Kelsey Williams

Inflation – What It Is, What It Isn’t, And Who’s Responsible For It

by

INFLATION – WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T

Inflation is an insidious threat to our financial and economic security. It has been foisted upon us to the point that we are in danger of losing much more than the value of our money. The capital markets are facing risks of immensely greater proportion than those of 2007-08. Economic activity is primarily financed by credit and we are hooked on the drug of money and higher prices – for everything. We are told often that inflation is spontaneous and that we must learn to mange its effects. That is not true.

Inflation is intentional and practiced by governments and central banks the world over. And its effects are unpredictable and destructive. In addition, the effects of inflation are cumulative; hence, they tend to be more volatile, ongoing. And buried underneath all of the surface weaknesses is the specter of fractional-reserve banking. It is the legalized version of Ponzi scheme. A special section on the topic is included.

What’s Up With Gold?

by

WHAT’S UP WITH GOLD?

What are we waiting for? The other shoe to drop; the next big move?

Gold’s reign as the “next big thing” ended seven years ago. Too many people don’t want to admit that, but its true. Those who are ‘bullish’ on gold cannot let go.

Their behavior is typical of those who have missed the boat. And they don’t want to admit it, or believe it. And their problem is compounded by the fact that they originally viewed gold as a quality investment.

Now they continue to point out all of the fundamental reasons gold should go much higher. We are told it is undervalued, unappreciated, unloved. And, of course, the price is manipulated, too.

Those things may provide a bit of consolation, but they don’t mask the pain of losing big bucks. And the interminable wait drags on.

We could say it was simply a matter of (poor) timing. However, most people who have a basic understanding of investment fundamentals would argue otherwise.

And they would be right. In the long-term, time works in our favor – not against us. An investment with good fundamentals – over time – becomes more valuable, not less valuable. And that relentless march upwards helps protect us against our own timing errors.

We don’t have to be perfect market-timers to be successful investors.

And it isn’t that gold’s price can’t go a lot higher, either. It can. And it probably will. And it has done so in the past.

After peaking at $850.00 per ounce in January 1980, the price of gold dropped as low as $250.00 per ounce twenty years later and then soared to $1900.oo per ounce in August 2011.  But will you (or can you) wait thirty-one years to be vindicated?

There is a better explanation.

At the heart of disappointment regarding gold’s price action is the specter of unrealistic expectations:

“believing that rational individuals would sooner or later realize the trend and take it into account in forming their (opinions)”

But there is more to it. Much more. And it involves fundamentals. And an understanding of price versus value.

To wit, gold has only one basic fundamental: it is real money.

To further clarify, this means that gold is not an investment.

Do people view gold as an investment? Absolutely. Which is why they are continually surprised and confused at their investment results. They buy gold because they expect the price to go up; and logically so.

The problem is that the premise is wrong.  When someone invests in gold, they are expecting the price to go up as a result of certain factors which they believe are “drivers of gold”.  In other words, they believe that gold responds to certain factors. These factors may include interest rates, social unrest, political instability, government policies/actions, a weak economy, jewelry demand, and various ratios comparing gold to any number of other things.

But, again, that assumes that gold is an investment which is affected by the various things listed. It is not.

And when gold is characterized as an investment, the incorrect assumption leads to unexpected results regardless of the logic.  If the basic premise is incorrect, even the best, most technically perfect logic will not lead to results that are consistent.

The price versus value issue is rooted in gold’s fundamental role as real money.

Gold is real money because it meets the qualifications of money. It is a medium of exchange, a measure of value, and a store of value.

The U.S. dollar is a substitute for real money. It is a medium of exchange and a measure of value. But it is not real money because it is not a store of value.

The U.S. dollar, in its role as ‘official’ money, has lost more than ninety-eight percent of its value over the past century.

The price of gold, on the other hand, has increased more than sixty times from $20.67 per ounce to in excess of $1300.00 per ounce.

Gold’s price increase does not mean that it increased in value by sixty-fold. Its price increase is a direct reflection of the ninety-eight percent decline of the U.S. dollar.

Gold is worth somewhere between $1000.00 per ounce and $2000.00 per ounce. This price range correlates to a decline in the U.S. dollar’s value of somewhere between ninety-eight and ninety-nine percent.

At $1300.00 per ounce, gold’s price reflects a decline of 98.3 percent in the value of the U.S. dollar since the inception of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank in 1913.

