Nathan Lewis 2016年7月8日
“金本位體制對經濟造成的不是負擔，而是利潤...”
就近年來出現的金本位體制會造成“社會負擔”的奇怪概念，Nathan Lewis在《福佈斯》中首次讨論這個問題時說道。然而事實不是這樣的。它創造利潤。
當然，挖掘地下黃金需要花費精力。然而，在1971年金本位被廢除後黃金挖掘也從未停止。1971年以後開採的黃金大約占歷史開採黃金總量的一半。目前的年產量為歷史最高水平，而且幾乎是1970年的兩倍。人們似乎很樂意支付這種“成本”。
如果人們開始使用金幣，那麼需要有人為這些黃金買單。那麼誰會買單呢？是“所有人”？政府？納稅人？還是誰？
假設現在我們僅僅使用金幣。沒有紙幣。（為了方便起見，我們也假設沒有銀行。）一個人工作一週並在週五獲得一盎司黃金的酬勞。這個人一週的工作酬勞得到這個金幣的支付。
現在我們假設一個經濟體沒有使用金幣，僅僅使用與黃金挂鈎的紙幣。我們假設一個紙幣價值一盎司黃金。（1933年以前20美元大約價值0.97盎司黃金。）一個人工作一週，在週五得到價值一盎司黃金紙幣的酬勞。
獲得黃金和紙幣的成本是一樣的。那就是一個星期的工作。
這種情況對政府來說也一樣。無論納稅是以紙幣或者金幣的形式，結果是一樣的。
不同的在於貨幣發行者，也就是紙幣的生產商，現在的中央銀行。假設貨幣的發行者有一個100%儲備金系統。那麼對每一個紙幣來說，都應該在金庫擁有等值的黃金儲備。
這一情況與使用金幣時沒有太大的不同。黃金的數量是一樣的。
現在，我們假設貨幣發行者有20%的儲備，這是19世紀美國私人貨幣發行者的普遍儲備水平。其他80%的儲備組成了有息債務。相當於現在的政府債券。
現在貨幣系統使用的黃金數量下降了80%，被有息債券取代。債券的利息收入為債券發行者創造利潤。
如果你使用法定貨幣系統，完全不使用黃金，貨幣的“成本”還是一樣的，那就是一週的工作。然而，貨幣發行者的資產將是100%的附息債務。
因此，我們會發現在所有情況下貨幣的“成本”是一樣的，那就是一週的工作。問題是“利潤”。在一個100%的黃金儲備系統中，不會產生利潤。然而，在一個20%的儲備系統中，利潤將非常巨大。這些利潤完全由貨幣的發行者獲得，即中央銀行。
我們可以發現從20%黃金儲備系統到100%債務系統貨幣發行者獲得的利潤不會發生太大變化。不同的只有前面的20%部分，後面的80%是相同的。因此，金本位體制和法定貨幣體制的獲利是相同的。
包括David Ricardo在内的一些經濟學家在1817年曾建議實行沒有黃金儲備的金本位體制。20世紀的黃金交易所標準就是這其中的一個例子。他們屬於100%債務體系。
我認為你不需要太擔心中央銀行的盈利能力。他們自己會處理的很好。
關註貨幣質量對你的影響。在1789年到1971年的近兩個世紀，美國都在使用金本位體制，並成為了世界上的超級經濟大國。當時的貨幣很簡單、穩定、可靠並可以預測。盡管受到過短期挫折，但是中產階級的資產一代又一代的穩定增長。
現在的經濟學家愛講大話，但是在過去45年的法定貨幣體系中，他們有創造過那樣的積極結果嗎？大多數情況下，他們只是從一個危機跳入另一個危機，一路創造一個又一個泡沫。他們有學到什麼嗎？他們似乎很擅長“踢罐子”，用進一步扭曲的代價避免相同危機的發生，但是卻引發之後更大的危機。
我認為最終會發生一個足夠大的危機，到時候人們會說：“夠了，這個危機已經足夠大了。你曾經有過機會。現在是時候做出改變了。”但是在這之前，我們需要知道我們能用什麼取而代之。
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 – includingDavid 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.
本文翻譯由兄弟財經提供
文章來源：https://www.bullionvault.com/gold-news/gold-standard-070820161