Higher Oil Prices, the “New Normal”

Eric Fry, reporting from Laguna Beach, California…

Contrary to popular mythology, we Californians do not live merely on love, sunshine and granola.

I mean, sure, we’ve all got our yoga mats, our quartz crystals and our “life coaches” (who doesn’t?), but life is just so much more than “namastes” and positive energy. Life is also about building enough windmills (somewhere else) and installing enough solar panels (somewhere else) to keep our yoga studios air-conditioned.

And, yeah, I guess we need SOME crude oil, cause our Priuses cannot ALWAYS run on electricity. So I guess its fine to use crude oil if we have to, as long as we can obtain the oil in an ecologically friendly way…like getting it from somewhere else. (OMG, remember the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969? That was a SERIOUS bummer!)

So, yes, we Californians certainly understand that we cannot break our dependence on crude oil overnight. At least not until some “next generation” process comes along that can convert text messages into jet fuel. And even if we Californians use less crude oil, someone else is bound to use more of it…like all those reckless industrialists in the Developing World. Don’t they know how bad crude oil is for the environment?

But I guess there’s just no reasoning with these people. So I guess we’ll just have to keep finding and pumping crude oil for a long time to come.

Hmmm… I’m not sure how easy that’s going to be. When I was out recycling newspapers the other day, I saw an old headline that said crude oil is becoming much harder to find…and that oil production is falling off rapidly at many of the world’s largest fields.

So I did a little research and – would you believe – it’s true. Crude oil is becoming much harder to find and much more expensive to produce.

In today’s edition of The Daily Reckoning, our friends over at the US Global Investors Global Resources Fund shed a bit more light on this frightening truth.

But first, let’s hear what Dan Denning, our correspondent in Melbourne, Australia, has to say about yesterday’s surprising disclosure that India snapped up $6 billion worth of gold from the International Monetary Fund:

Well how about that! India pipped China at the post to walk away with 200 tonnes of IMF gold. Granted, India had to pay US$6.8 billion for the yellow metal. But with China steadily accumulating gold as a reserve asset (at the household AND central bank level), everyone thought China has this one in the bag. Not so!

Something more than meets the eye is going on here. The IMF sale was part of a plan to unload 403.3 tonnes of gold. It’s halfway there, and will use the proceeds to fund itself and loans to the developing world (or perhaps Britain and America when they go broke). But what else is going on?

In the past, large sales of gold – mostly by European central banks – swamped the gold price and kept it in check. Why did they sell?

The central bankers believed they had too much gold on their balance sheets doing too little work. In other words, these thoroughly modern bankers would explain, “Gold pays no interest.” So they thought it “prudent” to exchange their gold reserves for interest-bearing assets like Treasury bonds. So far, that’s been a horrible trade…and it is becoming an even more horrible trade as gold advances from record high to record high.

Nevertheless, the central bankers of the West continue to unload their gold reserves to the central bankers of the East….

India’s central bank is now the proud owner of 557 tonnes of gold. That gives it the tenth largest gold holdings among central banks. But it probably isn’t finished. Gold makes up just six percent of India’s foreign exchange reserves. There’s plenty of room for that to grow.

But don’t forget China. China has $2.3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. But 70% of those – or $1.6 trillion – are in US dollars. It owns over just 1,000 tonnes of gold. That makes up less than 2% of China’s reserves and makes China the seventh largest holder of above ground gold. In fact the gold exchange traded fund (NYSE:GLD) owns more gold than China. France, Italy, the IMF, Germany and the United States round out the top five (from fifth to first).

What this tells you is that China could double (and then double again) its gold reserves and gold would still make up less than 10% of its total forex reserves. Compare that to 66% in Italy, 69% in Germany, 70% in France, and 77% in the US, according to official numbers. So what’s the big deal?

There will always be a threat that European Central Banks release gold supply on to the market. In fact, European central banks just renewed a five-year agreement (including the IMF) to sell down a maximum of 400 tonnes of gold per year from their holdings. They’ve agreed to this to disgorge their gold in an orderly fashion.

But it would not surprise us to see the Europeans fail to sell the gold they’re allowed to sell under the agreement. Our old desk mate in London, Adrian Ash (now with Bullion Vault) is at the London Bullion Market Association’s annual meeting in Edinburgh. Word from UBS analyst John Reade, also at the meeting, is that European Central Bank official Paul Mercier reckons that official holders of gold will, “no longer be net sellers of gold.”

As we predicted earlier this year, the European central banks would rather hoard their gold than sell it in a rising market. There may be a price at which they do sell it, in order to pay down sovereign debts. But psychologically, the fact that central banks want to own gold and not sell it is pretty important.

Also, it shows you how the balance of economic power in the world has shifted East. True, the European banks can still dump gold on to the market to drown the price. But between the ETFs, central bank buyers in India and China, and the average man on the street in Beijing, Mumbai, and elsewhere, there are more buyers of gold now than sellers.

And if we were right yesterday that the GFC is slowly morphing into a sovereign debt crisis, then the case for gold is that much stronger. This explains why gold futures were up by nearly 3% overnight and Old Yeller hit a new high at US$1,084.90.

The only worry? So many hedge fund managers and pundits are singing the same tune: long gold and short US Treasuries. These feel like “crowded trades.” So as a contrarian, you’ve got good reason to be a little worried about becoming a victim right about now.

Nevertheless, in the long term, the end of the Super Cycle in fiat money results in the re-monetisation of gold. That is what you’re seeing now. And it’s probably what you’ll see for a few more years. It also ought to benefit other precious metals, and of course, precious metals shares.

World Bank Head Sees Dollar’s Role Diminishing:

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Published: September 28, 2009

WASHINGTON — The president of the World Bank said on Monday that America’s days as an unchallenged economic superpower might be numbered and that the dollar was likely to lose its favored position as the euro and the Chinese renminbi assume bigger roles.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Robert Zoellick said the Treasury should get more power.

