Tom Woods: Why the Greenbackers Are Wrong

One of the strident critics of the US Federal Reserve have been the Greenbackers. 

Greenbackers represent a left wing American political party backed by the ideology which embraces inflationism (hence “greenbacks” in reference to non-gold backed paper money) and who are opposed to the gold standard due to its deflationary outcome. Greenbackers desire the engagement of more money printing as a solution to social ills.

One of the Greenback movement’s most vocal spokesperson Atty. Ellen Brown has been repeatedly critiqued by Austrian economist Gary North.

At the 2013 Austrian Economic Research Conference, Austrian economist Thomas Woods points out of the basic economic errors of the Greenback’s ideology by dealing with money basics, which is why I posted his paper.

Here is a snip of Tom Woods’ paper:

One of Ron Paul’s great accomplishments is that the Federal Reserve faces more opposition today than ever before. Readers of this site will be familiar with the arguments: the Fed enjoys special government privileges; its interference with market interest rates gives rise to the boom-bust business cycle; it has undermined the value of the dollar; it creates moral hazard, since market participants know the money producer can bail them out; and it is unnecessary to and at odds with a free-market economy.

Unfortunately, not all Fed critics, even among Ron Paul supporters, approach the problem in this way. A subset of the end-the-Fed crowd opposes the Fed for peripheral or entirely wrongheaded reasons. For this group, the Fed is not inflating enough. (I have been told by one critic that our problem cannot be that too much money is being created, since he doesn’t know anyone who has too many Federal Reserve Notes.) Their other main complaints are (1) that the Fed is “privately owned” (the Fed’s problem evidently being that it isn’t socialistic enough), (2) that fiat money is just fine as long as it is issued by the people’s trusty representatives instead of by the Fed, and (3) that under the present system we are burdened with what they call “debt-based money”; their key monetary reform, in turn, involves moving to “debt-free money.” These critics have been called Greenbackers, a reference to fiat money used during the Civil War. (A fourth claim is that the Austrian School of economics, which Ron Paul promotes, is composed of shills for the banking system and the status quo; I have exploded this claim already – here, here, and here.)

With so much to cover I don’t intend to get into (1) right now, but it should suffice to note that being created by an act of Congress, having your board’s personnel appointed by the U.S. president, and enjoying government-granted monopoly privileges without which you would be of no significance, are not the typical features of a “private” institution. I’ll address (2) and (3) throughout what follows.

The point of this discussion is to refute the principal falsehoods that circulate among Greenbackers: (a) that a gold standard (either 100 percent reserve or fractional reserve) or the Federal Reserve’s fiat money system yields an outcome in which outstanding loans cannot all be paid because there is “not enough money” to pay both the principal and the interest; (b) that if the banks are allowed to issue loans at interest they will eventually wind up with all the money; and that the only alternative is “debt-free” fiat paper money issued by government.

My answers will be as follows: (1) the claim that there is “not enough money” to pay both principal and interest is false, regardless of which of these monetary systems we are considering; and (2) even if “debt-free” money were the solution, the best producer of such money is the free market, not Nancy Pelosi or John McCain.

Read the rest here

This portion where Mr. Woods deals with the how the banking system would be regulated by economic forces in a free market environment is particularly worth quoting:

as with every other industry, profit regulates production. The production of money, like the production of all other goods, settles on a normal rate of return, and is not uniquely poised to shower participants in that industry with premium profits. As more firms enter the industry, the rising demand for the factors of production necessary to produce the money puts upward pressure on the prices of those factors. Meanwhile, the increase in money production itself puts downward pressure on the purchasing power of the money produced.

In other words, these twin pressures of (1) the increasing costliness of money production and (2) the decreasing value of the money thus produced (since the more money that exists, ceteris paribus, the lower its purchasing power) serve to regulate money production in the same way they regulate the production of all other goods in the economy.

Once the gold is mined, it needs to be converted into coins for general use, and subsequently stamped with some form of reliable certification indicating the weight and fineness of those coins. Private firms perform such certification for a wide variety of goods on the free market. This service is provided for newly coined money by mints.

Banking services would exist on the free market to the extent that people valued financial intermediation, as well as the various services, such as check-writing and the safekeeping of money, that banks provided.

Which is a Bubble: Bitcoins or Fiat Money?

The mainstream sees the exploding public interest on bitcoin as a threat and brands it a “bubble”.

Here is the Economist,

NOT MANY fund-managers have heard of Bitcoin, let alone put any of their clients’ money in it. But over the past few months, the world’s first “crypto-currency” has become one of the world’s hottest investments. Since September, when The Economist last wrote about it, the price of a unit of Bitcoin as recorded by Mt Gox, a popular Bitcoin exchange, has soared. Unlike other online currencies—such as the new Amazon Coins—the supply of Bitcoin is not determined by any central issuing authority. Instead, new coins are generated according to a predetermined formula by thousands of computers solving complex mathematical problems. As more coins are generated, these problems get ever more complex, increasing the cost of computing power necessary to generate them, and so setting a floor underneath the price. Mimicking gold, the currency is designed to be deflationary. However, there is every reason to think that the current Bitcoin boom will shortly bust. As the chart shows, online interest in the currency has spiked in recent months. Though an increasing number of legitimate businesses are adopting the currency—one Finnish software developer has offered to pay its employees in Bitcoin—it still has relatively few users. Its primary commercial use is probably to buy drugs from Silk Road, a sort of pirate eBay hidden in the “deep web”. This suggests that the new users are buying Bitcoin as an investment, not as a means of exchange. For any currency to thrive it needs users, not just speculators.

The idea that bitcoins “still has relatively few users” ergo a bubble simply begs the question. This doesn’t establish the bubble properties.

The transition towards “moneyness” is a market process and doesn’t come instantaneously. Since the article admits that bitcoin attempts to "mimic gold", then the process entails the expansion of the commodity’s marketability which may have partly been exhibited by the chart.

As the great dean of Austrian economics Murray N. Rothbard explained,

Once a commodity begins to be used as a medium of exchange, when the word gets out it generates even further use of the commodity as a medium. In short, when the word gets around that commodity X is being used as a medium in a certain village, more people living in or trading with that village will purchase that commodity, since they know that it is being used there as a medium of exchange. In this way, a commodity used as a medium feeds upon itself, and its use spirals upward, until before long the commodity is in general use throughout the society or country as a medium of exchange. But when a commodity is used as a medium for most or all exchanges, that commodity is defined as being a money.

In this way money enters the free market, as market participants begin to select suitable commodities for use as the medium of exchange, with that use rapidly escalating until a general medium of exchange, or money, becomes established in the market.

Paradoxically the article mentions a Finnish software company offering to pay employees based on bitcoins.

 

Another good example for this could be Iran. Hammered by trade and financial embargo, part of the embattled nation’s economic activities have shifted to using bitcoins. 

So expanding public interest on bitcoins does not necessarily entail a bubble.

The reality is that the ECB and other central banks see bitcoins as threat to their monopoly over Seigniorage privileges and thus engage in negative publicity or propaganda to besmirch a potential market based competitor.

