Bernanke’s First Blog Post

By now it has probably made the rounds that Ben Bernanke has joined the “blogosphere” by beginning to write his own blog at the Brookings Institute. After reading his first post there, we couldn’t resist to comment. The article is entitled “Why are interest rates so low?”. Perhaps not surprisingly, it turns out that it is essentially a long-winded apologia for the Fed’s interventionist policies.

At one point Bernanke e.g. deems it necessary to once again defend himself against a complaint voiced by a legislator, namely that the FOMC has “thrown seniors under the bus” by cutting rates to zero. Bernanke is assuring us that “I was concerned about those seniors as well”. It could be that seniors will be happy to hear it. However, the return they get on their savings remains zilch to this day, so we doubt it will be much of a consolation to them that Bernanke professes to have been concerned. He also tries to refute the fact that the Fed’s interventions are distorting markets (i.e., he refuses to admit that it is blowing one bubble after another).

It is interesting that Bernanke is launching into a justification of Fed policies in his very first post already. Reading it, we felt reminded of one of his previous attempts to exonerate the Fed, when he argued that the housing bubble was the result of “too lax regulations”, and had definitely nothing to do with the Fed’s interest rate policies. Among other things, he neglected to mention in that particular speech that the housing bubble was actually concentrated in one of the most highly regulated sectors of the economy.

 

130226145301-ben-bernanke-hearing-620xaBen Bernanke: honest injun, we’re completely innocent! We only do good manipulations! The markets do the bad stuff all by themselves.

Photo credit: Getty Images

 

The Natural Interest Rate

Bernanke tries to explain why interest rates are currently so low, and discusses the natural interest rate in this context:

 

“Except in the short run, real interest rates are determined by a wide range of economic factors, including prospects for economic growth—not by the Fed.

To understand why this is so, it helps to introduce the concept of the equilibrium real interest rate (sometimes called the Wicksellian interest rate, after the late-nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Swedish economist Knut Wicksell). The equilibrium interest rate is the real interest rate consistent with full employment of labor and capital resources, perhaps after some period of adjustment. Many factors affect the equilibrium rate, which can and does change over time. In a rapidly growing, dynamic economy, we would expect the equilibrium interest rate to be high, all else equal, reflecting the high prospective return on capital investments. In a slowly growing or recessionary economy, the equilibrium real rate is likely to be low, since investment opportunities are limited and relatively unprofitable.”

 

It seems a bit unfortunate that economists are calling it the “equilibrium interest rate”. What Wicksell described was the fact that there exists a time discount, a “natural” or “originary” interest rate, that is independent of the height of market interest rates. Wicksell’s work has been incorporated and refined in the interest theories of later economists, inter alia in the work of Frank Fetter in the US and Ludwig von Mises in Austria (whom we quote at length below).

Human beings have a limited life span, and time only moves in one direction for them. Time is an extremely important factor influencing their choices and actions. All action is future-oriented and aims at attaining satisfaction, or “removing uneasiness” as Mises put it, at some point in the future. Human action is purposive and achieving a goal sooner is always preferred to achieving the same goal later. This is not a philosophical or psychological concept, but rather an essential, inviolable category of action, i.e., it is a praxeological theorem. As Mises explains:

 

“If any role at all is played by the time element in human life, there cannot be any question of equal valuation of nearer and remoter periods of the same length. Such an equal valuation would mean that people do not care whether success is attained sooner or later. It would be tantamount to a complete elimination of the time element from the process of valuation.

“[…A]cting man does not appraise time periods merely with regard to their dimension. His choices regarding the removal of future uneasiness are directed by the categories sooner and later. Time for man is not a homogeneous substance of which only length counts. It is not a more or a less in dimension. It is an irreversible flux the fractions of which appear in different perspective according to whether they are nearer to or remoter from the instant of valuation and decision. Satisfaction of a want in the nearer future is, other things being equal, preferred to that in the farther distant future. Present goods are more valuable than future goods.

Time preference is a categorial requisite of human action. No mode of action can be thought of in which satisfaction within a nearer period of the future is not – other things being equal- preferred to that in a later period. The very act of gratifying a desire implies that gratification at the present instant is preferred to that at a later instant. He who consumes a nonperishable good instead of postponing consumption for an indefinite later moment thereby reveals a higher valuation of present satisfaction as compared with later satisfaction. If he were not to prefer satisfaction in a nearer period of the future to that in a remoter period, he would never consume and so satisfy wants. He would always accumulate, he would never consume and enjoy. He would not consume today, but he would not consume tomorrow either, as the morrow would confront him with the same alternative.”

 

(emphasis added; non-bolded italics in original)

What this in effect means is: The natural interest rate is at its root a non-monetary phenomenon. It describes the discount people apply to future goods (or goals/satisfactions) vs. present ones. These value judgments regarding future in comparison to present satisfaction (called time preference) differ from person to person, depending on individual circumstances. In the market they find expression in the time market for money, i.e., in the interest rate on money loans, but they are actually present in the entire market economy. For instance, if one considers an unchanging economy in equilibrium (which can never exist in real life, but an evenly rotating economy is useful as a mental tool to help with the explanation of economic laws), the rate earned by capitalists in the various stages of production would be exactly equal to the natural interest rate determined by time preferences.

