“However, before we come over all nostalgic about gold, we should recognise the
disadvantages of the gold standard. First, in the simple economic model known as the policy ‘trilemma’, if you make an exchange rate or gold price commitment in your monetary policy and do not have capital controls, there are real limits to how far your domestic national monetary policy can be regarded as independent. Monetary policy makers in such a case cannot really pay any significant attention to growth or unemployment because all their efforts must be focused on meeting the gold target – either the price of gold or, more commonly, the gold reserve.
A second important point about how the gold standard worked was that, although it implied long-run price stability, it also implied quite high volatility in short-term rates, inflation and economic activity.That seems to be one of the corollaries of all systems whereby a single monetary target takes precedence over others. In trying to meet that target, the Bank of England before 1914 constantly had to adjust its minimum lending rate, the so-called Bank rate.
Thirdly, the gold standard pegged the international monetary system to a very scarce metal, and that implied a real constraint on the growth of credit. It turned out to be perfectly possible for the gold standard to generate deflation, if growth outstripped the availability of gold for monetary uses.
Fourthly, and perhaps the most important argument in the literature in recent years, a system as rigid as the pure gold standard has the capacity to transmit crises very rapidly around the world. In a relatively minor way in 1907 and an absolutely spectacular way in the Great Depression, the gold standard turned out to be a system that could generate tremendous international monetary and financial crises.
The volatility story is interesting.We are living through a period of amazingly low volatility. By almost any financial measure, in terms of growth, inflation or asset prices, our fiat-money era evinces much lower volatility than even the time of the classical gold standard.World gold production suffered a significant stagnation from around the 1900s to the 1930s, and it is no coincidence that this was a time when deflationary pressures became a serious problem for the international economy.
Finally, there was the potential for asymmetries in the gold standard. If central banks did not play by the rules, gold could be hoarded in the reserves of a particular bank. The United States became a systematic hoarder of gold in the 1920s –with disastrous repercussions for the rest of the international system.
Related;
Can Government Gold Be Put To Better Use?: Qualitative And Quantitative Effects Of Alternative Government PoliciesChina's gold rush- Cracking the vault
“Gold prices continue to soar and China is the world's fourth-largest producer, with output rising 5.9% last year…
Chinese consumption grew 13% last year to 234 tonnes, well above the 212 tonnes produced domestically. But China's annual per person consumption is only 0.16 grams, less than a quarter of the world average.”
India and gold- Foreseeing the future
“There may be around 10,000 tonnes of gold in India, mostly in jewellery form, according to some estimates. That would constitute the biggest gold hoard in the world.”
Kitco and Blanchard Square Off Over Gold Market Manipulation
Gold Market Lending
An inside look at one of the most opaque Central Bank activities, its impact on the gold market and how IMF policy can change the market to benefit all participants
The Macroeconomic Statistical Treatment of Securities Repurchase Agreements, Securities Lending, Gold Swaps and Gold Loans
Exchange Rates in the Periphery and International Adjustment Under the Gold Standard
The Structure and Operation of the World Gold Market
IMF Response to the World Gold Council (1999)
Central Bank Gold Reserves: An historical perspective since 1845
Gold in the IMF
GOLD ANTI-TRUST ACTION COMMITTEE
1 comment:
Non-monetary inflation can be stopped.
"People today use the term `inflation' to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise." Ludwig von Mises - "Inflation: An Unworkable Fiscal Policy".
All prices do not rise. Only the prices of variable real value non-monetary items while many constant real value non-monetary items are not fully updated and many are not updated at all.
The second inevitable consequence of inflation is the tendency of many constant real value non-monetary items NOT to rise at all - during the Historical Cost era while some constant real value non-monetary items are not fully updated.
Inflation today has and always had a second consequence during the 700 year old Historical Cost era.
Inflation has a monetary consequence, called cash inflation refered to above by Ludwig von Mises and defined as the economic process that results in the destruction of real economic value in depreciating money and depreciating monetary values over time as indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index.
Inflation´s second consequence is a non-monetary consequence defined as Historical Cost Accounting inflation which is always and everywhere the destruction of real economic value in constant real value non-monetary items not fully or never updated (increased) over time due to the use of the Historical Cost Accounting model or any other accounting model which does not allow the continuous updating (increasing) in constant real value non-monetary items in an economy subject to cash inflation.
Inflation´s second consequence is solely caused by the global stable measuring unit assumption.
The stable measuring unit assumption means that we regard the annual destruction of a portion of the real value of our monetary unit by cash inflation in low inflation economies as of not sufficient importance to update the real values of constant real value non-monetary items in our financial statements.
This results in the destruction of at least $31bn in the real value of Dow companies´ Retained Income balances each and every year. Globally this value probably reaches in excess of $200bn per annum for the real value thus destroyed in all companies´ Retained Income balances.
The International Accounting Standards Board recognizes two economic items:
1) Monetary items: money held and "items to be received or paid in money" – in terms of the IASB definition.
2) Non-monetary items: All items that are not monetary items.
Non-monetary items include variable real value non-monetary items valued, for example, at fair value, market value, present value, net realizable value or recoverable value.
Historical Cost items valued at cost in terms of the stable measuring unit assumption are also included in non-monetary items. This makes these HC items, unfortunately, equal to monetary items in the case of companies´ Retained Income balances and the issued share capital values of companies without well located and well maintained land and/or buildings or without other variable real value non-monetary items able to be revalued at least equal to the original real value of each contribution of issued share capital.
