Whither gold prices?
Are precious metal prices in a bubble? Yesterday gold hit a record high of $1,530 an ounce and silver is approaching $50. In 2000, these two precious metals sold for around $250 and $4 an ounce respectively.
The bubble question is a fair one. Whenever you have sharply rising investment returns that seem to be going wildly higher all the time and forever, look out. The financial world doesn’t work that way. People who rested in this fantasy when the Dow first hit 14,000 soon learned that lesson.
In 1980, when silver hit $50 and gold was at $850, people likely thought there was no ceiling in sight. But then the prices fell off. But there was reason to anticipate that reversal. Jimmy Carter’s policies had done terrible damage to the U.S. economy, giving us all lots of reasons for malaise in our view of the future. But when Ronald Reagan came to office promising growth-oriented policies, and when he succeeded in getting the largest tax cut in American history through a Democratically controlled Congress, that was a sign that money would soon be moving out of metals and into growth-producing, dollar-strengthening investments. And that’s just what happened.
The bearish prices we are seeing today in gold and silver are a response to the weakness of U.S. and global economies. The American dollar is falling like a stone. Because the U.S. dollar is the reserve currency (i.e., the world currency for trading oil, etc.), metals and the dollar move in opposite directions. The value of gold is fairly stable. A significant part of its shifting prices reflect changes in the value of the dollar, not the value of gold itself.
Gold has been climbing steadily since 2001. George W. Bush was quietly devaluing the dollar throughout his presidency for political reasons. But what Bush did in clubs, Barack Obama has done in spades. What Bush did in inches, Obama has done in yards—vastly expanding the federal deficit and the national debt to staggering proportions. He said he did it to save the country, but he did most of it to push the government into areas of our lives it had never been before, and to send money and power to his political supporters. The stimuli have had no effect on economic growth. In fact, the added debt has been a drag on the economy.
When the Republicans retook the House, commissioned by the voters to reign in government spending, had Obama tacked to the center as Bill Clinton did after his 1994 midterm defeat, we would perhaps have a sign that precious metal prices were soon on their way down. But the president has signaled no such change in course. In fact, in his budget-cutting plans, he has signaled his continued determination to raise taxes on the job-producing class.
So where are precious metal prices going? Although there are no guarantees, given that the Federal Reserve indicated on Wednesday that interest rates would stay low for some time to come, the considerable inventory of homes that are headed for foreclosure, and the promise of deadlock in D.C. over deficit reduction, I see nothing on the immediate horizon that might moderate this upward price curve.
Keep in mind that adjusted for inflation (i.e., expressed in 1980 dollars), the record high for gold is around $2,300 an ounce. We have not even reached the dollar-for-dollar $50 record for silver. It is still underpriced relative to gold, though since 2007 the price of silver has been rising much faster. In other words, there is every reason to believe that there is a lot of upside to precious metal prices. That’s the good news if you still want to get into the market. The bad news is unemployment, inflation, and a huge, tragic waste of human potential as we flounder in this ideological soup of Obama’s wealth redistributionist fantasy.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top47 Comments to “Whither gold prices?”
Flounder?
You mean “drown” don’t you?
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of gas and metal prices… Peter Schiff’s latest video blog (Mon. Apr. 25th, 2011) demonstrates that relative to silver, gasoline prices are at an all time low….
Report comment to moderator
“But what Bush did in clubs, Barack Obama has done in spades.”
Oh very subtle! Bush = (country) club, Obama = spade.
OK, kidding … just putting on my hidden-agenda hat for a minute, I know that’s not what you meant.
Seriously, the value of metals is no more intrinsic than the value of paper money. Only when people agree to use gold and silver as a token of barter does it have value.
Your ounce of gold may be “worth” $1,500, but only if somebody’s willing to pay that much for it. In a time of true scarcity, non-perishable food and potable water might be more valuable than gold and silver.
Report comment to moderator
“…that was a sign that money would soon be moving out of metals and into growth-producing, dollar-strengthening investments.”
