Talk:Gold standard/Archive 6

my personal wacky opinion
Above I stated that Fed HAD TO REDUCE THE MONEY SUPPLY during the Great Depression bank panics,

wiki states -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression


 * One reason why the Federal Reserve did not act to limit the decline of the money supply was regulation. At that time, the amount of credit the Federal Reserve could issue was limited by the Federal Reserve Act, which required 40% gold backing of Federal Reserve Notes issued. By the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit that could be backed by the gold in its possession. This credit was in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes.[28]


 * A "promise of gold" is not as good as "gold in the hand", particularly when they only had enough gold to cover 40% of the Federal Reserve Notes outstanding. During the bank panics a portion of those demand notes were redeemed for Federal Reserve gold. Since the Federal Reserve had hit its limit on allowable credit, any reduction in gold in its vaults had to be accompanied by a greater reduction in credit. On April 5, 1933, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 making the private ownership of gold certificates, coins and bullion illegal, reducing the pressure on Federal Reserve gold.[28]

I wonder if I got my wacked out opinion by reading the wiki article on the Great Depression? Could be! seems my wacked out opinion matches the wiki article. Now doesn't someone feel a bit foolish?71.174.140.32 (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL 74.128.43.180 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit++
I took a huge whack at this mess, which remains in very poor condition. Feedback encouraged.
 * It's about 1500 words shorter.
 * I consolidated lots of duplicate refs, added cite and sfn where I thought it helped
 * I tried to clean up some of the bad economic logic, removing contradictions, etc.

It needs a rewrite in my view. Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You could add in that the power to print paper money was removed from the Federal government during the Constitutional convention on the grounds that the then recent experience with the fiat Continental proved less then acceptable. The minutes of that vote as recorded by James Madison are below. Notice that the merely barring the Federal government from making paper money legal tender was declared to be an INSUFFICIENT protection from the evils of paper money..

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.

Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure.

Col. [FN20] MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.

Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.

Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens

Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.

Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which [FN21] might arise.

Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.

Mr. BUTLER. remarked that paper was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power.

Mr. MASON was still averse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked, it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head.

Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.

Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")

On the motion for striking out

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.176.112 (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2013
In the 3rd paragraph of the Bretton Woods Section, a reference is made to the Smithsonian Agreement, stating that it took place in "December, 1972." The correct year of date is 1971, following by 6 months President Nixon's unilateral suspension of conversions.

76.101.247.5 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Gold Standard = Fiat Money!
Any Gold Standard is an example of government price setting & on-demand convertibility where the government fixes & maintains the price of gold by fiat rather than by the market. It is a government issued fiat money system with a (defining) set of voluntarily, self-imposed constraints. Most important of which is the promise to convert, on demand, currency to gold at a fixed price. It is the mere imposition of this constraint that makes an involuntary default even a possibility.24.36.14.161 (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are clueless. The only thing a government does when minting gold and silver coins is to set the metal content of those coins so that commerce could take place with trusted units of money.. It is fiat only in that a dollar (from the German thaler) was a fixed weight of silver or gold. The thaler was a unit of WEIGHT.. Notice that the British POUND is a also a unit of weigh (now much debased). Historically when those coins became debased and NOT trusted they vanished from commerce and the government issuing them shortly thereafter ceased to exist, or became much reduced in power, land area and influence. Something about thieving government eventually getting what they deserve. 71.184.176.112 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You are confused. A Gold Standard doesn't necessitate gold coins. It involves the government setting the price of gold & redeeming money for gold on-demand at this fixed price. 24.36.10.199 (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Great Depression
This article does quite a bit of blaming the gold standard for either causing or worsening the Great Depresion. This is contrary to mainstream opinion - i.e the opinion of Milton Friedman who with Schwartz wrote the most referenced work on this topic

According to Milton Friedman "This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System... and that the severity of each of the major contractions – 1920–1, 1929–33 and 1937–8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities and would not have occurred under earlier monetary and banking arrangements " Milton Friedman Capitalism and Freedom 40th Anniversary Edition page 45 available online at google books.

According to Friedman the Great Depression would not have happened in the first place under the pre-existing system - aka the pure gold standard. Request that Friedman's position in favor of the pre-existing (gold) be made part of the article to insure neutrality.71.174.141.198 (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. You completely misunderstand him here. He's blaming the Fed for not creating MORE MONEY 'out of thin air.' Quite the opposite of advocating a gold standard, Friedman pushed for a more activist monetary policy once the economy was in recession. His monetary views are far closer to Keynes' than Rothbard's. (His views on fiscal (as opposed to monetary) policy are more congenial to libertarians, but again, there are major difference there too.) Steeletrap (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Stick to quoting your experts and the debate will settle down. If you find a conflict within the writings of one author, date and report both. Problem usually solved. Lfstevens (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Friedman is in blaming the Fed more for CONTRACTING the money supply, then not for not printing more money. LOOK IT UP the US money supply contracted because banks raids pulled gold out of the banking system. Under that system Federal reserve notes were backed 40% by gold. If you turn in $1 dollar in paper notes you get one dollar in gold, but that forces a reduction of $1.50 in the money supply since one dollar in gold backs $2.50 in notes. Take out that gold dollar from the Federal Reserve and the money supply contracts by $1.50. It increases by $1 because of the $1 in gold now in circulation and not stored in a vault as Federal Reserve bank reserves, but drops $2.50 because that $1 in gold is not available to back $2.50 in paper notes which have to be taken out of circulation  This is simple math +1-2.50 = -1.50.  That cannot happen under a 100% gold system. Are you going to turn in $1 in gold to get $1 in gold? That is plainly wasted effort and will not happen. You turn in paper, which is (or was at the point) a promise for gold, and get your gold. You feel safer with the gold then with a promise of gold. You don't turn in gold to get the same amount of gold because youa re not safer trading in gold to get exactly the same thing back. As Friedman states, that CONTRACTION in the money supply would not have happed under the previous 100% gold monetary system. The money supply would normally have expanded as the US government minted more coins, not contracted.


