THE FED’S DILEMMA
The Federal Reserve doesn’t know what to do. That’s too bad. For all of us.
The bigger problem is that it probably doesn’t make much difference what they do – or don’t do.
"Everything you need to know about gold"
THE FED’S DILEMMA
The Federal Reserve doesn’t know what to do. That’s too bad. For all of us.
The bigger problem is that it probably doesn’t make much difference what they do – or don’t do.
ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL FOR GOLD
There have been several articles recently proclaiming and detailing the fundamentals for gold. A few of them have some excellent points. Most of them don’t. And there have been some polite discussions of applicability, meaning, and intent with regards to specific claims.
Some of the discussions involve protracted technical analysis and are quite lengthy. And some analysts have a special formula or barometer of their own, which they use to justify their claims or indicate correlation between gold and a wide variety of unrelated items.
There are commonly accepted – sometimes erroneous – statements of fact and also convoluted explanations which are unclear and long-winded.
A bit of brevity might help. The definition of fundamental is as follows:
“a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part…”
There is only one basic fundamental that needs to be known about gold: Gold is real money.
GOLD IS NOT AN INVESTMENT
To further clarify, this means that gold is not an investment. Nor, is it a hedge against inflation or deteriorating world conditions. It is also not insurance; or a commodity with special attraction; or a barbarous relic.
Do people view gold as an investment? Absolutely. Which is why they are continually surprised and confused at their investment results. They buy gold (invest in it) because they expect the price to go up; which is logical.
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 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.
Have you ever “invested” in money? More specifically, when was the last time you called your financial advisor and placed an order for U.S. dollars?
Gold is quoted in U.S. dollars and the dollar is the world’s reserve currency. The ‘price’ of gold in U.S. dollars is an inverse reflection of the value of the U.S. dollar. The changes in price are continuous and ongoing. Confidence (or lack of it) and expectations (realistic or not) plays a part.
There are more extreme changes for shorter periods of time which don’t correlate exactly to changes in purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. But the most extreme changes occur after longer periods of time when the cumulative effects of inflation are recognized more fully by holders of the depreciating paper currency (i.e. U.S. dollar). And, since paper currencies and credit can be manipulated by government, expectations and reactions become more volatile.
Without a clear understanding of the above paragraph, we will continue to see unexpected results which defy our logic if we ‘invest’ in gold as a “hedge against the chaos and resulting breakdown of society”; unless that chaos results in a significant decline and/or breakdown of the U.S. dollar itself.
VALUE OF GOLD
If gold is real money, and not an investment, then what determines its value? Its value is in its purchasing power. Gold, or any other money, is worth what we can buy with it. And gold’s designation as ‘real’ money is precisely because it is a store of value.
Gold is original money. It was money long before the U.S. dollar. And it will still be money after the U.S. dollar meets its inevitable end.
By definition, if someone does not believe that gold is real money, then they are saying that something else is. And that is why it is difficult for most people to understand and analyze gold.
Most people tend to equate money with wealth and abundance. This leads to placing value on things in terms of how many dollars an item is worth. Viewed this way gold seems to hold no value unless it is continually rising in price according to our own expectations and investment logic.
When gold is viewed and treated as an investment, it complicates things.
Applying investment logic to gold leads to erroneous conclusions. Gold does not react or correlate with anything else – not interest rates, not jewelry demand, not world events.
CHANGES IN GOLD’S PRICE
Changes in gold’s price are the direct result of changes in the value of the US dollar. Nothing else matters.
Insisting that interest rates (either nominal or ‘real’) affect the price of gold is incorrect. As far as gold is concerned, it does not matter what is happening to interest rates. It might matter to the U.S. dollar.
Whether interest rates – real or nominal – are rising or declining does not impact the price of gold. Changes in the value of the U.S. dollar do.
This is true of all the other factors which people assume have an impact on the price of gold, too. It is the U.S. dollar – and only the U.S. dollar – that causes changes in the price of gold.
Historically, there is no period of time of any consequence in the last one hundred years, wherein the price of gold in U.S. dollars rose when the value of U.S dollar was not declining. The inverse is also true. Periods of decline in gold’s price were reflected inversely in the rising value of the U.S. dollar.
All of this is in the context of an intentional, century-long decimation of the U.S. dollar’s value by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Government.
Inflation is caused by government. The effects of that inflation show up gradually, generally, in the form of rising prices for goods and services. Since the U.S. dollar is a substitute for real money (i.e. gold) it is particularly vulnerable to the effects of the government’s inflation.