“The United States would be mistaken to take for granted the dollar’s place as the world’s predominant reserve currency,” the World Bank president, Robert B. Zoellick, said in a speech at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins. “Looking forward, there will increasingly be other options to the dollar.”

Mr. Zoellick, who previously served as the United States trade representative and as deputy secretary of state under President George W. Bush, said that the euro provided a “respectable alternative” for financing international transactions and that there was “every reason to believe that the euro’s acceptability could grow.”

In the next 10 to 20 years, he said, the dollar will face growing competition from China’s currency, the renminbi. Though Chinese leaders have minimized their currency’s use in international transactions, largely so they could keep greater control over exchange rates, Mr. Zoellick said the renminbi would “evolve into a force in financial markets.”

Go to Article

Government Debt – Analysis of Developed & Emerging Countries

Government Debt

Neville Bennett

This “Greater Depression” is a profound turning point in history. Recently, I analyzed how it had tipped the balance in global GDP away from the West to the emerging world (NBR June19). That change arises partly from differential economic growth rates. Obviously more is involved, and my focus now is on public debt and demography.

In essence, ever since the Asian Crisis, emerging countries have cleaned up their balance sheets and now have significant savings. But the developed world is encumbered with an ageing population, and unsustainable commitments in health and pensions. These prevent the paying down of public debt, which has been overblown by the need to bailout banks and fund costly stimulus packages. Japan and the UK are illustrative cases, but there may be lessons for New Zealand in this issue, as credit ratings come under pressure.

Global Public Debt

Governments have possibly stabilized the financial sector but there must be doubt about the remedy: massive public debt. According to the IMF, by next year, the gross public debt of the 10 richest countries will have risen from 78% of GDP in 2007, to 106%. It is an increase of $9 trillion in three years. New Zealand has made a modest contribution to this. Its public debt in May 2007 was NZ$28.8 bn, rising by a quarter to NZ$36.6 bn in May 2009.

There is worse to come. Weak economic growth and revenue, plus increased expenditure point to large budget deficits. The IMF believes public debt will be 111% of this groups GDP in 2014, but in a worst case scenario it may reach 150%. (See chart.)

This is the highest peacetime borrowing on record. The world economy will struggle for a decade at least with the weight of this albatross around its neck. It is the result of the paradox that crash caused by too much debt has been remedied by government bailouts to keep economies completely falling off the cliff. Most economists agree with this pump-priming in principle, but they may thereafter disagree on some aspects (for example: too much to banks) and the timing the necessary return to sounder fiscal management.

To be sure, governments have been ably to service this debt quite cheaply. Their reserve banks have driven down rates in order to stimulate the economy, and markets rates have been low as investors have flocked to find safety in government-backed securities. Nevertheless, yields are rising in response to new issuances and the cost of debt servicing is increasing net debt appreciably.

Will governments try to pay off the debt at the cost of lower economic growth? Or will try to inflate the debt away? Inflation can reduce the real cost of debt, and is attractive to governments as it is more politically acceptable than tax increases. But the cost is much higher than many politicians think.

The cost of high inflation is horrendous. Investors will buy debt only if they can make a real return. This requires an interest rate well above the CPI. If inflation is running at 10% p.a., medium term interest rates have to be higher, say 12%-16%. In the process, unless a lot of debt is paid off, the remainder will grow in line with interest rates. It is like a dog chasing its tail. The debt reduces when the dog is exhausted and can chew its tail. Meanwhile, high interest rates have slayed the economy. Only hyper-inflation destroys debt but it also destroys the middle class.

Recent History

Public debt always rises after recessions because Keynes’s policy of pump-priming is universally accepted. Some countries default. But the richer countries rely on fast growth. More recently some very fiscally responsible states like Canada, Sweden, Ireland and New Zealand have restrained public debt.

Although New Zealand will triple its bond issuance from about NZ$5 bn p.a. in 2008-9, to NZ$ 15 bn. in 2013-15,

It will keep public debt at a reasonable proportion of GDP. It is forecasting gross public debt as a proportion of GDP at 41.1% this year, rising the 45% in 2012-13 and 49% in 2014-15.

This is clearly responsible, but it does rest on projections on increases in GDP which may be optimistic. I am apprehensive that interest rates may rise to attract foreign investors, and that will be a drag on economic growth. Moreover, if NZ yields are attractive, the NZ dollar is likely to soar above fair value, hurting exports and our important tourist and student markets.

Rebound?

A rebound is difficult. Exports may be sluggish, particularly as households are rebuilding their balance sheets, with a marked reluctance to buy big-ticket items. The richer countries may follow a version of Japan’s past, where it is very difficult to stimulate the domestic economy when asset prices are falling. The Japanese Government has pump-primed until it is gasping. The country is still in deflation, but its gross debt-ratio has tripled from 65% of GDP in 1990 to 170% now.

Other Fiscal costs

The problem of repaying the cost of the bailout is dwarfed by the cost of an ageing population. According to the IMF, the present cost of the bailouts is only one tenth of the financial cost of ageing. If this problem is not addressed, demographic pressures will send the debt of the big rich economies to around 200% of GDP by 2030.

The world has regarded emerging country debt as the most in risk of default. This is an anachronism. The emerging members of G20 had a debt-GDP ratio of 38% in 2007 and it is falling to perhaps 35% this year.

The rich countries need to be careful to avoid tightening policy too soon for fear of snuffing out economic growth. But they may need to take other action to free up fiscal elbow-room. Pensions are an obvious problem, and raising the retirement age seems imperative as many superannuation schemes are unfunded. S&P have made it clear that the UK either raises taxes or cuts pensions and health spending if it is to avoid a credit downgrade. This is problematic as funding civil service pensions alone can amount to 85% of GDP.

Beginnings for a New Reserve Currency – with Obama’s Blessings?

