Gold Prices Continue to Climb

So far in 2009, the S&P 500 is up 21%, while gold is up nearly 25%. Gold and stocks have been moving in tandem for much of the year, an unusual situation, to say the least.

The rising stock market has been one of the few bright spots of the economy. While it’s difficult to say what causes short-term movements in stock prices, the year’s increases in the stock market is probably not connected to the performance of the economy, actual or perceived.

I say this because the rally has not been driven by outside events. At the low of the market, in March 9, 2009, the sentiment was bleak. Analysts who had previously been known as solid bulls began to say, “the sky is falling!” News since then has been solidly bad, with continuing job losses, rising unemployment, trade deficits, budget deficits, and a rising disillusionment with the Obama Administration. Now sentiment has reversed; everywhere the talk is of green shoots and growth; all experts agree: the recession is over. They point to the performance of the stock market and the recent rise in GDP (mostly driven by debt-funded government consumption).

It seems more likely that the rally is a correction of the long slide in stock prices that took the Dow down 7500 points over a period of about 17 months. The nature of markets is action and reaction, movement followed by countervailing movement. The stock rally of 2009 is simply a long counter-movement, where the market recoups a portion of its losses. The general rule to look for is a counter-movement of 50%, though it may be as large as 75%. The former has basically been achieved. That means extreme caution is warranted about future market moves. Indeed, it seems to me that the sentiment has become so uniformly bullish that the only possibility is a sharp downward movement, even an eventual violation of the lows of March 2009. This possibility is not driven by sentiment alone, but by the fundamentals of a weak economy coupled with the multiple threats to the dollar’s reserve currency status.

Right now it seems unthinkable to nearly all observers that the dollar could be displaced. That alone should give us pause. The last two years have been a time when most observers have been disastrously wrong. Most did not foresee the crash of October 2008. Most did not foresee the rapid downturn of February 2009, nor the rally that began in March. Early in 2009, when oil prices dove to below $40, most analysts predicted they would stay there; instead, they doubled within the year, in the face of worsening economic deterioration.

Yet India’s purchase of 200 tonnes of gold from the IMF at near-record prices shows that nations are increasingly distrustful of the dollar. Individual investors should take note.

War and Peace

Obama’s surprise Nobel peace prize has caused a reality rift in the US; On the right, Peggy Noonan writes that the Nobel peace prize has always been “an award by liberals for liberals”. She can’t believe Reagan didn’t get one. Yeah, Reagan. The guy who called the Soviet Union “the evil empire” and pushed for the star wars program to militarize space. Bret Stephens wants to give one to Harry Truman. You know, the guy who killed 300,000 civilians by dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No serious historian puts forth the claim that this barbarous act was necessary to get Japan to surrender. On the left, Howard Zinn asks, how can you give a Nobel peace prize to a man who’s continued two disastrous wars?

Meanwhile, Australia’s central bank has reversed the course of slashing rates to raise their overnight loan rate by a quarter point. Glenn Stevens, Australia’s chief central banker, warns of the danger of being ‘too timid’ in raising rates. Australia, it seems, wants to avoid the pitfall of being the world’s carry trade sop. Could that award be coming the US? If so, the strategy of borrowing in dollars, then dumping them to buy stocks or bonds in other currencies will weigh on the dollar’s value. The dollar hit a 14-month low recently.

US Fed chief Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Geithner talk of wanting to maintain a ‘strong dollar’ but actions speak louder than words. It seems more plausible that what is wanted is a steadily weakening dollar, which will make the government’s large and escalating debt easier to pay.

The average worker is likely to see continued pain from such a strategy, as wages continue to fall. Colorado has decreased its minimum wage, as their standard is tied to the CPI, and deflation slightly reduced the CPI last year, mostly due to falling oil prices. However, the weaker dollar places pressure on import prices, such as the prices of goods at Wal-mart and other low-cost retailers relied upon by the lowest-paid workers in the US. During a recession, prices and wages tend to fall, but not necessarily by the same amount. However, certain prices are rising again. Oil is now at $75, and gold is over $1060. We could easily see the worst of both worlds, stagnating economy combined with inflation.

