Nathan Lewis  2016年7月8日

“金本位体制对经济造成的不是负担，而是利润...”

就近年来出现的金本位体制会造成“社会负担”的奇怪概念，Nathan Lewis 在《福布斯》中首次讨论这个问题时说道。然而事实不是这样的。它创造利润。

当然，挖掘地下黄金需要花费精力。然而，在1971年金本位被废除后黄金挖掘也从未停止。1971年以后开采的黄金大约占历史开采黄金总量的一半。目前的年产量为历史最高水平，而且几乎是1970年的两倍。人们似乎很乐意支付这种“成本”。

如果人们开始使用金币，那么需要有人为这些黄金买单。那么谁会买单呢？是“所有人”？政府？纳税人？还是谁？

假设现在我们仅仅使用金币。没有纸币。（为了方便起见，我们也假设没有银行。）一个人工作一周并在周五获得一盎司黄金的酬劳。这个人一周的工作酬劳得到这个金币的支付。

现在我们假设一个经济体没有使用金币，仅仅使用与黄金挂钩的纸币。我们假设一个纸币价值一盎司黄金。（1933年以前20美元大约价值0.97盎司黄金。）一个人工作一周，在周五得到价值一盎司黄金纸币的酬劳。

获得黄金和纸币的成本是一样的。那就是一个星期的工作。

这种情况对政府来说也一样。无论纳税是以纸币或者金币的形式，结果是一样的。

不同的在于货币发行者，也就是纸币的生产商，现在的中央银行。假设货币的发行者有一个100%储备金系统。那么对每一个纸币来说，都应该在金库拥有等值的黄金储备。

这一情况与使用金币时没有太大的不同。黄金的数量是一样的。

现在，我们假设货币发行者有20%的储备，这是19世纪美国私人货币发行者的普遍储备水平。其他80%的储备组成了有息债务。相当于现在的政府债券。

现在货币系统使用的黄金数量下降了80%，被有息债券取代。债券的利息收入为债券发行者创造利润。

如果你使用法定货币系统，完全不使用黄金，货币的“成本”还是一样的，那就是一周的工作。然而，货币发行者的资产将是100%的附息债务。

因此，我们会发现在所有情况下货币的“成本”是一样的，那就是一周的工作。问题是“利润”。在一个100%的黄金储备系统中，不会产生利润。然而，在一个20%的储备系统中，利润将非常巨大。这些利润完全由货币的发行者获得，即中央银行。

我们可以发现从20%黄金储备系统到100%债务系统货币发行者获得的利润不会发生太大变化。不同的只有前面的20%部分，后面的80%是相同的。因此，金本位体制和法定货币体制的获利是相同的。

包括David Ricardo在内的一些经济学家在1817年曾建议实行没有黄金储备的金本位体制。20世纪的黄金交易所标准就是这其中的一个例子。他们属于100%债务体系。

我认为你不需要太担心中央银行的盈利能力。他们自己会处理的很好。

关注货币质量对你的影响。在1789年到1971年的近两个世纪，美国都在使用金本位体制，并成为了世界上的超级经济大国。当时的货币很简单、稳定、可靠并可以预测。尽管受到过短期挫折，但是中产阶级的资产一代又一代的稳定增长。

现在的经济学家爱讲大话，但是在过去45年的法定货币体系中，他们有创造过那样的积极结果吗？大多数情况下，他们只是从一个危机跳入另一个危机，一路创造一个又一个泡沫。他们有学到什么吗？他们似乎很擅长“踢罐子”，用进一步扭曲的代价避免相同危机的发生，但是却引发之后更大的危机。

 我认为最终会发生一个足够大的危机，到时候人们会说：“够了，这个危机已经足够大了。你曾经有过机会。现在是时候做出改变了。”但是在这之前，我们需要知道我们能用什么取而代之。

Gold Standard Profits

Submitted by Nathan Lewis on Fri, 07/08/2016 - 09:03

Not costs, but benefits to the economy under a Gold Standard...