The US dollar has lost more than ninety-eight percent of its value over the past one hundred years. The price of gold (real money) reflects that decline in value at $1220.00 per ounce. Otherwise, gold would still be at $20.00 per ounce (or close to it) and would be equal in value to $20.00 in U.S. currency as was the case in 1913 when the Fed “was born”.
The U.S. dollar is terminally ill. It cannot be saved; only sustained. The Federal Reserve knows this. This is why the ‘can’ of responsibility is always kicked down the road.
(also see: History Of Gold As Money)
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 AND DRUG ADDICTION
The Federal Reserve Bank was established in 1913. Its stated purpose was to control the economic cycles; more specifically to avoid panics and crashes by smoothing out the variances in the stages (prosperity, inflation, recession, depression) of the economic cycle.
The plan centered around control (expansion and contraction) of the money supply and exertion of any influence it could muster regarding direction (up, down, or stable) of interest rates.
Before going further, lets talk for just a bit about drug addiction. Without being overly technical, lets briefly and generally look at the course of addiction; other than for purely experimental reasons, or peer pressure, or social association. Most addictive habits are the result of attempts to escape, or hide, or avoid problems and concerns.
What is most important, however, is the process itself and the effects of usage; both concurrent and cumulative.
An initial ‘fix’ will likely provide temporary relief and/or even induce a state of calm or euphoria. All good so far.
After a reasonably short period of time, the effects (for the most part) seem to dissipate and the individual returns to previous reality. And, of course, after a brief interlude, is just as aware of the issues that were of concern previously.
Soon thereafter, the next attempt at escape is pursued. But something is different. This time the effects experienced are not as ‘positive’ as before and don’t last quite as long. In addition, the aftereffects resulting from the ‘come down’ are more pronounced.
The seemingly logical next step for most users is to up the dosage; which is done. And the effects are more positive and might even last as long as the first time. But the aftereffects are worse.
The Federal Reserve has proclaimed their intention to manage the economic cycles. And, yes, they do believe they can. At least they say they can. And they have said that for decades. But, unfortunately, for them and for us, they have not been able to do so and cannot do so. Not that they will admit that.
The Fed’s efforts at controlling the money supply are attempted in expectation of minimizing the effects of recession, maintaining financial and economic stability, promoting prosperity, and avoiding calamities like the Depression of the thirties. Certainly those are commendable objectives. But are they even possible?
Likely not. And their track record thus far indicates more harm than good has come from their efforts.
The Fed has the tools to expand and contract the money supply. But on a continuous basis, and ongoing for over one hundred years, the focus is on expansion. And the net result of their cumulative expansionary efforts is a ninety-eight percent decline in the value of the U.S. dollar.
That is the price we have paid for hoping and believing that a small group of individuals can “manage the economic cycles” and avoid temporary and short-term pain associated with the changes in the cycle.
As addiction to drugs becomes more intense, and the dosage and frequency increase, so do the cumulative negative effects. An individual who is habitually addicted starts to notice a breakdown in organs and systems within the body. And each succeeding fix or dosage supplies less and less of the intended effects; and doesn’t last as long.
As the reality of the addiction sets in, and all along the way, half-hearted attempts are made at kicking the habit. Get off the drugs and get better. But in most cases, the shorter, temporary illusion of something better or something not as bad prevails. And so the destructive behavior continues. But the withdrawal symptoms are worsening. Hence, any abstention is brief.
By now, death may very well be apparent. Continued usage will kill the patient. But the effects of withdrawal, by necessity, might pose just as great a risk. In other words, it just might be too late to do anything of lasting, positive, consequence. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
What we refer to as ‘inflation’ are really the effects of inflation that has already been created by the Fed. The continued, ever-increasing expansion of money and credit destroys the value of existing money. Over time, as the existing money loses its value/purchasing power, the effects show up generally in the form of rising prices.
This is why it costs more today to buy life’s necessities (and luxuries) than it did ten years ago; or twenty years ago, etc. On a year-to-year basis it is usually not too noticeable. But sometimes the symptoms are exacerbated such as in the seventies.
The long-term results of reliance on the Fed’s infusions of money and credit have brought us to a similar juncture as that mentioned above in the drug addiction scenario.
As we become more dependent on the inflation to keep things going, the effects of each successive expansionary effort have less impact. And we become more vulnerable in two ways.
The first is an overdose. Too much money, too quickly, leads to complete destruction and repudiation – death – of the currency. The runaway or hyper-inflation in Germany in the 1920s is a defining example.
The second is a credit collapse. Not enough money at the right time and the patient slips into withdrawal. And the effects of withdrawal – monetarily speaking – could be so bad as to usher in true deflation and a full-scale depression.