 * And the bubble of the Roaring Twenties was fueled by an wildly expanding money supply as the newly created Fed which used member bank reserves required to be held at the Fed as backing for its then new Federal reserve notes. Private banks were (and still are) forced by law to keep a portion of their deposits at the Federal Reserve which then used them as backing for its notes. This doesn't work too well when banks are failing left and right and those reserves get pulled back to satisfy fearful depositors anxious to get their money out of the banking system lest their bank go belly up and they lose it all. Suddenly the Fed has lots less reserves to back its notes and must reduce the amount of notes in circulation.Can you say contracting money supply? Again something that would not have happened under the previous system since there was no Federal Reserve to blow up the money supply and create a bubble in the first place.
 * In short no bubble caused by a wildly growing money supply and no recession caused by a bursting bubble that turns into a Depression because of a CONTRACTING money supply. Neither a wildly expanding nor a wildly contracting money supply would have happened under the pre-existing system.71.174.141.198 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The idea that the Gold Standard contributed greatly to the Great Depression *is* the mainstream opinion. Friedman thought the same (what does post war inflation have to do with it?) although he emphasized different aspects as well.  Volunteer Marek   00:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The mainstream opinion has been expressed by Helicopter Ben, and is that the Fed caused the Great Depression. The head of the Fed said so himself and even thanked Friedman for pointing that out so that the Fed would not make THAT particular mistake again. Friedman clearly blames the Great Depression on Fed actions and inactions. Regarding your question on wartime inflation, Friedman is also blaming blaming the Fed for causing that as well. - this is a separate issue and also a result of excessive money printing to fund WW1- see full Friedman quote below straight from his book - no folding, spindling or mutilating to confuse you. Helicopter Ben is quoted a minute into this news video clip - 71.174.141.198 (talk)

Economic growth was higher under gold
from Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/11/20/why-most-rich-1-percenters-would-give-anything-to-be-among-the-99/

"In terms of wreaking economic havoc, our discretionary, fiat dollar is the gift that keeps on giving. Not only has it caused inequality to soar, but it has also suppressed economic growth.  If our economy had grown as fast from 1973 to 2012 as it did from 1790 to 1973, real GDP would be 60% larger right now, and every “percent” in the land would have more."

Would also like to point out that one of the two goals of the Federal Reserve act was to increase "stability" because "stability" is one of the keys to higher economic growth. A goal is has dismally failed to achieve. Notice that "stability" was higher under even the Bretton Woods system then the pure fiat currently the rage. Also notice that economic growth sucked since the last ties to gold under Bretton Woods were dropped by Nixon. Something about the Fed printing too many dollars which were then redeemed for US gold depleting gold reserves from about 30,000 tons to only 8,000.71.174.141.198 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Forbes, a business magazine for the rich, is generally speaking not WP:RS for Economics. 2. This piece is an opinion piece by an outside contributor and so should be judged by the credentials of the contributor; given that the contributor is "a software entrepreneur who is currently an investor ... [with] a B.S. in mechanical engineering", this piece is not WP:RS for Economics. LK (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 10 recessions between 1790 and 1835, 24 between 1835 and 1927, 9 recessions between 1928 and 1973. That makes for 43 recessions between 1790 and 1973, or an average of one recession every 4.25 years. Most of these recessions saw losses in the double digit percentage pounts. We have had 5 recessions since 1973, only one of which just barely saw a double digit percentage point loss. Since 1973, we have had a recession roughly once every 8 years. That means the rate of recession has dropped by nearly half since 1973, and that the magnitude of the depressions has also dropped. There seems to be something wrong with the information you are presenting, at the very least in terms of economic stability. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's also just plain wrong *and* involves manipulating data. First, it's wrong because the US wasn't on a gold standard in 1790. It wasn't on it until 1862. True, there was silver, but you also had banks issue their own currency - essentially fiat money on steroids. And it's manipulated because - as the author's own chart clearly shows - the bulk of this "higher growth under gold" was confined to the Bretton Woods era. Not 1790-1936. It would've been more honest to say "if our economy had grown as fast from 1973 to 2012 as it did from 1948 to 1973, real GDP...". But that would take away from the author's point and agenda so facts be damned. (The association of fixed exchange rates with growth is also questionable in terms of causality so even that isn't accurate).  Volunteer Marek   08:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You guys are spewing crap from both ends. Inflation adjusted median wages since the late 1960's are now flat or down (depending on the year.) That is a stretch of half a century of flat or declining living standards under pure fiat. To put in simple words not only has fiat not contributed to a better lifestyle, under pure fiat the US has even lost some of the gains made under the previous systems. Fiat has been a TOTAL AND COMPLETE FAILURE. There is NO OTHER similar time period of declinig living standards in US history. The period in which US economic growth was considered highest is the Gilded Age from 1880 to about 1900 under a pure gold standard. NO OTHER period in US history compares. As for recession under gold and silver, they were generally local, with growth recovering rapidly. People continue to argue as to whether there has been any growth AT ALL since the recession following the burst housing bubble of 2007. From 1776 to 1900 the US went from a nothing war torn economy to the major economic power on Earth. From 1900 to today the percentage of US economic power compared to the rest of the world has hardly changed, excepting a peak after WW2 due to the wars destruction of most of the worlds economy. The superiority of a stable gold system versus an unstable fiat system is shown by the Original Great Depression (now known as the Long Depression) of the late 18th century. While the British Empire and Europe were in a depression (largely due to bursting speculative bubbles and financial panics) the US was doing its economic best under the pure gold standard instituted in the late 1800's. Those areas started experimenting with Central Banks to "manage" money and the economy well before the US, or to put it more accurately in those areas the banksters took over a lot sooner then here in the US.


