|
Back to Smith. Here's that same paragraph again. Let's see if we can answer his questions a little more concisely now that we have a new perspective:
As we’ve both said, the other issue is, how do the Elites benefit from hyperinflation? The only answer I’ve ever received is “they’ve already bought gold.” Yeah, right. As I noted, there’s $7T in gold, total, half of which is owned by central banks, and there’s $160T in financial wealth to protect in the world. Even if gold went to $10K/oz there would be no more than $35 T in gold in private hands, and by that time, the gold in Fort Knox (or in the PBoChina vaults, etc.) would be enough to establish a gold-backed currency. Meanwhile, the Financial Elites would have lost all their financial wealth. Have they really transferred all their wealth out of all financial instruments and totally into gold and land? If so, then owns the $160T in financial wealth?
Yes, they've bought the gold and it's still priced at around $6.6T, at least that portion that is in private ownership. No, there will be no gold-backed currency because we aren't going back to "hard money" because "your Elites" wouldn't like that. No, they won't lose all their wealth; they will gain wealth. Here are the steps as viewed, not by ants, but by Gi-ants:
Step 1: Buy up as much physical gold as you can over a couple decades without running the price and without panicking out of your paper, while the Western investor is caught up in all manner of paper including paper gold.
Step 2: Wait patiently for the inevitable financial collapse. As Rick Ackerman himself wrote, "financial collapse is not just likely, but inevitable."
Step 3: When the collapse comes, sell that $XXXT in "financial wealth" to the printer for fresh cash at full face value in the name of "saving the system" and "survival of the country and the Western way of life."
Step 4: Spend the new cash.
Step 5: Adjust your balance sheet from the old paradigm where it used to read $160T paper/$6.6T gold to the new paradigm where it now reads $0 paper/$264T gold. A net gain of $97.4T.
Now I must explain here that I don't view this as a nefarious plan, plot or con. It is simply the way you deal with the inevitable collapse of the global reserve currency at the end of its financial timeline. And if you are a Gi-ant, it's the clearest way to transfer your wealth through the crisis and into the future. You don't do it with a high-yielding bond Con and a sustained deflation. LOL Gimme a break!
And if you think Congress will prevent the Fed from doing what it did in 2008… and 2009, 2010 and 2011… guess again. The USG will face a real, existential shut down this time. Nothing like the charade that happens every few years when it's time to renew the budget or raise the debt ceiling. This will be the real deal. Congress will DEMAND that the Fed print "for the good of the country" (and for their own paychecks).
Back to Smith:
This explanation — that the wealthy have already transferred their financial assets into gold and land and thus they don’t care if all money, bonds, mortgages, derivatives, insurance policies, etc. all go to zero and is wiped off the books as an asset—makes no sense because it doesn’t explain who is the bag holder to all this “fiat-based” wealth. If the wealthy don’t own all these financial assets, who does? Who did they sell it all to? Yet we know that the Financial Elites own all this financial wealth and thus it will not be in their self-interest to see it wiped out. Only debtors, i.e. Central States, want to see hyperinflation to wipe out their debt. But who considers all that sovereign debt an interest-paying asset? The Financial Elites, that’s who, along with politically powerful union pension funds, banks, etc.
Yes, I know I have already addressed everything in this paragraph. But I wanted to show you how silly it starts to read once you have a different perspective. Moving on:
Everyone seems to forget that debt is an asset to the guy on the other side of the trade. The debtor would love hyperinflation but the owner of the debt will resist hyperinflation with every fiber of his being — and that includes the Financial Elite who own the debt.
Okay, here Smith moves into the first of his two strongest complaints about hyperinflationists. Remember up at the beginning of this post I wrote that in 2008 I didn't find many of the arguments convincing on either side of the debate? That is, until I read FOA? Well, clearly Mr. Smith has not read much of my blog, not that I'd expect he had, because his two complaints are completely backward in their reasoning.
