inflation

Gold, U.S. Dollar, And Inflation

by

GOLD, US DOLLAR, AND INFLATION

Gold bulls have a short memory. Last year at this time, gold was similarly priced and they were quite bullish then, too. But their expectations didn’t ‘pan out’ as expected.  In fact, gold prices turned and went in the opposite direction, hitting lows in late summer well below $1200.00 per ounce.

The downturn was unexpected. But it was unexpected because most analysts and investors were looking in the wrong place for the wrong clues.

Gold’s price changes over time in response to changes in the value of the U.S. dollar. But some additional explanation is necessary.

Some say that a weaker U.S. dollar ’causes’ a higher gold price. That is like saying that lower interest rates cause higher bond prices.  That’s not the way it works.

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.

When you were a kid you probably rode on a see-saw or teeter-totter at some time.  When you are on the ground, someone on the other end of the see-saw is up in the air.  And, vice-versa, when you are up in the air, the other person is on the ground.  Again, one does not ’cause’ the other. Either position is the inverse of the other.

Most of those who comment on gold consider the dollar to be one of several factors contributing to a higher gold price. But, in truth, gold’s price reflects only one specific thing: changes in value of the U.S. dollar.

There are six major turning points (1920, 1934, 1971, 1980, 2001, 2011) on the chart below. All of them coincided with – and reflect – inversely correlated turning points in the value of the U.S. dollar.

Gold Prices: 100-Year History   (inflation-adjusted)                                                                                               source

Since gold is priced in US dollars and since the US dollar is in a state of perpetual decline, the US dollar price of gold will continue to rise over time. There are ongoing subjective, changing valuations of the US dollar from time-to-time and these changing valuations show up in the constantly fluctuating value of gold in US dollars.

There is also more talk about inflation recently.  So here is an axiom to remember: inflation is the debasement of money by the government.

When you  hear someone referring to things such as ‘cost-push’ or ‘demand-pull’ inflation, accelerated wage growth pressure, or an ‘over-heated economy’, listen politely. But know that there is only one cause of inflation – government. And government in this case includes central banks, especially the United States Federal Reserve Bank.

Government creates inflation by expanding the supply of money and credit. They do this intentionally and continually under the pretense of managing the economic cycles.

Since inflation, as practiced by government, is ongoing, the risks are cumulative. As that cumulative risk builds, events triggered by the effects of inflation become more volatile; and they are unpredictable.

When the Federal Reserve responded to the financial crisis of 2007-08 by increasing hugely their monetary expansion efforts, many thought that it would lead to runaway inflation and collapse of the U.S. dollar. It didn’t. But it did drive the prices of assets like stocks, bonds, and real estate, much higher.

Originally, of course, the price of gold surged in response to the Fed’s efforts. Since gold’s price is an inverse reflection of the U.S. dollar, it should come as no surprise that the dollar continued its long decline in value; and significantly so.

But the drop in the value of the dollar and gold’s higher prices from that point forward were mostly in anticipation of damaging effects from the Fed’s inflation in the form of significantly higher prices for all goods and services. In essence, a repeat of the seventies, only much worse, was expected. And the looming threat of U.S. dollar repudiation fanned the flames.

But there was no significant increase in the “general level of prices for goods and services”. And U.S. dollar weakness (possibly overdone) eventually reversed and the price of gold began to decline (2011 – see chart above).

Between 2011 and 2016, the U.S. dollar continued to strengthen and gold’s price continued to decline. At that point the two reversed direction again and that brings us to where we are currently.

Some are convinced that recent dollar weakness will continue unabated and that the price of gold will soar soon. Some are still banking on severely damaging effects from the Fed’s past money creation efforts. And still others are short-term traders who are looking at their charts and want to be “on the right side of the trade”.

Most of them will likely be disappointed – again. There are two reasons:

1)The fundamentals and logic involved are inconsistent and flawed.

2)The effects of inflation are volatile and unpredictable.

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 are the direct result of changes in the value of the US dollar. Nothing else matters.

Since paper currencies and credit can be manipulated by government, expectations and reactions become more volatile and increasingly unpredictable.