Chuck Butler…

I came across something yesterday, that I yelled across the desk to make certain everyone knew… Recall at least a month or so ago, I told you how China had called for a new reserve currency, replacing the dollar with SDR’s (special drawing rights), which would be a basket of currencies. This news received a ton of publicity… But one thing that didn’t receive a ton of publicity was the fact that President Obama agreed at an economic summit in London that SDR’s should now be used to help stabilize the balance sheets of nations struggling to combat the current crisis.

Now… On the outside that looks harmless right? Just helping these struggling nations… But! Could this also be a baby step toward a global currency? Could this be a baby step toward a further devaluation of the dollar, and it’s signed off on by the President?

OK, now here’s the thing that really caught my eye… The IMF is going to issued $300 Billion worth of SDR’s. That’s 10 Times… That’s right, I said 10 Times the amount of SDR’s that CURRENTLY EXIST!

Could this be the facility for China to quietly exchange dollar reserves for SDR’s? Come on! Somebody has got to see this the same way I do!

I mean, it was just LAST WEEK, that the countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC’s) called for a “more diversified international monetary system?” Why, yes, Chuck, it was… Just last week! And then this week, the IMF “just happens” to be issuing 10-TIMES the amount of SDR’s that CURRENTLY EXIST! Hmmmm…

Fall of the West

Fall of the West

Neville Bennett

Is the West in long time decline relative to the rest of the world? I believe it is, and will indicate some sources bearing that out. It is not a new question for me as in my youth I enjoyed reading Toynbee, Spengler and others.

Many of my generation received a broad liberal education at a state grammar school. Science was very strong at my school, where many friends later became engineers, but we were all taught to love literature, art, music (you had to play an instrument), history and 5 years of at least two languages. At school we debated the rise and fall of Rome, plus the British and other Empires.

West below 50% world GDP

“The Greater Depression (NBR 12 June ) has accelerated the decline of Western GDP of 60% to 64% of global GDP over 1995-2004. A British think-tank, CEBR, had earlier forecast 2015 as the date when the West’s GDP would go below 50% of world GDP, but the credit crunch and changes in foreign exchange has brought the date forward from 2015 to 2009. Defined as US, Canada and Europe, the West’s share of global GDP is predicted to decline further to 45% by 2012.

The report identifies an inventory-led recovery conforming to my bullish attitude to oil and metals (NBR May 29). They predict some bounce in 2009, but in 2010 recovery will be held back by fiscal retrenchment and the impact of structural deleveraging. They conclude, the West “has to get to grips with the fact that we are no longer dominant and cannot expect to have things our own way”. China’s recovery is having a marked effect on oil and commodities.

Oil as an indicator

Crude oil prices have increased by 120% since February, at a time when the IMF confirms a recession in the world economy. Normally, falling crude prices would be expected. Actually, the price is about $72 p.b. and the futures market is predicting $88. So the prices defy “demand destruction”, or the idea that price rises lower demand. BP’s statistical review has shown that for the first time in history, emerging market demand has outstripped the West’s. This is significant in our oil-based civilization.

Until now traders have tended to look at US conditions for oil market leads. Henceforth, Western demand can slump while overall consumption is rising. Perhaps this is one reason why oil prices are strong now. 2008 oil consumption fell in the US by 6.4%; in the BRICs consumption grew y-o-y by 3.3% in China, 4.8% in India, 5.3% in Brazil, and 3.1% in Russia.

The BRICs

The BRICs now muster 20% of global GDP, about the same as the USA. These are rapidly changing societies with a large propensity to consume oil and commodities. Presumably their oil demand will burgeon, as industrialization proceeds at pace. One tends to think of them as financially undeveloped, but they have at least one huge advantage: they save.

Collectively their currency reserves are half of the global total. A recent Telegraph article said G7’s reserves’ (excluding Japan) has only 6% of world reserves. This makes it a little odd that the US dominates the IMF, World Bank etc. How can that last?

The BRIC’s are holding their first formal summit this week in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Curious that it gets little reported because the BRICs could stop lending the West money and deepen the recession. Their agenda includes ways to reshape the financial system and perhaps produce a new reserve currency. The Brazilian President wants the BRICs “change the political and trade geography of the world”.

The Chinese premier arrived as I went to press. I imagine that China will be much less confrontational than Brazil and Russia. China holds the most US Treasuries and does not want to undermine the dollar. It merely wants to supplant the USA as the world’s biggest economy, as it may do in 20 years.

World Economic Forum

Readers may recall an earlier article in which I outlined the briefing for the upcoming Davos meeting. The article specifically questioned the western model of development, and adopted the spirit of Asian capitalism with stronger central direction, saving and heavy capital investment. The report went beyond extending current trends and explicitly discussed “critical uncertainties”, and “potential discontinuities”. It also stressed rapidly shifting geo-economic power. (NBR Jan 23). Changing demography is a factor: “western” populations are shrinking, but emerging country populations are not.

Philosophers: Oswald Spengler

Spengler insisted in the 1920’s, when he was extremely influential, that we were living in the winter time of the Faustian civilization. His description of the Faustian civilization is where the populace constantly strives for the unattainable—making the western man a proud but tragic figure, for while he strives and creates he secretly knows the actual goal will never be reached. His “unattainable” is materialism.

Spengler asserted that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the media is the means through which money operates a democratic political system. Politics becomes an unprincipled struggle for executive power. Instead of conversations between men, the press and the “electrical news-service keep the waking-consciousness of whole people and continents under a deafening drum-fire of theses, catchwords, standpoints, scenes, feelings, day by day and year by year.”

Philosopher: Arnold Toynbee

Toynbee wrote magnificent Annual reports during the 1930’s are which I often set as required reading for graduate students. I had the joy once of meeting him. He dropped into Hong Kong University and asked if he could help. I took him to a tutorial, where unforgettably he raged against the state but lauded the polis (city).

Toynbee predicted the decline of the west. All civilizations are surrounded by peripheral countries of greater resources. Once the periphery absorbs the civilizations superior technology, especially military technology, it conquers.

