Vancouver CONFERENCE
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, it was fantastic to listen to you tonight in Vancouver. You really helped me understand these movements. So $5,000 gold is not $5,000 as we know it today. Everything is relative. Gold cannot rise just yet until the dollar finishes rising blowing the world up. As a Canadian, I made a lot on my US investments as the loonie collapsed but to an American, he just lost the last few years worth of profits in Canada because of the US dollar rise. You are amazing and it is shocking how the media doesn’t highlight your success. They do not want to confront reality themselves. If I got this correctly, your targets are nominal not adjusted for inflation. Obviously, these investment promoters do not have a clue about what they are even forecasting. Did I get this correctly tonight?
Can’t wait for tomorrow.
Cheers
ZT
ANSWER: Yes. Any target is nominal. The rise in gold or anything is against the purchasing power changes as well. It is all connected. Saying gold will reach $50,000 is meaningless for the mind equates that to today rather than never-never-land. There is an old joke. A guy is seriously ill so he has himself frozen until they find a cure. He hands all his wealth to a stock brokerage firm. When he wakes up after being cured 50 years later, he runs to the pay-phone and calls the firm. His original investment of $1 million he is told is now $100 million. Then the operator comes to the phone and says please deposit $1 million for the next 3 minutes.
First the DEFLATION – then the INFLATION
When the Roman Empire collapsed during the reign of Gallienus (253-268AD), for the next two waves of the Economic Confidence Model (17.2 years) Rome remained in chaos. Then a general fought his way to power – Diocletian (284-305AD). During this period, inflation soared. Money really became in kind and the purchasing power of the debased coinage collapsed with the lack of confidence in government. This became akin to the crisis in Germany during the 1920s. People simply did not really accept the debased Roman coinage.
It was Diocletian who instituted wage and price controls and issued an edict on restraining prices. First you have the massive DEFLATION and then government is forced to debase the money supply that finally reverses the economy sending it into a INFLATIONARY spiral.
The second phase is when gold will rise. But you first have the DEFLATION that reduces tax revenues and then you have the INFLATION set in motion by rising costs. What is interesting is passports were invented by Diocletian. WHY? For the same reason we see FACTA and Civil Forfeitures. You could not travel leaving your town until you paid your taxes. Hence – papers please! Except in those days they were metal. The USA has passed the very same law if you owe more than $50,000 to the IRS they will revoke your passport until you pay-up.
Government will hunt down money. This is why history repeats because humans will respond to the same set of circumstances in a predictable manner. Just follow history and you will see the answer. So yes – eventually we will see the shift fromPUBLIC to PRIVATE and that is the inflationary cycle. That does not arrive untilAFTER we start BIG BANG.
What If Central Banks Buy 90% of Gov’t Paper?
A few questions have come in asking how can rates rise if central banks end up buying the bulk of government bonds at auctions like just took place in Germany with 50%+? Rates would rise in the private sector and this is the shift between public and private that is always unleashed. Like Japan, nobody will accept the government paper hopefully not for 600 years.
Government debts ALWAYS collapse without exception. Why people even call this “quality” is amazing when it is UNSECURED backed only by the delusion ofCONFIDENCE. Capital will simply wake up and move to the private sector. This is starting and it is why Germany could not sell all its debt privately.
The Fed & The Fish Bowl Economy Theory
QUESTION: Sir,
Thank you so much for sharing your insights via your website. I only recently discovered it and devour the writings daily. In the interest of full disclosure, I am not an economist nor do I pretend to be intelligent enough to portray any deep knowledge on the subject. I do however enjoy watching trends among groups of people and trying to predict outcomes. A hobby. I too was of the opinion that we most likely were looking at a hyperinflation scenario without fully understanding just what deflation was. Now, after reading your works, it all seems obvious.
I understand that one of the USFED purpose was to try to create inflation with its QE programs. We all know how that turned out, but my question to you is; would things have turned out differently if the FED had sent the billions directly to the people instead of the banks. I understand that they had hoped that the banks would have loaned it out and kick started the economy but in my opinion, it would have been better to have put it in the hands at the bottom rungs of society to trickle up as it were.
I understand that one of the USFED purpose was to try to create inflation with its QE programs. We all know how that turned out, but my question to you is; would things have turned out differently if the FED had sent the billions directly to the people instead of the banks. I understand that they had hoped that the banks would have loaned it out and kick started the economy but in my opinion, it would have been better to have put it in the hands at the bottom rungs of society to trickle up as it were.
