Practical analysis for investment professionals
13 March 2013

President Nixon: The Man Who Sold the World Fiat Money

Today, the United States lives with federal budget deficits of more than $1 trillion each year, interest rates that are artificially held below market levels, aggregate debt that is growing much faster than the economy, and a chronic trade deficit that is larger than whole industries.

Yet each of these problems could be tamed and mollified, in my view, with a true gold standard. Of course, the world used to be on a type of gold standard known as the Bretton Woods Agreement. Tracing the history of this gold standard and its demise ultimately led me to one man — US President Richard Milhous Nixon — the man who untethered the cord linking currencies to gold; the man who sold the world fiat money.

Subscribe Button

What happened? How did we get from there to here? And what lessons can we draw from this relatively recent economic history to inform where we should be going?

On 15 August 1971, President Nixon announced to the world that the United States was closing the gold window in a move known as the Nixon Shock. You can watch it here:

Wow. Heady stuff. The American dollar was a “hostage in the hands of international speculators“? Hmmm . . . let’s get back to that. Note the sense of urgency he is creating with his language. “We will press for the necessary reforms to set up an urgently needed new international monetary system.” He then goes on to declare, “I am taking one further step to protect the dollar, to improve our balance of payments, and to increase jobs for America.” So, Tricky Dick (as he was known in politics) presented himself as a protector of the dollar, a warrior against inflation, and a jobs creator. That was his sales pitch. In reality, Nixon was doing the exact opposite, and, according to an analysis by Burton A. Abrams and James L. Butkiewicz of the University of Delaware, Nixon knew it. Thanks to the Nixon Tapes from the White House, we have a looking glass that gives great insight into Nixon’s true thoughts and feelings — and how they differ markedly from what he said publicly.

For instance, despite calling himself a Keynesian, he was also a monetarist — at least to the extent he thought it might help him get elected in 1972. He believed that easy monetary policy could reduce unemployment in the short run and knew that presidents have a hard time getting reelected when unemployment is high. On 26 July 1971, Nixon was captured on tape stating, “I’ve never seen anybody beaten on inflation in the United States. I’ve seen many people beaten on unemployment.” When Nixon took office, unemployment was only 3.4%, but after the recession in 1969–1970, unemployment rose to 6%, where it remained. Given that Nixon had publicly stated that he would improve employment, he was committed to getting the number down by election time. Even the great Milton Friedman, who is on tape urging caution to the president over his desire for easy money, couldn’t persuade him. The tapes further reveal that Nixon arranged credible threats to the then-Fed Chairman Arthur Burns’ power as head of the Federal Reserve, including: adverse leaks about Burns to the public; the appointment of easy-money, pro-Nixon doves to the Fed board; and threats of Burns not being reappointed at the end of his term.

Promotional tile for Cryptoassets: The Guide to Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Cryptocurrency for Investment Professionals

Nixon and his Administration placed repeated pressure on Burns to ease monetary policy in late 1971 and early 1972 — with the goal of reducing unemployment in time for the election. For example, on 19 March 1971, Nixon urged Burns, “We’ve got to think of goosing it [the money supply] . . . late summer and fall of this year [1971] and next year [1972]. As you know, there’s a hell of a lag.” So, the self-fashioned “inflation warrior” pressured the Fed to print money? Say it ain’t so. In one recording, Burns states, “If interest rates go down further through my actions . . . the probability as I see it is, they will go up later on in the year and in 1972. Housing, which is recovering very nicely, will go into a tailspin in 1972. Where will we be, as a country, and as a party and me personally?” Clearly, Burns is warning Nixon of the adverse longer-term consequences of easy money.

By December of 1971, Burns ultimately succumbed to the pressure, reducing the discount rate and accelerating the expansion of money supply. Moreover, the wage and price controls created the illusion of stability against a powerful backdrop of easy money. So much for the independence of the Fed. So much for the inflation warrior. So much for the defender of the US dollar. So much for the creator of jobs. These tapes clearly reveal that Nixon was looking out for himself at the expense of long-term benefits for the country and — because of the international monetary system — the world.

So, ignoring what Nixon said publicly, what did his policies actually do? Nixon’s package of proposals included:

  • Closing the gold window (elimination of the Bretton Woods gold standard).
  • Letting the dollar float.
  • Placing a temporary freeze on prices and wages to “combat inflation.”
  • Placing a temporary 10% tariff on imports to “improve balance of payments.”

