Earlier today I wrote that macro history raises serious questions about returning the monetary system to a gold standard, a goal that some pundits (and a few Republican candidates for president) advocate. Looking to gold as a cure for economic volatility rests partly on the assumption that the metal is a reliable inflation hedge through time. But as it turns out, gold’s inflation-hedging attributes may not be as durable as conventional wisdom claims. As The Free Exchange at Economist.com notes, there’s a “gold puzzle” in them ‘thar hills.
Daily Archives: February 15, 2012
Industrial Production Was Flat In January
Industrial production was basically unchanged last month, the Federal Reserve reports. Economists were expecting a substantial rise and so today’s update was a negative surprise. Is that a sign of trouble for the economy? No, not really, at least not yet. Industrial production alone isn’t all that valuable as a forward-looking measure of the business cycle, although it does tend to confirm other warning signs when recession risk is rising. By that standard, there’s not much going on here since the annual pace of industrial production is still growing at a healthy clip. If you’re looking for a smoking gun that tells us the economy’s set to tumble, you won’t find it here. Sure, it could be the start of something worrisome, but it might just as easily turn out to be noise, and so the net result at the moment is that today’s data point is more or less a wash.
Papering Over The Gold Standard’s Flaws
Pushing for a return to the gold standard as a cure for economic volatility is the new new thing in populist circles these days. Holding out the promise of a kinder, gentler business cycle needs no introduction. Several Republican presidential candidates have embraced the idea, and there’s no shortage of pundits jumping on gold’s bandwagon, including former Wall Street Journal editor George Melloan, who proclaims: “Let’s return to the gold standard” in The American Spectator. Alas, the cure is an illusion, and one that’s based on a misreading of economic history. Hard money talk can whip up a crowd, but a sober reading of the past on this topic leaves lots of questions–questions that Melloan and others of his persuasion rarely address.