Sign In Get Started

Why a BRICS Gold Standard Wouldn't Work

Commodities● Neutral

Why a BRICS Gold Standard Wouldn't Work

2026-08-08 11:00 UTCBy AlphaScala Research DeskSource reporting: mises.orgEditorial standards

Why a BRICS Gold Standard Wouldn't Work

Click a ticker for a live chart

BRICS gold-standard talk ignores the export-inflationary model China, Russia, and India depend on. Gold holdings data shows the gap.

Continue with

Texas Stock Exchange Opens as Finance Firms Flee High-Tax States

What affects gold prices?

The talk of a BRICS gold-backed currency has been a staple of libertarian and dissident commentary since the sanctions on Russia. The idea holds appeal as a hard check on monetary expansion and government spending. The mechanics are well understood: pegging currency to specie constrains the state's ability to debase the money supply and impose an inflationary tax on savers.

The American state deserves criticism for its own abuses, from eminent domain to hawkish foreign policy. Libertarians should call those out. The problem with the BRICS gold narrative is that it ignores how the economies of the bloc's members actually function. The former Eastern Bloc did not adopt Western capitalism after 1989. It adopted a hybrid of Western Keynesianism and the East Asian developmental model, a system pioneered by Park Chung-hee in South Korea and Chiang Ching-kuo in Taiwan.

That model represses domestic wages and diverts savings into industrial projects through aggressive inflation cycles and managed currency floats. The mechanism is not just raw price increases. Wages and compensation fail to converge with productivity gains, a version of the Cantillon Effect. Western economies have seen this trend, but the export-inflationary regimes of the Eastern Bloc and the Third World have to keep wages artificially lower than the West to compete.

Under a standard 2 to 3 percent inflation per annum, a currency loses about 40 percent of its value over a 20-year cycle. People pivot toward rapid consumption and debt accumulation rather than savings. A deflationary gold standard would reverse that incentive structure, which is precisely why the export-inflationary regime cannot survive one.

These regimes depend on Western consumption. China's value-added manufacturing and Russia's resource extraction both rely on Western buyers. A gold-backed BRICS currency would expose the uncompetitive nature of their subcontracting and manufacturing bases and create political conflict with the elites who built their wealth on this model. They cannot become the next South Korea or Taiwan, because those countries implemented their systems in the aftermath of Bretton Woods, before the first 20-year depreciation cycle had completed.

The institutional history of the BRICS members makes a gold standard all but impossible. Russia's economy has always involved aggressive government restrictions and planning. The Tsarist era only abolished serfdom in 1861, the last European state to do so. The Soviet era introduced oil, natural gas, and metals extraction, which remain heavily subsidized and built around mono-industrial towns like Norilsk. Roughly two-thirds of the Russian population has virtually no savings. China ran aggressive inflation cycles under Deng Xiaoping and has since run occasional devaluations of the yuan. India has run inflation rates well above the Western average and has seen its fertility rate dip below the replacement rate.

The second misconception in the dissident narrative is that China and Russia are stockpiling gold at enormous rates. Official public holdings tell a different story. The US holds roughly 8,300 tons of gold and Germany holds 3,200 tons. China holds about 2,000 tons. Germany's economy is about a quarter of China's, yet Germany holds 50 percent more gold. Even factoring in China's private holdings, the total is dwarfed by American public holdings and cannot scale against American or German private holdings.

A return to the gold standard does not require reestablishing the historical $35 per ounce peg. Productivity continues to rise. Money's value rests on what it can buy, not on the number of bills in a wallet. The gold standard should guarantee price stability and constrain government spending with serious force.

The danger for BRICS economies is that a Western shift to gold would destroy the subcontracting and manufacturing model they rely on. Western customers would buy less and invest in longer-term goals like homeownership and expanding businesses. Even after deindustrialization, the West retains its role as the premier R&D hub. A more conservative savings environment would keep the R&D systems of major tech and automobile companies intact, as improvements need to meet consumer expectations rather than waiting for another line of expensive devices manufactured in non-Western countries.

In the worst case for BRICS, a Western reintroduction of the gold standard could fuel reindustrialization. Consumers and producers would seek higher quality over pure quantity, something China is struggling to manage with its EV overproduction. Western firms would emerge stronger, as malinvestments are liquidated and savings are no longer punished. Overseas subcontracting would be exposed as unprofitable or barely profitable, dependent as it is on monetary and subsidy favoritism.

A Western return to gold will face massive political pushback. With rising discontent over costs of living and inflation, there is fertile ground for Austrian School adherents to press the case. The West retains far more institutional memory of what a free market is supposed to be, something that remains alien to BRICS and much of the non-Western world.