Let’s recap.

Gold is real money. It is a store of value. The U.S. dollar (and all paper currencies) are substitutes for real money/original money; i.e., gold.

Gold’s characterization – incorrectly – as an investment (which it is not) leads to unrealistic expectations and unexpected results.

Gold’s value is in its role as real money. Its changing price (ever higher over time) is a direct reflection of changes in the value (ever lower over time) of the U.S. dollar.

As far as gold is concerned, nothing else matters.

(also see How Much Is Gold Really Worth?)

 

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED!

Gold – Technical Obfuscation, Fundamentals, Predictions

by

It is pretty much expected today that any investment analysis with justifiable conclusions will be steeped in technical study that includes lots of charts.

This seems especially true of gold.

Which is all well and good, I suppose; except for the obfuscation:

Read more

Implosive Silver Vulnerable To Big Price Drop

by

IMPLOSIVE SILVER

Admittedly, it must sound encouraging, and even exciting, to hear proclamations that a “silver” lining is now apparent in the metals complex. Or that a silver “blast-off (is) about to happen”.

Expectations abound for the long-expected, vertical leap in silver prices that never seems to come. And we are told it is supported by solid fundamentals that include supply deficits, a return to the 16 to 1 gold/silver ratio, increasing monetary demand for silver, etc.

Read more

New Fed Chairman, Same Old Story

by

President Trump nominated Jerome H. Powell as the new Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. Don’t look for much to change. And Janet Yellen’s announcement that she will resign from the board upon Mr. Powell’s induction as board chair is pretty much a non-event.

Where we are today is the culmination of decades of irresponsible financial/fiscal policies and a complete abdication of fundamental economics.

Read more

Gold Prices – Inflation vs. Deflation

by

GOLD PRICES

Inflation is the debasement of money by government. The expansion of the supply of money and its subsequent loss in value results in an increase in the general level of prices for goods and services.

Deflation is characterized by a contraction in the supply of money and a decrease in the general price level of goods and services. (What we are currently experiencing is called ‘disinflation’ which is a lower rate of inflation.)

The purpose of this essay is to clarify and explain accurately what to expect regarding gold prices if deflation occurs.

According to Wikipedia: “Inflation reduces the real value of money over time, but deflation increases it. This allows one to buy more goods and services than before with the same amount of money.”

The United States Government, via the Federal Reserve Bank, has been  practicing inflation regularly for over one hundred years. They are good at it. Their efforts have resulted in a ninety-eight percent “reduction in the purchasing power per unit of money.”

The reduction in purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is reflected in the higher price of gold.

In 1913, with gold at $20.65 per ounce, twenty U.S. dollars in paper money was equal to twenty dollars in gold. Today gold is at $1270.00 per ounce, more than sixty times higher than in 1913.

The higher price for gold does not mean that gold has experienced an increase in purchasing power. Rather, its higher price reflects the decline in purchasing power of the U.S dollar.

Deflation is different. It is the exact opposite of inflation.  And the results are different as well.

As we said earlier, deflation is characterized by a contraction in the supply of money. Hence, each remaining unit is more valuable; i.e. its purchasing power increases.

Government causes inflation and pursues it for its own selfish reasons.  A government does not voluntarily stop inflating its currency. And it certainly isn’t going to reduce the supply of money. So what causes deflation?

Government causes deflation, too. Deflation happens when a monetary system can no longer sustain the price levels which have been elevated artificially and excessively.

Governments love the inflation they create. But with even more fervor, they hate deflation. And not because of any perceived negative effects on its citizens. It is because the government loses control over the system which supports its own ability to function.

Regardless of the Fed’s attempts to avoid it, deflation is a very real possibility. An implosion of the debt pyramid and a destruction of credit would cause a settling of price levels for everything (stocks, real estate, commodities, etc.) worldwide at anywhere from 50-90 percent less than currently.  It would translate to a very strong US dollar.  And a much lower gold price.

Those who hold US dollars would find that their purchasing power had increased.  The US dollar would actually buy more, not less. But the supply of US dollars would be significantly less.  This is true deflation, and it is the exact opposite of inflation.

The relationship between gold and the US dollar is similar to that between bonds and interest rates.  Gold and the US dollar move inversely.  So do bonds and interest rates. If you own bonds, then you know that if interest rates are rising, the value of your bonds is declining.  And, conversely, if interest rates are declining, the value of your bonds is rising.  One does not ’cause’ the other.  Either result is the actual inverse of the other.

