I’ve discussed Fiat Money twice before on this substack. Mythfighter.com is the best site available that I know of regarding monetary sovereignty & fiat money. The following is my transcription of Peter Zeihan’s recent video.
Why Fiat Currencies Will Always Beat Gold
Today we're going to talk about other high-minded issues, such as gold. Now, one of the things that we saw last year with the beginning of the Ukraine war is that most of the world's more advanced central banks started putting massive sanctions on it, that included the embargo of Russian financial assets held abroad, whether it was foreign currencies or gold reserves themselves.
Now the way the currency markets normally work is there are a number of nodes, places like Tokyo and London and New York where trillions of dollars of currency are exchanged every single day. And by locating these things in these hubs, everything becomes a lot more efficient, especially when you're talking about gold. It's traditionally traded electronically and the stuff is just kind of held in a big vault. There are pluses and minuses to that. The plus is it can go anywhere at anytime and interact with anyone, kind of like digital currency in general, or your ability to move money around your bank account without actually going in and getting physical cash to hand someone. The downside, of course, is that, well, it's in New York or London or Tokyo and if New York or London or Tokyo decided that you're a bad, bad person, then all of a sudden, they can say, you know what, this isn't moving anywhere, not today, not ever. We're just going to close the vault and your stuff is stuck.
Because of that, a lot of central banks in the world, not among the countries that are doing the sanctions, but everybody else, have been trying to physically repatriate their gold from those hubs {and bringing it} back home. Now there's nothing to stop them from doing this. The question is whether or not there's any utility in it, because if their gold is physically at home, the digital aspect of doing the transfer is much weaker, unless you find another hub. And at the moment the only theoretical (and emphasis on the word theoretical) large-scale place for that would maybe be the United Arab Emirates. The UAE just doesn't have the experience right now, or the credibility, to be that sort of hub, and remember any sort of secondary hub is not going to be using gold from the United States, or Japan, Canada, Italy or anyone in the European Union, or any of the first world. So, you're talking about something like 80% of public currency exchange all of a sudden is not going to be using this new hub at all. Makes it very hard to get it going in the first place.
Anyway, for other people, not central banks, people who are using gold or other currencies as a matter of course, I wouldn't get too excited about the idea of gold coming back, as countries are looking for options that don't use the hubs and don't use the U.S. dollar and don't use the euro or the yen or the pound. You have to think about why we have a currency system the way we do. Now, back in the bad old days before 1970, we did use gold-backed currencies and every time, every single time, we ever had one, it ended in collapse.
Because one of the things that you generate whenever you have trade, whenever you have economic activity, you have to have some means of exchanging it, that preferably is not barter. And usually, historically speaking, we have used asset-backed currencies for that. But as growth picks up, as economic activity picks up, you need more and more and more and more of the currency, until it eventually gobbles up everything {all of the gold, or asset, I think he means} that is available. When that happens, the currency itself starts to become a source of massive inflation, independent of the normal issues of supply and demand and logistics and labor and capital. When the currency itself becomes a brake on economic activity, you get a sharp crack in the system, usually a depression and oftentimes state collapse. This has happened with every single asset-backed currency throughout human history.
Now, you can make the argument that the fiat age, where countries like the United States government just say, you know, this is what the dollar is worth and we will maintain it … you can say that that is a flawed system, that is fine, but it is by far better than all the other systems, because the US Federal Reserve, our monetary authority, has the ability to regulate the supply of the currency on a second-by-second basis. So, if there's strong economic growth, from the 1990s until now, the US economy expands by a factor of 3, there's no problem for the Federal Reserve to triple the volume of the currency that is available for use. You can't do that with gold.
There's another problem, of course. A daily currency exchange is about four or five trillion U.S. equivalent. The U.S. economy is now $20 trillion. Global merchandise trade is over $25 trillion. All of the gold that the human race has mined in total, in the last 6,000 years of history, is only about $10 trillion. And only a few single digits of percentage of that is available for use day to day. Because most of the world's gold is in things like wedding bands and museum exhibits and semiconductors. So not only theoretically is there not enough there, even if it was all pooled somehow, if we did go back to some sort of gold-based system, it would have a crushing impact on economic growth, because you would have hyperinflation triggered by the currency itself. And this is one of those things that most of those people who think that we should move on to something beyond the dollar tend to dismiss, or {what those who} think that we need to go back to an asset-backed system tend to miss. The human race in its current position with over 8 billion people at a combined global GDP pushing $100 trillion cannot function without fiat currency.
... I'm not necessarily saying that you shouldn't invest in gold. ... I would just point out that with many of the world's secondary central banks physically repatriating their gold, it is being removed from currency exchanges, and it is becoming a non-factor. No movement up, no movement down. They are basically repudiating the open exchange system that underpins most financially liquid markets. Now, does that mean that gold has no use? Of course not. In addition to its industrial uses and its jewelry uses, it can still be used as a method of exchange.
But by removing gold from the digital system, it means you have to do so physically. So one of the ways the Russians, for example, are getting around the sanctions regime is to physically load gold up into a plane and fly it to a country that they're buying stuff from. That is neither bullish nor bearish for gold, because it never sees the light of day. It never gets exchanged in a traditional sense that can push the market up or down. So, does that make the case for gold more or less viable? I'd say neither. It just makes it smaller.