As the gold standard was in the dustbin of history

This may seem paradoxical, but the gold - more risky assets than the dollar

Economics is not an exact science, such as, say, physics. After all, she is studying a society that, unlike physical objects, fast-paced and complicated, particularly in response to the emergence of new economic theories. It is not surprising that some, including very important for the society, the questions economists still can not give satisfactory answers and argue with each other.

On the other hand, the dispute is not so much. In 2012, the Chicago School of Business conducted a survey of 41 economists authoritative (full professors leading the seven faculties of the economy in the United States) on 80 key issues of economic policy. It was found that on average, economists tend to agree than disagree with each other. For example, the question of whether at least 1% monetary policy the Fed in 2011 to increase US GDP in 2012 will, no economist has not responded positively - 37% disagreed and 11% did not agree to a large extent, the rest did not answer or found it difficult to answer. About half (32 of 80) of the cases was the case: in the answers to these questions were not at the same time the issues on which were at the same time at least one answer "agree" and at least one "do not agree". And in other cases, respondents who disagreed with the majority of his colleagues, was only 10%.

What kind of question more than any other united economists? This issue of the gold standard.

No economist is not difficult to answer this question, none agreed (in strong or weak degree) so that the gold standard is useful. For a professional economist, such a result is obvious: the abandonment of the gold standard and the transition to a modern monetary policy - is one of the key macroeconomic inventions of XX century. But we must not forget that among non-economists talk of a gold standard, have become extremely popular in recent years. One of the leading candidates for the Republican US presidential party - Ron Paul - made gold standard key issue in his election program. Why calls for a return to the gold standard became so common now?

The answer is very simple - the 2008 crisis, bankruptcy, seemingly unsinkable financial institutions and the reduction of the sovereign ratings of the leading western countries have exacerbated the issue of "safe assets". Safe assets play a crucial role in the economy. Each economic agent chooses the optimal balance between risk and return in the portfolio; the balance generally meant to include a portfolio of assets secure trivial fraction. Therefore, the demand for safe assets is, in any economy. That is why now - with huge budget problems in the United States and Europe - US and German bonds is possible to place a zero profitability. After all, these securities are perceived by investors as risk-free.

It would seem that the problem of safe assets easily solved just by introducing the gold standard. After all, gold - unlike paper money - it is a real asset. Unfortunately, things are not so simple. Let us assume that the dollar pegged to gold at the rate of the hard - for example, as it was until 1971, at the level of $ 35 per ounce, or at the level of today's price (45 times more). In this case, in terms of the purchasing power of the dollar in grams of gold really is risk-free asset - it will always be worth as much grams of gold as announced. The problem is that from the point of view of the economy is meaningless - because gold does not play a big role in the life of any household or in the activity of enterprises. Total consumption of gold in the jewelry industry - about $ 80 billion per year, in other industries - $ 15-20 billion, which is a tiny fraction of world GDP and trade.. For comparison: the world's crude oil to $ 3 trillion per year (if you count on the world market prices).

But neither oil nor gold themselves are not consumed by the product key - and households and businesses consume a wide basket of products and services. Therefore, the safest asset whose yield is not predictable with respect to any one product, and in relation to the entire consumer basket (or, for example, a basket, part of the country's GDP).

According to these indicators, the purchasing power of the dollar has not changed much over the past five years (total consumer price inflation during this period was equal to 11%). At the same time, if we measure the purchasing power of the dollar in ounces of gold or barrels of oil, it varied significantly. It is clear that this method is unreliable. Despite the paradoxical nature of this statement, gold is much more risky assets than the paper dollar, supported by the Federal Reserve monetary policy (responsible just for the stability of its purchasing power).

Another simple proof of the irrationality of arguments of advocates of the gold standard - is the situation in the eurozone.

As a rule, the gold standard advocates have criticized the concept of the euro and say that it is the gold standard may replace him. But troubled eurozone countries is just prove the danger of the gold standard. Euro Critics say that if Greece had its own currency, the problems of the Greek economy would immediately lead to the devaluation of the drachma and Greece would immediately regained its competitiveness. But the devaluation - this is exactly what can not be done under the gold standard, because the exchange rate is fixed. In this sense, from the point of view of each country - a member of the euro area in the euro zone the gold standard already exists. Only local currency is not tied to gold and the euro, which is the ability of purchasing care independent European Central Bank.