The essence of bubbles is really a “something for nothing” or a "free lunch" dynamic.

If Bitcoins are generated with a huge cost, “As more coins are generated, these problems get ever more complex, increasing the cost of computing power necessary to generate them, and so setting a floor underneath the price”, then compare this with exploding balance sheets of global central banks, whom are simply digital entries as determined by political authorities to the banking system.

Guess which is unsustainable and has the character of a bubble?

Quote of the Day: Money is an Invention of the Marketplace

Money is an invention of the marketplace of exchange, brought into being by traders who discovered that a reliable medium could facilitate trades that were more difficult or even impossible by barter alone. It developed from one form to a better one, one evolutionary trade at a time. Parliaments, Congresses and Emperors came along later and stole it, pure and simple if not fair and square… 

Private coinage was banned not because it didn’t work, but because it did. Governments just don’t care much for competition or for sound and honest money. The Civil War ban on private coinage has remained the law of the land since June 1864—a hallmark on the shameful path of monetary debasement.

This is from Lawrence W. Reed President of the FEE or The Freeman

Economics in a War Prison Camp

It is said that nature abhors a vacuum. And since people are part of nature then obviously the human community also abhors a state of vacuum.

Even in prison camps the law of economics work. I earlier pointed out how recently Mackerel has emerged as money for prisoners of California’s prison camp.

Economist and author Tim Harford citing the work of Robert A. Radford on the “Economic Organisation of a P.O.W. Camp” has an amazing account of the workings of economics under a German war prison camp (hat tip Bob Wenzel). Writes Mr. Harford

First, a word about the basic economic building blocks. Prisoners received some rations from the Germans, but were mostly sustained by parcels of food and cigarettes from the Red Cross. The parcels were standardised – everyone got the same. Occasionally the Red Cross received bumper supplies, or ran short; in those instances everybody enjoyed a surplus or a shortage.

Radford’s first sociological observation was that there was no gift economy in the camp. Everybody started with the same, so what was the point? But trading quickly developed, because while prisoners had equal means they did not have identical preferences – the Sikhs sold their beef rations, the French were desperate for coffee. So middlemen who could speak Urdu or bribe a guard to let them visit the French quarters had the chance to make “small fortunes” in biscuits or cigarettes. In rare circumstances, the camp’s economy interacted with the outside world: coffee rations apparently went “over the wire” and traded at high prices in black market cafés in Munich.

Market institutions, Radford concluded, were universal and spontaneous, “a response to immediate needs” rather than an attempt to imitate civilian life. One of the spontaneous developments was the emergence of a currency: the cigarette, which was portable and reasonably homogenous. Not entirely so, though: cigarettes could be “sweated” by rolling them back and forth between the fingers to shake a little tobacco out. Gresham’s Law – “bad money drives out good” – asserted itself, as the plumper cigarettes were reserved for smoking, while those that circulated as money grew thinner. When Red Cross supplies were interrupted, deflation set in, as a cigarette bought ever more goods.

The law of one price also tended to hold: arbitrage meant prices rarely varied much within a permanent camp. The chaos of transit camps, however, created profit opportunities. “Stories circulated of a padre who started off round the camp with a tin of cheese and five cigarettes and returned to his bed with a complete parcel in addition to his original cheese and cigarettes; the market was not yet perfect.”

Relative prices moved in response to broader developments – such as an influx of new, hungry POWs – and from day to day. With bread rations handed out on Monday, on Sunday evening “bread now” traded at a premium to “bread Monday”. And yes, there was a futures market.

As the above experience shows, the natural tendency for people is to conduct trade or voluntary exchanges in whatsoever political conditions.That's why socialism fails.

Use Cash for Freedom

I had a gruesome first hand experience on how governments disdains the use of cash.

Sadly this has not been an isolated experience, but a deepening troublesome political trend around the world, particularly in developed economies.

Governments would like to confiscate more of the public’s resources to finance their lavish ways. So the compulsion to transact through their institutional accomplices, the politically endowed banking system.

Through stricter unilateral regulations or immoral laws, governments through the banking system place the public’s hard earned savings under intense scrutiny, and criminalize the actions of the innocent, whom have been uninformed by the rapid pace of changes in manifold regulations covering a wide swath of social activities through the banking system.

Private transactions which does not conform with the goals and the interests of the political authorities risks confiscation. Worst is the trauma of being labeled a criminal. Increasingly desperate governments have wantonly been in violation of the property rights of their citizenry.

A vote against government is to use cash transactions, that’s because cash, according to Charles Goyette at the LewRockwell.com, represents freedom

Mr. Goyette writes, (bold emphasis mine)

Governments hate that cash gives you anonymity. And they are often very anxious to track it and to control your use of it. They often attempt to criminalize the use of cash or at least criminalize having too much of it around.

Right now, 7% of the U.S. economy is cash-based. Across the Eurozone, it's a little bit higher, 9%, but in Sweden cash transactions are falling by the wayside. You can't use cash for buses there. A growing number of businesses are going entirely cashless. In fact, only 3% of all purchases in Sweden are transacted in cash. And some people think that 3% is too much.

Now, there are things you give up when you go cashless, and privacy is only one of them. Because you also give up a piece of every transaction to the facilitating financial institution, a state-approved financial institution that is going to take a cut one way or another of every purchase that it processes. And that cut will be paid by you.

In the United States, the government has implemented increasingly punitive and burdensome measures for those who use cash. Banks, for example, are required to file reports on the use of cash in certain circumstances, including suspicious persons reports for some cash activities. In fact, if you seem to be trying to transact in cash below the reporting threshold, that alone can trigger a suspicious persons report on you. Like a lot of the states' heavy-handed measures, this was all targeted at getting those drug dealers.

As earlier pointed out, governments has used all sorts of "noble" excuses like money laundering, tax evasion, the war on drugs and etc… to justify their confiscatory actions which in reality represents no more than financial repression.

And as governments tighten the noose on the public, people will intuitively look for ingenious alternatives to outflank such oppressive policies.

In the US, the liquid detergent Tide appears to have emerged even as an alternative to cash.

Writes Professor Joseph Salerno at the Mises Institute.

As has been widely reported recently, an unlikely crime wave has rapidly spread throughout the United States and has taken local law-enforcement officials by surprise. The theft of Tide liquid laundry detergent is pandemic throughout cities in the United States. One individual alone stole $25,000 worth of Tide detergent during a 15-month crime spree, and large retailers are taking special security measures to protect their inventories of Tide. For example, CVS is locking down Tide alongside commonly stolen items like flu medications. Liquid Tide retails for $10–$20 per bottle and sells on the black market for $5–$10. Individual bottles of Tide bear no serial numbers, making them impossible to track. So some enterprising thieves operate as arbitrageurs buying at the black-market price and reselling to the stores, presumably at the wholesale price. Even more puzzling is the fact that no other brand of detergent has been targeted.

