What if Australia "Nationalised" it's in ground gold?

Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by Lovey80, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,278
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Sydney
    If they have power over "currency, coinage, and legal tender" they can legally recognise whatever they like as "money", gold and silver included.

    [Edit]

    Put it this way, there is nothing in the constitution to prevent the Commonwealth government passing a bill called Livestock as Legal Tender Act 2012 and letting you pay your income tax in chickens valued at AUD$7.45 each.
     
  2. Earthjade

    Earthjade Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    AU
    But they've chosen a plastic polymer instead.
    Easier to store and doesn't drown if you leave it in your trouser pocket.
    Admittedly you cannot eat it at a BBQ when you run out of steak, but that is the choice the Federal government made.
    There is nothing stopping them making it gold or chickens, but the question is why would they?
     
  3. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,278
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Sydney
    Well, uh, if they were, like, trying to increase their stack...
     
  4. hussman

    hussman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Adelaide
    If government wanted to a cheap alternative to fiat currency, im pretty sure Cane Toads would make a good substitute.
     
  5. XB

    XB Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,058
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Actually it doesn't mean States can make gold and silver coins since that is "coining" - the PM can do it as it's been permitted to under Commonwealth powers to coin/mint coins and the Commonwealth sets the amount for which those coins are legal tender. And states cannot make gold and silver legal tender - they do have a power to make gold and silver coins legal tender but this ability is subject to the Commonwealth's powers regarding currency and legal tender. I've also had the argument twice now about gold and silver in the constitution and in this respect I concur with you Earthjade - thanks :)


    But anyways, not a discussion about the technicalities of the constitution. Getting off the original topic a little.
     
  6. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Something I read and put into an earlier post had Australian Broad money at 1.35 trillion. With that expanding at 8-10% a year, the "system" is creating an extra say 135billion dollars every year. I'm not an expert on the details of how exactly the broad money grows in reality but we all know it is through the RBA and the banking system. What if slight changes were to be made so that 20-30 billion of that " inflated " fiat was to enter the economy through the gold miners instead of through the banking system? Right now the miner sells the gold offshore in USD trades it to the RBA for AuD anyway right? The miner still ends up with AUD but instead of the RBA holding the USD they hold the gold in my scenario. It would still end up in the banks but as a liability to the miner and the "natural" part of the money expansion was cut to say $80-100billion to equal the same amount as it currently is for the RBA to reach their 2-3% inflation target.

    It would mean though that 15+billion would come off of our trade surplus and possibly make us negative. But IMO holding 3-400 tonnes of gold is a much better pay off than 15+ billion in USD reserves.
     
  7. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    If SHTF and most countries are participating a race to the bottom in devaluing their currencies, having a substantial gold reserve to pay trade balances with would ensure that a country was able to keep many numbers of goods flowing from country to country. If USD became redundant as a reserve currency and no one was willing to take USD as payment for their goods, the USA would still have significant trading power because of their 8000t of gold reserves IMO.
     
  8. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,278
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Sydney
    The original topic started with...

    ...and while that is an admirable goal, the proposal to achieve a larger national gold reserve involved the Commonwealth government starting to play the futures market.

    Playing the futures market is (a) unnecessary because gold miners can already hedge their future output if they think the price is going to fall and/or stockpile their current output if they think the price is going to rise, and (b) undesirable in that the government shouldn't be the ones underwriting somebody's punt on a bit of dirt having valuable stuff in it.
     
  9. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    I don't see how government revenue would take a hit under my scenario. If the miner is averaging 1600/oz and making 700/oz profit they are paying their tax rate on the 700/oz. That would not change and revenue would remain the same (less if a discount was offered to sweeten the deal for them to give up any future increases in the gold price).

    I don't understand your thinking in how paying tax in gold would be a discount? They would still value that gold in reference to fiat terms and pay the same % in tax as if they had sold the gold and paid in fiat.

    My scenario would not be a forced savings on government revenue they would still have the same revenue from the miners (less the discount if it was required).
     
  10. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    What? Not really playing the futures market. I can see your link between my proposal and "hedging" future price increases but it differs enough IMO to not get that title.

    The advantages would see that government revenue from good mining remained stable ( but didn't cash in on possible future profits) I can see the "futures" link.

    Can we please get off the constitution. And start criticizing my idea.
     
  11. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,278
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Sydney
    I'm assuming that newly acquired government gold would not be "spent" or sold for cash but stashed in a vault somewhere for a very rainy day. If the government is accepting a commodity in lieu of cash, their cash revenue decreases and they don't have as much to spend on schools and hospitals and battleships and whatnot. The commodity they have instead of cash still has a cash value, but they're withholding that value by stockpiling the commodity.