Conclusion

Two centuries of western dominance has passed. The emerging world has caught up in terms of development. The West still has cutting-edge technology and military power, but it is being challenged on every front.

LIES, DAMN LIES & GFMS STATISTICS

LIES, DAMN LIES & GFMS STATISTICS

By Adrian Douglas

On April 24, 2009 China announced that they had added 454 tonnes of gold to their gold reserves since 2003 to bring them to 1054 tonnes. This stunned everyone in the gold world except GATA. GATA had reported from a confidential source as early as September 2003 that the Chinese were buying large quantities of gold. GFMS continued to report that China carried only 600 tonnes of gold every year since 2003.

Recently Philip Klapwijk of GFMS announced that the fundamentals of the precious metals market looked very negative! Having missed such a large amount of gold being purchased by China would any one believe that collection of dopey analysts? Gold was trading around $930/oz at the time so his call is not looking too good!

Anyone can make a mistake but if it is an honest mistake the appropriate action is to re-examine the data. From GATA’s information China acquired most of their new reserves on the world market. But what is interesting is that by GFMS data China has become the biggest gold producer in the world, surpassing South Africa. Why would such a prolific gold producer be acquiring gold on the world market instead of from its own production?

Figure 1

Figure 1 is the total world gold production from 1980 to 2006 compiled by GFMS. What is stunning is the supposed massive increase in gold output from China in the last ten years. Extracting the data for China alone gives the chart in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Apparently China ramped up gold production from 5 Mozs in 1998 to 9.2 Mozs by 2008. For anyone who knows anything about mining they would know that this is just not credible. This is like India surpassing Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest oil producer!

Does China have massive rich gold reserves and are they at the cutting edge of mine development technology?

Wikipedia has the following to say

QUOTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining_in_China

Gold mining in China dates back to the Song dynasty.

The Chinese government began reforms in the mid-1990s encouraging small operators to consolidate and allow foreign companies to form joint ventures so that Chinese companies could learn modern management practices, financial controls, and industrial, environmental and safety standards.

Domestic producers still suffer from a lack of scale. In 2000, there were about 2,000 gold producers – most of them relatively small and unsophisticated by international standards with very few able to operate on a global platform, though the number of producers had shrunk to about 800 in 2007 after mergers and acquisitions and restructuring and consolidation. Most of these firms’ technological standards and management are weak and inefficient.

In the last five years (2002-2007), China’s Geological Survey Bureau said that five new gold deposits with reserves of 600 tons were found.

END

South Africa has 50% of the world’s unmined gold and is at the forefront of mining technology with some of the biggest mining companies in the world operating there. Apparently a rag-tag collection of artisans with only 7% of the world’s reserves can produce more than South Africa!

If you believe that you will believe anything. The fact that GFMS can publish such absurd information further detracts from their credibility which has already been seriously questioned by their inability to determine that China almost doubled its gold reserves without them noticing!

Figure 3

In figure 3 I have compared the GFMS world gold production with world gold production assuming Chinese gold output remained at 1998 levels of 5Mozs per year for the last 10 years. The shocking difference is in what this portends for future production trends. The GFMS profile has a gently declining production when extrapolated to 2015. When the absurd Chinese production growth is backed out the extrapolation is a shockingly rapid declining world gold output.

What a great ruse! China wanted to diversify out of the large amount of dollar reserves it was accumulating. They reported that their gold holding remained static at 600 tonnes for 6 years. At the same time they reported that their gold production became the largest in the world. In other words, they claimed that they were not adding to demand but massively adding to supply! That would certainly help to keep prices of gold depressed. But such a ramp up in supply was fictitious. But it was a superb smoke screen to allow China to out-smart the arrogant Gold Cartel and take the gold they were surreptitiously dumping without the price rising too fast.

Even now that China has admitted they lied about only having 600 tonnes of gold for the last 6 years, the dopes at GFMS have assumed that China was telling the truth about their mining output. They have swallowed the Chinese story hook line and sinker! They believe that China has increased its reserves from its supposed massive domestic production!

The implications that China has relieved the Western Central Banks of their gold in the ill-conceived strong dollar policy are huge. The strong dollar policy has allowed China to acquire cheap gold to hedge the dollars they were accumulating. The projected world gold production decline when it is viewed without the fictitious Chinese output growth is shocking but totally in line with the fact that the Gold Cartel has suppressed the gold price below the cost of production for the last 15 years.

The gold market action has recently changed dramatically. It is trading as if many big players have worked out what is really going on; that the end game is close. As more and more investors realize that there is very little gold available and the Cartel is desperately short, the price will rise to levels that will shock even the most staunchly bullish.

The US Congress is debating whether to approve the sale of 400 t of IMF gold. This, if approved, will be spun by the Cartel controlled financial press as being very negative for gold. But remember that China probably produced 650 t less than what is reported over the last decade and they acquired 454 t more than reported. That is 1100 t that has not been accounted for. The IMF gold, if it has not already been disposed of, will be snapped up by a market that is hungry for more supply. The Chinese will be more than happy to buy it with their stash of ever more worthless paper. Strong Dollar? That would probably make a group of Chinese students laugh!

Adrian Douglas
June 2, 2009

Why is China Buying Gold?

Why is China Buying Gold?
By Byron King

Remember the old expression, “I wouldn’t do that for all the tea in China.” People used to associate China with tea. Well, now it’s time to associate China with gold, and a lot of it. Because the Chinese recently announced that they control over 33.89 million ounces of gold for monetary purposes. That’s an increase of 75% in Chinese gold holdings over the past six years.

This kiloton of Chinese gold makes the Middle Kingdom the world’s sixth largest holder of the yellow metal. The U.S. — courtesy of President Roosevelt’s gold confiscation in 1933 – tops this list of the world’s largest gold holders, followed by Germany, the IMF, France and Italy.

How did the Chinese accumulate so much gold? China purchased it over the past six years through its State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE). SAFE is quite distinct from the People’s Bank of China (PBOC). The SAFE purchases meant that the gold did not appear as part of China’s officially reported monetary reserve figures.

