But we’re not…yet.

Classic economic theory says that money supply can be used to stimulate the economy and our central bankers seem to agree. That’s why they’ve pumped more than $1 trillion dollars into the economy, engineered countless bailout bonanzas for zombie institutions, put Detroit on life support, and delivered a bunch of financial Band-Aids to the trauma ward — all in a desperate bid to make Americans feel better about the global financial crisis.

To their way of thinking, the trillions of dollars have been a success. That’s why any meeting of the Group of Eight (G8) nations looks more like a mutual affection society with central bankers anxious to claim credit and backslap each other in congratulations for having avoided the “Great Depression II.”

But by taking the Federal balance sheet to more than $2 trillion from $928 billion 2008, they’ve created a situation that should have resulted in an epic inflationary spike to accompany the 137% increase in liabilities.

Yet that hasn’t quite happened.

Core inflation — which denotes consumer prices without food and energy costs — has actually decreased from 2.5% in 2008 to 1.5% presently. And that has many investors who have heard the siren call of the doom, gloom and boom crowd wondering if they’re worried about nothing.

So what gives?

Well, there are four reasons we haven’t yet seen hyperinflation:

Banks are hoarding cash. Despite having received trillions of dollars in taxpayer funded bailouts and lived through a litany of shotgun weddings designed to reinvigorate the shattered lending markets, most banks are actually hoarding cash. So instead of lending money to consumers and businesses like they’re supposed to, banks have used taxpayer dollars to boost their reserves by nearly 20-fold according to the Federal Reserve. The money the bailout was supposed to make available to the system is actually not passing “Go,” but rather getting stopped by the very institutions that are supposed to be lending it out. Three-year average annualized loan growth rates were 9.6% before the crisis; now they are shrinking by 1.8%, according to Money Magazine.

The United States exports inflation to China, which remains only too happy to continue to absorb it. What this means is that low priced products from China help keep prices down here. And this is critical to something that many in the “China-is-manipulating-their-currency” crowd fail to grasp. If China were to un-peg the yuan and let it rise by the 60% or more it’s supposedly undervalued by, we’d see jump in prices here in everything from jeans to tennis shoes, toys, medical equipment, medicines, and anything else we import in bulk from China. Chances are, the shift would not be dollar-for-dollar or even dollar-for-yuan, but there’s no doubt it would be significant. Many economists I’ve talked to privately think 25%-35% is probable. So the next time you hear a “Buy American” extremist, you might want to share this little inconvenient truth.

Consumers are still cutting back. Therefore, the spending that normally helps pull demand through the system is simply not there. I don’t how things are in your neighborhood, but where I live, people are still cutting back. Indeed, data from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board shows that consumer spending growth averaged 1.4% a year prior to the crisis and is now shrinking at a rate of 0.7%. What this means is that people have figured out that it’s more important to save money than it is to spend it. And, given that consumer spending makes up 70% or more of the U.S. economy, this is a monumental change in behavior that all but banishes the last vestiges of the “greed is good” philosophy espoused by Michael Douglas as Wall Street pirate Gordon Gekko in 1987.

Businesses continue to cut back rather than hire new workers. Therefore, wages and wage inflation figures are lower than they would be if the economy was truly healthy and the stimulus was working. This is especially tough to stomach because it means people are still being marginalized, laid off and “part-timed” instead of being hired. And that means that most of the earnings growth we’ve seen this season has come from expense reductions rather than top line sales growth — and those are two very different things. But while this is tough, it’s also helped keep inflation lower than it would otherwise be. Prior to the financial meltdown, job growth averaged about 1% a year over the last three years whereas now it’s falling by 4.2%.

The upshot?

Any one of these factors could change at any time. And that means investors who are relying on the Fed’s version that everything is okay and that the government is managing inflation may be in for a rude awakening.

The only thing the Fed is doing is managing to manipulate is the data, and even then, not very well.

Regards,
Keith Fitz-Gerald

November 16, 2009

P.S.: For the last several years I’ve made my insights about the Asian markets and the true nature of the global capital markets available to investors via my daily columns in Money Morning and its monthly affiliate, The Money Map Report. Now I’m making those insights available through my new book, “Fiscal Hangover: How to Profit from the New Global Economy,” which can be purchased here.

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in Money Morning as “Four Reason Hyperinflation Hasn’t Hit the U.S. Economy Yet.” To view the original article, please click here.

Four Reasons Hyperinflation Hasn’t Hit the U.S. Economy Yet was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

They talking, of course, about the Australians decision to hike their central bank index rate. And instantly the howls of recovery were on the lips of all the pundits.

But the recovery at large is still not on the horizon.

We may be facing a serious battle with deflation, and that the evidence is all around us, Australia notwithstanding. And now we have seen more than just anecdotal evidence.

A few days ago, the United Kingdom, which has been struggling with a weakening currency, released inflation numbers far below expectations. Not only was inflation lower than expected; the figures were actually negative.

What does that mean? Well, when inflation numbers turn negative, that is deflation. And England wasn’t alone.

The number one economy in the Eurozone, Germany, released numbers that said the same thing. Prices are not increasing, they are decreasing… and at a surprising rate!

That’s contrary to conventional wisdom, which says that the bloated money supply should be raising prices. But as I explained last week, that money supply isn’t natural — it’s being created on a whim by the central back and being pushed into its member banks.

From there, it is being held against the mountain of derivative losses, bad loans and investments, instead of flowing into the economy at large through lending.

That lack of lending is what’s preventing inflation. It won’t show up until the money is released to the public. Until then, the money supply has not effectively changed or expanded… and we’ll continue to see deflation.

Deflation, in turn, will lead to longer periods of extended “non-growth” and lower interest rates — at least in the places where they can be lowered. Where they cannot be lowered, “stimulus ad nauseam” will remain the protocol of the day.

But, of course, a flat-broke country can’t stimulate unless it can borrow. We are not like China with $2 trillion in reserves. Staying afloat requires borrowing unparalleled in history. The problem is, now that we aren’t buying the world’s widgets, the world is far less inclined to loan us anything. After all, that’s the way the game has been played. They lend to us — we buy from them. And everybody was happy. But you just can’t borrow forever.

So if deflation is going to be the name of the game, what happens to the currency markets?

Thomas Jefferson Fears the Federal Reserve

To answer that question, first we need to determine which currencies are going to move in which direction. That will continue to unfold over time. But it will likely lead to the currencies of the West doing a slow gyrating dance. Neither currency is better than any of the others, so they will just move back and forth until one of them gets their debt and banking situation under control.

Very possibly, the first nation to get rid of its central bank will be the first to really break out.