Inflation leads to a U.S. dollar which loses value over time; hence, this is reflected in a higher gold price.

Deflation results in an increase in value/purchasing power for the U.S. dollar; hence, this is reflected in a lower gold price.

Those who expect gold to increase in price during deflation are wrong for several reasons.

Gold is not an investment. And it does not respond to the various headline items that journalists and analysts continue to repeat erroneously. It is not correlated with interest rates and it does not respond to housing statistics. It is not influenced by world events, terrorism, or the stock market.

Gold is real money. The U.S. dollar is a substitute for real money, i.e. gold.

If deflation occurs, there is no other possibility except for lower gold prices.

(to read more about gold and its relationship to the U.S. dollar, see here)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED!

Gold Under $1000 Is A Very Real Possibility

by

GOLD UNDER $1000

‎After gold peaked in January 1980 at $850.00 per ounce, it dropped in price by two-thirds (66%) over the next five years. The low in February 1985 was $284.00 per ounce.

At that point it began a strong move upwards over a three-year span peaking at just under $500.00 ($499.75) per ounce in December 1987. That translates to an increase of seventy-six percent.

The advance was solid and well-defined. Those who had been waiting for the price of gold to go back up were confirmed fundamentally and technically. Or so they thought.

With the “clear, technical confirmations” of a “new, bull market in gold” came a deluge of predictions regarding $1,000.00 gold and higher. At the time that would have marked a nearly four-fold increase from its previous  low of $284.00. (That equates similarly to today’s predictions of $4000.00 gold assuming that $1040.00 was the low in December 2015.)

It was not to be. In January 1988, gold began a long an arduous decline which lasted fifteen years. Trading in gold was confined to a range between $300-400.00 per ounce for the next ten years. Then, seemingly as a result of sheer exhaustion, gold broke down through $300.00 per ounce and traded as low as $252.00 per ounce in September 1999. From its temporary peak at $500.00 per ounce to its ultimate low of $252.00 per ounce, gold’s price had dropped fifty percent.

Even after reaching its ultimate low of $252.00 per ounce, gold continued to trade mostly at under $300.00 per ounce for nearly three more years (April 2002).

Let’s see how this compares to more recent history regarding gold.

From its peak in September 2011 at $1895.00 per ounce, gold declined to $1040.00 per ounce over a period of four and one-half year.

Subsequent to that, gold’s price increased by almost thirty percent to $1363.00 per ounce in a period of seven months. Almost fifteen months later, gold has not traded any higher.

Question No. 1: Are we in the midst of a three-year period similar to that which occurred between 1985-88 (with respect to the price of gold)?

Question No. 2: If so, what might we possibly expect going forward?

It is certainly a realistic possibility that the answer to question no. 1 is yes. This is possible even if gold’s price goes higher first.

It seemed a well-known fact that after dropping in price by two-thirds, gold had seen its ultimate low at $284.00 per ounce.  With three successive years of incredibly profitable gains, who would proclaim otherwise? And the technical signals confirmed it.

The situation today is not entirely dissimilar. Whether $1360.00 per ounce is a long-term intermediate/reaction top or not, the prospect for gold to resume a longer-term price decline would not be out of context with its earlier history.

Gold’s initial decline from its peak price in January 1980 lasted for five years and totaled sixty-six percent. Its initial decline from the recent peak in September 2011 lasted for four and one-half years and totaled forty-five percent. Reasonably similar.

Gold’s price increase from its low in February 1985 lasted for three years and totaled seventy-six percent. Its price increase from the recent low in December 2015 has lasted for twenty-two months. At its peak of $1360.00 last summer and again recently this represents an increase of thirty percent. Considerably smaller percentage gains, but not entirely dissimilar when considering the broader picture.

And if gold were to move higher soon it would not negate the possibility of going much lower again and disappointing lots of people.

The additional technical confirmations and increased comfort level that came as gold increased in price from $284.00 to $500.00 between 1985-88 did nothing to stop the subsequent fifteen-year decline to new lows.

If gold were to decline back towards $1000.00 per ounce, how low might it go? What might we expect?