I don’t see this happening very soon again, do you? Given that debt is at an all time high, and savings are at an all time low, there’s hardly anyone able to put money into ‘growth-producing, dollar-strengthening investments.’ So I think that gold and silver will continue to climb until the US is producing again.
Report comment to moderator
I too am amused to hear DCINNES call a spade a spade, but of course anyone who’s this ostentatious about it isn’t telling it like it is, but how he wishes it were.
In the old days, the chief vice of Evangelicals was blaming others for anything that went wrong with the way they wanted things to turn out. Today, their characteristic vice is a convulsive addiction to contrary-to-fact assertion.
The Affordable Care Act cuts the long term deficit.
The run-up in commodities, like the housing bubble, shows that there is too much money in excess of intended investments, due to terrible constraints on demand. The answer is to tax that money and then replace the deficit in demand with government spending. This will repair market confidence and unleash a flood of pent-up entrepreneurial investment that is only waiting for the restoration of consumer spending.
Report comment to moderator
#3 – that one made me chuckle Conan.
Report comment to moderator
#5 Scroop Moth
“The answer is to tax that money and then replace the deficit in demand with government spending.”
Government spending, government spending… How can anyone look for the government to choose wisely? The government is made up of men – fallible men. Why would anyone want others to make mistakes? I don’t want others to choose stupidly for me. Let me make my own mistakes.
My wife raises canaries, budgies and parrotlets. (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=parrotlets&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) In her bird room she has an electronic gizmo that turns lights on and off gradually, naturally. You know, like sunrise and sunset. This thingy requires incandescent light bulbs… What right does government have to get rid of incandescent light bulbs?
I realize this is just a small thing, but our country seems to be dying of a thousand paper cuts, 1.4 trillion paper cuts.
Are you really for this kind of government?
Report comment to moderator
“The run-up in commodities, like the housing bubble, shows that there is too much money in excess of intended investments, due to terrible constraints on demand.”
Can you put that in English please?
This doesn’t even make any sense. There’s too much money in excess of intended investments? Maybe I’ll believe that the supply of dollars has been expanded too much, not because of “constraints on demand” (whatever that means), but because Bernanke has recklessly printed too much money….
And what do you propose to do about “too much money in excess of intended investments”? Take money away from those that have it, and redistribute it to those who haven’t worked for it?
Report comment to moderator
And how does that solve the problem? You ahven’t produced any more, in fact you’ve just destroyed any wealth creating mechanism that might have gotten started from that nest egg.
Once you’ve spent everyone else’s money, then what?
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man,
I think it’s pretty obvious that at that point you increase divestitures in order to flugenate the blargh blorgh. But do you think Evangelicals are willing to do that?
They don’t have the guts.
Report comment to moderator
Every exponential curve eventually faile. Gold may not be there yet, and likely has a way to go in terms of the dollar. It isn’t that gold is becoming more valuable, but the dollar is becomine more worthless.
And gold does have intrinsic value. There is a scene in the movie “Kelly’s Heroes” where the good guys tell a German tank commander, “You can spend this stuff in New York, Paris, Frankfort or Berlin.” As the commercial says, “It has never been worth zero.”
I don’t have any. I should buy some, but probably won’t.
Report comment to moderator
MAKE-IT-MAN get rid of your zero-sum-thinking. Remember Reaganomics? Lowering taxes on the rich causes effects of magnitude beyond the size of the tax cuts. Revenues pour into the treasury, and the government actually gets more by taking less. Entrepreneurial capacity swells modestly from the extra money the rich are now able to keep in their own pockets, but the confidence and freedom touch off a boom in further investment. Rich people decide whether or not to make money according to the tax rate they expect. The trickle turns into a torrent of economic activity that broadens across the plain and lifts all boats. Anybody who doesn’t benefit from the the economic growth (even if that’s the bottom 80%) just doesn’t work hard enough or hasn’t been off the dole long enough to acquire any virtue.