    The effective discount comes from the actual cost to the miner of digging a certain amount of gold out of the ground.

    For example, it costs a miner $1 million to dig $2 million worth of gold out of the ground. Their profit is therefore $1 million. The miner pays tax on their $1 million profit at the company rate of 30%, which is $300k.

    How much does it cost the miner to come up with $300k worth of gold? $150k.

    That's how they make their profit to begin with - selling stuff for more than it costs them to dig it up. The government would basically be saying "You need to pay us $300k in cash or $300k in gold. If you can obtain $300k worth of gold for less than $300k then you can keep the difference."
     
  12. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,278
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Sydney
    The constitution is only relevant in that it defines what "money" is as far as the Commonwealth government is concerned. If gold is not money then, technically, it can't make up a portion of our foreign exchange reserves anyway because it is neither money, nor is it backed by the word of a foreign government.

    "Nationalising the gold mines" or anything else will freak people out.

    "Banning gold exports" will freak people out.

    "Forcing companies to work for the government" will freak people out.

    "Pegging the gold price" will freak people out.
     
  13. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Ok now I get what you are saying in your original post makes semse now That would be a bad decision on many fronts in comparisson to my idea.

    Tendering an agreement between the mines and government wouldn't really be nationalising. I am sure many may take up the offer of a set price over a set period indexed to CPI to give them stability. It doesnt freak people out when state governments do exactly the same thing to secure coal supplies for power generation As such if the majority got on board it wouldn't be a "banning" of exports rather than the government simply buying the product in advance of it becoming available to the market. I am sure other governments could (and do) do the exact same thing with Australian mining companies.

    There would be no force, simply an agreement that they could opt into or out of. A simple consultation process that may see them take up the offer willingly. I know that if I was one of these miners I would be taking up the offer on at least part of my output to give myself security over profits etc.

    The overall market will not be pegged, what the govt doesn't buy will still be available to buy gold with.
     
  14. bron suchecki

    bron suchecki Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,239
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Miner's currently aren't interested in hedging their production so they won't take up the offer you are proposing - if they did they could currently do that with a bank but they don't.

    RBA should just buy up production at market prices.

    Note as at March 2012 RBA has about $4.2 billion worth of gold (80 tonne) compared to FX reserves worth $47.7 billion, so first off they should just use those reserves before "printing" money. That $47.7b would get them 900 tonnes which is about 3.5 years of Australian gold production.
     
  15. Lovey80

    Lovey80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,322
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    I expected a post from you Bron. Those reserves would be fantastic to be spent for such an exercise. Although buying up current production at Market rates would bring some serious upward pressure on the gold price.
     
  16. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,278
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Sydney
    ...which is why it might be better to quietly skim little bits here and there off the top of current production in lieu of company tax and jack up the special taxes on non-renewable resource exploitation to make up the difference in cash revenues.

    Whichever way they were to do it, it would have to be at market rates otherwise the local mining industry would start getting distorted. If the price of gold were to crash to $1200/oz and the RBA has agreed to buy it at $1600/oz then they (on our behalf) would be overpaying for something which also can't be dug up a second time. That could lead to us depleting our in-ground reserves and keeping mines operating that would otherwise be unprofitable (which means those mines would be chewing up capital and labour that could be utilised more efficiently on some other part of the economy).
     
  17. Rinchin

    Rinchin New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Zealand

    Just increase regulation and bureaucratic money wasting to the point where mining gold is unprofitable. eg production, taxpermits etc = 1700/oz spot 1600


    Save the day by guvment taking over the mines and returning them to profitability, in the process keeping production and distribution a closely guarded secret.

    Problem/Reaction/Solution
     
  18. Earthjade

    Earthjade Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    AU
    Why does the government have to buy it?
    Government wealth is not the people's wealth.
    Why not disseminate the gold among the people like superannuation?

    Having the government cajole miners to pour their gold into the state coffers is pure fascistic communist crony capitalist socialism with a anarcho-Keynesian bent.
     
  19. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Excellent point. If if was all there the US would be showing it saying "see, see its all there!"

    The only reason they don't allow people to look inside is because what they say is in there is not in there. Can't see any other reason.

    .. They probably settled debts to China with it.

    Who knows at the end of the day.
     
  20. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,278
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Sydney
    Er, no.

    The government's wealth is most definitely the people wealth. The government represents the people and exists solely to provide a benefit to the people.

    Having a functioning monetary system, including foreign exchange reserves (and gold) is part of that benefit and they hold those assets in trust on our behalf.
     

Share This Page