Those two complaints are that he views hyperinflationists as i) not considering that debt is an asset to someone else, and ii) that hyperinflationists don't understand that hyperinflation is a POLITICAL event and not a mechanical or "deterministic" event. Once again I had to LOL when I read this backward view.
I think it's time for me to post links to my three part series again, in which I DRIVE HOME these two topics… and how they inevitably end in hyperinflation, not deflation:
Just Another Hyperinflation Post - Part 1
Just Another Hyperinflation Post - Part 2
Just Another Hyperinflation Post - Part 3
If you haven't yet read them, you should probably start with the post I made just prior to those, Credibility Inflation, in order to understand what is actually deflating in our hyperinflation.
Basically, regarding Smith's paragraph above, "the guy on the other side of the trade," if he is well-connected enough to be considered "the Financial Elite who own the debt" would prefer to be relieved of that "asset" at full face value as long as he's getting that cash first. Remember, hyperinflation is a race, not against the bear (you can't outrun the bear) but against your neighbor.
Next:
This is basically a “politics of experience” analysis, and very few are equipped to understand such an analysis, as it’s outside their econometric comfort zone. They prefer a deterministic financial analysis that there are “laws” of economics which lead to hyperinflation, etc. Meanwhile, for me, there are only political choices, a narrow band of which lead to hyperinflation and a bunch of others which do not. This kind of analysis doesn’t lend itself to refutation or confirmation by financial models of the sort being bandied about — it’s a behavioral analysis and a political one.
I have yet to see how banks and the Financial Elites would benefit from hyperinflation. Without getting too fancy, it’s obvious that holders of debt, those collecting interest on debt assets, would be wiped out by hyperinflation. Thus as a simple matter of self-interest, we can deduce they will not favor policies that lead to hyperinflation. If the owners of debt (Treasuries, mortgages, corporate debt, commercial paper, etc.) were politically powerless, then we could expect them to be steamrolled by those who would benefit from hyperinflation. But they are not politically powerless — it’s the debtors who are powerless, except for the Central State, and it’s beholden to the Financial Elites who have captured the political and regulatory classes that govern the State.
This is the introduction of Smith's "it's about politics, and hyperinflationists don't get that" argument, which he refined in his next post on his own blog titled "Con of the Decade" or something like that. (By the way, this came out after Smith's blog post, but if there's any truth to it, it pretty much demolishes Smith's con idea and ensures—or insures—hyperinflation.) In that post Charles Hugh Smith pretty much threw down the gauntlet on this issue in the opening paragraph:
I described The Con of the Decade last July (2010). The Con makes me a heretic in the cult religion of Hyperinflation. I consider myself an agnostic about the destruction of the U.S. dollar and hyperinflation (basically the same thing), but my idea that hyperinflation is fundamentally a political process makes me a heretic. I skimmed a few of the dozens of comments posted on Rick's Picks and Zero Hedge after they posted one of my expositions on this dynamic, and didn't see even one comment in favor of this perspective.
Now I'm not sure if this is technically a straw man fallacy if Smith has never read FOA or FOFOA. Perhaps not. In any case, here are a few quotes from my hyperinflation posts:
What is a deflationist? It is one who looks very closely at the present structure of everything, the laws, the rules, the regulations, what is supposed to happen, who should fail, etc… but ignores the political (collective) will that backs it all up. The same political will that always changes the rules to suit its needs as surely as the sun rises. And it is this political will that makes dollar hyperinflation a certainty this time around.
[…]
As FOA warned 12 years ago, these bailouts were always baked into the cake. They are a mandatory function of the political will that backs the entire system. This is the main element that all of the deflationists miss.
[…]
The political will (which is the same as the collective will in my lexicon) always does whatever will lessen the immediate pain, even if it will most certainly cause greater pain later. This is the part that is as reliable as the sun rising.
[…]
Because we have a purely symbolic currency, a dollar-denominated deflation is impossible... because of the political will I mentioned above!
