1. Introduction

In this paper, we analyze the value of money. We consider both paper money and gold. We attempt to relate the supply of money (MS) and gold to their purchasing power (PP). We demonstrate the extent to which printing of money dilutes its value. As a store of value, the value of money is represented by its purchasing power. We compare the ability of paper money and gold to function as a long-term store of value. We conclude that gold is an excellent store of value, while paper money is not. We observe that excessive printing of paper money is the ultimate cause for the inability of paper money to function appropriately as a store of value.

2. Data Sources

Historical monetary data is readily available on the internet. The official source is the Federal Reserve Board. Its monetary aggregate data can be found on its web site and is available free of charge.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the historical Consumer Price Index (CPI) data. Like the Fed, it also publishes the data on its web site and makes it freely available. For a proxy of the purchasing power of money, we use the inverse of the consumer price index. To illustrate, if the price index doubles, the purchasing power is halved; if the price index increases 10 times, then purchasing power of money falls 90%.

3. The Purchasing Power of the USD

The following chart shows together the data taken from the above two sources.

The chart visually shows the near-perfect inverse relationship between the amount of money in circulation and its purchasing power. It reflects the simple relationship that prices increase approximately proportionately to money supply. Stated differently, it reflects the basic tenet of monetarism that in the long-run, price inflation is a direct consequence of increase to monetary inflation. It also underlies the classical theory of "money neutrality"; whether one believes that money is "neutral" or not is a completely different story.

Looking at the data, from January 1971 to December 2008, the U.S. money supply increased 16.8 times; this was accompanied by an 81.1% drop in purchasing power of the dollar, as implied by the governmentally-reported CPI. Thus, the data suggests that a 17-time increase in money supply has resulted in an approximately five-time fall in purchasing power. We do not attempt to explain this significant gap, but mention that the gap may be due to (1) increases in productivity, (2) over-reported money supply, (3) under-reported CPI, (4) over-valued asset prices (stocks, bonds, real estate), or possibly (5) a fundamental flaw in the quantity theory of money. We would suggest, in order of significance, (3), (4), and (1) as the most important factors explaining the gap.

4. The Purchasing Power of Other Major Currencies

The United States is not alone in pursuing inflationary monetary policy and steadily inflating its money supply. Available historical exchange rate and money supply data permit similar analyses for other major currencies. We provide a similar analysis for (1) the British Pound, (2) the Canadian Dollar, (3) the Australian Dollar, (4) the Japanese Yen, and (5) the Swiss Franc for the same period (1971-2008).

We chose 1971 as a starting point for three reasons. First, prior to 1971 exchange rates were fixed, Second, pre-1971 exchange rate data is difficult to obtain. Finally, prior to 1971 the dollar was fixed (convertible) to gold. On the other hand, after 1971, exchange rates were floating, data is available, and the dollar floated against gold.

In other words, we chose the post-Bretton-Woods period. Bretton Woods is the period that characterizes the international monetary regime between WWII and 1971. After the Second World War, only the U.S. Dollar remained convertible to gold at a rate of US$35 per troy ounce. During that period all other currencies were linked to the dollar at a fixed exchange rate. On August 15, 1971, President Nixon unilaterally closed the 'gold window' to prevent foreigners from exchanging their U.S. Dollars for gold.1 Thus, he terminated the convertibility of the dollar to gold and allowed the dollar to float against gold. This was done likely to prevent the complete loss of the U.S. gold reserves. In turn, other currencies began to float against the U.S. dollar. Since that historic moment, for nearly 38 years all currencies in the world have not been backed by any tangible asset. It is an unprecedented monetary experiment that extends to the entire world and involves every living person.

The next three charts show similar relationships for the British Pound, The Canadian Dollar, and the Australian Dollar.

Interestingly enough, the remaining two currencies - the Japanese Yen and the Swiss Franc - displayed greater resilency to monetary inflation and depreciation. This is especially true for the Swiss Franc - the amount of Swiss Francs in circulation increased a relatively modest 280% over the same period. The explanation may lie in the fact that even though the Swiss Franc has not been technically (legally) convertible to gold, the Swiss Central Bank has attempted to maintain proper gold backing of the Franc, which in turn, had the effect of moderating inflation.

