By The Gold Report, on November 8th, 2011
 A war-mongering U.S. government could be less than 18 months away from decimating the last 5% of value left in the dollar, says Richard Maybury, the author of the U.S. & World Early Warning Report. Until some new exchange-traded-fund-like basket of natural resources provides a store of value, this “juris naturalist” has some advice about how to protect your wealth during the coming collapse.
The Gold Report: Richard, last month, you made a presentation at the Casey Research/Sprott Inc. “When Money Dies” Summit entitled “The War that Will Kill the Dollar.” You explained that the corrupting influence of power had sent our country’s leaders shopping for war, disregarding Westphalian respect for sovereignty and hastening the collapse of society. What are the signs that we are reaching a critical point? And, is there any way we can change course?
Richard Maybury: You can see the signs very clearly in the Middle East and North Africa. The Federal government is involved in several wars there that have nothing to do with America. One of the best examples is Libya. U.S. officials are taking credit for Moammar Gadhafi’s death just a year after they were bragging about having tamed the threat. Now Libya is a mess. It will very likely be taken over by some sort of Islamic government that isn’t going to be very friendly to America.
TGR: Why do we, as a country, do this? If it’s not going to end well for us, what’s the economic or political reason to get involved?
RM: The U.S. government gets into wars in far corners of the world that have nothing to do with America because the leaders like getting into wars. That is how presidents achieve greatness in the history books. A president has no prayer of going down in history as great unless he has won a war. Look at Mount Rushmore. All four presidents featured there won wars. That seems to be the number one criteria historians use for deciding whether someone is a great president. It constitutes an automatic incentive to go out looking for wars.
TGR: What is the incentive for the American people to go war shopping?
RM: Nothing. It’s absurd. During the First Gulf War, people had a tremendous good feeling about going to war with Iraq. They would come home from work, order a pizza, sit in front of their TV sets and watch the war like it was a football game. War became a form of entertainment.
TGR: Is there anything we could do to incentivize our presidents to act peacefully?
RM: I doubt it very much. People go into politics because they seek political power. Once they get the power, they naturally want to use it on somebody. What is the point of having power if you can’t use it? So, no matter what kinds of controls you put on, future presidents will find a way around it.
The ideal situation would be one where war is used as a last resort. Westphalian sovereignty, a set of agreements dating back in the 1600s, established the precedent that the European powers would only go to war in self-defense. You had to have a clear and present danger before you could go to war. And, even then, it was supposed to be the last resort. That was the basis of international law up until this year. That isn’t to say that the Westphalia treaties weren’t violated a lot of times, but they helped. After Iraq, Serbia and now Libya, it is pretty clear that the policy is we can just go out and hit anybody we want for any reason we want as long as we believe the other guy is up to no good.
TGR: If this is the new reality, then let’s talk about some of the economics around it. War is expensive. You have pointed out that since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, the dollar has lost 95% of its buying power. You said, “War destroys currencies.” It usually leads to governments printing more dollars to pay for guns and tanks. How much debt and overprinting can the country take before the velocity of economics, which is something that you also talked about in association with how quickly dollars are exchanged, catches up with reality and the dollar loses that last 5% of its value?
RM: Velocity refers to the speed at which money changes hands, and it is a measure of money demand. When people don’t really want the money, they start trading it away faster, trying to get their hands on things they do want, things that have value that they trust. The cost of this war in the Islamic world will continue going up. At some point, it’s going to be a major contributor to people losing what confidence is left in the dollar and people all over the world will start dumping it. This is a psychological thing. It’s about emotions, so it is hard to pinpoint when they will lose all confidence in the dollar.
TGR: What would it look like if that last 5% were gone? Are we talking about hyperinflation? Are we talking about banks collapsing? Are we talking about bartering? What would it look like?
RM: We are talking about all of that. It would be chaos. We saw it in Zimbabwe when the Zimbabwean dollar became worthless because the government printed so many that people wouldn’t accept them anymore. The country experienced enormous runaway inflation where prices were rising 50% a day before the Zimbabwe dollar collapsed.
It would probably start with someone somewhere in the world selling off his dollars and begin trading them for whatever it was he had confidence in. The foreign exchange value of the dollar would fall. Other people would notice; they would get scared and start selling their dollars. The foreign exchange value of the dollar would drop more. This process would continue until you have panic around the world to get out of dollars. Americans would be the last ones to get involved. We are always the last to know what is happening to America. Suddenly Americans would wake up one morning and find that a gallon of milk that cost $4 the day before costs $6 today. The next day they would find that it costs $12. And the next day they would find that it costs $36. That is when Americans would realize that they are in deep trouble; their dollars are about to become worthless.
TGR: Of course the Fed wants to avoid that scenario. You describe yourself as a follower of Austrian economics made famous by the Nobel laureates Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. They describe financial systems as complex processes run by billions of constantly changing individuals rather than something that can be manipulated from a central point, which seems to be what is being attempted right now. If that is the case, what will be the outcome if the central government tries to force a more Keynesian control of the flow of money?
RM: They will mess it up even worse than they already have. The world has been living under Keynesian economics since 1971 when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard. John Maynard Keynes was a semi-socialist. He believed that the way to fix the economy was to print a whole bunch of dollars and dump them out there. This has been standard procedure for the past 40 years. All currencies have been dropping in value during that time. Another round of quantitative easing (QE) could further speed the rate at which the money circulates, something that has the same effect as increasing the supply of dollars, creating a larger demand for goods and services and having an inflationary effect. I think Fed officials are dropping hints about the next QE because they are trying to cause velocity to rise, a secret QE if you will.
TGR: What if the stealth QE campaign doesn’t work? What form might a real QE3 take?
RM: It is hard to tell what they will do. One of the myths that everyone is taught is that the government has some sort of tremendous understanding of economics and the ability to make adjustments to economic activity. The term fine-tuning is used sometimes. Actually, we are talking about a group of human beings who don’t know much more about real economics than anybody else. They think they do, but they don’t. They just bounce around from one attempt to control things to the next, making a mess of the country. The economy is not a machine. It is people, human beings. It is a biological system, not a mechanical system. But, the government treats it like a mechanical system, so they are always making mistakes.
TGR: If war and hyperinflation are the inevitable future, how can investors survive or maybe even thrive during a time like this? What are the opportunities? Natural resources? Commodity equities? Where can we be safe other than putting that $100 bill under the bed?
