redeem notes.24

---

Well duh........

U.S. currency was representative money and as such no one ever pretended that the United States had the gold reserves to redeem all the dollars in circulation if everyone decided to redeem their dollars at the same time.

ok, this is our "representative" versus "commodity" argument again. I think it arises because really there is some degree of commodity, credit, and fiat involved in *every* kind of money. In other words we should not write about "commodity money" but rather "commodity settling", and likewise "credit clearing", and "fiat backing" - any of which may be involved in a given currency.

The trouble was that in 1971 to 1974, everyone *did* decide to redeem their dollars at the same time because the dollar was seriously undervalued with respect to its nominal value in gold (and this was the result of Johnson administration deficit funding for Vietnam and the Great Society).

more than that - there was the counterfeiting and Eurodollar problems there in the background too - but all grist for the mill. Those were causes of a balance of trade problem.

As such the Bretton Woods system broke down.

yup. Except the also-broken Bank for International Settlements was never fixed, nor the IMF...

24, the fact that you don't seem to know what the gold standard (and for that matter what commodity money is) makes it very difficult for me to take anything you have to say regarding economics seriously.

and, the fact that you don't use "is" the way I do makes it hard for me to believe you understand how money itself works. I find it very hard to believe that I would understand the ultra-complex arguments around flags, brands and labels, and simultaneously not understand the simple silly ones around gold. but, it's always possible, certainly the article as it is has benefitted from your rewrite, and from my bringing up the issue of non-convertibility and insolvency. 24

---

Currently the first paragraph reads as follows:

The gold standard was a monetary system in which paper money was convertible on demand into gold. Under such a system money represents gold: coins are made of the corresponding amount of gold, and/or coins and notes represent an amount of gold held in a vault somewhere. Banknotes were issued fractionally backed by gold (i.e. gold reserves were a fixed proportion of the value of the notes in circulation). Rates of exchange between countries were fixed by their currency values in gold. Most financially important countries were on the gold standard from 1900 until its suspension during World War I because of the problems of transporting gold. It was reintroduced in 1925 but finally abandoned in 1931.

Several issues with this:

1. With regard to "Banknotes were issued fractionally backed by gold" etc. This is inappropriate. It is not part of the "Gold Standard" but part of the Fractional reserve banking system and therefore does not belong on this page.
2. Regarding "Rates of exchange between countries were fixed by their currency values in gold" This issue is handled further down the page. The repeat, in this sentence should be removed since it does not need double treatment when it covered properly further down.
3. With regard to "gold standard from 1900 until its suspension during World War I because of the problems of transporting gold" This is simply not true. Gold is transported even now, and often gold does not need to be transported, but simply becomes reallocated in the COMEX vaults et. al. More to the point, it is a silly thing to say on the face of it. If transporting live cattle, copper, aluminium, rice, corn, and wheat by ship is economically viable, then why not gold? If User:172 has reason for this comment, then I would be interested in reading about it.
4. With regard to "It was reintroduced in 1925 but finally abandoned in 1931." This is untrue on the face of it. There is no mention where "it" was reintroduced in 1925. In fact what was "introduced" was the Gold Exchange Standard in Britain and parts of Europe, not the gold standard per se, and I believe that was in 1926, not 1925.

Here is my suggested replacement for the currently rather muddled and inaccurate first paragraph:

The gold standard was a monetary system in which paper money was convertible on demand into gold. Under such a system money represents gold: coins are made of the corresponding amount of gold, and/or coins and notes represent an amount of gold held in a vault somewhere.

When banknotes were issued fractionally backed by gold (i.e. gold reserves were a fixed proportion of the value of the notes in circulation) this was the Fractional reserve banking system, and should not be mistaken for a true Gold Standard.

I suggest User:172 cease attempting to revert this page to eliminate these changes. -- Octothorn 20:09, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Quit trying to get away with pushing an agenda. So far you've been able to do it because the articles dealing with economics have always gotten a low degree of interest around here. Articulate the distinctions between the prewar "classical gold standard" and the postwar "gold exchange standard" in this article, if you want. Please review the NPOV guidelines so that you'd realize that it is inappropriate to try to sneak in your advocacy piece and veiled theses. The Gold Exchange Standard was a gold standard, just not a restoration of the classical prewar system per se. I added a good deal to the article since, and it should clarify what set the classical gold standard and the Gold Exchange Standard apart. 172 07:29, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Volunteer to make it less UK-US centered? --Ann O'nyme 21:15, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. I would've done it much earlier had I had time. 172's been fairly inactive for the past few weeks. Next week, however, I'll make my presence known once again. 172 22:26, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The History section has a rather large chronological jump from the Sumerians directly to the year 1824. Volunteer for some history in between, particularly with regards to the large Spanish movements of gold and silver from the New World to the Old and what effect that had? Tempshill 06:25, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Move here for discussion

Nixon's move to cease allowing foreign Governments to redeem dollars for precious metal was the final act in a 150-year-long 'transfer' of the citizen's gold and silver to the Federal Government's vault. This allowed the U.S. Government to have much more freedom in determining the rate of printing and volume in circulation of its fiat currency.

---

Need source

Tantalum is also suggested as an alternative money supply standard, since even in an economy based on molecular engineering it would remain extremely difficult to forge - and remain quite easy to hide.

Roadrunner 00:48, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A proposal was floated to stabilize exchange rates between France, Great Britain and the United Kingdom based on a system of drawing rights, but this too collapsed. I have changed Kingdom to read States as I assume that was what was originally intended. --Spencer BOOTH 07:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

The picture at the top is far too large and doesn't really add much to the article. Could someone reduce it to a smaller png and put it in a more appropriate place? Lisiate 00:09, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

"a questionable assumption in light of the spending binge of George W. Bush" removed from the Washington concensus secion. It just seemed too POV. I am, however, not sure how to word it better. -Vina 20:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

cited source of the contention - namely the International Monetary Fund. That Bush has run up massive deficits, that those deficits are structural and that they are destabilizing the international currency system are matters beyond dispute, and are not disputed by anyone not employed by the RNC or its subsidiaries. So sorry, facts are stubborn things here. Stirling Newberry 23:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ahem, try debt vs. GDP (or debt as % of GDP). Plenty of sources. The US debt currently is lower than it is in the early 1990's. The rate of increase is high, that is not disputed, but neither is it higher than the rate of increase in the late 1980's and early 1990's. So sorry, facts are stubborn things here. -Vina 23:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Did some more research on the IMF site. Included a summary in that section. Note that they are concerned about trends exhibited since 1999, and that they are also concerned about household spending. Hopefully this is more acceptable to you? -Vina 00:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will not be editing this page any more as I do not believe in getting to edit wars. In closing, I will mentioned that I still think what you wish to add is POV, not extremely, but still POV. -Vina 05:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm reporting what the IMF has said about the need for a stable anchor currency and current US fiscal policy. "Tax increases will be needed to maintain the stability of the US dollar". It's also what comes straight out of the Fleming-Mundell model, namely that running a consistent budget deficit will continue to negatively impact the balance of trade, and therefore devalue the dollar. Find a model that says otherwise, and report on what it says. Stirling Newberry 08:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, I never objected to the model, merely the personal attack. In all my research, I've only seen the comment on Jan 7, 04 about Bush, and that was 1 paper published by 1 analyst. In no other statement does the IMF come across so harshly, not even when it criticised the tax cuts 2 years ago did it comment that harshly (incidentally, the IMF now acknowledges the role the tax cuts did in bringing the world out of recession.) The papers that you refer to, those released July 30th, and accessible from the IMF front page, do not mention Bush by name (At least, what I (did not) find via an Acrobat Reader search.) Statements like the foreign debt being an "unprecedented" 40% of GDP is without base (the unprecedented part, not the 40% part) as Japan has one above 100%, and many euro nations are hovering around 70%. I have not seen the IMF follow up on the Collyns paper all that much. They have valid concerns, and writing about them is perfectly fine with me. it's the personal attack part that I feel is POV. -Vina 16:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sigh again - someone else proposed the tax packages? They were submitted to congress by Bush, who in fact wanted larger revenue reductions in 2003 than were finally passed. Again, "attacks" and what people wanted to be said are all well and good, but the documentable facts at hand are: 1. The tax policy is driven by the current US executive 2. Every economic model I have seen - including the ones from OMB and CBO - indicate structural deficits and continued devaluation of the US dollar. If you feel someone else is responsible for the tax reductions, I am sure we'd all be fascinated to know who that is. If you have a model which indicates that the IMF is wrong - and they've been wrong before - then by all means present it. I simply haven't found one. Stirling Newberry 00:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why were the sections "Post-War International Gold Standard (1946-1971)" and "The Washington Consensus" removed? They were acting as summaries of main articles. 172 01:01, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Space considerations, and because as the author of the history section, it was better and more consistent to refer to the more extensive Bretton Woods article, so that issues could be resolved once, rather than multiple times. I've removed the Washington Consensus section because it is clear there are issues that need to be resolved which are not germane to the question of a gold standard per se. Stirling Newberry 01:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And as the author of the more extensive Bretton Woods article, I think that there ought to be condensed summaries of that article available in entries on broader, encompassing topics. Some readers like detail while other types of readers want the most important facts in a condensed format. Space considerations are not a major concern; there are plenty of articles on important, broad, and complex subjects that take up well over 32K. 172 01:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, I'm not saying that a summary of the Washington Consensus article belongs here. However, at least a few concluding remarks on the Washington Consensus that are germane to the question of the gold standard will be helpful. 172 01:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