The Fed has injected trillions of dollars of money into the economy, in a bid to prevent deflation. But all that money has to go somewhere; so far it seems to have gone into the stock market, and commodities like copper, oil, and gold. It’s hard to believe that the Fed could reverse course anytime soon and start raising rates like Australia. Imagine what a rate increase would do to the still-weak economy. Without one, the dollar will continue to slide.

Maybe the Nobel peace prize should be given to the economy. As the dollar loses value, the US will find it difficult to finance the imperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan; at least, that is my hope, though it hasn’t happened yet.

Price Levels

Everyone’s attention seems to be focused on whether we’ll see deflation or inflation in the US economy (and in the global economy) as we move forward.

On the deflation side, we have the moribund housing market, falling or stagnant consumer spending, along with falling incomes and rising unemployment, and on the inflation side we have truly massive money creation led by the Fed, followed by the Treasury, and finally by the Federal government in the form of federal stimulus packages, all on borrowed money.

Which of these two forces will prove to be more powerful?

I live in San Francisco, one of the more expensive urban centers in the country. In my neighborhood, I see flyers posted that say “One Hour Massage, $40”. It caught my attention because I think that price is half to a third the price you would have paid two years ago. Basic economics: if goods and services won’t sell at a given price, then the price will fall.

The bond market may provide us with a clue, as bond investors are highly concerned about inflation. The yield on the bellwether 10-yr US Treasury bond has been dropping rapidly. Since mid August, the yield has fallen from 3.8% to close below 3.2%. This may mean that bond investors are taking a stand on deflation, but it may also mean that investors see the rally in the stock market ending soon, and they’re getting back into Treasuries for a safe haven. The surge in gold prices to close above $1,000 for six days seems to lend support to the safe haven thesis, but it also could support the inflation thesis.

Oil and copper are also important signals to the strength of the global economy. Both seem indecisive after strong gains this year. The same can be said for the CRB commodities index, which is up 25% from its low this year, recorded back in March.

Given all this indecision, we may see a bifurcation, with certain commodities and services rising while others fall. We await, with bated breath, the next round of economic developments. The latest labor market data indicate that the US economy shed 263,000 jobs last month, for a total of about 7.2 million jobs lost so far during this recession. That is a truly stunning number, made all the more serious when one considers that the economy must create 150,000 jobs or so each month in order to simply keep pace with population growth.

What Will It Take to Pay Off the Federal Debt of the US?

The US is awash in debt on every level: Federal, state, local, as well as households and businesses. But for the private part of the economy, there is a different consequence for bankruptcy than for the public side. If a private individual or business goes under and fails to pay their bills, the creditors lose money, of course. But when a government goes under, it tends to go under in a way that inevitably affects everyone, for it devalues the currency.

Of course no government destroys its own currency with malice aforethought, but the pressures that come to bear on governments are such that destroying the currency seems at the time to be the right thing to do, given other options. Circumstances are already headed in that direction now, and pressure on the dollar continues to build in the face of rapidly expanding Federal debt.

The current Federal debt is $11,659 bil, and with the stimulus and other unfunded expansions in Federal spending, it’s widely believed to expand by at least another $1,800 bil in the next year alone, and to nearly double in ten years. It’s an open question as to how the Federal government expects to get the funding for that level of debt, as our foreign creditors are already reducing their purchases and seeking to ‘diversify’ their assets. China is inking trade agreements with Brazil and Argentina to conduct trade in the Renmimbi rather than in dollars. China is also channeling more of its massive currency hoard into durable commodities like copper, gold, and oil. Every day it seems, the discussion of the status of the dollar becomes a bit more open, a bit more honest, as countries seem to feel increasingly free to point out that the dollar’s days as the reserve currency of the world are numbered. Dollar-denominated Treasury debt is like a game of musical chairs: in the end, not everyone will get a seat.