RM: Well, I wouldn’t put $100 under the mattress, at least not for very long, because it will soon become worthless. But commodities, stocks of raw materials firms, gold and silver and platinum coins have value. Generally, I try to see the world in terms of two kinds of investments: dollars and non-dollars. You definitely want non-dollars, things that do not have their value tied to the value of the dollar. An example of a dollar asset is something like a bond or bank CD. Their values are tied directly to the value of the dollar. If the dollar falls, then their values fall.
Gold is a non-dollar asset. When the dollar falls, usually gold rises. The same is true with silver and oil. All of these things have values that are not tied to the dollar. My advice is to invest in non-dollar assets. Gold would be at the top of the list, silver and platinum and then oil.
TGR: In your Early Warning Report Newsletter, you predicted that gold will top $3,000/ounce (oz), silver will hit $50/oz and oil will exceed $300/barrel. Gasoline will go to $9/gallon. When will we see these rises? And what will be the catalysts that take them there?
RM: The next QE, which I expect to come along no later than March, could set off a flight from dollars. Then we could see those predictions realized within 18 months.
TGR: You said that once we have had this loss of the entire value of the dollar and people are looking for another way to trade, money could be based on some collection of metals with currency acting as a receipt for the tangible gold, silver, platinum and whatever else happens to be in that basket. What would that transition look like? How painful would that be? How would it be orchestrated?
RM: It doesn’t have to be painful. The markets are moving in that direction. People trade exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for practically everything now. I can envision a mutual fund or an ETF that is a collection of various things. It could be gold, silver and platinum. It could have oil in there. It might include Swiss francs. It could even have various patches of real estate. The ETF itself would then become a currency, not because anybody has it planned that way, but because the markets will see that there will be a demand for something that is a non-dollar asset that is easily tradable and seen as a store of value. There would probably be hundreds of these baskets of assets at the start. Some would work better than others would; the less workable ones would shake out. You might wind up with maybe a half dozen ETFs or mutual funds that are baskets of various assets circulating in the world. They would essentially become the currencies.
TGR: Would investing in ETFs now be a good way to prepare?
RM: No. I don’t know of any that are arranged that way. It may be a while until somebody catches the idea and decides to give it a try.
TGR: What about the precious metal equities? Would that be a good way to prepare?
RM: Yes. There are lots of good precious metal stocks. I own quite a few. That is another way to protect yourself. However, be sure to deal with a broker who really knows natural resources. You have to have some skill in picking those stocks. It’s not like going down and buying a gold coin where you just walk into the coin dealer and tell him I want a handful of American Eagles or Canadian Maple Leaves. You really have to know what you are doing when you are buying gold stocks.
TGR: Any final thoughts you want to leave with The Gold Report readers?
RM: The world has changed. When you look at the news and you say to yourself, “My God, America isn’t what it was; the world isn’t what it was,” have the confidence to know you are right. We are probably not going back to what America or the world was anytime in my lifetime. Therefore, you want to start learning everything you possibly can about this new condition and adapt to it.
TGR: Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
RM: Thank you, JT. I appreciate being here.
Richard Maybury, the author of the U.S. & World Early Warning Report, has written 22 books, including the Uncle Eric series, which focuses on economics, law and history. He has been interviewed on more than 250 radio and television shows. He is a Vietnam War veteran who served in the Air Force’s 605th Air Commando Squadron, a special operations unit involved in covert warfare in Central and South America. He has since lived and traveled the world, visiting 47 states and 45 countries. He considers himself a “juris naturalist” who believes in a natural law higher than any government’s law. You can visit his website at or phone 1-800-509-5400.
Want to read more exclusive Gold Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Exclusive Interviews page.
 Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Claus Vistesen, on October 24th, 2011
As I read the latest round-up of comments by Fed officials that they are certainly not ruling out another round of asset purchases I am wondering whether this signals another round of actual quantitative easing by the Fed or whether investors should change their mindset back to before the crisis where it wasn’t the USD that acted as the global carry trade funder but rather the JPY (or maybe the GBP here?).
Quote Bloomberg
Fed Vice Chairman Janet Yellen said yesterday that a third round of large-scale asset purchases “might become appropriate if evolving economic conditions called for significantly greater monetary accommodation.” A day before, Governor Daniel Tarullo said buying mortgage-backed securities “should move back up toward the top of the list of options.”
They join Charles Evans, president of the Chicago Fed, and Boston’s Eric Rosengren in calling for consideration of further stimulus to boost growth and bring down a jobless rate stuck around 9 percent or higher for 30 months. A stock-market rally and gains in manufacturing and retail sales may convince the Federal Open Market Committee, which meets Nov. 1-2, to decide that it’s too soon for a third round of bond purchases.
You see, the recent initiative of the Fed in the form of Operation Twist is not quantitative easing since it does not involve an expansion of the balance sheet. In stead, it is what we refer to as qualitative easing as the bonds the Fed intends to buy on the long end (to move long rates down to help the mortgage market) will be paid for by proceeds of selling bonds on the short end.
The biggest problem for the Fed here is not necessarily that Operation Twist is a bad idea. Indeed, to the extent that it fixes the effort squarely on halting the slide in the housing market and supporting volume and price in the primary and second market for mortgage securities I think it is an excellent idea.
But we are forgetting the auxiliary objective of QE by the Fed; to weaken the USD. Make no mistake that this is an important objective for the Fed even if they have never declared this formally. And herein lies the rub. Quite simply, with the recent announcement by the BOE of another round of QE worth £75 billion, with the ECB now willingly or unwillingly being forced into increased support of peripheral debt markets and with the BOJ also pledging more stimulus, the Fed is starting to look like the conservative central bank in the G4. [1].
In my opinion, this is very significant and also one of the reasons why Fed officials are busy ensuring markets that they have plenty of ammunition left should economic conditions merit it. But investors should not take anything at face value I think. Before the Fed actually starts to buy those MBS and/or moves to lower interest rates on excess reserves there is a real chance that especially the JPY will start to act more like the JPY of old, a.k.a global carry trade anchor of choice. Of course, this requires the BOJ to back up all the pledges with real action. For now though, the only thing we can say is that the Fed looks set to be outgunned by its peers in the G4.
EMU Outflanked
Is Europe now finally getting down to serious business or is it just another round of fudge from the fudge factory that investors have learned to respect for its ability to produce relief rallies out of nothing. Looking at the evidence I thoroughly inclined to go for the latter even if each failed attempt to shore up market confidence brings Europe closer to full fiscal union.