With regard to the following paragraph in the text:

"After the collapse of the empire in the West, and the decline of the mines in Europe which were largely played out, the Byzantine empire continued to mint successor coins to the solidus, called the nomisma or bezant. They were forced to mix more and more base metals with gold, until by the turn of the millennium the coins in circulation were only 25% gold by weight, a tremendous drop from the 95% pure old Roman coins. Increasingly trade was conducted in a coin struck in the Arabic world using gold from Africa: the dinar."

In the first sentence, whiile the Bezant was the successor coin to the Solidus, they became two names for the same coin [1]. The Greeks of the Byzantine Empire now called the old circulating Solidus by the name of the new Byzantine issues of the old coin, the Bezant [2].

The second sentence beginnning with the words "They were forced..." is inappropriate. "They" - the Byzantine Empire - were not forced to degrade the purity of the coin. If they were, someone ought to provide the text with some indication of what it was that "forced" them, otherwise the use of the word "forced" should be removed.

The reason for the degradation of the coin is simple, and nobody was forced do do so - "they" just wanted to be able to mint more coins for themselves using the same amount of gold. This is the same reason any government has ever had for degrading the purity of gold coins, a form of embezzlement - they get something for nothing.

More importantly, however, that sentence is inaccurate. The Bezant was not degraded as quickly as indicated. It circulated from the early fourth century, continuing until Emperor Michael IV (1034 - 1041) began to degrade it's purity. Prior to that tiime the Bezant circulated at it's full weight and purity. The Bezant was therefore stable for a period of about 700 years [2].

The final sentence is also inaccurate. The Dinar was modelled on the Bezant and the earlier Solidus [1][2]. Essentially it was the same coin, just minted by the Arab Empire. Consequently both the Dinar and Bezant circulated alongside one another. The text should also draw attention to the fact that the Dinar circulated for about 450 years unchanged, from the late 7th century to the mid-12th century, during which time the Saracen Arab civilisation flourished until it callapsed in religious turmoil.

The Solidus the Bezant and then the Dinar were all gold coins of the same gold content (4.4 grams at 22 carats) which at times circulated alongside one another. In this way a gold standard based on a single form of gold coin was maintained for a thousand years, surviving three empires.

References:

[1]"Trade Coins" http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/gold-co.html, by Hugo S. Cunningham -- Valid as at 2004-09-06T11:00:20+10:00

[2]"Gold Wars", by Ferdinand Lips, 2001, Pages 3-6.

[3]"Roman Imperial Coinage" http://www.roman-britain.org/coinage.htm -- Valid as at 2004-09-06T11:00:20+10:00

Octothorn 01:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even your own references contradict you - the solidus was debased repeatedly over time, and was, in itself, an attempt to debase the aureus. Stirling Newberry 20:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um... Where? And, how in the world would one coin be used to debase another? Coins don't debase coins, people debase coins. The Aureus was already very much reduced in size by the time the soludus was produced. The solidus replaced the aureus. Perhaps you are confusing "replaced" with "debased". Octothorn 07:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

The following paragraph near the beginnning of the text appears to be silly, and wording should be reconsidered:

"Typically under a gold standard, the physical transport of gold becomes cumbersome for popular use, and so promissory notes? (which may be either issued privately or by government) to pay in gold at a later date, circulate. These note are convertible into physical gold on demand. Also known as demand notes?, (see paper money)."

The idea that "physical transport of gold becomes cumbersome for popular use" is amusing. An 8 gram gold coin (nominal value of $5) carries US$100 worth of gold. Notes larger than $100 are seldom used. While a $100 note may not be quite as "cumbersome" as such a coin, the coin is certainly more durable. One may also suggest that if a single 8 gram coin representing $100 is "cumbersome for popular use", then the quarter, currently in "popular use", must then be over 400 times more cumbersome than a gold coin.

Originally large volumes of gold were required to make large purchases. While carrying 100 dollars worth of gold is not a problem, the volume of gold required for the annual wheat import of Rome would run a great deal more. The cost in silver of a chest of opium weighed thirty times as much as the chest itself. And in the present, larger bills are less common because of checks, credit cards and other instruments. That is to say, because even paper money is too cumbersome for popular use. Stirling Newberry 20:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surely you haven't forgotten that checks are claims on bank deposits, not money. If a cheque is written it does not add to the money supply, it's just a note to the bank to move money from one place to another.

Also, credit is credit, not money. Credit is a debt instrument. If I charge something to my credit card it does not increase the money supply.

Neither cheques nor credit can circulate as currency - they are not divisible, and they rely on the presence of sufficient bank deposits or the capacity to make payment in currency.

The text suggests that gold is more cumbersome than cash, but that is not true. Notes, originally issued as claims on a quantity of gold, are now so devalued that they are about as cumbersome as gold. Suggestions that gold is more cumbersome than fed reserve notes are not relevent or constructive to the issue, and the comment as it stands lacks NPOV ansd should be removed. Octothorn 07:58, 6 January 2005 (UTC)

The subject of notes should still be raised, since the page carries an image of one. What follows is a possible replacement:

The use of gold coins in large transactions is time consuming and prone to error. Centuries ago the market found a solution to this problem. Goldsmiths would issue notes of claim on gold coins deposited with them. Those coins were not spent, but were held in reserve to cover the notes that were issued. Each transaction involving a large amount of gold was easier with a note. Many consecutive transactions using one note could proceed smoothly. Coins would not need to be counted or transported until the note was redeemed, and each note could be exchanged for goods over and over.

This has also been true in more recent times, as with the 1922 U.S. Gold Certificate shown on this page. This $100 note was a claim on about five ounces of gold coins, or $2000 worth of gold in the year 2004. Notes similar to that pictured were issued to the depositor as a claim on gold coins.

The benefit of using something like the replacement above is that it outlines the need for notes in large transactions and the function of gold certificates. It also links the text to the image, giving the reader some perspective on what the note is worth.

Octothorn 04:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

graf was replaced with a graf on the general advantages of paper money within the context of a specie based monetary system Stirling Newberry 20:11, 27 December 2004 (UTC)

Needs more pictures

For a featured article, especially now highlighted on the main page, this article needs more pictures. I added one of gold ingots held by the Bank of Sweden, but I'm sure others could be found. Curiously, I could not find one image of a gold coin on Wikipedia. Perhaps you may have better luck than I, or find other relevant images.--Pharos 20:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Britain was almost immediately forced to gradually end its gold standard

Immediate and gradual at the same time? Ubermonkey 21:16, 21 January 2005 (UTC)

too long..

Interesting, but too long and often redundant. The proponats' and oponents' viewpoints are presented over and over again, this needs to be made more compact.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.245.50 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2005 (UTC)

"doubloon"

There is no such thing as a doubloon in Spanish. It should read "doblón". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.5.109 (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2005 (UTC)

That is the correct spelling in Spanish, but this is the english wikipedia. Feel free to edit the Spanish version.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.115.202 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Early coinage section not relevant?

IMHO The section on "early coinage" does not belong in this article. Shouldn't it be in an article on the history of coins?

Could somebody more knowledgable than I do it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.5.109 (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the history of gold-coin standards is not precisely relevant to the topic, but it is generally relevant. The genesis of the gold standard can only be properly understood when the circumstances of its creation are fully explained. I think that some of you gold-standard debaters could gain some insight by comparing the reasons a country adopts a gold standard with the reasons it later abandons a gold standard. After skimming through the articles on banknotes and John Law (economist), I see that transitions from a gold-coin standard to a gold standard are "intimately related to shortages of metal for coins," as stated in the banknote article.