Financial Analysts Journal Current Issue Tile

Under the Bretton Woods system, foreigners could convert their local currencies into US dollars and then exchange these dollars for a certain amount of gold with the US Federal Reserve through the “gold window.” It was not a true gold standard, because governments did not necessarily maintain gold reserves in direct proportion to their currencies in circulation. It was, however, reasonably effective in keeping trade imbalances from forming across global economies and kept currencies tethered to something of fixed value. Here’s a snapshot of the US current account balance in the 10 years preceding the decision to close the gold window.

United States Current Account Balance % GDP (1961–1970)

United States Current Account Balance % GDP (1961–1970)

Sources: St. Louis Federal Reserve, CFA Institute.

Note that the United States maintained a small surplus before exiting the gold standard. How sad and pathetic that Nixon got away with claiming that there was an urgent problem. Now consider what happened to the US current account balance in the years following the departure from the gold standard.

United States: Current Account Balance % GDP (1960–2011)

United States: Current Account Balance % GDP (1960–2011)

Sources: St. Louis Federal Reserve, CFA Institute.

Just as both Arthur Burns and Milton Friedman had warned, in the years immediately following this new policy, the world endured sharply rising inflation and elevated interest rates — and the balance of payments swung from a persistent surplus to a chronic deficit.

Had Bretton Woods remained intact, these events would not have happened. Under a gold standard, trade deficit countries (such as the United States today) pay trade surplus countries in gold to compensate them for the exchange of goods. This is the balancing mechanism of a gold standard, and it prevents countries from misallocating capital. Under the floating exchange rate system, if countries should let their currencies float, exchange rates would change until trade deficits and surpluses shrink toward zero.

For Nixon, departing from the gold standard meant that the Fed was free to expand monetary policy much more easily. For the United States, it meant that trade gaps need not be resolved — ever — which is why we see the emergence of persistent, large, and growing trade deficits in the United States. Lastly, for the rest of the world, the loss of the gold exchange standard meant that they could maintain persistent trade surpluses with countries like the United States and thereby increase local employment and trade off exchange rates and inflation.

Ad for Earning Investors' Trust Report

Under a floating exchange system, if country A fails to print as much currency as country B, either their currency appreciates or they experience inflation “imported” from country B. Escalating government debt, however, can help offset this inflation. Have you ever considered what might happen to inflation if a government never raised any federal debt and simply printed every dollar (or other currency unit) that they required to meet their spending needs on a pay-as-you-go basis? All else being equal, inflation would be greater. Likewise, as government debt rises, inflation is less than it otherwise would be. So, you can think of government debt as a reservoir of potential future inflation.

Consequently, after the departure from Bretton Woods, countries could afford to be more lax about exchange rate policy. For countries that maintained their peg to the dollar, easy money in the United States meant inflation at home. However, to the degree they were willing to use debt, they could mollify the effects of monetary inflation. Over time, the United States has used easy monetary policy in part to foster economic growth and in part to finance yawning federal budget deficits. The consequence of all this has been an ever-increasing debt load relative to GDP, standing at about 358% total debt to GDP today. Of that, government debt is now greater than GDP at over $16 trillion.

Nevertheless, until recently, each additional dollar of government debt could at least grow aggregate GDP — even if the ROI was weak. This is no longer true as incremental debt is proving to displace other forms of spending. Interest rates can not get much lower and the debt burden can not get much higher without unleashing the kinetic energy of the latent inflation stored within.

Ever since the fateful day that Nixon announced he was closing the gold window, the United States and the rest of the world have been operating on a fiat monetary system (meaning money is not backed by gold or anything else). Consequently, trade deficits and surpluses are persistent, and gold no longer stands between the politicians and the value of a currency.

As with credit markets, trust is at the core of a fiat monetary system. Should that trust deteriorate, the value of a currency can change rapidly. If and when that trust deteriorates, it happens quickly. The current system has made the value of the dollar a hostage to politicians, not to the currency markets or “international speculators,” as Nixon wanted the public to believe.

Over the years, whole countries (typically in developing economies) have built much of their economies around exports back to the developed world, including countries like the United States, who in turn are net importers — naturally creating vested interests in the status quo. Excluding services, which currently run an annual surplus, and focusing only on goods, the United States runs an approximately $700 billion trade deficit annually.

Assuming that US businesses on average could produce these goods — which they would under a gold standard — for about $200,000 in revenue per employee, the United States would create about 3.5 mm new jobs. But rather than fix the monetary system, today’s Federal Reserve is pursuing very aggressive monetary policy by which they have more than tripled the monetary base in just the last four and half years and pushed interest rates down to near zero.