The stable measuring unit assumption thus allows the IASB and the Financial Accounting Standards Board to conveniently side-step the split between variable and constant real value non-monetary items. This is a very costly mistake in low cash inflation economies - or 99.9% of the world economy.
Retained Income is a constant real value non-monetary item, but, it has been in the past and is, for now, valued at Historical Cost which makes it, very logically, subject to the destruction of its real value by cash inflation in low inflation economies - just like in cash.
It is an undeniable fact that the functional currency's internal real value is constantly being destroyed by cash inflation in the case of low inflation economies, but this is considered as of not sufficient importance to adjust the real values of constant real value non-monetary items in the financial statements – the universal stable measuring unit assumption which is the cornerstone of the Historical Cost Accounting model.
The combination of the implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption and low inflation is thus indirectly responsible for the destruction of the real value of Retained Income equal to the annual average value of Retained Income times the average annual rate of inflation. This value is easy to calculate in the case of each and very company in the world with Retained Income for any given period.
Everybody agrees that the destruction of the internal real value of the monetary unit of account is a very important matter and that cash inflation thus destroys the real value of all variable real value non-monetary items when they are not valued at fair value, market value, present value, net realizable value or recoverable value.
But, everybody suddenly agrees, in the same breath, that for the purpose of valuing Retained Income – a constant real value non-monetary item – the change in the real value of money is regarded as of not sufficient importance to update the real value of Retained Income in the financial statements. Everybody suddenly then agrees to destroy hundreds of billions of Dollars in real value in all companies´ Retained Income balances all around the world.
Yes, inflation is very important! All central banks and thousands of economists and commentators spend huge amounts of time on the matter. Thousands of books are available on the matter. Financial newspapers and economics journals devote thousands of columns to the discussion of the fight against inflation.
But, when it comes to constant real value non-monetary items:
No sir, inflation is not important! We happily destroy hundreds of billions of Dollars in Retained Income real value year after year after year.
However, when you are operating in an economy with hyperinflation, then we all agree that, yes sir, you have to update everything in terms of International Accounting Standard IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies: Variable and constant real value non-monetary items.
But ONLY as long as your annual inflation rate has been 26% for three years in a row adding up to 100% - the rate required for the implementation of IAS 29. Once you are not in hyperinflation anymore (for example, Turkey from 2005 onwards), then, with an annual inflation rate anywhere from 2% to 20% for as many years as you want, you are prohibited from updating constant real value non-monetary items. Then you are forced by the FASB´s US GAAP and the IASB´s International Accounting Standards and International Financial Reporting Standards to destroy their value again – at 2% to 20% per annum - as applicable!
For example:
Shareholder value permanently destroyed by the implementation of the Historical Cost Accounting model in Exxon Mobil’s accounting of their Retained Income during 2005 exceeded $4.7bn for the first time. This compares to the $4.5bn shareholder real value permanently destroyed in 2004 in this manner. (Dec 2005 values).
The application by BP, the global energy and petrochemical company, of the stable measuring unit assumption in the accounting of their Retained Income resulted in the destruction of at least $1.3bn of shareholder value during 2005. (Dec 2005 values).
Royal Dutch Shell Plc, a global group of energy and petrochemical companies, permanently destroyed $2.974 billion of shareholder value during 2005 as a result of their implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption in the valuation of their Retained Income. (Dec 2005 values).
Revoking the stable measuring unit assumption is actually allowed this very moment by IAS 29 but ONLY for companies in hyperinflationary economies. At 26% per annum for three years in a row, yes! At any lower rate, no!
It is prohibited by US GAAP and IASB International Standards for companies that are operating in a low inflation economy.
That means the following at this very moment in time: Today all companies in, most probably, only Zimbabwe (1000% inflation) are allowed to update all their variable real value non-monetary items as well as all their constant real value non-monetary items.
But not the rest of the world.
The rest of the world is forced by current US GAAP and IASB International Standards to destroy their/our Retained Income balances each and every year at the rate of inflation because of the implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption whereby we are all forced to regard the change in the value of the unit of account - our low inflation currencies - as of not sufficient importance to update the real values of constant real value non-monetary items in our financial statements.
We are forced to destroy them year after year at the rate of inflation till they will reach zero real value as in the case of Retained Income and the issued share capital values of all companies with no well located and well maintained land and/or buildings at least equal to the original real value of each contribution of issued share capital.
The 30 Dow companies destroy at least $31bn annually in the real value of their Retained Income balances as a result of the implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption. Every single year.
Retained Income can be paid out to shareholders as dividens. Poor Dow company shareholders. They will never see that $31bn of dividens destroyed each and every year.
We have all been doing this for the last 700 years: from around the year 1300 when the double entry accounting model was perfected in Venice.
When we do this at the rate of 2% inflation ("price stability" as per the European Central Bank and as per Mr Trichet, the president of the ECB) we are forced to destroy 51% of the real value of the Retained Income balances in all companies operating in the European Monetary Union over the next 35 years - when that Retained Income remains in the companies for the 35 years - all else except cash inflation being equal.
Each and every one of those 35 years will be classified as a year of "price stability" by the ECB and Mr Trichet. Mr Trichet will not be the president of the ECB in 35 years time.
I think we will do ourselves a great favour by revoking the stable measuring unit assumption as soon as possible.
FREE DOWNLOAD : You can download the book "RealValueAccounting.Com - The next step in our fundamental model of accounting." on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at http://ssrn.com/abstract=946775
--------------------
Nicolaas J Smith
http://www.realvalueaccounting.com/
Post a Comment