Perhaps it would be better to put this section in its own article, then have a single paragraph on early coinage, which also links to the new article on early coinage. Or, this section could be transplanted to a "history of coins" article, inserting it as a section on gold-coin standards. In either case, there needs to be proper reference to this historical precursor. William Moates (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1879: Austria

Austro-Hungarian krone claims it was in 1892. I agree with it. Austria-Hungary has the single currency. -- Vít Zvánovec 09:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting to my edit

I made edits to this page, though which were all reverted by User:Stirling Newbury. I've reverted them again to my version, with an explanation here of the edits:

• links such as London Conference and Washington Consensus link to the wrong conference, and the Washington Consensus has nothing to do with the Washington Agreement, hence my deletion of the link. Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) suggests its better not to have links to every year, century, etc, unless one is talking about a specific date.
• The plural of crisis really is crises..
• Not sure why SN deleted the dubious after Austria. See talk above.
• Greenback has written one article about his support of the gold standard, when the dollar was still convertible into gold almost forty years ago. To suggest that he supports a return to the gold standard is a claim made on many gold standard blogs, but I believe more evidence is needed for that claim.
• Barro wrote an article where he said "The choice among different monetary constitutions -- such as the gold standard, a commodity-reserve standard, or a fiat standard with fixed rules for setting the quantity of money...may be less important than the decision to adopt some monetary constitution. On the other hand, the gold standard actually prevailed for a substantial period (even if from an "historical accident," rather than a constitutional choice process), whereas the world has yet to see a fiat currency system that has obvious "stability" properties." As this was in 1979, it is clear that he makes a reservation about the fiat currencies, as they hadn't been in place for long (the dollar without gold convertibility only for 8 years). I do not believe this implies that he supports the gold standard.
• " several other nations accumulated gold in preparation for the Economic and Monetary Union" implies that Eurozone countries overall increased their stock of gold. They did not, as the data explains.
• "Gold standard advocates have a strong following among commodity traders and hedge funds with a bearish orientation." - this implies that speculators such as commodity traders and hedge funds want a return to the gold standard. This is the last thing they want! It will kill their business. There is a reason that the IMM was set up just after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system - it meant volatility in FX markets, so more business and profits for them. Bearish traders do invest in gold, as they hope the price goes up in times of panic.
• "fiscal meltdown" - what does this mean, that budget deficits explode..??
• "many hedge financial theories" - no idea what this is supposed to mean.
• "Mainstream conservative economists such as Barro and Greenspan have admitted a preference for some tangibly backed monetary standard, and have stated that a gold standard is among the possible range of choices." As this was either 40 years ago (and not since then), or not very strongly (see above), it seems this line is only here to try to increase credibility for the gold standard.
• Saying the use of gold as a reserve has increased suggests that the amount of gold has increased. It hasn't. Also, most countries (and the IMF) value their gold at cost price, so gold didn't even replace other reserves when the gold price rose.

Let me know what points you disagree with, and we can have a discussion. DocendoDiscimus 09:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguous?

From the article: "Coins were struck in smaller and smaller amounts..." Should this be "smaller and smaller quantities" or "smaller and smaller denominations"?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.39.251 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Valuation of Gold available vs Money supply in the world...

The section that reads:

"Finally the quantity of gold available for reserves, even if all of it were confiscated and used as the unit of account, would put the value of gold upwards of 5000 dollars an ounce on a purchasing parity basis."

I can't find anything to verify the value of $5000 USD if all currency were converted into Gold. I understand that Purchasing Parity is different from Money Supply, but the comment doesn't address the concept that during said conversion a great deal of overextended moneys upply would instantly contract, but it's almost impossible to determine to what degree or the effect, so the only reasonable comparison we can make is to M3. All research I've seen along these lines, using *just* the United States M3 money supply puts the value up around $32,000 USD and growing along with M3. As can be easily determined, converting the entire worldwide money supply into a system where Gold Troy Ounces are the unit standard, this value would be several multiples higher. There is plenty of credible research showing (though naturally arguable) that a value of $5000 USD is easily approachable in the current financial situation within the next few years. Charlie Wiederhold 11:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, this comment is very POV and I feel needs to be adjusted. I'm commenting here as to why:

"If the current holders of gold imagine that this is the price that they will be paid for giving up their gold, they are quite likely to be disappointed."

There is no way to verify or predict this scenario. There is no timeline given. If people expected $5000 USD *today*, of course they would be disappointed. Wait 50 years though and inflation alone under the current system will easily outpace this nominal USD value. On a purchasing power basis, it's quite simple to show that One Troy Ounce is easily over $5000 2006 USD compared to when the Dollar and Gold were linked. Some basis of comparison is required in order for any comments like this to have any meaning. This is why *any* commentary on fiat vs tangible assets is tricky and easily manipulated one way or another. Charlie Wiederhold 11:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

"Zero Sum Gold Standard" largely nonsense

The following section from the article contains many major problems contributing to a particular POV that is neither accurate nor intellectually honest:

In the international gold standard imbalances in international trade were rectified by requiring nations to pay accounts in gold. A country in deficit would have to pay its debts in gold thus depleting gold reserves and would therefore have to reduce its money supply. This would cause prices to deflate, reducing economic activity and, consequently, demand would fall. The resulting fall in demand would reduce imports; thus theoretically the deficit would be rectified when the nation was again importing less than it exported. This led to a constant pressure to close economies in the face of currency drains in what critics called "beggar thy neighbor" policies. Such zero-sum gold standard systems showed periodic imbalances which had to be corrected by rapid falls in output.

In practice however this could seriously destabilize the economy of countries which ran a trade deficit, because people tended to make a run on the bank to retrieve their money before gold reserves were exported, thus causing banks to collapse and wiping out savings. Bank runs and failures were a common feature of life during the period when the gold standard was the established economic system. It also created a counter-cyclical effect, as governments taxed trade, they accumulated gold and silver coin, which reduced the monetary base for the private economy. This paradox lead to "money droughts" and inflation, as governments taxed, often to pay for wars, and paid in coin, while the velocity of money decreased in the private economy as individuals hedged against the uncertain political situation by hoarding gold. Each attempt to introduce paper money was met, sooner or later, with either over-printing of money and the resulting collapse of the "fiat" money, including paper francs, continentals printed by the pre-Constitutional US Congress and various "bubbles". Or it would create the demand by the government to be paid only in specie, which devalued the existing paper money.

The following POV issues with this text are aparrent;

1. It is true that imbalances in international trade were paid in gold, however under a 100% gold standard, the gold paid matched the notes held, so there was no reduction in the 100% reserve. The author of the paragraph seems to believe that the gold was shipped out from banks while the notes that it was backing were still in circulation. This is not the case, and is fraud under a 100% reserve. The money supply would be reduced, it is true, but the comment in the following paragraph suggesting that this would cause a bank run is entirely false under a 100% gold standard.
2. Trade deficits were not as significant as the author percieves. Suppose that the trade deficit was caused by the sudden need to import mining equipment from other countries. The best example of this is in a gold rush. Think about the california gold rush. Mining equipment was "imported" but gold was "exported" one might suggest that the outflow of gold was the correction of a trade deficit, but the point is that the gold outflows are a part of the trade.
3. Payment in gold would appear to cause "deflation" of all goods other than gold. However, the real case is that gold was increasing in value against other goods. This is normal behaviour for a commodity, and it occurs when there is greater demand than supply. The natural response to this is to reduce consumption and to increase supply, as with any other commodity. Gold mining operations in the country paying international debts would naturally increase (increase of gold supply) as would production of goods that would otherwise be imported (decreasing demand for gold for export). This really is basic economics, but the author prefers to call it "beggar thy neighbor" - leading to the final point...
4. "Beggar thy neighbor" was a term coined to describe the action of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, NOT the action of the gold standard on international trade - the author has used it as the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the way it was intended. The gold standard was symbol of free and open trade between nations, and the tariff act was the commencement of stifling business and the closing of trade borders. Check this reference - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/17606.htm

The section "Zero Sum Gold Standard" should either be edited to NPOV, or preferrably removed entirely.

Octothorn 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson president in 1796?

"...in 1796 President Jefferson suspended the minting of silver coins." Jefferson did not become president until the year 1800. In "silver standard," it reads as 1806, so I've changed it, assuming that article is accurate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikehay (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Trading With The Enemy Act?

"As part of this process, many nations, including the US, banned private ownership of gold using the Trading With the Enemy Act..."

First, the phrasing here is a bit confusing; after all, US laws are irrelevant to other nations. But more importantly: the Trading With The Enemy Act was passed in 1917, and only allowed the Fed to prevent trading with the enemy. US citizens were banned private ownership of gold by FDR's Presidential Order 6102 in 1933, as cited at the bottom of the document.

