The fixed exchange ratio between silver and gold and its economic implications

The fixed exchange ratio between silver and gold was a cornerstone of the bimetallic monetary systems used by many nations in the 18th and 19th centuries. By legally defining a set value between the two metals—most famously at 16 to 1 in the United States—governments aimed to create a stable and reliable currency system. However, this approach faced significant challenges, as fluctuations in the global supply and demand for silver and gold often caused one metal to become overvalued or undervalued. As a result, hoarding, market distortions, and economic instability frequently undermined the intended balance. This post explores the economic implications of fixed silver-to-gold ratios, the role of Gresham’s Law, and how these challenges ultimately contributed to the decline of bimetallism and the rise of the gold standard.

Photo of gold and silver bullion coins side by side.

The Concept of the Fixed Silver-Gold Ratio

  1. What Was the 16:1 Ratio?
    • Under a bimetallic system, the government assigned a legal value to both silver and gold to ensure that both metals could circulate as legal tender.
    • The 16:1 ratio meant that one ounce of gold was equal to sixteen ounces of silver in monetary value, regardless of market fluctuations.
    • This ratio was established in several countries, most notably the United States in 1834 and France under the Latin Monetary Union (LMU).
  2. Why Use a Fixed Ratio?
    • A fixed ratio aimed to reduce monetary instability by ensuring that both silver and gold could be used interchangeably in transactions.
    • Policymakers believed that maintaining a dual-metal standard would prevent reliance on a single metal, making the currency system more resilient.

The Economic Implications of a Fixed Ratio

  1. Market Price vs. Legal Ratio: A Constant Battle
    • The fundamental flaw in the bimetallic standard was that market prices of silver and gold did not always match the fixed ratio set by governments.
    • If the market price of silver dropped below the legal ratio (e.g., silver became cheaper relative to gold), people paid debts with silver and hoarded gold—driving gold out of circulation.
    • Conversely, if silver became more expensive, it was hoarded, and gold became the dominant currency.
  2. Gresham’s Law in Action: “Bad Money Drives Out Good”
    • Gresham’s Law states that when two forms of money are legally equal but have different market values, the overvalued currency (cheaper metal) will circulate, while the undervalued currency (more expensive metal) will disappear.
    • In practice, this meant that whenever silver or gold was undervalued, people would hoard it or export it, disrupting the economy.
    • Example: In the U.S. in the 1830s, as silver’s global value declined, gold disappeared from circulation, leading to a de facto gold standard.
  3. Disruptions in International Trade
    • Because different countries used different silver-to-gold ratios, global trade became unstable.
    • Example: France’s 15.5:1 ratio vs. the U.S. 16:1 ratio led to arbitrage opportunities, where traders bought silver in one country and exchanged it for gold in another, leading to further economic imbalances.

Historical Examples of the 16:1 Ratio in Action

1. The United States and the 16:1 Ratio

  • Coinage Act of 1834:
    • The U.S. officially changed its silver-to-gold ratio from 15:1 to 16:1 to reflect global market conditions.
    • This adjustment led to gold being slightly undervalued, causing silver to disappear from circulation as people hoarded it or exported it.
  • The Crime of 1873:
    • The Coinage Act of 1873 demonetized silver, effectively ending bimetallism in the U.S. and establishing a de facto gold standard.
    • This caused outrage among silver miners, farmers, and debtors, who believed it led to deflation and economic hardship.
    • This led to the Free Silver Movement in the 1890s, with figures like William Jennings Bryan advocating for a return to a bimetallic standard with a 16:1 ratio.

2. The Latin Monetary Union (LMU) and the 15.5:1 Ratio

  • France’s Monetary Law of 1803 established a 15.5:1 ratio, which later became the foundation for the Latin Monetary Union (LMU) in 1865, a European agreement between France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy to maintain a bimetallic system.
  • The LMU successfully maintained the bimetallic standard for several decades, but by the 1870s, massive silver discoveries (e.g., Nevada’s Comstock Lode) flooded the market, devaluing silver and disrupting the fixed ratio.
  • As a result, the LMU effectively abandoned silver in the 1890s, aligning with the global shift toward the gold standard.

Why Fixed Ratios Ultimately Failed

  1. New Silver and Gold Discoveries Disrupted the Balance
    • The discovery of large silver deposits in Mexico, Peru, and later the United States (Comstock Lode) caused a massive increase in silver supply, making it difficult to maintain the legal silver-to-gold ratio.
    • Similarly, the discovery of gold in California (1848) and South Africa (1886) led to gold becoming more dominant in global finance.
  2. The Global Shift Toward Gold
    • As industrial economies expanded, gold was seen as more stable due to its rarity and lower volatility compared to silver.
    • Britain adopted the gold standard in 1821, influencing other major economies like Germany (1871) and France (1873) to follow suit.
    • The U.S. Gold Standard Act of 1900 officially ended the silver-to-gold ratio system, making gold the sole standard.
  3. Bimetallism Couldn’t Handle Economic Growth
    • As economies grew more complex, central banks needed greater control over monetary policy, which was difficult under a rigid silver-to-gold ratio.
    • The rise of banking and credit systems in the late 19th century also favored the flexibility of a gold-backed system, rather than the fixed constraints of bimetallism.

Conclusion: The End of the Silver-Gold Ratio System

The 16:1 silver-to-gold ratio, while intended to create monetary stability, ultimately proved unsustainable due to market fluctuations, new metal discoveries, and international trade imbalances. The challenges of maintaining a fixed ratio led to the gradual decline of silver as a monetary standard, with most nations shifting toward the gold standard by the late 19th century.

However, the debates surrounding bimetallism vs. gold didn’t end there—political movements like the Free Silver Movement in the U.S. fought for the return of a dual-metal system well into the early 20th century. Although silver eventually lost its place as a monetary standard, the lessons learned from the 16:1 era continue to shape modern discussions on monetary policy, inflation, and financial stability.

you might want to read …