May 2010

I was reading Zero Hedge yesterday, a post in regards to gold where Peter Schiff was part of the topic, and there were some interesting comments. One caught my attention as being somewhat ludicrous which is not unusual, but is was because the author is a contributor to the site. Unfortunately the comment was flagged as junk, I hate it when that happens because counterpoints are always good things to have and I do not mean to rip him apart, but rather correct years of misinformation he probably picked up from school or TV armchair economists.

One comment he made was:
“On gold to the moon: Peter you’ve been talking up your gold positions for years, but once calm is restored, you’re going to take a major haircut on gold.”
Another was:
“On the US economy “not growing”: Has he looked at the ISM, employment (not just payrolls but household survey), industrial production, and the leading indicators over the last ten months?”
And the other one was referencing that as soon as the trillions in bailouts the banks received hits the economy it will calm the economies or something to that effect. He also indicated that as long as confidence remains in the system everything will be fine, which is true, but how much will it take to keep that confidence or instill that confidence? Also, the more money we inject to create confidence the more confidence it actually erodes, it is a zero sum game in the end. Part of the comment was that the EU was trying to avoid a “deflationary death spiral” or something similar, this is why people should not flag things as junk because they are not junk, which is what really bothered me.

People are thoroughly confused by deflation and deflationary death spirals and what that means. Deflation is a problem, we have deflation now, but it is not a huge problem. However, a deflationary death spiral is what we had in the 1930’s and is what keeps Ben Bernanke up at night. We will not, I do not think, have that deflationary death spiral and I think we need to understand what that death spiral was, what caused it and why we will not have it. After that I want to address the rest of the comments he made above.

What we suffered fro in the 1930’s was horrible and something I hope we never see again. To understand more about what it was like in the Depression please Read The Depression: A Diary by Benjamin Roth and stay away from the academic stuff. However, during the depression dollars were scarce because fo the massive bank failures and deposits were frozen or simply lost when the bank closed down. On top of that the stock market wiped out millions of peoples savings which had a domino effect into the real estate market which is what caused the banking crisis, somewhat reversed from today’s crisis I might add.

What this did was literally wipe dollars out of existence, they just disappeared and were not transferred to anyone else. Today one persons loss is likely another’s gain through derivatives or other hedging instruments known as bailouts, but that was not the case in the 1930’s. Since these dollars were gone or frozen and the U.S. was on the gold standard we did not have a Helicopter Ben to get dollars into the system, at first the Fed tightened credit, who knows why, but they later tried to reverse that decision, but it was too little too late. What we had was complete demand destruction and people saving whatever dollars they had, which was strange because people would rather starve than spend their money.

In fact, while people were starving crops were on or at a record pace, prior to the dust bowl fiasco of course. It was a simple fact that the U.S. was tied to the gold standard and could not put more dollars into the system and people just did not want to spend what they had saved because who knew what tomorrow would bring. We also had no safety systems in place such as unemployment insurance, welfare or Social Security, until FDR was elected a few years into the Depression. By not having those safety nets in place it made things much, much worse and that is why we had such massive deflation.

This was not the run of the mill demand deflation, which is what we have now, this was the death spiral lack of dollars in circulation plus no demand deflation. So for people to draw a comparison to 1930’s deflation to todays is a bit ridiculous to say the least. We have those safety programs now so people will not starve instead of spending money, ironically our poor actually have cable TV, go figure, and we have other safety nets in place. This is why we will not see 1930’s deflation and this is also why we can hide the evidence of our current Depression, if we do not have to see the soup lines they are not there, right? Never mind the fact that 1 in 8 Americans receives some form of Food Stamp assistance, if that is not a Depression statistic I am not sure what is.

The banking system is still suffering from after shocks much like we saw in the 1930’s, closures did not stop for years after the crash of 1929 as real estate continued to decline in value, sound familiar? We are still suffering from similar bouts of bank closures today because of declining real estate prices and that is unlikely to change. Many of these banks were bailed out, funny how some “too big too fail” are now failing after they were bailed out. How can, as his comment claimed, the markets be calmed because of trillions in bailouts will build confidence when those banks who were bailed out are still failing? This is very similar to the 1930’s when many banks who received aid under the first Hoover plan still failed. The point being is that it will take a long time for the system to heal itself and with the government propping it up it will take much longer. The Depression lasted some 10 years, 7 with major government help, our current problem got help on day 1, how long will our recovery really take?
With the massive stimulus and government spending in the banking system it is nothing more than inflationary measures. The comment that “when the trillions making it into the economy will only build confidence,” is a bit absurd, in my opinion, as it points out that the issues were very bad for a very longtime. Also, when the trillions, a bigger and more accurate statement would had been if the trillions, make it into the economy it will create inflation, period. There is really no doubt that the measures taken by all the central banks were to stem the tide of the aforementioned deflationary spiral and it did work, but the central banks cannot stem the tide of the inflation that they created. After all, central banker’s primary mandate is to inflate the currency at about a 3% annual rate to begin with so they have no real mechanism to dis-inflate a currency anyhow. Sure, they can raise rates and do reverse repos, but serious, that will do little.