The paragraph previous to the above quoted sentence talks about the UK returning to the gold standard in 1925. So it seems in the narrative we're already past 1917. And the subsequent paragraph adresses the London Conference in 1933. Surely this section meant Presidential Order 6102, and not The Trading With The Enemy Act?

I don't feel I'm familiar enough with the history to actually change the text. But let me propose an edited paragraph here, at least to get the ball rolling. Ahem:

As part of this process, many nations banned private ownership of gold. For example, in 1933 President Roosevelt signed Presidential Order 6102, which barred American citizens from owning gold. Any citizen "hoarding" gold could face up to ten years in jail, and/or a fine up to $10,000. Jewelry, private coin collections, and the like were exempt from this ban; in any case the ban seems not to have been enforced too zealously. In 1975 these restrictions on American citizens were abolished.

—Larry Hastings 06:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

French Link Missing

On the left there are numerous links to pages explaining the same concept in another language, but the French page is missing. The French translation is "Étalon-or" and there is already such a titled page: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89talon-or I don't know how to add it to the list, can anybody do that?

This was apparently done, at some point. - Centrx 23:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling: nobel

The reference to nobel is mis-spelt, it should be noble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawrence Chard (talk • contribs) 21:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have corrected it. Note that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so in the future you are free to make a change like this yourself. —Centrx→talk 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Needs Citation

"Nevertheless, countries under the gold standard underwent debt crises and depressions throughout the history of its use."

Please provide citations with specifics. Currently, the words in this statement are ambiguous enough to make the statement lose meaning. What exactly is a "debt crisis"? How is the term "depression" used exactly? Did it have a negative effect on the private sector, or just the government (which is its intended effect)?

Currently, this just looks like a cheap shot against the gold standard. If this is an honest critique, it needs to be expanded with the mentioned details and citations and put into it's own critique section, or it needs to be removed. --DrDimension 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gold Ban

This paragraph is seriously disorganized, and I plan to straighten it out. However, there is one factual error where the present version says "many countries prohibited private ownership of gold." I am not aware of any country doing this besides the US, even countries going off the gold standard (of which there were many). I have put a "citation needed" on the statement and will wait a week to see whether anyone provides a credible cite. If not, I plan to delete the statement.--Joe 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violations/Edit War

For some reason, User:Stirling Newberry is insisting on turning an article regarding an economic subject into an article that details crimes on part of the Nazi Germany Government. I'm sorry, but I see no relationship between the theft of Gold and the Bank of International Settlement and it's relationship to the economic policies of a gold standard, as one has nothing to do with another. Stirling has refused to compromise with me, due to my status as an "IP editor." I have reported him for a 3RR violation, and I will no longer revert as I am at my 3 reverts, but I was wondering if my fellow editors could step in and take a look at this. Thank you 87.19.140.175 20:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressing fallacy of "innate value"

This article avoids the fallacy of "innate value" for gold, which, as any other commodity, only has whatever "value" people assign to it. However, I have seen "innatism" to be fairly common among advocates of a gold standars. Should this article address innatism and arguments against it from various economic schools, such as the Austrian school (hardcore anti-innatist) and whatever schools might be out there that embrase innatism?Dogface 11:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Gold Restrictions

Central Bank Gold Reserves: An Historical Perspective Since 1945 by Timothy Green (World Gold Council, 1999) says, on Page 13, of the 1931 departure from the Gold Standard by Britain:

The suspension of the gold standard by Britain did not mean that people were forbidden to hold gold bar or coin, merely that the Bank of England did not have to sell gold at a fixed, statutory price. The London gold market worked normally. Banks and individuals could still buy and sell gold, import it and export it, but at the price of the day.

The cited publication may be viewed by clicking the footnote at the end of the second paragraph of this section of the article. The comment concerning the French order to turn in gold also comes from this publication.

The foreign-exchange controls that Britain relaxed in 1971 were not enacted in the 1930s. If you wish to hold that Britain, Japan, or any other country took steps besides suspension of convertibility and export controls (e.g., Germany), please provide citations to support your entries.

Again, confiscations of gold from minorities persecuted by the Nazis did not have perceptible effects on the foreign-exchange position of the German government, nor did any such considerations give gold any sort of priority among the comprehensive confiscations of property perpetrated at that time. If you wish to hold otherwise, please provide citation support. Joe 01:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this to be a typo, but don't know the currect date

"in 1324 the US government suspended payment in gold and silver" I don't think there was a US government in 1324 146.7.211.82 00:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this to 1861, however I wasn't able to confirm it from a reputable source, so it may still be incorrect. --69.255.141.119 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edit for Clarity

As it is my past experience that a significant portion of the US population does not know what "specie" is, I felt it best to link the term to its definition.Filksinger 07:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Section on "Gold Standard in Crisis" (1914-)

This section is not historically accurate--at best it could be described a having a POV problem, but unless clear evidence is given otherwise, it is simply wrong. The gold standard cannot be said to be in effect after 1914. Not only was it effectively abandoned during the Great War but it was legally abandoned in the USA by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. I believe the original editors are confused as a consequence of certain lingering vestiges of the Gold Standard then in effect and pursued after the war. It's important to remember that outright abandoning the Gold Standard in 1913 was politically untenable.

Existing text already gives the proof of this key point: sterilization of gold flows. Such a policy necessarily implies per se that the Gold Standard was no longer functional. --131.215.176.81 01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The view at the time was that the gold standard had been suspended, and policy makers of the time envisioned both a return to gold and a normalization of prices. Many laws were deferred or suspended during war, but that does not mean they are gone. The legal suspension of gold would occur, largely, in the 1930's. The period between the war and suspension was a crisis of the gold standard, but it was not clear, and is not clear even in theory, that it would not be returned to. Stirling Newberry 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I think you misunderstood. It is true that Britian, France, et al suspended the Gold Standard during the war with a public intention of returning to it. However, I am refering to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Ultimately, the trouble with the section as written is that it is bogus to say that Gold Standard was in operation after 1914. Therefore the discussion of the gold standard as it relates to the economic instability thereafter is presently dubious and misleading.

It simply is not accurate to say that the world was using a gold standard at any point after 1914 although certain systems imposed afterward had superficial similarities. --131.215.176.81 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Return to gold standard not thought to be feasible

"A return to a gold standard is not generally thought feasible in mainstream economics,"

Where is the evidence for this? Please cite a source showing that this is generally thought by economists. Or I'll remove it. Zachorious 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of this. Truth is, the economy was VERY stable when we had a gold system. If we have a fiat system (like we do today) wouldn't it be possible to create money by computer entry and loan it? Oh wow! I think were doing just that, arent we?! The logic behind this goes like so: If we implemented a gold standard today, there isn't enough gold to back all the new money that was created since 1933 (and thats true). The solution of course would be to eliminate every single loan created by fraud (and that would be just about every bank loan, including Mortgages, Credit Cards, Student Loans, and Business Loans in the US today), have a deflation period where the Treasury would ease in the new gold-backed currency as it eases the fraudulent currency (fed notes) out of the economy and destroy them. This is to prevent a hyper-deflationary shock. As a result, above statement is nothing more than a lie and should be removed as per Zachorious' suggestion.Goldwings (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is no legitimate evidence that we cant go back to the gold standard. The real obvious evidence is that we cant operate without it. I mean look at the US monetary system, it's a disaster. There has never been such a high level of crime as there is with the central banking system and the "Federal" Reserve. It's not federal at all, it's a private corporation. People need to understand this in order to even begin to understand the real problems in our economy.

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.” - Abraham Lincoln

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” - Thomas Jefferson

"The Great Depression resulting from the Stock Market crash was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence....The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all." - Rep. Louis McFadden, testified in Congress (1933), There were at least two attempts on his life by gunfire. He died of suspected poisoning after attending a banquet.

"The Federal Reserve Banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the International Bankers." - Rep. Louis McFadden

I have to agree with Goldwings and Zachorious, that comment needs to be removed and a new one added

Preservefreedom (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Partial Reserve System

In the classical gold standard system, is partial reserve system used in that period? If the answer is yes, then the money supply can still be adjusted by adjusting the reserve ratio. Jackzhp 16:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Silver Crisis

In the silver crisis section, it says, "In the late 18th century, wars and trade with China, which sold many trade goods to Europe but had little use for European goods, drained silver from the economies of Western Europe and the United States." Is it possible to have a link here linked to more detail information about it? Jackzhp 16:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured star

Does the featured star in the top right corner need to be removed since this was demoted? Just wanted to point it out to editors dedicated to this article. --Nehrams2020 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate

For multiply banned trolls to leave harrrassing calls on the phones of editors that they hate. Nor is it appropriate to repeatedly vandalize a page by revertin g to an incorrect and POV version as the User:Roy Lopez Troll does. Stirling Newberry 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what harrrassing(sic) calls? Who is doing this to you? There is no user Roy Lopez. 207.14.8.119 01:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to me. Too bad I've never edited Gold Standard nor do I have an interest to. I would strongly suggest you cease falsely accusing me of actions other people are committing against you Stirling. Mr. Ray Lopez 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We need this page semi-protected

It is pretty clear that our anonymous vandal isn't going to listen, isn't going to learn and is going to continue the habit it has of lying on edit summaries.