[…]
But this is also where the political (collective) will comes into play. It will NOT let that savers' balloon deflate. The Fed is helpless against the debtors' balloon and the credit/debt feedback loop, but it is most certainly NOT helpless against the savers' balloon.
The Fed has the power to keep the savers' balloon 100% full if it wants to, and the political will to fully back that action.
[…]
This is an excellent description of what the deflationists see, and also why they don't see the rest of the big picture. They view the monetary world as a machine rather than a human ecology. They underestimate the will of the "politicians and bureaucrats who are playing God." And they also underestimate the power of fear and monetary velocity.
I think you get the picture. But if you really want to get to the heart of this subject and see where Smith and the deflationists (notice I'm not calling Smith a deflationist here) go wrong on cause and effect with regard to hyperinflation and political will, you should read noteworthy deflationist Mish Shedlock's comment under my "Part 3" where he defended his post saying:
"I explicitly said hyperinflation is a political event… The amazing thing is I was agreeing with you…"
And my responding comment where I wrote:
"…Velocity can have the same exact effect as printing. Would you agree with this statement? Fear is the spark that ignites it. And then the government will need to fund itself in this hyperinflationary environment. This will entail THE massive printing that always follows immediately after hyperinflation starts. ***THIS IS THE POLITICAL EVENT THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT*** Not the priming beforehand. That's already done. We are already in the summer of 1922…
…It is this LATER political event that is 100% guaranteed. That our government will debase its currency TO ANY DEGREE to ease its own fiscal pain. And as for the cause, the prime, it's already there. Has been for at least 10 or 12 years now…"
And then Mish's follow-up where he writes:
"…I agree with FOFOA about what starts hyperinflation. I wish I would have made that perfectly clear in my post.
I disagree with him in regards to whether or not "politics" or as FOFOA calls it (loss of faith) makes the US more vulnerable.
It was a very gentle disagreement."
I didn't call Smith a deflationist because I don't know if he is. I haven't read enough of his blog to know if he's ever categorized himself. Usually deflationists are happy to categorize themselves as such, as in the case of Mish and Ackerman. But Smith appears to be a simple skeptic, a man of two minds, as he wrote in closing of that email to Rick Ackerman:
Maybe we will experience hyperinflation after all. I am a skeptic, not a true believer, but I am certainly open to it as a possibility. I think all the financial arguments are somewhat akin to biblical debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They are fundamentally deterministic and apolitical, while the actual process of setting policies that lead to hyperinflation is entirely political.
I have no econometric arguments against hyperinflation, I only have political ones. But since politics sets policy, then hyperinflation is necessarily a political choice. So a political analysis will trump an econometric one in my view.
But I could be wrong. As a basically poor person, I don’t have much of a stake in either outcome.
If Charles Hugh Smith happens to be reading this post, and I hope he is, I would like to point out that my hyperinflation arguments cover the gamut. And thanks to Rick Ackerman, I now have kudos from both camps, deflation and (hyper)inflation:
Deflation camp: "The very best of them, in my opinion, is FOFOA blogspot, where the essays are erudite, the discussion elevated and the arguments as knowledgeable as any you will find on the web."
[Hyper]Inflation camp: "FOFOA is probably one of the very best analyst in the whole world. The more I read from him, the more I am convinced of his vast superiority over most experts and analysts, probably of the Schiff-Turk caliber… This is one of the very best contributions in the inflation-deflation debate. It is long and detailed, but the topic is extraordinarily complex."
I really despise self-promoting in this way and risking coming across as if I think too highly of myself. The truth is quite the opposite, and I only post these so that skeptics like Smith will at least consider my arguments rather than dismissing them outright. I know my posts are long, and I know that some people think I'm just a crazy gold bug, which I am not. So there has to be a good reason for a skeptic to make that commitment of time and energy. And if he's read this far in my longest post ever, then at least that's something!