In the past, the US has relied on economic growth to reduce its debt. Is that possible now? Total Federal government revenue was $2,554 bil in 2008. Let’s say that average rates of US growth resume immediately (3% per year) and continue indefinitely. Say that Federal revenue increases at the same pace. Say we immediately run surpluses, so that we can pay the interest on the debt plus an additional 1% of Federal revenue to pay the principle. (In 2008, that combination would cost $451 bil in interest plus $25 bil in principle, instead of the $458 bil deficit that actually occurred). Even with these rosy assumptions, it would take about 90 years to pay back the debt. Ninety years of solid economic growth and perfectly balanced budgets (plus the 1% surplus). No government on earth has such a record. (This analysis doesn’t include all the unseen obligations the US government has, such as Social security and Medicare, which add up to trillions more).

It seems likely that at some point, the United States’ largest creditors will demand repayment in some other form than dollars. Perhaps they would demand payment in their own currency, but that seems unlikely. The traditional asset for international settlements is gold, so gold is the most likely candidate, especially given that our two largest creditors, China and Japan, have relatively low gold reserves, while the US has the largest gold hoard in the world.

Let’s consider what would happen if the debt would have to be paid off in gold. According to the US Treasury (www.fms.treas.gov), the US government is in possession of 261,498,899 Troy ounces (8,133 tonnes) of gold, which at a gold price of $964, is worth $252 bil. The US gold stock is unaudited, and since it is also routinely leased to other parties, how much of it is owned free and clear by the government is unclear. The way that gold is leased is through a kind of repurchase agreement called a gold swap, which gives the US Treasury cash in exchange for a firm commitment to buy back the gold at a specified point in the future. For example, Goldman Sachs may give the US Treasury $1 bil today, using the gold as collateral, to receive $1.05 bil in one year, whereupon the gold reverts to the Treasury’s possession, though the gold has never left the vault. While 5% isn’t a great return, I’d say that Goldman can use the contract as an asset, since it’s backed by gold and the full faith of the US Treasury, which allows Goldman to obtain a risk-free return on the $1 bil, and still put the money to work in other ways to obtain returns.

The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has estimated that the total amount of gold that is leased through gold swaps is between 12,000 and 15,000 tonnes, about half the total of all gold held by central banks. Individual nations don’t publish the extent of their gold swaps, but let’s say that half of the US Treasury’s gold has been leased, meaning that the gold is no longer an asset, but rather an obligation. If the Treasury really owns just half the gold in its possession, then it has about 131 mil Troy ounces of gold, worth $126 bil.

Now let’s imagine that a few of the large holders of US Treasury debt were to demand that the debt be repaid in gold rather than in dollars. The US Treasury holds its gold at a book value of $42.222 per Troy ounce, rather far below market prices. (If only one could buy a few ounces at that price!) Say that China and Japan (which own $1,477 bil) demand repayment in gold. Of course, these countries wouldn’t be so unreasonable as to ask for all the money all at once; let’s say they simply stop buying new debt, and ask for the interest on the debt outstanding to be paid in gold. If any large buyers were to stop or even slow their buying, yields would rise. Let’s say the yield rises only to the historical mean of about 6.5% (an event like this would probably push the yield far higher). At that yield, the interest would come to $96 bil a year, which would quickly drain the US Treasury’s entire gold stock. In fact, it would be gone in less than 18 months. If China and Japan started asking for gold, other countries would no doubt follow, as would large domestic holders, both institutional and individual. If the entire interest bill had to be paid in gold, it would come to $63 bil per month, and the Treasury would be out of gold in two months.

Now if there are no new buyers for Treasury debt, either the Federal government must immediately balance the budget, which seems unlikely, to put it mildly. More likely the Fed will step in and buy the debt directly, with money it conjures out of thin air. This leads to further depreciation of the dollar against gold, and would probably lead to a lot more demands for payment in gold, as creditors realize that their dollars will get less gold than before.