One possibility is that it could trade between $1100.00 and $1300.00 for several years. And then break down below $1000.00. And depending on how quickly it establishes its eventual low point, it might trade for several years under $1000.00. Gold might settle out somewhere just above its previous all-time high in 1980 at $850.00 per ounce. Say $875-$975.00 per ounce.

There are also technical studies that point to a gold price as low as $700.00 per ounce before a resumption of the “eternal” bull market.

Ironically, none of the above is about gold.  It is about the U.S. dollar.

Whatever you think or expect regarding gold, you need to make sure your expectations for the dollar are inversely similar. (see here)

During the entire fifteen year period of gold’s price decline between 1988-2002, the U.S. dollar was gaining in value. When the U.S. dollar peaked in January 2002, gold was priced at $282.00 per ounce (gold had posted its low price of $252.00 a year or two before this but was still trading under $300.00).

At that point, gold and the dollar reversed directions simultaneously. Over the next eleven years, the U.S. dollar gave up nearly thirty percent of its peak value. Gold, meanwhile, gained five hundred and seventy percent in price. That increase seems a bit outsized on the surface, but it is not dissimilar to the outsized declines gold suffered during the previous twenty years while the dollar was gaining in value.

Between September 2011 and January 2016 the U.S. dollar gained significantly and gold’s price declined in similar fashion. The low so far for gold was the $1040.00 per ounce in December 2015.  The peak for the dollar occurred just a few short weeks later in January 2016.

After January 2016, both reversed directions again. The dollar headed lower and gold reversed and went higher. Similar turning points occurred in the summer of 2016 and December 2016.

Which brings us to the present. If gold moves higher from here it will be because of continuing weakness in the U.S. dollar. Conversely, if the U.S. dollar moves higher, it will be reflected in a lower gold price.

(for a scenario about possible gold prices see Gold Price – US$700 Or US$7000?)

 

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED!

Gold – A Better Explanation

by

GOLD – A BETTER EXPLANATION

The emotional adamancy which dominates most analysis of gold contributes to confusion and misunderstanding. For example, “Backdrop For Gold Today Is As Bullish As It Has Been In A Long Time”; or “Precious Metal Sector Is On Major Buy Signal”. These and other similar claims are often supported by reams of technical analysis – the best that money can buy.

And this is on top of general misstatements of fact. It would appear that there is virtually no justification for lower gold prices except when caused by manipulation associated with conspiratorial forces.

Otherwise world tension, terrorism, natural calamities, social unrest, economic weakness, interest rates, inflation, trade deficits, Indian jewelry demand, etc, etc. all put a ‘floor’ under the price of gold. At least this is what we are told.

And the timing: “It’s now (or never).” “Gold has finally broken through its overhead resistance.” “$2,000/oz by the end of 2017.”

Does understanding gold require a degree in cyclical theory or financial mathematics? Or is it related to climate change?

A simpler and better explanation for gold exists. It only requires a bit of historical observation.

1) First, and foremost, is the simple fact that gold is real money.

Its value (purchasing power) is constant and stable. And its role as money came about through trial and error. Gold has stood the test of time.

2) Second, paper currencies are substitutes for real money.

Gold is also original money. It was stored in warehouses and the owners were issued receipts which reflected ownership and title to the gold on deposit. The receipts were bearer instruments that were negotiable for trade and exchange.

3) Third, inflation is caused by government.

One thing that should be clear from history is that governments destroy money. That might sound harsh, but it is true.  And when we say “destroy” we mean just that. Inflation is practiced intentionally by governments and central banks. Its effects are severe and unpredictable. The Federal Reserve Bank of The United States has managed to destroy the U.S. dollar by bits and pieces over the past century. The result is a dollar that is worth 98 percent less than in 1913 when the Fed began its grand experiment.

The relationship between gold and the US dollar is similar to that between bonds and interest rates.  Bonds and interest rates move inversely.  So do gold and the U.S. dollar.

If you own bonds, then you know that if interest rates are rising, the value of your bonds is declining.  And, conversely, if interest rates are declining, the value of your bonds is rising.  One does not ’cause’ the other.  Either result is the actual inverse of the other.

A stable, or strengthening U.S. dollar means lower gold prices. A declining U.S. dollar means higher gold prices.

In other words, higher gold prices are a direct reflection of a weakening U.S. dollar. 

And please don’t confuse the U.S. dollar with the U.S. dollar index. The U.S. dollar index(es) do not tell us anything about the price of gold.  A dollar index reflects changes in the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate versus other currencies.