Now before I wrap this treatise up, there was one thing I said I would come back to that I haven't yet. And that is, if hyperinflation is guaranteed, why aren't all these hyperinflationists snatching up real estate left and right on the leverage that's still available? I, for one, don't have a mortgage. I don't even have any debt because I don't have an income, other than donations from this blog, to cover the carrying cost. And back when I was following Peter Schiff he was a proud renter too. Perhaps he still is, I don't know. There are literally dozens of answers to this question, almost all of them extremely personal. But the bottom line is that real estate will continue to fall in real terms even more than having an LTV of 95% hyperinflated away would cover.
Even if you accept that hyperinflation is 100% certain, real estate is still a poor investment choice to carry your wealth through. Gold is so much better that real estate shouldn't even be considered an investment choice (choice, as in a new investment) beyond your primary residence. Even with 10x or even 20x presumed leverage in a near-term debt wipeout, unleveraged gold is still a much better choice. And in addition to it being the lesser choice, leveraged real estate also carries a non-zero political risk in hyperinflation. I'm giving this an extremely low probability in today's world, but under any kind of conservative and personal "one percent doctrine" it must be factored heavily into the equation that includes expected leverage and the carrying costs on an unknowable timetable. This is an excerpt from an email I received a while ago:
Today I read a short little book titled Fiat Money Inflation in France by Andrew White (published 1912). My general impression is that there is no law so insane that it can't be enacted during a hyperinflation. As you may know, they even passed a law such that debts increased along with the issuance of further currency, so that for every so many additional assignats printed, one's debts increased by 25%. Thus they took away the one silver lining of currency debasement for the middle class. What a nightmare. I liked this bit:
"All this vast chapter in financial folly is sometimes referred to as if it resulted from the direct action of men utterly unskilled in finance. This is a grave error. That wild schemers and dreamers took a leading part in setting the fiat money system going is true; that speculation and interested financiers made it worse is also true; but the men who had charge of French finance during the Reign of Terror and who made these experiments, which seem to us so monstrous, in order to rescue themselves and their country from the flow which was sweeping everything to financial ruin, were universally recognized as among the most skillful and honest financiers in Europe. Cambon, especially, ranked then and ranks now as among the most expert in any period. The disastrous results of all his courage and ability in the attempt to stand against the deluge of paper money show how powerless are the most skillful masters of finance to stem the tide of fiat money calamity when one it is fairly under headway; and how useless are all enactments which they can devise against the underlying laws of nature."
Okay, last thought on the real estate home front, and then I'll let it go. I have a question for Rick and his commenter SD1 from the top of the post. Remember they wrote:
Rick's Picks Commenter SD1: To my knowledge, no bank has ever made provisions in their lending criteria. So to anyone subscribing to the hyperinflation theory, all I can say is there is nothing I, and millions of other North Americans, would love more than to take $250,000 of worthless, hyperinflated money that we worked a few days to make, to pay off a mortgage that would otherwise have taken twenty-five to thirty years to repay.
Rick Ackerman:That’s the bottom line, as far as I’m concerned.
How close to the business end of the printing press are these millions of North Americans? You guys seem to assume that, during hyperinflation, millions of American mortgage payers will have access to this river of cash early enough to benefit overall. By the time they get their hands on it they may be struggling to meet other skyrocketing expense like property taxes and, uh, food. Wages won't keep up. Most people simply won't be able to keep up. And most of those who do will find that their wealth relative to those closest to the printing press will be declining. Like I said this is about outrunning the next guy, not the bear.
This is why I wrote, "if you don't make the effort to understand what is actually unfolding, there's a good chance [hyperinflation] won't [deliver any windfall in your direction]." If you really want "to pay off a mortgage that would otherwise have taken twenty-five to thirty years to repay," then you'd be best equipped to do so by buying some physical gold right now!
Inevitability
Here is Rick's premise once again: “Ultimately, every penny of every debt must be paid — if not by the borrower, then by the lender.” If the borrowers can't pay, at least not in full, and certainly not in real terms (today's purchasing power), and the politically connected lenders won't take the hit, that only leaves the third option which C.V. Myers missed and Rick can't seem to fathom.