 * Something on the Original Great Depression - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286877/long-long-depression-matthew-lynn


 * One other point: Friedman stated that a slow and steady growth in the money supply was the best way to insure economic growth. He is basically copying what happens under a gold system, which has that characteristic due to a slow increase in gold supplies through mine production. So according to Friedman the best fiat system copies the innate characteristics of the gold system.71.174.141.198 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 71, this is goofy stuff --- soapboxing, OR, not-RS, SYNTH for starters. Maybe it was the discovery of penicillin that slowed economic growth -- ever think of that?  SPECIFICO  talk  18:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 71, the facts don't support what you say. Are you sure your investigation wasn't motivated by your heart (i.e. political views) rather than your mind? If facts or evidence are your standard, there is no reason whatsoever to believe any of your assertions regarding the gold standard. Milton Friedman and monetarists generally would be aghast to hear you compare their views to yours. Steeletrap (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do monetarists prefer a slow steady growth in the money supply, because they see this as the best way to insure low inflation and steady economic growth? This is a simple yes or no question. Does the supply of gold, (and therefore the supply of gold money) usually grow at a slow steady rate from mine production? Again a simple yes or no question. Is this slow and steady rate an INNATE characteristic of gold money? Again a simple yes or no question. Does the desire of monetarist for a slow steady increase in the supply of money MIMIC an innate characteristic of gold money. Again a simple yes or no question. Let me know if you answer no to any of the above.


 * It would not surprise me at all to learn that your average monetarist would be aghast at this comparison. But the fact remains that the US did better economically under a pure gold system then under any other system, including the earliest silver gold fixed exchange rate format. Look up "The Gilded Age". The fact also remains that if you are looking for the best system ( which I believe monetarist are doing), then that best system will AUTOMATICALLY resemble the best system ever used, and that best system ever used ( at least in the 200 plus history of the US) is a pure gold system. To put it bluntly monetarists are trying to re-invent the wheel, and surprise! surprise! surprise! the best wheels are round.


 * If you have any disagreements with my version of the history of US economic growth, then you can simply read a bit of history. Something you have obviously not done AT ALL if you disagree with any points I have made.71.174.141.198 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The monetarist system is distinct from the gold standard in that, while it generally encourages a "slow steady growth" in the monetary supply, it calls for activist monetary policy in the context of recessions. Milton Friedman rightfully believed that the Federal Reserve could have prevented the Great Depression through more quantitative easing. Steeletrap (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand Friedman's views. He would prefer to see a constant growth in the money supply and the abolition of the Federal Reserve. see interview in new section below. As to whether the Fed could have prevented or reduced the intensity of the Great Depression, Friedman's position is that the Fed could have expanded the money supply to reduce the intensity. However the Fed was prevented by law from doing so. By law the Fed at that point in time was required to have at least a 40% gold backing for its notes. It had printed so many during the Roaring Twenties (creating a bubble) that it had very little in the way of gold reserves to back more money printing. When gold left the banking system during the bank panics, the Fed also suffered an outflow of gold FORCING it to reduce the money supply because it no longer had enough gold to support as many notes at the required 40% gold backing. I have not run into anything showing that Friedman (and Schwartz) gave any thought to this LEGAL REQUIREMENT when researching the actions of the Federal Reserve at this critical point in time. The fact is that when Roosevelt dropped the 40% backing requirement ( as well as the gold redeemability of the Federal Reserve note) the Fed could print more money, did print more money and the Great Depression still lasted another 6-7 years.


