Author: Petros

Quote of the day

Posted by

0

From the Mogambo Guru:
There are increasingly those who predict hyperinflation, which is popularly defined as rapidly-rising prices that soon reach un-payable levels, and which is always caused by the true definition of inflation, which is (according to the Mogambo Big Book Of Economic Stuff (MBBOES), “A gigantic growth in the money supply, which is caused by banks deliberately acting like greedy, lying, filthy pigs who deserve to be thrown in jail.”

Read more: The Daily Reckoning – Entertaining Ideas on the Economy, Markets, Gold, Oil and Investing Strategieshttp://dailyreckoning.com/#ixzz19Y0Qb0bR

Gold has intrinsic value

Posted by

0

Pure brass door handle which has intrinsic value

 

I have nothing but disdain for the view that gold has no intrinsic value.  A friend sent me a link to Howard Marks most recent newsletter, “All that Glitters“.  Marks is the chairman and principal of Oaktree Capital, which largely invests in distressed debt.  If that works for him, brilliant.  But perhaps pressure from clients has caused him to defend himself regarding his firm’s failure to have any gold exposure.  It leads him to write the following nonsense (emphasis his):

There’s little intrinsic to gold that enables it to serve as a store of value and a hedge against inflation. Gold serves those purposes only because people impute to it the ability to do so. It’s self-deception, nothing but the object of mass hysteria like that exhibited in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Gold has no financial value other than that which people accord it, and thus it should have no role in a serious investment program. Of this I’m certain.

Marks continues by saying that currencies are also flawed in this regard, but no matter.  Gold’s value is only what people impute to it.  His main point is that currency investments create cash flow, but gold doesn’t, and therefore it is not a safe investment vehicle because it depends entirely on this uncontrollable factor of what value the “people” place upon it.

Gold however does have intrinsic value.  So much, in fact, that one would never imagine using it as a door handle in the place of brass–unless one had a security detachment to guard the handle from theft.  Stylish brass door handles are expensive, though well within the price range of the average house owner.  But even brass has intrinsic value.  So why do people insist that gold has little or no intrinsic value?  Because they have completely lost a grip on reality, that’s why.  Gold would make better door handles than brass because gold doesn’t tarnish.  It would make prettier counter top than stainless steel.    Gold makes better cutlery than tarnishable silver.  And why don’t jewelers use brass in jewelry?  Because after a year or two brass jewelry would look hideous–just like the brass handle to our front door.

This whole “gold-has-no-intrinsic-value” mantra is so pervasive that Marks entitles his letter, “All that glitters”; this line of traditional wisdom that says more fully, “All that glitters is not gold.”  This is a warning that while there may be all kinds of things that are as pretty and shiny like gold, they are not substitutes for the real thing and that one should not be fooled by them.  So those who use this saying to insult the intrinsic value of gold are turning the traditional wisdom on its head and claiming that gold may glitter but its not gold.  What nonsense.

It is true that precious metals fluctuate in value day to day.  But this is due largely to the increased instability in the value of fiat currencies.  Central banks have tacitly instructed the public that these instruments have no value by artificially setting the interest rates at or around zero.  I believe that gold will only exit its current bull market if interest rates are allowed to return to market rates:  I would guess that means they must rise to about 25%.  Paper currencies which have no deposit value, i.e., they cannot create adequate cash flow when deposited in savings accounts, GICs or even government debt instruments, cannot compete with hard money (gold and silver) which have intrinsic value.

Monopoly money vs. virtual money

Posted by

2

I argued in a previous post that when banks create money electronically we shouldn’t call it “printing money”; the metaphor doesn’t adequately describe a situation in which most money is not printed but created electronically on the balance sheets of the major financial institutions then passed on to the public through electronic transfers, credit cards, debit cards, and the like.  Most money is not printed–it is a virtual reality that people accept in exchange for very real goods and services.  In my view, this situation is analogous to a game of monopoly.  During the game, the money is received in the form of salaries, rents, gifts, and bonuses, and in turn it can be used to pay rent, mortgages, penalties, and taxes.   In the end, when the game is over, all the money goes back into the box and regresses to its intrinsic value of zero.  But Monopoly is just a game, you say? But so is our virtual economy.  It’s a game we are playing with non-real money which has no intrinsic value, not even the paper its printed on, because the central banks don’t bother to print much of it anymore.