How do I know hyperinflation is inevitable? I know that they will do the "front lawn dump" not only because they said they would do it, and then did it, and they continue doing it, but because it makes absolutely no logical sense, from their perspective, to NOT do it in the face of a crushing deflationary collapse like both Rick and I see as inevitable. It will be judged an infinitely better option than immediate total economic collapse. And besides, 75% of the world has been waiting patiently, for a long time, to get off the dollar standard. And it has prepared for this very, inevitable, eventuality. So it won't be fought from abroad.
This is very important: Once hyperinflation commences it is characterized by a running shortage of cash, even though it appears like the opposite to the outside observer. The currency collapses in value against economic goods because the debt and the credit collapsed. There is no credit, only cash, and there is a shortage of cash for everyone, including the Elite and the government. So they, the Elite/government, print and print for their own survival while saying it is for yours.
And for those of you that think they won't do it because they'll be afraid it will end the dollar, end the Fed, or end fiat currency altogether, guess again. Not a chance! After it's all said and done, Bernanke will say some sweet things like his cuddly Zimbabwe counterpart did in this 2009 interview:
Gideon Gono: "I've been condemned by traditional economists who said that printing money is responsible for inflation. Out of the necessity to exist, to ensure my people survive, I had to find myself printing money. I found myself doing extraordinary things that aren't in the textbooks…
"There are certain things, policies with the benefit of hindsight, where we could've managed our affairs better… We are [only] human…
"Only a fool does not change course when it is necessary. Because economics is not an exact science, you want to be able to be relevant. The only constant is change and adaptation…
"It's a free market, a business which must be allowed to succeed or fail…
"What keeps me bright and looking forward to every day is that it can't be any worse. And those who have studied the history of economies know that we are down, but that the only thing that can happen is we will move up. That is a certainty…
"I am modestly credited with the survival strategy of my country. The issue is if you want to break Zimbabwe and want it to fall, just deal with one man. You deal with Gideon Gono…
"I'm a normal guy: I miss going to the supermarket. One would like more freedom…
"If you raise the interest rate you'll be friends of people who have access to money. If you lower the interest rate, you'll be the darling of borrowers, but pensioners will curse you to hell. It's never about popularity. At all times you are definitely hurting some people in the economy…
"It's impossible to be directing the course of an entire economy and divorce yourself from politics. Politics are important because the turnaround of the economy hinges on political stability, but I can't tell when that will happen…
"I have been in the trenches during every moment of survival for my country. Any central bank governor is of necessity. When things go bad, we governors are the fall guys. No other governor in the world has had to deal with the kind of inflation levels that I deal with, no other governor has to come up with the gymnastics and strategy for the survival of his country. But let me say that in my bank resides the cutting edge of the country. I'm privileged to be the leader of that team."
Zimbabwe still has a Central Bank, and Dr. Gideon Gono still has a job as its governor. It will likely be no different for Bernanke and the Fed. Extreme times call for extreme measures. And that's how it will be spun. They will print for survival and they will say it was for the survival of America. The dollar will end this thing without reserve currency status, more like the peso. But at least we'll have Freegold!
In our time and for the first time in the modern US dollar history, the US will embark into a classic hyperinflation for the sake of retaining its own lessened dollar for trade use. As destructive as that might be to players in this financial house, it is better than immediate total economic failure. It will evolve in a form much like the course of any other third world country, if its currency too was suddenly deprived of world reserve status. We will, like people the world over, learn to live with it and live in it. Truly, our dollar and economy will not go away, but its function, use and value will change dramatically.
Thank you
FOA/ your Trail Guide
Happy Easter!
Sincerely,
FOFOA
Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months
» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: FOFOA's Persuasive Essay - part 4
By: Decomposed
in
ROUND
Wed, 27 Apr 11 6:39 AM
|
Msg. 32686 of
45651
|
|
In The Debtors and the Savers I wrote:
Today we have many fine, intelligent and exacting analysts all looking at the same economic data and coming up with vastly different analyses of the present global financial crisis. What sets them all apart from each other is not intelligence, or math skills, or even popularity. What sets them apart is the foundational premises on which they operate.