Just as a drug addict must endure pain and discomfort in order to cleanse himself, so must it be with our monetary system. It is not the individual, per se, or the system that are at fault. The dilemma results from the cumulative effects of repeated bad choices over long periods of time.
In 2008-09 our economy bordered on the verge of collapse. Think of the drug addict who has slipped into withdrawal and the accompanying symptoms have become almost unbearable.
Doing the right thing would have required enduring the pain while setting things straight. In order to effectively cure the patient, this means implementing sound monetary policy; admitting the failure of policies and actions that had been pursued for the past century; and resisting the temptation to avoid the necessary pain by relapsing into previous bad habits.
Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve chose to ramp up the dosage and increase the frequency.
The patient (U.S. dollar) has stabilized and is currently in recovery – temporarily. But full recovery is only possible if a purging and cleansing occurs. That won’t happen voluntarily; by the Fed, the U.S. Government, or by U.S. citizens.
The path chosen is one of managing the illness. The addict who wishes to avoid withdrawal and its often excruciating symptoms does something similar. Temporary comfort and illusion provided by regular doses of the drug – in this case, money – masks the pain and avoids the reality of the existing condition. And it leads eventually to death and destruction.
You cannot get better by killing yourself slowly, a little bit at a time.
What’s worse, however, is the increased likelihood that the entire system will collapse under its own weight, no matter how hard someone tries to avoid the inevitable consequences.
That is where the Federal Reserve (and U.S. Government) are today. It is exactly as we said earlier in referring to the addict who has passed the point of behavior modification and common sense having the desired effect. Too much damage has been done. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Something similar to 2008-09 is going to occur again. Only it will be much worse. And regardless of the traditional, reactionary talk and efforts to save us, the system will likely not withstand the “symptoms of withdrawal”.
Learn to enjoy things now; as they are currently. It probably won’t get much better than this.
(more about The Federal Reserve: A Game Of Chess And The Source Of The Federal Reserve’s Power)
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!
A 16-to-1 gold to silver ratio has been the Holy Grail of some silver investors since the mid-sixties.
Unfortunately, fifty years later, it is a quest that continues unabated without success.
In fact, there is evidence that contradicts and widens the chasm that separates wishful thinking from reality.
GOLD VS. GOLD STOCKS
“…but what I do know is the people running the company are practically married to their shareholders and investors, like you.”
That’s good to know. After two decades of sharing their bed(s) with investors “like you” since the honeymoon period and birth of gold’s bull market in 1999/2000, the management of this particular gold mining company is still committed. And, presumably, other companies’ managements are similarly committed. Are you?
Is $10,000 gold reasonable?
Right now, from gold’s current price point of $1240.00 per ounce, we are speaking of an eight fold increase to get to that gloriously celebrated number. Even if the specific price target is more modest – say $7000.00 per ounce – it is still a huge jump from where we are today.
Just how much is gold worth? Lots of varying opinions, but is there a consensus?
Everyone has an opinion as to what something is worth, whether the object of consideration is their home, a late grandfather’s pocket watch, or a specific stock.
The price of a specific item or asset at any given time is a reflection of all those varying opinions.
Some are based on fundamentals, some are based on technical factors. But the combination of all the opinions, and the resulting expectations (some expect the price to go up, others expect it to go down or remain the same), plus all of the other known factors at the time that might possibly impact the price, provide us with the clearest possible indication of current value for the item in question: its market price.
If we believe that gold is money, we might have a different opinion or expectation than someone who sees gold as an investment; or someone else who deems gold to have no useful value.
If we don’t believe that gold is money, then we are saying that something else is. That something else, practically speaking, is fiat, paper currency issued by a government or central bank (dollars, euros, yen, etc.).
With that in mind, let’s rephrase our original question: “How much is money worth?”
In the simplest of terms, money is worth whatever it can be exchanged for. This means that the value of money is in its purchasing power.
With that fundamental understood, the logic leads to a clean and simple statement: Gold, or any other money, is worth what we can buy with it.
So, what can we buy with it? And how do we know that our gold/money is realistically priced?
With gold currently priced at $1750 oz., the value of gold today is what we can buy with seventeen hundred fifty dollars.
But, is $1750 oz. an accurate reflection of gold’s purchasing power? Are there reasons why we might expect that price to rise or decline to any substantial degree that would influence our choice to hold money in gold vs. US dollars?
Let’s go back to a time when the US dollar and gold were both money and equal in value (i.e., purchasing power).