 * As to "history", it's just an empirical fact that under the gold standard, recessions occurred more often and were more intense than under modern monetary and (New Keynesian) fiscal policies. Steeletrap (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Prior to the creation of the Fed, recessions were shorter, more localized, and the recoveries more robust. If your thinking on economic growth is correct then the US did not grow from the nothing war torn economy in the late 1700's to the largest economic power on the planet by 1900. FYI This point of view is not shared by many outside of mental institutions.71.174.141.198 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No point in arguing about this. Either provide reliable, scholarly, academic sources (not goofy opinion pieces) or just give it up.  Volunteer Marek   00:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Monetarists
Since it seems some people here are not familiar with monetarist thought - here is an interview with Friedman   [] Friedman: .... I'd just as soon the Fed announce it will increase M2 by 5 percent per year, year after year, month after month. But they are not going to do that. reason: Why won't they do what you suggest? Friedman: They don't want to become irrelevant. It's human nature. You would do the same thing if you were there, and I'm afraid even I would. reason: But it would be preferable to abolish the Fed entirely and just have government stick to a monetary growth rule? Friedman: Yes, it's preferable. And there's no chance at all of it happening. 71.174.141.198 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. You haven't read anything written by Friedman on economics; you've just devoured some of the red-meat he threw to the liberty-heads. Friedman doesn't like the fed because he doesn't trust it to enact his preferred monetary policy; but that preferred monetary policy is completely different than the gold standard, insofar as it calls for rapid expansion of the money supply in the context of recessions. Friedman is just saying that he would rather rely on a mathematical formula than the discretion of a fed chairman determine the expansion of the money supply (in the context of a recession, depending on its degree of severity (defined by various empirical measures), that formula could compel a rapid expansion of M3). Steeletrap (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Friedman states that a system of steadily rising money supply is preferable and is in favor of abolishing the Fed . Friedmans quote above was in response to some economics wannabe confusing Keynes and Friedman.To quote that wannabe"The monetarist system is distinct from the gold standard in that, while it generally encourages a "slow steady growth" in the monetary supply, it calls for activist monetary policy in the context of recessions." NOPE! Not according to Friedman it doesn't. Friedman plainly states that a purely mechanical system is better then having interventionist. system.


 * As for his saying that the Fed could have either prevented or reduced the severity of the Great Depression by printing money, yes he did say that. The fact of the matter however is that he failed to consider the impact of the 40% gold backing requirement for Federal Reserve notes at that time. The Fed simply did not have any gold more gold to back more notes and could not legally print more notes. Understand? Capiche? Verstanden? Irrespective of his position on money printing, history shows that when the Fed starting printing after Roosevelt did away with the 40% gold backing requirement, the Great Depression still lasted another 6-7 years. It was not until the early 1940's that employment (due to war spending) went down enough to get rid of the Depression era social support/work projects. If that is his belief then history shows that he is at least partially wrong. The best way to prevent a recession caused by a bursting bubble is not to blow up that bubble in the first. The Roaring Twenties was one of the biggest bubbles (if nor the biggest) in US history. The housing collapse (especially in Florida) of the time makes todays bubbles look like a joyride.


 * Now back to my request, this article does a lot of blaming of the gold standard for the Great Depression. According to Friedman the Great Depression would NOT HAVE HAPPENED under the previous (Pre-Federal Reserve) system. That system was a pure gold standard, not a bimetallic standard, not a silver standard, and certainly not the Federal Reserves partially gold backed currency. To quote Helicopter Ben "Yes! We caused the Great Depression!" Spending so much page space to blame gold for something which would not have happened under a gold standard, and for which blame has been accepted by the Federal Reserve is more then a bit biased.71.174.141.198 (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would confine your comments to specific, well-cited, content which you propose to add to the article. That way others can collaborate with you on our joint mission here and avoid discussion of our personal opinions or general impressions of the current state of scholarly thinking. SPECIFICO talk  17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK! lets make this simple, many of the negatives against the gold standard in this article state that "managing" the money supply or the economy is a negative for the gold standard because you can't do it. Friedman considers such management counterproductive, is in favor of a steady growth in the money supply and advocates eliminating the Federal Reserve, which the instrument used for such manipulation. Friedman is considered the foremost US economist bar none. Keynes is English. Lets have the position of the foremost US economist bar none, included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.141.198 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 71, Please take a minute to re-read my message above and respond with specific sourced text you propose to add to the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO  talk  23:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your concerns. Adding direct quote of the Friedman text from his book sounds good to me and is below. Something like "According to Milton Friedman The Great Depression would not have happened under the gold standard and was caused and perpetuated by Fed actions and inactions." holds true to the Friedmans source language and is also acceptable.


 * or do you think Milton Friedman quoted from a book he authored is not a reliable source?71.174.141.129 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
Friedman sez

"This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System... and that the severity of each of the major contractions – 1920–1, 1929–33 and 1937–8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities and would not have occurred under earlier monetary and banking arrangements "

Friedman states that these events would not have happened under the previous monetary and banking arrangements. Those previous monetary and banking arrangements, included 100 gold money versus 40% gold backing for money and no Federal reserve to manage the economy and/or money supply.