5. The Purchasing Power of Gold

Before 1971, gold was always used as a basis for money. It is generally accepted that gold has functioned well as a store of value and has maintained its purchasing power for over 5000 years. So, what can we say about the supply of gold and its purchasing power for the period of 1971-2008? How does gold compare as a store of value (purchasing power) against other major currencies for the same period?

For the supply of gold, we use data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the World Gold Council (WGC). USGS maintains records of supply-demand statistics for a variety of minerals and metals, including gold, going back to 1900. The WGC estimates that a total of 165,547 tonnes of gold have been mined, including 2,400 metric tonnes for 2008. Combining the two data sets, we infer that for the period of 1971-2008, gold supply increased from 93,515 metric tonnes of gold to 165,948; thus, for the whole period, gold supply increased by merely 78%.

For the same period and using the same CPI statistics, the purchasing power of gold has actually increased four times. The price of gold is up from about $38 to about $822, which corresponds to an increase in its price of almost 22 times, while the CPI is up from about 40 to 210, or about 5 times. Thus, for the period, the price of gold has increased about 22 times, while the price level has increased about five times, resulting in an increase in the purchasing power of gold of about four times; the exact increase is 310%, which corresponds to purchasing power of a little over four times. The numbers are shown on the graph below.

6. Conclusion

So, what can we conclude from this whole analysis? The overall conclusion is that gold is a significantly better store of value than paper currencies. While the purchasing power of gold is up four times, the purchasing power of major currencies is down 5-10 times, except for the Swiss Franc and the Japanese Yen, whose depreciation is significantly less. The second column in the table below, Change in Unit Value, shows the exact percentages.

The explanation for gold's ability to hold its purchasing power is obvious from the first column. While the supply of gold has not even doubled for the period, the supply of some currencies has increased 10-20-30 times and more. For example, the supply of Australian dollars increased 33.5 times, while the supply of Canadian Dollars is up 15.4 times. There should be no wonder why they have lost most of their value for the period. If governments print them fast, they will depreciate rapidly - it is as simple as that. Governments can't print gold, so they can't depreciate its value. In the world of money, gold is still the best store of value.

Notes

1 It was illegal for Americans to own gold for investment purposes since President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 on April 5, 1933. It wasn't until Dec 31, 1974 when Americans could once again own gold coins, bars and certificates.

Published originally on DollarDaze.org - Feb 23, 2009.

_____

© 2009 Mike Hewitt and Dr. Krassimir Petrov

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

	Mike Hewitt is the editor of DollarDaze.org, a website pertaining to commentary on the instability of the global fiat monetary system and investment strategies on mining companies. His website also provides a no-cost market data feed service with up-to-date quotes on currency exchange rates, commodity prices and major indices. Mike can be emailed at mikehewitt@hotmail.com.
	Dr. Krassimir Petrov received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the Prince Sultan University located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He is a frequent contributer to www.FinancialSense.com, and a collection of his writings may be found here.

add to technorati  | reddit  | add to del.icio.us  | add to furl  | stumble it!

This article has been favorited 2 times on DollarDaze.org | Make this your favorite article

Posted in Monetary Commentary, Gold, Mike Hewitt, Dr. Krassimir Petrov

Comments (4)

Posted by James Baker on March 14th, 2009: I like this website, have learned a lot here and I am generally in agreement the views expressed. However simplistic monetarism is not having it all its own way when you turn to real world facts. Looking at your graphs the money supply in all the "anglo saxon" cases has been ramped up faster in the latter half of the period but the bulk of the purchasing power decline happened in the 70s. Governments are now doing eveything they can to slosh even more money around the system ("quantitative easing" and the rest) but we´re not going to see general, sustained and considerable price rises for years. Anybody relying on a simple "more money = higher prices" dictum will be disappointed. In the much longer term, yes, we will have inflation - this is the only way governments can deal with their unsustainable commitments to their citizens(surreptitious default)- but for now you are going to have to live with seeing the supply of money increasing and its purchasing power staying stable or increasing. Impossible? Look at the Japan chart. Perhaps in the 70s money supply and spending power were one and the same thing but now, perhaps because there is so much debt outside the banking system, the relationship is not so straightforward. As for gold, it´s all in the timing - just ask Gordon Brown who, I´m sure you know, sold half my country´s gold at the wrong time.

+5    Edit | Spam!

