|
February 09, 2008
Reply to Tyler Cowen on gold
Tyler Cowen says “OK” to the claim in my Cato Briefing Paper that a gold standard isn’t a crazy idea. He grants that “over the broad sweep of world history, commodity standards have outperformed paper money”. Yet he would not “push the button” for a gold standard because we don't live in the broad sweep of world history, we live in 2008 and our ability to monitor and control central banks is unparalleled. Monitor, yes. But control? Who is this “we” that controls central banks? “We” inflation hawks, or “we” the people clamoring for low interest rates and monetary stimulus? Why is CPI inflation currently above 4% and rising if we have such firm control? Tyler adds: “The central banks of the wealthier nations work pretty well.” They work better than they used to, as I note in the Cato paper. But surely today's inflation is worse than what a gold standard produces. My main worry with the gold standard is simply the pro-cyclicality of the money supply and for all its talk of money demand the paper doesn't much address this concern. For instance would you really want a contracting money supply in today's environment? And yes credit crunches of this kind happen in market settings too so you can't blame it all on Alan Greenspan. I take it that Tyler is here referring to pro-cyclicality of the inside money stock (bank liabilities) due credit crunches and bank runs, not of the stock of gold. (The gold mining industry is actually counter-cyclical: a high price level reduces mining output. The price-specie-flow mechanism is likewise counter-cyclical.) The paper does try to address that concern in its argument that US banking panics in the gold standard era were due to weak banking (in turn due to legal restrictions) and not due to inherent instability. I would be grateful if someone could point me to evidence that countries with sound banking systems (e.g. Canada) had bigger problems with cyclical banking under the gold standard without a central bank than we have today. Yes, in principle a central bank can act counter-cyclically, but what’s the success rate in practice, even among the wealthier nations? Worse than break-even, I would submit. Posted by Lawrence H. White at 02:40 PM in Economics
|
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -Adam Smith
Our Bloggers
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Craig Depken Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
Blogroll
Search
Archives
By Author:
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Edward Bierhanzl Craig Depken Ralph R. Frasca Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
By Month:
July 2009June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004
Powered by
Site design by |