So we can’t grow our way out, and we can’t fall back on gold. The only other possible avenue is to depreciate the dollar. But how much depreciation would it take to reach the equilibrium that markets demand? If the situation arises where gold is sought for repayment rather than dollars, the question is, at what price? The US government will have give up the accounting fiction that the gold is worth $42.22 an ounce, and set an exchange rate between the dollar and gold. The rate chosen will not be below the market price, it will be well above the market price. How high is anyone’s guess—I’ll say $10,000 an ounce just to get the guessing started. This option allows the US to service its debt without the humiliation of an outright default, though it will still probably result in chaos, just as it did when the US last tried it, in 1933. It also creates a de facto gold standard. With gold at $10,000, the Treasury’s gold is worth $1,310 bil, and can now be used to pay the interest on the debt!

Where things go next is hard to foresee. But it’s clear that the debt is far too large to pay off, and that the United States’ creditors will demand payment in an asset that the US government can’t depreciate at will. The signal to investors is pretty clear: get out of Treasury debt and into gold. One way or another, the US will repudiate its debt. The other lesson is equally clear: the inevitable depreciation of the dollar simply follows the logic of the market, and cannot be denied by either money creation or fiscal stimulus.

As Gold Continues to Slide, Treasuries Crater, World Openly Debates the Fate of the Dollar

{I wrote this on 6/8, but didn't get around to publishing it until 6/11, which was after the WSJ wrote a cover story on the rising 10-year Treasury!]

The yield on the 10-year US Treasury note is up to 3.88%, [now it's gone up to 3.93%, then slid back to 3.86% today] as prices for the note continue to crater. (Recall that as bond prices fall, yields rise) The battle continues. Since this yield is tied to so many other interest rates, the hazard is that the rising yield will soon become higher interest rates for mortgages, car loans, credit cards, etc. The bigger problem perhaps is, are there borrowers?

It's an economic distortion that interest rates should fall when the economy moves into recession and credit tightens after being loose for so long. What's being revealed is that the risk of default is much, much higher than was previously thought. Naturally, interest rates should rise to compensate for the increased risk. But instead, the Fed tries to go against the market and lower interest rates.

The Keynesian logic is straightforward: because credit is tending to tighten, money destruction ensues through the action of the fractional reserve banking system. However, that destruction of money results in far less aggregate demand. The solution: create money through the central bank (the Fed) equal or greater to the money destruction, lowering interest rates, encouraging firms and consumers to borrow, and stimulating the economy when it most needs it.

Unfortunately, what this Keynesian story overlooks is that the economy has a hangover. The best cure isn't a couple of (trillion) shots of booze, it's a reorganization, a re-thinking of priorities and activities.

The economy has binged on unproductive economic activity: a frenzy of finance, retail, advertising, lawyering and lawmaking. Corporations have turned their attention away from productive investment (the kind that is designed to produce better things) and toward unproductive investment, designed to capture an ever-larger piece of the economic surplus. But since efforts to capture a bigger piece of pie don't actually grow the pie, only so much of US capitalism can be engaged in such endeavors.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund, seeking to retain some kind of relevance, jumps in to say that the world could potentially use a different reserve currency than the US dollar. Of course, their solution is the bogus Standard Drawing Right, administered by an impartial, international central banking organization. I wonder who that would be. Of course, they call for "liquidity", a silly central banking code word which means "fake money". It's obvious that the IMF does not have in mind the creation of a currency backed by an item of real tangible value, such as gold. After all, Keynes called gold a "barbarous relic".

Of course the IMF thinks we're years away from such a "revolutionary" move. Only slowly can we change the global monetary order.

Right.

The world has a way of changing faster than you think. The dollar is already dead. Each country in the world is simply trying to figure out how to edge away from the dollar's corpse before every other country in the world does so. Gold has tripled in price since the year 2000. The technology of producing gold hasn't changed much.