Actual changes in the value of the U.S. dollar show up in the ever-increasing general level of prices for all goods and services – over time. (See A Loaf Of Bread, A Gallon Of Gas, An Ounce Of Gold)

The threat of world war is ominously present today. Countries and municipalities are going bankrupt. And acts of terrorism are an almost daily occurrence. This is in addition to an economy that can’t seem to improve enough or sustain an acceptable rate of growth.

So let’s buy gold, right? Maybe, maybe not. You see, gold doesn’t care about those things. It doesn’t care whether or not somebody fires a rocket armed with a nuclear warhead or the state of Illinois declares bankruptcy. And it doesn’t react to comments by Janet Yellen or Donald Trump. Indian jewelry demand is not on its radar. Nor are housing starts.

Gold responds to one thing. Changes in the U.S. dollar. Nothing else.

A continually weaker dollar over time means higher gold prices.

Periods of dollar strength are reflected in a declining gold price.

Lets talk for a moment about North Korea and the threat of war.  Its a very scary situation. But even if things get worse, it won’t have an impact on gold prices. Here’s why:

In late 1990, there was a good deal of speculation regarding the potential effects on gold of the impending Gulf War. There were some spurts upward in price and the anxiety increased as the target date for ‘action’ grew near. Almost simultaneously with the onset of bombing by US forces, gold backed off sharply, giving up its formerly accumulated price gains and actually moving lower.

Most observers describe this turnabout as somewhat of a surprise. They attribute it to the quick and decisive action of our forces and the results achieved. That is a convenient explanation but not necessarily an accurate one.

What mattered most for gold was the war’s impact on the value of the US dollar. Even a prolonged involvement would not necessarily have undermined the relative strength of the US dollar.

All of which leads us back to a simpler and better explanation:

Insofar as gold is concerned, it is all about the U.S. dollar.

 

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED!

Gold And The Need To Explain Price Action

by

People are obsessed with the price of gold. And the demand for answers to the question “Why?” continues to grow. Why did gold go up/down $20.00 today? Why?

All too eager to provide the answer, journalists respond as follows:

Quote: “A weak U.S. inflation print may be just what gold prices need to finally stay above $1,300.” …WSJ Aug 2016

Seriously? I thought higher gold prices were the result of inflation.

Quote: “Negative interest rates are sweeping the world as countries try to devalue their currencies, and that’s helping the price of gold.” …Feb 2016

The ongoing devaluation of the U.S. dollar has been taking place for over one hundred years. Gold’s continually increasing price – over time – reflects that devaluation. There is no correlation between gold and interest rates.

Quote: “Gold prices were on track for a second straight day of losses Tuesday after United Nations sanctions against North Korea were less severe than many initially expected.” …WSJ Sep 12, 2017

Apparently more severe sanctions would have led (or did lead) to higher gold prices. Why? And why do sanctions that “were less severe” lead to lower gold prices?  The answer in both cases is: they don’t.

Quote: Analysts and investors have also said that demand for haven assets has weakened early in the week because damage from Hurricane Irma was less severe than expected. Many investors favor gold during times of geopolitical uncertainty. …WSJ Sep 12, 2017

Another case of unrealistic expectations being dashed on the rocks of reality. Unfortunately, the explanation after the fact is just as bad as the original expectation.  Contrary to the statement above, gold is not influenced or affected by “geopolitical uncertainty”; regardless of what investors think.

Quote: Gold prices climbed Thursday after the European Central Bank left its accommodative monetary policies in place. …WSJ Sep 12, 2017

Any other central bank’s actions are still secondary to the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank and its actions concerning the U.S. dollar. Actions by other central banks are more properly viewed in the context of their own respective economies and/or relative to the U.S dollar. Gold’s price is the direct inverse reflection of the value of the U.S. dollar.

The underlying problem is fundamental.  Most people either are unaware or refuse to accept the one basic principle that defines and explains gold: Gold Is Real Money.

It is necessary, of course, to understand the principle more fully before attempting to answer questions about the price of gold. Further enlightenment on the subject can found here and here.

The lack of knowledge regarding gold leads to answers and explanations for price action that are illogical and incorrect. In the above examples, another factor is that the explanations are headline driven.

It is presumed that any price action of consequence must have a clear explanation. When an explanation isn’t readily apparent, check the headlines; and make something up.

