Thursday, October 11, 2012

The Golden Revolution


Adapted from The Golden Revolution: How to Prepare for the Coming Global Gold Standard by John Butler.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the current economic mainstream that the gold standard is but a quaint historical anachronism, there has been an unceasing effort by prominent individuals in the US and also a handful of other countries to try and re-establish a gold standard ever since President Nixon abruptly ended gold convertibility in August 1971. The US came particularly close to returning to a gold standard in the 1980s. This was understandable following the disastrous stagflation of the 1970s and severe recession of the early 1980s, at that time the deepest since WWII. Indeed, Ronald Reagan campaigned on a platform that he would seriously study the possibility of returning to gold if elected president.

Once successfully elected, he remained true to his word and appointed a Gold Commission to explore both whether the US should and how it might reinstate a formal link between gold and the dollar. While the Commission’s majority concluded that a return to gold was both unnecessary and impractical – Fed Chairman Paul Volcker had successfully stabilised the dollar and brought inflation down dramatically by 1982 – a minority found in favour of gold and published their own report, The Case for Gold, in 1982. Also around this time, in 1981, future Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan proposed the introduction of new US Treasury bonds backed by gold as a sensible way to nudge the US back toward an explicit gold link for the dollar at some point in future.

In the event, the once high-profile debate in the US about whether or not to return to gold eventually faded into relative obscurity. With brief exceptions, consumer price inflation trended lower in the 1980s and 1990s, restoring confidence in the fiat dollar. By the 2000s, economists were talking about the ‘great moderation’ in both inflation and the volatility of business cycles. The dollar had been generally strong versus other currencies for years. ‘Maestro’ Alan Greenspan and his colleagues at the Fed and their counterparts in many central banks elsewhere in the world were admired for their apparent achievements.

We now know, of course, that this was all a mirage. The business cycle has returned with a vengeance with by far the deepest global recession since WWII, and the global financial system has been teetering on the edge of collapse off and on for several years. While consumer price inflation might be low in the developed economies of Europe, North America and Japan, it has surged into the high single- or even double-digits in much of the developing world, including in China, India and Brazil, now amongst the largest economies in the world.

The economic mainstream continues to struggle to understand just why they got it so wrong. They look for explanations in bank regulation and oversight, the growth of hedge funds and the so-called ‘shadow banking system’. They wonder how the US housing market could have possibly crashed to an extent greater than occurred even in the Great Depression. Some look to global capital flows for an answer, for example China’s exchange rate policy. Where the mainstream generally fails to look, however, is at current global monetary regime itself. Could it be that the fiat- dollar-centred global monetary system is inherently unstable? Is our predicament today possibly a long-term consequence of that fateful decision to ‘close the gold window’ in 1971?

I believe that it is. But what that implies, given the damage now done to the global financial system, is that there is no way to restore a sufficient degree of credibility and trust in the dollar, or other major currencies for that matter, without a return to some form of gold standard. This may seem a rather bold prediction, but it is not. The evidence has been accumulating for years and is now overwhelming.

Money can function as such only if there is sufficient trust in the monetary unit as a stable store of value. Lose this trust and that form of money will be abandoned, either suddenly in a crisis or gradually over time in favour of something else. History is replete with examples of ‘Gresham’s Law’, that ‘bad’ money drives ‘good’ money out of circulation; that is, that when faith in the stability of a money is lost, it may still be used in everyday transactions – in particular, if it is the mandated legal tender – but not as a store of value. The ‘good’ money is therefore hoarded as the superior store of value until such time as the ‘bad’ money finally collapses entirely and a return to ‘good’ money becomes possible. This monetary cycle, from good to bad to good again, has been a central feature of history.

In the present instance, we find a growing number of countries expressing concern about the stability of the dollar amid relentlessly expansionary US monetary policy, excessive dollar reserve accumulation and the associated surge in inflation, including China, India and Brazil. The ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 originated in part from soaring food price inflation.