And a false premise can skew a brilliant analysis 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Few analysts fully disclose their premises. But Karl Marx did, and in this we can find the one, key flaw that sent his analysis off in a disastrous direction.
Marx writes, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." He got this part right! What he got wrong was his delineation of the classes.
Marx's classes were:
1. Labour (the proletariat or workers) - anyone who earns their livelihood by selling their labor and being paid a wage for their labor time. They have little choice but to work for capital, since they typically have no independent way to survive.
2. Capital (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) - anyone who gets their income not from labor as much as from the surplus value they appropriate from the workers who create wealth. The income of the capitalists, therefore, is based on their exploitation of the workers.
Simply put, Marx says it's the rich versus the poor. According to Marx the rich exploit the poor to get themselves a "labor-free income", which spawns a class struggle.
This is an attractive perspective because it requires only a cursory, superficial judgment to place someone into one of the two camps, the rich or the poor. If someone is driving a Bentley we immediately know which group they are in, right?
[…]
As I said, Marx got one thing right. History does bear out the dramatic story of centuries of class struggle. But if we eliminate his one small flawed premise, we can see it all much more clearly.
The two classes are not the Labour and the Capital, the rich and the poor, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, or the workers and the elite. The two classes are the Debtors and the Savers. "The easy money camp" and "the hard money camp". History reveals the story of these two groups, over and over and over again. Always one is in power, and always the other one desires the power.
1. Debtors - "The easy money camp" likes to spend (and redistribute) money it did not earn, either by borrowing it, taxing the savers for it, or printing it. They like easy money because it is always and everywhere constantly inflating, easing the repayment of their debts.
2. Savers - "The hard money camp" likes to live within their means and save any excess for the future. They prefer hard money (or in some cases "harder" money) because it protects their savings and forces the debtors to work off their debts.
1789, the French Revolution, "the hard money camp" had been in power since 1720 when John Law's easy money collapsed, and starting in 1789 "the easy money camp" killed "the hard money camp" and took back the power. This is the way "the easy money camp", the Debtors, usually take power... by revolting against the hard repayment of their spending habits…
Obviously I don't want to reprint the whole article here, which is why I linked it three times. So please go read it.
But here's the fatal flaw in this Marxian paradigm; many of we, the modern proletariat, are savers who would prefer hard money like gold to protect our savings. It is we, the savers, that are punished by the current easy money system. That's why I delineated the groups as the Debtors and the Savers, otherwise known as "the easy money camp" and "the hard money camp."
And with the proper view of who Smith's Elite CONspirators really represent—the easy money camp, the debtors, the hungry collective—the answer to his question begins to develop. It is the opposing camp, the savers, that will be most-punished by hyperinflation and it is Smith's Elite that will profit the most during the race to spend.
If you can start to think of the administrators of the $IMFS, the "banksters", politicians and Western Capitalists in charge of the system as being firmly entrenched in the Debtor camp, you are well on your way to a very rewarding enlightenment. I realize this is counterintuitive, and counter also to much of the baggage that accumulates while reading other "hard money" writers on the Internet, which is why I spend so much time on it. But once it clicks, you'll be like, "OMG! WTF was I thinking?" I have conversed via email with many extremely intelligent people that have had this momentous "click", so I am tempted to consider that I may be on to something.
So call me overconfident if that makes you feel better, but I'm not going to be wishy-washy about what I can see. I'm certainly not of two minds on this.
How will "the Elite" profit from hyperinflation? By being the first to spend the bills with new zeros added and thereby outrunning the rest of us in the race to spend and winning the competition to retain standard of living. Hyperinflation is the end result of the dollar-debt timeline, there is no other way it can end. Only the severity is a variable to be considered.
