SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: UncleBigs who wrote (46924)12/9/2005 2:02:52 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
Mish, why do you post stuff like this? Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Nobody including you knows for certain what will happen in the future.

If you disagree that Deflation hates gold, why don't you write a coherent analytical argument to support your view? Throwing out "point blank you are wrong" is worthless.


Why dont you look for what I have already written.
It gets tiring having to repeat myself.

Mish



To: UncleBigs who wrote (46924)12/9/2005 3:04:20 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 110194
 
      
Bernanke Confuses Depression Cure with Disease

Peter Schiff
Posted Dec 9, 2005

An article in yesterday's (Thurs) Wall Street Journal discussed how self-proclaimed "Depression buff" Ben Bernanke claims understanding of how the Fed caused the Great Depression and precisely what he would do to prevent such a calamity from reoccurring under his tenure. Not only are his assertions naïve and egotistical, but flat-out absurd.

Though he claims to have studied The Great Depression in depth, Bernanke is completely clueless as to its actual cause. However, he is partially right about one thing: the Fed did help create the Depression, but for the opposite reasons Bernanke believes. The Fed-induced credit boom of the roaring 1920s laid the foundation for the inevitable bust that ushered in the Great Depression. Bernanke has mistaken the disease for the cure, and his antidote, were it ever administered, would prove to be economically fatal to the U.S. economy.

The mistake made by the Fed during the 1920s was expanding the supply of money and credit too rapidly. However, as increasing productivity prevented consumer prices from rising, the Fed was unconcerned about the inflation it was creating. Instead, the excess money and credit that spilled into financial and real estate markets caused asset prices to rise, which resulted in claims of a "new era" (sound familiar?). The bust of 1929 led to the Great Depression of the 1930s not as a result of Fed tightening, as Bernanke claims, but due to the misguided economic policies of the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. By preventing market forces from efficiently correcting the imbalances created during the inflationary boom of the 1920s, the Federal Government turned what otherwise would have been a normal, though severe, cyclical recessionary bust, into what became known as The Great Depression.

During the 1920's the British pound, then the dominant world currency, was under pressure. In an effort to prevent British inflation from causing the pound to weaken against the dollar, Benjamin Strong, governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, led the charge for higher inflation in the United States as well. By debasing the dollar along with the pound, their relative values could be maintained, thus preserving the illusion of pound stability. Through competitive devaluation, Great Britain exported its inflation to the United States, much the way the U.S. now exports its inflation to China and Japan.

However, the money and credit supplied by the Fed unexpectedly produced the speculative stock market bubble of the roaring 1920's. When Benjamin Strong died in office in 1928, his successor George Harrison (not of Beatles' fame) understood the problems and helped address them by correctly tightening monetary policy, reversing the inflationary expansion that occurred under Strong.

It is to this action which Bernanke objects and for which he blames the ensuing Great Depression. However, the problem was not that stock and real estate prices collapsed, but that they rose so much in the first place. It was not the mistakes of Harrison that caused the bust, but those of Strong that produced the false boom, making the subsequent bust necessary.

Had Harrison allowed the monetary expansion to continue, as Bernanke suggests he should have, the result would have been hyper-inflation, which would have produced even more dire economic consequences than did the bursting of the bubble. The problem is that Bernanke, like Harrison, willsoon replace Greenspan, the modern version of Benjamin Strong (though a more accurate comparison may be to Montague Norman, the governor of the Bank of England during the 1920s.). However, unlike Harrison, Bernanke will likely make the wrong policy choice.

Ben Bernanke believes that credit expansions need never end - that a boom can be prolonged indefinitely simply by printing enough money. The fact that the incoming Fed chairman believes such nonsense is similar to a cold-war president having believed he could win a nuclear war. However, Bernanke's finger will not be on the button, but on the printing press: and he seems itching to crank it up as he is convinced he will win the deflation war.

When asset prices are too high, credit out of line with savings, and consumption out of line with production, serious economic imbalances result. Curing those imbalances is a painful but essential process. In attempting to prevent the adjustments from taking place, Bernanke will do far more harm than good.

As a result of his confusion, Ben Bernanke wants to cure the disease by killing the patient. The best analogy is to a heroin addict continuously shooting-up to avoid the unpleasant reality of withdrawal. He may "succeed" but only by dying. In economic parlance, hyper-inflation is the monetary equivalent of a drug overdose, and Dr. Ben (Kevorkian) Bernanke seems dead set on



To: UncleBigs who wrote (46924)12/9/2005 7:09:15 PM
From: yard_man  Respond to of 110194
 
one could argue that given the "paltry" price rises that we've had for the credit expansion applied -- we are already in the midst of a deflation (price-wise) and gold has gained some on the paper currencies in the face of that.

the problem with trying to come up with rules about how specific commidities do in deflation is: what do you mean by deflation? -- are you talking about a contraction in the money supply -- or a general decrease in prices -- or a contraction in credit -- or a general decline in business activity??

I think what gold will do is simpler than any big thinkers make out.

1) Credit induced booms creates the deflationary bust

2) Government fight busts with all the tools at their disposal -- simply to keep control

3) After credit-induced booms produce the ensuing bust -- gold will do well because of government tinkerers unwillingness to accept contraction -- so they cover up the contraction but gold tells the truth.

4) I guess it is possible they can outlaw gold ownership, but then some other commodity will take its place

got any theories??



To: UncleBigs who wrote (46924)12/10/2005 1:44:06 AM
From: regli  Respond to of 110194
 
Regarding deflation and gold, Heinz gave a pretty good summation here:

Message 20913891

Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 10:49
TROTSKY (HoldGOLD, 8:34) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 TROTSKY/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
well it's true - GOLD is a great wealth preserver during DEFLATIONs. offers better real returns than during inflationary eras actually.
but: "we will clearly and concisely explain why Prechter's argument is flawed and why GOLD and silver should indeed be big winners in any upcoming DEFLATION."

well, where IS the 'clear and concise' explanation? the article doesn't provide us with one. instead it keeps asserting something without offering a shred of evidence. note that Prechter distinguishes himself by offering a very coherent narrative buttressed with reams of supporting evidence.
'GOLD and silver will...' - that's a pipe dream. GOLD, yes, but silver? if Prechter's DEFLATIONary depression becomes a reality, industrial demand for silver will collapse - and with it, the silver price. GOLD will be supported by its safe haven status and its role as a money that can't be subjected to default. silver does retain SOME monetary characteristics, but not to the extent that its price could withstand a large decline in industrial demand. otoh, a minimum of two thirds, and probably more, of the all the GOLD ever mined is held on account of its monetary role ( 1 third in official reserves, the remainder in private hands ) .
note also: in a DEFLATIONary era, GOLD stocks are a better investment than GOLD bullion ( putting aside for a moment the 'last resort insurance' aspect of bullion ) . this is because their product will at least hold its nominal value, or even experience a slight increase in it ( amounting to an appreciable gain in real value ) , but their input costs will decline.
HOMESTAKE Mining's performance between 1930 - 35 is a good example for this - with the nominal GOLD price fixed, the stock went from $70 to $550, while paying out enormous ( by today's standards ) amounts in dividends. its costs of production fell throughout the period.