The world faces a choice: either we descend into a morass of distrust, reversing the tide of globalization, retreating behind border walls and tariffs, or we create a new global monetary order that no country, no individual, no corporation can game. That order simply must be based on an item of real value, that no government can manipulate, that holds its value over time, that cannot be destroyed through the printing press. We need the gold standard of money. What could that be?

I'll Be Off For the Rest of the Week

Treasuries are up today, pushing the yield back down to 3.55%. Still too high. With the ten year US Treasury note at that yield, a lot of other interest rates are going to be higher. Still a lot of volatility in this market; today's swing was 2.55%. A lot of movement for any market in one day.

How can the Fed possibly re-inflate this impossibly flaccid credit bubble with high rates?

Commodities took a pause; gold is back under $970, oil retrenched to $66, copper's down to $2.22. A bit of backfilling is in order. I wonder when the next big move up will happen. Next week?

Meanwhile, banks are doing their best to resist honesty and transparency. Here's a piece about their off-balance sheet assets. Isn't it a bit absurd that a corporation would have off-balance sheet assets? What possible rationale could there be for keeping an asset off the books besides lying about its true value?

I'll be traveling for the rest of the week. Have a great weekend!

Treasuries Crumple... Again!

Crash... recover... crash.

The price of the bellwether 10-year US Treasury note cratered Thursday, recovered Friday, and now has crumpled again, sending the yield skyrocketing to close at 3.715%.

This is exciting stuff. It's like a pitched battle is being waged over Treasury notes. The yield is like the front line. Meanwhile, the kings of the commodities (oil, copper, gold, silver) are all up sharply. Oil is above $68, gold is above $975, silver is above $15.60 and copper has shot up to $2.30. (Check out NYMEX for a good source on all these commodity prices.)

Remember, this may be a harbinger of higher interest rates, signaling a loss of confidence in the dollar, which would mean the Fed would have a very hard time using monetary policy to stimulate the economy.

What will happen is that interest rates will rise as investors edge away from the dollar and US treasury debt. That will deepen the recession. (Why do I say recession instead of depression? Habit, I guess. There is no technical distinction in economics. There is a joke (sort of): a recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours.) The best strategy for dollar depreciation is investing in hard assets with no debt or leverage whatsoever.

The Rise of Oil and Gold Is An Early Sign of Inflation

(This filthy-looking pool of oil is from the Exxon Valdez oil spill)

The Federal Reserve must be happy now; they're doing their job: fighting deflation by creating money out of thin air.

The oil price is over $65 now, and gold is over $978. This is an early sign of inflation. We're in an odd situation economically; certain items are in deflationary mode. Deals are

everywhere on housing, furniture, cars, appliances, clothing, travel. These are items that consumers are cutting back on.

Since oil and gold are investment commodities, they are seeing appreciation now because of fears of inflation and the desire to protect assets. A good way to get exposure to the oil price easily is through the oil ETF USO. (This is good for long-term exposure; USO doesn't always track short-term movements in oil prices accurately, because it is the target of arbitrage)

What about the ethics of investing in oil? My dad won't touch it; he says it's a dirty business. Similar concerns have been raised about gold, which is produced by crushing tons of rock into a fine powder, then using acid to dissolve the metal, a process that uses copious amounts of energy.

Each person's ethics come from within. For me, I don't rule out profits from oil or gold, because it doesn't seem helpful to me to say I won't invest in something but I will use other products. I own a car, I own electronics, I have gold in my teeth. If I touch it as a consumer, I'll touch it as an investor, where at least there is an opportunity to make a profit. These things have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Every corporation is guilty of something, as is every individual.

As Treasuries Swoon and the Dollar Falls, Gold Advances

Gold has been on a tear the last few days, taking back its role as the bomb shelter of financial assets. During the tail end of the boom years (2006-2008) gold began to move in tandem with stocks. The market would be up, and so would gold. That was unusual.