Because as we all should be well aware by now, central banks exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to bailout their banker buddies who, in the pursuit of greater profit, have made risky loans… to bail out large industries in order to preserve the job base… and to make sure that the taxpayers foot the bill. They will masquerade it in the best of terms, but at the end of the day, we are paying for their foolish business practices.

The sooner we do away with a central bank, the richer we all will be. This is not our first experiment with a central bank in the United States, but it has been our most costly. Our forefathers vehemently opposed the idea of a central bank for just this reason.

They believed that such a cartel would rape and pillage the public and increase poverty on a massive scale, until there is nothing left to take.

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,” Thomas Jefferson wrote. “The issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.”

Amazing, isn’t it? Here’s a man who, two centuries ago, understood why central banks brought themselves into existence. The Federal Reserve in the United States has done nothing to improve our lot and has done everything it can to extort our wealth by the tax of inflation, then to export it to economies and dictators who live like massive welfare recipients off of the taxes your fathers have paid, and you continue to pay, and your children will have to pay.

And it will remain like this until the Fed is abolished again. As I mentioned, the population of the United States has closed more than one central bank. Former presidential hopefuls even lost their bids to the White House over their stand in favor of a central bank. Until such a day as we are sufficiently educated again to see them as a menace to our wealth and way of life, until we take it in hand to dismantle the Fed as it is, we will continue to suffer the expropriation of our hard-earned money to those who act as our overlords.

Problem is, I seriously doubt that will happen within our lifetimes. Look how long it’s taken us just to consider a bill that audits the Fed.

In the meantime, I recommend you take your capital to the place it’s treated best.

That specific place, however, is yet to be determined. Will it be Australia — the first ones to hike rates? Will be China – the almighty ones holding a financial nuclear option?

I can’t say for sure.

But I can say that, over the long run, it won’t be the greenback.

If you’re looking for a way out, diversifying your savings into another currency through the FOREX markets is an easy way to do it.

Regards,
Bill Jenkins

October 15, 2009

Who Needs a Central Bank? was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

The published inflation data are surprisingly unsophisticated in so far as they compare current prices with a snapshot a year earlier.

Just over a year ago, oil was every hedge fund manager’s favorite speculation. In summer 2008 a barrel got to well over $140, before falling sharply back.

That summer’s high oil price had the effect of canceling out the deflation which was occurring elsewhere in the economy, as the first phase of the credit crunch started to bite. It helped keep inflation up.

But by summer 2009, after hitting a trough of $30, the price was back down around $65 representing an annual fall in the oil price of over 50%. Now it was keeping the inflation figures down. Oil would continue to be below the price of 12 month previous throughout the period from January ‘09 to September ‘09.

Now – in the fall of 2009 – prices are more or less where they were a year ago, but 12 months ago they were falling fast, while now they are rising. So for the first time in over a year the effect of oil prices in the inflation figures, in October/November 2009, will be up again. And by January, even if prices don’t continue to rise from here, the low prices of winter 2008/9 will form the base. Oil will again be at twice the price it was a year earlier. This will have a marked impact on inflation data.

It’s not only the energy markets that threaten the “low inflation” data currently encouraging bondholders to continue buying government debt paying little more than 3.0% per year. There are well over two billion Chinese and Indians who used to make the unwelcome but necessary market adjustments on the demand side when world grain prices rose:

Some 30% of the world’s population went hungry.

Until the current decade, that was an important part of how world demand came into line with dips in world food production, before big price rises would cause Westerners to feel the sharp pain of a world food shortage. But this has now changed, and permanently.

The wealth and dollar reserves of the Asian countries are now large, and their people are not going to go hungry in future (and quite right, too). Instead they will be competing on world markets, and the price of grains will start to show the very sharp spikes associated with unreliable supply and a newly inelastic demand in critical commodities.

You may remember the food riots of early 2008, and how they seem to have disappeared. Well, that occurred after a small dip in world grain production in 2007. Fortunately, by its end, 2008 had turned into a bumper year for the global food harvest and a serious crisis was averted. That bumper harvest brought global food prices down again – but for how long?

Rice gives us a hint of the nature of price movements we should learn to expect. From a stable base it spiked viciously upwards (by 300% and more) as it sucked in speculative money during the 2008 panic. But when it fell back as panic subsided, it still remained twice the original base level. It is from here that the next upwards spike seems to be starting.

In a similar pattern sugar has already started to cool off a bit, but pepper is in the earlier stages. At the end of August ‘09 it rose 17% in a week on news of a poor crop arising from adverse weather in South East Asia.

Unlike camcorders, food is not a discretionary purchase and under the harsh law of marginal utility – together with the new inelasticity of Asian demand – even modest food shortages will cause sharp price spikes, and maybe more riots, which indeed started to appear in Asia in September 2009, with tragic consequences.

When necessities are in short supply people behave in the opposite way to normal. Instead of reducing demand they tend to panic and stockpile food for safety, perversely increasing demand on those higher prices…

Regards,
Paul Tustain
BullionVault

October 13, 2009

The Price of Oil and the Inflation Time Bomb of Autumn was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Not to crunch too many metaphors right here at the top, but a consensus seems to be firming up in the animate jello of the Internet that we have entered the Season of the Witch. An odor of ripeness fills the virtual air — something between dead carp and apples baking. Whatever else appears to be going on in the upper stories and verdigris-tinged turrets of capital finance — currency rackets, gold switcheroos, interest rate arbitrage games, concealment of losses under rugs and behind curtains, Chinese fire drills performed by Spanish prisoners, executive three-card-monte set-ups, boardroom work-arounds, accounting quicksteps, Peter-to-Paul-shuffles, check kitings, pigeon drops, Ponzi schemes, hugger-muggers, bezels, shucks, jives, and enough monkeyshines to make Lord Greystroke cry for mercy — apart, in other words, from business-as-usual, such as it is these days, on Wall Street, there is a rising collective sense of anxious expectation that things are about to shake loose in the sad-ass shell of what remains of our economy. And the most perplexing part is that there hardly seems any safe place to preserve one’s savings.

The showmen over at the Financial Sense website, have put on an excellent month-long series of interviews and debate podcasts between leading inflationistas and deflationistas — Daniel Amerman, Peter Schiff, Robert Prechter, Mark Faber, Michael “Mish” Shedlock, Harry Dent — and after weeks of sedulous listening I still remain flummoxed as to where to stash the dwindling cash.