Concern is increasingly giving way to action. China has entered into bilateral currency swap arrangements with Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, South Korea and Thailand as all these countries seek to reduce their dependence on the dollar as a transactional currency. As the dollar’s role gradually declines, global monetary arrangements are likely to become increasingly multipolar, as there is no single currency that can realistically replace the dollar as the pre-eminent global monetary reserve. The euro area has major issues with unsustainable sovereign debt burdens and an undercapitalised financial system. Japan’s economy is too small and too weak to provide a dollar substitute. And while China’s economy has been growing rapidly, its financial system is not yet mature or robust enough to instil the necessary global confidence in the yuan as the dominant reserve currency. Yet growth in global trade continues apace, to the benefit of nearly all economies. A global currency facilitates global trade.

It was precisely a multipolar world amid rapidly growing international trade that ushered in the classical gold standard in the 1870s. Although gold had been in the ascendant in global monetary affairs for several years, growing German political and economic clout provided an important tipping point as Germany favoured gold for settlement of international balance of payments. While the Bank of England was the dominant central bank of its day, reflecting British economic power, it never sought to impose a gold standard on its trading partners. Rather, it accepted the gold standard as an international fait accompli.

The US Federal Reserve may find it plays a similar role in the near future. While it is certainly possible that, in order to restore confidence and trust in the dollar, the US relinks the dollar to gold on its own initiative, more likely is that another country, or group of countries, where economic power is in the ascendant, where there are large and growing current account surpluses, and where a meaningful amount of gold has already been accumulated, will be the first movers. All of the BRICs are potential candidates, as are certain oil-producing countries and, possibly, Germany and Japan.

When presented with a fait accompli, the US will have little choice but to go along or find that the dollar not only loses reserve currency status entirely, but also is no longer accepted for international transactions. In the event, we believe a decision to accept the new global gold standard will be rather easy to reach. While it is unclear just what kind of gold standard will prevail – history provides a range from which to choose, some of which worked better than others – the key point is that, whatever form of standard prevails, it must restore a sufficient degree of credibility and trust in global monetary affairs. That requires that, simultaneously and alongside the return to gold, there must be a dramatic deleveraging of the undercapitalised financial system in the US, euro area, UK, Japan and also a handful of other countries. Fortunately, this is easily accomplished. All that is required is that the rate of gold convertibility is set at a gold price sufficiently high to imply that existing debt burdens, now clearly excessive, are reduced to levels that can be credibly serviced from existing levels of national income and, in the case of sovereign debts, from tax revenues.

However, given just how overleveraged financial systems are, and how large sovereign debt burdens are becoming amid unprecedented peacetime deficit spending, the rise in the price of gold will need to be an order of magnitude higher than it is today. That may surprise some, given that the price of gold has been rising for years. But what should really surprise us is that the growth of money and credit has been far greater. Simply taking the numbers as they are and allowing the gold price to rise sufficiently to compensate for decades of cumulative, excessive money and credit growth implies that a credible gold conversion price in dollars would be above $10,000. The credible, sustainable conversion prices in euros, yen, sterling and other developed world currencies would also lie far higher than where they are today.

From an investor’s perspective, there are far greater implications of a return to a gold standard than merely the large rise in the gold price. The dynamics and determinants of interest and exchange rates, and risk premia for the entire range of assets, are going to change. For example, for those countries that return to gold, exchange rates will become essentially fixed. Interest rates, however, while nominally still under the control of central banks, will need to be set at market-determined levels, not below, or gold reserves will be depleted, eventually leading to a funding crisis. Risk premia for most assets will need to rise, primarily because, constrained by the gold standard, both monetary and fiscal authorities will have less flexibility to provide stimulus during economic downturns. As such, cyclical profit swings will tend to be larger, as will the number of bankruptcies.

While a lack of policymaker flexibility and increased risk of corporate bankruptcy might concern some investors, consider that it was precisely an excess of policymaker flexibility – chronically loose monetary and fiscal policy – which got the developed world into its current predicament. This point is clear: poorly managed fiat currencies and the financial systems built upon them caused the global credit crisis, not gold. And what a world of ‘too big to fail’ needs are reforms that indeed allow large firms to go bankrupt from time to time, so that capitalism can in fact work as intended.