Rick Ackerman and other deflationists agree with me that the unsustainable, unstable mountain of debt must and will collapse. And they view "the Elite" as the capitalist creditors and the rest of us poor working saps as the proletariat debtors. Therefore they believe that when the debt mountain collapses, their version of "the Elite" will not print Zimbabwe-style because, even though they just took a tremendous haircut on their bonds, they want to be sure that the super-saps among us, the proletariat that are still working, will continue to service the remainder with dollars of today's purchasing power.
This is a bass-ackward view in my opinion. The hungry collective provides ample political backing and sufficient naiveté for "the [Western] Elite" to print the full face value of their bonds and dump that worthless paper on the public's front lawn. Furthermore, deflationists like Ackerman as well as practically all mainstream economists provide plenty of cover in the form of plausible deniability that hyperinflation would be the inevitable result.
But the story runs deeper still. The reason I have been putting "the Elite" in quotes or referring to them as "Smith's Elite" is because, not only does he have the delineation wrong, but he is myopically focused on only one quarter of the bigger picture.
Some of you, I know, like to think in terms of grand conspiratorial conflicts, a "Clash of the Titans" (Clash of the Elites if you will), or something like that. Well I can probably help you with that view in this "Debtors v. Savers" paradigm.
We have the West which is roughly only 25% of the world's population, and then we have the rest of the world. And oh yes, they have their own "Elite". You'd probably guess that "the West" represents "the debtors" in this paradigm. But you'd be wrong to assume that the rest of the world is taking "the hard money camp" stance.
It is true, we are at the end of one of the longest-running "easy money camp" regimes. And these things usually swing back to the other side. But history has taught the world that while easy money regimes end in financial collapse, hard money regimes usually end in bloodshed. And it's usually the blood of the hard money campers that is shed. (See: the French Revolution.)
So the rest of the world has taken a different stance this time. It has been "in the works" for several decades.
Q: **Who does BIS really represent?
A: "old world, gold economy, as viewed thru modern eyes" or "way to move from US$ without war".
Those are the words of ANOTHER from my post "The Gold Man" (not Goldman) at the BIS. The BIS truly represents "the rest of the world" from a monetary perspective. It is the "trade union" of their Central Banks. All is not as it seems on the surface.
So how do you view an "old world gold economy" through modern eyes? And how do you move there peacefully with the easy money camp? It's quite simple actually. You let nature take its course, you support that natural course however long it takes (rather than pathologically fighting nature like the dollar system does with its obsessive-compulsive drive to control), and you don't deprive the easy money camp of their precious fiat. It's Freegold. It is about allowing meritocracy to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of the dollar's inevitable collapse. It's not about a transfer of wealth. It is about a re-born meritocracy. The transfer of wealth that will take place is what blinds most people from seeing its inevitable approach.
More from Charles Hugh Smith via Rick's Picks:
As we’ve both said, the other issue is, how do the Elites benefit from hyperinflation? The only answer I’ve ever received is “they’ve already bought gold.” Yeah, right. As I noted, there’s $7T in gold, total, half of which is owned by central banks, and there’s $160T in financial wealth to protect in the world. Even if gold went to $10K/oz there would be no more than $35 T in gold in private hands, and by that time, the gold in Fort Knox (or in the PBoChina vaults, etc.) would be enough to establish a gold-backed currency. Meanwhile, the Financial Elites would have lost all their financial wealth. Have they really transferred all their wealth out of all financial instruments and totally into gold and land? If so, then [who] owns the $160T in financial wealth?
First of all, it is unclear exactly how much gold there is, but it's probably over $8T by now, and only about 18% of it is owned by central banks, not anywhere near half. That leaves $6.6T in private hands, at today's price.
Smith exposes his ant-like perspective in this paragraph when he implies the Giants that own the lion's share of $160T in financial products should have already crashed the value of those financial products and exploded gold in the stampede from one to the other, if a collapse of the dollar was really on the horizon. On the contrary, you have to think like a Giant to see the best way to move your Giant wealth from one system to the next. True Giants do not panic out like ants, nor like ants imagine that Giants would. True Giants know that if they panicked out, with the weight they carry, they would end up transferring much LESS wealth into the new system.
