Friday, November 09, 2007
Devil take the hindmost
The Mogambo Guru vents his muscular spleen on inflation-capping for pensions in Britain. Quite right. The old are spending the kids' inheritance royally. There's so much talk of the selfishness of the young, but the oldies really knock the lights out in that competition.
Red speckles
Paul Nolte (Financial Sense yesterday) strikes a more judicious note. He points out that house price drops do not hit everybody equally, since not everyone has extracted equity and not everyone needs to sell:
... real estate is not like buying 100 shares of Cisco in early 2000 and watching it drop 80% - everyone loses the same amount, very unlike the real estate market. The point – the real estate market is not like the stock market bubble and will take a much longer time to work out – our best guess is an initial bottom is likely in 2009 and we won’t see a meaningful turn higher in overall real estate prices until sometime 2011-2012.
Similarly, there is opportunity for people to cut back on energy consumption in response to higher oil prices.
He expects a bit of a pullback in commodities and precious metals, and currently tends to prefer bonds to stocks.
... real estate is not like buying 100 shares of Cisco in early 2000 and watching it drop 80% - everyone loses the same amount, very unlike the real estate market. The point – the real estate market is not like the stock market bubble and will take a much longer time to work out – our best guess is an initial bottom is likely in 2009 and we won’t see a meaningful turn higher in overall real estate prices until sometime 2011-2012.
Similarly, there is opportunity for people to cut back on energy consumption in response to higher oil prices.
He expects a bit of a pullback in commodities and precious metals, and currently tends to prefer bonds to stocks.
Tough, but believable
Read Karl Denninger's Thursday piece over at Market Ticker. Semi-apocalyptic, but with hopes for America's survival, in what he thinks will be a deflationary depression accompanied by civil unrest and regional conflict in the East.
He thinks it's not too late for the US to recover its economic base. I hope the same for my country.
He thinks it's not too late for the US to recover its economic base. I hope the same for my country.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Bailing out the gold traders?
Here's an interesting story from Thomas Tan in SafeHaven yesterday:
... There has been a lot of discussion among gold investors on gold manipulation by central banks... I am not quite into the old conspiracy story, but financially I see incentives and benefits for central banks to lease and loan gold to bullion banks during gold's bear market... However if gold is on [an] explosive move like right now, bullion banks will suffer heavy losses when they buy back gold in the open market. Whether this act can be called manipulation and conspiracy? Maybe, but it was probably more financial interest driven, and suppressing gold as secondary goal.
... in May 1999, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown (now Prime Minister) of Britain sold 415 tonnes of gold, almost 60% of its total reserves, leaving Britain with only 300 tonnes. 11 days earlier, Brown had requested the IMF to sell $10 billion of its gold on the open market too. So far no real reason has been officially offered for selling gold in such a hurry... According to Mr. Schoon, it is rumored that British was acting probably in a joined effort with US Fed to save a large Wall St bullion bank which had a 1,000 tonne short gold position loaned by the US government. And it was at the brink of disaster when gold took an unexpected rise at that time in 1999 and the tide was turning against them. If true, this bailout is no different than LTCM and the current subprime bailouts, except the US government had absolutely no choice in this case since it had to rescue the bank and get its gold back.
... No matter what happened then, today it seems: 1) Rise of gold is a nightmare for all CBs since they have been the net sellers; 2) All CBs have less gold than they claim to have, and will run out of ammunition to suppress gold and eventually be defenseless to protect their paper currencies; 3) At the end all CBs will have to turn themselves into net gold buyers from sellers.
... There has been a lot of discussion among gold investors on gold manipulation by central banks... I am not quite into the old conspiracy story, but financially I see incentives and benefits for central banks to lease and loan gold to bullion banks during gold's bear market... However if gold is on [an] explosive move like right now, bullion banks will suffer heavy losses when they buy back gold in the open market. Whether this act can be called manipulation and conspiracy? Maybe, but it was probably more financial interest driven, and suppressing gold as secondary goal.
... in May 1999, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown (now Prime Minister) of Britain sold 415 tonnes of gold, almost 60% of its total reserves, leaving Britain with only 300 tonnes. 11 days earlier, Brown had requested the IMF to sell $10 billion of its gold on the open market too. So far no real reason has been officially offered for selling gold in such a hurry... According to Mr. Schoon, it is rumored that British was acting probably in a joined effort with US Fed to save a large Wall St bullion bank which had a 1,000 tonne short gold position loaned by the US government. And it was at the brink of disaster when gold took an unexpected rise at that time in 1999 and the tide was turning against them. If true, this bailout is no different than LTCM and the current subprime bailouts, except the US government had absolutely no choice in this case since it had to rescue the bank and get its gold back.
... No matter what happened then, today it seems: 1) Rise of gold is a nightmare for all CBs since they have been the net sellers; 2) All CBs have less gold than they claim to have, and will run out of ammunition to suppress gold and eventually be defenseless to protect their paper currencies; 3) At the end all CBs will have to turn themselves into net gold buyers from sellers.
The inflation race
The pound is now worth around $2.10 US, which has some advantages: I know someone who's just had two nice holidays in America this year - to Disneyland and Las Vegas. Anyone who's inclined to sniff should remember that these places, unlike so many in Europe, try really hard to make it fun for you to spend your money.
But why doesn't the pound buy even more dollars? After all, look how gold has soared against the buck. The answer is that most currencies are competing in a devaluation race, as Chris Puplava shows here. The UK is ramping up its money supply at a similar rate to the USA's, but we don't hear so much about it on this side of the water - I think middle-income Americans are generally more clued-up on finance and... is it fair to suggest that they're more patriotic?
For a long time, we've been buying from poor people around the world. They've been storing up the money - you do, when you know how hard you've worked for it and don't want your children to go back to the fields - and now they're not quite so poor. Unemployment is on the rise here, but our trading partners aren't going to pay the Social Security bill for us.
So it's more taxes, or printing more money. The difference between taxation and inflation is the difference between robbery and theft. Theft is less confrontational.
Ron Paul was talking about digital gold currencies five years ago - now watch for the progress of the gold dinar.
But why doesn't the pound buy even more dollars? After all, look how gold has soared against the buck. The answer is that most currencies are competing in a devaluation race, as Chris Puplava shows here. The UK is ramping up its money supply at a similar rate to the USA's, but we don't hear so much about it on this side of the water - I think middle-income Americans are generally more clued-up on finance and... is it fair to suggest that they're more patriotic?
For a long time, we've been buying from poor people around the world. They've been storing up the money - you do, when you know how hard you've worked for it and don't want your children to go back to the fields - and now they're not quite so poor. Unemployment is on the rise here, but our trading partners aren't going to pay the Social Security bill for us.
So it's more taxes, or printing more money. The difference between taxation and inflation is the difference between robbery and theft. Theft is less confrontational.
Ron Paul was talking about digital gold currencies five years ago - now watch for the progress of the gold dinar.
China starts dumping the dollar
Perhaps this is just a little jerk on the chain, to remind us who's on the collar end now.
Financial experts
Commenting on Michael Panzner's scorn for the authoritative pronouncements of some financial experts, I was thinking of a "wizard" story which I've now tracked down. It's been circulating since 1995, but it's worth retelling. Mark Oswald of The New Mexican newspaper reported:
During discussion by the Senate of a serious piece of legislationconcerning the psychology profession last week, Sen. Duncan Scott,R-Albuquerque, proposed an amendment. It says:
"When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant's competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than 2 feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts.
"Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding the defendant's competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong."
Usually, anything proposed by Scott - whose hard-core conservatism is like cod liver oil for the Senate's Democratic majority - goes nowhere. But his wizard-hat amendment was warmly received and passed by a voice vote. It is now part of Sen. Richard Romero's psychologist bill, as the measure moves to the House.
Jokes this good usually come with a rider. It was subsequently reported:
The bill, with the wizard amendment, passed the Senate by voice vote and cleared the house by 46-14. Unfortunately, Gov. Gary Johnson vetoed the legislation.
It's extra fun when the authorities play along for a while.
That reminds me... Back in the 1970s, a couple of Oxford undergraduates proposed the building of a full-sized pyramid in one of the University's parks, as a monument to themselves. It went to the University's Hebdomadal Council and the proposal was narrowly defeated (5-4, they say).
During discussion by the Senate of a serious piece of legislationconcerning the psychology profession last week, Sen. Duncan Scott,R-Albuquerque, proposed an amendment. It says:
"When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant's competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than 2 feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts.
"Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding the defendant's competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong."
Usually, anything proposed by Scott - whose hard-core conservatism is like cod liver oil for the Senate's Democratic majority - goes nowhere. But his wizard-hat amendment was warmly received and passed by a voice vote. It is now part of Sen. Richard Romero's psychologist bill, as the measure moves to the House.
Jokes this good usually come with a rider. It was subsequently reported:
The bill, with the wizard amendment, passed the Senate by voice vote and cleared the house by 46-14. Unfortunately, Gov. Gary Johnson vetoed the legislation.
It's extra fun when the authorities play along for a while.
That reminds me... Back in the 1970s, a couple of Oxford undergraduates proposed the building of a full-sized pyramid in one of the University's parks, as a monument to themselves. It went to the University's Hebdomadal Council and the proposal was narrowly defeated (5-4, they say).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)