What gives here? This is just another confirmation of Menger's insight that the market responds to the absence of sound money by monetizing highly salable commodities. It is clear that Tide has emerged as a subsidiary local currency for black-market, especially drug, transactions — but for legal transactions in low-income areas as well. Indeed police report that Tide is being exchanged for heroin and methamphetamine and that drug dealers possess inventories of the commodity that they are also willing to sell.

As governments stifle people’s social and commercial activities through tyrannical laws, expect the use of more cash, local currencies or commodities (such as Tide) as alternative medium of exchanges, as the informal or shadow economies grow.

Most importantly, real assets will become more valuable and may become an integral part of money, as sustained policies of inflationism, as Voltaire once said, will bring fiat money back to its intrinsic value—zero.

Money which emerges from the markets will be emblematic of freedom.

The Mythical World of Ben Bernanke

For Ben Bernanke and their ilk, the world exists in a causation vacuum, as things are just seen as they are, as if they are simply "given". And people’s action expressed by the marketplace, are seen as fallible, which only requires the steering guidance of the technocracy (the arrogant dogmatic belief that political authorities are far knowledgeable than the public).

Monetary economist Professor George Selgin majestically blasts Ben Bernanke’s self-glorification. (bold emphasis mine)

So like any central banker, and unlike better academic economists, Bernanke consistently portrays inflation, business cycles, financial crises, and asset price "bubbles" as things that happen because...well, the point is that there is generally no "because." These things just happen; central banks, on the other hand, exist to prevent them from happening, or to "mitigate" them once they happen, or perhaps (as in the case of "bubbles") to simply tolerate them, because they can't do any better than that. That central banks' own policies might actually cause inflation, or contribute to the business cycle, or trigger crises, or blow-up asset bubbles--these are possibilities to which every economist worth his or her salt attaches some importance, if not overwhelming importance. But they are also possibilities that every true-blue central banker avoids like so many landmines. Are you old enough to remember that publicity shot of Arthur Burns holding a baseball bat and declaring that he was about to "knock inflation out of the economy"? That was Burns talking, not like a monetary economist, but like the Fed propagandist that he was. Bernanke talks the same way throughout much (though not quite all) of his lecture.

And for the central bank religion, politics has never been an issue. It’s always been about the virtuous state of public service channeled through economic policies…

In describing the historical origins of central banking, for instance, Bernanke makes no mention at all of the fiscal purpose of all of the earliest central banks--that is, of the fact that they were set up, not to combat inflation or crises or cycles but to provide financial relief to their sponsoring governments in return for monopoly privileges. He is thus able to steer clear of the thorny challenge of explaining just how it was that institutions established for function X happened to prove ideally suited for functions Y and Z, even though the latter functions never even entered the minds of the institutions' sponsors or designers!

By ignoring the true origins of early central banks, and of the Bank of England in particular, and simply asserting that the (immaculately conceived) Bank gradually figured-out its "true" purpose, especially by discovering that it could save the British economy now and then by serving as a Lender of Last Resort, Bernanke is able to overlook the important possibility that central banks' monopoly privileges--and their monopoly of paper currency especially--may have been a contributing cause of 19th-century financial instability. How currency monopoly contributed to instability is something I've explained elsewhere. More to the point, it is something that Walter Bagehot was perfectly clear about in his famous 1873 work, Lombard Street. Bernanke, in typical central-bank-apologist fashion, refers to Bagehot's work, but only to recite Bagehot's rules for last-resort lending. He thus allows all those innocent GWU students to suppose (as was surely his intent) that Bagehot considered central banking a jolly good thing. In fact, as anyone who actually reads Bagehot will see, he emphatically considered central banking--or what he called England's "one-reserve system" of banking--a very bad thing, best avoided in favor of a "natural" system, like Scotland's, in which numerous competing banks of issue are each responsible for maintaining their own cash reserves.

People hardly realize that central banks had been born out of politics and survives on taxpayer money which is politics, and eventually will die out of politics.

Any discussion of politics affecting central banking policymaking has to be purposely skirted or evaded.

Policies must be painted as having positive influences or at worst neutral effects. This leaves all flaws attributable to the marketplace.

In reality, any admission to the negative consequence of the central bank polices would extrapolate to self-incrimination for central bankers and the risk of losing their politically endowed privileges.

Besides ignoring the destabilizing effects of central banking--or of any system based on a currency monopoly--Bernanke carefully avoids any mention of the destabilizing effects of other sorts of misguided financial regulation. He thus attributes the greater frequency of banking crises in the post-Civil War U.S. than in England solely to the lack of a central bank in the former country, making one wish that some clever GWU student had interrupted him to observe that Canada and Scotland, despite also lacking central banks, each had far fewer crises than either the U.S. or England. Hearing Bernanke you would never guess that U.S. banks were generally denied the ability to branch, or that state chartered banks were prevented by a prohibitive federal tax from issuing their own notes, or that National banks found it increasingly difficult to issue their own notes owing to the high cost of government securities required (originally for fiscal reasons) as backing for their notes. Certainly you would not realize that economic historians have long recognized (see, for starters, here andhere) how these regulations played a crucial part in pre-Fed U.S. financial instability. No: you would be left to assume that U.S. crises just...happened, or rather, that they happened "because" there was no central bank around to put a stop to them.

Because he entirely overlooks the role played by legal restrictions in destabilizing the pre-1914 U.S. financial system, Bernanke is bound to overlook as well the historically important "asset currency" reform movement that anticipated the post-1907 turn toward a central-bank based monetary reform. Instead of calling for yet more government intervention in the monetary system the earlier movement proposed a number of deregulatory solutions to periodic financial crises, including the repeal of Civil-War era currency-backing requirements and the dismantlement of barriers to nationwide branch banking. Canada's experience suggested that this deregulatory program might have worked very well. Unfortunately concerted opposition to branch banking, by both established "independent" bankers and Wall Street (which gained lots of correspondent business thanks to other banks' inability to have branches there) blocked this avenue of reform. Instead of mentioning any of this, Bernanke refers only to the alternative of relying upon private clearinghouses to handle panics, which he says "just wasn't sufficient." True enough. But the Fed, first of all (as Bernanke himself goes on to admit, and as Friedman and Schwartz argue at length), turned out be be an even less adequate solution than the clearinghouses had been; more importantly, the clearinghouses themselves, far from having been the sole or best alternative to a central bank, were but a poor second-best substitute for needed deregulation.