Even if Merkel and Sarkozy, and rightly so, appear most concerned with putting pressure on Italy, the most significant issue remains Greece which is now in default a fact that was un-sanctimoniously confirmed by the leaked bailout document which has the Troika admitting that the medicine they were mandated to administer would only make the patient worse and not better.
Quote FT
Greece’s economy has deteriorated so severely in the last three months that international lenders would have to find €252bn in bail-out loans through the end of the decade unless Greek bondholders are forced to accept severe cuts in their debt repayments.The dire analysis, contained in a “strictly confidential” report by international lenders and obtained by the Financial Times, is more than double the €109bn in European Union and International Monetary Fund aid agreed just three months ago.
The most recent estimate of haircut has now risen to 60% and this, mind you, would only reduce the debt to GDP to 110% and this without any consideration on how Greece is supposed to grow itself out of this level of debt while simultaneously dealing with the default. In addition and only adding to my disdain for the ECB, Reuters reports that the central bank opposed a 60% haircut on account that it the private sector would refuse likely refuse this leading to a “fullscale” Greek default.
I am continuingly amazed by the denial here. Ever since the first Private Sector Proposal (PSI) was put on the table, Greek has been in default and figuring out who would pay for recapitalising banks as a function of how large the final haircut ends up are merely steps in the actual default process.
The second issue on the table is what to do with the increasingly freakishly looking EFSF. There has been no shortage of suggestions on how to increase the scope of the fund using the same guarantee by the same countries for the same amount of money (currently €440 in effective capital). The suggestion that might actually work came from France which has aired the suggestion that the EFSF be turned into a bank which would then allow it to access liquidity from the ECB. Both Germany and the ECB however have vehemently denied this which indicates that there is still notable reluctance to allow the ECB to wield the full arsenal of quantitative easing.
The proposal which currently seems to have most traction is to turn the EFSF into a monoline insurer which would essentially use its capital to insure anything from 10% to 30% on any new issuance of sovereign debt by Italy and Spain. Crucially, the idea is that this “leverage” would bring calm to markets as this insurance could cover as much as 2 trillion worth of debt.
I really struggle to find adequate words here. I think this is madness and if any Eurozone politician were afraid that an equivalent of AIG would certainly enter the scene, they now seem content on creating one. The first and most widely flagged issue is this would obviously create a two tier bond market.
Quote Reuters
This would create a division between insured and non-insured debt, that could split a country’s investor base and suck liquidity out of the market unless new bonds were carefully constructed to allow them to trade on a par with existing debt.”The issuer would have to create a new curve of insured debt, limiting the liquidity in both curves with risks that investors would dump the old non-insured bonds,” said Commerzbank rate strategist Christoph Rieger.
Based on a 20 percent insurance model, JPMorgan estimates that insured bonds issued by Italy would trade at a yield around 100 basis points below existing debt with new, insured Spanish debt likely to be priced 80 bps lower than existing bonds.
I think this is significant, but we are missing the main point here. If this is set ut Spain and Italy will likely never be able to issue un-insured debt again and the contingent liability here is not only complex but will lock in future capital commitments to this aim of providing first loss insurance. For me, this is a horrible way to spend already scarce capital.
Another issue is obviously that it assumes that it will make the Spanish and Italian problem go away which it clearly won’t. However, much more fundamentally; while the idea is to ring fence Italy and Spain it almost guarantees painful haircuts in the case of Ireland, Portugal and Greece and once again, who will pay for those I might ask.
The only silver lining I have seen in the latest reports is that it seems to me that while the imminent objective is to fiddle with the EFSF, there has also been serious talk about bringing forward the ESM which would have a much stronger mandate and essentially constitute a first step towards socialising of sovereign risk in the euro zone. Until that happens, the EMU and her politicians will be continuously outflanked by economic realities.
—
[1] – I repeat that with the ECB not formally in ZIRP mode, the Fed still has the yield disadvantage here but do we really expect the ECB not to lower going forward?
By Simon Grey, on October 19th, 2011
As can be easily seen from this chart (source), the money stock as measured by the Federal Reserve has grown by approximately 6.67% in the last five months! Since real GDP is projected to grow by only 1% (and will likely be revised downwards ex post), this means prices are going to rise fairly dramatically in a short period of time. And just in time for the holidays!
Anyway, there are a couple of ways this will play out, at least in the short-term. Either consumers will face higher prices or manufacturers, suppliers, and/or retailers will face lower profit margins (or some combo of these possibilities). I doubt that retail prices will rise much in the short term because most people can’t afford price hikes in lieu of relatively stagnant income over the past year. Instead, I think businesses will eat the increased costs in the short term, most likely through the holidays and the post-holidays stock liquidations.
After the new year begins, though, I think prices will begin to rise. And when that happens, it won’t be pretty. Thanks, Bernanke!
By Claus Vistesen, on October 17th, 2011
It was telling that just as the ECRI and other notable research outfits decided to push recession button on the US economy the data flow became notably more positive. This could be a sign of the times that the cycle is just too volatile for even capable analysts to call or it could simply be a blip to the otherwise fundamental issue that economic weakness is here to stay for now.
Risk asset markets however made no mince of the recent stabilisation of the euro land crisis as well as the better news flow from the US economy. Just take the following headlines from Bloomberg and you know exactly what kind of sentiment I am talking about.
Quote Bloomberg
U.S. stocks advanced, giving the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index its biggest weekly gain since July 2009, as retail sales beat economists’ estimates and the Group of 20 nations began discussions on Europe’s debt crisis.
(…)
U.S. 30-year bonds capped the longest weekly losing streak since January as concern eased that Europe is unable to curb its debt crisis and U.S. retail sales climbed, damping bets the country will fall into a recession.
The question is then whether it signals a decisive and lasting breakout or whether it was simply a rally to the top of a choppy range before we start another descend to test the lows. Recent weeks’ market movement will suggest that you sell the current levels as top of a post crash range and I, for one do not think we are out of the woods yet. It is important to emphasize two issues on the US economy when it comes to the likelihood of a recession.
Firstly, the US housing market has never recovered and inventories remain low. This means that there is not much room for the economy to slump even if it does enter a recession. Any recession is then likely to be relatively short. Secondly, all liquidity gauges we are watching are pointing strongly upwards which is likely to provide strong tailwinds for risky assets 9-12 months out. Excess global liquidity, US broad and narrow measures of money are all shooting up.