Stirling Newberry 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate info/unsourced statements

I know it appears that I have removed quite a bit of text; I have, I removed incorrect information and unsourced statements. I'm working on the rewrite right now, but I wanted to start from a version that was previously at featured status vice the incorrect non-NPOV conforming garbage that was here before. 207.14.8.189 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have put the text back again. I have also reviewed the last six months of edits to this article. Please explain exactly what is incorrect in the material you removed. I agree that the article is in need of revision, but you still haven't said what the problems you see are. This seems to be the main problem with addressing your concerns. You may wish to set up a to-do list. Given that you have taken such an interest in this article, I also suggest that you set up a user account. Michaelbusch 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Noting that anonymous user 207.14.8.189 is lying. The material he moved into the article was not present when the article was made a featured article, but is, in fact, his own material. Incorrect material.

Since there are other editors involved, let's go over this step by step.

• A gold standard does not make the unit of account a fixed weight of gold necessarily. That is, bank accounts are not quoted in the weight of metal, but in the unit. For example, dollars once had the notation of how much gold coin - in dollars - not in some unit of weight. The par value of dollar to weight was set by Congress, which had the power, under the constitution, to change that value simply by passing a law. Often this was a ratio, not a weight - for example a ratio to silver.

• Convertibility is also not assured under a gold standard. For example, if gold coins are minted, then there is nothing to convert to. More over, governments have suspended covertibility for various periods of time, and then resumed convertibility. Legally the gold standard was still in place during these suspensions - or silver standard if silver was the monetary metal - but there was no government assured convertibility. The British resumption of convertibilty after the Napoleonic wars being only one such example.

• The gold standard is not an economic system, the way, for example, capitalism is. It is a monetary system.

The key to the gold standard is that gold, and not currencies, is seen as the fundamental measure of money (See Alan Greenspan's essay on the topic, it is his first argument - currencies are not fixed and verifiable). This is different from a "fixed weight" of gold, For example, there is no fixed weight of gold or silver in Newton's assay - or in the others that were made. Instead, the metallic value of each type of coin was measured, and the results put in a table.

Whether governments maintain their peg to gold is a matter for the market mechanisms under a gold standard to decide. If a government is not seen as adhering to a gold standard, even if the nominal weight backing the currency remains constant, then that currency will trade at a discount to gold or other currencies where the monetary and fiscal authorities are seen as willing to take steps - balancing budgets, taxing imports or raising interest rates as examples - to maintain the relationship between their currency and the current peg. A simple example is the heavy discounting of the gold mark during the Napoleonic wars. The amount of gold that each gold mark was supposed to buy remained constant, however, there was a quite reasonable belief that Austria would either devalue, over spend in the war, or be defeated and have to pay reparations, as well as the increasing problems that individuals faced with convertibility. A gold standard in place? To some extent yes - but one which discounted the likelihood of it remaining in place. This example directly contradicts one of the favored troll versions that prattles about a fixed weight. Gold standards are much more sophisticated than that, capable of punishing economic actors even before they have overtly reneged on gold committments.

The gold standard is not a rigid system, but, in fact, offered more flexibility for economic actors to deal with "monetary mischief" by monetary authorities - banks and governments primarily - than did other systems without an external means of pressuring a monetary authority not to use sienurage to its own advantage.

00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellence

I very nearly removed "excellence" from the See Also section, until I remembered that something which is excellent can be referred to as "the gold standard of x". This ought to be explained, perhaps on some kind of disambig page. -- Scott e^iπ 04:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm not sure how neutral this article is, mainly because I know that there are a lot of differing views on the subject, and when I came to it looking for criticism of a return to the gold standard, it was conspicuously lacking thereof. The one "notable quote" is from a man who I believe dissents from majority opinion. I don't know where the neutral ground lies here, but I can't imagine it's as one-sided as this article, and I think that this subject is going to become increasingly important in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election. Dextrose 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also unhappy with the lack of neutrality of this article. When I read the sections on advantages and disadvantages, the advantages section reads more like a history section and has very few examples of how a gold standard may be seen as a better choice. Maybe the history of government intervention in monetary systems implies that there is an advantage but it is not explicit in the advantages section. Surely with all the talk about the gold standard, there are more hard points that could be referenced. --WDRev (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Advocates of a renewed gold standard

This section contains contains bald statements which are not backed up by sources and which are highly questionable.

For example:

1. The statement that the Gold Standard is supported by Monetarists; in fact the monetarists joined the Keynesians in supporting Nixon's abandonment of the Gold Standard in 1971.
2. Although the cited essay by Alan Greenspan from 1996 is a powerful and clear statement of support for the Gold Standard, his actions in office at the Fed hardly show respect for it in practice.
3. "the gold standard has frequently been shown to provide insufficient flexibility in the supply of money and in fiscal policy, because the supply of newly mined gold is finite and must be carefully husbanded and accounted for" is totally confused and perpetuates several common misconceptions. On both counts the opposite is the case. It is actually the stability of the quantity of gold available that renders it suitable as a basis for currency. During the heyday of the gold standard in the 19th century, the quantity of currency was continually varied by the Bank of England in accordance with the demands of the economy. It is the value of money that is preserved by the gold standard, not its quantity.
4. "'The reason these visions are not practically pursued is much the same reason the gold standard fell apart in the first place: a fixed rate of exchange decreed by governments has no organic relationship between the supply and demand of gold and the supply and demand of goods" Firstly It's far from universally agreed that that's why the gold standard "fell apart". A far mor common view is that it fell apart because the US under Nixon failed to balance its foreign exchange balance and then reneged on its commitment to discharge Dollar debts in gold. The second part of the sentence seems incoherent - can anybody suggest what the editor was trying to say? DaveApter 10:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable quotation

I removed this section:

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation." - Alan Greenspan, Ph.D, Gold and Economic Freedom by Dr. Alan Greenspan, 1966

This lacks context. If it's notable, it belongs in the Alan Greenspan article. - Crosbiesmith 19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Short on their own fiat currency

After,

Also some privately issued currencies, such as digital gold currency, are backed by gold reserves.

I removed:

In effect, the holder of such currencies is long on gold and short on their own fiat currency, writing checks on their account.

The holder would only be short if they owed money in their own fiat currency. - Crosbiesmith 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Commodities Depression

I'm going to replace this whole paragraph:

The end of the Great Commodities Depression has affected the price of gold as well, gold prices rising out of a 20 year trading bracket. This has led to a renewed use by monetary authorities of gold to back their currencies, but has not materially affected the use of a gold standard as money. In fact, the reverse is the case, the more expensive gold is, the more expensive the acquisition project to create a gold standard becomes.

The gold price was not affected by the Great Commodities Depression. It was part of the Great Commodities Depression. Neither here nor elsewhere is any casual mechanism proposed.

This has led to a renewed use by monetary authorities of gold to back their currencies

This requires a citation that there has indeed been a renewed use by monetary authorities of gold. It would also require a citation that this is in some way caused by the rising price of gold.

but has not materially affected the use of a gold standard as money.

There is no use of a gold standard as money. The use of a gold standard as money has not been affected by anything.

In fact, the reverse is the case, the more expensive gold is, the more expensive the acquisition project to create a gold standard becomes.

This depends on the nature of the project. A source is required.

This whole paragraph would be better replaced by:

This has led to a renewed use by monetary authorities of gold to back their currencies.

Assuming a reference can be found - Crosbiesmith 19:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully convertible

I removed the phrase that someone added recently qualifying the reservations about full convertibility as being only held by opponents of the Gold Standard. In fact this is a position taken by many supporters of the gold standard. The aim of the standard is to stabilise the value of currency, not its absolute quantity.DaveApter 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How many counries employ a gold standard?

i know usa does not have gold standard since the 70's.nixon pulled from the gold standard so it means that the dolar notes are printed from thin air.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No countries currently adhere to a Gold Standard. Up until 1973, the world's major currencies were effectively pegged to gold, via their ( fixed but revisable) conversion rate to US dollars which in turn were be valued at 1/35 ounce of gold. You are right that Nixon abandoned this commitment, and the results are plain to see. DaveApter 10:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "this results are plain to see? I assume you mean "much greater economic growth and stability"? Fjafjan (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean consistent erosion of the purchasing power of the currency.DaveApter (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately...

