John Stossel: In money we trust? |
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: In money we trust?

John Stossel

Look at the dollar bills in your wallet. They say they are “legal tender for all debts.”

But are they? What makes them valuable? What makes them worth anything?

Each bill says, “In God We Trust.” But God won’t guarantee their value.

The $20 bill depicts the White House. Congress is on $50s. But neither guarantees the value of our dollars.

I wouldn’t trust them if they did. I don’t trust politicians, generally, but I especially don’t trust them with money. Since President Nixon took the United States off the gold standard, the dollar has lost 80% of its value.

So what makes money trustworthy?

A new PBS documentary, “In Money We Trust?” points out that money is only useful if people agree that it can be trusted.

To earn trust, money should be “reliable, like a clock,” says Forbes magazine publisher Steve Forbes. “It has to be fixed in value: 60 minutes in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute. Imagine if that floated each day. That would make life chaotic.”

Throughout history, people needed a way to assign a fixed value to money.

“The best mechanism for this would be some kind of commodity that’s permanent, easily transported, easily understood by everyone. And that medium was, of course, gold,” says anthropologist Jack Weatherford.

Gold created “a kind of mobility in people’s lives that they never had before,” says Weatherford.

But gold is heavy — hard to carry around. That limited trade. So people created banks.

“The Knights Templar developed a system where they said, ‘Well, you can just deposit your money here with us and then, when you need some, withdraw it from your account,’” explains economist Nathan Lewis. “This enabled the peasants to travel Europe without being in danger of being robbed.”

That meant people could engage in more trade, and that made the world much richer.

In the United States, the first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, fixed the dollar to gold and silver. The whole world came to trust the dollar as a reliable indicator of value.

But governments like to enrich themselves by debasing currency, making it appear the government has more wealth than it really does — spreading the same wealth over more units of currency.

The evil emperor Nero did it in ancient Rome, says Weatherford. “They would call in all the coins, melt them down, reissue them — of course, with his picture on them,” but with less gold in each coin. Rome’s decline was tied to the decrease in the trustworthiness of its currency.

“When you change the value of money, you’re stealing property,” says Forbes.

That happened in Germany after World War I. The victorious nations demanded that Germany pay for the cost of the war. So, Germany just printed more bills. That created massive inflation that helped elect Hitler.

Governments rarely resist the temptation to print more currency.

During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt confiscated private supplies of gold.

Without a clear legal peg of each dollar to a specific amount of gold, the government could print more currency. That only added to the financial instability.

After World War II, governments returned to gold-based currency. “Those two decades,” says Lewis, “were the most successful economically of any time.”

The documentary argues that a return to the gold standard is what’s needed to have reliable money.

Today, most economists disagree.

But “In Money We Trust?” will give you a new appreciation for how important it is that we get this right.

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.