With the price of gold climbing, we are once again starting to hear the clarion cries warning us of a gold bubble. But how does one objectively evaluate that claim? The first step is to understand what a bubble means. A bubble occurs when there is a large disconnect between something’s price and its worth.
Because of announced central bank money creation programs, at the retail level gold and silver buying is at a solid pace, not at a frenetic pace, which is good, as frenetic buying usually suggests a top. Based on what we’re seeing at CMI Gold & Silver, precious metals prices seem poised to go higher.
Meet the blogger who may have just saved the US economy. Yes, that’s the title of a blog celebrating Bentley University professor Scott Sumner’s championing of the latest and greatest Keynesian scheme to steal from the middle class. He calls it Nominal GDP targeting, but at this point it’s more like looting a burning building.
No sooner had word leaked that the GOP was considering a plank in its 2012 platform calling for a gold commission to study the viability of returning to a gold standard, did CPM Group— long known for its anti-gold positions— issue a commentary ridiculing the gold standard. I disagree with nearly all positions in the commentary.
There’s an interesting interview with Marshall Auerback of Pinetree Captial Management posted over on Mineweb.com. It’s interesting not because of any particular subject matter, but rather the complete contradictions presented therein. The first half consists of a well-reasoned case for owning gold and why it is being remonetized in an overextended financial system. By contrast, the second half is a fallacy laden justification of many of the failed policies that are driving people to own gold.
While several heads of Federal Reserve Banks have called for more quantitative easing, Boston’s Fed Head Eric Rosengren has upped the ante and is calling for “open-ended” quantitative easing of a “substantial magnitude.” No joke. Apparently, Rosengren has bought the John Law/John Maynard Keynes position that money is merely a medium of exchange and that
I’m always amazed at the number of people I meet who believe that Washington DC will still get its spending under control, that it’s just a matter of getting the right person, or the right party, into office and disaster will be averted. Or, that when we finally hit a real crisis, politicians will do the right thing – which is, incidentally, the complete opposite of what they’ve been doing for the last 100 years. Those are long odds if you ask me.
John Williams, president of the Fed’s San Francisco bank, is the most recent Fed Board member to call for further easing of Fed policy. He joins Dennis Lockhart, head of the Fed’s Atlanta branch, who last called for more quantitative easing. Both men cited the dismal jobs outlook, and both are voting members of the
Recently, on CNBC’s Squawk Box, Paul Krugman ran into some surprisingly strong skepticism about his calls for more government spending. It was clear from the onset that no one was buying into the Keynesian philosophy that infinite government spending will save us all. It wasn’t easy, but the interviewers finally managed to tie him down as to how much spending is too much.
Keynesianism has been successful beyond Keynes’ wildest dreams. Not that Keynesianism has produced a viable economic system but that belief in Keynesianism so universally accepted among Establishment economists. But, the root evils of Keynesianism–fiat money and easy credit–are proving the undoing of the world’s economy.