The End of the Gold Standard
It Began with a Run on the Banks
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The Great Depression was a long period of economic hardship that lasted from late 1929 to 1937. By the time President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March 1933, conditions all over the country were appalling. Industrial production was down 56 percent from 1929 and over a third of the work force was out of work — more than 13 million people. To make matters worse, farmers all over the country were going broke. (At the time, the U.S. was mostly an agrarian nation.)
Harley Hahn
One of the biggest problems Roosevelt faced was that a large number of people had lost confidence in paper money and were going to their banks to exchange their money for gold. This so-called “run on the banks” had happened several times since the 1929 stock market collapse, and it was happening again at the time Roosevelt took office. If a bank could not meet the demands of its depositors, it would have to close down. In 1929, there were 24,633 banks. By 1933, only 15,015 were still in business, a decrease of 39 percent.
A run on the banks was devastating for other reasons as well. Not only did it deplete the gold reserves, it removed large amounts of cash from circulation at the very time that the economy needed it most in order to recover. In fact, the decrease in the money supply from 1929-1933 was one of the reasons the Great Depression was so severe and lasted so long.
In 1933, much of the world, including the U.S. and many European countries, was on the “gold standard,” which meant that paper money could be exchanged for gold. For example, you could, at the time, go to a bank and trade a dollar bill for a dollar’s worth of gold. In other countries, you could either trade your currency for gold or, at the very least, trade for U.S. dollars, which could then be converted to gold.
In normal times, few people would actually make such a trade: It was enough to know that it was possible. However, these were not normal times. By 1933, the U.S. was in big trouble and people all over the country were trading in their dollars for gold.
Roosevelt had to stop this and to do so, he decided to change the system so that the U.S. government would hold and control all the gold in the country. In other words, he began to nationalize gold. He did this for two reasons.
First, he wanted to stop the run on the banks. Second, he was planning a number of expensive social and economic programs and he needed money to finance them. Controlling the gold supply would give him more control over the money supply.
In 1933, with the cooperation of the U.S. Congress, Roosevelt made it illegal for Americans to possess gold coins or bullion. He then took away the right of Americans to be able to exchange paper money for gold. Finally, he confiscated all the privately held gold in the country by forcing people to trade it to the government for paper money at the rate of $20.67 an ounce.
Within a year, the U.S. government owned most of the gold in the country. Then, on January 31, 1934, Roosevelt used the authority given to him by Congress to unilaterally raise the price of gold to $35 an ounce. Overnight, an ounce of gold that used to be worth $20.67 was now worth $35. Making this price change allowed Roosevelt to pull a fast one, a monetary scheme that, even by today’s standards, was totally awesome. Here is how it worked.
In 1933, the government was able to print $20.67 in paper money for each ounce of gold that it held. In 1934, the same ounce of gold could be used to support $35 in paper money, a difference of $14.33. In this way, the value of the gold held by the government increased by about $3 billion, which meant that Roosevelt was able to create $3 billion in brand new money out of nothing. He could then use the $3 billion to help fund his new programs. In doing so, Roosevelt put a huge amount of new money into circulation, which helped the economy recover.
However, he did so at a cost. First of all, Roosevelt effectively devalued U.S. paper money (with respect to gold) by 41 percent. Second, by distancing the U.S. from the gold standard, he initiated a process that was potentially dangerous. If the U.S. ever went off the gold standard completely and the government did not have the discipline to keep from creating too much new money, there would be trouble.
Four decades later, in 1971, the remaining U.S. ties to the gold standard were finally severed by Richard Nixon in an attempt to solve a serious cash flow crisis. To keep foreign countries from trading in their surplus dollars for gold, Nixon unilaterally decreed that, from now on, the U.S. would not exchange dollars for gold for anyone. For all practical purposes, the United States was off the gold standard. In 1978, Congress passed a law making it official. Other countries had passed similar laws, and by the end of the 1970s, no major currency was redeemable in gold.
Related Links
Comments
Harley, great articles. As one who is not so interested in economics but a core sociologist, you put a sociological spin on the economics that makes the whole thing super enjoyable and educational.
In these moments of change you describe, is it sort of like abandoning the timing of running races. You still have winners and losers, one runner strong than another in a specific race, but no perspective to runners in other races or in the evolution of the event. Today's runners may well be way slower (read weaker currency) than yesterday's, you'll never know. - AB in Santa Barbara and Bali
andrewbaker77 (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Unfortunately this article is riddled with inaccuracies. In fact the only thing I agree with in the entire article is that the reason why there was a run on the banks in 1929 was because people were losing confidence in paper money. Also, "he was planning a number of expensive social and economic programs and he needed money to finance them."
First of all, we never really had an economic recovery until the mid-40s, AFTER WWII when our soldiers were able to come home and start manufacturing goods. During the war, everybody had a job, but the standard of living was extremely low and they even had to RATION food!! Don't let ANYBODY....EVER... tell you that war is good for the economy. It is good for those who have their money invested in the military industrial complex, it is good for the banks, but it is NEVER good for the general population.
