Proponents of raising the debt ceiling claim that a default on Aug. 2 is unprecedented and will result in calamity (never mind that this is simply an arbitrary date, easily changed, marking a congressional recess). My expectations of such a scenario are more sanguine. … Despite the defaults in 1934, 1968 and 1971,* world markets have been only too willing to purchase Treasury debt and thereby fund the government’s deficit spending. If these major defaults didn’t result in decreased investor appetite for U.S. obligations, I see no reason why defaulting on a small amount of debt this August would cause any major changes.

Default Now, or Suffer a More Expensive Crisis Later: Ron Paul [Bloomberg]

* For “defaults” read “moves away from the gold standard.”

Comments (30)

  1. Posted by Winkelvoss | July 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM

    sounds airtight bro. the CAPM is for pussiesu00a0

  2. Posted by NAS Keflavik boi | July 22, 2011 at 9:32 PM

    Shutting the gold window in 1971 abrogated the Breton Woods agreement unilaterally and certainly constituted a default –u00a0the nominal dollar price of gold quickly tripled.u00a0u00a0Youu00a0smug keynesian douchenozzles love to laugh at the “barbarous relic”, but every paper currency eventually returns to its intrinsic value… zero.u00a0 And “Zimbabwe” Ben Bernanke is trying his level best to eradicate the 3% of purchasing power left in the greenback since the Fed opened for business in 1913. u00a0

  3. Posted by Tom C | July 22, 2011 at 9:34 PM

    Yeah Matt, the gold standard really sucked with all those jobs, low deficits/debt & minimal inflation.u00a0 What a horrible monetary system, this one is so much better.

  4. Posted by Guest | July 22, 2011 at 9:40 PM

    What is the intrinsic value of gold?nn- J.W.

  5. Posted by Qwerty | July 22, 2011 at 9:43 PM

    You forgot to sign your post -ZH

  6. Posted by trojan | July 22, 2011 at 9:47 PM
  7. Posted by Anonymous | July 22, 2011 at 10:26 PM

    “I see no reason why defaulting on a small amount of debt this August would cause any major changes”nnI’ve seen some BSD’s in my life, butu00a0Dr. Paul is the biggest, swinginest,u00a0for being able to call $14+ trillion a “small amount.”.

  8. Posted by Christofurio | July 23, 2011 at 12:07 AM

    If you promise to pay a debt in gold, and then you refuse to pay that debt in gold, but pay it in paper instead — then you have according to normal word use — defaulted.u00a0 Why is that complicated?u00a0

  9. Posted by Christofurio | July 23, 2011 at 12:18 AM

    There is no numerical answer to that question, except that 1:1.u00a0 Any unit of gold is intrinsically equal to itself.u00a0 But if you are asking why gold is a plausible numeraire, here is some of the answer:u00a0 it is an element, which as such cannot be created or destroyed by chemical means.u00a0 That is itself a protection against loss of value, or the creation of phony value.u00a0 Second, it isu00a0a metal which does not tarnish or rust andu00a0will hold its shape andu00a0whichu00a0can carry engravings of words or numbers indicating value.u00a0 Third, there is very little non-monetary use for it.u00a0 Indeed, cosmetic usages are quasi-monetary anyway and rather confirm this point, sou00a0virtually the whole of the world’s gold supply is available for monetary use. nnThat last bit, BTW, is not true of silver, at least while old-fashioned film photography still has a market.nnGold’su00a0intrinsic value is that it lends itself with such great ease to use as the world’s true currency.u00a0 u00a0

  10. Posted by Bair was right on Bear | July 23, 2011 at 1:31 AM

    Christofurio: If you promise to pay a debt in drachmas, and then you pay in highly depreciated drachmas (relative to other currencies), then under the debt contract, have you defaulted? No.nnIf I have a contract to deliver 100 bushels of corn to the local silo at CAD (Canadian dollars) 55/bushel, then a CAD 1 move up in the price is only an opportunity cost of CAD100.nnBut if I am the corn distributor (say, Cargill) and have contracts to deliver 100 million bushels of corn at CAD 55 and there’s a CAD1 move, then I am at risk for CAD100mm.u00a0Let’s not confuse exchange rate risk and basis risk with “default.”I also believe Ron Paul has advocated for a “default” (“gold standard”) since 1981, when he published Gold, Peace and Prosperity. 30 years of unsuccessfully advocating for a policy in a democracy suggests that he will never be “right” in a practical sense, despite any normative case he may believe in.u00a0So Matt’s asterisk seems reasonable to me.

