jingchen

注册日期:2015-11-11
访问总量:5299630次

menu网络日志正文menu

Who benefited from the gold standard?


发表时间:+-

Who benefited from the return of British currency to gold standard in 1925?

Churchill's decision to return British currency to gold standard in 1925 hurt British economy. Who benefited from this decision?

Gemini: While Winston Churchill’s 1925 decision to return Britain to the gold standard at its overvalued pre-WWI rate ($1 = $4.86) is widely recognized as a major policy error that crippled British exports, caused severe deflation, and triggered the 1926 General Strike, certain groups in Britain did directly benefit from it.

 

The decision deliberately favored financial capital and purchasing power over domestic manufacturing and labor.



The Main Beneficiaries

1. The City of London and Financial Services

London bankers, financiers, and merchant institutions were the fiercest advocates for returning to gold at the pre-war rate.



  • Global Financial Status: The high exchange rate restored prestige to the Pound Sterling, cementing London’s position alongside New York as the world’s preeminent financial capital.

 

  • International Banking: A strong, stable pound made foreign lending, international bond issuance, and global banking operations based in the City far more lucrative.

 

2. Investors, Creditors, and Bondholders

Because the policy triggered deflation (falling prices), the real purchasing power of existing wealth increased.



  • Bondholders: Investors holding fixed-interest government debt (War Bonds) or corporate bonds benefited significantly, as their interest payments were paid out in a currency that was worth roughly 10% more in real terms.

 

  • Lenders and Creditors: Anyone who had lent money prior to 1925 was repaid in a higher-value, non-devalued currency.

 

3. Net Importers and the Service/Retail Sector

A strong pound meant foreign goods and commodities became cheaper to buy in Sterling.



  • Importing Businesses: Companies that imported raw materials, food, or manufactured goods from abroad saw their input costs drop.

 

  • Services Sector: Domestic service-oriented businesses, retail, and local commerce that did not rely on international export markets were shielded from export pain and enjoyed lower wholesale costs.

 

4. Wealthy Consumers and Salaried Middle Classes

  • Cheaper Imports: Middle- and upper-class households who purchased imported luxury goods, imported foods, or traveled abroad experienced increased purchasing power.

 

  • Salaried Workers: White-collar professionals whose salaries remained fixed enjoyed a lower cost of living due to deflation, effectively receiving a real-wage boost (unlike industrial manual workers, who faced wage cuts and layoffs).

 

Summary of Winners vs. Losers

Group

Policy Impact

Outcome

City Financiers & Creditors

Stronger pound, higher currency prestige

Benefited (protected capital & overseas earnings)

Importers & Service Sector

Cheaper foreign goods and materials

Benefited (lower input costs)

Fixed-Income Holders & Rentiers

Deflation increased real value of payouts

Benefited (increased purchasing power)

Exporters (Coal, Steel, Textiles)

Goods priced out of international markets

Hurt (slashed profits and demand)

Industrial Workers & Miners

Wage cuts forced by companies to stay competitive

Hurt (unemployment & strikes)

Economist John Maynard Keynes famously summarized this transfer of wealth in his pamphlet The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill, arguing that the decision intentionally enriched financial rentiers and City interests while shifting the entire burden of economic adjustment onto the backs of industrial workers.

 

 


浏览(809)
thumb_up(0)
评论(14)
  • 当前共有14条评论
  • 四川梅艳芳 回复 jingchen

    I have sent you a message, please check it

    屏蔽 举报回复
  • jingchen 回复 四川梅艳芳

    Your statements are a lot more accurate and precise. My email is chenj@unbc.ca

    屏蔽 举报回复
  • 四川梅艳芳 回复 jingchen

    If you’re comfortable with it, perhaps we could exchange contact information and stay in touch. What do you think? It would be nice to have the opportunity to continue our conversations, exchange ideas, and learn from each other

    屏蔽 举报回复
  • 四川梅艳芳 回复 jingchen

    I basically agree with your analysis, especially with the way you frame declining fertility in terms of the redistribution of resources and power among the government, the market, and the family. I think this is a very interesting perspective.
    However, I think some of the causal relationships could be distinguished more carefully. For example, urbanization, higher levels of education, and women’s participation in the workforce are not necessarily simply the result of expanding government power. They are also driven by technological progress, changes in the economic structure, and market demand. Housing costs are similar. Government planning and regulation certainly affect housing supply, but land scarcity, population concentration, and market demand are also important factors.
    I think the most interesting part of your argument is the gradual transfer of many functions that were traditionally performed by families to the state and the market. As education, healthcare, eldercare, childcare, and social security become increasingly socialized, individuals gain greater independence, but the family also becomes less important as an economic and social institution. As a result, the economic necessity of marriage and having children declines, while the opportunity cost of raising children continues to increase.
    So rather than simply saying that “the expansion of government power causes declining fertility,” I would frame it this way: in the process of modernization, resources, risks, and social functions have been progressively reallocated from the family to the state, the market, and the individual. This structural transformation has ultimately changed people’s incentives to marry and have children.
    As for your point about financial capital influencing government, I also think it is worth discussing. However, I think saying that financial capital “controls the government” may be somewhat too strong. It might be more accurate to say that financial capital exerts significant influence over government policies through lobbying, regulation, political financing, capital markets, and other channels

