“Fear, Mr. Bond, takes gold out of circulation and hoards it against the evil day. In a period of history when every tomorrow may be the evil day, it is fair to say that a fat proportion of the gold dug out of one corner of the earth is at once buried again in another corner…”
— Ian Fleming’s Goldfinger (1959)
Fifty years ago — just as the fictional 007 was thwarting Auric Goldfinger’s plan to empty Fort Knox and take America’s gold to Soviet Moscow — the U.S. Treasury feared a very genuine loss of its real gold reserves.
Gold’s role as the ultimate asset of national power was about to peak. By 1966, fully one-half of all the gold ever mined would sit inside government vaults.
Fear put it there. Fear is likely to keep hold of what’s left today:
Under the Bretton Woods Agreement — signed in 1944 — the almighty dollar backed the world’s entire monetary system.
Every other major world currency was valued in terms of the greenback, and gold then backed the dollar — or rather, it backed 25 percent of the dollars in issue, as per the Federal Reserve Act.
So it was only by holding either gold or dollars (or better still, lots of both) that sovereign governments could hope to settle their international spending and debts with each other. “Gold and currencies backed by gold [became] the foundation of our international credit,” as James Bond is briefed in Goldfinger by Colonel Smithers of the Bank of England.
“We can only tell what the true strength of the pound is, and other countries can only tell it, by knowing the amount of valuta we have behind our currency.”
Sitting atop this system — the “Gold Exchange Standard” as it’s sometimes known — the U.S. dollar clung onto its position as the world’s No.1 currency thanks to the sheer size of U.S. national gold reserves. They’d risen three times over between the mid-1920s and the defeat of Japan, hitting more than 20,000 tonnes by the late 1940s.
At its peak, America’s nationalized gold reserve — the single greatest gold hoard on Earth — accounted for almost one-in-four-ounces ever mined in world history. But “uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,” as Shakespeare reminds us, and for most of the Bretton Woods period, from the end of WWII until 1971, Washington lived in terror:
The terror of gold leaking out off U.S. reserves, transferring real wealth overseas and taking the Dollar’s position as “top dog” along with it.
Gold vs. the Plutonium-Backed Dollar
“We now have $21 billion worth of refined uranium and plutonium,” said a desperate Dwight Eisenhower at a meeting of senior White House officials on 9th November, 1960. “This has great future value as a source of power.
“Could it be substituted for gold?” the president asked, proposing a new bedrock for U.S. monetary reserves — and, therefore, for the world.
Eisenhower’s question — though stupid and “politely dismissed” as Francis Gavin relates in his excellent 2004 history, Gold, Dollars & Power — was urgent. America’s nuclear arsenal already supported its political power. Could plutonium sustain U.S. monetary might as well?
Well…no. “The great thing to remember about gold,” as Colonel Smithers goes on in Goldfinger, “is that it’s the most valuable and easily marketable commodity in the world.” That still holds true today, five decades later.
Wholesale gold bullion — traded by professional dealers, refineries and bullion banks — represents one of the world’s deepest and most liquid capital markets. There is always a “clearing price” at which buyers and sellers will trade. Because gold’s intrinsic value, the fact that it stores wealth in itself — rather than by deferring that value to some other asset, promise or production — is it’s only utility.
Industrial and medical uses barely count against the volume of gold held for its wealth-content alone. Whereas money backed by uranium, crude oil, plutonium or copper would be instantly trumped by their value as industrial assets — rare and valuable items, to be sure, but valued for their productive uses instead.
Back to November 1960, meantime, and Secretary of State Christian Anderson had called that White House meeting because government-owned U.S. gold reserves — fixed vs. the Dollar at an unchanging value of $35 per ounce since 1933 — were about to slip below $18 billion “for the first time in many, many years.”
The reason? America’s balance-of-trade deficit. Rather than accepting U.S. Dollars at face value and sitting on paper in payment, France and Germany kept demanding gold in exchange. That was their right under the post-WWII Bretton Woods Agreement — a right exercised whenever the supply of dollars looked likely to force a revaluation of its gold backing. This right was finally lost when Richard Nixon stopped redeeming dollars for foreign-owned gold in August 1971.
Devaluing the Dollar by 100 Percent
Nixon’s decision to float the entire world off gold and onto pure faith alone is often seen as a “crime,” an affront to fair dealing and honest money. Nixon stuffed America’s creditors, devaluing the Dollar by 100 percent compared with the promised ratio of $35 an ounce. Runaway inflation then followed as U.S. dollars flooded the world, lacking any “hard asset” backing to limit their growth.