SOME GOLD PRICE HISTORY
In 1913, both gold and US dollars were legal tender, and interchangeable. Either was convertible into the other at a fixed price. A one ounce (.9675 ounces) gold coin was equal to twenty US dollars and vice-versa. (note: the official gold price was $20.67 per ounce, which multiplied by .9675 ounce of gold in a gold coin equals $20.00).
On the surface, it would seem that one ounce of gold over the past century has increased in value by eighty-four hundred percent ($20.67 in 1913 vs $1750 today). If that is true, we should be able to buy eighty-five times as much with one ounce of gold today as we could in 1913. However, that is not the case.
We said earlier that the value of money is what we can buy with it, or what we can acquire in exchange for it. What should be obvious by now is that even though the price of gold increased by eighty-four hundred percent, we don’t know whether there was an increase in actual value or possibly a decrease in value if gold was unable to maintain its original purchasing power.
We can however, draw some conclusions about relative performance. The specifics are that gold gained in price by eighty-four hundred percent relative to the US dollar’s loss in value/purchasing power of almost ninety-nine percent. (see A Loaf Of Bread, A Gallon Of Gas, An Ounce Of Gold)
Gold has maintained its value, and increased its purchasing power in absolute terms, over the century-long period under consideration.
What we don’t know is the extent to which the current price of $1750 oz. reflects accurately the loss in US dollar purchasing power. How much value has the US dollar lost since 1913? Is it ninety-eight percent, or less; ninety-nine percent, or more?
The current market price for gold of $1750 oz. indicates a fairly specific loss of 98.8 percent in US dollar purchasing power. A full ninety-nine percent decline translates to a one hundred-fold increase in gold’s price, or $2060 oz.
In August 2020 gold traded at $2057 oz., which indicates a loss in purchasing power in the US dollar of ninety-nine percent since 1913.
As recently as January 2016, gold traded as low as $1040.00 per ounce. That price indicates a decline in US dollar value closer to ninety-eight percent. In fact, it is nearly exactly equivalent to that mark. A ninety-eight percent decline in US dollar value equates to a fifty-fold increase in the gold price since 1913 (100 percent minus 98 percent = 2 percent; 100 percent divided by 2 percent = 50; $20.67 per ounce times 50 = $1033.50 per ounce)..
HOW MUCH IS GOLD WORTH TODAY?
Gold, in US dollars, is worth somewhere between $1000.00 and $2000 oz. That may seem like a broad range for price-conscious investors, but it is consistent with gold’s price action historically.
The current price of gold at $1750 oz. reflects a specific loss of 98.8 percent in US dollar purchasing power.
The US dollar is the only barometer you need to watch. The elements of surprise and timing are critical. Most especially so, if you are short-term oriented in your thinking.
Items for consideration that could have a substantial impact on the US dollar include 1) new and unexpected actions by the Federal Reserve; 2) accelerated or delayed effects of inflation previously created by the Fed; 3) complete repudiation of the US dollar; 4) a credit implosion; 5) Fed’s reaction to a credit implosion.
Some of the listed items, or variations of them, can affect the value of the U.S. dollar positively, too; which is why you need to keep your eye on the dollar, and not the specific event.
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!
HI YO SILVER!
In January, 1980 silver peaked at close to $50.00 per ounce and gold hit its high point of approximately $850.00 per ounce. Thirty-one years later, in 2011, both metals again reached lofty levels.
For gold, the new high point was $1900.00 per ounce. For silver, the number was $50.00 per ounce; again.
Six years later, as of this writing, gold is priced at $1260.00 per ounce. Silver is at $17.00 per ounce and change.
Over the entire thirty-seven year period, gold is forty-eight percent higher than its January, 1980 peak price; whereas, silver is sixty-six percent lower.
GOLD AND UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
Gold has been characterized as insurance, a hedge against inflation/social unrest/instability, or, more simply, just a commodity. But it is treated most of the time, by most people, as an investment.
This is true even by those who are more negative in their attitude towards gold. “Stocks are a better investment.” In most cases, the logic used and the performance results justify the statement. But the premise is wrong.
GOLD AND MANSA MUSA
From Wikipedia…
Musa Keita I (c. 1280 – c. 1337) was the tenth Mansa, which translates as “sultan” (king) or “emperor”, of the wealthy West African Mali Empire.
During his reign Mali may have been the largest producer of gold in the world at a point of exceptional demand. One of the richest people in history, he is known to have been enormously wealthy; reported as being inconceivably rich by contemporaries, “There’s really no way to put an accurate number on his wealth” (Davidson 2015).