That should be relatively clear; especially after what we have experienced in the past ten years. But some are still predicting  a gold ‘moonshot’. And they want it now.

Something like that may occur. In fact, it is quite possible. But when? It will only happen if it is accompanied by a complete collapse and repudiation of the U.S. dollar.

The chart above is current. Does it look like we are in the midst of something similar to 1970-80 or 2001-11? Or something worse?

Yes, forewarned is forearmed. But most of those who are the most vociferous in their calls for huge increases in the price of gold are those who were doing so all during gold’s price decline from August 2011 through January 2016.  What’s changed?

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!

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.

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 – 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!

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!

Gold, Mansa Musa, And Inflation

by

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). 

Read more

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

by

INFLATION – WHAT IT IS

Inflation is the debasement of money by the government. Period.

It is not an increase in the general level of prices for goods and services.

The above statements are critical to an understanding and correct interpretation of events which are happening today – or expected to happen  – that are casually attributable to inflation.  So, let’s go one step further.

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

Inflation is not caused by “greedy” businesses, excessive wage demands, or accelerated consumer spending.  Even government’s own propensity to spend, as reckless as it is, does not cause inflation.  And that does not contradict my earlier statement that government is the only cause of inflation.  They are.  But not because of their spending habits.

Economic growth does not lead to higher inflation.  There are statements made often that imply a link between growth in our economy and inflation.  And that we have to “manage the growth” so the economy doesn’t “grow too quickly” and “trigger higher inflation”.  These statements are false and misleading.

Also, inflation will not “accelerate over the next couple of years due to higher energy prices and stronger wage growth that leads firms to raise prices”…Gus Faucher/PNC Bank/WSJ  (It is possible that inflation will accelerate over the next couple of years, but it can’t/won’t be for the reasons stated.)

So how does the government cause inflation?  It’s time for a bit of history…

Early ruling monarchs would ‘clip’ small pieces of the coins they accumulated through taxes and other levies against their subjects.

The clipped pieces were melted down and fabricated into new coins. All of the coins were then returned to circulation. And all were assumed to be equal in value. As the process evolved, and more and more clipped coins showed up in circulation, people became more outwardly suspicious and concerned. Thus, the ruling powers began altering/reducing the precious metal content of the coins. This lowered the cost to fabricate and issue new coins. No need to clip the coins anymore.

From the above example it is not hard to see how anything (grains and other commodities for example) used as money could be altered in some way to satisfy the whims of government. But a process such as this was cumbersome and inconvenient. Of course it was. What a shame. There had to be a better way. And there was.

Enter: Paper Money

With the advent of the printing press (moveable type) and continued improvements to the mechanics of replicating words and numbers in an easily recognizable fashion, paper money was now in vogue – big time.

However, people viewed the new ‘money’ with healthy skepticism and coins with precious (or semi-precious) metal content continued to circulate alongside the new paper money. Hence, it was necessary, at least initially, for government to maintain a link of some kind between money of known value vs. money of no value (in order to encourage its use).

Over time, eventually, that link was severed; partially at first, then completely. And it was done by fiat (a decree or order of government).

Not only does our money today have no intrinsic value, it is inflated (and therefore debased) continuously and ongoing through subtle and more sophisticated ways such as fractional-reserve banking and expansion of credit. The printing press is still at the core and is humming 24/7 but the digital age has ushered in new and ingenious ways to fool the people.

Government causes inflation by expanding the supply of money and credit.  And that expansion of the money supply cheapens the value of all the money.  Which is precisely why, over time, the US dollar continues to lose value.  It takes more dollars today to purchase what could have been purchased ten years ago, twenty years ago, etc.  And it has been going on for over one hundred years.  It dates back to the origin of The Federal Reserve Bank in 1913.

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.

More history…  The Arab Oil Embargo in 1973 and the demands for more money for oil which led to the formation of the Organization Of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) followed close behind then President Nixon’s severance of all ties of the US dollar to Gold.  The underlying fact of the matter was that the dollars which they were receiving for their oil were worth less (not quite ‘worthless’) and had been losing value for several decades.  And the price had been fixed for decades.