A neutral pointy of view requires inclusion of the belief of Friedman that the Great Depression would not have happened under gold, alongside the opinions of many lesser lights who do blame gold, wholly or in part, for the Great Depression.71.174.141.198 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? I was of the opinion that Friedman (at least, in this quote) was arguing that the WWI system of not having a gold standard would not have caused the Great Depression since the contraction of the dollar (which you've already written about) was brought about by gold to begin with. 27.251.54.242 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Bretton Woods section
I found the following incomplete sentence in the Bretton Woods section: "This was the official price of the dollar, and policies to maintain its value relative to other currencies." Could someone who knows what this section is supposed to be saying please fix this? --Khajidha (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014
"Gold discoveries in California in 1848 ....." can be replaced with: "The 1848 gold find in California......"

Reason: Gold found n California w/early explorers along Colorado River & near Mexican era Los Angeles in 1832 so existence of gold only confirmed not discovered n 1848 altho find was reason for the 1849 Rush, the latter the unique part of incident.

66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done)) - Please stop trying to push your opinion about this, for the reasons givem at [[Talk:California Gold Rush - Arjayay (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 16:00, 10 February 2015
In the US Politics section "congressman Ron Paul" should be changed to "Former Congressman Ron Paul" as of 2013 he's no longer a US Congressman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBMcCulloch (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 February 2015

Ron_Paul http://www.house.gov/representatives/#name_p
 * Yes check.svg Done  Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 20:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bare URL causing page widening—should be properly formatted as a citation
The URL in question:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?item_id=22429&filepath=%2Fdocs%2Fhistorical%2Fhouse%2Fcmp%2F1990s%2FCMP_105HR_07221998.pdf&start_page=27

Website: Federal Reserve Archival System for Economic Research (FRASER)

Title: Conduct of Monetary Policy: Report of the Federal Reserve Board Pursuant to the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, P.L. 95-523 and The State of the Economy : Hearing before the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, House of Representatives

The authors:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking and Currency United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs United States. Congress. House. Committee on Financial Services

Date: July 22, 1998

Would make an edit request, but I'm not really sure exactly what the edit should look like. I imagine the original contributor didn't want to use the unwieldy title and author list either. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Gold standard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110714174608/http://mises.org:80/Community/wikis/economics/gold-as-money-faq.aspx to https://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/gold-as-money-faq.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111213062917/http://eh.net:80/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111124161246/http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.goldrush to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.goldrush
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120616230152/http://www.econ.washington.edu:80/user/cnelson/Chap07.pdf to http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/cnelson/Chap07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2015
"The gold specie standard came to an end with the outbreak of World War I."

Anonymousssssssdaerwrqrewq (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Poll on returning to the gold standard
http://www.usfunds.com/investor-library/frank-talk/an-illustrated-timeline-of-the-gold-standard-in-the-us/#.VmmGT0vaUds

According to this poll run by US Global Investors, at this time with a bit over 400 votes

57% Strongly favor returning to the gold standard 29% Favor returning to the gold standard 7% have no opinion 5% Reject returning to the gold standard and 2% Strongly Reject returning to the gold standard

To see the results you need to vote at the bottom of the article.

After the pathetic results of the Federal Reserve (aka banksters) creating money from nothing, and enriching themselves in the process at the expense of everyone else, a massive 86% of voters favor the gold standard.

The stability of the gold standard gave the US the longest running period of prosperity ever, while the Federal Reserve has given us The Great Depression, the Inflation of the 70's and most recently the Great Recession, besides any number of smaller booms and the folling busts.71.184.176.50 (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Countries still using gold standard
I can't find any info to state that nowadays there is no country that uses gold standard. Some time ago I marked this sentence as "citation needed" and now a citation has been added to http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Gold_standard.aspx but that page doesn't state this as a fact, it only says that the US no longer uses a gold standard.

I found some good info in http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/69483/william-o-scroggs/what-is-left-of-the-gold-standard explaining how "the international gold standard has broken down" and claiming that you could consider at least 8 countries as still using the standard. Tharos (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've rephrased the sentence to "Most nations abandoned the gold standard as the basis of its monetary system at some point in the 20th century", I think it's more accurate Tharos (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that Foreign Affairs article you cite is an archive from 1934. It refers to the "Dutch East Indies," the Nazi "reichsmark" as an active currency, and "Persia" being on the silver standard!  --Bridgecross (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Whoops, my bad. Sorry. Still, my question is valid: is it accurate to state that there are no countries on the gold standard today? Not even some arab or african country I may not be aware of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharos (talk • contribs) 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I can't find any definitive statement that NO nation is using the gold standard. I think if there were one out there, you would be able to find out which nation fairly easily.  --Bridgecross (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge no county uses gold coins as legal tender money (classic gold standard), and no country converts its paper currency to gold at a fixed rate mandated by law (free exchange gold standard). Libya was attempting to set up a gold is the legal money system, but was bombed back into the stone age before it could start, never mind finish the process.


 * In the US somebody attempted to pay workers with US Gold Eagles (supposedly legal tender) at legal tender faced value but the US government took them to court for tax evasion and they lost. They paid court costs with legal tender silver coins at the legal tender face value and the court accepted the transaction, which just goes to show how two faced the system is.71.184.176.50 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with that news story, and unfortunately you got the facts wrong. The person did not try to pay his workers with gold coins at their face value (which would have been legal but which would have entailed a huge loss for him).  He wanted to pay them with gold at the bullion value - which was highly inconvenient (and costly) for his workers. Anyway, further discussion of this news story is irrelevant to this article, so I will stop.  LK (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope! He paid the workers at the face value (the legal tender value right on the face of the coin) and not the market value.


 * Directly quoted from news article: Kahre hadn’t committed a crime. He had upset the Internal Revenue Service by paying his workers based on the face value of gold and silver coins, versus the market value in the Federal Reserve system (the value of the coins in U.S. paper dollars). Even though the coins were in circulation, displayed a face value, and were regulated by Congress, the IRS’s confusing and endless tax code did not determine how to handle these gold and silver coins if used for payroll. The tax code only references dollars. It does not distinguish between coined money and paper money.


 * So the quote that legal tender money can be used to pay all debts. public and private, does not hold true for gold and silver legal tender coins. In other words despite the US government advertising these coins as legal tender, it does not treat them as legal tender.


 * The IRS was pissed because when you pay someone $50 (face value of a 1 ounce coin) when its market value is much higher) that persons income is only $50 instead of the much higher market value. i.e. the taxman was not getting his pound of flesh.


 * The case was Robert Kahre vs. the IRS.71.184.176.50 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 71.184.176.50: You're mis-informed about the Kahre case.

First of all, the case is not "Robert Kahre vs. the IRS." The case is United States v. Kahre. Mr. Robert David Kahre appealed his conviction, and the conviction was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See United States v. Kahre, 737 F.3d 554 (9th Cir. 2013).

Second, it is not precisely correct to say that Mr. Kahre paid his employees only in gold coins. You're been reading tax protester propaganda on the internet.

Third, the statement that the "tax code only references dollars" is not only blatantly false, it's meaningless. Under the income tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, ALL income is subject to tax (except for various exclusions explicitly stated in the Code) -- regardless of whether the taxpayer receives "dollars" or "money" or "legal tender" or "money that is not legal tender" or "gold coins" or Cabbage Patch Dolls.

Fourth, the Internal Revenue Service does not "have" a "confusing and endless tax code." The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, is enacted by Congress - not by the IRS. It's not the IRS's Code; it's YOUR Code and MY Code and everyone's Code.

The Code is indeed confusing and, while it is several million words in length, it is certainly not "endless."

The IRS is charged with administering the Internal Revenue Code, but the IRS does not write the Internal Revenue Code.

Fifth, you might want to actually study the actual facts, the actual charges, and the actual convictions in Mr. Kahre's case -- and you should do that not by reading tax protester garbage on the internet. Famspear (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: I'll be happy to give you the details of Mr. Kahre's scheme, but this talk page is not the place for that. Famspear (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

PPS: Under U.S. Federal income tax law, if someone performs services for someone else and is paid with gold coins where the fair market value of the coins exceeds the face value of the coins, the amount of income realized by the recipient is the fair market value of the coins, regardless of whether the coins are legal tender under U.S. law or not. Famspear (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Preface
The introductory sentence mentions the three types of gold standard (viz. specie, exchange, and bullion) - but the dot points that follow are in the order specie, bullion, and exchange! For the sake of the reader, can they be in a consistent order? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Gold standard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091121143147/http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/faq_docs/gold_standard.shtml to http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/faq_docs/gold_standard.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090227082057/http://www.bankofengland.co.uk:80/about/history/ to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120327042254/http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/21242022 to http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/21242022

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Gold production details in lead section
The last two paragraphs in the lead give a lot of statistics about gold production. I don't think this is relevant to this article. If it is relevant, we should say why it's relevant for the reader's benefit, and even then it probably doesn't belong in the lead. Dc46and2 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gold standard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63vrtG5bW?url=http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/great_depression.pdf to http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/great_depression.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Linkrot
207.35.33.162 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2017
Remove the sentence "A survey of leading economists showed that they unanimously reject that a return to the gold standard would benefit the average American." from the intro section.

Reason: I don't see why the effect of the gold standard on one single nation should be mentioned in the intro section. I request removing it again, as otherwise the effect on every single nation would have the same right to be included, which would be to long for the intro.

Pinged because i was your edit. 78.94.53.130 (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any similar authoritative surveys of economists for other countries, please add them here in talk and we'll add them to the article too. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:CDM Gold Standard which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018
Under Disadvantages, the following paragraph has no justification so it has to be changed:

The unequal distribution of gold deposits makes the gold standard more advantageous for those countries that produce gold.[69] In 2010 the largest producers of gold, in order, were China, Australia, U.S., South Africa and Russia.[70] The country with the largest unmined gold deposits is Australia.[71]

Richard M. Salsman refutes this supposed disadvantage with several justifications, in his book Gold and Liberty, 1995: https://www.aier.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Research/pdf/Gold%26Liberty.pdf https://www.amazon.com/Gold-Liberty-Richard-M-Salsman/dp/B009NNX2PU

I propose to change this paragraph as following:

Some authors suggest that the unequal distribution of gold deposits makes the gold standard more advantageous for those countries that produce gold.[69] In 2010 the largest producers of gold, in order, were China, Australia, U.S., South Africa and Russia.[70] The country with the largest unmined gold deposits is Australia.[71] This theory is refuted by authors that explain that "gold flows to regions and countries where it has a high value, because prices are low, and out of areas where its value is low and prices are high. Such flows tend to equalize prices globally. [72]" Secondly, "the relevant supply of base money under a gold standard system is all the gold that has ever been mined and accumulated throughout history, not merely its annual increment. Consequently, even if today’s gold mining companies were arbitrary about their production policies (a dubious assumption), they can influence only a small fraction of the total gold money supply. This applies equally to gold mining in countries, such as Russia and South Africa, that suffer political or labor instability. [72]" Large producers of gold have no incentive to rapidly increase the gold supply, nor could they profit of that. "The profit motive of mining companies ensures a smoothly increasing gold money supply. Gold mining companies do not try to influence the aggregate supply of money or the wider economy. They seek profits. There is an incentive to mine as much gold as customers demand, in a cost-effective way. [...] A rise in the value of gold meant a greater demand for gold, a fall in other prices generally, a widening of gold mining profit margins, and an inducement to produce more gold. A fall in the value of gold meant a smaller demand for gold, a rise in other prices generally, a narrowing of gold mining profit margins, and a lower rate of gold production. Gold production was efficiently distributed and it adjusted to meet market demand. [72]"

[72 - Richard M. Salsman, Gold and Liberty, 1995] Psblue (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The reliable source status of the proposed source is unclear and therefore needs to be discussed here before such a massive quote can be added.  The proposed addition also swamps the section and therefore may also add undue weight to one side of an argument, in violation of the Neutral point-of-view policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2018
Change “sterilize” to "sterilize". "Sterilization" is a technical term in economics meaning central bank actions to counter the effects of money entering or leaving the country on the domestic money supply. 68.50.41.158 (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I performed this edit request since it seemed uncontroversial. (It didn't seem right to leave the 'Vague' tag in place in a case where 'sterilize' is being used as a regular technical term of economics). The sentence containing the word 'sterilize' is still marked as 'citation needed'. Perhaps the IP editor can suggest an appropriate reference. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with Bitcoin and fiat?
It would be nice to include a comparison with fiat currency and Bitcoin. Bitcoin enthusiasts see Bitcoin as an improved version of gold, with many of the same advantages, but fewer of the same problems. The problem with gold (so the theory goes) is that it requires centralisation and caretakership by governments and banks, which Bitcoin doesn't rely on to the same extent. But Bitcoin still manages to maintain some of gold's hard money properties, such as its resistance to supply inflation.

Fiat currency is obviously in its own category. --Svennik (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've made an edit in See also. --Svennik (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The impact of gold standard on average Americans - article lead
I recently read through the article, and when reading the following sentence in the lead:

"In a 2012 survey of leading economists, they unanimously opined that a return to the gold standard would not benefit the average American."

it struck me that it is extremely biased. It appears that the sentence is supposed to criticize the gold standard (the previous sentence says that central banks keep gold reserves, so maybe this is a counter-point?). However, this sentence is not logically connected with the preceding text, and seems forced in this place.

In addition, why is this particular piece of information so important that it needs to be in the lead? What about non-average Americans? What about American corporations or non-profit organizations? What about non-Americans? If there was a similar poll about the impact of reintroducing the gold standard on the average Pakistani, or on the average Montenegrian - would we put this into the article lead? If the answer is "no", then this sentence violates NPOV, since there is no objective reason to reflect the economists' consensus about a particular nation in the article lead. If the answer is "yes", then anybody can dig up such polls and start cluttering the lead with this - in my opinion - relatively inconsequential information.

More importantly, there is a dedicated section "Critics" where this information is repeated and expanded upon. That is the appropriate place to describe this piece of info and put it in context.

I tried removing this sentence, but my change keeps being reverted, so I would like to see what the others think about this. EDIT: DvK (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I do agree the lead is short and should be expanded. Having said that, the sentence belongs in the lede because there are still calls for the return of the gold standard in the united states and its return is viewed negatively by most economists. ---- Work permit (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I share the concerns of DvK that the opinion poll from 2012 seems rather too specific and country-centric for the lead section. It focuses on the "average American". Clearly the majority of people in the world aren't "average Americans". I feel the appropriate place for this opinion poll from seven years ago would be in the main body of the article, rather than the lead. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The text obviously belongs in the lede. That economists unanimously consider the gold standard to be idiotic and harmful is pertinent info. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This shows precisely why the the text does NOT belong in the lead. Economists do not consider the gold standard to be „idiotic and harmful”, they have only opined that it „would not benefit the average American”. Including the text in the lead creates the false appearence that there is some alleged consensus concerning the gold standard in general. But the text actually does not support this conclusion. This is one more reason to relegate the text to the main body, to avoid creating such confusion. DvK (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to the reasons cited above, we arent even representing what the survey actually said. The actual question is " If the US replaced its discretionary monetary policy regime with a gold standard, defining a "dollar" as a specific number of ounces of gold, the price-stability and employment outcomes would be better for the average American." Further, i strongly agree with DvK that a survey most definitely does not equal a 'consensus'.  I can see this info in the body somewhere, reworded, but not in the lede. Bonewah (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus among economists against the gold standard:
 * Politico: "Prominent economists agree that a return to a gold-linked dollar would not be better for the average American.... most economists argue that returning to gold would prevent the central bank from acting in the best interest of the economy... In 2012, the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business asked 40 prominent economists whether a return to the gold standard would be better for the average American. All of them said no"
 * WBUR: "Almost all economists agree, the system we have today is better than the gold standard."
 * Quartz: "Mainstream economists deride it almost without exception."
 * St Louis Fed: "most economists disagree with the idea that a gold standard would improve economic outcomes for the average American."
 * The Atlantic: "Economics is often a contentious subject, but economists agree about the gold standard -- it is a barbarous relic that belongs in the dustbin of history."
 * Paul Krugman: "There is overwhelming consensus among professional economists that a return to the gold standard would be a bad idea."
 * The Conversation: "the overwhelming consensus among economists is that the gold standard would be a disastrous policy."
 * Anil K. Kashyap: "I don’t know of any reputable economist who thinks it is a wise idea".

And the consensus should be clearly described as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Im not too impressed by a bunch of editorials that cite the same poll you were pushing before. The whole notion that Wikipedia can declare what is a consensus or not is dangerous and unhelpful. Why not simply describe what the poll actually says and stop trying to describe it as some general consensus? Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked for scholarly articles referring to this survey a while back and I could only find one, here:. Clearly there would be more if there were truly a consensus. Entire schools of economics disagree with the idea of fiat money so there will never be such a consensus.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The Austrian School is to economics what creation science is to biology. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What POV-pushing insult do you have for the public choice school (which White actually belongs to)? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, I dont think you understand what makes something Fringe. See WP:FRINGE/PS. Bonewah (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, i am ok with this edit. Bonewah (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Some of the text in Great Depression section has nothing to do with gold standard
It looks like an essay cobbled together with various writings from Austrian economists about the "true" cause of the Great Depression. The subject of the article is the gold standard, so the content in the article should be limited to that subject. In the Great Depression section, the content should be strictly focused on the literature by academic economists on the role played / not played by the gold standard in the Great Depression. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But what should we do to fix it? Kmockingjay (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2020
Wikipedia writes" In a 2012 survey of leading economists, they unanimously opined that a return to the gold standard would not benefit the average American.[3][4]"

This is subjective and does not add to the article. e.g. There are schools of thought and 'leading economists' that believe the gold standard would stabilize prices and help 'the average American".

Terms like "leading economists" "Opined" Average American" are all terms of subjective language not objective writing.

The poll was almost a decade ago and done subjectively by the NYT. This was not a peer-reviewed poll and a detailed study.

I am getting a Ph.D. in Monetary Economics and to start an article like this is not responsible for writing unless you are trying to convey a political message. Markbiernat (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. feminist (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How about removing the word "leading"? --Renek78 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence has already been changed. Station1 (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021
Change 2021 to 1933 in "Upon taking office in March 2021, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt departed from the gold standard." Eghagstrom (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Looks like that's taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 10 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alisa Ayn Rosenbaum.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantages
Within the advantages section there is this mention: Long-term price stability has been described as one of the virtues of the gold standard, but historical data shows that the magnitude of short run swings in prices were far higher under the gold standard.

This seems to be like a disadvantage. Plus it seems to already be mentioned as a disadvantage where it says: Although the gold standard brings long-run price stability, it is historically associated with high short-run price volatility.

I would recommend simply changing the phrase under advantages to say: "Long-term price stability has been described as one of the virtues of the gold standard" This phrase then naturally leads into the counter argument found within the disadvantage section.

As an overall recommendation for this article, the statements within the aforementioned sections seem highly subjective. To me, some of the disadvantages actually seemed like advantages lol. I would recommend making sure that each of these cited sources are clearly indicating an advantage or a disadvantage to the gold standard, and maybe even quoting the source or indicating whose opinion we are actually spouting.

In the lead it mentions: There is a consensus among economists that a return to the gold standard would not be beneficial, and most economic historians reject the idea that the gold standard "was effective in stabilizing prices and moderating business-cycle fluctuations during the nineteenth century.

Well, that's quite one sided, isn't it? No mention of the supporters? There are clearly other schools of thought that support the gold standard that are quite significant, as the article clearly brings out. Why no mention of them? As a kindly reminder see MOS:INTRO and WP:NPOV.

Artemaeus Creed (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Return to gold standard

Apparently in May 2022 Russia tied the Ruble to gold. This was covered by Forbes magazine at https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews/2022/05/02/russias-move-to-gold-may-jolt-your-company/?sh=3fbdc7fb72e6

Other countries are supposedly also considering a similar move.

Perhaps someone knowledgeable on the topic could address these recent updates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenGoudsward (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)