-->Ich habe den Artikel noch nicht gelesen, vielleicht ist es ja Quatsch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<div>
<font color="#002864" size="1" face="Verdana">http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152</font>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<font face="Verdana" size="2"><font color="#002864"><strong><font size="5">The Classical Economists on Gold</font></strong></font>
</div>
<font size="4">By Nikolay Gertchev</font><a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><font size="1">[1]</font></a>
<font size="2">[Posted January 30, 2003]</font>
<font size="2">[img][/img] With
the dollar down and gold up, both trends obviously related to growing fear of
economic troubles ahead, the question again arises: why shouldn't the dollar
itself be defined as a fixed quantity of gold? It would be if the views
of the classical liberal tradition held sway. This tradition stands solidly
behind a commodity money standard, like silver or gold, as the very embodiment
of sound money.</font>
<h1 align="left"><font size="2">Money must have value </font></h1>
<p align="left"><font size="2">The general case for commodity money rests on
the uncontestable assertion, repeated constantly by classical economists, that
in order to fulfill the various functions of money, a thing must possess value.
And because metals do have value, and a note of paper does not, it is then
natural for a metal, which is also endowed with a number of other qualities,
like being divisible, portable, cognizable, etc., to be the general medium of
exchange.</font>
<p align="left"><font size="2">On these grounds, John Locke already dismissed
the idea of paper money,"because a law cannot give to bills that
intrinsic value, which the universal consent of mankind has annexed to silver
and gold."</font><a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><font size="2">[2]</font></a>
<font size="2">It is true that a promissory note, or any form of bank
credit, provides the same functions as money does, but the explanation for
this lies in the representative-of-money nature of the note, which, otherwise,
would never be accepted in exchange.</font>
<font size="2">David Ricardo goes as far as erecting this principle into a
norm when he undertakes to"show what is the standard measure of value in
this country, and of which, therefore, our paper currency ought to be the
representative."</font><a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><font size="2">[3]</font></a><font size="2">
And for the norm to be respected, a strict redemption of paper in money, which
can be nothing but a commodity, is necessary.</font>
<font size="2">Under J.S. Mill's pen, the value argument against paper
money achieves its most accomplished shape. If the paper currency is
convertible at will into specie, then its value springs from the cost of
production of the commodity money. This is not the case of"a paper
currency not convertible into the metals at the option of the holder"
whose quantity"can be arbitrarily fixed; especially if the issuer is the
sovereign power of the state. The value, therefore, of such a currency is
entirely arbitrary."</font><a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><font size="2">[4]</font></a>
<font size="2">Thus, the choice between commodity and inconvertible paper
is that between determined or undetermined exchange value of the money.
Therefore, clinging to commodity money is indeed the only possible choice,
since any money must possess a determined value.</font>
<p align="left"><font size="2">Classical economists thus rejected
inconvertible paper money from the very beginning, because they thought it was
lacking the most important attribute a thing must possess in order to be used
as money, namely it was lacking value. This argument, of course, is not
invalidated by the falsity of the objective value theory; the marginal
revolution, to be sure, changes its content, but leaves its essence unchanged.
In addition to their essentialist approach, and building their point of view
upon a careful examination of the repercussions brought about by an increase
of the stock of media of exchange in the economy, the classical liberals
developed an equally convincing set of arguments against any augmentation of
paper currency, convertible as well as inconvertible.</font>
<h1 align="left"><font size="2">Paper money is harmful to the economy </font></h1>
<p align="left">Prior to the analysis of the consequences driven by an
increase of the stock of media of exchange is the very important classical
consideration that the given quantity of money is immaterial for the
functioning of the economy. David Hume explicitly states,"The absolute
quantity of the precious metals is a matter of great indifference."<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a>
Ricardo exposes the futility of the quest for a optimal quantity of money,
since"the smaller quantity of money would perform the functions of a
circulating medium, as well as the larger."<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a>
<p align="left">Having explained that whatever its quantity, money renders its
services equally well, classical economists emphasized that the primary, and
most important consequence of an additional quantity of media of exchange is
the subsequent rising of prices, be it strictly proportional or not. And
because rising prices produce a series of detrimental effects on the economy,
these should not be engineered artificially by more paper.
<p align="left">For Hume, paper currency makes things dearer, and hence it
hinders commerce, especially with foreigners who"will never accept"
the"counterfeit money." The conclusion is then immediate,"it
must be allow’d, that no bank cou’d be more advantageous than such a one
as lockt up all the money it receiv’d, and never augmented the circulating
coin, as is usual, by returning part of its treasure into commerce."<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a>
Richard Cantillon and Ricardo also stressed that paper currency, unlike
commodity money, is of a serviceability limited to a narrow range of nationals,
but Hume went as far as to state that great undertakings can be done
conveniently only in specie, not in paper.