In less than a decade, the gold value of U.S. dollars sank by 96 percent…pushing the gold price up to a peak of $850 per ounce.
But in closing the “gold window” at the Federal Reserve — and destroying the Bretton Woods exchange standard — Nixon was in fact only completing a process begun before the First World War started in 1914.
He locked America’s gold reserves deep inside government vaults, safe from the predations of foreign governments demanding hard assets in payment of debt. More crucially in the great arc of 20th century politics, however, Nixon also kept U.S. gold far removed from the private circulation of wealth that had preceding the five decades of “total war” in Europe and Asia…back before those evil days when bureaucrats worldwide moved to close down the free movement of gold, locking it deep inside nationalized vaults, safe from the free decisions of private individuals to move and spend their wealth — in the form of gold bullion — as they saw fit.
“In the Ian Fleming novel,” writes Francis Gavin — a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and a New York Times expert on the Cold War — “the sinister Goldfinger, ably assisted by Pussy Galore, plotted to steal the American gold supply from Fort Knox.
“The movie [of 1964] added an interesting twist to the book’s improbable scenario…Goldfinger tells agent 007 that he does not have to remove the gold physically. Instead, he only needs to get inside Fort Knox and install a timed nuclear device supplied by the People’s Republic of China.
“The bomb would irradiate all the gold inside the building and make it unusable…international liquidity would seize up, and the Western trade and monetary systems would collapse.”
Luckily for the free world, James Bond and Pussy Galore team up at the end of the film to thwart Goldfinger’s plan, de-arming the bomb and leaving America’s national gold hoard intact. But in reality, Richard Nixon achieved nothing less than Goldfinger’s evil scheme in Aug. 1971…and without the fruity charms of Pussy Galore as reward!
Nixon’s decision to halt the outflow of nationalized U.S. gold kept it both safe and secure from foreign powers, and also safe and secure from free circulation outside of government vaults.
Regards,Adrian AshSeptember 5, 2008BullionVault
Formerly the City correspondent for The Daily Reckoning in London and head of editorial at Fleet Street Publications Ltd, the U.K.'s leading financial advisory for private investors. Adrian Ash is also the editor of Gold News and head of research at BullionVault. SPECIAL REPORT- The Endless PAYCHECK PORTFOLIO: In three simple steps, unleash a steady flow of work-free income... starting with up to 75 automatic "paychecks" deposited directly into your account.
Pingback: Removing the Gold Standard
Pingback: Something for Nothing | Vantage Point Something for Nothing | By Don Hynes
The world is obsessed with smartphones. Most people can't go ten minutes without checking their phone for status updates on Facebook or Twitter or any number of apps they happen to have. And while Facebook's stock continues to soar, it's only natural to wonder, "What's the best way to play this mobile revolution?" Greg Guenthner explains...
One of the most heated political battles raging across the western world is debt versus austerity. In the U.S. this debate reached it's apex in 2011 when the U.S. credit rating was downgraded by Standard and Poor's. In today's essay, however, Chris Mayer throws the debate out the window, explaining why he thinks a U.S. debt crisis will never happen...
Believe it or not, more capital for a company doesn't necessarily mean better returns for investors. In fact, in a recent study that dug through data from more than 200 acquisitions going back to 2006, they found a "sweet spot" for the most likely acquisition targets. And it's lower than you think. Matthew Milner explains...
The Affordable Care Act dumped 2,000 pages of regulations into the health care sector, stifling any innovation that could have brought about real cost savings. But even with these obstacles, there are still people looking for ways to do things better and at a lower cost. These new technologies could be the key to fixing health care in America...
While many of the newer social media stocks struggle for gains this year, old-school tech stocks have become some of the best trades on the market. With the rare exception (Facebook is doing well—shares are up 26% year-to-date) the social stocks are in the gutter. They got off to a fast start in January and Februray, but ran out of steam in the spring. Aside from a few feeble attempts, few have posted anything close to a noteworthy comeback. Twitter, LinkedIn, and Groupon are all down double-digits year-to-date. Groupon—the worst performer on this short list—is down 47%. On the other had, the biggest of the big tech stocks on the market are helping traders pile up even larger gains right now. Greg Guenthner explains…