It is worth considering why bankruptcy has become such a bad word. While no investor wants to lose money on a bankrupt enterprise, when looking at a capitalist economy as a whole, bankruptcy is absolutely essential to economic progress. Josef Schumpeter’s ‘creative destruction’, unlocking resources in unproductive enterprises and moving them to where they can be more efficiently employed, or mixed with new technologies or business techniques, is what capitalism is all about. Real long-term economic progress depends on it.

There are other reasons not to fear gold but rather embrace it. A gold standard will reward savings, something that is sorely lacking in much of the developed world. It will rationalise government finances, in particular by making it difficult if not impossible for countries to incur large debts and then try to pass these off on future generations, something of dubious morality. Absent easy money, it will force economies to become more flexible, and labour and capital to become more mobile. By implication, financial leverage will also be limited and ‘too big to fail’ will instead become ‘too big to bail’. Indeed, absent easy money or bailouts, the financial sector will only grow to the extent that it actually serves the broader, productive economy. Huge numbers of engineers and other quants who went to the City looking for outsize bonuses will make their way back into real industries making real things, where they will be joined by fresh graduates and lay the groundwork for what is likely to be an era of great industrial innovation.

Investors should not fear the golden revolution. Rather, they should welcome it. After all, they don’t call particularly prosperous historical episodes ‘Golden Ages’ for nothing.

Reprinted with permission. Currently serving as the Chief Investment Officer of a commodities fund, John was previously Managing Director and Head of the Index Strategies Group at Deutsche Bank in London, where he was responsible for the development and marketing of proprietary, systematic quantitative strategies for global interest rate markets. 

For further reading/viewing:
"Book Review: The Golden Revolution", Keith Weiner, August 20, 2012
"Podcast #22 with John Butler", TF Metals Report, May 25, 2012
"Beyond currency wars, the coming Global Gold Standard with John Butler" (video), Capital Account, April 3, 2012

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Bitcoin Prevents Monetary Tyranny

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Thursday, October 4, 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/10/04/bitcoin-prevents-monetary-tyranny/

Mel Gibson as William Wallace wearing woad.
Bitcoin is not about making rapid global transactions with little or no fee. Bitcoin is about preventing monetary tyranny. That is its raison d’être.

Monetary tyranny can take many ugly forms. It can be deliberate inflation, persecutory capital controls, prearranged defaults within the banking cartel, or even worse, blatant sovereign confiscation. Sadly, those threats are a potential in almost any jurisdiction in the world today. The United States does not have a monopoly on monetary repression and monetary tyranny.

Once the State is removed from the monetary sphere and loses the ability to define legal tender, its power becomes relegated to direct legislative and enforcement measures that do not immorally manipulate a currency. Taxes for wars and domestic misadventures will have to be raised the old-fashioned way — that is to say government money cannot be raised by simply debasing the currency.

Just as the Second Amendment in the United States, at its core, remains the final right of a free people to prevent their ultimate political repression, a powerful instrument is needed to prevent a corresponding repression — State monetary supremacy. That task has fallen to an unlikely open source project that is based on cryptography protocols and peer-to-peer distributed computing. As the mechanism for a decentralized, nonpolitical unit of account, the Bitcoin project uniquely facilitates this protection.

The timing of Bitcoin’s appearance, and subsequent growth, is no accident either. If one follows the relevant sentiments and trends, it’s evident that society was approaching a breaking point. Essentially, bitcoin is a reaction to three separate and ongoing developments: centralized monetary authority, diminishing financial privacy, and the entrenched legacy financial infrastructure. An alternative money provider that was centralized would probably not survive long in any jurisdiction. The emergence of Bitcoin was baked into the cake already.