The Chinese gold purchases, evidently, were part of a slow and steady buying program between 2003 and the present. It makes you wonder what the Chinese were thinking back in 2003. I happen to know, courtesy of an acquaintance at the Naval War College, that the Chinese were quietly forecasting that the U.S. would destroy its dollar by going to war in Iraq.

At any rate, SAFE bought all of the gold from domestic Chinese suppliers, so the overall impact was minimal on the international gold markets. Now the Chinese gold holdings have been transferred from the SAFE books to the PBOC. Hence, the official announcement. And here’s what REALLY matters. China is monetizing its gold!

This SAFE-to-PBOC transfer marks a profound decision by Chinese government leaders. Obviously, the Chinese government has bought gold over the past six years. But the Chinese have been engaged in an internal debate over whether to add the gold holdings to the official Chinese monetary reserves. That is, if the gold was not “monetary,” then it was just another non-monetary investment commodity like iron ore or copper or petroleum.

But now, with the announcement by the Chinese Central Bank, it appears that the debate is resolved. The gold has been added to Chinese monetary reserves. This action by China is part and parcel of an under-the-radar global effort to rehabilitate gold as a monetary reserve asset.

Gold has not been a factor in global trade and currency exchange since the late 1960s. But there’s a powerful movement afoot in the world to reestablish gold as part of an international monetary system. It’s because the U.S. dollar has been so badly mismanaged over the decades. No, you won’t read about it in your local newspaper, or even in the standard, mainstream business media. But that movement is out there. It’s happening.

At the same time, for many decades, the U.S. establishment has pooh- poohed the “gold effort.” U.S. policymakers, politicians, bankers and academics were collectively smug in their empirical certainty that, as Lord Keynes once noted, “Gold is a barbarous relic.” Apparently, the Chinese don’t agree. Not anymore. Indeed, the Chinese may well be thinking that the U.S. dollar is the real “barbarous relic.”

So now the Chinese are primed to begin using gold as a monetary asset. What’s the practical impact? I expect to see central banks worldwide start to add gold to their monetary reserves. The floodgates are opening. The PBOC and other central banks from here to Timbuktu are going to become net purchasers of gold in the years ahead. And people who own physical gold, as well as shares in well- managed mining companies, will benefit greatly.

One important commentator on gold prices is Peter Munk, founder of Barrick Gold, the world’s largest gold-producing firm. Recently from Switzerland, Munk remarked, “I have to think [gold prices] are going to be significantly higher than last year, just like last year was higher than the year before.”

According to Munk, the recent injection by the Federal Reserve of new currency into the money supply is an “enormous, enormous inflationary factor” for the dollar. This will make gold and silver “more and more desirable.” In addition, “Gold has got a very strong and stable support right now as long as we have this enormous uncertainty out there. And I think this uncertainty will probably last for a while, because I don’t see any major catalyst that can turn this around.”

Finally, Munk said, “Every year in the last three years, as the world becomes less and less secure in terms of normal investments and people lose faith and confidence in bonds, stocks, secured debt instruments, people turn to gold. It automatically attracts people in direct proportion to their fear, and that is fear of losing their money.”

Founded by Munk in 1983, Barrick Gold is among the world’s largest gold miners. Barrick has pursued growth through judicious expansion and a continuing process of acquisitions. “Barrick has grown,” said Munk, “primarily through an aggressive acquisition program in the last 25 years. So of course, we’d be on the lookout all the time for strategic acquisitions or mergers…The major gold deposits throughout the world in the main have already been found, so it’s getting more and more difficult, and that’s why you see global gold production heading downward, despite higher prices and increased spending on production.”

The bottom line in all of this is that you should be sure to pad your portfolio with gold and silver, both the physical metals and shares in quality mining companies. America’s political leaders have promised to fight recession by debasing the dollar. That may be the one and only political promise you can ever really trust.

UK Economic Assessment Grim

Grim forecasts for British economy

By Jean Shaoul
28 May 2009

 Several reports published in the last few days testify to the increasingly serious impact the financial crisis is having on Britain’s financial institutions, the broader economy, public finances and the living conditions of working people. They portend the introduction of sweeping austerity measures, the likes of which have not been seen in the post war era and which the traditional organisations of working people will do nothing to oppose.

Last week, the IMF issued a stark assessment of the UK economy, explicitly criticising the budget and its optimistic assumptions announced by Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling just last month.

It forecast that the UK economy would shrink by 4.1 percent this year, the biggest peace time contraction since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and 0.4 percent in 2010. It warned that despite the government’s “bold and wide ranging” response to the banking crisis, the banks were still exposed to bad debt from the fallout of the financial crisis and insufficiently capitalised, making it difficult for them to lend on the scale required for economic recovery. Figures just out indicate that business investment has fallen by 8.4 percent in the first quarter of this year from that of a year ago.

Consumers, faced with high levels of household debt, falling house prices, a reduction in the value of their occupational and personal plans due to the fall on the world stock markets, rising unemployment and reduced access to cheap credit, are cutting back on spending.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders announced a 60 percent fall in home loan advances for April compared to last year. The Economist Intelligence Unit in its report noted that “This [the lack of household credit] in turn is aggravating a severe downturn in the housing market, which may not reach bottom until 2010 or 2011. Employment has also started to fall, and we expect the rate of unemployment to rise sharply to close at 11 percent by 2011”.

The IMF cautioned that the UK remained susceptible to shocks, in particular to the banks and financial institutions, and that the government should prepare contingency plans to bail out the banks again. It said that the authorities should “stand ready to provide further support where needed”. But that must lead to a further increase in government borrowing and contingent liabilities—the potential claims on public finances if the banks redeem the government’s guarantees. Standard and Poor’s, the credit ratings agency, believes that such claims will reach £100 to £145billion (between 7 and 10 percent of GDP).