Another key item the author really failed to mention is that we effectively went off the Gold Standard with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. That isn't to say that the value of money wasn't tied to gold, but the value of money was no longer completely dependent on gold and the government insured all losses. (As an analogy, if the government insured all restaurants that went out of business, we would probably see a million new restaurants open up that are completely unnecessary to have in our economy. We would have a "restaurant bubble" that would eventually pop and destroy a lot of the good restaurants we have around today. Anyways, that is also why the banks in this country have grown so large.) The Federal Reserve Act allowed a new private banking cartel that came into power to control the supply of money, all in the name of 'stabilizing markets'.
The worst part is that author never discusses WHY the depression started in the first place. The banks were able to increase the money supply throughout the 1920s which caused a speculative stock market bubble. They did this by effectively decreasing the interest rates so that it became cheaper for individuals to borrow money and took away incentives for individuals to save. That is why we have so much debt today and so little savings in our country, it is a function of low interest rates.
Of course we completed our transition off the gold standard in 1971, and ever since then we have seen a number of problems that led to the late 90s Nasdaq bubble and then the housing bubble.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No doubt many people will have questions about my post, which all can be answered through the studying of the Austrian School of Economics (mises.org), however I may have time to answer them. Unfortunately so many books have been written on the topic I can't include everything here. I expect to see some questions about volatility in the economy during the 1800s and perhaps a question about the great advancements in technology and standard of living during the 20th century. If you are into studying economics, try studying some Austrian Economics material related to "economic volatility 1800s" "First National Bank" "Second National Bank" "Greenbacks". For the question regarding our great advancements in the 20th century, search Austrian Economics literature for material related to "compared to what?".
And no, I don't advocate a 'gold standard' (nor do I advocate fiat currency like we have today). Ron Paul 2012.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am asking that the comments by loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 10:25 a.m. be removed. This is not a forum to advise the readers of ones political views. I noticed loonpt has commented over 800 times on other articles, the few comments I read by loonpt were all negative. Mr. Hahn has not only written an excellent article, but he has made economics interesting to those of us who were not economics majors. I enjoy the Independent and respect the rights of free speech, but as the guidelines state "Be succinct, constructive, and relevant to the story." loonpt's political views are not relative to the story and in my opinion his comments are not constructive.
QuashNegativity (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
QuashNegativity:
That is so awesome! Way to respect the rights of free speech by demanding commenters posts be removed. In the same spirit I would ask that QuashNegativity's (anonymous profile) post be removed on the same grounds. Together we can protect free speech by eliminating it all together.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Disturber
That is so awesome! Way to respect the rights of free speech by demanding commenters posts be removed. In the same spirit I would ask that Disturber's (anonymous profile) post be removed on the same grounds. Together we can protect free speech by eliminating it all together.
sbsurfguy (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...he said mockingly. While succinct , that is neither constructive nor relevant to the story, sbsurfguy (anonymous profile). Gonna get your comment scrubbed...
Disturber (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LoonPt's comment was not only relevant. Obviously QuashNegativity isn't familiar with internet discussion forums on this or any other site, because most commentators espouse a political view on these topics; else it would'nt be relevant!
Are we to only post rosy rainbow and unicorn comments? While I don't always agree with LoonPt, at least his posts are well written and intellectually based.
I personally don't care to get back on the gold standard.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Although Mr or Ms Loon has the right to express his or her opinions, no media outlet is morally or constitutionally obligated to publish them. So, requesting that the Indy honor its stated criteria in deciding what comments to publish has nothing to do with the issue of free speech. On the other hand, it would seem better to interpret those guidelines as broadly as possible, short of libel. Besides, what difference does it really make what those of us who haunt these fields say about the issues or each other?
pk (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Quashnegativity: Are you really Loonpt and are you trying to make yourself out as a victim or perhaps playing a joke on us? You can't be for real.
Anyway, this was a good article and even if--as Loonpt suggests-there are errors by the author it is good to see a debate/exchange of ideas about a relevant but underdiscussed issue.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since our friend Tambora/Kratatoa (the blogger who always uses volcano names) is asleep at the switch I will do what he usually does in these situations:
QuashNegativity (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 3:14 p.m
Joined: Oct. 10, 2011
Comments posted: 1 (view all)
I would suggest changing your name to "QuashIdeas"
billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2011 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear readers,
My comments were not about quashing ideas. There were two comments by the same poster. I did not request that the more acerbic one be removed; only the one that seemed to be a political ad. I now have a better understanding of these forums. They do not appear to be about debate, political or otherwise but more about debasement (no pun intended) and trivialization of genuine ideas. The article Mr. Hahn presented was well written, well researched and concise in its explanation of a very complex topic. I hope that is what remains with the readers.
QuashNegativity (anonymous profile)
October 11, 2011 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"In 1929, there were 24,633 banks. By 1933, only 15,015 were still in business, a decrease of 31 percent."
Actually, that's a decrease of almost 40%.
SBSB (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2011 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)