Critics have raised a number of theoretical and historical objections to the gold standard. Some have called the gold standard a “crazy” idea.
The gold standard is not a flawless monetary system. Neither is the fiat money alternative. In light of historical evidence about the comparative magnitude of these flaws, however, the gold standard is a policy option that deserves serious consideration.
In a study covering many decades in a large sample of countries, Federal Reserve Bank economists found that “money growth and inflation are higher” under fiat standards than under gold and silver standards. Nor is the gold standard a source of harmful deflation. Alan Greenspan has testified before Congress that “a central bank properly functioning will endeavor to, in many cases, replicate what a gold standard would itself generate.”
This study addresses the leading criticisms of the gold standard, relating to the costs of gold, the costs of transition, the dangers of speculation, and the need for a lender of last resort. One criticism is found to have some merit. The United States would not enjoy the benefits of being on an international gold standard if it were the first and only country whose currency was linked to gold.
A gold standard does not guarantee perfect steadiness in the growth of the money supply, but historical comparison shows that it has provided more moderate and steadier money growth in practice than the present‐day alternative, politically empowering a central banking committee to determine growth in the stock of fiat money. From the perspective of limiting money growth appropriately, the gold standard is far from a crazy idea.