|
In Part I (http://keithweiner.posterous.com/unadulterate...standard-part-i),
we looked at the period prior to and during the time of what we now call the
Classical Gold Standard. It should be underscored that it worked pretty
darned well. Under this standard, the United States produced more wealth at a
faster pace than any other country before, or since. There were problems;
such as laws to fix prices, and regulations to force banks to buy government
bonds, but they were not an essential property of the gold standard.
In Part II target="_blank"(http://keithweiner.posterous.com/unadulter...tandard-part-ii),
we went through the era of heavy-handed intrusion by governments all over the
world, central planning by central banks, and some of the destructive
consequences of their actions including the destabilized interest rate,
foreign exchange rates, the Triffin dilemma with an
irredeemable paper reserve currency, and the inevitable gold default by the
US government which occurred in 1971.
Part III is
longer and more technical, as we consider the key features of the
unadulterated gold standard. It could be briefly stated as a free market in
money, credit, interest, discount, and banking. Another way of saying it is
that there would be no confusion of money (i.e. gold) and credit (i.e. paper). Both play their role, and neither is banished from
the monetary system.
There would
be no central bank with its "experts" to dictate the rate of
interest and no "lender of last resort". There would be no
Securities Act, no deposit insurance, no armies of banking regulators, and
definitely no bailouts or "too big to fail". The government would
have little role in the monetary system, save to catch criminals and enforce
contracts.
As mentioned
in Part I, people would enjoy the right to own gold coins, or deposit them in
a bank if they wish. We propose the radical idea that the government should
have no more involvement in specifying the contents of the gold coin than it
does specifying the contents of the software that runs a web server. And this
is for the same reason: the market is far better at determining what people
need and far better at adapting to changing needs.
In 1792,
metallurgy was primitive. To accommodate 18th century gold refiners, the
purity of the gold coin was set at around 90% pure gold (interestingly the
Half Eagle had a slightly different purity than the Eagle though exactly half
the pure gold content). Today, much higher purities can easily be produced,
along with much smaller coins ( target="_blank"see http://keithweiner.posterous.com/pieces-of-50).
We also have plastic sleeves today, to eliminate wear and tear on pure gold
coins, which are quite soft.
If the
government had fixed a mandatory computer standard in the early 1980's (some
governments considered it at the time), we would still be using floppy disks,
we would not have folders, and most of us would not be using any kind of
computer at all, as they were not user friendly. When something is fixed in
law, it is no longer possible to innovate. Instead, companies lobby the
government for changes in the law to benefit them at the expense of everyone
else. No good ever comes of this.
We propose
the radical idea that one should not need permission to walk down the street,
to open a bank, or to engage in any other activity. Without banking permits,
licenses, charters, and franchises, the door is not open to the game played
by many states in the 19th century.
"To
operate a bank in our state, you must use some of your depositors' funds to
buy the bonds sold by our state. In return, we will protect you from
competition by not allowing out-of-state banks to operate here."
Most banks
felt that was a good trade-off, at least until they collapsed due to risk
concentration and defaults on state government bonds.
State and
federal government bonds are an important issue. We will leave the question
of whether and when government borrowing is appropriate to a discussion of
fiscal policy. There is an important monetary policy that must be addressed.
Government bonds must not be treated as money. They must not become the base
of the monetary system (as they are today). If a bank wants to buy a bond,
including a government bond, that is a decision that should be made by the
bank's management.
An important
and related principle is that bonds (private or government) must not be
"paid off" by the issuance of new bonds! Legitimate credit is
obtained to finance a productive project. The financing should match the
reasonable estimate of the useful life of the project, and the full cost must
be amortized over this life. If the project continues to generate returns
after it is amortized, there is little downside in such a conservative
estimate (though it obviously makes the investor case less attractive).
On the other
hand, if the plant bought by the bond is all used up before the bond is paid
off, then the entrepreneur made a grave error: he
did not adequately deduct depreciation from his cash flows and now he is
stuck with a remaining debt but no cash flow with which to pay it off.
Issuing another bond to pay off the first just extends the time of reckoning,
and makes it worse. Fully paying debt before incurring more debt enforces a
kind of integrity that is almost impossible to imagine today.
With few very
limited and special exceptions, a bank should never borrow short and lend
long. This is when a bank lends a demand deposit, or similarly lends a time
deposit for longer than its duration. A bank should scrupulously match its
assets to its liabilities. If a bank wants to buy stocks, real estate, or
tulips, it should not be forcibly prevented, even though these are bad assets
with which to back deposits. The same applies to duration mismatch.
Banks must
use their best judgment in making investment decisions. However, the job of
monetary scientists is to bellow from the rooftops that borrowing short to
lend long will inevitably collapse, like all pyramid schemes (see the
author's pap target="_blank"er: http://keithweiner.posterous.com/durati...cessarily-fails).
There should
be no price-fixing laws. Just as the price of a bushel of wheat or a laptop
computer needs to be set in the market, so should the price of silver and the
price of credit. If the market chooses to employ silver as money in addition
to gold, then the price of silver must be free to move with the needs of the
markets. It was the attempt to fix the price, starting in 1792 that caused
many of the early problems. While "de jure" the US was on a
bimetallic standard, we noted in Part I that "de facto" it was on a
silver standard. Undervalued gold was either hoarded or exported. After 1834,
silver was undervalued and the situation reversed. Worse yet, each time the
price-fixing regime was altered, there was an enormous transfer of wealth
from one class of people to another.
Similarly, if
the market chooses to adopt rough diamonds, copper, or "bitcoins" then there should be no law and no
regulation to prevent it (though we do not expect any of these things to be
monetized) and no law or regulation to fix their prices either.
If a bank
takes deposits and issues paper notes, then those notes are subject to the
constant due diligence and validation of everyone in the market to whom they
are offered. If a spread opens up between Bank A's one-ounce silver note and
the one-ounce silver coin (i.e. the note trades at a discount to the coin)
then the market is trying to say something.
What if an
electrical circuit keeps blowing its fuse? It is dangerous to replace the
fuse with a copper penny. It masks the problem temporarily, and encourages
you to plug in more electrical appliances, until the circuit overheats and
set the house on fire. It is similar with a government-set price of paper
credit.
A market
price for notes and bills is the right idea. Free participants in the markets
can choose between keeping their gold coin at home (hoarding) vs. lending
their gold coin to a bank (saving). It is important to realize that credit
begins with the saver, and it must be voluntary, like everything else in a
free market. People have a need to extend credit as explained below, but they
will not do so if they do not trust the creditworthiness of the bank.
Before
banking, the only way to plan for retirement was to directly convert 5% or
10% of one's weekly income into wealth by hoarding salt or silver. Banking
makes it much more efficient, because one can indirectly exchange income for
wealth while one is working. Later, one can exchange the wealth for income.
This way, the wealth works for the saver his whole life, and there is no danger
of "outliving one's wealth", if one spends only the interest. In
contrast, if one is spending one's capital by dishoarding, one could run out.
No discussion
on banking would be complete without addressing the issue of fractional
reserves. Many fundamental misunderstandings exist in this area, including
the belief that banks "create money". Savers extend credit to the
banks who then extend credit to businesses. The
banks can no more be said to be creating money than an electrical wire can be
said to be creating energy.
Another error
is the idea that two or more people own the same gold coin at the same time.
When one puts gold on deposit, one gives up ownership of the gold. The
depositor does not own the gold any longer. He owns a credit instrument, a
piece of paper with a promise to pay in the future. So long as the bank does
not mismatch the duration of this deposit with the duration of the asset it
buys, there is no conflict.
If people
want to vault their gold only, perhaps with some payment transfer mechanism,
there would be such a warehousing service offered in the market. But this is
not banking. It's just vaulting, and most people prefer the convenience of fungibility. Who wants the problems of a particular vault
location and a delay to transfer it elsewhere? And who wants a negative yield
on money just sitting there?
A related error is the claim, often repeated on the Internet, is that a bank
takes 1,000 ounces in deposit and then lends 10,0 target="_blank"00 out.[1]
Poof! Money has been created -- and to add insult to injury, the banks charge
interest! The error here is that of confusing the result of a market process
(of many actors) with a single bank action. If Joe deposits 1,000 ounces of
gold, the bank will lend not 10,000 ounces but 900 ounces (assuming a 10%
reserve ratio).
Mary the
borrower may spend the money to build a new factory. Jim the contractor who
builds it may deposit the 900 ounces in a bank. The bank may then lend 810
ounces, and so on. This process works if and only if each borrower spends
100% of the money and if the vendors who earned their money deposit 100% of
it, in a time deposit. Otherwise, the credit (this is credit, not money)
simply does not multiply as Rothbard asserts.
This view of
money multiplication does not consider time as a variable. Gold payable on
demand is not the same as gold payable in 30 years. It will not trade the
same in the markets. The 30-year time deposit or bond will pay interest, have
a wide bid-ask spread, and therefore not be accepted in trade for goods or
services.
This process
involving the decisions of innumerable actors in the free market may have a
result that is 10X credit expansion. But one cannot make a shortcut, presume
that it will happen, and then assert that the banks are
"swindling."