To be fair, Bernanke does eventually get 'round to offering a theory of crises. The theory is the one according to which a rumor spreads to the effect that some bank or banks may be in trouble, which is supposedly enough to trigger a "contagion" of fear that has everyone scrambling for their dough. Bernanke refers listeners to Frank Capra's movie "It's a Wonderful Life," as though it offered some sort of ground for taking the theory seriously, though admittedly he might have done worse by referring them to Diamond and Dybvig's (1983) even more factitious journal article. Either way, the impression left is one that ought to make any thinking person wonder how any bank ever managed to last for more than a few hours in those awful pre-deposit insurance days. That quite a few banks, and especially ones that could diversify through branching, did considerably better than that is of course a problem for the theory, though one Bernanke never mentions. (Neither, for that matter, do many monetary economists, most of whom seem to judge theories, not according to how well they stand up to the facts, but according to how many papers you can spin off from them.) In particular, he never mentions the fact that Canada had no bank failures at all during the 1930s, despite having had no central bank until 1935, and no deposit insurance until many decades later. Nor does he acknowledge research by George Kaufman, among others, showing that bank run "contagions" have actually been rare even in the relatively fragile U.S. banking system. (Although it resembled a system-wide contagion, the panic of late February 1933 was actually a speculative attack on the dollar spurred on by the fear that Roosevelt was going to devalue it--which of course he eventually did.) And although Bernanke shows a chart depicting high U.S. bank failure rates in the years prior to the Fed's establishment, he cuts it off so that no one can observe how those failure rates increased after 1914. Finally, Bernanke suggests that the Fed, acting in accordance with his theory, only offers last-resort aid to solvent ("Jimmy Stewart") banks, leaving others to fail, whereas in fact the record shows that, after the sorry experience of the Great Depression (when it let poor Jimmy fend for himself), the Fed went on to employ its last resort lending powers, not to rescue solvent banks (which for the most part no longer needed any help from it), but to bail out manifestly insolvent ones. All of these "overlooked" facts suggest that there is something not quite right about the suggestion that bank failure rates are highest when there is neither a central bank nor deposit insurance. But why complicate things? The story is a cinch to teach, and the Diamond-Dybvig model is so..."elegant." Besides, who wants to spoil the plot of "It's a Wonderful Life?"

Cherry picking of reference points and censorship had been applied on historical accounts that does not favor central banking.

Of course, it is natural for central bankers to be averse to the gold standard. A gold standard would reduce or extinguish central banker’s (as well as politicians') political control over money.

Bernanke's discussion of the gold standard is perhaps the low point of a generally poor performance, consisting of little more than the usual catalog of anti-gold clichés: like most critics of the gold standard, Bernanke is evidently so convinced of its rottenness that it has never occurred to him to check whether the standard arguments against it have any merit. Thus he says, referring to an old Friedman essay, that the gold standard wastes resources. He neglects to tell his listeners (1) that for his calculations Friedman assumed 100% gold reserves, instead of the "paper thin" reserves that, according to Bernanke himself, where actually relied upon during the gold standard era; (2) that Friedman subsequently wrote an article on "The Resource Costs of Irredeemable Paper Money" in which he questioned his own, previous assumption that paper money was cheaper than gold; and (3) that the flow of resources to gold mining and processing is mainly a function of gold's relative price, and that that relative price has been higher since 1971 than it was during the classical gold standard era, thanks mainly to the heightened demand for gold as a hedge against fiat-money-based inflation. Indeed, the real price of gold is higher today than it has ever been except for a brief interval during the 1980s. So, Ben: while you chuckle about how silly it would be to embrace a monetary standard that tends to enrich foreign gold miners, perhaps you should consider how no monetary standard has done so more than the one you yourself have been managing!

Bernanke's claim that output was more volatile under the gold standard than it has been in recent decades is equally unsound. True: some old statistics support it; but those have been overturned by Christina Romer's more recent estimates, which show the standard deviation of real GNP since World War II to be only slightly greater than that for the pre-Fed period. (For a detailed and up-to-date comparison of pre-1914 and post-1945 U.S. economic volatility see my, Bill Lastrapes, and Larry White's forthcoming Journal of Macroeconomics paper, "Has the Fed Been a Failure?").

Nor is Bernanke on solid ground in suggesting that the gold standard was harmful because it resulted in gradual deflation for most of the gold-standard era. True, farmers wanted higher prices for their crops, if not general inflation to erode the value of their debts--when haven't they? But generally the deflation of the 19th century did no harm at all, because it was roughly consistent with productivity gains of the era, and so reflected falling unit production costs. As a self-proclaimed fan of Friedman and Schwartz, Bernanke ought to be aware of their own conclusion that the secular deflation he complains about was perfectly benign. Or else he should read Saul's The Myth of the Great the Great Depression, or Atkeson and Kehoe's more recent AER article, or my Less Than Zero. In short, he should inform himself of the fundamental difference between supply-drive and demand-driven deflation, instead of lumping them together, and lecture students accordingly.

Although he admits later in his lecture (in his sole acknowledgement of central bankers' capacity to do harm) that the Federal Reserve was itself to blame for the excessive monetary tightening of the early 1930s, in his discussion of the gold standard Bernanke repeats the canard that the Fed's hands were tied by that standard. The facts show otherwise: Federal Reserve rules required 40% gold backing of outstanding Federal Reserve notes. But the Fed wasn’t constrained by this requirement, which it had statutory authority to suspend at any time for an indefinite period. More importantly, during the first stages of the Great (monetary) Contraction, the Fed had plenty of gold and was actually accumulating more of it. By August 1931, it's gold holdings had risen to $3.5 billion (from $3.1 billion in 1929), which was 81% of its then-outstanding notes, or more than twice its required holdings. And although Fed gold holdings then started to decline, by March 1933, which is to say the very nadir of the monetary contraction, the Fed still held over than $1 billion in excess gold reserves. In short, at no point of the Great Contraction was the Fed prevented from further expanding the monetary base by a lack of required gold cover.

Finally, Bernanke repeats the tired old claim that the gold standard is no good because gold supply shocks will cause the value of money to fluctuate. It is of course easy to show that gold will be inferior on this score to an ideally managed fiat standard. But so what? The question is, how do the price movements under gold compare to those under actual fiat standards? Has Bernanke compared the post-Sutter's Mill inflation to that of, say, the Fed's first five years, or the 1970s? Has he compared the average annual inflation rate during the so-called "price revolution" of the 16th century--a result of massive gold imports from the New-World--to the average U.S. rate during his own tenure as Fed chairman? If he bothered to do so, I dare say he'd clam up about those terrible gold supply shocks.

So when it comes to the gold standard, it is not only the omission of facts and of glaring blind spots, but importantly, it is about deliberate twisting of the facts! At least they practice what they preach--they manipulate the markets too.

Now this is what we call propaganda.

It is best to point out how Bernanke’s central banking has destroyed the purchasing power of the US dollar as shown in the chart above.

Yet here is another example of the mainstream falling for Bernanke’s canard.

Writes analyst David Fuller,

Preservation of purchasing power is the main reason why anyone would favour a gold standard. However, if we assume, hypothetically, that the US and other leading countries moved back on to a gold standard, I do not think many of us would like the deflationary consequences that followed. Also, a gold standard would almost certainly involve the confiscation of private holdings of bullion, as has occurred previously. Most of us would not like to lose our freedom to hold bullion.

I have long argued that we would never see the reintroduction of a gold standard because no leading government is likely to surrender control over its own money supply. For current reasons, just ask the Greeks or citizens of other peripheral Eurozone countries, struggling to cope with no more than a euro standard.