In addition, we should consider the slow but sure movements by all four major central banks to increase either the short term liquidity or simply re-starting QE.
The BOE put itself at the front of the pack with the recent addition of another bn 75 GBP worth of QE, but likewise at the ECB it was interesting to see that long term liquidity operations was re-instated together with an expansion of the covered bond purchasing programme. Additionally, the ECB has been and will continue to be more or less forced to support bonds in the periphery, particularly in Spain and Italy, in order to ring fence the periphery from the coming Greek default. In comparison, the Fed’s latest much debated Operation Twist looks almost modest since it is, by the letter of the theory, not quantitative easing but rather qualitative easing [1]. Of course, the market is fully expecting the Fed to act aggressively should the economy falter further with a joint financing programme with the Treasury for long duration mortgage products as the most likely initiative alongside the more technical move in the form of reducing interest rates on excess bank reserves to negative.
I think it is important to realise that the Fed, with its latest actions, have its gaze firmly fixed on stimulating a recovery in the US housing market which is seen as the most important missing leg in an already faltering US recovery.
In Japan, the BOJ’s situation is different in the sense that economic has been distorted by first the devastation of the earthquake and then obviously the technical recovery as supply side disruptions have eased off. I take note of the fact that the BOJ has verbally put a lot of promises on the table in terms of stimulating the economy not least, one would imagine, in relation to the ongoing strength of the JPY. Finally, it is worth pointing out that the BOJ’s balance sheet has actually expanded briskly in the past two months.
The main conclusion to draw here I think is that while it is certainly not over yet, developed market policy makers are starting to open the floodgates. The euro zone crisis will remain a severe drag and like an almost chronic illness will continue to flare up. A disorderly Greek default can still not be ruled out and as the euro zone policy makers seem to take comfort on even a second of calm it seems to me that the market will have to push harder before we get a realistic proposal for a Greek default.
The recovery in the periphery (or obvious lack thereof) is still not working. The internal devaluation in the European periphery is alive and well when it comes to nominal wage increases which is getting a beating but in the context of lingering inflation in core and headline it leads to a squeeze in real wages and further depresses the recovery. The problem is that a sharp reduction in living standards through a decline in real wages to restore competitiveness is needed but if it occurs without any form of nominal currency depreciation not to mention in the context of very sticky core inflation, it just becomes counterproductive. Absent a fiscal union to socialise the risks it is difficult to see how the euro zone policy makers will be able to come with a fudge that will satisfy markets. In that regard I agree with Chris Wood here.
Ultimately, GREED & fear’s view on all of the above remain the same. This is that the only coherent end game for Euroland remains a formal move towards collective fiscal responsibility, which would ultimately address the fundamental cause of the present crisis. This is the financial fault line represented by monetary union without fiscal union. Euroland either has to go down this path or it has to confront all the problems associated with a break up since in GREED & fear’s view there is no “middle way”
One positive development on Greece is that the private sector involvement (PSI) proposal originally envisioned seems to have been abandoned for a much more realistic haircut.
But more challenging issues remain.
It was hardly surprising that the S&P downgraded Spain last week which only serves to underline the issue that while Greece may be the imminent worry the real problem lies in Spain and quite possibly Italy. There is a limit to the amount of Italian and Spanish bonds that the ECB can buy as long as it is evidently clear that growth prospects continue to remain difficult.
In emerging markets and touching on the theme I dealt with in my last installment the recent inflation data from India indicate why I continue to think that investors may hold too high expectations for easing in big emerging markets.
Quote Bloomberg
India’s inflation exceeded 9 percent for a 10th straight month in September, maintaining pressure on the central bank to extend its record interest-rate increases.The benchmark wholesale-price index rose 9.72 percent from a year earlier after a 9.78 percent jump in August, the commerce ministry said in New Delhi today. The median of 21 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey was for a 9.75 percent increase.
Elevated inflation in India and China are crimping room for policy makers to ease monetary policy and support global growth amid Europe’s debt crisis and a faltering U.S. recovery. India’s central bank Governor Duvvuri Subbarao said yesterday that a more than 9 percent inflation is above “comfort level.”
Of course, the picture is not uniform here with notable economies such as Brazil and Indonesia already lowering interest rates but all eyes are currently on China (and secondarily India) and here I think that we will have to see stronger signs of a hard landing or a relapse into a more severe global slowdown we can expect policy makers to actively stimulate.
In summary, I think that we are indeed nearing an inflection point at which money printing in the developed world will once again provide relief to risky asset markets but the problem is that the underlying economic backdrop has not improved much. In particular, the ongoing lack of resolution in the euro zone represents an issue but Eastern Europe as well as a housing bubble in Australia (and perhaps even in Denmark) are also potential sources of uncertainty not to mention the unravelling of credit excess in China. As such, “it” is far from over but a tradable bounce in risky assets which goes beyond the current choppy range may soon represent itself.
–
[1] – The distinction between quantitative and qualitative easing is simple. The former refers to an expansion of the balance sheet through the central bank increasing its liabilities and adding a corresponding amount of assets. The latter refers to changing the composition of the asset side of the central bank’s balance sheet and as I am reading the gist of OT the Fed has committed to keep its balance sheet unchanged by selling short term bonds and buying long term bonds. Try this one for a good recap of what QE is and isn’t.
By Mark Anderson, on August 19th, 2011
Prevailing practitioners of economics tell us that inflation stimulates exports. They get this inverted. Otherwise, pray tell, why wouldn’t Zimbabwe be the world’s leading exporter? Inflation inflicts injury upon the manufacturing base, engendering capital outflow and the destruction of jobs.
Contrary to prevailing economic orthodoxy, inflation is not export-friendly. Inflation nurtures dependence upon cheaper foreign markets to supply us with production (i.e. begets capital outflow). Capital outflow can be reversed by compelling the Fed to tighten. If the Fed tightens, interest rates rise, prices caollapse to reflect wages, the market clears (only then does the economic recovery begin), dollars that have accumulated in foreign reserves will coming flowing back into the domestic loan market, thus lowering the natural rate of interest.
“The dollar rose against most major currencies on Thursday as a latest report showed U.S. trade deficit plunged in February,” pursuant to one news source. (1)
“The contraction in the deficit came with a big recession-driven fall in imports and an unexpected rebound in exports, the Commerce Department said overnight in the US,” pursuant to another news source. (2)
In July of 2008, the dollar went through a rally – albeit, a pseudo-rally – marked by falling nominal prices. Although falling nominal prices is not deflation (i.e. the contraction of the money supply, which would be a healthy thing), that’s the definition of deflation pursuant to prevailing orthodoxy. When the dollar rally began, the trade deficit declined, due to both falling imports and increasing exports. In other words: the fall in the trade deficit had been accompanied by a dollar rally. What prevailing economic orthodoxy teaches regarding the international cycle of trade betrays this possibility.
In November of 2007, Ben Bernanke put on an exhibition of his confusion when he said that inflation is inconsequential for everything but imports. (3) He literally said that dollar devaluation raises prices of everything not denominated in….dollars! Apparently, Bernanke has been blinded by prevailing orthodoxy, which tells us that inflation mitigates a negative balance of trade – another Keynesian apologia for inflation that needs to be buried.
On a peripheral note, Bernanke’s argument runs slightly afoul of prevailing orthodoxy. Prevailing orthodoxy tells us that inflation does raise prices for Americans, and that this magically lowers real prices for foreigners. If Bernanke can’t figure out that increasing the supply of dollars raises dollar denominated prices, then the average person is hopeless for understanding the international cycle of trade and how capital flows.
The decline in imports and rise in exports in juxtaposition with the short-lived dollar rally were not a fluke, nor is this inexplicable. The trade “deficit” is but a symptom of monetary policy. A trade “deficit” isn’t bad per se. A trade “deficit” between two countries is no worse than a trade “deficit” between two towns. The consequential part is if the trade “deficit” is due to something other than comparative advantage (e.g. inflation).
“Again, suppose, that all the money of GREAT BRITAIN were multiplied fivefold in a night, must not the contrary effect follow? Must not all labour and commodities rise to such an exorbitant height, that no neighbouring nations could afford to buy from us; while their commodities, on the other hand, became comparatively so cheap, that, in spite of all the laws which could be formed, they would be run in upon us, and our money flow out; till we fall to a level with foreigners, and lose that great superiority of riches, which had laid us under such disadvantages?” –David Hume, Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, 1752
What mainstream economists teach runs contrary to what David Hume taught us in 1752. Prevailing economic orthodoxy inverts the international cycle of trade. We are told that inflation mitigates the trade “deficit”. By inflating the money supply, dollars will become less attractive to foreigners. Thus, runs the argument, foreigners will follow by curtailing exports to the U.S. Somehow, domestic productivity will magically be increased, stimulating exports.
The genesis of this error is begotten by the underlying macroeconomic assumptions. Rather than using microeconomic principles to understand macroeconomic phenomenon, mainstream economics fragments microeconomics and macroeconomics into separate compartments. Macroeconomics then becomes myopic, by lopping individuals out of its paradigm. Myopic macroeconomics doesn’t consider individuals; it only considers aggregates.
Translated, the macroeconomic analysis is this: the country has dollars. If the country, or nation – or whatever aggregate you wish to use – decides to print more dollars, the country, or nation, isn’t going to refuse to use its own dollars. However, the country, or nation, of, say, France, being a different country, won’t like very much the devalued American dollar.
I guess we aren’t supposed to ask why both inflation and the trade “deficit” have risen in juxtaposition with one another. Sound economics gives us that answer. If inflation did mitigate a trade “deficit”, then one is boxed into the position of currency devaluation wars. Inflation vs. counter-inflation vs. hyperinflation.
The economy is made up of individuals making choices in exchanges. When the government devalues the currency, this doesn’t only make dollars less attractive to individuals abroad, but also to individuals right here at home. This is reflected with higher prices. It isn’t about aggregates printing more money for use by aggregates.
Consequently, inflationary stimulus interferes with the price mechanism preventing prices from falling to reflect wages. The market fails to clear, thus derailing an economic recovery. With mass unemployment, the last thing that will rise will be wages. The domestic cost of production goes up. Thus, to reduce costs, capital flight takes place. Inflation actually increases the dependence upon cheaper foreign markets to supply us with production.
As David Hume saliently articulated in 1752, inflation makes not only the currency less attractive abroad, but also the higher-priced goods. It also makes the higher-priced goods less attractive right here at home. Using inflation to remedy a trade “deficit” is akin to breaking a leg to make yourself more competitive.
The short-lived dollar rally in 2008 – thanks to central bank policy – was not the consequence of the declining trade deficit; it was the cause of the declining trade deficit. Everything denominated in dollars becomes cheaper. It shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that one doesn’t become more competitive by raising prices.
If inflation actually mitigated a trade deficit, Zimbabwe would be one of the world’s leading exporters. Inflation doesn’t lower real prices for anybody. But even if inflation did mitigate a trade deficit by lowering real prices for foreigners, while making things more expensive for Americans, why would that be a good thing? Why should American economic policy be calculated to make things cheaper for foreigners and more expensive for Americans? Economic growth – which is not measured by the GDP – engenders falling prices, which is a good thing.
Pro-inflationary stimulus has served one purpose: preventing prices from falling to reflect wages. The market then fails to clear. The real issue isn’t even the direction of nominal prices, but what prices would otherwise be absent central bank manipulation. Even if prices fall in nominal terms while wages fall much faster, then we’re still suffering from the consequences of inflation. We can be suffering from lost price deflation. Falling nominal prices engenders rising real wages.
Inflationary policy by the FOMC suppresses nominal interest rates by increasing the supply of loanable funds, but without a genuine expansion of savings to fund investment. Investment can only come out of savings since producers must be able to consume in order to sustain the process of production. Deploying printing press money (i.e. unearned income) transfers money away from producers and the process of production to consumers. Inflationary stimulus disconnects consumption from production, turning Say’s Law upside down. Thus inflation not only drives capital overseas, but begets capital consumption. Inflation is injurious to the process of production.
Increasing the money supply tricks the loan market into consummating unjustifiable loans to non-credit worthy projects. That’s why malinvestment occurs and projects are halted midstream with the revelation of malinvestment. By allowing debtors to pay back creditors with devalued dollars, real interest rates are suppressed. There’s no right way for the loan market to extend credit at negative real rates, which is a negative ROR in real terms. That’s a calculus for the loan market to go bust as it did in 2008. See: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/hist/h3hist1.htm Check out the early months of 2008. That’s not psychological and that’s not a matter of consumer confidence.