Now gold is back to moving inversely to markets. As I wrote yesterday, US Treasuries are falling, causing yields to rise. (Check out ^TNX) As I write this, the market is experiencing a bounce as it absorbs the activity of the last few days. The dollar is also falling, and has breached the psychologically important 80 level.

Seabridge Gold (SA) is now up to $30.66. If you bought Seabridge Gold back when I said, your money would've grown to $11,927 by now. I see SA going to $40, so hold on to what you've got. I also own Exeter Resource Corp (XRA). Exeter is a small-cap gold mining company from Canada, which is home to many such mining companies. Many of these are unsound, and will get shaken down by the movements of the gold price, but Exeter is one that will remain, I think, as they have very low levels of debt and they seem to have a solid business plan.

It's a good idea to have some GLD, the exchange traded fund that holds gold bullion, as well as some SLV, and some physical gold and silver in your possession. Another good way to invest in gold is through Goldmoney.com.

My Family Was Madoff-ed

Investing with Bernie Madoff was, for the most part, a family tradition. By now nearly everyone knows that he was running a massive Ponzi scheme, paying out investors "returns" of 12% a year from the money coming in from new investors.

My step-mom, Saphira Linden, my dad's third ex-wife, had been investing with Madoff since the late 1980s. She believed in the fund and Madoff himself so strongly that she urged me to invest in it, even in my grad student days, when I was taking on large amounts of student loan debt. She gave me a gift once, $1000 that was invested with Madoff. She only asked that I add $100 to $200 per month to it.

The account was through a family friend named Richard Glantz, who got lots of people involved with Madoff. The pitch was always the same: this guy is a financial genius, and he doesn't take on new clients, but I can get you in. Ritchie was what later became known as a "bundler". It doesn't seem like he knew what was going on, but at the same time, it doesn't seem like he asked too many questions about where the money was coming from. This is the pattern all the way down the line: nobody asked too many questions. Why bother? The returns were there, the money was there. Until it wasn't.

My mother and stepfather, Ken Macher, were also heavily involved; they had all their assets with Madoff, and as Ken moved into semi-retirement, and then full-retirement, they lived off their returns. (My stepdad is also a talented musician, and he recently released his first album, which I highly recommend)

In the summer of 2006, I got worried about a financial crash, so much so that I gathered the family and close family friends together and delivered a truly apocalyptic lecture and slideshow about the risks to the financial system: spiraling consumer debt, corporate debt, and government debt, massive trade deficits, the weakness of the US dollar, etc. I recommended holding all or a substantial portion of assets in gold. I predicted the stock market would take a major hit. (I was thinking it would be on the order of 90% or more; which I still believe will occur). There was a lively discussion, and one of the questions was, how do we hold assets in gold when we're living off our returns from Madoff, which are steady and reliable, 10-12% a year, every year?

I said buy gold and sell a bit of it each month to live on. The gold price was about $550 an ounce back then. Any money put in gold would've nearly doubled, even considering the hit that gold took during the fall of 2008, when it fell to $700 from over $1000. But now gold is back, pushing against the $950 mark. No doubt we'll look back on the days when gold was below $1000 with awe, wishing we could go back in time and buy more at those prices. (Compare the performance of gold to the Dow, which went from about 11,000 in the summer of 2006 to over 14,000 before heading down to its current level of about 8500; over this period, a 23% decline)

The results of my slideshow were as much as I could've hoped: my family and friends took it very seriously, and began to explore the reasons for owning gold, immersing themselves in the economic literature which argued such a financial crash was a strong possibility, and in the end, they shifted 5-10% of their assets into gold and silver. (Ritchie wasn't at that lecture. I wonder what he would've said, or if it would've influenced him in any way.)