There would also be national security issues as it would not be difficult for rogue states to manipulate the price of bullion as an act of economic war.

First of all, the paper money system is not, and will not be immune to the deflationary impact caused by an inflationary boom. That’s why business cycles exist. Under government’s repeated doping of the marketplace we would either see episodes of monetary deflation (bubble bust) or a destruction of the currency system (hyperinflation) at the extremes.

As Professor Ludwig von Mises wrote

The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion. There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

Next, as previously pointed out the intellectuals and political authorities resort to semantic tricks to mislead the public.

Deflation caused by productivity gains (pointed out by Professor Selgin) isn’t bad but rather has positive impacts—as evidenced by the advances of technology.

Rather it is the money pumping and the leverage (gearing), or the erosion of real wealth, caused by prior inflationism from the central bank sponsored banking system. These political actions spawns outsized fluctuations and the adverse ramifications of monetary deflation.

And it is the banking system will be more impacted than that the real economy which is the reason for these massive bailouts and expansion of balance sheets of central banks. It's about political interest than of public interests.

In addition, it is wildly inaccurate to claim to say gold standard would “involve the confiscation of private holdings of bullion”. FDR’s EO 6102 in 1933 came at the end of the gold bullion standard which is different from the classical gold standard. In the classic gold standard, gold (coins) are used as money or the medium of exchange, so confiscation of gold would mean no money in circulation. How logical would this be?

Finally while the assertions that “no leading government is likely to surrender control” seems plausible, this seems predicated on money as a product of governments—which is false. Effects should not be read as causes.

As the great F. A. Hayek wrote (Denationalization of Money p.37-38)

It the superstition that it is necessary for government (usually called the 'state' to make it sound better) to declare what is to be money, as if it had created the money which could not exist without it, probably originated in the naive belief that such a tool as money must have been 'invented' and given to us by some original inventor. This belief has been wholly displaced by our understanding of the spontaneous generation of such undesigned institutions by a process of social evolution of which money has since become the prime paradigm (law, language and morals being the other main instances).

If governments has magically transformed money into inviolable instruments then hyperinflation would have never existed.

At the end of the day, the world in which central bankers and their minions portray seems no less than vicious propaganda.

More US States Seek New Gold and Silver Currencies

From the CNN,

A growing number of states are seeking shiny new currencies made of silver and gold.

Worried that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar are on the brink of collapse, lawmakers from 13 states, including Minnesota, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina and Georgia, are seeking approval from their state governments to either issue their own alternative currency or explore it as an option. Just three years ago, only three states had similar proposals in place.

"In the event of hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System ... the State's governmental finances and private economy will be thrown into chaos," said North Carolina Republican Representative Glen Bradley in a currency bill he introduced last year.

Unlike individual communities, which are allowed to create their own currency -- as long as it is easily distinguishable from U.S. dollars -- the Constitution bans states from printing their own paper money or issuing their own currency. But it allows the states to make "gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

The world does not operate on a vacuum. People act based on purported ends, or that people responds to incentives shaped by perpetually changing conditions—impelled by the environments, the markets, political policies or social relationships or on a blend of these [certainly not based on mathematical variables and equations].

If national governments continue to relentlessly debauch their currencies, then people will seek refuge in alternative currencies that would preserve their hard earned savings.

The function of money can be seen even in the prison environment where in absence of conventional money, exchanges takes place through spontaneously designated commodity medium by the inhabitants (not authorities).

Returning coins to circulation have even reached mainstream US politics as 2 senators have introduced a bill that would replace dollar bills with coins.

And this aligns with the actions of 13 US states above, who seems to realize of the growing fat tail risks of inflationism.

Swelling grassroots recognition of such risks seems to prompt for noteworthy changes on the fringes of the mainstream political spectrum.

Perhaps we will reach a tipping point where the periphery transforms into the popular. And this should apply not only to the US but importantly to the world.

Paper Money System: Origin And Destiny

321gold’s Darryl Robert Schoon on the origin of paper currency (he quotes Ralph T. Foster’s book, Fiat Paper Money, The History and Evolution of Our Currency)

By 1661, China finally learned its lesson and the new Qing dynasty officially outlawed paper money. Regarding China’s 600 year experiment, Foster writes:

“Over the course of 600 years, five dynasties had implemented paper money and all five made frequent use of the printing press to solve problems. Economic catastrophe and political chaos inevitably followed. Time and again, officials looked to paper money for instant liquidity and the immediate transfer of wealth. But its ostensible virtues could not withstand its tragic legacy: those who held it as a store of value found that in time all they held were worthless pieces of paper. (page 29) [emphasis mine]

As the above excerpt shows, the paper money system has been an age old predicament for political leaders who always try to circumvent the fundamental laws of economics, but always ended up a failure.

Today, paper money has been repackaged and sold to the public as a product of modernity anchored upon central banking—operating on the platform of technology aided complex and sophisticated math or quant models.

And where lessons seem to have never been assimilated or learned, the same outcome should be expected as in the past. As Voltaire once said, “Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value…zero.”

Is Gold In A Bubble?

``Gold was not selected arbitrarily by governments to be the monetary standard. Gold had developed for many centuries on the free market as the best money; as the commodity providing the most stable and desirable monetary medium." - Murray N. Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money?

In this issue:

Is Gold In A Bubble?

-Fed’s Quantitative Easing Update

-Misrepresenting Gold’s History

-The Misunderstood Role Of Central Bankers

-Appraising Gold And The Origin of Money

-Crack Up Boom Versus Bubble Psychology

Fed’s Quantitative Easing Update

The US Federal Reserve has vastly accelerated its purchases of US treasuries to the tune of about $7 billion, based on the data from the Federal Bank of Cleveland. This has been in breach of its self-imposed limits.

Likewise, the increased treasury purchases appears to be in line with the commencement of the next wave of mortgage resets that seems likely to signify as the next round of strains to the US banking system. As previously noted, ``With the risks of the next wave of resets from the Alt-A, Prime Mortgages, Commercial Real Estate Mortgages, aside from the Jumbo and HELOC looming larger, they are likely to exert more pressure on the banking system” [see past discussion in 5 Reasons Why The Recent Market Slump Is Not What Mainstream Expects].

Figure 1: Sifma, Zero Hedge: US Mortgage and US Treasury Market

Since the crisis erupted, the US government, through its GSE agencies, has virtually been THE mortgage market (see left window: blue bars FED agency mortgages, gray bars private labels).

We see the same trend for US treasuries, the US government via the Federal Reserve is on its way to become the buyer of last resort- since the activation of the QE program last March, Fed purchases (black line, right window) of US treasuries accounts for almost half of the market (Zero Hedge) displacing foreign official holdings (blue line).

The above developments dispel on the flawed notions that the US government will refuse to assume the literal role as the buyer of the last resort, especially under extreme circumstances. As a political institution, once a political expediency arises-such as a renewed threat to the survivability of its banking system that could risk undermining the US dollar standard system-the US Federal Reserve will act according to its perceived priorities. And the actions in the above markets have been telling.