We can see from the case against digital money provider e-gold that an efficient challenger to the provision of a stable monetary unit will not be permitted… really. In 1996, a humble oncologist named Doug Jackson bravely built an auditable and verifiable system of transferring ownership rights to gold and silver bullion in an online digital environment. Wired’s Kim Zetter described it this way:
"E-gold is a privately issued digital currency backed by real gold and silver stored in banks in Europe and Dubai. Jackson says about 1,000 new e-gold accounts are opened daily, and the system processes between 50,000 and 100,000 transactions a day.
With a value independent of any national legal tender, the electronic cash has cultivated a libertarian image over the years, while drawing the ire of law enforcement agencies who frequently condemn it publicly as an anonymous, untraceable criminal haven, inaccessible to police scrutiny."
Where have we heard that before? Then in December 2005, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and Secret Service raided e-gold’s Florida offices. Jackson tells Wired, “They basically raped our computers and also took us offline for 36 hours, took all the paper out of our office.” Jackson says that the government also froze parent company Gold and Silver Reserve’s U.S. bank account but the company survived, “only because its euro, pound and yen accounts are maintained outside the United States.” The physical bullion assets were subsequently seized as well.

With the prosecution resting on a civil complaint charging Gold and Silver Reserve, Inc. with operating as an unlicensed money-transmitting business, Jackson finally acquiesced in July 2008 and plead guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering (a victimless crime) and operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business rather than the alternative threat of 20 years in jail and a half million dollar fine.

Wired magazine, in June 2009, published this excellent account of the e-gold business in the wake of the federal investigation entitled “Bullion and Bandits: The Improbable Rise and Fall of E-Gold”. Also included in the article is probably the most telling photo of all — Doug Jackson sitting on the floor surrounded by file boxes labeled U.S. Secret Service.

Zetter writes, “At e-gold’s peak, the currency would be backed by 3.8 metric tons of gold, valued at more than $85 million.” E-gold founder Doug Jackson wanted to solve the world’s economic woes, “but instead got an electronic ankle bracelet for his trouble.”

Recently, in 2009, Bernard von NotHaus was indicted on counterfeiting charges for manufacturing a private metallic coin that actually contained some precious metals. After 23 years of research and development plus 11 years of operating in the marketplace, Liberty Dollar suspended operations. Following the conviction and for the appeal, the prominent Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee filed an amicus curiae brief in support of acquittal and revolving around the question of whether anyone but the government has the right to issue money. Afterwards, many commentators pointed out the absurdity of penalizing honest money to strengthen the facade of manipulated money.

Further contributing to the disturbing trend against monetary freedom and financial privacy are initiatives like the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which has been written about many times on these pages and also in The New York Times. Other countries around the world would not even contemplate such a brazen endeavor that imposes a costly withholding and disclosure regime on sovereign foreign entities and financial assets. Furthermore, they see it as American arrogance and American hegemony run amok.

However, society will not be ready to fully embrace the promises of decentralized nonpolitical currency until it can come to terms with the fact that money in a free society should not be used for the purposes of identity and asset tracking. Banks and governments may be concerned with that goal, but it is not the role of our money.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Bitcoin & Precious Metals, The First Diversified Portfolio of the Rebel In History

By Silver Vigilante
Monday, July 30, 2012

http://silvervigilante.com/bitcoin-precious-metals-the-first-diversified-portfolio-of-the-rebel-in-history/

For the first time in history, the rebel alliance can compile a diversified portfolio that reflects his or her inter-essences, that is interests.  While not only can investments be made under the dominant financial system which undermine that system, such as physically delivered precious metals, mediums of exchange can nowadays also be taken outside that paradigm.  German alternative analog world paper currencies have gained attention and velocity more-so than the digital, universal bitcoin, but it is the latter which is the first publicly traded, globally accepted currency, predisposing it to longer-term popularity.

The man in whose name millions were murdered, Karl Marx wrote of commodities:

A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.

The nature of the need of virtual items such as bitcoin is that, first and foremost, in this day and age, we live in a “global village.” Although 90% of the population lives in the city, a meridian in the history of civilization, they can be in constant contact with each other. So why not setup a similar, p2p system to ensure constant transacting as well – full service,  24/7. It satisfies the desires of millions if not billions of individuals to step outside the dominant paradigm. It comes from the stomach and from fancy. Our stomachs, our instinct for self-preservation, tell us that our survival depends on an understanding and moral opposition to the way things are, and those who ensure they stay us as such. Our fancy, our style, tells us we better use the dancing or lose it.