I never criticized Madoff directly; to do so was the question the financial acumen of the family, substituting my own. Each time I asked questions about what his strategy was, where the returns came from, it was a blank. I said that the investment strategies of the past would probably not work in the future, because what's coming is a new paradigm. I had no idea the whole thing was a fraud. I just knew I didn't like the secrecy. I had taken out the money my stepmom gave me (I never added anything to it).

My father and stepmom never got involved with Madoff. My dad never believed in the returns. He had worked in the mutual fund industry, and didn't really believe that the market could be beaten over the long term.

My mom and my stepdad, having lost everything except the gold (a small percentage), were philosophical. My mom said, "it's exciting to think about living more sustainably." They began growing vegetables and composting, and are exploring all kinds of different options.

When the news hit, back in December of 2008, I felt a lot of regret. Why hadn't I tried harder to learn more about Madoff? Why hadn't I done more? I should've been more forceful.

I'm proud of how my family has responded to the crisis. It's been hard, but they have used it as an opportunity to look within, to grow, to turn the trash into compost, out of which comes something alive and new. May we all learn to do the same.

Is the Price of Gold Being Manipulated?

A recent article by Brad Zigler at Seeking Alpha argues that it is not. Zigler runs a site called Hard Assets Investor, and has a lot of interesting things to say about commodities.

I like that Zigler marshals some evidence for his claim, by looking at some of the short positions relative to the long positions that banks take on.

But I find myself unpersuaded by his overall case.

Zigler argues that the ratio of shorts to longs in the gold futures market is 3.7 to 1, and that this is therefore hardly the strongest case that banks are manipulating gold. Perhaps they merely believe that gold prices will head downward. I agree with his skepticism in principle, but I don't follow his interpretation of the evidence.

Just to take the other side of the story, notice that 3 US banks hold nearly one-third of all short positions in gold. That seems at least a bit suspicious. Non-US banks holdings are much more evenly balanced between long and short. Why would these three banks do this? Perhaps they've decided that gold is overvalued, and they hope to reap massive profits as gold corrects downward. I don't think that will happen, but surely banks are allowed to lose money if they choose, right?

I'm surprised that Zigler didn't take a look at some of the arguments put forth by the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee. For instance, a recent article by James Turk, author and President of Goldmoney.com, argues that central banks lent considerable quantities of gold (between 12,000 and 15,000 tonnes) to create what he calls a 'gold carry trade', where investors borrowed at low rates in order to invest at higher rates elsewhere.

Reading Turk's article, I'm struck by how sensible his argument is, but also by how little hard evidence he has. Yes, central bank officials have made statements in the press that they manipulated gold or should have; yes, Barrick Gold has admitted to assisting in such gold manipulation; yes, the motive is there: central banks want to support the value of fiat currencies, and gold is the main competitor. But where are the hard numbers? Where is the smoking gun?

All of this shows that it's very hard to prove that someone is manipulating a price of anything. So perhaps this argument will never be decisively won or lost, and people will take whichever side they find most convincing. It seems likely to me that the Fed and the Treasury are manipulating the price of gold through the cooperation of some of the big investment banks and gold producers like Barrick. But honestly, who really cares? Markets are behaving strangely these days.

In a sea of overvalued financial assets and fake wealth, gold will sustain.

The Cash System

The way banks have over-leveraged themselves, it is wise to consider minimizing your exposure to the banking system. Just as you would be unwise to put all your assets in one investment, consider diversifying outside of banks. Hold some cash for transactions, instead of relying on credit or debit cards for everything. Hold some savings in gold. (A good way to do that is to use an "online gold" bank, of which I think the best is Goldmoney.com.)

Instead of taking out cash when needed, consider the reverse. Keep a minimum amount in the bank, hold basically all your money for transactions in cash, and put money into the bank to pay bills.

There is some evidence that using the cash system will help in the budgeting process. It gives you a good idea of how much money you have at any given time, and it imposes a psychological discipline on spending, called the denomination effect. Basically, you're more reluctant to break a $100 bill than you are to break a twenty.