Ron Paul’s Currency Plan and Merovingian France
By Repair Man Jack Posted in Economy — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has made politics a lot more interesting this year. He believes a lot of things the GOP establishment doesn’t, and his entry into the race has made people discuss ideas that wouldn’t otherwise get put into the public forum. I salute him for contributing, but would rather take a pass on one his least useful contributions. Ron Paul has suggested taking the United States Dollar back on the Gold Standard and doing away with The Federal Reserve.
For some reason, this whole debate over Ron Paul's platform and on full-bodied and specie-backed currencies, reminded me of a course I took in Medieval History. One text, Mohammad and Charlemagne, by Henri Pirenne, had significant input on the impact of Islam's capture of North Africa and Spain on the currency of France.
Like America's economy today, the French economy, even under the Merovingian Dynasty, had a constant requirement for an expanding money supply. This was to do what any money is supposed to do; provide a medium of exchange, establish a baseline standard of value and store wealth.
Had the Merovingian French been content with the M1 the Romans left behind, as they fled before Theodoric, Gaiseric and Attilla with the same doomed finality with which the last US helicopter lifted off the embassy roof in Saigon, Henri Pirenne's historical masterwork would not inform a modern audience of the economic consequences implicit with Gresham's Law. Instead, the French expanded their economy and their currency in circulation, without appreciably expanding their supply of precious metals to support the circulation of these funds.
Prior to 476 AD, Rome had mined significant portions of its gold and silver in Hispania. They used these metals to back the Imperial Aureus. As long as the Romans kept digging gold as fast as they opened new markets, the Imperial Aureus was to ancient world currencies what Caesar's 10th Legion was to brutal, close infantry combat. When the currency fell behind the rate of expansion, the part of the world formerly in the Western Roman Empire met its economic Adrianople, as would be predicted by Gresham’s Law.
Gresham’s Law states that bad money drives good money out of circulation. A more accurate formulation thereof might read that money overvalued in proportion to its specie content is a great medium of exchange for the buyer, but a poor store of value for its recipient. I’ll hand you coins made out of rock all day, if you’re dense enough to give me a tall mug of ale in return. By the time Charlemagne took over as Holy Roman Emperor, buyers in France were literally attempting to find people gullible enough to take their coins chiseled out of rock.
The converse of Gresham’s Law states that coins with more specie than required to support their accepted value tend to leave circulation rather swiftly. These coins are storing more value than they will bring in exchange. Some merchants in modern America would really rather not bother with the pennies put in circulation in 2007. These same people would take a mint condition 1941 Wheat Penny off your hands in a heartbeat.
A hyper-accelerated version of this process occurred in Merovingian France. Once the Islamic conquests separated France from a steady flow of precious metals, the French currency went the way of Jacques Chirac’s moral integrity. The powerful nobles and the growing church took gold and silver coins out of circulation through taxes, tithes and blatantly unfair confiscation. The peasants and serfs got left to go chisel coins out of whatever specie they could find.
The end result of this downward spiral was a decadent Merovingian monarchy ruling over a desolate, impoverished peasantry that couldn’t read, couldn’t write and didn’t understand a word of the mass they attended on Sunday. Economic policy like this kept the Dark Ages of Europe ineluctable for several centuries. When a specie-backed currency doesn’t have enough specie, this is where people can end up.
Modern America would never be leveled the way the Merovingian France was by the rise of the Muslim Caliphate without a nuclear conflagration. We are blessed with land, resources and population that Medieval France could never even dream of. However, before considering a specie-backed currency, we should take a good, hard look at where the world gets its specie.
Modern America currently circulates $7,243,000,000,000 in currency. The current spot rate for an ounce of gold is $654.90 per ounce. That makes gold sell for $10,478.90 per pound. This means the US would require 345,600 tons of gold on reserve to back our current currency float; assuming we take no reserve risk.
The United States currently holds 8,133.5 tons of Gold. The current worldwide governmental holdings of gold for the 40 largest governmental reserves total 29,846.70 tons. The United States could only back less than 3% of it’s current M2 without acquiring more gold. This would leave us vulnerable to currency devaluation as predicted by Gresham's Law.
Simply put, Congressman Ron Paul longs for a simpler time when the US Government did not deeply involve itself in every aspect of our daily lives. On a philosophical level, I strongly sympathize with his concerns. On a more practical level, I’d like to hear his plan on for acquiring the 28,000 tons of gold the United States would require going back on the gold standard and only taking a 90% currency risk. That would probably be sufficient to insure that modern America and Merovingian France continue to have very little common economic history.
Update: Logwalker generously informed me that Bad Money Drives Good Money out of the econmy. (I knew this, but then again, I seemed to have gotten ny screenname bassackwards as well..)
Fascinating historical perspective there.