Of course, we tried that and it doesn’t work. But don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. The baby is your capacity to engage in non-zero-sum thinking. Transfer your fabulous powers of credulity from Reaganomics to something that has been validated and not refuted — big government economic intervention. Remember, the laws of economics apply everywhere (in all galaxies, even). Demand creates economic activity, whether the consumer is one person or We The People.
Report comment to moderator
Perfectly stated DC Innes! The rapid rise in commodity prices and the devaluation of the dollar prove that Bernanke is lying about the economy.
It is amusing (in a sad sort of way) to hear liberals still calling for more taxing and spending as the solution to everything. Want more energy? Tax it! Want less debt? Spend more than you have!
One thing we liked about Ronald Reagan was that he got to the heart of the philosophical differences between those who love freedom and the Utopian central planners.
Report comment to moderator
“Of course, we tried that and it doesn’t work.”
Ummmmm…. Actually…. NO. When we did it, it worked. What didn’t work was the last several decades of big government economic intervention- IE the Fed printing money and artificially controlling interest rates. Before that we didn’t have all these asset bubbles and bursts and inflation that the Fed has been creating… Not only that, but we didn’t have the galactic malinvestment of “Other People’s Money”- IE entitlements that do nothing to swell the real Gross Domestic Product.
It doesn’t matter if you have all the demand in the country. If you don’t produce it, you don’t get the money.
The key here is production, not spending.
Report comment to moderator
Or even taxing…
At this point I don’t care if you lower or raise taxes. If we don’t get rid of the giant albatross of government spending we ain’t got nothing…
Report comment to moderator
“Remember, the laws of economics apply everywhere (in all galaxies, even).”
You know what? Your Keynsian economics don’t work anywhere…. In any galaxy…
Report comment to moderator
Chas: And gold does have intrinsic value. There is a scene in the movie “Kelly’s Heroes” where the good guys tell a German tank commander, “You can spend this stuff in New York, Paris, Frankfort or Berlin.” As the commercial says, “It has never been worth zero.”
It has value, but it’s not intrinsic value. It’s just a rock. You can’t eat it. You can convert it into heat for your house. You can’t power a car with it.
Food has intrinsic value. You eat it and your body turns it into nutrients and energy. Oil has intrinsic value. Gold does not.
It’s valuable right now because people are willing to exchange a fairly high number of dollars for an ounce of it. But in a society where food and fuel are scarce, a hungry man given a choice of buying a week’s worth of food or an ounce of gold for the same number of dollars will not be buying your gold.
Report comment to moderator
*can’t convert it into heat …
Report comment to moderator
#17 Conan
“It has value, but it’s not intrinsic value.”
I just Googled “gold, uses of” and got “About 887,000,000 results (0.27 seconds).”
Report comment to moderator
Conan, he won’t be buying your greenbacks either. But he may be more likely to get food with gold than with paper.
Report comment to moderator
Actually in Conan’s extreme example it would be better to have both gold and guns. I’m waiting for Obama to outlaw both.
When confidence in the dollar dropped to an all time low in America in 1933, Roosevelt outlawed gold ownership. Obama is likewise killing confidence in the American dollar. Obama has also supported various gun control laws and the Federal licensing of ammunition.
Report comment to moderator
As for whether Keynesian economics works…
Let’s have some more of it, because it has clearly, clearly worked so well in the past few decades, through Republican and Democrat administrations and congress alike.
NOT.
The results of the past three years of unbridled spending, hordes of new government regulations, and doubling the supply of money via printing press are in. (Not to mention monetary rewards for political support). The “recovery” is anemic at best. (And, as an aside, I’d be willing to bet that we’re going to see another crash the makes the first one look like a picnic.)
First quarter GDP of 1.8%? Whee!… now that looks good on Obama’s resume.
Unemployment is still at 8.8% (and realistically it’s closer to 20%). And I bet job growth is still not even keeping up with population growth.
Imagine what would have happened if Obama had tried to sell his original “stimulus” package with those figures….
So…in addition to the above, we have $1.65 Trillion in deficits, massive Federal debt, and no savings.