ONE of the odd notions that has come down through the years is that a gold standard system has 'social costs', writes Nathan Lewis at New World Economics in this story first published at Forbes.

It does not. It creates a profit.

Of course, it does take effort to dig gold out of the ground. However, gold production never ceased after the end of the world gold standard in 1971. Roughly half of all the gold ever mined, in all of history, has been mined after 1971. Annual production today is the highest in history, and about double what it was in 1970. People seem happy to continue paying those "costs."

If one is to use gold coins, then someone needs to pay for this gold. Who pays? Is it "everyone"? The government? Taxpayers? Who?

Let's say an economy uses gold coins only. There is no paper money. (For simplicity, we will also assume no banks.) Someone works all week and gets a one-ounce gold coin in payment on Friday. The person has "paid" for this coin with a week's worth of work.

Now, let's have an economy with no gold coins, just paper banknotes linked to gold. Let's say there's a banknote worth one ounce of gold. (The US $20 banknote, before 1933, was worth about 0.97 of an ounce of gold.) Someone works all week, and gets a banknote worth one ounce of gold in payment on Friday.

The "cost" to the person of the gold coin and the banknote are the same. One week of work.

The government is in much the same situation. Whether its taxes are paid in coinage or in banknotes, the outcome is about the same.

The difference is at the currency issuer – the producer of the banknotes, which would be a central bank today. Let's say that the currency issuer has a "100% reserve" system. For every banknote, there is an equivalent amount of gold in a vault.

This situation is not much different than where gold coinage was used exclusively. The amount of gold is the same.

Now, let's say that the currency issuer has a 20% reserve, which was a typical level among private currency issuers in the US during the 19th century. The other 80% of reserves consists of interest-bearing debt. Today, that would most likely be government bonds.

The amount of gold used by the monetary system has now fallen by 80%, replaced by interest-bearing bonds. The interest income from the bonds produces a profit for the currency issuer.

If you had a floating fiat paper currency, with no gold at all, the "cost" of the money would still be the same – a week's worth of work. However, the assets of the currency issuer could be 100% interest-bearing debt.

Thus, we see that the "cost" of the money is the same in all cases – a week's worth of work. The question is the "profit." In a 100% bullion reserve system, there is no profit. However, with a 20% reserve system, there is quite a bit of profit. This profit accrues entirely to the currency issuer – today, a central bank.

We can also see that the profit enjoyed by the currency issuer doesn't really change much, from a 20% bullion reserve/80% debt gold standard system and a 100%-debt system. The difference is only the 20% portion. The other 80% is identical. (In practice, today's central banks still hold gold bullion reserves.) So, the gold standard system's profitability is actually much the same as the floating fiat system's profitability.

Some economists – including David Ricardo, in 1817 – have suggested ways of operating a gold standard system with no gold bullion reserves at all. The "gold exchange standards", or currency-board systems, common in the 20th century, were one example of this. They are "100% debt" systems.

I suggest that you shouldn't be too concerned about maximizing the profitability of central banks. They can look after it well enough themselves.

Concern yourself with the quality of the currency. For nearly two centuries, 1789 to 1971, the US embraced the principle of gold-based money, and became the world's economic superpower. Money was simple, stable, reliable and predictable. Despite short-term setbacks, the middle class grew steadily wealthier, generation after generation.

Today's economists talk a big talk, but in the past forty-five years of floating currencies, have they ever been able to produce that kind of result? Mostly, they just bounce from one crisis to another, blowing bubbles along the way and leaving a train of wreckage in their wake. Have they learned anything? They seem to have gotten pretty good at "kicking the can", avoiding a minor crisis with further distortions that lead to a bigger crisis later.

I think that there will eventually be a big enough crisis that people say: "Enough is enough. You've had your chance. Now it is time for you to go." But before then, we will have to know what we will replace them with.

本文翻译由兄弟财经提供

文章来源：https://www.bullionvault.com/gold-news/gold-standard-070820161