I removed "Unfortunately" from "Unfortunately, the Byzantine empire gradually degraded the purity of the coin...." The article, it seems to me, should seek to be as neutral as possible, and this sentence sounded suspiciously like it came from a supporter of the gold standard. Best, WH (71.249.57.254) 11:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless...

The following sentence appears in the introduction:

Nevertheless, countries under a not truly 100% gold standard, like countries simultaneously using manipulated paper currencies, underwent debt crises and depressions throughout the history of its use with the Central Bank manipulation and inflation of the currency as the U.S. experienced in its Panic of 1819 after its Second National Bank was chartered in 1816.

Can someone reword this? I would, but I have no idea what it's trying to say. What's the difference between a country using a not truly 100% gold standard and a country using a manipulated paper currency? To me, this sounds like it's trying to make some POV statement, but it's so convoluted I'm not sure what it is. Pburka 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm right there with you. I started to edit it, but ended up thinking 'WTF?' I think the basic statement is more or less "In practice, gold standard currencies have not exhibited exceptional stability due to currency manipulation, as demonstrated by the U.S.'s Panic of 1819.", but I could use some affirmation on that. BCC 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Gold Standard

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/theres_gold_in_them_thar_stand.php http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html

If anyone wants to take a crack at adding this in and surviving the ensuing deletion wars. :-) TNaran 21:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy article

By my count, this article has dozens of paragraphs of promotional material expounding on the advantages (most of it unsourced), and only three paragraphs of disadvantages. Accordingly I have placed a {{POV}} tag on it. For a system that has been abandoned by everyone, we should have at least as much exposition on its disadvantages as its advantages. ←Ben^B4 19:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag after doing a lot of clean-up and condensation. Let me know if it still needs to be there. Michaelbusch 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the calculation showing that there isn't enough gold in the world to back the money circulating in just the U.S. alone. I agree with some of your deletions, but you really deleted an awful lot. ←Ben^B4 01:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a problem here: there was an awful lot of POV for the gold standard, and some against it. I tried to condense as much as I could. The calculation on the limited amount of circulating gold is still given, as it is pertinent. Michaelbusch 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what I thought I saw; you're right. ←Ben^B4 08:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Gold standard not used anywhere? Untrue.

The lead says "The gold standard is not currently used in any nation..." I don't understand how that statement could be true. For instance e-gold http://www.e-gold.com is money backed by a gold standard that is used all over the world. Operation Spooner 04:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the "in" in the lead to "by" to meet your concern. Karl 08:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

100% reserve gold standard unworkable? By whose standards exactly?

The claim made in this article that a 100% reserve gold standard is "unworkable" on the basis that there is allegedly not enough gold to satisfy the amount of transactions in a modern economy is completely and utterly flawed.

For what a 100% reserve gold standard means is simply that all cash deposits such checking accounts, and other accounts immediately available for settlement must be backed by ANY amount of gold at a fixed exchange ratio. It absolutely does NOT matter how much gold this entails, because what is important is that the total amount of paper dollars would be backed 100% by however much gold was in existence at the time. It makes no difference whether the price is $1 an ounce, $10 an ounce, or $1,000 an ounce. The amount of money in circulation is irrelevent, because all that would happen is that all prices would adjust accoring to how much gold there is in the economy. The supply of goods in the aggregate and its rate of growth is independent of the supply of money in circulation and its rate of growth. For there is no real difference in relative prices, which is what is truly important.

For example, if there are 1,000,000 units of goods sold each year, and there is 1,000 ounces of gold in existence, and $1,000,000 paper dollars, then the law of supply and demand would imply that the weighted-average price for those goods is 1/1,000 ounce of gold per good, or $1 paper dollars per good. Gold would then simply be exchanged for paper in the ratio of $1 per 1/1000 an ounce of gold, or $1,000 an ounce of gold. Nothing important is changes if the velocity of circulation of money is not 1 but 2 or 3 or 4. It will simply be reflected in prices.

Now if instead of $1,000,000 of paper money in existence, say $10,000,000 paper dollars, but the same amount of gold and supply of goods for sale, then the only thing that would happen is that there would be a difference in the ratios. The new exchange values would be $10 on average per good, and STILL 1/1000 ounce of gold per good, and gold would be exchanged for $10,000 per ounce.

The important thing here is that the supply of goods is unchangef in the two examples, meaning there is no strain introduced on the economy, and people's standard of living would be essentially unchanged. The only difference between the two scenarios is that wages, prices for goods, basically all prices would simply relfect both the quantity of money in existence and the relative valuations between goods. The key is that the amount of goods for sale is independent of the quantity of money. This may surprise you, but ANY amount of gold and/or paper dollars is capable of clearing the market, and so the amount of currency is irrelevent to supply in the aggregate.

Actually, that last statement is not entirely accurate, because I never said anything about radical changes in the quantity of money which occurs in reality, and that it has disasterous consequences for the economy, but the point I made stands nonetheless when we are talking about any particular moment in time.

The proof of what I said can be found with Ludwig Vin Mises and his book "Theory of Money and Credit", which was written in 1922 and was the first publication that combined the macro and micro-economic spheres which have infortunately been since severed again by almost all schools shen they have separate classes on macroeconomics and microeconomics. A tragedy indeed.

I would like to make some changes to all the places where it simply states that 100% reserve gold standards are "unworkable", perhaps by making some additions of the Austrian Thoery.

Thoughts?

PS You will not be able to refute this so you might as well accept it.

A little bit of a condescending note at the end, but a rather nice comment. Go ahead, be bold, and just make sure you source your additions, if they rely on Austrian Theory or whatever. At the very least I think an Austrian subsection of the Theory section is accounted for, given their acceptance of the standard. Fephisto 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your note at the end really worries me about your POV here. If you want to enter information, please make very sure to cite and remember that Wikipedian content is based on verification and not truth (or truthiness)... and that it seems that there are quite a few economists and governmental bodies that do, indeed, disagree with your argument, so stating it as a fact would be irresponsible. Epthorn (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A problem there is that when we get down to 1/000 of an ounce of gold it may become difficult to conduct meaningful transactions. Gold's density is reported at 19.32 grams per cubic centimeter, i.e., 0.681492945 ounces per cubic centimeter. That means that 1/1000 of an ounce of gold will occupy a volume of 0.001467366621 cubic centimeters. Try measuring that in a real practical way that can be used for real transactions, and there likely will be problems. The willingness of stores to sell small items like candy bars must rest on the consensus that the storeowner should not need to demand gold-backing on any such single small purchase. If they did, we would run into problems.

"I would like to make some changes to all the places where it simply states that 100% reserve gold standards are "unworkable""- I would rather you replace it with "fiat money is casino chips "

The exact quote is in "Disadvantages" - "The 100% reserve standard is generally considered unworkable because the quantity of gold in the world is too small to sustain current worldwide economic activity and the "right" quantity of money (i.e. one that avoids either inflation or deflation) is not a fixed quantity, but varies continuously with the level of commercial activity".

The problem with this statement is that every next person in the world thinks it is true because nearly every next person does not "think" economics nor have seen gold or silver coins as money - only pieces of paper. It is also a highly controversial statement and I cannot see how it can be supported in any way. Even citation of a renown economist here does not mean much as the there will be another who may take the other view.

China from Emperor Qin Shi Hwang (circa 220BC) right up to the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1911 never had any paper currency - money had always been copper, silver and Gold. It is more likely that a statement like "fiat money is detrimental to economic production" be far more accurate and reliable.

It is not difficult to work out a theoretical model that the quantity of gold is not a factor at all for gold as money, whether in international trade or within a country. It is also not a critical factor that all countries must use gold at the same time. A lone country like Iceland can tomorrow use gold as money ("real" gold standard, not paper 100% "backed" by gold) and not be harmed in its pursuit of economic wellbeing for its citizens - in fact it only has benefits and no drawback. Changes would be there is no more a need to maintain any exchange rate or worry about attacks or speculation on its currency - it is self protecting. But for Iceland it may be a little too late as a bankrupt can do nothing.