I cannot place this exactly but, during the reign of one of the French kings, a counterfeiter was caught because his counterfeit coins had more gold content than the King's coinage. Imagine that! Keep the counterfeit and spend the King's coin.
You're right in that we can never go back to the gold standard in the manner you outline. But Ron Paul has never suggested that, either. Check out http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/what-gold-standard/.
Ron Paul's proposals in his own words (not the often misinformed or misinterpreted words of his supporters) can be found at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=624. Here's an excerpt:
***
Already, we took a big step in this direction. Gold was illegal to own between 1933 and 1976. Today millions of Americans do own some gold.
Gold contracts are legal, but a settlement of any dispute is always in Federal Reserve notes. This makes gold contracts of limited value.
For gold to be an alternative to Federal Reserve notes, taxes on any transactions in gold must be removed, both sales and capital gains.
Holding gold should be permitted in any pension fund, just as dollars are permitted in a checking account of these funds.
Repeal of all legal tender laws is a must. Sound money never requires the force of legal tender laws. Only paper money requires such laws.
These proposals, even if put in place tomorrow, would not solve all the problems we face. It would though, legalize freedom of choice in money, and many who worry about having their savings wiped out by a depreciating dollar would at least have another option. This option would ease some of the difficulties that are surely to come from runaway deficits in a weakening economy with skyrocketing inflation.
Curbing the scope of government and limiting its size to that prescribed in the Constitution is the goal that we should seek. But political reality makes this option available to us only after a national bankruptcy has occurred. We need not face that catastrophe. What we need to do is to strictly limit the power of government to meddle in our economy and our personal affairs, and stay out of the internal affairs of other nations.
***
It is simply impossible to acquire the quantity of gold necessary to back all circulating USD at the current spot price. All Ron Paul is saying is that we need to start by providing free choice.
BD
but I think there's a difference between putting a statement in the Congressional Record and proposing a realistic agenda for monetary policy. His comments on the campaign trail (the Google interview, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg) advocate pragmatic and gradual change.
But I guess I'm on shaky ground, here, because I'm drawing these conclusions in the absence of a specific policy declaration from him or his campaign.
I'm not saying Ron Paul is the second coming or anything, but he is the most cogent of all candidates with respect to our economic challenges.
I hope that as the debate matures, he will evolve to announcing specific policy positions and goals. In the meantime, I'm comfortable listening, learning more, and supporting him in the face of other (much less attractive) alternatives.
RonPaul™ doesn't do those. He's got tons of blather. Nothing specific. Nothing actionable. That's why he has no accomplishments in twenty wasted years in congress.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Does anyone know why Ron Paul is calling for a return to medals backed currency ?
What "problems" with this solve ?
He thinks we'll have more price stability if our currency is tied to the vagaries of international gold production, hoarding, and releasing, than we do under a currency monitored and controlled continuously by the Federal Reserve.
It has to do with the power of free markets. Check out the sound money thread:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/blackhedd/2007/aug/17/attention_ron_paulit...
So Ron Paul doesn't accuse the government of theft for supporting inflationary monetary policy?
I'm amazed at how many different stories I get, heh.
In the money Masters documentary they claim that a gold backed currency is not the answer to our monetary problems. The documentary says that "fractional reserve banking" is where the instability comes from. Would you agree with that?
References:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
I deny that we get true price stability on metal money, and I believe we've gotten better economic stability under the Fed than we had before. Inflation might be a little higher in most years, but we don't have the horrific crashes like we used to.
What if you take your car to the airport Park 'n Ride for a weeklong business trip, and the valet rents out your car while you are gone and it's not there when you return early? Is that a good thing? In the real world, that would be theft, and fraud.
The situation with money is even more ridiculous because banks aren't limited by physical goods like cars. If you give a bank $1, they can lend $10 (assuming a 10% reserve ratio - every $10 in loans are backed by $1 in "reserves"). So not only has your money left the building (without your necessarily giving permission), but your other dollars are competing with those nine new dollars.
The crashes & busts in our banking system (even under prior "gold currency" regimes) resulted from the fact that fractional-reserve banks are insolvent by definition. When they are fully "loaned up", and folks want their cash back but can't get it, panic inevitably ensues.
Check out the sound money thread... there is a way to make an honest system that encourages growth:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/blackhedd/2007/aug/17/attention_ron_paulit...

The law states that bad money drives out good money not as you have written that good money drives out bad money.
The Romans had been debasing the currency since before Dioclecian. The French simply continued the practice. As the coinage of money was soley under the control of the government, it was the French kings (with the assistance of a small but growing group of counterfeiters)that put out coinage that was mostly base metal. The peasants, not being able to keep a good coin reserve, had to use whatever coinage they had to pay taxes and purchase goods. The wealthier (sic) nobles could keep their good coins in their cashboxes and pay their debts with the debased coinage. As the King ( read goverment) guaranteed the coinage, it was a crime to refuse to accept the debased coins.