Book jackets of Financial Market History: Reflections on the Past for Investors Today

Today’s massive trade imbalances, ongoing trillion dollar budget deficits, and the escalation of debt and money printing only makes the system more and more unstable. That’s a harsh and lasting legacy of a slick salesman — all so that he could get reelected. Of course, no system is perfect, and certainly the Bretton Woods system as well as a classical gold standard are imperfect too. However, we can protect the value of our currencies, improve the balance of payments worldwide, and increase jobs and real economic growth. Just like Tricky Dick said. Only this time, with a gold standard. It’s not too late.

If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.

All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer.

Photo credit: National Archives at College Park

Professional Learning for CFA Institute Members

CFA Institute members are empowered to self-determine and self-report professional learning (PL) credits earned, including content on Enterprising Investor. Members can record credits easily using their online PL tracker.

About the Author(s)
Ron Rimkus, CFA

Ron Rimkus, CFA, was Director of Economics & Alternative Assets at CFA Institute, where he wrote about economics, monetary policy, currencies, global macro, behavioral finance, fixed income and alternative investments, such as gold and bitcoin (among other things). Previously, he served as SVP and Director of Large-cap Equity Products for BB&T Asset Management, where he led a team of research analysts, 300 regional portfolio managers, client service specialists, and marketing staff. He also served as a Senior Vice President and Lead Portfolio Manager of large-cap equity products at Mesirow Financial. Rimkus earned a BA degree in economics from Brown University and his MBA from the Anderson School of Management at UCLA. Topical Expertise: Alternative Investments · Economics

19 thoughts on “President Nixon: The Man Who Sold the World Fiat Money”

  1. jri says:

    Thank you for this valuable information. I was just checking the scenario for the next reset of the monetary system and I guess (in analogy to the 15. August 1971) the optimal day may be a sunday in the midst of august 2013.

  2. You wrote, “All else being equal, inflation would be greater. Likewise, as government debt rises, inflation is less than it otherwise would be. So, you can think of government debt as a reservoir of potential future inflation.”

    And how do you explain our current non-inflationary status and high total debt? What about Japan? Nation’s issuing their own sovereign currencies can pay any obligation denominated in their own currency at any time. Debt isn’t the problem. Reaching full employment is the problem. Doing so reduces the accumulation of debt.

    What happens in your gold standard world when the supply of gold is constrained?

  3. douglas ungredda says:

    This is a one sided explanation of a much more complex issue. You miss the crucial point that finance is deeply enmeshed with geopolitics. USAs geopolitical dominance could not be threatened at a time when Soviet and South Africa gold production could jeopardize the USA as a rsult of the Vietnam War in East Asia, domestic social expenditure agenda at home and the commitment to protect Europe from Soviet influence. This vast umbrella of global miilitary and financial commitments meant that the Pax Americana had to go in step with the Dollar diplomacy. That was and still remains the dominant view not only at the White House, but also at he NSC, like it or not.. What props the dollar as a universal medium of exchange , aside from the country s military and technogical muscle is that the worlds most important commodity markets quote in dollars, not in any other currency. Had the Saudis imposed the Dinars for its oil, China wouldn’t have risen to the spotlight and the global economy could have been engulfed in a very serious global conflict. Probably the Berlin wall couldnt have ollapsed, wquite the contrary, the Soviet Union, could have scored a direct hit at USA, without even firing a single missile. The world wouldnt have reached these lengths in terms of wealth. Like it or not, thanks to Mr Nixon’s decision, USA would enjoy trade deficits and the ability to print dollars to finance them and world growth. In the end if this made good sense in the very long run, its too early to tell .

  4. Ranger says:

    Most refuse to accept or understand that as of 1971, the entire stock pile of Gold was transferred out of Fort Knox (nothing more than a tourist attraction today) and into the vaults of the NY Federal Reserve.

    Richard Nixon, along with every President since Woodrow Wilson, was and are total traitors to the nation for their actions that represent the Bankers, and not the people.

    But, just try and I dare you to try to get the masses of the public to turn off those TV’s, and put down those cell phones, and attempt to read a book and gain any knowledge. They refuse, and if you even try and explain the truth to them, you are called everything from a tin foil hat wearer or any other non sense made up name to not have to accept their ignorance.

  5. Mark Weaks says:

    This hit piece is remarkable. You present Nixon as all powerful. Your portrait of him, and what he said “his” opposite goals were, you claim, is insidious. Every President, and the congress, are trapped between Constitutional Law and the Economic Pressures from within and from without. They are between a rock and a hard place. “Tricky Dick” was a slur used by political opposition, the Democrats.
    Disappointing account of history presented here promoting Partisan Polarization for Posterity.
    Could not read the entire piece for lack of confidence. Thank you so much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.