Skip to main content
Asked a question 8 days ago

What does the hive-mind think about the IMF calling for a new Bretton Woods moment? How should I interpret this? My simple brain can only conclude that this will be good for gold. Yes?

Where am I?

In Real Vision you can ask and answer questions and share your experience with others!

John Fadool
US Air Force: Air Battle Manager & Military Intelligence

The financier of the Bretton Woods system from inception until now is the United States. The United States offered to run perpetual deficits and open its domestic markets in exchange for managing the defense policies of its allies to confront the Soviet Union. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has started piece by piece to walk away from the Bretton Woods agreement. 

No new agreement without the United States to finance it, protect it with its Military, and to guarantee it with its institutions' strength is viable. Since the United States is reverting to its historical position of isolationist strength, expect this to go nowhere. Gold will remain a safe haven but never again will it be the world reserve standard.  

IMO, the idea is like planting a seed, that will perhaps germinate in the future.  I think stability is bad for gold.  Chances are any new agreement will have a period of instability as structures/contracts/reserves etc change, rebalance and find a new equilibrium.  By the time that new equilibrium comes, most of the gains to be had in gold will have been made. Just a thought bubble from someone who lacks experience

Simon Dixon (author of Bank to the Future) put out a video on YouTube this morning concerning the IMF latest.

Everything @John Fadool9 said. A couple points I would add. I take it as an attempt to increase the relevance of the SDR - remember the other option of the original Bretton Woods is something closer to SDR's than what was implemented - but whatever comes it needs to gain traction (ie form larger share of reserve assets) and form consensus between trading blocks like USMCA, EU and China. It can be good for gold, as it can be perceived as a lack of trust in the current system, but always within its role as safe haven.