PS - the above are my edits LearningQM (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The assertions in this note may be correct, but it ignores some issues. If, as the writer seems to concede, there is not enough gold at current prices, then a global gold standard would disrupt the gold market. The use of gold for decoration, computer parts, or anything else except money could become prohibitively expensive, and more resources would be consumed in finding & extracting gold. The establishment of a gold standard could be followed by a period of inflation as the search for more gold begins to be successful. Even when start-up effects have settled down, every major gold discovery would cause inflation, and periods without adequate gold discoveries would be deflationary. The last effect was documented in detail in "The Wealth of Nations". PandaAndPunk (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of sentance from "Advocates and Opponents" Section

I removed the sentence "History will be the judge of whether that has indeed been the case" from the section, because it implies an opinion without providing any evidence, and does not embody a neutral tone. please revert it back if people feel i removed this in error. Viperphantom (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now deleted the sentence "The opposite is also believed" as it seems so weasaly as to be completely meaningless. Obviously this entire section needs work... I'll go scrounging for some citations this week, hopefully... 218.152.32.141 (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious tag

The following sentence has a 'dubious' tag after it: "It is opposed by the vast majority of governments and economists,[citation needed] because the gold standard has frequently been shown to provide insufficient flexibility in the supply of money and in fiscal policy, because the supply of newly mined gold is finite and must be carefully husbanded and accounted for."

What is the specific problem with this sentence? Is the last fragment controversial (that the supply of newly mined gold is finite), is it the lack of a citation for the opposition of the vast majority of governments (who, of course, do not use it- this is not necessarily the same as opposition), is it the 'insufficient flexibility' part (which seems to be complementary to 'stable' - you can't claim one without addressing the other) or is it just that it needs more NPOV? Epthorn (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed!

That is just one of many problems. Do a web search on "gold standard economics" and you will find reams of references with their disadvantages. I am sorry the English Wikipedia is in such a sad state. 208.75.91.25 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I responded to this concern in the "Disadvantages" section, and so I removed the POV tag. MilesAgain 01:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I just put the tag back on the "disadvantages" section, because right now it still reads like Federal Reserve advocacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to be more specific about what you see as wrong, especially since the section doesn't even mention the Federal Reserve. MilesAgain (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

One example "It is difficult to manipulate a gold standard to tailor to an economy’s demand for money, giving central banks fewer options to respond to economic crises.[13] However, most acknowledge that all fiat currencies have failed to do this." What does this quote mean by most? Most people who have never taken a history lesson?? Just an example, look at Canada, its been able to avoid recessions, lowered inflation and employment at the same time. That sounds like its working to me. —Preceding comment was added at 02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources supposedly unsupported by claims

I am very concerned about this removal of material from the "Disadvantages" section by User:C1010. The edit summary is "Removed false statements. Please read your own sources, they don't support your claims!" I have indeed read the sources, and anyone can read most of them by clicking on the links. I believe all of the removed statements are supported by the citations, and I would like to ask C1010 to clarify exactly which he believes are not, and why. MilesAgain (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm concerned as well, for some of my changes were removed without any comment whatsoever. As I explain below I rephrased or removed some of your changes 1) to clarify the issue and 2) due to the fact the the sources you cite don't seem to support the claims you make in the article. Specifically: --C1010 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• The total amount of gold that has ever been mined is estimated at about 142,000 tonnes according to the cited source, not 125,00 as it is claimed.

• "While there is enough gold to back the currency circulating in the U.S." was removed because it tries to create a false impression that there isn't enough gold to back all circulating currency, which is obviously false, for it mistakenly assumes that the USD-gold peg must only be done at US$640 per Troy ounce. The current (2007-12-18) price of gold is about US$800 per Troy ounce, even in the absence of the gold standard! (Perhaps because?)

• "During the gold rushes in California and Australia" was rephrased because it makes an ambiguous claim about "thirty percent increase in wholesale prices." Since the period actually covers six (6) years between 1850 and 1855, the actual annual increase in wholesale prices was 5%, that is, 30% / 6. I also provided a sourced quote regarding how it compared to the current inflation in the US, which you seem to have removed without any comment.

• "Using a fixed commodity as a monetary standard gives central banks substantially fewer options" was removed because the cited source doesn't seem to support it by saying, "it is no surprise that there is no simple correlation between the exchange rate regime and the prevalence of banking crises." --C1010 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have accepted most of your changes, but reverted all of your deletions, and provided an additional source (for which you can see the text instead of just the abstract) to address your last point. The source you refer to does indeed say the same thing, but not in its abstract. It's obvious, though, isn't it? If you can't print or shred money, you have fewer options to regulate the economy. It's almost tautological. MilesAgain (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It was wrong for you to put back statements that had been shown to be false, misleading and/or unsupported by cited sources (see above). This isn't a proper way to conduct yourself if you're interested in a mutually productive discussion, it'll be a waste of time for all of us. --C1010 (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The statements are, as shown below, true and supported by the sources. It was wrong for you to remove them. MilesAgain (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this, but the following removal seems to be excessive to me: "Using a fixed commodity as a monetary standard gives central banks substantially fewer options with which to respond to economic crises and stimulate economic growth. In particular, gold-backed currencies prevent tailoring the money supply to the economy's demand for money, and are subject to speculative attacks when the government's financial position looks weak; attacks which often require punitive economic measures to counter. Such measures exacerbated the Great Depression when the U.S. raised interest rates in the middle of a recession in order to defend the credibility of its currency. Finally, since commodity currency devaluations produce sharp changes in their values, rather than smooth declines, their effects are magnified. ".

This is a pretty standard, basic and substantive argument, with strong references. Could you explain why this was removed? To remove this whole section without more basis seems excessive.--Gregalton (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above, especially the "Using a fixed commodity as" part, it answers your question. Additionally, the cited "Cross-Country Empirical Studies" actually seems to contradict your point, and I cite, "Crises, however, are more frequent now than during the gold standard and Bretton Woods periods, and are as frequent now as in the interwar years." In other words, if central banks now have substantially more options with which to respond to economic crises, how come the crises are more frequent now than during the gold standard? --C1010 (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no relation between the number of crises and the opportunities available to deal with them. Although we have had more crises since dropping the gold standard, none of them have been anywhere near as bad as the great depression. I have removed the word "substantially" in an attempt at compromise. MilesAgain (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the two first sources, you are partially right: the first doesn't support the conclusion (in my quick read). The second does in part, but only with respect to banking crises (whereas the text refers to economic crises). Why, however, did you remove the other 3/4s of the para and the cites? (In my view, the first sentence should have been left with a citation flag, but will grant you that).--Gregalton (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be playing with words to fit your particular view on the subject. Do you really believe banking and economic crises are not interdependent?! If you do I'd suggest you read "Two Econometric Approaches to Identifying the Determinants of Banking Crises" and "Using Econometric Models of Banking Crises as Early Warning Systems" sections of the cited source. As for "the other 3/4s of the para" I will have to ask you to be more specific. For now I'll assume you're referring to the "There's gold in them thar standards!" article. The problem with this source is that makes, intentionally or otherwise, obviously false claims. For example, it states, "The lone advantage of a gold standard--and it is a real advantage--is that it prevents governments from inflating the currency", which is patently, blatantly false. --C1010 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The crises are interdependent. What are you saying is "patently, blatantly false"? MilesAgain (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, lately I'm leaning towards a conclusion that both "Why Gold" and "Disadvantages" sections should be removed, they seem to generate a lot of controversy yet are not all that well written. Perhaps the "Theory" section should be moved up in their place. --C1010 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not agree to such a change. One of the sources you added is from a broker who sells metals-portfolio investment accounts. I wonder if you have read any neutral economists on the issue. MilesAgain (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FURTHER Sources unsupported by claims

Looking at the Disadvantages section there is the sentence:

In practice, the production of gold has usually trailed economic growth, resulting in periods of deflationary pressure, including contributing to the cause of the Great Depression[6] and events during it.[3]

The first reference links to what appears to be a BLOG(!) where the secondary text is quoted. Furthermore the author of the blog indicates that the supposed negative effects stem from the possibility that the government will alter or remove the gold standard. Clearly this is not a problem with the gold standard, but with government interferance with the standard. The second part of the sentence after pressure, should be removed.

Furthermore, the first paragraph contains a possible contradiction.

Beyond the difficulty in transporting, storing, and preventing the debasement of gold, one of the main disadvantages of implementation is that a gold standard would increase gold's value, due to the additional demand as a monetary medium, and thus increase the cost of items and industrial processes in which it is used.[3] ... the price of gold would likely have to be higher than USD $640 per Troy ounce.

It suggests that transportation and storage of gold are problems. However gold on a value per unit level is no less compact than banknotes, and is far less of a problem than our current coinage.

Now, despite the claim that storage and transport are problems (which is untrue) the paragraph goes on to claim that making gold a monetary standard becomes a problem because it causes the value of gold to rise. Excuse me, but if the value of gold rises, will not the value per unit ratio make gold storage and transport less of an issue because the same value will occupy even less space?

So the first sentence says that it is too bulky (when it is not) and the second suggests that if gold becomes less bulky (per value) then this is a problem too. The author wants it both ways apparently.