Harry Dent was a curious case in point this week. He has made some howlingly wrong calls before (e.g. in 2006, predicting a Dow 40,000 at the conclusion of the post-2001 bubble). Perhaps he missed the crack-up aspect of the most recent boom. He did not foresee the long gruesome meltdown of late 2007 to March 2009, or rather, his timing was off, since he called for the commencement of a new Great Depression in 2010. (And I hasten to insert here that my own timing of events has not been so great either.) Anyway, Dent sees a “winter” of finance and economy looming from here forward, characterized by extreme deflation, based on his view that the amount of private debt going bad (est. $40 trillion) far outweighs government’s ability to create new “money” (a few measily trillion) and hence that there is no chance in hell we’ll find ourselves in an inflationary situation for some time ahead. The private debt workout has to be completed first.

Most curious, though, was when the interviewer, Jim Puplava, probed Dent about his views on Peak Oil. Dent said he didn’t believe in it; that when he was in college in the 1970s (remember the OPEC oil embargo of ‘73), he learned to disregard any suggestions that we are “running out of oil.” He stated this, by the way, as a simple assertion, without any further explanation, and Puplava didn’t belabor him with arguments. But it was a weird moment. Of course, it hardly need be said that Peak Oil story has never been about “running out of oil” per se, but rather about declining flows, geopolitical management of flows, and the effects of depletion on industrial economies — in particular the effect on regular, expected, cyclical “growth” of the type that financial markets utterly depend on to power the trade in investment paper.

It is exceedingly odd that this does not factor into Dent’s thinking, because what Peak Oil inescapably does is introduce the very sobering idea of discontinuity — that is, that the game has changed radically, especially where all our assumptions about continued “growth” are concerned. In that brief exchange on Peak Oil, Dent seemed to take the position that the “winter” part of any historical financial cycle always produced “new technology” that invariably saves the day, putting this seemingly very smart man in the camp of so many techno-cornucopian triumphalists all wishing for the same outcome: that some mythical “they” will “come up with” a set of rescue remedies to keep all the cars circulating on the freeways, and all the WalMarts groaning with swag.

Like so many major league prognosticators, Dent arrives at his ideas by building models of reality, assembling “data” to create charts of trends in prices, interest rates, and especially demographics – what age group of people are buying a lot of what in which stage of their lives. The whole business seems very rational and reasonable except when you realize that it is just another “narrative” — to borrow one of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s terms — girded with statistical justification. One can hardly fault it from a strictly procedural point of view — since, in our culture, conclusions ought to proceed from evidence — but one can’t escape the feeling that it amounts to little more than old-fashioned augury… that someone examining the entrails of a dead chicken, spread over the front page of The Wall Street Journal, might arrive at very similar conclusions. All that said, Dent was an appealingly confident personality on-the-air, the kind of authoritative voice you’d like to believe, if only it were possible.

Prechter was much the same a few weeks earlier, and he, too, foresees a darker American future, based on a different set of models called Elliot Wave principles. His forecasts derive from a picture of “social mood” as much as economic data flows. He, too seems to disregard the Peak Oil story and its implications as the master resource driving growth in industrial economies.

Personally, I am not at all sure that the Peak Oil story, or its associated general resource scarcity story, will shed a whole lot of light on the question of inflation-or-deflation. I say this because I think it is a short way down the road of depletion-and-scarcity before the major complex systems we depend on for daily life become so unstable that general socio-economic collapse ensues. After all, capital finance is only one of these many complex systems — some other biggies being food production, trade and manufacture, transportation, electric power distribution, infrastructure maintenance, the military, and governance. Inflation-or-deflation will only be symptomatic of larger failures and instabilities in these systems necessary for modern, civilized life.

All of it begs the question not only whether you or I will have two nickels to rub together, or two gold eagles, or a bundle of six month US Treasury bills, or a zillion shares of Apple, or a gainful vocation, or a roof over our heads, or a hot meal at the end of the day, or a safe place to sleep, or a country we can recognize. I’ve done my share of forecasting, with some episodes of notably bad timing. I don’t do it for grandstanding effect but to provide some basis for knowing what to do in the years directly ahead, so we can hope to construct lives worth living. I’m impatient with models, charts, and statistical analysis. Perhaps this is childish. I’d rather tell a story or paint a picture. So, I’m going to spend the rest of the week finishing the last chapter of World Made By Hand Two: The Witch of Hebron while the US economy wanders where it will.

Regards,
James Howard Kunstler

September 29, 2009

Inflation, Deflation, Peak Oil and Complex Systems was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

GOLD’S CURRENT price-tag of $1,000 an ounce suggests big doubts over the US Dollar, its domestic economy, and its status as the world’s No.1 reserve currency.

Or so we guess after 10 years of watching it quadruple from two-decade lows. But gold investors (old, new and everywhere) should note that this decade’s bull market in bullion is about much more than the greenback.

Here are three ways of judging what you might call the “real price of gold” instead.

#1. The Global Gold Index

Gold has risen against all world currencies since the start of 2001, very nearly tripling on average and hitting record highs against everything bar the Japanese Yen. (Tokyo gold buyers are still waiting for a near-double to the peak of Jan. 1980…)

Introduced in July 2008, Bullion Vault’s Global Gold Index is a stab at mapping this trend. It monitors “real gold” by plotting the daily price in terms of the world’s ten most important currencies, averaging their moves by size of the issuing economy.

Thus the Global Gold Index currently starts with the US Dollar gold price, and then takes in the gold price for Eurozone buyers, Japan, China, the UK, Russia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and Australia – as per the latest World Bank and IMF data. (It’s rebased each year to accommodate changes in that league table of gross domestic product; India, the world’s hungriest physical gold market until the start of this year, flips in and out.)

Not quite the price of gold for everyone worldwide, this “real” value does at least cover 2.5 billion people who account for over two-thirds of world economic activity. It starts at 100 on New Year’s Day 2000, hitting a record peak for this decade in May 2006, and then all-time record peaks in March 2008 and then Feb. 2009.

Currently, the Global Gold Index is trading some 5% off that top, rising strongly into Sept. ‘09 so far.

#2. Gold vs. the Cost of Living

What about inflation; has the ultimate “inflation hedge” (as most commentators and analysts still mistake it) out-done the cost of living?

Given how suspect inflation data can be (wherever you live), let’s roll our third “real” gold price into this picture too, comparing gold against the cost of raw, productive materials as bought and paid for in the market-place…

This chart shows the Dollar gold-price adjusted for official inflation in US consumer prices (the gold line). Jan. 2000 marks the start of our indexation. You’re looking at gold priced in Y2K dollars, left-hand scale.

The chart also maps the “real” price of gold in terms of raw materials prices (dark red, right scale), indexing it against the CRB’s Continuous Commodity Index of the most-heavily traded 19 natural resources – crude oil, corn, soy beans and the rest. (Again, Jan. 2000 is our starting point for the maths, indexing the real price of gold in commodities at 100.)