  11. Posted by florida | July 23, 2011 at 3:04 AM

    So…if Jed Clampettinov in Uzbekistan is out shooting for some grub but instead uncovers an unknown vein of gold that totals 1,000,000 tons, Jed and his fellow Uzbeks will become unbelievably rich…and important…and their economy will ultimately be the envy of the world. u00a0Yeah, that is a fabulous system for monetary policy.

  12. Posted by Christofurio | July 23, 2011 at 3:10 AM

    That’s precisely why, in free markets, creditors will be interesting in stipulating that they be paid back, NOT in drachmas subject to depreciation, but in a commodity that represents a constant and quite limited supply of a certain metallic element.u00a0 Further, without the impediment of “legal tender” laws, there will be some debtors willing to give that assurance.u00a0 And ‘default’ means ‘default.’

  13. Posted by Christofurio | July 23, 2011 at 3:14 AM

    Gold, unlike oil (in song anyway!),u00a0doesn’t come bubbling up at you.u00a0 It has to be dug for.u00a0 To be acquired in any significant quantities, the mining operation has to represent both capital and labor in significant amounts. And that is a perfectly sensible expenditure of the entrepreneurial energies of the Clampetts of all nations.u00a0 More sensible, one might say, then developing a new “social media” networking gimmick.u00a0 u00a0

  14. Posted by Lbz360 | July 23, 2011 at 3:49 AM

    I dont know about gold value but, I use this for silver: Silver bullion>SLV>JPM shares

  15. Posted by M_Taibbi | July 23, 2011 at 10:12 AM

    Analyst’s mom always asks to pe paid in horse semen.

  16. Posted by Guest | July 23, 2011 at 7:02 PM

    And anyway, it’s not like the certain metallic element is subject to sudden spikes in supply like that other metal in 1848 and 1851.

  17. Posted by Jeff Rothstein | July 23, 2011 at 7:43 PM

    Who is this Anal_yst whose mom you speak of? I

  18. Posted by Asdf | July 24, 2011 at 11:12 AM

    look at all of the fucking shitheads that come as soon as ron paul is mentioned in a post. u00a0go back to whatever dumb libertarian forum you poison you dumb pieces of shit.

  19. Posted by GG | July 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM

    I can tell you with certainty that it will never be zero.

  20. Posted by GG | July 24, 2011 at 2:05 PM

    So didactic!

  21. Posted by Guest | July 25, 2011 at 4:17 AM

    You should consult the Spanish on that.u00a0 Please Google “Cerro Rico” and do some research into the price of silver in the 16th and 17th centuries.

  22. Posted by IGetReaseachFromMSCleo | July 25, 2011 at 8:44 AM

    Ha I love that literally all of Ron Paul supporters are IT people with literally zero Economics background. nnYay gold though, let’s use a random widget with fixed world supply as a basis for all our transactions; the inevitable deflation leads to happy happy joy times that Japan’s been having for the last 20 years. nnHaving Ron Paul talk about montery policy makes about as much sense as having Ben Bernanke delivering newborns. n

  23. Posted by IGetReaseachFromMSCleo | July 25, 2011 at 8:57 AM

    Except that in reality, creditors are stipulating to be repaid in those worthless pieces of paper, rather than yellow paperweights. That fact alone voids your argument… aside from the fact that you take out the inflation expectation when pricing the instrument. nnAlso if in you bought a 5 year bond payable in gold in 1982, you’d get a first hand experience of the “store of value” fallacy you’re attempting to perpetuate.u00a0

  24. Posted by Guest | July 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM

    We should pay them in Trident Layers, or shares a LightSquared.

  25. Posted by guest | July 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM

    How did that background in Economics work out for Greenspan and Bernanke not seeing the giant asset bubbles in stocks and housing.

  26. Posted by guest | July 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

    You mad bro?

  27. Posted by ExtraOrdinaryPopularDelusions | July 25, 2011 at 2:46 PM

    Of course they saw it, genius. The rise in asset prices is the entire point of spending your way out of a recession.nnJesus. You actually took their statements at face value? Did you buy into pets.com, too?

  28. Posted by Anonymous | July 25, 2011 at 4:05 PM

    Silver is not gold.

  29. Posted by Anonymous | July 25, 2011 at 4:10 PM

    Just to be fair- most economic research I’ve read (and I’ve read more than I would care to in an ideal world) does regard the abrogation of the gold clause resulting from the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 to be a de facto default on US debt, in that the obligations were no longer paid in the form stipulated in the original indenture.

  30. Posted by Wonka | July 25, 2011 at 4:21 PM

    Fuck trident.

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.