Clicky

Random header image... Refresh for more!

About the Mess We’re In

I normally stay out of politics, but I can’t help it today.

Just a quick note. I have a friend who’s been buying gold and silver. You’d be amazed at how much gold you can get for $100. I mean how little.

Anyway, I decided to take a look at what the price of gold has been doing historically and especially in relation to the market swing of the past few days—just out of curiosity. As I did a google search though, I found a document that was making some good sense. It was written by Ron Paul in 2006. And while it wasn’t telling me much about gold pricing history, it was pretty interesting to someone who’s wondered about the dollar and the Gold Standard.

As I got deeper into the article, I read some things that blew my mind. Keep in mind this was Ron Paul in April 2006:

A soaring gold price is a vote of "no confidence" in the central bank and the dollar. This certainly was the case in 1979 and 1980. Today, gold prices reflect a growing restlessness with the increasing money supply, our budgetary and trade deficits, our unfunded liabilities, and the inability of Congress and the administration to reign in runaway spending.

The Fed tries to keep the consumer spending spree going, not through hard work and savings, but by creating artificial wealth in stock markets bubbles and housing bubbles. When these distortions run their course and are discovered, the corrections will be quite painful.

Then, probably the most telling part nails the bailout plan on the head:

Current policy guarantees that the integrity of the dollar will be undermined. Exactly when this will occur, and the extent of the resulting damage to financial system, cannot be known for sure – but it is coming. There are plenty of indications already on the horizon.

Me: hello, It’s here.

Even if it were recognized that a gold standard without monetary inflation would be advantageous, few in Washington would accept the political disadvantages of living with the discipline of gold – since it serves as a check on government size and power. This is a sad commentary on the politics of today. The best analogy to our affinity for government spending, borrowing, and inflating is that of a drug addict who knows if he doesn’t quit he’ll die; yet he can’t quit because of the heavy price required to overcome the dependency. The right choice is very difficult, but remaining addicted to drugs guarantees the death of the patient, while our addiction to deficit spending, debt, and inflation guarantees the collapse of our economy.

So what can we do? Pretty much…nothing. Maybe diversify a bit, buy some gold, start saving rather than spending on credit. While it’s no investment, it could be a great defense against the inevitable plummet of the dollar.

Oh—and maybe one more thing. Mr Paul says:

False trust placed in the dollar once was helpful to us, but panic and rejection of the dollar will develop into a real financial crisis. Then we will have no other option but to tighten our belts, go back to work, stop borrowing, start saving, and rebuild our industrial base, while adjusting to a lower standard of living for most Americans.

Anyway, I highly recommend the article. Take a 1/2 hour and give it a read, you’ll learn more than you ever did in that wretched Economics 101 course you took twice back in college.

And while our government continues (no matter who’s directing it in a few weeks) to create fake money in an effort to keep bubbles in the air, we might as well get a head start adjusting to the real world we live in. Tighten the belt, go back to work, stop borrowing, start saving, and adjust to a lower standard of living. Truth be told, you might actually find it to be more agreeable than trying to remember when your 0% teaser rate ends and what you’ll do with your balance then.

5 comments

1 David { 10.16.08 at 5:31 pm }

Good post. Keep ’em comin’.

2 kmt { 10.16.08 at 8:17 pm }

It was a good article. Another good quote from the article: He said “The law of supply and demand cannot be repealed.”

Although when you think about it that seems to be what the US is trying to do with the bailout plan for banks.

3 Connor { 10.16.08 at 8:37 pm }

It’s interesting to observe, from the sidelines, how those speaking truth are sidelined and ridiculed for what they’re preaching.

I also recommend what I consider to be one of RP’s best articles, “The End of Dollar Hegemony“, also written in 2006. Reading through his archives is akin to reading economic scripture: he’s been sounding the warning voice for a few decades, but few would pay attention. Now we’ll all have to suffer the consquences.

4 Brett { 10.17.08 at 5:11 pm }

Thanks for the link Connor. “The End…” is a great article as well.

“The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.”

I guess my question now is, will oil become the new gold?

And I still have trouble figuring out why gold should be the standard as opposed to oil—or food for that matter. After all, when worse comes to worst, and the world has nothing to eat, what good will gold or oil…or a dollar do?

5 Connor { 10.18.08 at 4:26 pm }

Brett,

To understand why gold has historically been seen as the most viable of monetary systems, I recommend some of Murray Rothbard’s books on the subject. Perhaps the best is The Case For a 100% Gold Dollar.

In another book of his (that I finished reading a couple weeks ago), The Case Against the Fed, Rothbard says the following (on pp. 16-17):

Throughout all these eras and societies, however, two commodities, if the society had access to them, were easily able to outcompete the rest, and to establish themselves on the market as the only moneys. These were gold and silver.

Why gold and silver? (And to a lesser extent, copper, when the other two were unavailable.) Because gold and silver are superior in various “moneyish” qualities–qualities that a good needs to have to be selected by the market as money. Gold and silver were highly valuable in themselves, for their beauty; their supply was limited enough to have a roughly stable value, but not so scarce that they could not readily be parceled out for use (platinum would fit into the latter category); they were in wide demand, and were easily portable; they were highly divisible, as they could be sliced into small pieces and kept a pro rata share of their value; they could be easily made homogeneous, so that one ounce would look like another; and they were highly durable, thus preserving a store of value into the indefinite future. (Mixed with a small amount of alloy, gold coins have literally been able to last for thousands of years.)

Commodities such as food and oil—while inherently valuable themselves—fail many of the necessary criteria for a viable monetary unit.