But is gold cheap or dear right now? Three observations:

• Gold built a strong base against commodities during the 1980s and ’90s, holding onto far more of its 1970s’ gains than did natural resources;
• Gold has never been more expensive in terms of the raw materials it could buy than in Feb. ‘09, almost doubling in purchasing power from crude oil’s record peak of summer last year;
• Real gold prices stand at only 50% of their 1980 inflation-adjusted peak, but they’ve trebled so far this decade;
• Consumer-price inflation has thus been stronger since Y2K than you might guess…adding 27% to the cost of living and lopping a whole multiple off gold’s nominal gains since the start of this decade.

Still, the Noughties come fifth out of the last eleven decades both for “price stability” and “low inflation”. And gold’s performance in the face of rising consumer prices is varied to say the least…

Most significant perhaps for the fate of Dollars, gold and inflation, is the fact that real commodity prices have in fact halved over the last fifty years. Adjusted for US inflation, they were never cheaper than at the start of this decade.

The decline in real commodity prices between June 2008 and Feb. ‘09 was comparable only with their doubling in 1972-73. Dropping 40% inside eight months, real commodities fell faster than any time on the CRB’s five-decade record.

If this decade’s bull market in gold were only about inflation and commodity-price fears –whether priced in US Dollars or anything else – gold would not be trading four times higher above $1,000 today.

Regards,
Adrian Ash
BullionVault

September 22, 2009

The Real Price of Gold was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Did that phrase have any effect–other than to help elect a presidential challenger–on our doing financial business as usual?  Nope.  Sure, we were on a bull run with a roaring (we thought) economy.  Everyone who wanted a house could get one, even if they couldn’t afford it.  Never mind if that six-figure mortgage, secured frequently by a four-figure (or less) income meant that you were upside down from the get go.  Option ARMs let you have your cake and eat it, too.  One of the more creative approaches was the Stated Income Stated Assets Loan, also known as a SISA (Liar’s) loan. Yep, it was and is exactly what it sounds like.  The income listed on the mortgage loan application was accepted as exactly what you said it was without any verification whatsoever.  This particular loan is now about as rare as the passenger pigeon due to the mortgage collapse.

Property values were always going to increase from here to eternity, so all you had to do was wait a while, refinance after your salary had increased (as it always had) and your home’s market value had multiplied.  Then you would have a standard 30-year mortgage, low interest rate, high income, money in the bank, stock investments and a 401K.  Life was good and you could concentrate on your golf game every weekend.

What everyone forgot, or ignored due to the good life blinders they were wearing, was a rather trite phrase that happens to be truth in a nutshell: What goes up must come down.

Fifteen years later came the mortgage meltdown and a global financial collapse.  A year after that, we managed to infect Washington, D.C. with an administration that seems determined to reduce the U.S. to the status of a third world country, complete with nationalization of its remaining industries, tax increases that would break the back of Atlas and an infantile belief that we’re on the road to recovery.

Y’all know that that Government Motors…ahem, General Motors…has been bailed out to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, with virtually no chance that any of it will ever be recovered.  Healthcare is the latest target in the crosshairs.  Opposed by darn near every person with a brain and the ability to read even a few pages of the proposed legislation, there is still a very real chance that it will be rammed down our throats by our erstwhile elected officials who are not only supposed to act in our best interests but actually listen to our comments during town hall meetings, by reading our emails, snail mail and paying attention to phone calls.

Do we need healthcare reform in some respects?  Of course we do.  No system, public or private, is perfect.  But the word is ‘reform’ or ‘improvement’, not ‘nationalization.’

Tax increases ain’t hit us yet, at least not in any widespread manner.  But they’re coming.  In fact, they’re already here in the form of increased fees that are being instituted by everyone from utility companies to towns and cities.  And just wait till the cap & tax…sorry, I meant cap & trade… bill is passed, signed and forwarded to your checking account.  What was a relatively healthy account, or at least surviving, will shortly wind up on life support.

So how is cap & trade going to be a tax increase on every person?  Simple.  That legislation, if enacted, will focus energy production on the so-called ‘green energy.’  Any method that produces carbon will be heavily taxed.  The result will be dramatic increases in the cost of electricity and since we all use electricity in some way, shape or form…including ways that most of us don’t even think about…every person in this country will be paying an increased tax as the result of rising prices on virtually everything.

Conservation, energy efficiency and reduction of your carbon footprint will become watchwords, possibly even additions to your local ordinances.

As for trying to jawbone this country onto the road to economic recovery, President Obama wandered several miles into fantasyland with his recent speech before Congress.  While his focus was the embattled healthcare legislation, he did manage to address the economic conditions with a two paragraph opening statement in which he said:

“When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

“But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.”

Does this correlate with a 9.7% – 16% (depending on whose statistics you use) unemployment, ongoing foreclosures with many more to come, businesses closing, many States dealing with multi-billion dollar budget deficits, some perilously close to default, deflation in a few areas, etc, ad infinitum?

Of course, when this country only loses 216,000 jobs in August compared to 700,000 last January, I suppose you could argue that we’re moving in the right direction.  And let’s not forget that our financial problems were over when we discovered that printing presses actually functioned 24/7, enabling us to print fiat money…or Monopoly money if you prefer…whenever we needed it.  As long as we don’t run out of ink.  Happy days are here again!

Maybe it’s not the economy, stupid.

What do you think?

Regards,
Richard Marmo

September 11, 2009

Once Again, Stupid, It’s The Economy was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

In order for there to be a restaurant at all some entrepreneur has to put his money and vision on the line and open it. He has a thing called “overhead,” which is irreducible on-going expenses whether he has any customers at all or not. The rent, utilities, taxes, staff, laundry, raw ingredients, and so forth are constants. He is harried by assorted inspectors, frequently with conflicting demands.

In order for a meal to be put on the table once Joe Entrepreneur reaches that point the cooks have to prepare it and somebody has to serve it.

The diner has to have both the inclination to eat there and the wherewithal to pay for the meal and tip the waiter.

When government becomes the restaurant the system flies apart in many ways. Governments do not worry about overheads; indeed, it is an essential function of government to grow. The gang in DC has no concept of being able to “afford” the expenses they occasion. Money isn’t real to them. Other people’s money rarely is. They print some more any time they want to knowing that it reduces the value of the dollars we hold. They hire staff which always turns out to be permanent with reckless abandon.

Back in the real world government makes everything more expensive and more difficult. In our example, the minimum wage concept makes labor more expensive for the business owner. He has his choice of taking less profit, reducing staff, not expanding, or cutting quality. All of those will damage his enterprise. For over two decades I have been listening to small business owners say that they had the business to expand, but that between ludicrous restrictions, regulations, and taxes it simply was not worth their while to do so.