The long end of the curve is most sensitive to market forces while the short end of the curve is most sensitive to FOMC policy. If the Fed stays loose to prop up the bond market, this will undermine the very bond market the Fed is trying to prop up. Investors/lenders will account for the inflation risk by tacking an inflation agio onto the curve. Eventually, the Fed will lose control over the short end, too. Under the scenario where the Fed stays loose, there will be no floor underneath the dollar nor any roof on interest rates. If the Fed tightens, the short end will collapse instantaneously, bringing the long end down, too.
Under the scenario where the Fed props up the bond market indefinitely, both the bond market and the dollar collapse. Dollars will hit par value with the par value of bonds. The Fed will be left with $15 trillion plus – in nominal terms – worth of bonds on its balance sheet, and we will be left with both junk bonds and junk dollars. The dollar itself will go bankrupt. What’s the par value of bonds? We don’t know, because the Fed has been propping up the bond market.
Under the scenario where the Fed tightens, the bond market will collapse, but the dollar will be saved. Dollars won’t hit par value with the par value of bonds. The only way to save the dollar is at the expense of the bond market.
Until the Fed is compelled to tighten, we won’t have an economic recovery. The loan market has to set interest rates pursuant to the true supply of savings. If interest rates were to hit, say, ten percent on the two-year with a $15 trillion national debt, do the math. The longer interest rates are artificially suppressed, the higher they will have to go in order to correct the imbalances in the economy.
By tightening sooner rather than later, this will not only allow the market to discover the natural rate of interest by letting interest rates rise, this will encourage capital inflow. Capital naturally gravitates towards cheaper, higher-yielding, more efficient economies. It’s called arbitrage. The Fed is waging an eternal struggle against…arbitrage. People naturally gravitate towards where capital gravitates. We should be talking about repatriating dollars to the domestic loan market rather than repatriating immigrants to their native land.
It makes no sense to close down the borders considering the fact that welfare states engender capital outflow and the natural flow of people is to follow capital. (4) Thus it’s hard for me to not imagine that closing down the borders could be used to trap people in rather keep keep people out. Interfering with the flow of capital will necessarily lodge capital where it ought not be. Interfering with the flow of people will necessarily lodge people where they ought not be.
If a person, firm, or institution is dependent upon inflationary credit expansion – as opposed to non-inflationary – for sustenance, that person, firm, or institution is – by definition – insolvent. Somebody or some institution (e.g. the government) is spending beyond their/its means. As a nation, we have spent beyond our means. Expenditures exceed earnings and we depend on foreign markets to supply us with production.
Inflation (i.e. the creation of money ex nihilo) is no substitute for income-generating investment, which inflicts further injury upon an already precarious economy. There’s no right way to invest in the U.S. economy. It’s error to conflate trading with investing. Buying real estate is not investment. I’ll draw the distinction between trading and investing. A trader buys and sells a particular asset class based on nominal price movements. An investor buys and holds a particular asset class based on returns from the underlying asset class itself. In the case of real estate, that would be rents.
The problem isn’t a lack of regulatory oversight. One can’t regulate away past mistakes. Insolvency can’t be regulated away. The only solution is to force up interest rates, prices fall, dollars that have accumulated in foreign reserves will flow back into the domestic loan market, which will then beget a lower natural rate of interest. Any other solution will lead to the destruction of the currency, in which case everybody’s savings get wiped out. Loose monetary policy to prop up a spending orgy engenders capital outflow (i.e. begets outsourcing).
Inflation is a tax. There’s no objective difference between the government taking the money you have in your pocket and duplicating the money you have in your pocket, thus devaluing the purchasing power of what you have in your pocket. Even if prices don’t rise in nominal terms, the real issue is what prices would otherwise be absent central bank manipulation.
Furthermore, if one is going to hold the position that inflation is synonymous with economic growth, then they’re boxed into advocating skyrocketing prices in order to have a fast economic recovery. The way to have a fast economic recovery under such a scenario would be to have prices rise fast. I believe there’s a term for that. It’s called hyperinflation. Who supports hyperinflation?
The only path to an economic recovery runs through monetary tightening by the Fed. Waiting until we have an economic recovery before tightening is a calculus to destroy the currency and the economy. Absent dealing with monetary policy, no candidate can pretend to offer economic solutions. The only candidate who offers real solutions is Ron Paul.
1) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/10/content_11160595.htm
2) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/us-trade-deficit-dive-may-ease-slide/story-e6frg8zx-1225697017588
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj9KHJRRUbQ
The consequential portion of the video is around the 5:00 minute mark. Inflation is not rising prices. To say so implies that rising prices are caused by…rising prices. That contorts Irving Fisher’s own Quantity Theory of Money. Rising prices are the consequence of inflation, which is an expansion of the supply of money not redeemable in a fixed amount of specie. Prices could drop in nominal terms, yet prices could be too high in real terms. Falling nominal prices engenders rising real wages. We can still be suffering from inflation due to contortions in the price mechanism since prices remain higher than what they otherwise would be absent central bank policy.
By Trace Mayer, on July 14th, 2011
This has to be one of the most ironic and ignorant statement I have heard come out of Washington. The tail risk is with people like Bernanke running the Federal Reserve, Trichet running the ECB, the eurocrats trying to run the rating agencies and politicians trying to design everyone else’s lifestyle.
It appears that despite a fairly short consolidation that the next gold upleg has started. The gold 50dma is $1,522.03 and the 200dma is $1,423.69. The silver 50dma is $36.06 and the 200dma is $32.24.
During this upleg that will likely last until November before a correction or consolidation may see gold run to $1,800 and silver to the $55-60 range. It will be important to see the activity over the next week or so to determine whether the strength will stay. If the monetary metals pull back slightly and continue their usual summer consolidation then it will help the 200dma continue to rise which will lay a stronger base for the autumn and winter rally.
By Bron Suchecki, on June 2nd, 2011
A Fistful Of Dollars:
Without Federal Reserve intervention in the financial markets since September 2008, the biggest banks in the world would have entered bankruptcy liquidation. The U.S. economy would have experienced a 10% to 20% fall in GDP. The unemployment rate would have soared above 15%. The stock market would have fallen 70%. Wealthy bondholders and stockholders would have seen their wealth cut in half. Incumbent politicians would have all been thrown out of office. The richest Americans, constituting the ruling class, would have borne the brunt of the pain.
In a true capitalist system, organizations and people who assumed too much risk and made poor decisions would have failed. But the United States does not have a capitalist system. We have a corporate fascist economic system where a small cartel of bankers, military weapons suppliers, and mega-corporations set the agenda for the country through their complete capture of politicians and the mainstream corporate media.