Viewed from the Giant's perspective, you can see that most all of that dollar value, that $160T will vanish in a flash. And when that happens, the market for paper promises of gold delivery will also collapse and vanish as physical gold gaps up (in my estimation) 40x. That's right, $160T vanishes, and $6.6T worth of gold—in private hands—gaps up to $264T.
Oooh. Now I'll bet I've got the deflationists screaming! "You can't turn $160T into $264T in a flash during a deflationary collapse!" Au contraire, mon frère. What you see is the result of the perspective you choose. Reader "Reven" recently asked this same question, to which I replied:
It is a fallacy to compare a snapshot of gold with a snapshot of "global asset values" because it ignores the time dimension in which gold flows. Even if you are correct about everything in the world (other than gold) being worth [$160T] in 2011 constant dollars, the value of all the gold can be multiples of that amount. It is theoretically unlimited, unlike paper wealth which is self-limiting by its own objective metrics and economic ties. Paper wealth is limited to the upside but unlimited to the downside. Gold is the inverse of paper, unlimited to the upside, limited to the downside. It's not the total stock of gold that matters, but the flow from those that already hold it.
Here are a few snippets from my post How Can We Possibly Calculate the Future Value of Gold?
1. the storage of purchasing power is size-unlimited in a solid medium with potentially infinite confidence and one that does not infringe upon anything else, and
2. the storage of purchasing power in a flawed medium with a mathematical limit (like debt) is constrained roughly to the aggregate purchase price of everything in the world at any point in time, with a decent margin of error.
[...]
This transfer of wealth that is coming is not a direct and equal transfer. It is not like pouring one pitcher into another. It is more like flipping a switch on the virtual matrix. Turning off the monetary plane that hovers over the physical plane and claims to tell you how much "stored purchasing power" everyone has. When you turn it off, all that purchasing power disappears in a flash. And then what lies beneath is exposed in daylight, the real physical world. No real capital is destroyed, only the myth is destroyed. But true capital is exposed and revalued.
And as I said earlier, true capital as a storage for purchasing power has no limit whatsoever to its total size relative to normal prices. This is because it uses the time dimension with unequalled confidence. Absolute confidence allows it to stretch as far out into time as it wants. And this confidence is a self-reinforcing, self-sustaining feedback loop in the same way that a faulty store of purchasing power is self-limiting by its intrinsic lack of infinite durability.
[...]
Commodities and paper investments are limited to the upside by economic forces and future earnings metrics respectively. Yet they are unlimited to the downside for the same reasons. Gold, on the other hand, has none of the upside limitations that everything else has. It will only find its point of equilibrium when enough "stock" is reassigned to "flow" to meet demand.
[...]
Lastly, understand that currency flows through assets, not into them. In fact, a limited amount of dollars can flow through the same gold many times, over and over, driving it higher and higher with each pass, as long as new gold stock is not coaxed out of hiding. And the interesting thing in this process is that, as I said above, it actually causes the opposite of the expected supply/demand reaction. With each pass-through of the dollar more "flow gold" is moved into "stock gold", not the other way around like commodities and paper.
This is the feedback loop. It is confirmation to the gold investor that his gold is a good investment. And it also says something very distinct about the alternatives. Namely that they are failing. And with this confirmation, it is from existing gold holders that less supply comes. This is not true of any other investment class because they all have objective metrics for valuation or economically limiting forces. All except gold.
[...]
So, cutting to the chase once again, the biggest fallacy in your model is using "Total above ground gold" as your point of comparison. It's not the stock that matters, it's the flow.
Now, if you have a supercomputer you can try to run this unimaginably complex flow algorithm. But be careful with your assumptions. One wrong assumption can throw the whole thing off by orders of magnitude.
|
|
|
|
|
| 