Cap and Trade will make energy far more expensive, and do so by design. Does the restaurateur reduce the fourteen ounce Angus strip to ten ounces? Raise prices? Charge for parking? Use frozen french fries instead of hand cut ones from fresh potatoes? It does not matter which unpleasant choice he makes he will be obliged to offer less to customers who are under the same constraints with their work and family expenses. Every time one of them decides that dinner out is an expense he cannot justify the restaurant suffers.

The waiters are damaged by the harm done by government to the owner and the customers, and so is the cook, so is the busboy, and so is the bartender.

The diner, at least, still has the choice of whether or not to patronize the restaurant, although he has to eat somewhere, whether at home or out. This is where we get into taxation policies.

Statists and, indeed, politicians in general, rarely know anything about where money comes from. They seem to think that “made,” “earned,” “produced,” and “printed” all mean the same thing. They really cannot tell the difference between a US savings bond and gold. They think borrowed money is real and does not actually have to be paid back.

They appear to believe that incomes are immutable, that if you make $200,000 this year that you will continue to make at least that much every year until you retire no matter what else changes. They speak blithely of your electrical bill doubling, not seeing that as causing you to spend less elsewhere because you have a ludicrous fondness for heat and light in your home. They even think you should run automobiles on the stuff. Some of them probably even believe that you can charge the ten thousand dollar battery on a Volt with twenty-five cents’ worth of electricity, as advertised.

They think that burger-flippers will always flip burgers, and their lot will improve only if Congress mandates higher wages for them.

Governments understand only fear, force, and how to use the public treasury to buy votes. Congress fails to grasp the very simple fact that everything is interconnected. In one sense it does not matter who, other than those with Pelosi-like incomes, has his or her light bill doubled, the money that will be allocated for electricity can no longer be spent in another area. If Hal’s discretionary income is $500/month and he has to give $167 of that to Brazos Power and Light, one out of every three dollars that he had previously to spend in restaurants, or to have carpets cleaned, or to buy a new fishing rod is gone forever, vanished into the insatiable maw of government. If Susie, the single mom teacher loses a third of her discretionary income, she will have to do without a washing machine, painting her house, or as many school clothes for her child. There is no way, short of a second job, to replace the money which has been stolen by government action, or that stolen by inflation which was caused by printing of fiat money.

I suppose I sound as though I am speaking to a sixth grade civics class, although most kids have allowances or parents who utter the foulest three words in the English language, “We can’t afford…” One wonders if the constantly increasing out of control “budgets” at local, state, and national levels are caused in part by a system that requires great wealth to be elected to public office, and great dependence on funds gathered by those who demand political favors in return. I live near Bryan, a town of 55,000 people. Can someone explain to me why Bryan needs to spend nine million dollars a year? All of it extorted from local property owners?

You may wonder why I am covering anything this basic here on Whiskey & Gunpowder! Surely you Shooters, of all others, understand the basic principles of business, budgets, and von Mises. One would have thought so–right up to the point where the Editor was deluged with letters asserting that pie in the sky “health care” is a “right” and expressing their sentiments in language unbefitting ladies, gentlemen, and civilized debate. If you understand why we cannot have “single payer” health insurance, fine, pass this on to some child who needs to know.

The basic fact is that there is only so much “money” in the world, when we see “money” as a medium of exchange, which it is. I need a better way to induce the cobbler to make me a pair of shoes than offering him twenty dozen eggs he can’t eat before they spoil, although we might agree that I would deliver a dozen a week until the debt was paid. He, in turn, needs cow hide to make shoes, and I have cows, but I don’t want to skin one just to get shoes…at any rate, it worked better when we all exchanged little slugs of silver or gold for each others’ labor and production. The balance gets destroyed when the government creates “fiat” money and expects us to accept their fairy not-gold at the same value as shimmering silver ingots. We won’t do it. We also know that every time more money is cranked out of thin air every dollar we have is worth less because there is no way to differentiate between the dollar we had when there were only ten in the world and that same dollar when suddenly there are a hundred.

The Statists’ theory is that there is no limit to how much money they can “create,” just as there is no limit to how much milk the cow can give. There really are limits to how much moo-juice Bossy will produce, including her heritage, her age, how good her feed is, and whether or not she has had a calf recently. Even cows want a break after being milked for 300 days. It takes nine months to produce another calf and “freshen,” or begin producing more rich, creamy milk.

My darling Charles and I sent Asia, our Segundo, off to pick up a cow and her week old bull calf today. Mathilda, as we have named her, is three-quarters Jersey and a quarter Black Angus, both animals are black, and they will fit in beautifully with the Black Dexters. Mathilda will handle our milk and cream needs for the next three hundred days, more time than it takes for the goats to reproduce (210 days.) The funny part is that the owner didn’t want to milk her so he has been underfeeding her deliberately so that she won’t produce more milk than the calf can drink! How about that, Shooters, when a “simple farmer” in “flyover country” knows that to get less out of the cow you provide less sustenance than she needs. (We gave her a whole bale of first class hay and a big container of clear water for tonight.) Why can’t all those Ivy League economists and lawyers see that when they take too much of our money we produce far less taxes?

There really are practical limits to how many taxes can be extracted from most of us. Particularly in a land where nearly half of the people pay no taxes at all and a lot of them get “earned income credits” for doing one day’s work a year. There is a large class of people that is paid to do one simple chore: vote for the Statists. I suppose it is nice work if one can stomach it. I don’t know, since no government has ever bought my food, shelter, utilities, and medical care. Given my choice I would prefer to be a slum landlord, but the government beat me to it.

There are two points here that the DC gang had better grasp quickly. The first is that no matter how you jigger the figures, jobless people aren’t making money and they aren’t paying taxes on the money they didn’t earn. Just because they aren’t counted officially doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there, as increased robberies, claims for unemployment, and appeals to churches show. Those who are losing more of their income to higher taxes and utility bills are not purchasing as much, which means that the stores they once patronized are no longer making as much money, so they don’t pay as many taxes.

The Statist solution is automatic: “Oh, we’ll just tax the rich!” “Rich” is a relative term but our dear leader defines it at a quarter of a million dollars a year. Their problem is that if they confiscate all of the earnings of every person in America who makes $250,000 a year or more it won’t be more than a drop in the bucket they have to fill to cover their expenditures. It can’t be done. According to the most recent analysis available, 2006, the “richest” ten per cent. paid fifty-five per cent. of all taxes. Statists think that is “fair,” but what they had better start thinking is that pulling that much money out of those who produce jobs, start new businesses, invest in others, or even play the stock market slows everything down. Charity? When you filter money through the government over ninety per cent. of it is spent as salaries and overhead or disappears from graft or theft. Good private charities more than reverse that ratio.