The Global Economy’s Corporate Crime Wave:
Corporate corruption is out of control for two main reasons. First, big companies are now multinational, while governments remain national. Big companies are so financially powerful that governments are afraid to take them on.
Second, companies are the major funders of political campaigns in places like the US, while politicians themselves are often part owners, or at least the silent beneficiaries of corporate profits. Roughly one-half of US Congressmen are millionaires, and many have close ties to companies even before they arrive in Congress.
As a result, politicians often look the other way when corporate behavior crosses the line. Even if governments try to enforce the law, companies have armies of lawyers to run circles around them. The result is a culture of impunity, based on the well-proven expectation that corporate crime pays.
By The Gold Report, on May 20th, 2011
The Gold Report: Clive, in a recent note on your website you said, “The general investing public are sheep, they like to move together in large groups, have a kind of vacant stare, are routinely fleeced and eventually slaughtered. That’s why when they are very confident, it’s time to get scared, and vice versa.” Further to the point, you suggested that the investing public is confident in gold and bearish on the dollar, and that those two factors could result in a rebound in the greenback and a fall for gold. Please expound upon your theory.
Clive Maund: The main basis of my theory is sentiment, during the first week of May, before the dollar started rallying, only about 16% of the public was bullish on the dollar—almost a record low. Sentiment hasn’t been this bad since 2003. An article pointing this out was posted on my site on April 28. It also pointed out the danger posed by this to commodity stocks, especially to silver. Adam Hamilton, of Zeal Research, picked up on this too, and also is calling for a big dollar-countertrend rally. The papers have been full of stories about how the dollar is set to collapse, and when that happens we are usually on the verge of a rally. The dollar index rose sharply from the 5th of May and has broken out of its downtrend in force from the start of the year and could get as high as 79 on this move. While this is certainly not good news for commodities, we should be presented with a major buying opportunity once the dollar rally has run its course.
TGR: You believe that the Federal Reserve ultimately will unleash quantitative easing (QE3) to help prop up the dollar. Will that be the buying opportunity you’re talking about, or will it come sooner than that?
CM: Right now, it’s in the Fed’s interests to encourage investors to believe there will be no QE3 in order to panic them out of commodities and stocks and into the dollar and Treasuries. This will buy it time and help reduce inflationary pressures. After the Fed has achieved this result, it will need to backpedal quickly, do QE3 anyway to prevent the economy stopping dead in its tracks and continue ringfencing the derivatives problem.
TGR: How far off is this buying opportunity?
CM: I believe that the corrective phase in commodities is likely to take the form of a 3-wave zigzag. Gold and silver, and copper too, look to be shaping up for a tradable short-term relief rally soon, which will be driven by bargain hunting combined with oversold technicals. This should be followed by a more sedate decline than that of early May to a lower low than that which occurred about a week ago, which may see silver drop as low as $28, with seasonal factors suggesting that this low may occur about late July, give or take a few weeks. I believe such a low will present a major buying opportunity.
TGR: In a previous interview with The Gold Report, you said, “As long as inflation has the upper hand, which the recent action of the commercial banks and institutions in scaling back their short positions demonstrates to be the case, investors can look forward to advancing commodity and stock markets. The big danger for investors is deflation.” Are we any closer to deflation now?
CM: I don’t believe we are. The fundamental reason for this is that the consequences of deflation in a debt-saturated world would be so catastrophic—especially for business leaders and politicians—that the Fed will move heaven and earth to prevent it and will even choose hyperinflation above deflation because it buys the Fed more time. The plunge in silver during the first two weeks of May was largely due to the successive raising of margin requirements, which was a deliberate and successful tactical move by the powers that be to pop the silver bubble that was shining a revealing spotlight on its inflationary policies, though the drop in silver also is thought to have been partly due to the market anticipating a dollar rally.
TGR: Let’s talk more about silver. A note on your site said, “After last week’s devastating plunge, the silver battlefield is littered with the corpses of silver longs with those who are still breathing being exhorted to “put their shoulder to the wheel” again by the undismayed silver cheerleaders hailing a ‘fantastic buying opportunity’ for the ride of a lifetime.” Is it still a fantastic buying opportunity?
CM: Although a significant and tradable relief rally is to be expected after silver’s brutal plunge in early May, silver is not thought to have completed its corrective phase yet. This is because a substantial dollar rally is believed to have already started; so if you wait a little while, you should be presented with a better buying opportunity. More aggressive traders may want to play the relief rally expected soon, but average investors may want to wait for the expected lower low later.
Silver could drop back to the high $20s before this dollar rally is done and that should present a great buying opportunity, higher margin requirements or not. This is because inflation is expected to continue to build in the direction of hyperinflation, as QE is the only way out due to the massive debt and derivatives overhang. The game plan is to inflate away the debt and backstop the big Wall Street banks to whatever extent necessary because they are, as we have been told repeatedly, “too big to fail.” This means gold and silver are eventually set to go much, much higher.
TGR: How should investors mitigate risk in their portfolios when the possible outcomes of our economic situation are quite dramatically different?
CM: The two methods that we use are traded options and inverse ETFs. For example, we used ProShares Ultrashort Silver ETF (NYSE:ZSL) during the early May plunge to insulate ourselves from the drop in silver and actually gained by also buying calls in this ETF, which we later sold. A word of caution about leveraged ETFs—they should only be employed where the potential is thought to exist for a big move contrary to your open positions. The reason for this is because they have an options component, they are prone to price erosion in a flat market. So, most of the time, it is better to use non-leveraged ETFs, which are held for only a short time until the danger has passed. Options are a simple, fair and cheap way to buy protection and thus favored—a great thing about them is that even when trading is thin, market makers have to both make a market and honor the intrinsic value of the option; this is what is meant by fair. Used in this capacity, they are not speculative at all. On the contrary, they should be viewed as insurance.
TGR: A lot of your investment decisions seem to rely on charts and technical analysis. A) Where do you get your charts? B) Which ones are you most partial to?
CM: I get my charts from stockcharts.com where I have a subscription. It provides a good free service, but the subscription service is even better with many options. Bigcharts.com’s charts are good for quick reference, and they show volume to advantage. A key point to remember with all these services is that, while they provide a vast amount of data, it’s how you use it and what you do with it that counts.
TGR: What sort of patterns are you looking at in these charts? Are there some basic things our readers can look for that will help them find companies that are about to break out?