Why did gold go up? New hurricane offshore. Why did gold go down? Effects of storm after making landfall weren’t as bad as expected. Gold is up again.  Well, there is another hurricane offshore and it could be worse than the last one. Nah, find another reason.  How about this? The ECB held firm on interest rates/raised rates/didn’t raise rates/changed their mind, etc.  If that doesn’t work, reverse the facts to suit the circumstances. Inflation refuses to attend the party.  Maybe gold will defy all reasonable logic and ignore core fundamentals.  Maybe gold’s price will go up while the U.S dollar strengthens.

Let’s be clear.  There are short-term, temporary changes in gold’s price that are not the result of its basic identity as real money.  And changes in the gold price occur only when people (traders, investors, etc.) act on their expectations, faulty logic or not.

But those price changes are elusive and will revert to their place within the fundamental trend; namely that gold’s continually higher price over time reflects inversely the continually lower value of the U.S. dollar.

Further, gold’s price decline since August 2011 reflects a strengthening U.S dollar.  It is very possible that trend has not reversed yet, although eventually it will.

And the more recent gold price increase since the beginning of this year is tied directly to the decline in value of the U.S. dollar. Any other explanations are simply not applicable.

Beyond that it is mostly a guessing game; at least in the very short-term. And for good reason. A plethora of faulty logic, (non)correlations, and contradictions seem to indicate more than just an ignorance of gold’s fundamental(s).

It just may be that the day-to-day changes in gold’s price are not easily attributable to known facts.

The gold market is relatively thinly traded. Even so, there are many different reasons why someone bought or sold the yellow metal on a certain day. Any specific transaction could have been initiated after weeks or months of deliberation.  And if it is spontaneously correlated time-wise with other known events, we still don’t know the reasons or logic that went into that decision.

Also, it is possible (likely?) that the traders who provide explanations to the journalists, are just as much in the dark themselves for an answer.

The only visible, consistently reliable, fundamental indicator of gold prices is the U.S. dollar. The ongoing decline in value of the U.S. dollar is reflected in an ever higher gold price over time.

Periods during which the U.S. dollar shows signs of strength and stability are reflected in lower or more stable gold prices.

Those periods are temporary. And they can last for years. The previous temporary period of U.S. dollar strength lasted for twenty years from 1980 – 2000. Don’t be swayed by the clarion call of impending riches or the fear of missing out on wealth untold.

If you really want to understand gold, focus on the U.S. dollar.  And ignore the headlines.

 

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED!

The Fed’s 2% Inflation Target Is Pointless

by

FED’S 2% INFLATION TARGET

Within the Federal Reserve sometime in 1996, a discussion took place among FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) members regarding the subject of inflation targeting. Federal Reserve District Governor (San Francisco) Janet Yellen believed that a little inflation “greases the wheels” of the labor market. Her preferred “target” was 2%. She asked Chairman (at the time) Alan Greenspan his preference.

The Chairman replied.  “I would say the number is zero, if inflation is properly measured.”

On the surface, it might seem that Chairman Greenspan is indicating that no inflation is preferable to “a little” inflation.  But that is contradictory to the actual mechanics of ongoing monetary action by the Fed since its inception in 1913.

The Federal Reserve creates inflation through ongoing expansion of the  supply of money and credit. Our fractional-reserve banking system is intrinsically inflationary – at the very least. And what did he mean by the parenthetical comment, “if inflation is properly measured”.

More likely, he was adopting the role of devil’s advocate and trying to promote further, active discussion among FOMC members. The results seem to indicate this.

In meetings the next day, Greenspan summarized the discussion: “We have now all agreed on 2 percent.” The Federal Reserve now had an internally stated, unofficial inflation target. Their own “guiding light”. But they didn’t want to talk about it publicly.  At least Greenspan didn’t.

He termed their discussion “highly confidential (in) nature” and said: “I will tell you that if the 2 percent inflation figure gets out of this room, its going to create more problems for us than I think any of you might anticipate.”

Ben Bernanke didn’t share Greenspan’s reservations.  He wanted everyone to know that the Fed’s inflation target was 2%.  But why?

One possibility is the need for justification.

Actions by the Federal Reserve are historically unclear as to logic and purpose. That allows for a modicum of privacy and the false descriptive of an independent Fed. It also suggests an aura of ‘special dispensation’ surrounding the Fed.