The IMF is telling us that China’s economy will overtake ours shortly- that the “Age of America is nearing it’s end”. Just ten years ago, our economy was THREE times the size of China’s. What’s happened? We’ve lost our production capability that’s what. And we’ve replaced it with spending.
The S&P is warning us that our AAA rating may be downgraded. I’m willing to bet it should have already been downgraded, but they are just hedging their bets.
The value of the dollar is plunging near record lows, and several countries, China, Japan, Germany, Russia, and France are all asking for a different global standard of currency.
.
.
.
.
.
So yeah. Let’s have some more of this stupidity called Keynesian Economics. It’s working so well right now.
Report comment to moderator
Oh.. and a link to the Wall Street Journal Article lambasting that insanity called Keynesian “economics”.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, he won’t be buying your greenbacks either. But he may be more likely to get food with gold than with paper.
Why? A pretty rock isn’t going to feed the person with the food. I suggest what might be even more likely to persuade him to part with the food is the barter of something else valuable … like, someone who can sew might agree to repair six pairs of torn pants in exchange for 10 cans of beans (because in this scenario, nothing that depends on trucks to get to nearby stores, including clothing, is plentiful or cheap.)
Report comment to moderator
Bob: Gold does have some uses in technology and manufacturing, but so do copper, steel and tungsten. That doesn’t make them suitable for currency, just commodities. In a post-industrial society, those uses of gold won’t matter much.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
I’ve been saying for the past year or two that what is underlying most if not all of our economic woes is dishonest bookkeeping by our government, it’s bureaucracies, and financial corporations.
In my opinion, the GDP, CPI, PPI, inflation figures, and unemployment percentages are all examples of dishonest bookkeeping.
I feel vindicated by North’s commentary.
Report comment to moderator
The value of gold is fairly stable.
…albeit subject to speculation, which cause its price to fluctuate all over the place.
A significant part of its shifting prices reflect changes in the value of the dollar, not the value of gold itself.
If that is true then all global currencies are simultaneously devaluing. To wit:
Here is the chart for USD/EUR for the last 5 years. It shows that the dollar has lost 15% of its value (in Euros) over this period.
Here is the chart for USD/JPY for the last 5 years. It shows that the dollar has lost 27.5% of its value (in Yen) over this period.
Let’s be pessimistic and use the Yen as our benchmark for dollar devaluation. If a dollar is truly worth 27.5% less than it was 5 years ago, then the price of gold (in dollars) should have increased 38% over this same period. In fact it has increased 132% (i.e. more than doubled) over the last 5 years.
The dollar is weaker than it was five years ago, but I’m not sure you can credibly explain the price of gold by dollar devaluation.
Keep in mind that adjusted for inflation (i.e., expressed in 1980 dollars), the record high for gold is around $2,300 an ounce.
How are you measuring inflation, CPI? If you’ll cite CPI statistics to calculate the historical inflation-adjusted high value of gold, then you must consider this measure to be at least passingly credible. What does the CPI say about the dollar’s value over the last 5 years?
The CPI says today’s dollar is worth about 11% less than the dollar from 5 years ago.
What I find most fascinating is the change in silver’s value relative to gold. When comparing one commodity to another currency fluctuations are irrelevant. The dollar can do whatever it wants, but unless there are fundamental shifts in the values of the underlying commodities (either increased demand or increased supply) then an ounce of gold should be worth about the same amount of silver. However, that’s not the case. Over the last 40 years the ratio of gold/silver has fluctuated from about 15 to about 80. Up until recently it was in the 50-60 range until silver took off. The ratio is now 30, which is the lowest it’s been (i.e. the most valuable silver has been relative to gold) since the early 1980s. I’m considering doing an arbitrage by going short in silver and long in gold, but haven’t gotten off the fence yet.
Report comment to moderator
“If that is true then all global currencies are simultaneously devaluing. To wit:”
Well it is true, and they are devaluing simultaneously. All the other Federal banks are doing the same thing ours has been doing. Foolishly printing money.