<p align="left">Ricardo pointed out that, because the paper currency
arbitrarily depreciates the medium of exchange, the"equitable state"
of the currency must be restored, by"the total overthrow of our paper
credit" if necessary.<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">[8]</a>
All other pernicious repercussions, like the instability and unpredictability
of the future purchasing power of a paper currency, to be emphasized later by
George Goschen and Dennis Robertson, are, as a matter of fact, deduced from
this economic law that more credit in general, and more paper in particular,
necessarily heightens prices.
<p align="left">The classical liberals were aware of, and disclosed in their
writings, all the imperfections of paper currency; Ricardo did not omit even
the uncertainty as to the future interest on public and private debts,
potentially paid in a money of lower exchange value.
<p align="left">To sum up the second classical argument against paper currency:
because the quantity of money in the economy is irrelevant, and since each
increase of the stock of media of exchange produces harmful effects, the
quantity of paper currency should not be increased beyond the amount of specie
for which it is a substitute. Besides, the opposition to fiat paper money
stems from the insight that in such a system the harmful effects are more
likely to occur, since interested groups will push the money producer to abuse
his power and to issue more money at others’ expense. The third argument for
commodity money classical liberals expounded is an elaboration of this point.
<p align="left">Paper money: a threat to property rights
Although they lacked a complete analytical system based on the concept of
property rights, the classical liberals emphasized that the monetary system,
which does not allow for arbitrary political interferences with the market
economy, is that of a commodity money. Eighteenth and nineteenth century
economists have already warned against the possibility offered by paper
currency to privilege the particular interests of one special group and hurt
those of others. That an additional issue of paper currency robs the creditors
is beyond doubt for Locke.
Examining the debtor's position, Cantillon alerts us that" a Banker
with the complicity of a Minister is able to… pay off the State debt"<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">[9]</a>
by means of new banknotes. The nineteenth century suspicion on those, and
similar corrupted practices must have been really significant for Malthus to
express it so vividly:"In fact, what security have we, except in this
integrity, that the Bank Directors may not agree to create and divide 24
millions in notes among them for their private fortunes?"<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10">[10]</a>
Although the early classical economists realized that paper money vests its
issuer with the power to destroy contract engagements and individual fortunes,
they did not really recognize the institution that is most interested in
capturing the opportunity to provide an economy with a medium of exchange.
Even Ricardo, who observed that"experience, however, shows that neither
a State nor a Bank ever have had the unrestricted power of issuing paper money,
without abusing that power," seems to put the emphasis on the probable
"indiscretion of the Bank", not on the expectedly systematic
recourse to this evident source of revenue on the part of the state.<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11">[11]</a>
Mill did not come exactly to Rothbard’s insight that"the natural
tendency of the state is inflation," but at least he made it clear that
governments were those who first seized the opportunity to finance themselves
through paper money, simply by"emancipating themselves" from the
"unpleasant obligation" to redeem the banknotes in specie. And
because the producer of inconvertible paper will try to"pay off the
national debt, defray the expenses of government without taxation," in
short to levy a tax"for his benefit" on the expense of the holders
of currency, Mill discarded this form of monetary organization.<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12">[12]</a>
No other but commodity money prevents all schemes for silent and resitance-proof
expropriation: that is the final conclusion of the classical liberals.
The case for commodity money in general, and for silver and gold in
particular, was established, authoritatively, long ago. It is true that the
subtleness and some errors of the classical economists’ thought are
partially responsible for the present-day ideological reversal in quasi-total
support of paper money. However, there is no excuse, even not the sheer
ignorance, for completely erasing what the classicals said in defense of gold
from contemporary textbooks in monetary theory. <br clear="all">
<div>
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
</div>
<div>
<div id="ftn1">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a>
Nikolay Gertchev is a Ph. D. candidate at Université Panthéon-Assas,
Paris, France and Massey Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.<span class="374120614-30012003">
Send him</span> <span class="374120614-30012003"><font color="#0000ff">MAIL</font></span>.
See also the Study
Guide on Money and Banking.
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a>
William Rees-Mogg (ed. by). 2002. The Case for Gold. London:
Pickering & Chatto (I, p. 34).
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a>
Ibid., II, p. 66.
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a>
Ibid., II, pp. 155-6.
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a>
Ibid., I, p. 121.
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a>
Ibid., II, p. 60.
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a>
Ibid., I, p. 115.
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a>
Ibid., II, p. 82.
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">[9]</a>
Ibid., I, p. 182.
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">[10]</a>
Ibid., II, p. 44.
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11">[11]</a>
Ibid., II, pp. 83-91.
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1152#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12">[12]</a><font size="2">
Ibid., II, pp. 155-9.
</font>
</div>
</div>
</font>
|
Thread-Ansicht
Mix-Ansicht
Reihenfolge
Thread gesperrt