Karl Marx’s definition of a commodity explains accurately also the state in which fiat currencies find themselves. They satisfy the wants of the majority well enough, but this status is grounded in force, and not choice. As Karl Marx states, this does not matter. So, the  US Dollar has been chosen by the Empire to satisfy the wants and needs of the public at large. Out of the vacuum this creates for other means, bitcoin has arisen, in a manner somewhat different from the precious metals, but due to similar consciousnesses; consciousnesses which recognize the wants and need for another way of peace, tranquility and prosperity.

Historically, rebellions have depended on the dominant currency of a time and place or barter. Silver has been the poor man’s gold, but not all rebels are poor. A war on silver has also led to practical genocides against silver holders, as the United States experienced as the Crime of 1873.  Silver does not offer the properties to be adopted by the general population as a mainstream medium of exchange. The most important of these properties, given the current socio-economic paradigm, is convenience. Silver is bulky, and takes currently too much work for the average person to send overseas in an exchange. Bitcoin solves this problem. Now bitcoins can be readily available to be sent in an exchange with the promise of other goods anywhere in the world, instantly. This automatically creates the monetary space for a worldwide and unified peace and freedom movement to evolve.


Tuesday, October 2, 2012

What is Free Banking?

In this video interview, George Selgin defines free banking as a monetary arrangement where currency is competitively supplied by private commercial banks and, consequently, not monopolized by a central bank.

He sets as examples the Scottish and Canadian’s free banking systems, which flourished in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; yet, he clarifies that a completely free banking structure has not existed, since there has always been some form of government involvement. He discusses the possibility and feasibility of implementing such system in the present time, stating, as well, the negative macroeconomic implications that a central banking system has, especially for a developing country such as Guatemala, and suggests that more liberty and less government intervention could be a source of wealth and growth.

Selgin concludes by explaining how transaction costs are managed within this system, in addition to the effectiveness it entails when dealing with crises, such as bank runs or instability, in the current banking organization.

Lucas Rentschler
Universidad Francisco Marroquín
Business School
Guatemala, July 31, 2012

Bitcoin Foundation Launches To Drive Bitcoin's Advancement

By Jon Matonis
Forbes
Thursday, September 27, 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/09/27/bitcoin-foundation-launches-to-drive-bitcoins-advancement/

Several months in the making, the Bitcoin Foundation launches this week to accelerate the global growth of bitcoin through standardization, protection, and promotion of the open source protocol. As a nonprofit corporation and neutral forum for collaboration, the Bitcoin Foundation follows the successful model of open source bodies like the Linux Foundation and the Tor Project.


Bitcoin is a decentralized electronic cash system using digital signatures and cryptographic proof to enable irreversible payments between parties without relying on trust. Leveraging the breakthroughs of public-key cryptography, bitcoin also uses peer-to-peer networking to operate without a central authority whereby the new issuance and transaction verification functions are carried out collectively by the network. In the absence of a third-party processing intermediary, transactions are rapid and simple to send and receive with little to no fees.

As both a payments platform and a nonpolitical unit of account, Bitcoin has already seen astonishing growth in just over three years. Bitcoin’s total base money supply is currently valued at $125 million. Number of transactions has gone from 219 in 2009 to 4,964,513 year-to-date in 2012. The value of bitcoins transferred per year has gone from 35 trillion BTC to 60,896 trillion BTC. And, the network hashing rate, which is a measure of computational speed or horsepower, has increased from 0.008 Giga hashes per second in December 2009 to 19,284 Giga hashes per second in September 2012, thereby making it the largest distributed computing project in the world today in terms of processing performance. (Source: State of the Coin 2012)

With a growth trajectory like that, it becomes even more imperative to standardize and manage the ongoing change process to the core software while simultaneously enhancing overall security and robustness. Since 2009, Bitcoin.org has served as the focal point for the collaborative open source development effort.