To understand this better, imagine that you were a company selling widgets for $1 each and according to your contract you cannot receive any more than that. Fast forward twenty or thirty years.  You are still selling lots of widgets and  still receiving $1 for each one you sell.  But your costs over the years have continued to climb.  And it also costs you more for everything you buy to maintain your standard of living.  And it’s not just you.  Everyone is paying more for everything.  Yet, on an ongoing, year-to-year basis, things seem reasonably normal.  But prices now are rising more frequently and the rate of increase is higher than before. What is going on?

The effects of inflation are showing up.  Those effects can be very subtle at first, or not noticed at all.  But at some point in time the cumulative effects of inflation become more obvious and everyone starts acting differently.  Businesses try to plan for it and individuals invest with inflation in mind.

If your dollars were freely convertible into equivalent amounts of gold based on the prices in effect at the time of your original contract to produce widgets – or sell barrels of oil – then you could just exchange your dollars for gold.  Which is exactly what happened.  Foreign governments in the late sixties began to demand the gold to which they were legally entitled.  And countries which produced and sold oil wanted a higher price for their oil.  Wouldn’t you?

As people become more aware of the effects of inflation they start looking for reasons.  And for guilty parties.  Government is quick to act of course.  They start by implementing wage and price controls.  This is like setting the stove burner on ‘high’ and putting a lid on the pot with no release for the pressure.  And they talk a lot.

They have talked enough over the past thirty years to frighten us into thinking that our own spending and saving habits are the problem.  Sometimes the blame is directed at foreign countries and their currencies (China/Yuan for example).

Our sense of ‘unfairness’ over China’s attempts to weaken the Yuan seem to be misplaced.  We criticize them for doing the same things the US government and Federal Reserve have been doing for over one hundred years.

The inflation (expansion of the supply of money and credit) produced by the Federal Reserve is deliberate and intentional. And ongoing.  The effects of that inflation are volatile and unpredictable.

Even with the hugely, inflationary response of the Federal Reserve in 2008 and afterwards we did not see the “obvious substantial increase in the general level of prices for goods and services” that some expected and predicted.  But we did see a resurgence of higher prices for financial assets like stocks and real estate.

During the seventies, prices for basic necessities were rising on a weekly, even daily, basis.  But things eventually settled down and we had an extended period of stability and relative US dollar strength for a couple of decades.

And yet, the effects of inflation are very clear.  How much are you paying  for things today compared to fifteen years ago?  Ten years ago?

As time marches on, the effects of government inflation will become more extreme and more unpredictable.  And the loss of purchasing power of the US dollar will reflect that.

 

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 Interest Rates – A Mass Of Confusion

by

Over the past several months there have been numerous articles referencing a relationship between gold and interest rates. Most of them are well-meaning attempts to convey information about recent changes in the markets as interest rates head higher.

In several instances, however, the author(s) have tried to explain a ‘perceived’ correlation between rising interest rates and the value of the US dollar – in a very positive manner. And they have imputed a similar correlation – albeit negative – in other statements with respect to Gold.  In both cases they are incorrect.  

Read more

Gold Price $700 Or $7000? (revised and updated 1/13/2019)

by

GOLD PRICE $700 OR $7000?

Does either of the above preclude the other?  In other words, if we expect gold to reach $7000.00 per ounce, and we are correct, does that mean that we can’t reasonably expect gold to go as low as $700.00 per ounce? Conversely, if we are predicting or expecting gold to continue its current decline, and even breach $1000.00 per ounce on the downside, can $7000.00 per ounce, or anything even remotely close to that number, be a reasonable possibility? 

Read more

A Loaf Of Bread, A Gallon Of Gas, An Ounce Of Gold

by

The average cost for a loaf of bread in 1930 was ten cents ($.10). The average cost for a gallon of gasoline was also ten cents.

With gold priced in U.S. dollars at $20.00 to the ounce, you could at that time purchase two hundred loaves of bread or two hundred gallons of gasoline (or some combination thereof).

Twenty dollars of paper currency OR one ounce of gold valued at $20.00, usually in the form of a U.S. Double Eagle ($20.00 gold coin, legal tender), were equal in “purchasing power”.

Over the next four decades the cost for a loaf of bread/gallon of gasoline  continued to increase such that in 1970 the respective costs were twenty-five cents/thirty-six cents.  An ounce of gold (at $40.00) would purchase  one hundred sixty loaves of bread/one hundred eleven gallons of gasoline.   That is considerably less than the two hundred units of either item which could have been purchased in 1930.  But the numbers are even worse when we look at what twenty dollars of U.S. paper currency would buy in 1970: eighty loaves of bread/fifty-five gallons of gasoline.  Both gold and the U.S. dollar lost purchasing power over the forty-year period 1930-70 but  the U.S. dollar was the “biggest loser”.

Time for a bit of history to help us understand what had happened historically over the course of that forty-year period.  In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order prohibiting private ownership of gold by U.S. citizens and revaluing gold at $35.00 to the ounce.  Also, U.S. paper currency would no longer be convertible into gold for U.S. citizens.  Foreign holders (primarily foreign governments) could continue to redeem their holdings of U.S. dollars for gold at the “new, official” rate of $35.00 to the ounce.  But what does that really mean?

If you are a foreign holder of U.S. dollars, you had just been told that your stash of “money” (in the form of U.S. currency) was now worth forty-one percent less than previously.  It was a tacit admission by the U.S. government that they had been “inflating” the money supply aggressively as evidenced by the cumulative effects of that inflation showing up in the cost of goods and services (i.e. average cost of loaf of bread/gallon of  gasoline).

The Depression (1930s) and World War II (1940s) “conveniently” received much of the blame. But things progressed reasonably well (economically speaking) throughout the fifties and sixties. By the late 1960’s and early 1970’s foreign governments were demanding returns of their gold on deposit here in the U.S.  Some of that gold was the result of new redemptions of the accumulation of U.S. dollars which they held and which were promised as redeemable in gold.

In 1968, the United States Government again revalued gold “officially” at $40.00 to the ounce and at the same time acknowledged a “free market” price for gold which could operate on its own, independently. However, the U.S. would not recognize the free market price in any official dealings/transactions.

By 1971 things were getting a bit dicey.  Foreign governments wanted their gold, but the U.S. did not want to release it.  Or, they didn’t have it.  Probably some combination of both.  So, in August 1971, President Nixon suspended any further convertibility of U.S. dollars into gold by non-U.S. citizens.  All hell broke loose. Literally.

Prices of goods and services in the United States began rising rapidly (historically speaking) and the U.S. dollar price of gold peaked in 1980 at $850.00 to the ounce.  The average price for gold in 1980 was $615.00 to the ounce.

By 1980 the average cost of a loaf of bread was $.50 (double what it was in 1970) and the average cost of a gallon of gasoline had settled out at $1.19 (several years after the Arab Oil Embargo of early 1970’s).  The above stated average U.S. dollar price of gold ($615.00 to the ounce) would purchase twelve hundred thirty loaves of bread or five hundred sixteen gallons of gasoline.  And the good old U.S. dollar?  Twenty dollars in U.S. paper currency would buy forty loaves of bread/seventeen gallons of gasoline.

Ten years later, in 1990, a loaf of bread had increased to $.70 and a gallon of gasoline to $1.34.  With gold at $338 USD/oz you could purchase four hundred eighty-two loaves of bread/two hundred fifty-two gallons of gasoline. Twenty U.S. dollars would buy twenty-eight loaves of bread/fifteen gallons of gasoline.

So where are we today?  The average cost of a loaf of bread and a gallon of gasoline are approximately the same – about $2.50. With gold at $1300.00 to the ounce you can purchase five hundred twenty loaves of bread or five hundred twenty gallons of gasoline which is nearly one hundred sixty percent MORE than the amount you could have purchased with one ounce of gold in 1930.

And twenty dollars in U.S. currency will purchase eight loaves of bread or eight gallons of gasoline which is ninety-six percent LESS than the amount you could have purchased with twenty dollars in U.S. currency in 1930.

What else do you need to know?  Get some gold.

 

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!