Return to Gold-Based Monetary System: Analysis Based on Gold Price and Inflation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers and economists clarify that the problem of inflation and the currency instability occurs today is due to the implementation of monetary system which is not based on valuable commodity or gold as the gold standard of the previous system. As a sequence to this, there has been a proposal to create a Bretton Woods II system by the World Bank President, Robert Zoelick, recently in 2010. The question is whether the return to gold currency is justifiable in order to ensure world economic stability. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the historical data of the inflation rate and world gold price in order to identify a more stable financial system. The study will provide evidence that the gold standard era is the most stable era thus justifies the return to gold currency. This study uses time series data for a key economic indicator i.e. inflation rate starting from year 1880 to 2008, divided into three phases of gold standard system; i.e. the full gold standard system (1880-1914) and the gold exchange standard system (1925-1931); the Bretton Woods system (1946-1972) and the fiat currency system (1973-2008), using regression model and CUSUM test. The results show that the rate of inflation and the value of world gold are much lower and more stable during the gold standard phases than the fiat money. This indicates that the move to return to gold currency is more apt in the bid to ensure global economic stability. However, more efforts are needed to resolve the implementation mechanism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".