CM: There certainly are. The main thing you want to see is the price rising away from a clear basing pattern and the longer and more definite the base pattern, within reason, the better, and you also want to see a favorable moving average alignment. You should seldom invest against the direction of the long-term 200-day moving average—when you have this on your side your odds of failure are greatly reduced. There are various patterns that we employ to advantage, such as Ascending Triangles, Double and Triple Bottoms, Fan Corrections, Falling Wedges etc. and we pay close attention to trading volume and volume indicators, principally the Accumulation-Distribution and On-balance Volume lines. Never forget that volume is the lifeblood of the market so studying volume patterns can help you gauge whether money is flowing into or out of a stock, especially as volume action precedes price movement. Knowing this enables us to position ourselves AHEAD of breakout moves.
TGR: In a recent research note, you said, “I have been in this business more years than I care to mention. . .in all that time, I have very seldom come across a chart that looks more bullish than that of Alix Resources Corp. (TSX.V:AIX).” What are your charts telling you about Alix?
CM: Alix is at about the same price as when it was recommended on the site back in March, and its technical condition remains about the same—it looks very bullish. Even as it dropped with the sector in early May, its accumulation/distribution line rose so sharply that this indicator is at about the same level it was when Alix was priced at CAD$2.60 back in spring of 2009. Looks attractive here, though it may be held back for a while longer if the sector drops on the building dollar rally, as expected.
TGR: You operate out of Chile. Please tell us about that country and the investment climate for mined commodities there.
CM: Chile is generally a pleasant place to live. Politically, it is stable and liberal. Housing and land is cheap compared to countries like Canada and the U.S. The income tax rate is low, though taxes are collected in other ways like a high vehicle road tax and high taxes on gasoline and other purchase taxes. The food is abundant and cheap, especially in the south of the country, and wine also is cheap and excellent. There are limitless beaches and mountains because, of course, the country is sandwiched between the mountains and the sea. There are good air and bus services up and down the country but hardly any railroads. Internet coverage is good now, too.
TGR: What about the Chilean economy, especially as it pertains to mining?
CM: Chile is actually a far more fiscally prudent country than the U.S. It does not have careening deficits, and the workforce is obliged to contribute to a private pension scheme that has in fact grown in value far more than government schemes in countries like the U.S. That means the Chilean government is not on the hook for massive pension obligations, as many other governments around the world are. Those governments will probably renege on these obligations, at least in part, by a combination of inflation and fiddling the inflation statistics.
Chile is very mining friendly and has a sophisticated infrastructure to support mining companies conducting operations. In addition, environmental factors are not such a concern here as most of the mining operations and prospects are located in northern Chile. The north is a rather sparsely populated desert but with towns dotted around to provide amenities, logistical support and a skilled workforce. It is still not widely appreciated that there is a line of hills or low mountains between the Andes and the coast that harbor massive as-yet-undiscovered copper-gold deposits that will be relatively easy to mine and much less complicated and expensive than Barrick Gold Corp.’s (TSX:ABX; NYSE:ABX) massive Pascua-Lama operation. That project is perched on Chile’s border with Argentina, high in the Andes. To get an idea of the potential of these deposits located in this line of hills, you need only look at Codelco’s (Corporacion Nacional del Cobre de Chile) massive Chuquicamata open-pit copper mine near Calama, which is the biggest open-pit copper mine in the world, or Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.’s (NYSE:FCX) giant Candelaria open-pit and underground mine near Copiapo.
TGR: You have an on-the-ground view of what’s happening in Chile. Are there some small-cap names with favorable projects in Chile?
CM: One that is coming along very nicely and continues to look most promising is Samex Mining Corp. (TSX.V:SXG; OTCBB:SMXMF). I have personally inspected its properties north and south of Copiapo with the company’s chief geologist. I started the current bull market in this stock by recommending it to subscribers at $0.12 almost two years ago and, after a steady advance, it spiked for about a month on positive drilling results. Samex has tied up two nice parcels of excellent properties on that line of hills I mentioned earlier, which are actually very close to Freeport’s Candelaria operation. These properties have huge potential, so there’s a lot more upside for this stock with the company now undertaking a drilling program to define the potential of the properties.
TGR: Thank you for talking with us today, Clive. This has been very informative.
Clive Maund has been president of http://www.clivemaund.com, a successful resource sector website, since its inception in 2003 early in the sector bull market. He has 30 years’ experience in technical analysis and has worked for banks, commodity brokers and stockbrokers in the City of London and holds a diploma in technical analysis from the UK Society of Technical Analysts. Clive now lives in southern Chile.
By Simon Grey, on May 6th, 2011
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday the central bank was already moving forward with its new mandate to promote broad financial stability in the wake of financial oversight reform legislation that instructed it to do so.
The Fed “has restructured its internal operations to facilitate” a regulatory approach that looks beyond the health of individual financial institutions, to one that looks at the interlinkages between firms and the overall state of the banking system, the official said. [Emphasis added.]
Notice what the FRB has to say on its “About” page: The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded. [Emphasis added.]
I’m not sure how Bernanke managed to overlook this, what with him being the head of The Fed and all, but the whole purpose of having a central bank was, from day one, to promote financial stability. That has always been The Fed’s mandate. It’s like a default setting for the system, which is why it’s so surprising that Bernanke is just now catching on to this.
Bernanke’s reaction thus speaks to the general problem of bureaucrats. Namely, bureaucrats have a nasty tendency to shirk their duties, which always requires renewing their efforts at doing their job, accompanied with more power and money than before. The reason why bureaucrats fail at their job (micromanaging the economy) is not because they don’t possess enough knowledge and information, it’s because they don’t have enough resources at their disposal.
Thus, no bureaucrat ever admits that he is less than omniscient. He merely pledges to renew his effort, promising that he’ll get the job done right this time. Provided, of course, that he is given more money and power with which to do his job.
By Bron Suchecki, on April 28th, 2011
Reading this opening line from a Seeking Alpha article “Ben Bernanke continues to be one of the only economic voices of reason in the United States” my first thought was the article was humorous. Not so, he is actually serious! It continues:
Gold is economically irrelevant for the following reasons:
1. The pricing mechanism of gold is too easily manipulated by extremists. Gold is the investment vehicle of fear.
2. Gold is no longer a currency. Gold has no fundamentals.
3. Gold prices are transitory. This is a fad.
4. Bond prices, gold stocks, and core inflation suggest there is no imminent threat to the economy.
This is the mainstream view, unfortunately. We are a long way off a bubble.
|
|
Most Popular Posts