Misrepresenting Gold’s History

The recent spike in gold prices has evoked shrill cries of a “bubble”.

Does rising prices automatically constitute as a mania? What distinguishes a mania from structural changes?

For us, the fundamental issue is to understand the role of gold in the marketplace or in the economy than simply presuppose or generalize a bubble.

Basically, the gold debate can be delineated into two extreme camps: the gold bugs (ideological believers that money should be comprise or be backed by gold or commodity) and its antipode (ideological believers influenced by JMKeynes where gold or commodity as money is deemed as relic or a “barbaric metal”).

Of course the issue can’t be seen as simply black or white because the mainstream fundamentally operates on gray areas, out of the lack of understanding. But have mostly been tilted towards the “Barbaric” metal persuasion.

Here are some examples, (bold emphasis mine)

The Bloomberg quotes the highly distinguished trader Dennis Gartman, ``The gold bull run is not predicated upon inflation but is instead predicated upon the notion that gold is becoming a reservable asset.”

Or from Socgen’s Dylan Grice, ``How can something with no cashflow or earnings power be valued? The simple answer is that it can't be. Intrinsically it is pretty much worthless.”

Ironically Mr. Grice predicts that the price of gold to reach $6,300 primarily because of bubble psychology, the discount value of Gold relative to US dollars issued and “insolvent governments”.

On the other hand, Mr. Gartman does not qualify on the definition of, as well as, elaborate on WHY and HOW gold is “becoming a reservable asset”.

For the Barbaric metal camp, Gold is presented mostly as an unworthy investment (see figure 2)

Figure 2: Socgen: Real Prices of Gold

According to Mr. Grice, ``But the same chart also shows how unreliable gold has been as a store of wealth. A 15th century gold bug who'd stored all of his wealth in bullion, bequeathed it to his children and required them to do the same would be more than a little miffed when gazing down from his celestial place of rest to see the real wealth of his lineage decline by nearly 90% over the next 500 years (though he might take comfort from the knowledge that his financial advisor would be burning in hell). More recently, had you bought at the peak of the last bull market in January 1980 for $850, you'd have suffered a nominal decline of 70% by the time it bottomed in 1999. On an annualised basis you'd have lost 6% pa nominal and 9% real.” (bold highlight mine)

Mr. Grice’s premise seems plausible but blatantly misleads. Why?

Simply because Mr. Grice forgets to remind us that gold (including silver) was NOT held for investment, but was instead USED as money during the aforementioned eras.

And as money, gold and or silver was subjected to liquidity flows depending on the society’s perception of uncertainty, which ultimately determines the level of demand for money relative to the available supply of money. To quote Austrian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, ``The holding of money is a result of the systemic uncertainty of human action.”

For instance, in the mid 16^th century the fall of the real price of gold (exchange value relative to other commodities) was mainly due war “conquest” financing.

According to Professor Niall Ferguson in his latest book The Ascent Of Money, ``during the so-called “price revolution”, which affected all of Europe from the 1540s until the 1640s, the cost of food-which had shown no sustained upward trend for three hundred years-rose markedly.” [italics mine]

Professor Ferguson’s account appears very consistent with the real price trend of gold on the chart, especially on the 300 years prior to the eon of war financing.

Moreover, following the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire by a Spanish colonel Francisco Pizzaro, huge precious metals (money) streamed into Spain, many of which came from the Potosi (otherwise known as Domingo de Santo Tomas-mouth of hell) mines in Bolivia.

Again from Niall Ferguson’s Ascent of Money, ``between 1556 and 1783, the rich hill yielded 45,000 tons of pure silver to be transformed into bars and coins in the Casa de Moneda, and shipped to Seville…Pizarro’s conquest, it seemed, had made the Spanish crown rich beyond the dreams of avarice.” Thus, the relative surplus of gold and silver against other commodities explains anew the depressed real prices of gold and is consistent with the price action of gold chart above.

Yet going into the industrial revolution in 1800s-1913, one would observe that the real price of gold has mostly stabilized.

Notes Professor Michael Rozeff, ``Before there is a central bank and when metals are being used in the money and banking system, there is greater price stability. There is no contest. Pre-1913, the price level falls gently each year on the average by less than ½ of one percent. After 1913, the price level rises each year by 6.8 times as much as it used to decline before 1913 (in absolute value.)” [italics his]

Following the introduction of the US Federal Reserve in 1913, real prices of gold have gyrated mostly higher over time. And the upside volatility has been accentuated after the Nixon Shock or when former President Nixon closed the gold window or ended the Bretton Woods system on the 15^th of August 1971.

In other words, the chart above from 1265-1971 or in 7 centuries gold chiefly performed the role of money. Today, this hasn’t been the case...yet.

To conclude, to use gold real prices as a metric to justify on gold’s poor investment returns is highly inconsistent, flawed and a misrepresentation. Gold’s role today isn’t like in the past where gold functioned as a medium of exchange, which should be nuanced from the current role as non-money commodity.

To add, since gold isn’t used in transactions by the general public today, then fundamentally gold isn’t money. Only to the eyes of central bankers could gold be deemed as a form of money. Thereby comparing gold as money and gold as non-money is like comparing apples to oranges.

The Misunderstood Role Of Central Bankers

Some have cited the activities of central banks as possible indication for inflection points on gold prices. For instance, the sale of UK Chancellor Gordon Brown of 400 tonnes of gold reserves in 1999 coincided with the end of the bear market. In other words, central bankers are thought to resemble retail investors, whom traditionally play the role of the greater fool during market extremes.

Yet like all human beings, while central bankers are subject to the corporeal frailties and could be influenced somewhat by the developments of the marketplace, what seem glaringly overlooked by mainstream’s oversimplification are the governing incentives from which the political bureaucracy operates on.

As Professor Ludwig von Mises rightly notes of the crux of the distinction, ``For it is a fact that as a rule the authorities are inclined to deviate from the profit system. They do not want to operate their enterprises from the viewpoint of the attainment of the greatest possible profit. They consider the accomplishment of other tasks more important. They are ready to renounce profit or at least a part of profit or even to take a loss for the achievement of other ends.” (bold emphasis mine)

So unlike typical investors driven by profits, political leaders and the bureaucracy, being political actors, fundamentally operates on political goals. In short, central banks transactions in the marketplace may represent price insensitivity, and importantly, are most likely subject to political ends that may be extraneous to market forces.

Manias are essentially founded by a massive credit boom and underpinned by government policies to create boom conditions, from which induces investor irrationality responses based on expectations of perpetually easy profits. Therefore, a gold mania cannot mechanically be attributed to central bank activities because this would highly depend on the underlying political goals in support of their activities.

Furthermore, a mania depends on pyramiding leverage or accelerating credit boom. At the present moment, central bank buying of gold has been funded from their stash of US foreign exchange surpluses.

The tiny resort island of Mauritius recently followed India to acquire 2 metric tons from the IMF (Bloomberg).