Report comment to moderator
#28 Buddyglass
“I’m considering doing an arbitrage by going short in silver and long in gold, but haven’t gotten off the fence yet.”
I thought of it too but I have to go do the dishes now.
Report comment to moderator
Well it is true, and they are devaluing simultaneously. All the other Federal banks are doing the same thing ours has been doing. Foolishly printing money.
So I have to ask: if the only way in which my paper money is worth “significantly less” is when I’m trying to buy precious metals…is it really worth “significantly less” to me in real terms?
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass,
When you print money, gold and silver prices are not the only ones to rise.
Or haven’t you noticed the prices of everything you buy going up, while getting less quantity? Do you live under a rock?
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass (31): … if the only way in which my paper money is worth “significantly less” is when I’m trying to buy precious metals … is it really worth “significantly less” to me in real terms?
Frank: The setup to your Q. contains is a false assumption. I.e., buying precious metals is not the only way that paper money is worth significantly less. It is worth significantly less when we buy food, clothing, fuel, housing, etc.
Which means that the answer to your Q. is, “Yes, paper money really is worth significantly less in real terms.”
Report comment to moderator
Seems the left’s denial about printing money causing inflation is wearing thin….
How can you even argue such a thing? Isn’t it obvious?
Report comment to moderator
This month the dollar hit its lowest point since Obama took office.
We are in Japan now and are watching the dollar rate against the Yen drop almost daily. Inflation and unemployment grew when Obama took office and all of his promises about fixing the economy have failed just like many of us knew they would. He has a near perfect record of ruining pretty much everything he touches.
So why are people still worshiping this messiah? Why do people still think Keynesian economics works? What kind of mass blindness is this?
Report comment to moderator
DCINNES The bad news is unemployment, inflation . . .
Yes, unemployment is bad news, and nobody cares or thinks that it’s the government’s role to do anything about it.
No, inflation is not bad news . . . it needs to be higher.
Report comment to moderator
Needs to be higher?
So what then? So the country can do down in flames?
Report comment to moderator
@MiM: Or haven’t you noticed the prices of everything you buy going up, while getting less quantity?
Honestly? No. Price are always going up. Other than gasoline, I haven’t noticed it being significantly worse over the last 5 years. CPI, which Innes seems to trust as a gauge of historical inflation, backs me up on this.
@Frank: buying precious metals is not the only way that paper money is worth significantly less. It is worth significantly less when we buy food, clothing, fuel, housing, etc.
Fuel yes, but that’s not inflation per se. Housing? Nope. Convince me on food and clothing, because I haven’t noticed a big jump.
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass (38): Fuel yes, but that’s not inflation per se.
Frank: Increased prices aren’t “inflation per se.” They are rather the result of inflation, which is an increase in money in circulation.
BuddyGlass (38): Housing? Nope. Convince me on food and clothing, because I haven’t noticed a big jump.
Frank: I think you’re looking at too short a time frame. Looking back five years and beyond, the steadily dropping purchasing power of the US Dollar is readily evident.
Today it takes $1.64 to buy what it took $1.00 to buy in 1991 (a 39% decrease in purchasing power); it takes $1.26 to buy what it took $1.00 to buy in 2001 (a 21% decrease), and it takes $1.11 to buy what it took $1.00 to buy in 2006 (a 10% decrease).
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
These are across-the-board numbers – not necessarily applicable to any particular product sector like fuel, food or clothing. The costs of any given good or product will fluctuate due to factors such as scarcity or availability of raw materials, decreases or increases in costs of production, etc. (Think of the costs of PC technology today vs. 15 years ago.)
But generally speaking, the cost of living increases due to the steadily-increasing [fiat] money supply.
Report comment to moderator
Increased prices aren’t “inflation per se.” They are rather the result of inflation, which is an increase in money in circulation.
They can also be the result of other factors entirely, which is what I’d argue is happening here. Or would you consider the drastic drop in the price of oil in the latter half or 2008 to be the result of massive deflation?