Your thoughts on this please.
Thank you again,
S
ANSWER: The policy failed because
- (1) the USA is the reserve currency and the money was absorbed externally.
- (2) the policy was indirect. Buying in 30 year bonds ASSUMED they would create demand for long-term and thus support the mortgage market. That failed to materialize because more than 30% of the debt is held externally and China sold to them their 30 year bonds and move their duration window under 10 years.
The idea of QE1 to 2 was totally misguided buying in government paper. The idea this would help banks failed for the banks really did not benefit from that program when anyone holding US debt could sell it to them regardless where they were – i.e. China. Under QE-3 when they began to buy bad mortgage paper that was domestic in its focus and did help the banks. The main bailout was the $750 billion check Hank Paulson (ex-Goldman Sachs) wrote to save his buddies.
The original design of the Fed was correct and would be beneficial if the politicians had been prohibited from borrowing money. The Fed was originally set up with 12 branches all independent with different interest rates targeted to their local economy rather than the one-size-fits-all. To “stimulate” the Fed would buy corporate paper and that would provide capital to sure up the foundation of the economy and prevent surges in unemployment.
This was called the elastic ability to create money which would contract as they resold the paper or it was redeemed. This made complete sense and it mimicked what J.P. Morgan did in supporting the economy during the Panic of 1907.
When World War I came, the politicians decreed that the Fed should buy THEIRgovernment paper and not corporate. From there on, the purpose of the Fed and its structural designed was forever altered. Suddenly, central banks can now monetize whenever the public decides they do not want to buy government debt. The German central bank just bought more than 50% of the government’s debt because there was no bid. The elastic money supply now supports government instead of the economy.
We need a structural reorganization of central banks. We MUST prohibit government from borrowing and that will return banking to banking. We must end proprietary trading of banks and if they want to do that, they should be hedge funds not banks.
If we separate the central banks from supporting government and realign them bank to supporting the economy, then yes, this would have been substantially different. But government debt is money that pays interest since 70% of the accumulated debt is previous interest expenditures. The Fed cannot directly impact the economy in its present structure for everything it does in indirect based upon assumptions that constructed upon the theory they are operating in a fish bowl economy that is entirely domestic. They ignore international capital flows and cannot grasp that capital can jump from one bowl to the next like fish.
Is Europe’s Austerity Policy just Incompetent?
The turmoil within Europe over this austerity policy is reaching astronomical proportions. This crazy failure to comprehend that you cannot raise taxes and increase regulation while expecting an economic recovery is stunning. All the ECB is doing is bailing out banks while interest rates go negative wiping out the savings of elderly and pension funds. They cannot grasp how to run an economy destroying Europe in their incompetence. I have never seen such insane policies implemented with no hope in sight.
Middle East Understands they Must Let the Pegs Go to the Dollar
Gulf Arab oil states may need to rethink longstanding economic policies, including their fixed exchange rates, over the next couple of years as economic cycles in the region and the United States diverge. The deflationary trend will impact the region as hard-times emerge and the economies decline into 2020.
The six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have pegged their currencies to the dollar. What was once viewed as a stabilization mechanism will turn against them and import deflation as oil prices collapse. True, in recent years the GCC economies have moved more out of sync with the United States. However, the pegs are now pressing the GCC policymakers to mirror the U.S. central bank’s decisions even though this is contrary to domestic policy objectives.
As long as they have currency pegs to the dollar, the Gulf States could face destabilizing capital outflows/inflows if they allow large interest rate gaps to open up with the United States. There remains a risk that the US will be forced to raise rates to fight a rise in the stock market as capital inflows pour in from many regions. We are likely to witness extreme currency destabilization in the years ahead.
You Just Can’t Even Mail Presents Anymore
COMMENT:
Hi Martin
Thank you so much for the ongoing education. It’s so refreshing to listen to the truth from a man with so much knowledge, and has no bias.
I just wanted to tell you, my American husband sent me a gift whilst l was in the UK.
Unfortunately l received a card through the post telling me it was going to cost 20 pounds to collect it because they had opened the parcel and decided to charge 20% VAT plus handling.
These people are crooks and thieves. We can’t even receive a gift from a loved one anymore without them dipping their fingers in.
Regards
A (UK)
REPLY: A lot of emails like this are coming in. I sent a Roman Coin necklace to a friend in Germany for the help they have provided. The response was thank you very much – but please do not send any more gifts. They too had to go to the post office and pay tax to receive the gift.