If one
confuses credit (paper) with money (gold), and one believes that inflation is
an "increase in the money supply" (see here for this author's
defin target="_blank"ition: http://keithweiner.posterous.com/inf...nterfeit-credit)
then one is opposed to any credit expansion and hence any banking. Without
realizing it, one finds oneself advocating for the stagnation of the medieval
village, with a blacksmith, cobbler, cooper, and group of subsistence
farmers. Anything larger than a family workshop requires credit.
Credit and
credit expansion is a process that has a natural brake in the gold standard
when people are free to deposit or withdraw their gold coin. Each depositor
must be satisfied with the return he is getting in exchange for the risk and
lack of liquidity for the duration. If the depositor is unhappy with the
bank's (or bond market's) offer, he can withdraw his gold.
This
trade-off between hoarding the gold coin and depositing it in the bank sets
the floor under the rate of interest. Every depositor has his threshold. If
the rate falls (or credit risk rises) sufficiently, and enough depositors at
the margin withdraw their gold, then the banking system is deprived of
deposits, which drives down the price of the bond which forces the rate of
interest up. This is one half of the mechanism that acts to keep the rate of
interest stable.
The ceiling
above the interest rate is set by the marginal business. No business can
borrow at a rate higher than its rate of profit. If the rate ticks above
this, the marginal business is the first to buy back its outstanding bonds
and sell capital stock (or at least not sell a bond to expand). Ultimately,
the marginal businessman may liquidate and put his money into the bonds of a
more productive enterprise.
A stable
interest rate is vitally important. If the rate of interest rises, it is like
a wrecking ball swinging into defenseless buildings. As noted above, each
uptick forces marginal businesses to close their operations. If the rise is
protracted, it could really cause the affected country's industry to be
hollowed out. On the other hand, if the rate falls, the wrecking ball swings
to the other side of the street. The ruins on the first side are not rebuilt.
But now, capital is destroyed through a different and very pernicious
process: the burden of each dollar of (existing) debt rises at the same time
that the lower rate encourages more borrow target="_blank"ing (see: http://keithweiner.posterous.com/...estroys-capital).
From 1947 to 1981, the US was afflicted with the rising interest rate
disorder. From 1981 until present, the second stage of the disease has
plagued us.
Today, under
the paper standard, the rate of interest is volatile. The need to hedge
interest rate risks (and foreign exchange rate risk, something else that does
not exist under the gold standard) is the main reason for the massive
derivatives market. In this market for derivatives, which is estimated to be
approaching 1 quadrillion dollars (one thousand trillion or one million
billion)[2],
market participants including businesses and governments seek to buy
financial instruments to protect them against adverse changes. Those who sell
such instruments need to hedge as well. Derivatives are an endless circle of
futures, options on futures, options on options, "swaptions",
etc.
The risk
cannot be hedged, but it does lead to a small group of large and highly co-dependant banks, who each sell one another exotic
derivative products. Each deems itself perfectly hedged, and yet the system
becomes ever more fragile and susceptible to "black swans".
These big
banks are deemed "too big to fail." And the label is accurate. The
monetary system would not survive the collapse of JP Morgan, for example. A
default by JPM on tens or perhaps a few hundred trillion of dollars of
liabilities would cause many other banks, insurers, pensions, annuities, and
employers to become insolvent. Consequently, second-worst problem is that the
government and the central bank will always provide bailouts when necessary.
This, of course, is called "moral hazard" because it encourages JPM
management to take ever more risk in pursuit of profits. Gains belong to JPM,
but losses go to the public.
There is
something even worse. Central planners must increasingly plan around the
portfolios of these banks. Any policy that would cause them big losses is
non-viable because it would risk a cascade of failures through the financial
system, as one "domino" topples another. This is one reason why the
rate of interest keeps falling. The banks (and the central bank) are
"all in" buying long-duration bonds, and if the interest rate started
moving up they would all be insolvent. Also, they are borrowing short to lend
long so the central bank accommodates their endless need to "roll"
their liabilities when due and give them the benefit of a lower interest
payment.
The problems
of the irredeemable dollar system are intractable. Halfway measures, such as
proposed by Robert Zoelick of the Bank for
International Settlements that the central banks "watch" the gold
price target="_blank" will not do.[3]
Ill-considered notions such as turning the IMF into the issuer of a new
irredeemable currency won't work. Well-meaning gestures such as a gold
"backed" currency (price fixing?) might have worked in another era,
but with the secular decline in trust, why shouldn't people just redeem their
paper for gold? One cannot reverse cause and effect, trust and credit. And
that's what a paper note is based on: trust.
The world
needs the unadulterated gold standard, as outlined in this paper, Part III of
a series.
|