    屏蔽 举报回复
  • jingchen 回复 四川梅艳芳

    Indeed, declining fertility and weakening social vitality are usually the result of multiple factors interacting with one another, including urbanization, higher levels of education, women’s participation in the workforce, housing costs, the cost of raising children, changes in the labor market, and shifts in social values. All of these complex developments may be driven by the increase of government power and resource. High taxes and high deductions on people’s incomes make the government the dominant factor in our society. Financial capital influences the world mainly by controlling the government. Let’s explore them in detail.

    Urbanization is largely caused by the concentration of resources and power. Most government services, such as large hospitals, social amenities, senior services and welfare services, are concentrated in big cities.

    Higher level of education is another consequence of government power and resource. Primary and secondary schools are mandatory. Tertiary schools are heavily subsidized by the governments.

    Women’s participation in the workplace is mainly due to the increase of government power and the decrease of family power. Most women can no longer obtain adequate resources from families.

    High housing costs are mainly pushed up by the governments. Housing costs is largely determined by the building costs. With the increasingly elaborate regulations related to the real estate markets, the building costs of houses increase tremendously.

    Other factors you mentioned are also influenced by the powerful financial interests, which control government, media and many other institutions.


    屏蔽 举报回复
  • 四川梅艳芳 回复 jingchen

    However, I don’t fully agree with attributing all of these developments to the control of global financial elites. Declining fertility and weakening social vitality are usually the result of multiple factors interacting with one another, including urbanization, higher levels of education, women’s participation in the workforce, housing costs, the cost of raising children, changes in the labor market, and shifts in social values. Reducing all of these complex developments to a single conspiracy by elites may actually obscure the problems that need to be addressed

    屏蔽 举报回复
  • 四川梅艳芳 回复 jingchen

    Once this confidence continues to erode, what ultimately changes may be far more than the distribution of wealth—it could reshape the very structure of society itself

    屏蔽 举报回复
  • 四川梅艳芳 回复 jingchen

    I think the key point you’re making is very important: the real danger of a K-shaped economy is not simply that the rich become richer, but that as wealth and power become increasingly concentrated, ordinary people gradually lose economic opportunities, social influence, and faith in the future. I also believe that history can offer us important lessons, but we should be careful when comparing different historical events and avoid treating them as direct equivalents. What concerns me most is the long-term social impact. When people feel that society no longer rewards hard work or gives ordinary people a genuine voice and a path to upward mobility, creativity, social trust, and even the willingness to start families can gradually decline. If a society allows wealth and power to become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few while the majority feel increasingly disconnected from their own future, what ultimately gets weakened is not just the middle class, but the vitality and future of society as a whole. What truly matters is rebuilding opportunity, social mobility, and trust—so that people can once again believe that their efforts matter, their voices have value, and the future is worth investing in

    屏蔽 举报回复
  • jingchen 回复 四川梅艳芳

    You pointed out that the K-shaped economy is, in many ways, a striking modern reflection of the historical patterns. How is this current trend reshaping our society and what broader social consequences it may bring? We may look at the historical patterns as well.

    In 1953, UK, under Churchill, and US orchestrated a coup to overthrow a democratically elected Iranian government. The leading powers today are attacking and will attack the rising forces that will inevitably weaken the dominance of the global financial capital.

    In 1963, JFK was assassinated for his unwillingness to conform. Today the dominant class will continue to suppress any independent and curious mind.

    In 1978, Friedrich Hayek wrote,

    "I have not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende."

    Apparently, Hayek didn’t bother to listen to the outcry of many who were imprisoned or the families of those who were brutally murdered by the Pinochet regime. To Hayek, only the opinion of the elite counts.

    Today, the elite will continue to suppress the voice of the majority.

    The suppression by the elites has withered the creativity and procreativity of the civilized world. The fertility rates in the civilized world have dropped far below the replacement rate. The regions dominated by the global financial capital will inevitably implode, to be replaced by the exploding population from the regions where financial elites have less control.


    屏蔽 举报回复
  • 四川梅艳芳 回复 jingchen

    Thank you, Jingchen. The K-shaped economy is, in many ways, a striking modern reflection of the historical patterns we discussed. Whether we look at Britain in 1925 or at today’s global economy, when macroeconomic policies disproportionately favor financial capital over labor, the divide between the upper and lower arms of the “K” inevitably widens. History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on how this current trend is reshaping our society and what broader social consequences you think it may bring

    屏蔽 举报回复