A lot will be changing as the foundation ramps up. The Bitcoin Foundation mission leads to the early specific goals of financially sponsoring the efforts of the core development team, funding core infrastructure such as a test network and a DNS seed node, publishing a set of best practices for bitcoin integration, coordinating responses to business and media inquiries, and organizing an annual bitcoin conference with the first one being held in Silicon Valley.

In addition to individual membership, the Bitcoin Foundation provides a way for corporate enterprises from all industries to participate in the expansion of the bitcoin network and platform. We see new bitcoin exchanges sprouting up on a daily basis and we see innovative bitcoin applications coming to market across all industry sectors. Magnificent for bitcoin, this worldwide adoption strengthens the credibility and value of the peer-to-peer network. A nonpolitical currency doesn’t have a morality — it is simply a process for value transfer.

The overriding intent that runs through all Bitcoin Foundation activity is that it be membership and community driven, including succession planning. Reflected in the governance structure, individual and industry corporate members will have voting rights consistent with Bitcoin Foundation Articles and Bylaws. Annual individual membership is 2.5 BTC with a 25.0 BTC lifetime option; corporate membership is 500 BTC for silver tier, 2,500 BTC for gold tier, and 10,000 BTC for platinum tier.

Donations in support of the Bitcoin Foundation can be made by going to the website.

Initial board members include Gavin Andresen, Mark Karpeles, Jon Matonis, Patrick Murck, Charlie Shrem, and Peter Vessenes.

Executive Director Vessenes proclaims, “My hope is that the Bitcoin Foundation will be the organization that focuses and unlocks all of your energy and talents towards promoting Bitcoins, protecting them, and increasing their legitimacy through standardization. Bitcoins truly are the Internet’s currency in my opinion and it’s so exciting to be a part of this disruptive and engaging technology!”

[Disclaimer: Author serves on the Foundation's Board of Directors as Secretary.]

Monday, October 1, 2012

Bitcoin: The Political Virtual of an Intangible Material Currency

By Mark A. Jansen
Utrecht University, New Media and Digital Culture, MA Thesis
August 2012

Bitcoin: the Political Virtual of an Intangible Material Currency


Abstract

This paper concerns the open source software project Bitcoin. Bitcoin is often described as virtual cash and this paper asks what the term ‘virtual’ signifies when applied to ‘cash’ and in turn what ‘virtual cash’ says about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is related to the 1990s activist movement of libertarian cryptographers known as ‘cypherpunks’ and to the cyber-libertarian political philosophy, demonstrating the historical intertwining of cryptography and politics. Cypherpunks argued that privacy is a prerequisite for an open society and that cryptography and anonymous transaction systems were needed as assurance. Bitcoin is the latest effort by cryptographers to create digital tokens similar to cash, where Bitcoin’s designer Nakamoto argues that with Bitcoin users no longer have to trust a third party, traditionally the bank. Bitcoin does not fulfill this promise as trust remains to be established, albeit in a different manner. Power is not destroyed, but transferred from banks to Bitcoin’s protocol. The paper concludes that ‘virtual’ refers to Bitcoin’s model of how cash appears to function in everyday exchange, allowing user privacy. Bitcoin does not model another aspect of cash, namely that it is a credential referring to debt. Bitcoin discontinues the concept of debt.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Bitcoin, Gold and Competitive Currencies

You don't want to miss this thought-provoking James Turk interview with economist and trader Félix Moreno de la Cova.

Gold is simply analog bitcoin and, as gold bugs become more aware of that fact, two things will become more apparent. First, that specie-backed digital currencies will always be subject to trust in the custodial issuer, and more importantly, trust that the specie won't be confiscated or seized. Second, a transfer of wealth from national currencies to cryptocurrencies is occurring which will dwarf the transfer of wealth occurring in the precious metals sector. Enjoy.



For further reading:
"Ding, Ding, Ding! James Turk Gets It!", BitcoinMoney, September 20, 2012
"GoldMoney: James Turk in conversation with Félix Moreno de la Cova", Bitcoin Forum, September 14, 2012