Octothorn (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As you say, the blog cites a peer-reviewed source. Also, the author of the blog in question is James D. Hamilton, Professor of Economics at the University of California, San Diego. Per WP:V, blogs are, "acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." — MilesAgain — continues after insertion below

The issue is that the statements in the Wiki entry are contrary to the comments in the blog. The blog states that government interference is the big risk in the Gold Standard, so the paragraph should be corrected to meet the views of the reference used. Octothorn (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Which statements, precisely, in the article and the blog do you think disagree? MilesAgain (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As for storage, perhaps gold is by volume, if not weight, comparable to paper money. A million US dollars in $100 notes weighs 20 pounds and takes up 643 cubic inches.[1] That much gold would be only $258,800 by mass but $5,800,000 by volume. However, fiat currency deposits can be stored with a number in a ledger. MilesAgain (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Specie currency deposits are also recorded with a number in a ledger, or do you suggest that banking did not exist prior to fiat money? Octothorn (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Specie is by definition backed by something actually stored somewhere. MilesAgain (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, see also fractional reserve banking. Only a tiny portion of the total specie need be backed by physical storage, as was the case under Bretton Woods. 137.244.215.51 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Subject to hoarding

Article says "Commodity money is ... subject to hoarding." I don't get this. It's money. People want money. Plenty of people hoard non-commodity money and wealth. Why is hoarding of commodity money any different to be pointed out in a paragraph that's to the tune of "why a gold standard is bad". Cburnett (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, just about anything can be hoarded and hoarding of money is not limited to commodity money Aatombomb (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't have a dog in this fight, this [article] does give one reason why, and why it is different than hoarding of, say, shingles, should be clear. In short, hoarding can happen if there is any concern at all that a govt may go off the gold standard, which removes money from circulation, which increases pressure on the gold standard.--Gregalton (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply implying that the potential for hoarding is a disadvantage of commodity money fails to express a neutral point of view. The potential for hoarding is an advantage to those who wish to hoard. Is is a disadvantage to those who wish to discourage hoarding. Having a subsection entitled 'Advantages' immediately leads to this problem, as to state almost any property as an unambiguous advantage is to express a point of view. It would better to create a section entitled 'Consequences of the gold standard' where the properties of the gold standard could be considered, together with positive and negative perceptions of each property. As it stands, the current material conspicuously fails to adhere to a neutral point of view. I have removed it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional Advocates?

It would seem as though the Advocates of a Renewed Gold Standard article is a bit short considering the movement towards it. Internet markets based on gold standards have been mentioned in the talk section, but not in the article. Currencies such as the Liberty Dollar are also gaining notoriety and popularity. This section could be expanded to the point of having its own page. Blaqsparrow (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, recent news regarding China and Russia (at the G20 summit) encouraging a return to a partial gold standard (along with a basket of other currencies) under a new reserve currency system, in conjunction with current Treasury Secretary Geithner's comments on being "open" to same (March 31, 2009) would seem to call for an update.137.244.215.51 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

US was already off the gold standard by the depression?

The claim that the US was off the gold standard by the time of the Great Depression is made twice in the Disadvantages and Rebuttals section. The Great Depression started in 1929, but the US didn't abandon the gold standard until 1933. This statement seems to be false: "Some hold the view that this contributed to the Great Depression, although the US was already off the gold standard at that time.[10][8]" and "Finally, the Great Depression occurred after the United States had left the gold standard for fiat". If there are no objections, I will remove these statements. --Akellymi (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. abandoned the Gold standard sometime between November 16, 1914 and the end of 1916. According to Mark Toma in his book "Competition and Monopoly in the Federal Reserve System, 1914-1951", Cambridge University Press, Copyright 1995 by Mark Toma, The New York Federal Reserve bank opened it's doors on November 16th, 1914 with 100% gold reserve ratio but informal policy had caused the ratio to decline to around 70% by the end of 1916. Therefore the gold standard was abandoned by the end of 1916.

One could, however, make the argument that the gold standard was abandoned on April 2, 1914 when the decision was officially announced to establish the reserve system. The only reason it was not made illegal to own gold until April 5, 1933 was that it took that long for people to realize their money was not worth what it used to be. At that point Executive Order 6102 ordered that it was henceforth illegal to own gold as an investment in the U.S. and all investment grade gold in the country was confiscated by the U.S. government.

Those giving up their gold were paid the government established rate of $20.67 for it but as soon as the government owned it all they raised the rate to $35.00 thereby devaluing the dollar by 41% and cheating those former gold investors out of a big chunk of their investment. As seems popular, the government did all this under the auspices of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1933 making it the patriotic thing to do. --WDRev (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing that is not grasped by this article is that with the inception of the Federal Reserve, the gold-standard was effectively ended, and the gold-exchanged standard was put in place; therefore, Nixon, in all actuality, ended the gold-exchange standard and not the gold-standard.

The argument can also be made that a gold-standard has never really existed; economist Murray Rothbard believed that in order to have a true gold standard, you must have 100% gold for every paper receipt in circulation and you cannot have fractional-reserve banking as the mechanism of the system will generate more paper receipts than there are dollars in circulation; this, he suggested was one of the reasons that the first 'gold-standard' came to an end.Fox P McCloud (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical errors in 'early coinage' section

The following sentence is not clear:

After the Roman Emperor Gallienus, who ruled from 253 to 268, introduced a monetary reform in which surface-overvalued coins were no longer accepted for tax payments, resulting in inflation: for the surface overvaluation of an emergency coinage would soon degenerate to the point where the coinage simply traded for its metallic value, thereby eliminating the ability of the senate-constrained government to collect seigniorage at critical times.

What happened after Gallienus introduced the monetary reform? Inflation? Or something else, which resulted in inflation? Either a phrase was left out of this sentence, or you have conflicting tenses between "introduced" and "resulting". Also, I'm not sure what everything after the colon is referring to. Is it referring to the subject (Emperor Gallienus) or the object (monetary reform) of the first part of the sentence? Is it referring to the result of the reform--the inflation? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or acerbic here; I'm just confused by the text.

This later sentence is missing a word or phrase:

The circulation of Spanish coins was later _____ to create the unit of account for the United States, the "dollar", based on the Spanish silver real, and Philadelphia's currency market was to trade in Spanish colonial coins.

Some verb or phrase should fill in the blank between "later" and "to create". Perhaps "adopted" is the right word.William Moates (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Seigniorage and defense in intro

The introduction currently includes the following text:

The main purpose of either government money system has historically been to provide seigniorage, or money-creation profit, to governmental leaders in order to provide them with general purchasing power during emergencies, especially those leaders who are legislatively constrained and therefore unable to raise taxes in order to execute the defense commitments that are required for the survival of their states.

Gold standards replaced gold-coin standards in the 17th-19th centuries in the West as the extent of defensive warfare expanded to where the gold-coin standards were no longer sufficient to the task. A similar history generated a gold standard in China from the 9th through the early 17th century.

Placing this text in the introduction places too great an emphasis on a single historical interpretation. This text should be moved from the introduction to an appropriate sub-heading. I will do these shortly if there are no substantitive objections. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved. I also deleted 'As gold standards have created deflationary periods they have been abandoned, as by President Roosevelt during the Great Depression.' as straight out POV. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Excessive history

The article currently includes sections on 'Early gold-coin standards' and 'The crisis of silver currency and bank notes (1750–1870)'. As the article defines the gold standard as paper notes that are normally freely convertible into gold, this material is not directly relevant to the subject of the article. This material should be moved elsewhere. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have moved the material on the history of gold money to the Metal as money article. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of Keynes' quote slightly misleading

Under the section "British hesitate to return to gold standard", I think the use of the quote by Keynes is misleading. The use of this quote within the context of the surrounding sentences in this section implies that Keynes supported the use of inflation as a secret source of enrichment of the minority at the expense of the majority. However, this is not the case, when one reads the whole quote in the context of his book, Keynes was in fact pointing out the menaces of inflation. I would suggest deleting the quote from this section or adding a bit more information to correct what this section currently and incorrectly implies.

An excerpt from Keynes' book from which this quote was extracted from is contained here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_inflation.html

Also, I'm quite sure the quote is not Keynes quoting Lenin but Keynes' own words expanding on an idea put forward by Lenin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadho19 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite true, in fact Keynes was warning of the inherent dangers associated with the overexpansion of a fiat monetary system (without associated and commensurate economic growth), that such would create "hidden taxation" through inflation. He goes on to say "Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." Oddly enough, Thomas Jefferson had warned of the exact same danger in his comments against a US central bank some 150 years prior.137.244.215.51 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)