Figure 3: Virtual Metals: Gold Demand Trends, Central Banks As Net Buyers

In addition, central banks accounted for as net buyers for the second successive quarter this year, where according to mineweb.com, ``the official sector was a net purchaser of gold in the third quarter, although the figures are low, at five tonnes in Q2 and 15 tonnes in Q3. The underlying trend is "expected to remain intact" as central banks, like private investors, continue to look for diversifiers, especially with respect to the dollar. Central banks outside the CBGA agreement that the WGC identified as gold purchasers included Mexico and the Philippines.” (see Figure 3-right window)

It is noteworthy that gold prices continue to rise, in spite of the massive net gold sales by the official sector even when gold’s bullmarket has been on the fringe.

Again from mineweb.com, ``at the end of 1998, world central bank holdings of gold amounted to 33,500 tonnes and that by the end of 2008 this was down to 29,700 tonnes so that the rate of disposal over the decade was the fastest in history - and still the price doubled.”

The important point is that the complexion of gold’s pricing dynamics has been significantly transforming from traditional “jewelry” based to “investment” based (left window). And this has been responsible for today’s buoyant gold prices, even in the face of central bank selling.

There is no better way to parse on central banking mindset than from their statements or “rationalization”. Mineweb’s Rhona O’Connell covers M. Paul Mercier, the European Central Bank's Principal Advisor in Market Operations, who in a recent speech gave four reasons why central bankers value gold.

From Ms. O’Connell (all bold and italics emphasis mine), ``The four primary reasons for a central bank to hold gold were listed as follows:

-Economic security. The physical and chemical characteristics of gold with its high density and resistance to oxidation, for example (unlike silver, the oxidation of which is the cause of tarnishing) combine with the fact that it is the only asset that is no-one else's liability to make it a vital element of foreign exchange reserves. Holding another party's securities always carries the possibility that the behaviour of the counter-party can affect the value of those securities.

-Unexpected needs. There is always a possibility, albeit very low, of highly damaging developments such as war or high inflation that can have a severe impact on sovereign debt, or result in a country's isolation. As the ultimate global means of payment gold is an important insurance policy. It can also be used as international collateral (for example the loan to the Banca d'Italia from the Bundesbank in the early 1970s).

-Confidence. Although gold no longer backs currencies in circulation, M. Mercier argued that it helps to underpin international confidence in any one currency, especially since, without gold's formal backing, currency values are based on faith in one another. He reminded us of the IMF's recent reiteration of the IMF's statement about hoe gold gives a "fundamental strength" to its balance sheet.

-Risk diversification. This, he asserts, is probably even more highly valued by central banks than it is by other investors. There is a considerable body of study that quantifies the ways in which gold brings robustness to a portfolio, most notably, for a central banker, the reduction in volatility.”

Ironically after selling 3,800 tonnes over the period where central banking dogma thought that they have successfully lorded over inflation [see Rediscovering Gold’s Monetary Appeal], counterparty risks, insurance, confidence and risk diversification suddenly becomes an issue for central bankers in reconsidering gold sales.

What has impelled them to raise such concerns?

Obviously signs like this… (all bold emphasis mine)

The Financial Times on India’s IMF’s gold’s purchase, ``Pranab Mukherjee, India’s finance minister, said the acquisition reflected the power of an economy that laid claim to the fifth-largest global foreign reserves: “We have money to buy gold. We have enough foreign exchange reserves.” He contrasted India’s strength with weakness elsewhere: “Europe collapsed and North America collapsed.”

Unsettling concerns over new bubble cycles emanating from the low interest rates regime implemented by the US Federal Reserve as articulated by the Chinese and Japanese leadership, from Bloomberg, ``“The continuous depreciation in the dollar, and the U.S. government’s indication that, in order to resume growth and maintain public confidence, it basically won’t raise interest rates for the coming 12 to 18 months, has led to massive dollar arbitrage speculation,” Liu, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, said in Beijing yesterday.

``While lower interest rates will help Americans pare debt, “there are also risks involved in continued low rates,” Shirakawa said today at a Paris Europlace Financial Forum in Tokyo. Having borrowing costs near zero may strain government finances if it spurs speculation that the dollar will continue to slide, he said, while warning that easy policy by officials globally may have repercussions in the long term.

``“Monetary easing in advanced economies has stimulated capital inflows to emerging economies,” Shirakawa said. If emerging nations continue to recover at a faster pace than advanced ones, they “might overheat and experience financial turmoil, triggering a recession,” he said.

Hong Kong’s monetary authority likewise includes the FED’s Quantitative Easing program aside from the prevailing low interest regime over concerns on formative bubbles, this from the Wall Street Journal, ``“The question one really has to ask is to what extent quantitative easing is necessary. Is the dosage right, because $2 trillion is a lot of money in the banking system, it’s high power money,” said Norman Chan, monetary authority chief executive. He and Ms. Yellen were at a forum sponsored by the Institute of Regulation & Risk. Ms. Yellen gave a speech that touched on how policymakers should address future asset bubbles.

“In Asian economies, Hong Kong included, we have seen a very massive inflow of funds that is explainable by the very low global interest rates and coupled with this huge amount of quantitative easing,” Mr. Chan said. “This question of potential risk of asset bubbles forming if this is to continue for a long period of time is a big challenge for us,” he said to Ms. Yellen.”

Basically, it’s been a predicament for Asian central banks to raise interest rates because higher rates will widen the currency yield spreads in their favor and exacerbate inward money flows. This, in essence, will blow the region’s asset bubbles faster. Yet by suppressing interest rate asset bubbles could be internally generated.

To quote CLSA’s high profile strategists Christopher Woods (highlight mine), ``The irony is that the more anaemic the Western recovery proves to be, the longer it will take for Western interest rates to normalize and the bigger the resulting asset bubble in Asia. Emerging Asia, not the U.S. consumer, will be the prime beneficiary of the Fed's easy money policy.

And the prospect of fostering asset bubbles has prompted for Asian central banks to consider imposing capital controls.

So Gartman’s argument where “gold is becoming a reservable asset” increasingly seems as a protective or insurance cover against the possible impacts from globalized systematic inflation (instead of no inflation), such as blossoming asset bubbles, emerging malinvestments, rampant speculation, financial and economic imbalances, arbitrages and carry trades, ballooning systemic leverage and surging inflation, which could all end up in tears. All these signify as inexorable monetary disorder.

In other words, many central banks have been insuring themselves, from inflation and counterparty risks by taking on gold as reservable asset. In short, gold’s appears to be gradually regaining its role as money.

Yet it would also be a grievous mistake to read bubbles as routinely blowing and popping without taking into account the magnitude where bubble cycles are becoming larger in scope and more damaging in scale upon impact when the mean reversion occurs.

Figure 4: Socgen, wikipedia: Central Bank Gold Shocks, Zimbabwe Dollar

A more fatal mistake would be to misjudge the impact from a lethal policy mix of flagrant money printing programs and low interest rate regime that could transmogrify a bubble cycle into hyperinflation.

So while global central banks could be buying gold today as shield against bubble cycles, they and everyone else would be stampeding into gold if and when the risks of a currency crisis becomes imminent.

Hence basing a projection on past performance (left window figure 4), where central banks bought during the 70s, which eventually turned into 2 gold shocks of sharply higher gold prices, assumes that present monetary disorder would be resolved in the traditional sense. We aren’t that confident. And Zimbabwe’s real life hyperinflation (right window) which ended last year should serve as reminder.

Appraising Gold And The Origin of Money

Many have made the case of valuing gold by discounting currency in circulation with that of available gold reserves.

As in the case of Socgen Dylan Grice, “So one way to value gold, therefore, is to ask at what gold price the value of outstanding central bank paper would be completely backed by gold. The US owns nearly 263m troy ounces of gold (the world's biggest holder) while the Fed's monetary base is $1.7 trillion. So the price of gold at which the US dollars would be fully gold-backed is currently around $6,300.”

Or based on Professor Michael Rozeff’s Zero Discount Value where ``value for gold such that every outstanding dollar liability in the central bank’s monetary base (currency plus bank reserves) is backed by an equivalent dollar’s worth of gold. It is what the dollar price of gold would be if the central bank’s liabilities were 100 percent backed or covered by gold.”

From our point of view, while these hypotheses could serve as meaningful concepts to measure gold, they are predicated on the assumption where variables (as monetary base) remains stable, secondly the world currency system persists on operating under the present US dollar standard, and lastly assumes that gold’s valuation in the light of current and constant conditions, hence won’t likely serve as accurate barometers, in my view.

Since we believe the world operates in a highly action-reaction dynamic, the complexity of the distribution isn’t likely to lead into a modeled outcome that can be easily captured by math estimates.

Instead we believe that policy actions are likely to be more of an accurate gauge to implied directions of the marketplace.

And it would also be true, to affirm with the behavioral camp, that human emotions will be an elaborate part of the price setting of gold, and thus is likely to cause price exaggerations beyond any models especially in bubble cycles.

In addition, while it seems conceivable to argue that gold’s rise could be a function of a bubble psychology, as per Socgen Dylan Grice, ``If my "valuation" of gold strikes you as a desperate attempt to value something which can't be valued, it's no different from metrics such as the "market cap to clicks" or "ARPU" ratios which were used in the late 1990s during the technology bubble when demand for bullish "valuation analysis" mushroomed”, this observation is far from accurate.

Yet Mr. Grice borrows some monetary aspects to rationalize an argument for a bubble cycle, ``Like today, central banks weren't buying gold in the late 1960s to prop it up, they were abandoning attempts to prop up the dollar.”

Using behavioral aspects he adds, ``Today, central banks are monetising government deficits to accommodate the recessionary effect of the credit crisis. Then the convincing narrative was that with the Middle East controlling our energy from abroad and aggressive trade unions rampant at home, policymakers were no longer in control. Today, the perception of central bank infallibility has been permanently ruptured by their collective failure to see the 2008 crash coming. Nagging concern at their over-willingness to inflate, at the blurring of monetary and fiscal policy and over long-term government solvency gives traction to a similar narrative today.”

In short, Mr. Grice utilizes the behavioral finance perspective to argue for a gold bubble and simultaneously disparage gold’s role in society.

The idea that gold is intrinsically worthless is to argue against 4,000 years of history whereby gold or silver has accounted for as money. To quote Murray Rothbard in What Has Government Done to Our Money?, ``Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a claim on society; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity.”

Yet gold, as commodity money, didn’t just pop out of nowhere, nor had they been they imposed by Kings or political leaders to be accepted by their constituents as money. On the contrary, historical evidences reveal that money evolved from the market’s selection process.

Some earlier forms of money that were used in select societies, such as cowrie shells in Maldives, peppers and squirrels skins in parts of Europe (The Ascent of Money), fish on the Atlantic sea coast of colonial America, beaver in the old Northwest, and tobacco, in Southern colonies (Rothbard-Mystery of Banking) salt, sugar, iron hoes, feathers, leaves and seeds, land to even huge stones weighing up to 500 lbs in the Pacific Islands of the Yap, failed to generate wider acceptance.

Instead, commodity metals, particularly of the precious metals family –gold, silver and copper- had been largely adopted due to its marketability.

According to Professor Ludwig von Mises in The Theory of Money and Credit, ``There would be an inevitable tendency for the less marketable of the series of goods used as media of exchange to be one by one rejected until at last only a single commodity remained. Which was universally employed as a medium of exchange; in a word money.”

Aside from marketability, commodity money has acquired its role due to added special traits as being highly divisible, portable, high value per unit weight and highly durable (Rothbard-Mystery of Banking).

Yet money in a conventional sense, to quote Professor Niall Ferguson in The Ascent Of Money, is a medium of exchange, which has the advantage of eliminating inefficiencies of barter; a unit of account which facilitates valuation and calculation and a store of value, which allows economic transactions to be conducted over long periods as well as geographical distances.

In other words, it would seem incoherent, if not self contradictory or plain arrogance, for anyone to claim that an object is intrinsically useless yet is considered as the most marketable combined with special traits for it to assume the role of money for thousands of years. It’s like arguing that Manny Pacquiao is a loser in spite of snaring a world record breaking title win!

Crack Up Boom Versus Bubble Psychology

Yet forecasting gold prices at $6,300 driven by plain narrative based bubble psychology is like proposing to buy or exchange something you own for something that is essentially a chimera. Or simply, would you buy rubbish simply because everybody else is doing so? How logically consistent can this be? To recall Warren Buffett’s priceless words of wisdom, ``the dumbest reason in the world to buy a stock [or any investment –mine] is because it's going up.”

Furthermore, the argument for a ‘displacement’ that would trigger a bubble cycle predicated on the rationale of “insolvent governments” ignores the psychology that drives money-FAITH.

In essence, bubble psychology deals with investor irrationality, cognitive biases and the animal spirits, which eventually revert to the mean. It underestimates and overlooks on the impact of the bubble cycles on monetary health conditions and sees a limited effect only to investment assets.

On the other hand, the truism is that money is driven by trust or faith accrued over the long years of established virtues or properties acquired which allowed money to assume its role. Confusing one for the other would be misleading.

Figure 5: Casey Research: Weimar Hyperinflation: How Faith Evaporates

As to how faith in money can vanish (see figure 5-the Weimar Germany experience) beyond the realm of behavioral finance, again this quote from Prof. von Mises, ``But then finally the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against "real" goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.”

In finale, my view of rising gold prices is that it reflects on a burgeoning global monetary disorder based on the incumbent operating currency platform (US dollar standard) more than simply bubble symptoms. It’s more than a narrative; it is an underlying degenerating malaise that places at risks faith in our money.

Although a gold bubble cycle CANNOT be discounted, we’d like to see evidences of a credit driven euphoria underpinning private or public sector acquisition. Absent credit expansion, which is the sine qua non fuel for any bubble, rising gold prices signify as a symptom.