I see a couple of comments here about a world gold backed standard being the secret motivation behind China’s gold stacking.
The world used to use the gold standard and it was actually not that great for a few reasons e.g. :
A country’s money supply would be limited by how much gold can be produced. That can cause a lot of grief if a government has to pay a lot of wages or welfare in an emergency for some reason like a natural disaster.
Massive fluctuations in the exchange rate can happen in the short term even if the average rate over the long term is relatively stable. This can hurt poorer people more than richer people who can ride it out.
Unless China or BRICS or whoever comes up with some tweaks to the system to mitigate potential gotchas, it would be a step backwards.
I don’t think either of those issues impact a command economy anywhere near as much as they do a laissez-faire system. Both issues affect the exchange value of the currency. A command economy that doesn’t rely on imports for its critical products and services can use alternative means to apportion and distribute them internally.
China is attempting to create an equitable global economic system that works for all nations, not just itself. To do that, it has to consider how exchange rates are going to work for everyone.
In a FULL gold standard system, theoretically a country cannot get that currency without having the same amount of gold in reserve. I doubt China will propose that because of the limitations that it implies.
I see a couple of comments here about a world gold backed standard being the secret motivation behind China’s gold stacking.
The world used to use the gold standard and it was actually not that great for a few reasons e.g. :
A country’s money supply would be limited by how much gold can be produced. That can cause a lot of grief if a government has to pay a lot of wages or welfare in an emergency for some reason like a natural disaster.
Massive fluctuations in the exchange rate can happen in the short term even if the average rate over the long term is relatively stable. This can hurt poorer people more than richer people who can ride it out.
Unless China or BRICS or whoever comes up with some tweaks to the system to mitigate potential gotchas, it would be a step backwards.
I don’t think either of those issues impact a command economy anywhere near as much as they do a laissez-faire system. Both issues affect the exchange value of the currency. A command economy that doesn’t rely on imports for its critical products and services can use alternative means to apportion and distribute them internally.
You can also have a dual system. Gold backed currency for external trade, fiat currency for domestic economic activity.
China is attempting to create an equitable global economic system that works for all nations, not just itself. To do that, it has to consider how exchange rates are going to work for everyone.
In a FULL gold standard system, theoretically a country cannot get that currency without having the same amount of gold in reserve. I doubt China will propose that because of the limitations that it implies.
Idk about that. PMs are money. Everything else are promises that really don’t mean much, as history has demonstrated, multiple times.