How many families do you suppose there are with incomes of two hundred thousand dollars a year or more? I’ll tell you, since Newsweek kindly told me: 3.4%. That is 34 out of 1000 families, or 340 out of 10,000 families, or 3400 out of 100,000 families, or 34,000 out of a million families. Those are the ones who pay more than half of the taxes. I’m not among them, but I understand the frustration and annoyance such a state of affairs must cause.

The really fun statistic is this one: those 3.4% do 14% of the consumer spending and they are the ones who create and sustain businesses, which is where jobs come from. When the top five per cent. bears the greatest burden of onerous taxes, sooner or later not only does commerce decline but at least some of them ask why they are bothering. That is one of the difficulties with the proposed health “care” legislation, the bizarre proposition that doctors will submit to a 15% pay cut at the government’s whim. No, they won’t. Those who are old enough will retire. Young people who were planning on enrolling in medical school will think of something else to do.

The best solution I can see is to do the John Galt thing. Quit. If you cannot afford to quit your job literally, stop your consumer spending to the greatest extent that you can.

Put the money into commodities for your family’s use or into chunks of silver. Some of you may shake your heads in bewilderment and ask, “Isn’t that consumer spending?” Well…yes, and no. If you spend a hundred dollars taking your family out for pizza and a movie, that money (minus taxes) goes back into the economy to be taxed again and again in every hand that holds it, and you have nothing to show for it beyond a few memories. If you buy a case of MREs (ugh), your money has gone to an individual who will do whatever with it, but you have taken it out of circulation. You are storing value in the form of food that you can eat during the coming Greater Depression. If you wear the clothing you have now and do not visit Macy’s or Dillards, the shock of what you do not spend ripples through the economy. A nice blouse costs a couple of hundred dollars and you may wear it two years. That money goes to pay those who manufactured, shipped, and sold the blouse. If you turn that money into a dozen ounces of silver you have pulled that value out of circulation. You are richer for having “savings” that cannot be lost through devaluation. You have turned the value of your fiat dollars at present into a metal which will preserve it. You have also hit the tax-and-spenders where they live…

A great many stores and firms are going out of business and this trend will gain momentum. You’re smart. You can figure out for yourself which businesses will not make it through a deepening depression and what you should stock now. Only the big, the smart, and the connected will survive, and the myriad choices you have now will be a distant dream perhaps five years from now. Perhaps in less.

Big government turns you into lunch. Most of us cannot afford to be the owner. Our choice is whether to be the waiter, who may lose his job and will surely see his customers and his tips diminish, or to be the diner. It isn’t too late to do the Joseph thing and stock up for the future, and emulating John Galt and Midas Mulligan will shorten the time until the whole rotten system collapses. Too many carpenter ants have been nibbling at the foundations of our financial structure.

John Galt said to withdraw our minds. The current system doesn’t want those and doesn’t want us to use them. Take away what they do want, an endless stream of tax revenues.

Cordially,
Linda Brady Traynham

September 4, 2009

Free Lunches, Money from Nothing and Limits to Government Theft was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

It’s also the time of year when the Jenkins family winds up plans for an October vacation. This year my family and I are planning a big trip to Orlando. Can’t wait to go. Hoping the pinched nerve that I have suffered with most of the summer will be under control by then.

But as entrancing as all of that news may be, I have something bigger on my mind today.

Setting the Stage: The Big Picture

As just about everyone knows, the stock market crashed in a big way in 1929. Analyst Nick Guarino reminds me that it rallied 15 times before it hit bottom fours years later, having lost 90% of its value.

And the truth is, when adjusted for inflation, the market didn’t break even again until 1960. (If you’re a “buy-and-hold” investor, you MUST account for inflation. It is the single biggest “invisible” tax in our wonderful Fed managed economy.)

But before people could get too happy with making money again, along came President Johnson and the “Great Society.” I don’t know who it was so great for — the market began crashing again in ’66. Once again, adjusted for inflation, it didn’t get back to breakeven for another 30 years.

So, 30 years from the Great Depression to the Great Society. Then 30 years from the Great Society to the Great Depression II. Each of the peaks resulted in 10-15 years of declines. Of course, they didn’t fall straight down. That’s the “trick” of the whole deal.

Each rally draws in a few more people, a little more money, until there are no suckers left. Then when the bottom hits, it has takes 15-20 years to “recover.”

It will take a very long time to recover from what we’ve been hit with: Exxon/Mobil lost two-thirds of its profits… that’s 66%! The “World’s Company,” GE, saw a 47% collapse in profits. Toyota, the recession-impervious carmaker, posted its largest yearly loss EVER and is looking at losses this year, too. Insurers have been hit. Computer giants have taken a whacking. Even Disney is down over 25% in the third quarter.

These are not “bumps in the road.” They are “driving off a cliff.” By some estimates, inflation-adjusted earnings are down 90% in the last 20 months.

We are now in just the second year of this disaster. We are witnessing an almost perfect copy of the first Great Depression. And there are more nasty little secrets in the economy, waiting like ticking time bombs to explode. We will see more businesses in trouble, more banks failing, more foreclosures and more commercial real estate losses.

At the end of June alone, there were over 5,300 commercial properties in the United States in default. That’s more than double the number from the end of 2008 — and there are still six months to count. Still think American companies are recovering? What will a 300% rise in commercial defaults do for jobs? Profits? Banks?

So don’t let the recovery pundits fool you, even though they’re out in force.

Setting the Stage: Zooming in Our Focus

No doubt you’ve heard the optimists: “The Recession is over.” “The Recovery has begun.” “Better get in on the ground floor now if you hope to recover all that retirement money you lost last year.”

Just look at the evidence, they say:

* Markets up 50%. In the greatest bull run since the Great Depression, stock indices are forging higher. The numbers are swelling. Ride the wave!

* Housing numbers are turning north. Over the past six months, there have been some the fall in some housing numbers are slowing, and some have turned up. Building permits. Existing home sales. New home sales. New housing starts. Pending home sales. Hmmm… nice!

* Manufacturing looks like it’s exploding. Yesterday the Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index posted a stronger-than-expected rise at 52.9. Well above expectations, and well into the 50+ territory that signals expansion. Looking better and stronger than it has in 2 years. It would be a mistake to bet against it!

But you probably know what I’m going to say right now: Don’t believe a word of it!

The September Syndrome

No market goes up forever. Isn’t that one of the first lessons we learn when chasing a bull market?

This one is no different. Could it go higher? Sure. But just how far can you stretch a rubber band? Eventually, it is going to snap back.

And, as it happens, we’re heading right into “snapback” season.

Historically, the month of September is the worst month for stocks. Hands down. Indices fall more in this month on average than in any other month of the year.

In fact, the S&P has declined in 11 of the past 20 Septembers. You may be inclined to say, “That’s not so impressive.” But an average decline of 10 points is something worth noting. Additionally, 40% of those falls consisted of declines that were 75-125 points. That’s huge. No other month has such an anomaly. And it seems to me that this September may be ripe for the picking.

In fact, the first day of September was a real whopper. And Monday (although technically an August day) was not so august for U.S. equities. Thus, as the calendar turns over, we have two days in the down column. Today is not looking so good, either.

But as bad as September is, October has the reputation for being a real bloodbath. It certainly possesses a number of the largest down and crash days. But in order for a crash of monumental proportions to take place, there has to be some lofty level from which to fall.

I get physically sick when people tell me how they are moving (what’s left of their money) back into equities. I try to reason with them; I try to warn them. It breaks my heart to see pensioners barely getting by. You remember all the drama from recent years, how we were told that the elderly were forced to choose between food and medicine? Do you remember the seniors who were reportedly sharing their cat’s food so they could buy their prescriptions?

And that was during the go-go boom years. I cringe when I think of what lies ahead for them.

Will it start this fall? Has the band stretched far enough? Has Wall Street suckered in all the money that will venture out into the street? That’s all they’re after. Draw everyone out of the woods. Get all those who believe that it’s time to buy and hold into the game again. A 50% rally? Child’s play! This time the Dow is headed for 18,000!

Better tread carefully. This is without question the area of thinnest ice. One misstep by the government, a foolish line slip or a negative surprise, and the entire “recovery” falls like a house of cards.

Keep your money, and your exits, close… and don’t be afraid to take profit.

Regards,
Bill Jenkins

September 3, 2009

Suckers Rallies and the September Syndrome was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Drivers in the U.S. no longer determine the global price of oil. So oil prices can remain high despite a weak labor market — as we saw in the 1970s. If this winds up being the case, it’s bad news for owners of financial and consumer stocks and good news for owners of energy stocks.

Andy Xie, formerly of Morgan Stanley, is a great strategist who, while most other economists sought to justify the housing bubble, warned of the unsustainable U.S./China vendor finance trade model that grew so rapidly between 2001-2008. He recently wrote an article for Caijing magazine on the factors that might drive oil prices in the future. He writes:

Conventional wisdom says inflation will not occur in a weak economy: The capacity utilization rate is low in a weak economy and, hence, businesses cannot raise prices. This one-dimensional thinking does not apply when there are structural imbalances. Bottlenecks could first appear in a few areas. Excess liquidity tends to flow toward shortages, and prices in those target areas could surge, raising inflation expectations and triggering general inflation. Another possibility is that expectations alone would be sufficient to bring about general inflation.

Oil is the most likely commodity to lead an inflationary trend. Its price has doubled from a March low, despite declining demand. The driving force behind higher oil prices is liquidity. Financial markets are so developed now that retail investors can respond to inflation fears by buying exchange-traded funds individually or in baskets of commodities.

Oil is uniquely suited as an inflation-hedging device. Its supply response is very low. More than 80% of global oil reserves are held by sovereign governments that don’t respond to rising prices by producing more. Indeed, once their budgetary needs are met, high prices may decrease their desire to increase production. Neither does demand fall quickly against rising prices. Oil is essential for routine economic activities, and its reduced consumption has a large multiplier effect. As its price sensitivities are low on demand and supply sides, it is uniquely suited to absorb excess liquidity and reflect inflation expectations ahead of other commodities.

Xie’s entire article is worth a read. You can find it at this link.

The Chinese government is sending strong signals to its banking system that it wants lending to slow down from its blistering pace. It remains to be seen whether this will actually result in a contraction in Chinese bank lending or whether lending may just shift from one sector to another. If I had to guess, I think oil prices will have a sharp correction this fall as Chinese stockpiling slows down and as oil and refined product inventories remain more than adequate to meet sluggish U.S. demand.

But this correction will offer trading and investing opportunities on the long side. As you see in the two charts below, the linkage between oil prices and U.S. inventories during the entire post-2002 bull market was not as close as you’d expect:

Here’s why I think a correction in oil prices will offer a buying opportunity: Inflation fears and stabilizing in global demand are not the only reasons the price of oil has doubled from its lows. Oil prices are up because the marginal cost of new supply — including from Canadian tar sands and from under thousands of feet below the ocean surface — is so high.

To Andy Xie’s important point about oil as an inflation hedge, I’d add that OPEC planners understand that they are trading a scarce, extremely energy-dense, nonrenewable, depleting asset for paper money. They also are beginning to grasp that indebted oil importers plan to ease their debt burdens by employing the heavy guns in the inflation arsenal: “quantitative easing.” So their portfolio preferences will shift away from government paper and toward retaining scarce oil in the ground for future revenues. In other words, “Why should we trade oil for dollars now if we receive higher prices five years down the road?”

This is just one of the many intricacies governing how the global oil market operates, and it helps explain why those who are perpetually bearish on oil prices waited for years and years for a rational, free-market supply response to higher prices that never arrived in force. That is, until last fall’s panic brought demand far enough below supply that prices crashed. Now, the conventional wisdom says that several million barrels per day of spare OPEC capacity will keep a lid on prices for years. We may discover by next year just how quickly this alleged spare capacity will come back online, and at what price.

The question then becomes why should national oil companies rush into the risks of making the enormous capital investments necessary to maintain production — let alone grow production. Nancy Pelosi and Ben Bernanke are not promoting policies to make energy cheaper; in fact, their playbooks virtually ensure the opposite. Privately owned exploration and production (E&P) companies that take smart risks will be the ones that deliver more supply at lower prices to help ease supply constraints.

Now, when you consider how the U.S. economy currently functions, you come to understand that rising energy prices induce enormous headaches for practically every consumer and business. Call rising energy prices a “deflationary force in the real economy” if you like. The point here is the irony of the situation: The Fed and Treasury are trying to reinflate a deleveraging private economy, and much policy could wind up accelerating the deleveraging process by adding pressure to the prices of nondiscretionary items like food and energy. After all, these are both global commodities, and capacity in these sectors is tighter than most market participants realize.

Bottom line: There is no easy, painless way out of a credit-financed asset bubble that artificially pumped up consumption. This artificial growth in consumption prompted entrepreneurs to misallocate resources into unproductive sectors that were temporarily pumped up by what looked like sustainable demand. Meanwhile, there are many sectors, including oil and gas, that have been underinvesting relative to the long-term global demand for mobile, modern lifestyles.

Sure, oil prices could correct sharply this fall as traders panic about a temporary glut in aboveground supply at storage terminals. But to use manufacturing terms, it’s the “raw material” and “work in process” inventory that really matters. That type of inventory, sitting higher up in the supply chain, is much tighter than the “finished goods” inventory sitting in storage terminals like Cushing, Okla. I expect we’ll see this tightness reflected in prices by 2010, even if demand remains stagnant.

Production capacity in oil and gas looks plentiful right now, but capacity naturally falls every year, and requires hundreds of billions in global capital expenditures just to keep supply steady. According to an exhaustive analysis published by Neil McMahon of Bernstein Research on Aug. 10, non-OPEC oil supply will keep declining in the coming years, despite healthy levels of investment. Outside of OPEC (where information regarding capacity and investment plans is murky at best) explorers are targeting smaller formations, as production from giant, decades-old fields declines. McMahon writes:

In the long term, we believe that oil prices will increase in line with the marginal cost of supply, which continues to rise as the complexity of new wells increases and production rates from established fields decline. Basically, not enough significant discoveries have been made in non-OPEC countries in recent years to help the supply situation before 2015. Additionally, flow rates from the few discoveries that have been made do not give rise to much optimism and, as in the past, the drop in absolute oil demand will be offset by rapidly declining mature field production with the recent fall in industry spending. So the continued decline in non-OPEC supply will provide an additional support for prices, as it feeds through to OPEC spare capacity. We believe that 2010 will see the next inflexion point in prices, as OPEC spare capacity begins to decline and demand shows positive growth for the first time in a number of years and we expect to see oil average $80 in 2010, $103 in 2011, $111 in 2012, and increasing to $140 in 2015.

You can imagine what this type of price trajectory will do to U.S. businesses that rely on cheap fuel, and have no ability to push through price increases. Considering how many more trillions of U.S. dollars will be floating around the global economy in 2015, and savers’ willingness hoard them declines, $140 per barrel might be conservative.

Global oil production capacity, rather than demand, will eventually drive prices. Bernstein projects 2020 oil production capacity will be about the same as it is now: 85 million barrels per day. We must consider net exports too; the global trade flows of this oil will certainly change. Over time, more tanker shipments will be diverted away from the U.S. and Europe and head to Asia. Also, in recent years, OPEC countries have been consuming more of their own product at home. Plus, the Chinese government has shown that it will beat any and all comers in the competition to secure supply under long-term contracts.

Regards,
Dan Amoss

August 28, 2009

Inflation and Oil Prices: Our Next Move was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

What are the chances?

Well, it’s always good to bear in mind that there is no telling what the government might do. It’s already doing things that were unthinkable just a few years ago. If President Obama believes there is political hay to be made from seizing your gold – or even if he sincerely thinks such a move would be “good for the country” – we’re sure he won’t hesitate to make the grab. After all, his favorite predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt, set the precedent.

Many Americans don’t even realize that private gold ownership was forbidden for forty years, but it was. The relevant edict is Presidential Executive Order 6102 of April 5, 1933, which begins:

Forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled

An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes,in which amendatory Act Congress declared that a serious emergency exists,

I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said section to do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations…

There was, of course, no constitutional peg on which to hang such an outrageous crime against the people, so FDR decided to fall back on the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act, which he claimed gave him the authority to do this in order to prevent gold from falling into the “wrong” hands. If that seems a flimsy argument, it is.

But it echoes eerily today. How much of our personal freedom have we already been asked to sacrifice to the Forever War on Terrorism? And note also the reference to an “existing national emergency in banking” that requires extreme measures. Sound familiar?

So, no question that Obama could follow in the footsteps of his mentor, if he wanted to. That said, though, the likelihood of a new gold confiscation is remote, for a number of reasons.

2009 is not 1933. Back then, the money supply was constrained by the gold standard. As Roosevelt concocted the New Deal, he ran smack up against that wall. He needed more money than he had, couldn’t raise taxes in a depression, and couldn’t print dollars that weren’t gold-backed.

His solution may have been reprehensible, but it was elegant. First, make the private possession of gold illegal, paying those who surrender their metal the official price, $20.67 per ounce. Then revalue gold to $35 per ounce. Voilà: Instant inflation, lots of new money, problem solved. And the New Deal was off and running.

But we have long since abandoned the gold standard, and Obama doesn’t face FDR’s constraints on monetary inflation.  However much money is needed to finance his New Deal Redux, he can have it. All he has to do is rev up the printing press or turn an unlimited number of bits and bytes into electronic cash.

Given this kind of clout, what does he need gold for?

An argument can be made that the yellow metal is still useful. It runs like this: Creating money out of thin air is inflationary, and a large stash of gold, even if it doesn’t officially back anything, serves as a sort of counterweight. People around the world will have greater confidence in your currency knowing that, as a last resort, you can pay your bills in gold. And the more gold you have, the better.

Furthermore, confiscating gold and assigning it a fixed dollar value would also prevent the kind of runaway gold price that the coming massive inflation is bound to trigger. As those who argue that the gold price is already suppressed correctly point out, the government has decided to sacrifice the dollar in order to avert deflation. Thus a lower-than-free-market gold price helps obscure the damage that’s been done to the currency. People feel richer with more, albeit inflated, dollars in their pockets; a rapidly escalating gold price shows them that they’re not.

These two arguments aren’t empty, but they’re not convincing. Most folks in government subscribe to the “barbarous relic” school of thought about gold. Precious metals probably cross the minds of Obama’s economists only when they’re out buying jewelry.

And most American citizens have never even seen a physical gold coin, much less own one. Reeling in all the bullion out there will, in reality, do the government little if any good.

One final point. In the 1930s, when people were asked to turn in their gold, compliance was quite high. Americans believed their government when told that it was for the greater good. Imagine.

Today, that attitude seems laughably naïve. Those who have gold know that it is an unequaled storehouse of value. That they would meekly part with it at the government’s behest requires a belief that naïveté still rules the land.

Far more likely is that gold owners would resist. And since they also tend to be gun owners, there could be serious confrontations. The government doesn’t want mass resistance to one of its orders, nor an escalation of the domestic violence it will probably get anyway, when unemployment rises to Depression-era levels. It’s simply not worth it.

Never say never where government stupidity is involved. But all things considered, a modern-day gold confiscation is not high on our list of financial worries.

Regards,
Doug Hornig
Casey’s Gold & Resource Report

Are We Being Conned About Gold Consfication? was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder