Despite trillions of paper currency units poured into the world economies since the start of the financial crisis, there has been no recovery, in fact, all legitimate indicators have shown worsening conditions except, of course, for the pocketbooks of the politically -connected financial elites. Yet, despite the utter failure of the current money and banking paradigm to resolve the situation, the chance of a return to a commodity based monetary order is highly unlikely especially when one looks at the anti-gold bias found in typical college economics textbooks.
Macroeconomics: Principles, Problems and Policies by McConnell, Brue and Flynn is a leading introductory level college text which has been through, to date, some 20 editions. Until the financial crisis of 2008, the subject of a commodity- backed money was not discussed, however, after the crisis and the popularity of gold standard enthusiasts like former Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul, the authors of Macroeconomics obviously felt the need to address the resurgence in the interest of metallic money.
McConnell and company’s critique of the gold standard is full of fallacious reasoning that monetary cranks have employed for generations, all of which have been easily refuted by eminent economists. Yet, the lies and distortions about commodity money continues in academia.
The authors admit that:
To many people, the fact that the government does
not back the currency with anything tangible seems
implausible and insecure.
This logical sentiment and realization of the fraudulent nature of unbacked currency by those outside the economics profession is brushed aside by the esteemed trio:
But the decision not to back the currency with anything tangible was made for a very good reason.
Yes, and we know what that reason was: so that the state and central banksters could have a ready and unlimited access to the creation of money to solidify and expand their power. The gold standard was always an impediment to this cherished dream of the political elites – the establishment of an irredeemable, paper monetary order.
The authors, not surprisingly, see things differently:
If the government backed the currency with something
tangible like gold, then the supply of money would
vary with how much gold was available. By not backing
the currency, the government avoids this constraint and
indeed receives a key freedom – the ability to provide
as much or as little money as needed to maintain the
value of money and to best suit the economic needs of
By all means, the state and central banksters should be given as much “freedom” as possible for we all know that governments would never abuse such license and would always act in the best interests of their citizens. Certainly, the authors are not aware of any cases in history where such “freedom” was ever abused.
Nearly all today’s economists agree that managing the
money supply is more sensible than linking it to gold or
to some other commodity whose supply might change
arbitrary and capriciously. . . . if we used gold to back the
money supply so that gold was redeemable for money . . .
then a large increase in the nation’s gold stock as the
result of a new gold discovery might increase the money
supply too rapidly and thereby trigger rapid inflation. Or
a long-lasting decline in gold production might reduce the
money supply to the point where recession and
Volumes have been written debunking such stupidity. The point, however, is that millions of minds have been exposed to such thinking and while most will not become economists (thank goodness!), what is taught in college and university classrooms about the gold standard is negative, to say the least. Moreover, those who continue in a career in finance or economics will unlikely ever be presented with an accurate assessment of the gold standard.
A return to a sound and just monetary order will only take place after the ideological groundwork has been first laid, just as fiat money and central banking came about after years of proselytizing by inflationists. It is also not enough to show the economic efficacy and moral soundness of commodity money, the ideas of crackpots like McConnell, Brue and Flynn need to be exposed for what they are.
Under the current academic environment, as generations have been misinformed, deceived, and lied to, it is unlikely that a return to a gold standard will take place. Until the intellectual battle is won, paper money and the central banksters that manage it will continue their reign of financial terror.