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.
A couple of weeks ago I pointed out that the Accumulation Distribution Line (ADL) for silver was showing significant upward pressure on the price of silver. Below you can see that we have the same situation in gold.
Supposedly seeking to placate Ron Paul’s supporters, the GOP strategists have included in the party’s 2012 platform’s first draft a call for a “gold commission,” which would investigate again linking the dollar to gold. Linking the dollar to gold would limit—if adhered to, which has proven to be a problem for politicians—the number of dollars that the government/Fed could create. The Establishment sees the idea as dead on arrival.
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.
In May, I presented what appeared to be an extremely bullish divergence between the price of silver and its Accumulation-Distribution Line (ADL). I asked whether the price of silver would rise to meet its ADL or would the ADL fall to match the price? Two and a half months later, there has been absolutely no resolution to this situation. The divergence remains, and if anything, has actually increased slightly.
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
In 2011, while Michelle Obama was encouraging Americans to grow gardens to improve their health and finances, another first lady, Leila Trabelsi of Tunisia, was taking a healthy chunk out of Tunisia’s financial reserves.
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.