Monopoly games last about 1-3 hours.  It is not certain how long virtual economy game will last, but it won’t be much longer with Ben Bernanke keeping interest rates at virtually nothing and creating virtual money ex nihilo–eventually the public will stop accepting it in exchange for real goods and services.  That will be the end of the game, and at real money with intrinsic value, like gold and silver, will become the norm.  And we shouldn’t make the mistake of saying that gold has no intrinsic value because it can’t be eaten.  That is a fallacious argument created by fascists trying to confuse the issue.  Gold and silver have intrinsic value by definition.

Intrinsic value and the world-wide Nouriel Roubini bubble

Posted by

5

Nouriel Roubini warned the world one year ago that gold was very likely in a bubble at just below $1200.

Gold prices, you will have noticed, have been rising sharply, breaching the $1,000 (U.S.) barrier and, in recent weeks, rising toward $1,200 an ounce and above. “Gold bugs” argue that the price could top $2,000. But the recent price surge looks suspiciously like a bubble, with the increase only partly justified by economic fundamentals.

Roubini has a PhD and is a professor of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business. But still he writes that gold has no “intrinsic value”:

But, since gold has no intrinsic value, there are significant risks of a downward correction.

I found it remarkable that an economist didn’t have the slightest clue of the meaning of the term “intrinsic value”: an instrument of currency is said to have “intrinsic value” based upon the market value of the medium on which it is transmitted.  Since gold had a market value of nearly $1200 per oz, it had an intrinsic value of nearly $1200 per oz.  Since paper on that day had much less value, then dollars printed on paper had less intrinsic value than had it been minted on gold.  I therefore responded on the Globe and Mail forum as follows:

There seems to be a world-wide Roubini bubble. All his cautions are justified because in a bull market any asset class may be overbought and enthusiasm will temporarily wane. But it remains a long-term bull market for gold because there is already inflation, quite the opposite of what Roubini claims: Food, energy, and real estate (at least in Canada) are on the rise because of the “liquidity”. A “massive wave of liquidity” is a sudden excessive supply of money itself, which is another way of saying “inflation”.

Roubini is misguided about the meaning of “intrinsic value”. Gold is and has been, throughout human history, the very essence of intrinsic value; gold has never needed anything to back it, but has been used to back other kinds of money, and it maintains its value better than many other asset classes.

He is mocking us all and seeing if anyone out there will believe him. Ha ha, very funny Mr. Roubini.

A certain Anton B. Nym responded in agreement with Roubini:

Gold truly has very little, almost no, “intrinsic value”. It isn’t used in daily life; you can’t eat it, burn it, wear it to stay warm and dry, build a shelter from it, or even make much in the way of tools with it. (Though it is handy in the manufacture of electronics and a few esoteric processes.) Historically gold’s value comes from its malleability and lustre as well as its ease of refinement and relative scarcity. Whatever value we invest in gold is mainly esthetic and traditional… and thus subject to change by whim and fad. At a grand an ounce, and with the world economic situation gradually improving, I don’t see the current fad lasting much longer.

I responded to this reader of the Globe and Mail as follows:

Anton P. Nym: Your view of “intrinsic value” is far too utilitarian. Roubini is an extremist who’s gone off the deep end on this point. Gold has no intrinsic value? Give me a break.

Gold is beautiful to look, easy to forge, very malleable, and never tarnishes. It is rare and is the subject of metaphor and poetry. Many things that you can’t eat, burn, build a shelter or even make tools with have great value. Consider the song, “Happy Birthday” has made the owner of its rights millions of dollars in royalties. And what value has that except that it has become the tradition to sing it at the joyous occasion of celebrating one’s passage into another year of life. Small amounts of gold next to my wife’s heart have reminded her of my love for her and have made her feel good about herself. That is invaluable to me. Try giving your wife a barrel of oil on the occasion of your wedding anniversary and see if she says, “O thank you so much for giving me something with intrinsic value!”

Well, with gold at over $1370 a year later, I suppose Roubini is still waiting for the gold bubble to pop.  Don’t get your hopes up Prof. Roubini!

I guess the opinion editor thought that my rebuttal of Roubini and his ilk was witty (page no longer available at the globe, here is a screen snip).

“Printing money” is a worn out metaphor: reflections on what is real

Posted by

3

Our current economic system confronts us with a metaphysical dilemma.  Niall Ferguson writes in The Ascent of Money (30-31; emphasis mine):

Today, despite the fact that the purchasing power of the dollar has declined appreciably over the past fifty years, we remain more or less content with paper money … Even more amazingly, we are happy with money we cannot even see.  Today’s electronic money can be moved from our employer, to our bank account, to our favourite retail outlets without ever physically materializing.  It is this ‘virtual’ money that now dominates what economists call the money supply. … Anything can serve as money, from the cowrie shells of the Maldives to the huge stone discs used on the Pacific islands of Yap.  And now, it seems, in this electronic age nothing can serve as money too.

Gary Shilling has maintained that the electronic money that the Federal Reserve has been creating has remained on the bank books as excess reserves because the banks are too afraid to lend it out.  On the other hand, Gonzalo Lira has argued that all the virtual money that the Federal Reserve created and used to buy up toxic assets was in turn lent to the Federal Government by the banks.  Then, the Federal government spent that virtual money on government employees, welfare recipients, medicare, social security, food stamps etc.  Thus, Shilling misses a big point that the bank’s toxic assets and debts of the government have been monetized by this arrangement–and the virtually inflated money is now already in circulation, forcing up the prices of commodities.  Lira calls this phenomena “stealth monetization”: in Weimar Germany, people needed wheel barrels to carry their money.  Today, all that virtual money can be carried in a credit card or a food stamp debit card.  I would estimate that over 95% of my transactions are done with virtual money.  The scary thing is that now central banks are able to create stealth inflation, while lying about the inflation rate which they erroneously confuse with their manipulated Consumer Price Index, because most of the money that exists today is not real–it is not even printed on paper presenting the people with a tangible, visible clue as to how fast it is expanding.  At least in Zimbabwe today, three zeros are added at each new print run–this is inflation that you can see. The US Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada and the other central banks today create virtual money which gives us nothing tangible with which to see the inflation which is taking place.  The Federal Reserve, until a few weeks ago, was keeping its books a tightly guarded state secret, and so no one except the members of the cabal knew how much virtual money Bernanke was creating or who benefited from it (see Monty Pelerin and My Budget 360).

Now I think of my virtual trading account in which I create virtual wealth through electronic trades on a virtual trading floor, where after three days virtual money and virtual shares change hands.  Then it is recorded in a virtual trading e-confirmation and I’m provided a monthly e-statement with my virtual holdings.  I have healthy net worth, but only as long as others are willing to accept my virtual money, or I can liquidate my virtual assets which are in the form of stock shares that my brokerage account holds for me electronically.  I feel that my investment life is trapped in the Matrix, and I wonder when someone will offer me a choice between the red or the blue pill.  “Welcome to the real world”.

There are today investors insisting upon physical delivery of precious metals.  Banks have perhaps taken massive short positions, selling virtual gold and silver without having much or any of the real stuff.  The word on the street, e.g., is that J. P. Morgan has a massive short position in silver (see Eric Fry); Mish argues that J. P. Morgan probably has a hedged position, but he is admittedly speculating:

If JPM is hurting as the silver bulls claim, pray tell why does it not show up somewhere? Where is the proof JP Morgan is naked short silver?

To be fair, I do wish JPMorgan would comment on this. Why don’t they?

Why don’t they indeed?

Is it possible to create virtual inflation?  What would it look like? I know this: the metaphor of saying that the central banks are “printing money” is worn out and does not adequately reflect the vast quantity of virtual wealth that has been create ex nihilo.  So I suggest we call it instead “virtual money”–or the like, so that we the people can began to get our heads around what the banks are doing to our assets.