Posted by Tim on February 26th, 2009: Gentlemen, First let me say I am a frequent visitor to your site, primarily for information. Second, I have the same concerns as you do regarding the rediculous and irresposible methods being used to "fix" our current financial problems. HOWEVER, I must point out a common and glaring fallacy in your article. It is one made by most people, but one that has generated more confusion, misdirection and mis-application of direction in more circumstances than I can count. It is simply that CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION! Now while you may be correct in your conclusions about the increase in money supply causing a decrease in purchasing power, your arguments based on correlation are meaningless. It can be equally argued based on your simple analysis that a decrease in purchasing power causes an increase in money supply. These two are correlated, but not neccessary mutually causative. It is entirely possible, if not probable, that BOTH money supply and purchasing power are effected (inversely) by a third "true causation" factor (or set of factors). Bruce hit a vital fact on the head. In an expanding economy (read population, standard of living, productivity, however you want to define it), by definition it will mean an expanded need for money. That was the original, and remains, the (at least) theoretical reason for creation of the Fed. A better approach would be to determine the change in money supply vs the "real" GDP. The problem as I see it is that there is no real way to measure the "real" GDP. Historically the methods by which the published numbers have been generated changed over time, and now is so bastardized they mean little (I love the fact that our current changes in GDP are calculated using the increase in processing power of our home computers! - as if POTENTIAL for productivity growth means actual productivity growth - how rediculous.). Even then, assuming there was some type of correlation between the two, it would NOT mean one is caused by the other - simply that they are correlated. There are several historical examples of fiat money destruction by hyper-inflation which we are all familiar with. But these were a) intentional (eliminate war reparation debt for example), b) of such greater magnitude (a thousand or million TIMES the amount of paper printed) and c) of much shorter duration (weeks and months, not years) that these examples are not applicable to our recent history (post 1971). Therefore a search for some real answers and solutions should not get sidetracked by these non-applicable anecdotes from history. I have no proven answer as to what the real cause of price erosion might be. However, I again applaud Bruce for his comments and DollarDaze for its thought provoking article, as they cause one to consider the possibility that if fiat money is simple considered a "commodity of exchange" (no intrinsic value), they perhaps it should also be viewd in light of simple supply & demand theory. If there is more demand, the capitalist system will create a larger supply (the primary and intended purpose for the Fed). Such will be the case in a growing economy (again, read population etc). In my opinion, the primary mover of both money supply and purchasing power may be very simple - GREED and the loss of moral compass that is concomittant. It is nearly impossible to agrue with the fact that we have become significantly more self-centered as individuals over the past 2 generations (the "ME" generation as an example). We have a government that has reflected that change, and hence has supported or "played" to it. We have a corrupt (morally if not legally) investment community that has taken advantage of it. The examples of social fallout by not holding ourselves individually responsible for how we treat and effect our fellow man are legion. Our seeming focus (individually and as a country) on "more for less" has driven our demand for everything including money supply. Until we return to an understanding, both individually and as a nation, that you only TRULY get compensated for what you produce that is of value to someone else, we will never solve our current problem, and it will only get worse. When all you produce is paper dollars for the world to buy, the outcome when demand for that product drops or disappears is a given.

0    Edit | Spam!

Posted by Bruce on February 26th, 2009: Something that I never get when people start talking money supply, is why they don't explain why there shouldn't be increases if there is genuine productivity increases. i.e. if a country's population goes up 50% in 30 years, and production follows a similar trend, then hasn't more gross domestic product been created, ergo more money with the same buying power over the 30 years? If no additional money was printed in the face of rising population and production, and stable employment, then there'd be more people sharing the same number of dollars, and that would drive down prices and salaries, but increase the value of the dollar relative to other currencies. Not all increases in money supply are evil. I posit money supply has to be related to GDP to judge whether there's an oversupply.

+8    Edit | Spam!

Posted by Peter on February 24th, 2009: There is too much common sense in your article for the average fool to understand. People rarely have the ability to consider the value of things over prolonged periods of time and as a result they make the mistake of making many continuous short term errors which in the long run add up to zilch at best.

+16    Edit | Spam!

Leave a Comment on this Article
Money Supply and Purchasing Power by Mike Hewitt and Dr. Krassimir Petrov

Your Name

Create Password

Enter $4896

Comments