A Modern Dilemma

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

The
Great Dollar Standard Era is a direct result of the removal of gold
as the underpinning of the world’s currencies. The vast overprinting
of currency will inevitably debase the value of the U.S. dollar
and, because so many foreign currencies are pegged to the dollar,
the currency of those nations as well. Fiat money, simply put, is
created out of nothing. A future promise to pay has never supported
monetary value for long and the United States is so overextended
today that it is doubtful it could ever honor its overall real debts.

Counting
obligations under Medicare and Social Security, the real debt of
the United States is more than 10 times the reported national debt:

“Taking present
values as of fiscal year end 2002 and interpreting the policies
in the federal budget for fiscal year 2004 as current policies,
the federal government’s total fiscal imbalance is equal to $44.2
trillion.”

The
argument favoring the current fiat system is that the demand for
it grew out of barter, the need to facilitate ever-higher volumes
of trade. If this were true, there would be a reasonable expectation
that a system of paper drafts would make sense. But the reality
is that fiat money has not grown out of barter, but from the previous
gold standard. Given the lack of control over how much fiat money
is placed in circulation – after all, it is based on nothing
– we can only expect that the currency will continue to lose
value over time. The model of fiat money is supported and defended
with arguments that consumption is good for the economy, even with
the use of vacant monetary systems. But there is a problem:

“The predictions
of these models are at odds with the historical evidence. Fiat
money did not in fact evolve . . . by means of a great leap forward
from barter. Nor did fiat monies ever emerge out of thin air.
Instead, fiat monies have always developed out of some previously
existing money.”

Can
we equate the problems inherent in fiat money with the effects of
inflation? We have all heard that saving for retirement today is
problematical because, by the time we retire, we will need more
dollars to pay for the things we will need. By definition, this
sounds like the consequences of inflation. But inflation is not
simply higher prices; it has another aspect, which is devalued currency.
We have to pay higher prices in the future because the currency
is worth less relative to other currencies. That is the real inflation.
Higher prices are only symptoms following the debasement of currency.
If we examine why those prices go up, we discover that the reason
is not necessarily corporate greed, inefficiency, or foreign price
gouging. At the end of the day, it is the gradual loss of purchasing
power, the need for more dollars to buy the same things. That’s
inflation. And fiat money is at the root of the problem.

The
intrinsic problem with fiat money systems is how it unravels the
basic economic reality. We know that it requires work to create
real wealth. We labor and we are paid. We save and we earn interest.
Government, however, produces nothing to create wealth so it does
so out of an arbitrary system: fiat money. The problem is described
well in the following passage:

“It takes
work to create wealth. ‘Dollars’ are created without any work
– how much more work is involved in printing a $100 bill
as compared to a $1 bill? Not only are ordinary people at home
being deceived, but foreigners who accept and save our “dollars”
in exchange for their goods and services are also being cheated.”

So
are we “cheated” by the fiat money system? Under one interpretation,
we have to contend with the reality that the dollar is not backed
by anything of value. But as long as we all agree to assign value
to the dollar, and as long as foreign central banks do the same,
isn’t it okay to use a fiat money system?

The
problem becomes severe when, unavoidably, the system finally collapses.
At some point, the Federal Reserve – with blessings of the
Congress and the administration – prints and places so much
money into circulation that its perceived value just evaporates.
Can this happen? It has always happened in the past when fiat money
systems were put into use. We have to wonder whether FDR was sincere
when, in 1933, he declared that the currency had adequate backing.
It wasn’t until the following year that the president raised the
ounce value of gold from $20.67 to $35. He explained his own monetary
policy in 1933 after declaring the government’s sole right to possess
gold:

“More liberal
provision has been made for banks to borrow on these assets at
the Reserve Banks and more liberal provision has also been made
for issuing currency on the security of those good assets. This
currency is not fiat currency. It is issued on adequate security,
and every good bank has an abundance of such security.”

It
was the plan of the day. First, the law required that all citizens
turn over their gold to the government. Second, the value of that
gold was raised nearly 70 percent to $35 per ounce (after collecting
it from the people, of course). Third, the president declared that
currency printing was being liberalized – but it is backed
by gold, so it’s not a fiat system. This may have been true in 1933,
but since then – having removed ourselves from the gold standard
– the presses are printing money late into the night. The gold
standard has been long forgotten in Congress, the Federal Reserve,
and the executive branch.

It
may be the view of some people that a perfect monetary system may
include changes in value based on purchasing power and on the demand
for money itself. Thus, rich nations would become richer and control
the cost of goods, while poor nations would remain poor. In spite
of the best efforts under the Bretton Woods Agreement, it has proven
impossible to simply let money find its own level of value. Unlike
stocks and real estate, the free market does not work well with
monetary value because each country has its own self-interests.
Furthermore, today’s post-Bretton Woods monetary system has no method
available to prevent or mitigate trade imbalances. Thus, trade surplus
versus deficit continues to expand out of control. The United States
ended up accumulating current account deficits totaling more than
$3 trillion between 1980 and 2000.This perverse twist on world money
has had a strange effect:

“These deficits
have acted as an economic subsidy to the rest of the world, but
they have also flooded the world with dollars, which have replaced
gold as the new international reserve asset. These deficits have,
in effect, become the font of a new global money supply.”

This
is what occurs when international money supplies become unregulated.
We need a firmly controlled world banking system if only to stop
the unending printing of money. If, indeed, U.S. deficits continue
as a form of subsidy to the rest of the world, that can only lead
to a worldwide economic collapse like the one seen in the 1920s
and 1930s.

If
it were possible to create a controlled international monetary unit,
its effectiveness would demand ongoing regulation to prevent the
disparities between nations with varying resources and reserves.
Ludwig von Mises wrote that:

“The idea
of a money with an exchange value that is not subject to variations
due to changes in the ratio between the supply of money and the
need for it . . . demands the intervention of a regulatory authority
in the determination of the value of money; and its continued
intervention.”

Mises
concluded that this need for intervention was itself a problem.
It is unlikely that any government would be trustworthy enough to
properly ensure a fair valuation of money, were it left up to them;
instead, governments are more likely than not to fall into the common
fiat trap. Without limitations on how much money can be printed,
it is human and governmental nature to print as much as possible.
Mises observed that fiat money leads to monetary policy designed
to achieve political aims. Mises:

“The state
should at least refrain from exerting any sort of influence on
the value of money. A metallic money, the augmentation or diminution
of the quantity of metal available which is independent of deliberate
human intervention, is becoming the modern monetary ideal.”

To
an extent, the enactment of a fiat money system is likely either
to be politically motivated or to soon become a political tool in
the hands of government. We have to see how government attempts
to influence economic health through a variety of means and in tandem
with Federal Reserve policy: raising and lowering interest rates,
enacting tax incentives for certain groups, legislating tax cuts
or tax increases, and imposing or reducing trade restrictions or
tariffs. All of these moves invariably have a pro and con argued
politically rather than economically. The argument in modern-day
U.S. politics is between Republican desires to reduce taxes as a
means of stimulating growth versus Democratic views that we cannot
afford tax cuts and such cuts are given to favored upper-income
taxpayers. The arguments are complex and endless, but they are not
just political tools; they are part of overall monetary and economic
policy trends as well.

This
has become our modern entry in the history of money. The belief
on the part of government, rooted in an arrogant thinking that power
extends even to the valuation of goods and services and monetary
exchange, has led to a monetary policy that makes utterly no sense
in historical perspective. Having gone over entirely to a fiat standard,
government has chosen to ignore history and those market forces
that ultimately decide the question of valuation, in spite of anything
government does. This has always been true, as Jeffrey M. Herbener
observed:

“The use
of the precious metals was historically the choice of the market.
Without interference from governments, traders adopted the parallel
standard using gold and silver as money.”

If
monetary policy were left alone and allowed to function in the free
market, what would happen? Perhaps governments ultimately do follow
the market by adopting the gold standard, as we have seen repeatedly
in history: going on the gold standard, moving to fiat money, experiencing
a debasement, and then returning to the gold standard. Herbener
continued by observing,

“The
fly in the ointment of the classical gold standard was precisely
that since it was created and maintained by governments, it could
be abandoned and destroyed by them. As the ideological tide turned
against laissez-faire in favor of statism, governments intent
upon expanding the scope of their interference in and control
of the market economy found it necessary to eliminate the gold
standard.”

Today,
we live with that legacy. While historians marvel at the “end of
history” and the triumph of free market economics, the Fed maintains
“price controls” on the very symbol of economic freedom – the
U.S. dollar itself.

August
19, 2005

Addison
Wiggin [send
him mail
] is the editorial director and publisher of The
Daily Reckoning. He is the author, with Bill Bonner, of Financial
Reckoning Day: Surviving The Soft Depression of The 21st
Century
and the upcoming Empire
of Debt
. This
article is taken from his soon-to-be released new book, The
Demise of the Dollar…and Why It’s Great for Your Investments
.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare