Skip to main content

Long-term gold assessment: still going up

Here's another good update on gold. I think this author is reasoning about the situation from the correct point of view. When the "masses" become acutely aware of the dollar devaluation, interest in owning gold or silver will increase. Once this happens, gold should spike. No one can predict when this will happen, of course, but sooner or later it has to happen, it's inevitable. All the bailouts, all the "quantitative easing" and so on has to ultimately work itself out sooner or later as massive currency devaluation and, when that shows up at the gas pump and grocery store shelves, people will become aware of price inflation and seeking shelter in gold or silver will become more widespread than it is.

One worry could be that the market has already priced this fact in, but I don't think it has for two reasons. First, the price of gold was artificially low during the 90's given the amount of inflation that was occurring. A good deal of the rise in the price of gold since 2005 can be accounted for just in this fact alone. Second, no one knows when prices will spike, so it's impossible to buy/sell futures on this expectation. NYMEX shows gold futures clear out to December at just $886. But it's easy to reconcile low futures prices with the expectation the price will certainly rise: if you predict the gold price will spike 6 months from now (and buy gold futures accordingly), it might spike 6 months and one week from now and you'll have lost money in the meantime. So, gold futures can't reflect this kind of expectation, I don't think futures are of any use in predicting a future spike.

Anyway, while it's scary to say, when gold has already risen more than 200% in just 4 years, "buy gold, it's going higher" (i.e. could this be just another bubble?) it seems that in the face of the largest and fastest increase in the global fiat money supply in the history of the world, buying gold of course makes sense. Even before all this new money was created (back in Fall '08), gold should have been closer to $500 if you follow a "quantity theory of money" for calculating the gold price. Let's take 1990 as a reference point (no major depressions or booms were occurring then, as I understand). The gold price was about $250/oz. back in 1990 when there were roughly $1.8T in existence. By 2004, the gold price had only risen to $400 but there were $4T in existence then - more than twice as many as in 1990 - meaning gold was $100 less than it "should" have been just by virtue of the quantity of dollars in existence.

Today, the gold price is not merely a function of the volume of dollars in existence, it is a function of many factors, but especially uncertainty about currency and banking stability. As the author of the above article notes, what will drive the gold price extremely high is when the "masses" become aware of the currency devaluation, but this won't happen until they see the devaluation in the rising prices of everyday goods and services. Then, owning gold or silver should attract a broader audience and the commodity money metals should become extremely expensive. For the time being, it's a relatively limited number of people in the US who have interest in owning gold or silver. So, this latest deflation to the contrary, I think there is good reason to believe that gold prices will ultimately rise.

What I don't understand - and would like to understand - is why people keep selling gold despite this. What is the reason for these price declines? One explanation could be the stock market. It appears that since mid-February gold prices have been trending down while stock prices have been trending up since early March. This could indicate that day-traders who were scared into gold late last year are moving some of their money back out of gold to take advantage of an anticipated "bear-market rally." But I'm not sure.

My reference information for the money supply is here, and for the gold price is here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...
So, I spent all weekend watching JFK assassination videos and doing armchair JFK assassination research. Here are my notes: 1) Most of the debate seems to rage around trying to get evidence or proof that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. This is silly because it grants - from the outset - the bizarre assumption made by the official theories that political figures are as likely to die at the hands of "mad attention-seekers" as they are to be assassinated by their enemies who actually stand to benefit. How many people are insane enough to think that the electric chair is a fair trade for "being remembered" by history, even if in infamy? And of those people how many are resourceful enough to pierce the security perimeter of the President of the United States? Kennedy was threatened by Richard Pavlick in 1960 after Nixon lost the election and, by all accounts, Pavlick was a lone nut. But all we know of his "assassination attempts" are his own tall tale...

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...