By late 2010, however, those notions were unravelling quickly as people wallowed in the after effects of the financial crises of 2007-08. Mr. Bernanke and his fellow practitioners of monetary medicine were seen as ineffective, at best, and appeared as if they did not know what they were doing.

Action was, in effect, demanded. And they were not afraid to pull the trigger. But they needed a clear, publicly observable target. How does anyone know you hit the target if they don’t know what you are aiming at?

Having a clearly acknowledged target changes the focus. Judgment is restricted to the new area of focus.  Did you hit the target or didn’t you?

This presumes that the target is justified, of course.  And if an inflation target is justified, why 2%?  Why not a lower number? Or any other number? In truth, it probably doesn’t make any difference.

From the Fed’s perspective, it gives them a license to openly discharge their firearms in the public square. If they miss, they can just reload and fire again.

Should they happen to hit the target, they can either maintain their current posture, or tweak it accordingly so as not to overshoot in the future.

But they will never “hit” their target.  Especially this one.  Why not?

Because it is a moving target, comprised of moving parts. And it is the result of the Fed’s own previous actions.

There is only one cause of inflation: government.  The term government also includes central banks, especially the US Federal Reserve Bank.

What most people refer to as ‘inflation’ or its causes are neither. They are the effects of inflation.   The “increase in the general level of prices for goods and services” is the result of the inflation that was already created.  …Kelsey Williams

Bernanke pushed until he got his way. A formal, precise inflation target rate of 2% was adopted at the FOMC meeting on January 24, 2012.

Five years later…

HEADLINE: The Fed’s Janet Yellen could use some target practice…

Quote: Ever since the Federal Reserve adopted an explicit inflation target of 2% in 2012, the central bank has had limited success in hitting it. Only once, in fact, in the months between April 2012 and today, did the year-over-year increase in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index breach 2%. …MarketWatch/Caroline Baum 12July2017

That shouldn’t be a surprise given that it’s a moving target.  But there is more to it than that.

Right now, the inability to hit the target serves as the Fed’s perfect excuse for not acting more decisively.  This is especially true with respect to raising interest rates. In addition, Ms. Yellen is afraid to do anything. Here’s why.

The bigger risk to the economy and financial stability is another credit collapse.  And they can’t claim ignorance as they did the last time. They know its coming. They just don’t know when.

The levels of debt, the convoluted intricacies of the derivatives market, the interwoven relationships within the shadow banking system are all at hugely more precarious tipping points than ten years ago.

And it is the Fed’s own inability to hit the 2% inflation target that is warning them.

Think of all the hundreds of billions of dollars that went into saving the system from collapse before. And then force feeding the money drug into the patient for another nine years.

The problem is that all of the beneficiaries (i.e patients) of the Fed’s assistance are now hard-core addicts. If the Fed tries to raise rates they could very easily trigger another collapse much worse than before.

The Fed continues to look for the effects of all of those hundreds of billions of dollars to show up in the ‘rate’ of inflation. Supposedly that would be a sign to them of improved economic activity and growth. That isn’t happening.

The reason is because most of the ‘help’ effects showed up in ever higher prices for financial assets (stocks and bonds) and real estate.

And all of those toxic assets (CDOs of every letter and color, and various other esoteric derivatives) have swollen in price to levels far beyond any reasonable value. In addition, far too many of them are resting quietly on the Fed’s balance sheet.

The Fed has actually blown another bubble much bigger than the previous one. Nothing fundamental has changed. The only difference is that the situation is worse than before. Now, out of fear, they are trying to steer a course between action and inaction.

The action, of course, is raising interest rates and offloading their own balance sheet. But their actions could trigger events similar to 2007-08. In which case the Fed’s image would forever be tainted. (I think this is more of a concern for Janet Yellen than her fellow board members.)

The inaction – doing nothing – is pretty much where things are currently. If the Fed maintains ZIRP (zero interest rate policy), the patient could overdose and slip into a coma.

The Fed’s 2% inflation target is an attempt to predict the effects of inflation. That’s impossible. It is also unwise as it reinforces the acceptance of a “little inflation” as normal, necessary. It isn’t.

A “little inflation” is why the U.S. dollar is worth ninety-eight percent less than in 1913 when the Federal Reserve originated.

(Read more about the Federal Reserve here

 

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED!