We read with interest earlier this week a call by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development for a new global reserve currency.
Apparently the current set-up of having the US dollar as a reserve currency isn’t working very well.
They’re quick learners at the UN obviously!
Their report makes some the right noises, “The dollar-based reserve system is increasingly challenged.” Hmm, a slight understatement there. If “increasingly challenged” is a euphemism for “dead” then we’d agree.
But we don’t think that’s what they mean.
So, what do they plan replacing it with?
Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs. If you’ve got no idea what that means, it’s simple.
An SDR is something made up by the boffins at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to act as an “international reserve asset.”
The rationale for the creation of the SDR was that “the international supply of two key reserve assets – gold and the US dollar – proved inadequate for supporting the expansion of world trade and financial development that was taking place.”
Look, your editor won’t pretend to be a grade ‘A’ student of monetary theory, but to us the creation of the SDR is part of the reason the global economy is in the current mess.
That gold was deemed to be inadequate for “supporting the expansion of world trade and financial development” tells you that’s when the Western world begun its massive spending spree.
Back in 1969 with the creation of the SDR.
A spending spree that couldn’t be achieved just through stealing money from citizens through the tax system, but one which could only be kept going by the creation of more money.
It was, you could argue, the beginning of the ‘consume, don’t produce’ Western economies.
The problem that SDRs ’solved’ was the ability to crank up the printing press. Of course that didn’t happen straight away. There’s always a transition with these things.
First, as it happens, like the US dollar, the SDR was backed by gold. But if you’re creating a new reserve that you want to be more flexible than gold (ie. You want to print more money and spend it), then backing it with gold isn’t going to work.
Because backing a currency with gold helps to maintain the value of the paper currency. If you know that your $1 note is redeemable for a set quantity of gold then it will maintain value.
It means the banks can’t – or shouldn’t – create more paper money than the reserves they have in gold to back it up.
Simply put, it creates and requires discipline. Something that bankers and governments in the 1960s weren’t happy with. The ‘inflexibility’ of gold makes it harder to for governments to spend and makes it harder for banks to lend.
Therefore the creation of the SDR was a stepping stone to abandoning the reserve status of gold. And sure enough, four years after the SDR was invented, US President Richard Nixon closed the gold window at the Federal Reserve and there was no longer any obligation for US dollars to be exchanged for a fixed weight of gold.
Instead the US dollar was backed by nothing, and so the SDR was backed by the US dollar and other currencies which were also backed by nothing.
Yet it is this ‘worthless’ SDR which is being touted as the new reserve currency.
But why should the SDR make any difference? It won’t. An SDR is just a weighted basket of other currencies. Unless it is backed by something tangible, such as gold, then it will prove to be equally as worthless as the US dollar it is replacing.
Perhaps, bankers and governments will see the error of their ways and make a call for these new SDRs to be back by gold…
Not a chance.
There are several reasons for that. One, as I mentioned above, is that gold forces a government and its central bank to be disciplined. It cannot circulate more money without having a corresponding increase in its gold reserves.
If it were to do so then the paper money – or certificates – would not be fully backed by gold. This would cause the value of the paper to decrease – the greater supply of one thing relative to another devalues it.
If people got wind that the central bank was printing more money without increasing its reserve of gold, there would be an increased demand for physical gold. There would be a run on the banks.
The other problem gold has is an image problem. Take this comment from a recent article by Alan Kohler over at Business Spectator:
“But while there’s no doubt the gold will continue to be underpinned by the demise of the dollar, it is not a currency. I can’t go into JB Hi-Fi with a lump of it and buy a TV.”
“Central banks around the world own about 26,000 tonnes of it, which represents 8.5 per cent of total reserves, but it’s not legal tender. It’s just a commodity they got stuck with because it used to be a currency a long time ago and will never be again.”
It’s fairly common of the attitude the mainstream press has to gold. They don’t understand that it is a store of value.
Kohler claims you can’t go into JB Hi-Fi and buy a TV with a lump of gold. He’s quite correct on that score. But it wasn’t so long ago that is effectively what consumers did. Maybe not for TVs but for other items.
Under a gold standard where your dollar was backed by gold, consumers were exchanging a gold backed dollar for goods. It was an exchange of gold for goods, only that a paper note was used as a proxy.
What’s so crazy about that? Nothing.
But if you look at Kohler’s other comment about 26,000 tonnes of gold being only 8.5% of total reserves it gives the game away for the real reason bankers and governments don’t want a gold backed currency.
Inflation.
It’s no coincidence that since the early 1970s global paper currencies have lost about 90% of their value. Virtually every currency you name is worth significantly less today than it was thirty-odd years ago.
That’s not because prices have risen, it’s because currencies have become devalued.
As Kohler, perhaps unwittingly admits, central banks and governments have embarked on a massive money printing exercise.
If paper money still had the backing of gold then global economies would not have one-tenth of the current problems we are currently facing.
The fact that the UN and other government organizations are proposing to replace one currency backed by nothing with another currency backed by nothing signals they are either ignorant or are intentionally pursuing policies guaranteed to deliver economic destruction.
And more importantly to you, to guarantee the continued devaluation of your money and wealth.
Other Stuff on the Markets
The S&P/ASX200 ‘crashed’ 0.04% yesterday, while overnight on Wall Street the Dow Jones Industrial Average added 49 points. In Europe the FTSE100 gained 1.15% and the CAC40 added 1.28%.
The price of gold in Australian dollars is trading at $1,152.96, while in US Dollars it is trading at $992.92. And the price of silver in Aussie dollars is $18.98 and in US Dollars it is $16.34.
The Aussie dollar remained steady versus the US dollar and Japanese Yen, trading at USD$0.8619, and JPY79.41.
Crude oil closed overnight at USD$71.68.
For the biggest movers on the market yesterday click here…
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I have submitted a comment to Business Spectator in response to Alan Kohler’s article, suggesting that Mr Kohler should educate himself on the subject. I doubt that comment will see the light of day over at that publication, so I will post here a very instructive little quote from the Maestro, Alan Greenspan himself, who apparently warned Gordon Brown in 1999 about the latter selling half of Great Britain’s gold at rock bottom prices:
“Germany in 1944 could buy materials during the war ONLY with gold. Fiat money paper, in extremis, is accepted by NOBODY. Gold is always accepted.” (Alan Greenspan 1999)
But obviously, Gordon Brown’s priorities at the time did not include the interests of his country and, at least he did not rate it high enough to stop himself from dumping vast quantities of gold in advertised public auctions, even though he was warned that doing so will crash the gold price. He did it anyway, and that is exactly what happened. Now, among those cynical of his motives, there are some who suggest that he undertook the whole exercise precisely for that reason, to crush the gold price, as Goldman Sachs was caught with its pants down with being massively short on gold.
But, however that may be, Mr Kohler should find it instructive to research and educate himself about gold being a store of value. He was claiming in that article that gold was a confused commodity, but it should be amply clear that the confusion lies with Mr Kohler, rather than with gold. But who knows what motive Mr Kohher might have for writing such a one sided, deaf and dumb article. You have to wonder, given his profile in the industry.
PS. I mean, it is hard to believe that Mr Kohler should be ignorant of why investors take an interest in gold, and if he is not ignorant of them, the question does arise as to his motive for ignoring them completely in his article. It would be hard, if you tried, to write a more derisory piece about gold and those who invest in gold.
PS 2: And, if investing in gold is as irrational as he seems to try making it out in that piece, it is most puzzling as to why he should not expect the gold price to crash. In fact he seems to expect the opposite, which would seem to imply that he puts more faith in investor irrationality going forward than investor rationality. Either way you look at it, unless Mr Kohler is indeed confused, the internal logic of his views, expectations and argument simply do not add up.
I”M STILL WAITING FOR
“AUSTRALIA IN THE RED “DVD
TO COME DOWN IN PRICE ……………………………………..
ANYONE KNOW WHEN????????????????????????????????
Leave a Comment
Comment moderation policy: Port Phillip Publishing supports free speech and frank and open conversation. But we reserve the right to modify or delete your comments if we consider them to be offensive or in violation of any laws, including Australia's anti-discrimination laws