Filed under: Inflation

Wait a minute – the cost of switching to the gold standard

Goldstandardnote1922
Over the last couple of days, I have been pondering over different aspects of what would happen if the united stats switched back to the gold standard. Especially I have played around with the thought experiment: ”What would the cost be to switch back to the gold standard?” So in this post, I will not past judgment on whether it would be a good idea for the united stats or the world economy if we where to go back to a gold standard, I am purely focused on identifying the practical perspective of the cost of such a switch. These reflections are prompted by the fact that Ron Paul presently is doing better, then ever before in the republican primaries. Meaning that for the first time there is actually a realistic probability that the united stats could consider a return to the gold standard.

In doing this, I first have to identifying the two pars of this analysis: How much gold and how much US-currency are there in the world? According to howstuffworks.com there is extracted around 1.555.210 kilograms of gold every year, and if we assume that this correlates to an average every year and that we have extracted gold for 400 years there would be 622.084.000 kilograms of gold currently in the world. With the current gold price at 53.133,61 US$/kilogram the current marked value of all the gold currently above ground would then be US$ 33.053.568.643.240. If we then compare that to the latest data from the US Federal Reserve Statistical Releases there are US$ 9.641.700.000.000 in circulation. Let me just quickly says that I am using the seasonally adjusted M2 numbers from November 2011. So what does this tells us?

First of all if the united stats where on the gold standard right now they would have to control 29% of all the gold existing. To my knowledge, there has never been any given country that at any single time in human history that has dominated almost a third of the world gold reserves. I might be wrong in this, but in any case to say anything significant about the cost we need to look at how much gold the U.S. Treasury presently holds. According to the U.S. Treasury’s Resource Center the U.S. International Reserve Position in gold is 7.413.372 kilogram, which means that they presently only covers 4,1% of their gold need, should they switch back to the gold standard.

I the end if, we for a moment actually ignore the overt dilemma buying up all that gold or where the money to do this would come from, without having to devaluate the US$, it would take the US 112 years to extracting enough gold to implement the gold standard, without suffering any currency penalties in doing so. So even if Ron Paul where to become 45th President of the United States, it is unlikely that the US would return to the gold standard, the cost is simply to high.

Wait a minute – When time is money

In-time-poster_176688697
Doing this weekend I went with a friend of mine and watched Andrew Niccol latest movie
In Time. In Time is a sci-fi story set in a world where the saying ‘time is money’ is meant literally. When time literally is used as the currency, it puts a really interesting perspective on economics and how it would affect the monetary system. When you flip the perspective of economy like that, it therefore becomes interesting to investigate the economy if In Time.

The premise of the movie, and therefor the economy, is that everyone in the movie is genetic modified to only be able to live for ‘free’ for 25 years. On there 25th birthday everyone receives additional 1 years, which then simulant is used as a currency in the economy and is consumed how time normally would be consumed. When you are buying goods, like a cup of coffee, you pay with time. To earn time you would naturally need a job, where you can earn a wage, which also is paid out in minutes, hours, and so on. But now it becomes interesting. In real world economy it is never clear what part of the wage is value adding, or it is never easy to objectively say how much value a given task have added, this is of course, because that in the real world the value of a minute is subjective. Now in In Time, the value of a Minutes would still be subjective, but since you are spending time just by being alive, and paid at the end of the day X amount of hours, it now becomes clear how much value a given work have created, or at least how much that the given work is being valued by the company.

Another example on how perceptive on the economy changes where time is the currency is in regards to hotel rooms. Where you pay, with time, you gain access to the room, and then you are spending time, the currency, for every second that you are using that room. So even if the transaction between consumer and the hotel still is a flat fee for renting the room; the aggregate cost of renting the room varies with how long the costumer uses the room.

But generally is In Time dealing with the subject of the central bank, and inflation. Without giving to much away clearly the bad guys in the movie are the central banks that controls the distribution of the currency in society, an especially how inflation is a tax on money. Regarding the central bank being the bad guy in this movie is made explicit several times in the movie, especially when we are shown that the bad guy in the movie is the owner of a, what seems to be the only bank in the movie, in other words that the bad guy seems to hold a monopoly on the creation of time.

The issue of inflation is portrayed in two ways in the movie, first we see how the central bank continuously increases the expeditions as a reaction to the actions of the movies heroes, and inflation is aseptically clear after the big event in at the end of the movie, where the reward for the capture of the movies heroes are increased form 10 to 100, again as a reaction to the actions of our heroes.

So in the end, if it where not for the movie Atlas Shrugged then I would consider In Time to be an elucidate contester for the libertarian movie of the year.