I think you’re looking at too short a time frame. Looking back five years and beyond, the steadily dropping purchasing power of the US Dollar is readily evident.
I’m not disputing that inflation happens over time. The key word in what I wrote was “significant”. Innes and others argue two things:
1. The current (or possibly over the last 2 years) rate of inflation is significantly higher than it has been during the recent past.
2. This is because of recent govt. action, e.g. quantitative easing, deficit spending, etc.
Those specific claims. Generally speaking I’m not bothered by ~2% annual inflation. And I think you’ll find there was inflation even prior to Nixon abandoning the gold standard.
Report comment to moderator
Inflation needs to be somewhat higher to stimulate demand, according to the quantity theory of money pushed by Alan Greenspan and others. Inflation is the buy signal that buyers desire. They are waiting and hoping for inflation, because they want to buy but are afraid to without inflation.
Report comment to moderator
Fed policy has nothing to do with the run-up in fuel prices.
Report comment to moderator
“They are waiting and hoping for inflation, because they want to buy but are afraid to without inflation.”
???
This makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.
I don’t buy something until the price drops…
Report comment to moderator
It sounds like you are telling us you believe we’re in a climate of falling prices. Even if you need something now, your expectation of price declines motivates you to defer your purchase.
This behavior says something big about your view of the condition of the economy. If delay is your purchasing strategy with respect to everything you buy (not just the latest cell phone), it means that you think many other buyers are also suspending their purchases. You’re not worried about inflation — perhaps the reverse — no matter what you say about Obama’s policies. If prices are dropping, you are worried about employment.
A climate of dropping prices might lead you to cancel your purchase altogether, on the theory that all you really need are stockpiles of rations, medicine, and ammunition.
On the other hand, imagine your behavior when prices start to rise modestly but definitely. You will know that further delay in your purchase will mean that you will pay more. Instead of being rewarded with lower prices, you’ll be penalized for waiting. You’ll understand that other consumers are willing and able to pay higher prices. You may infer that rising demand is spurring economic growth.
Report comment to moderator
MAKE_IT_MAN – according to some conservative economists (and I don’t mean partisan think-tank hacks, who are just rhetoricians) the housing bubble was caused by the profits from globalization which were far in excess of intended investment. Companies made money by cutting their labor costs while continuing to do the same thing. Globalization wasn’t innovation or what Tony conceives as entrepreneurial creation, it was simply cost reduction. The people who made all this money and Wall Street didn’t have a clue about what to do with it. They had enough cash to propel humanity to the next stage of technological ingeniousness, but instead they poured it all into real estate, expecting that other geniuses would invent the jobs that would enable people to afford the houses they lived in. Yes, derivatives greased the skids to hell, and Alan Greenspan and others are now sorry that they trusted the market to set the price of risk.
Anyway, that’s an alternative and simpler explanation for the housing bubble than what you suggest above.
As for current economic performance, I think it’s very likely we’re going to suffer a double-dip recession because of conservative austerity, Obama’s unwillingness to promote another stimulus, and the Fed’s capitulation to the inflation hysterics. Obama gave up caring about unemployment and republicans believe it’s not the job of Congress to do anything about it.
Remember, you have your tax cut. You have low interest rates. Why don’t your gods come down from heaven and set fire to your sacrifice?
Report comment to moderator
You might like the chart in this blog post, which plots money supply vs. price of gold from 1980 to 2000.
Expanding money supply may indeed cause inflation, but it is not responsible for the current run-up in the price of gold.
Report comment to moderator
“The people who made all this money and Wall Street didn’t have a clue about what to do with it.”
SM,
The problem with your last post is that if the money is not invested, then it is not lost either, when things turned south.
This also means it is not a cause of the crash.
The housing bubble occurred because to many people were buying what they could not afford or just barely afford. So the jack in gas prices, got people behind on their mortgage, which led to foreclosures, which led to all that extra investment in the housing market to burst.
You watch. It will happen again, although not as severe residentially anyway, so long as gas continues to climb over $4.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!