In fact, for all the money spent on bailouts and stimulus measures I would argue we have received a very poor return on our investment. We had a sharp mini-V of a +5% GDP print, but that appears to be it. We had spend far less in the past and had averaged far higher GDP prints, about a 7% print after major interventions, so, sure, you got a V, but it is one side of a W, sorry Charlie. People had been bragging about the ISM Survey’s for some time until the Ism survey’s failed to support their claims, but they fail to support my claims as well. In fact, they are neutral, but well below what we would call normal expansion averages. Not to mention, these are survey’s and should be calculated as survey’s, as in this is how people feel at this point in time, not as this is what will happen in the future.

My main point is that we do have growth and things are better, but no where near where the bulls think they are and we are not heading to where they think we are going. The comment also pointed to the leading economic indicators as a “bright spot.” Funny, Kudlow and company have not brought up the LEI for sometime now because, well, the number rolled over a couple months ago now and has been heading lower, funny what happens when Uncle Sam cuts off the money. So, I am not sure what LEI the commenter is looking at, but the one everyone else is looking at is pointing to the South, not the North, good luck if you think down is up and up is down because you got Vertigo my friend.

The global economy is about to end its amazing recovery, sorry folks. Europe is 20% of the global economy and they are instituting massive austerity measures right now and these are only the start, more is needed. If 20% of the world’s buyers have less money you will see economists start lowering forecasts very soon, trust me on that one. You know how the U.S. is pestering China to revalue its RMB? Well, it is pegged to the U.S. dollar, right? Do you know who China’s largest trading partner is? Hint, it is not the U.S., it is the EU. That means Chinas products are now more expensive in the EU than they were just 2 months ago. Wasn’t China credited for the global recovery? Isn’t China in the middle of a liquidity bubble? Won’t not selling products hurt their exports causing an artificial popping of their bubble which could cause more problems for the world than originally thought? I think so, but we are still pressuring them to revalue and spreading the falsehood that we are their largest trading partners, what baloney.

It is kind of funny to see people dismiss all this information and keep economic events locally when this is a global economy, I mean, there is a reason why when the U.S. market tanks foreign markets go down as well and why when we go into a recession so do other countries. Decoupling will happen, but not until the rest of Asia emerges like China did, but until that happens China is dependent upon the U.S. and the EU. However, let us mak sure we are clear, the EU is, for sure, China’s biggest trading partner and a falling Euro is a big problem for China as well. Keep an eye on that, I am.

On to the topic of the day, gold. Peter Schiff has been bullish on gold since, well, forever now and has taken much heat for it since it climbed from $250 to $1,240, yes, taking heat for something that quadrupled. The commenter stated that gold will take a haircut, a major one, when markets calm down, maybe he is right, but let’s take a look so far. Trillions have been spent on the banks, that has not calmed the markets and now you have governments in trouble, what is going to calm the markets even if small governments start defaulting? Even beyond that, look at 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. During most of those years the markets were considered “calm” and in a “goldilocks” period upon a new wave of global liquidity never before seen, what happened to the price of gold? Oh, yeah, it quadrupled.

The one big down year gold had was in 2008, when it first hit $1,000 I might add, when everything was in liquidation because of a global margin call. If the Fed did not start dropping money from helicopters we would have had our 1930’s deflationary spiral on our hands, but that is not what happened. What happened was things were supported by the government and long before the markets shot back up 70% gold was on its way back up to it’s previous $1,000 high. So, Peter Schiff can hold on to his gold trade all he wants, it worked for him as he lost little during the collapse by holding it and it returned more than the S&P, from January 1, 2009 to December 31st, 2009, than the S&P 500 did without the volatility. Comments like the ones made by the person in question show that they do not look at the facts and simply do not like the asset class, or do not understand it, and end up looking silly at the end of the day.

Do I think gold will go down? Yes. Why wouldn’t it? Everything rises and falls, but I think it will be much high 10 years from now than today. We know that central banks inflate the currency, that is a fact. We know, especially right now, that sovereign default risk is real and confidence in currencies is really a fleeting thing, we have merely been lucky for 38 years since the gold standard was eliminated, we know that turmoil will always exist and we know gold, silver or other commodities are a finite resource that has much higher demand that supply could ever meet. In my opinion, only a fool would not want to own gold, just look at APMEX.com, all their smaller American Eagle coins are sold out for crying out loud, is that the confidence in the global system we are looking for? Is that the sign of a growing global economy? Nope.

Sphere: Related Content