The IMF noted that it was not just the public debt that was rising, but so were its contingent liabilities arising out of its guarantees to the financial institutions. In addition, there are the explicit and implicit support measures for the government’s public private partnerships and bailouts of failed privatisations, all of which are—Enron style—off the balance sheet.

The IMF warned that “the sharp increase in public sector borrowing and contingent government liabilities, together with continued financial sector fragility, are significant vulnerabilities. In these circumstances, a severe shock has the potential to disrupt domestic and external stability”.

It insisted that the key to shoring up the banks’ financial situation was to restore “fiscal sustainability”. Stripped of the bland language of such reports, the IMF was serving notice that the government’s projected debt level is unacceptable, and that the bank bailouts must be paid for through attacks on working people. The Brown government and its successors are being called upon to implement public expenditure cuts and reduce borrowing much faster than the chancellor had planned, i.e., in one five-year electoral term, not two or three.

Standard and Poor’s report expressed similar concerns last week, downgrading its outlook on British sovereign debt from “stable” to “negative”. It said that the UK’s triple-A rating was at risk unless government borrowing was cut sooner rather than later. It reaffirmed the UK’s actual credit rating, but said the outlook had deteriorated “at a faster rate than Standard and Poor’s had previously assumed”, because of the massive borrowing to deal with the banking crisis and the recession, which last month cut tax receipts by £2 billion while increasing benefit payouts by £1 billion, compared to a year ago.

The government may miss its own forecast of £175 billion in debt for 2009-10, itself a massive increase on last year’s £90 billion. Standard and Poor’s expects public debt to reach 100 percent of GDP by 2013. The UK’s gross debt, already 53 percent this year, is expected to breach the European Union’s Stability and Growth Pact limits of 60 percent by next year.

It is the first potential downgrade of UK public debt since the agency began rating government debt in 1978. A credit downgrade could make it more expensive for Britain to borrow. A higher cost of borrowing would increase government expenditure on debt servicing. Bringing down the total level of debt would mean drastic spending curbs and tax rises.

Standard and Poor’s warning is significant because it is not based upon new data but is consistent with all the public finance forecasts.

Much to the government’s annoyance, the Bank of England also confirmed these reports. The Bank has cut its growth forecast over the next two years and raised its estimate for inflation since February. It appears to be projecting a decline of about 3.9 percent this year and growth of about 1 percent in 2010. The Bank believes that inflation will fall to around 0.5 percent by the end of this year before picking up to around 1.2 percent in two years’ time—below the Bank’s target rate of 2 percent.

Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, said that the economy would take time to recover. “There are pretty solid reasons for supposing that there will be a recovery next year, but also pretty solid reasons for questioning if that will be sustained”, King said. “But in the light of the state of balance sheets particularly in the financial sector, the committee [the Monetary Policy Committee] judges that the risks are weighted towards a relatively slow and protracted recovery”.

Last month, the Bank agreed to expand its programme of “quantitative easing”—in effect printing money—by spending £50 billion of the remaining £75 billion authorised by the government to buy up the banks’ worthless toxic assets. This comes on top of £75 billion in March. The committee wanted the chancellor to increase the £150 billion limit “should economic conditions require it”. But the Bank said it was “too soon” to know whether the quantitative easing was working.

 

While the Labour government has bailed out banks and mortgage lenders on the point of collapse due to their own semi-criminal and reckless policies, it has done and will do nothing to assist the millions of working people struggling with mortgages, rising bills and debt. Instead, they face a catastrophic decline in their living standards.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has made it clear that public sector workers will see their pay rise by no more than 2 percent even as prices rise. He has encouraged private employers to similarly limit their pay increases.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies concluded on the basis of last month’s budget that working people would have to face 10 years of austerity measures to bring public debt down to 40 percent of GDP.

A report from the financial services company PWC gives an indication of just what such austerity measures might entail if the government is to bring debt below 50 percent of GDP by 2018. It warns that additional tax hikes or public spending cuts building up to £115 and £133 billion a year by 2017-2018 will be needed, equivalent to £5,000 for every family in the country.

John Hawksworth, head of macroeconomics at PWC, says that the Treasury believes that public finances will come under control by 2017-18. But this is just when the impact of an aging population takes effect. He is calling for tax increases or spending cuts “sooner rather than later” in order to “avoid unduly large increases in the tax burden on future generations of workers to pay for the future pensions and healthcare costs of current generations of workers”.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimated that the state pension age would have to be raised to 70 to cut the debt.

Nicholas Timmins, in a Financial Times article, looked at where the axe would have to fall in order to balance the books. Selling off the state’s assets would not provide the cash it yielded in the 1980s. “More controversially, it involves reducing the role of—and burden on—the state and increasing the role the individuals will play, where politicians believe that will be justified. For example, the introduction of university tuition fees, which look set to rise again after the election; the long term rise in the state pension age; or a reduction in the generosity of public sector pensions”.

But as Paul Johnson, a former director of public services at the Treasury, lamented, “Shrinking the state is terribly difficult. [Governments] don’t get far in reducing the size of the state without reducing the numbers working for it or reducing the amount they are paid”. This is a recipe for a slash and burn programme of job losses and real wage cuts.

A Thoughtful Analysis of the US Government’s Quantitative Easing Policy

TIME TO GET OUT THE WHEELBARROWS?
ANOTHER LOOK AT THE WEIMAR HYPERINFLATION

Ellen Brown, May 19th, 2009

---

“It was horrible. Horrible! Like lightning it struck. No one was prepared. The shelves in the grocery stores were empty.You could buy nothing with your paper money.” - Harvard University law professor Friedrich Kessler on on the Weimar Republic hyperinflation (1993 interview)

Some worried commentators are predicting a massive hyperinflation of the sort suffered by Weimar Germany in 1923, when a wheelbarrow full of paper money could barely buy a loaf of bread. An April 29 editorial in the San Francisco Examiner warned:

“With an unprecedented deficit that’s approaching $2 trillion, [the President's 2010] budget proposal is a surefire prescription for hyperinflation. So every senator and representative who votes for this monster $3.6 trillion budget will be endorsing a spending spree that could very well turn America into the next Weimar Republic.”¹

In an investment newsletter called Money Morning on April 9, Martin Hutchinson pointed to disturbing parallels between current government monetary policy and Weimar Germany’s, when 50% of government spending was being funded by seigniorage – merely printing money.² However, there is something puzzling in his data. He indicates that the British government is already funding more of its budget by seigniorage than Weimar Germany did at the height of its massive hyperinflation; yet the pound is still holding its own, under circumstances said to have caused the complete destruction of the German mark. Something else must have been responsible for the mark’s collapse besides mere money-printing to meet the government’s budget, but what? And are we threatened by the same risk today? Let’s take a closer look at the data.

History Repeats Itself – or Does It?

In his well-researched article, Hutchinson notes that Weimar Germany had been suffering from inflation ever since World War I; but it was in the two year period between 1921 and 1923 that the true “Weimar hyperinflation” occurred. By the time it had ended in November 1923, the mark was worth only one-trillionth of what it had been worth back in 1914. Hutchinson goes on:

“The current policy mix reflects those of Germany during the period between 1919 and 1923. The Weimar government was unwilling to raise taxes to fund post-war reconstruction and war-reparations payments, and so it ran large budget deficits. It kept interest rates far below inflation, expanding money supply rapidly and raising 50% of government spending through seigniorage (printing money and living off the profits from issuing it). . . .

“The really chilling parallel is that the United States, Britain and Japan have now taken to funding their budget deficits through seigniorage. In the United States, the Fed is buying $300 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds (T-bonds) over a six-month period, a rate of $600 billion per annum, 15% of federal spending of $4 trillion. In Britain, the Bank of England (BOE) is buying 75 billion pounds of gilts [the British equivalent of U.S. Treasury bonds] over three months. That’s 300 billion pounds per annum, 65% of British government spending of 454 billion pounds. Thus, while the United States is approaching Weimar German policy (50% of spending) quite rapidly, Britain has already overtaken it!”

And that is where the data gets confusing. If Britain is already meeting a larger percentage of its budget deficit by seigniorage than Germany did at the height of its hyperinflation, why is the pound now worth about as much on foreign exchange markets as it was nine years ago, under circumstances said to have driven the mark to a trillionth of its former value in the same period, and most of this in only two years? Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar has actually gotten stronger relative to other currencies since the policy was begun last year of massive “quantitative easing” (today’s euphemism for seigniorage).³ Central banks rather than governments are now doing the printing, but the effect on the money supply should be the same as in the government money-printing schemes of old. The government debt bought by the central banks is never actually paid off but is just rolled over from year to year; and once the new money is in the money supply, it stays there, diluting the value of the currency. So why haven’t our currencies already collapsed to a trillionth of their former value, as happened in Weimar Germany? Indeed, if it were a simple question of supply and demand, a government would have to print a trillion times its earlier money supply to drop its currency by a factor of a trillion; and even the German government isn’t charged with having done that. Something else must have been going on in the Weimar Republic, but what?

Schacht Lets the Cat Out of the Bag

Light is thrown on this mystery by the later writings of Hjalmar Schacht, the currency commissioner for the Weimar Republic. The facts are explored at length in The Lost Science of Money by Stephen Zarlenga, who writes that in Schacht’s 1967 book The Magic of Money, he “let the cat out of the bag, writing in German, with some truly remarkable admissions that shatter the ‘accepted wisdom’ the financial community has promulgated on the German hyperinflation.” What actually drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation, said Schacht, was speculation by foreign investors, who would bet on the mark’s decreasing value by selling it short.

Short selling is a technique used by investors to try to profit from an asset’s falling price. It involves borrowing the asset and selling it, with the understanding that the asset must later be bought back and returned to the original owner. The speculator is gambling that the price will have dropped in the meantime and he can pocket the difference. Short selling of the German mark was made possible because private banks made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing, marks that were created on demand and lent to investors, returning a profitable interest to the banks.

At first, the speculation was fed by the Reichsbank (the German central bank), which had recently been privatized. But when the Reichsbank could no longer keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create them out of nothing and lend them at interest as well.⁴

A Story with an Ironic Twist

If Schacht is to be believed, not only did the government not cause the hyperinflation but it was the government that got the situation under control. The Reichsbank was put under strict regulation, and prompt corrective measures were taken to eliminate foreign speculation by eliminating easy access to loans of bank-created money.

More interesting is a little-known sequel to this tale. What allowed Germany to get back on its feet in the 1930s was the very thing today’s commentators are blaming for bringing it down in the 1920s – money issued by seigniorage by the government. Economist Henry C. K. Liu calls this form of financing “sovereign credit.” He writes of Germany’s remarkable transformation:

“The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.”⁵

While Hitler clearly deserves the opprobrium heaped on him for his later atrocities, he was enormously popular with his own people, at least for a time. This was evidently because he rescued Germany from the throes of a worldwide depression – and he did it through a plan of public works paid for with currency generated by the government itself. Projects were first earmarked for funding, including flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new buildings, roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. The projected cost of the various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. One billion non-inflationary bills of exchange called Labor Treasury Certificates were then issued against this cost. Millions of people were put to work on these projects, and the workers were paid with the Treasury Certificates. The workers then spent the certificates on goods and services, creating more jobs for more people. These certificates were not actually debt-free but were issued as bonds, and the government paid interest on them to the bearers. But the certificates circulated as money and were renewable indefinitely, making them a de facto currency; and they avoided the need to borrow from international lenders or to pay off international debts.⁶ The Treasury Certificates did not trade on foreign currency markets, so they were beyond the reach of the currency speculators. They could not be sold short because there was no one to sell them to, so they retained their value.

Within two years, Germany’s unemployment problem had been solved and the country was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries were still out of work and living on welfare.  Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, although it was denied foreign credit and was faced with an economic boycott abroad. It did this by using a barter system: equipment and commodities were exchanged directly with other countries, circumventing the international banks. This system of direct exchange occurred without debt and without trade deficits. Although Germany’s economic experiment was short-lived, it left some lasting monuments to its success, including the famous Autobahn, the world’s first extensive superhighway.⁷

The Lessons of History: Not Always What They Seem

Germany’s scheme for escaping its crippling debt and reinvigorating a moribund economy was clever, but it was not actually original with the Germans. The notion that a government could fund itself by printing and delivering paper receipts for goods and services received was first devised by the American colonists. Benjamin Franklin credited the remarkable growth and abundance in the colonies, at a time when English workers were suffering the impoverished conditions of the Industrial Revolution, to the colonists’ unique system of government-issued money. In the nineteenth century, Senator Henry Clay called this the “American system,” distinguishing it from the “British system” of privately-issued paper banknotes. After the American Revolution, the American system was replaced in the U.S. with banker-created money; but government-issued money was revived during the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln funded his government with U.S. Notes or “Greenbacks” issued by the Treasury.

The dramatic difference in the results of Germany’s two money-printing experiments was a direct result of the uses to which the money was put. Price inflation results when “demand” (money) increases more than “supply” (goods and services), driving prices up; and in the experiment of the 1930s, new money was created for the purpose of funding productivity, so supply and demand increased together and prices remained stable. Hitler said, “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” In the hyperinflationary disaster of 1923, on the other hand, money was printed merely to pay off speculators, causing demand to shoot up while supply remained fixed. The result was not just inflation but hyperinflation, since the speculation went wild, triggering rampant tulip-bubble-style mania and panic.

This was also true in Zimbabwe, a dramatic contemporary example of runaway inflation. The crisis dated back to 2001, when Zimbabwe defaulted on its loans and the IMF refused to make the usual accommodations, including refinancing and loan forgiveness. Apparently, the IMF’s intention was to punish the country for political policies of which it disapproved, including land reform measures that involved reclaiming the lands of wealthy landowners. Zimbabwe’s credit was ruined and it could not get loans elsewhere, so the government resorted to issuing its own national currency and using the money to buy U.S. dollars on the foreign-exchange market. These dollars were then used to pay the IMF and regain the country’s credit rating.⁸ According to a statement by the Zimbabwe central bank, the hyperinflation was caused by speculators who manipulated the foreign-exchange market, charging exorbitant rates for U.S. dollars, causing a drastic devaluation of the Zimbabwe currency.

The government’s real mistake, however, may have been in playing the IMF’s game at all. Rather than using its national currency to buy foreign fiat money to pay foreign lenders, it could have followed the lead of Abraham Lincoln and the American colonists and issued its own currency to pay for the production of goods and services for its own people. Inflation would then have been avoided, because supply would have kept up with demand; and the currency would have served the local economy rather than being siphoned off by speculators.

The Real Weimar Threat and How It Can Be Avoided

Is the United States, then, out of the hyperinflationary woods with its “quantitative easing” scheme? Maybe, maybe not. To the extent that the newly-created money will be used for real economic development and growth, funding by seigniorage is not likely to inflate prices, because supply and demand will rise together. Using quantitative easing to fund infrastructure and other productive projects, as in President Obama’s stimulus package, could invigorate the economy as promised, producing the sort of abundance reported by Benjamin Franklin in America’s flourishing early years.

There is, however, something else going on today that is disturbingly similar to what triggered the 1923 hyperinflation. As in Weimar Germany, money creation in the U.S. is now being undertaken by a privately-owned central bank, the Federal Reserve; and it is largely being done to settle speculative bets on the books of private banks, without producing anything of value to the economy. As gold investor James Sinclair warned nearly two years ago:

“[T]he real problem is a trembling $20 trillion mountain of over the counter credit and default derivatives. Think deeply about the Weimar Republic case study because every day it looks more and more like a repeat in cause and effect . . . .”⁹

The $12.9 billion in bailout funds funneled through AIG to pay Goldman Sachs for its highly speculative credit default swaps is just one egregious example.¹⁰ To the extent that the money generated by “quantitative easing” is being sucked into the black hole of paying off these speculative derivative bets, we could indeed be on the Weimar road and there is real cause for alarm. We have been led to believe that we must prop up a zombie Wall Street banking behemoth because without it we would have no credit system, but that is not true. There is another viable alternative, and it may prove to be our only viable alternative. Main Street can beat Wall Street at its own game by forming publicly-owned banks that issue the full faith and credit of the United States not for private speculative profit but as a public service, for the benefit of the United States and its people.¹¹

Things That Make You Say – Huh?

Thoughts for the day by Chuck Butler

——————————————————————————-

Two economists, Gregory Mankiw, former White House advisor, and Ken Rogoff, former Chief Economist at the IMF, believe that the U.S. economy is in need of a dose of good old-fashioned inflation! WHAT? They believe the Fed should have a looser rein on inflation, to help debt-strapped consumers and governments to meet their obligations… Again… WHAT? I have to wonder just what else the Fed can do to create an inflationary environment! Come on! They’ve cut rates to near zero… The implemented Quantitative Easing… They’ve pushed Trillions into the system… And these two dunderheads want more? Did they stop, in the name of love, and think about what they were saying before they said it?

And… I can’t understand why they believe that running 6% inflation for “at least a couple of years” is a good thing! Talk about “spooking our foreign investors”! And talk about sending the dollar to the woodshed! Let’s hope these two go away… Don’t go away mad, just go away…

And then… It sure looks like the Bank of Canada (BOC) is doing everything they can to put a 100 miles of desert between them and Quantitative Easing… There will be a speech today by BOC Gov. Murray titled: “Unconventional Monetary Policy Measures and the Zero-Bound, Differing International Approaches and Critical Considerations”… Now, that looks like a speech title that his marketing team came up with… Why not say… “the rest of the world is doing Quantitative Easing, and we’re not!”