While investors often treat gold as a commodity, at its core, gold is money. Silver also has a long history as a monetary metal. But what about other rare metals? Could they serve as money as well?
In the following guest column, SchiffGold client Antony Pouros makes the case for platinum.
In the March 8 episode of the SchiffGold Friday Gold Wrap podcast, Mike Maharrey emphasized the importance of understanding sound economic theory. And as economist Frank Shostak explained, facts and figures aren’t enough to digest what’s going on in the economy.
In order to really make sense of the data one must have a theory, which stands on its own feet, and did not originate from the data. By means of a theory, one could scrutinize the data and could then try to make sense out of it.”
In a recent article published on the Mises Wire, economist Dr. Thorsten Polleit builds on this body of knowledge, explaining how central bank manipulations of interest rates not only distort the economy, the actually mess with our minds.
Ever since the beginning of the “Powell Pause,” Peter Schiff has been saying it won’t be enough.
If the Fed doesn’t want to upset the markets, soon it will be forced to go back to QE and zero percent interest rates.”
Peter isn’t alone in saying this. After the most recent FOMC meeting, Ryan McMaken at the Mises Institute echoed Peter’s message.
Put simply: the days of quantitative easing are back, and we’re not even in a recession yet.”
As you probably know, Warren Buffett has never been a fan of gold and has publicly disparaged the yellow metal on more than one occasion. About a year ago, he compared investing in gold and stocks, arguing that over the long term gold is an “unproductive asset” that “doesn’t produce anything.” So, why have it, unless you just want something to “fondle.” At the time, we argued that Buffet’s comments fall apart when you realize that gold is money. After all, I doubt you would ever hear him say “never hold cash because it’s an unproductive asset.”
Well, Buffet is at it again.
Context is key.
During last week’s Friday Gold Wrap podcast, Mike Maharrey emphasized the importance of understanding sound economic theory. Without a firm grasp of basic economic principles, it becomes impossible to properly evaluate any observations you make and to properly interpret economic data. As economist Frank Shostak put it in a recent article published at the Mises Wire, “In order to really make sense of the data one must have a theory, which stands on its own feet, and did not originate from the data. By means of a theory, one could scrutinize the data and could then try to make sense out of it.”
Shostak goes on to explain the most fundamental economic concept and how we can use the framework of “human action” to better understand economic data.
We often talk about the fatal conceit and hubris of central bankers who think they can micromanage a complex economy. Oftentimes, these monetary policymakers do things with the best of intentions, believing their actions will move the economy in the right direction. Sometimes, they do things just to benefit their buddies. Regardless of their motives, these actions have consequences.
The mechanizations of the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan along with other players in the US government in the 1990s blew up a massive “tech bubble” that eventually popped. Fed monetary in the wake of that collapse set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis. Fed monetary policy in the wake of that crisis set the stage for today.
In the following article, Peter Schmidt offers an overview of three moves Greenapsn made in the 1990s that helped fuel the mania that blew up the dot-com bubble. This look back in time offers us some valuable lessons for today.
As Peter Schiff put it in his most recent podcast, Jerome Powell blinked.
In a surprising about-face, the Federal Reserve Chair hinted that interest rates are “just below” neutral, leading to speculation that the central bank might be close to ending its tightening cycle. Peter said the Fed has basically been playing a game of chicken with the markets.
And the way the game of chicken goes is the markets keep moving lower and the Fed keeps talking about how great the economy is and how many rate hikes are coming in the future and somebody his to flinch. Somebody has to blink. It’s like you have these two automobiles driving toward each other and there’s going to be a major crash unless somebody turns the wheel. And it seems like it was Jerome Powell that turned the wheel first and in fact was chicken.”
As we’ve noted before, Keynesian central planners suffer from fatal conceit. They think they are smart enough to plan and direct the economy better than the free market. When you boil it all down, these people believe they can do a better job of making your economic decisions than you can. After all, a free market is nothing more than the aggregate of all of our individual economic choices. Paul Krugman serves as the poster child for central planning arrogance, but another Nobel Prize-winning central planner is making a name for himself by tearing down the free market. Joseph Stiglitz claims capitalism is “rigged.” But as economist Bill Anderson shows in an article recently published on the Mises Wire, Stiglitz has got it completely wrong. Capitalism – in the true sense of the word – isn’t rigged. Socialism is.
As the stock market was tanking last month, Peter Schiff said a recession is obviously coming. Now things have calmed down a little bit and everybody seems convinced October was just a bad month — a needed correction. But as Peter has been saying, there are some fundamentals everybody is ignoring that look really bad. The housing market, in particular, is showing signs of trouble. In fact, we don’t have a booming economy; we have a bubble.
In an article published on Seeking Alpha, Mad Genious Economics provides an in-depth breakdown of an economy rolling over, focusing specifically on housing and auto markets, the trade war and banking.
Peter Schmidt recently wrote two article highlighting the fatal conceit of PhD central planners who populate the world’s central banks. You can read those articles here and here. But central banking is not the only place you find people suffering from fatal conceit and the delusional notion that they are smart enough to micromanage the economy. You find a lot of these people in government offices as well.
For instance, consider New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Before he moved into the governor’s mansion in Albany, Cuomo helped orchestrate the 2008 housing crash. Schmidt highlights Cuomo’s role in that horror story in the following article.