Different people will be either suppliers or demanders of present goods on the market at varying heights of interest, depending on their subjective value scales. Someone holding $30,000 in cash may be prepared to lend out $10,000 for a year at a rate of 4%, and another $10,000 at a rate of 5% (or higher), but he may not wish to lend out the remaining amount regardless of the rate prevailing on the market, because he prefers to hold on to this part of his money stock no matter what. This value judgment depends on the marginal utility these units of money have for him (money serves as the stand-in for present goods, because it can be exchanged immediately for all other goods traded on the market).

One thing should be clear: it is unthinkable that this value judgment will ever reverse, i.e., it is categorically impossible that future goods of the same type and quantity are valued more highly than present ones. As Mises points out above, if that were the case, one would never consume, but instead postpone consumption indefinitely. The moment one does consume something – even if one merely eats a sandwich – this action by itself already reveals the existence of positive time preference, because it was not postponed further.

The exact height of the natural interest rate is not measurable. Gross market interest rates contain additional components, namely a price premium which expresses expectations of the future decline in money’s purchasing power, and a risk premium, which reflects an assessment of the creditworthiness of borrowers and other risks attending a loan (this is also called an entrepreneurial premium, since it produces an entrepreneurial profit for lenders who have estimated and priced this risk correctly). Nevertheless, these components of the gross market rate can of course be differentiated analytically. As an aside, this can also at least partly explain the existence of negative yields-to-maturity on some government bonds: essentially, their risk premium has turned negative – they are believed to be safer than cash deposits held at banks (there is more to it than that, but this aspect plays definitely a role).

 

1-FF rateThe Federal Funds rate these days requires a microscope to become visible – click to enlarge.

 

Keeping the foregoing in mind, imagine an economy in which there is neither a central bank, nor any credit expansion ex nihilo due to fractional reserve banking. It should be immediately obvious that society-wide time preferences will not only determine the height of interest rates, but at the same time the amount of savings made available for lending in the time market. The lower time preferences, the greater the allocation to savings will be. The interest rate is therefore a signal that so to speak tells entrepreneurs which types of investments can be profitably chosen. Longer production processes that involve additional stages of production will tend to increase output, but can only be undertaken if the required savings are sufficiently large to actually complete the necessary investments. It follows from this, as Mises states:

 

“Originary interest is not a price determined on the market by the interplay of the demand for and the supply of capital or capital goods. Its height does not depend on the extent of this demand and supply. It is rather the rate of originary interest that determines both the demand for and the supply of capital and capital goods. It determines how much of the available supply of goods is to be devoted to consumption in the immediate future and how much to provision for remoter periods of the future.

 

It follows also that contrary to what Bernanke states above, a decline in the natural interest rate is actually the precondition for a progressing, growing economy. If time preferences decline, more savings will be available and can be devoted to investment, which is the sine qua non precondition for growth in future output. High time preferences by contrast mean that relatively more will be consumed rather than saved and invested. The economy’s production structure will accordingly have to be shortened, and hence will become less productive – even though the rate of monetary profit between the stages of production that remain will increase (see also: “The Production Structure”).

Bernanke also asserts (when referring to the savers he has waged war on, especially the contingent of retirees, widows and orphans and the like, all of whom depend on fixed income):

 

“But if the goal was for retirees to enjoy sustainably higher real returns, then the Fed’s raising interest rates prematurely would have been exactly the wrong thing to do. In the weak (but recovering) economy of the past few years, all indications are that the equilibrium real interest rate has been exceptionally low, probably negative.”

 

(emphasis added)

The idea that the natural rate of interest is or was “probably negative” has to our knowledge been first propagated by Larry Summers and was then enthusiastically embraced by Paul Krugman, i.e., the usual Keynesian suspects. Hopefully it was made convincingly clear above why this is actually a literal impossibility. If the natural interest rate had indeed turned negative, we would all have starved to death by now, because all consumption would have ceased. We are happy to report that most people in the developed world continue to look quite well fed, arguably even too well fed in many cases, so we can be sure that this logical impossibility has not magically occurred.

 

Central Planners Not to Blame for Distorting Markets?

We live in a world in which the supply of credit and money is literally expanded from thin air, and the central bank is at the center of this process (even though in a “normal boom” it will only accommodate the expansion of fiduciary media by commercial banks, whereas in recent years it has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy directly). Obviously, expanding the supply of money will not alter the amount of real capital and resources in the economy. Unfortunately, it does have other effects though, and none of them are good. This brings us to Bernanke’s attempt to deflect blame from the Fed for what it does best, namely distort markets:

 

“A similarly confused criticism often heard is that the Fed is somehow distorting financial markets and investment decisions by keeping interest rates “artificially low.” Contrary to what sometimes seems to be alleged, the Fed cannot somehow withdraw and leave interest rates to be determined by “the markets.” The Fed’s actions determine the money supply and thus short-term interest rates; it has no choice but to set the short-term interest rate somewhere. So where should that be? The best strategy for the Fed I can think of is to set rates at a level consistent with the healthy operation of the economy over the medium term, that is, at the (today, low) equilibrium rate. There is absolutely nothing artificial about that! Of course, it’s legitimate to argue about where the equilibrium rate actually is at a given time, a debate that Fed policymakers engage in at their every meeting. But that doesn’t seem to be the source of the criticism.”

 

(emphasis added)

What can we say, except: wrong on all counts! The first sentence we have highlighted above is an example of circular reasoning; the Fed, or rather its members, may well feel they have “no choice” but to overrule markets, but that presupposes that the institution as such is not surplus to requirements. What Bernanke is implying in this sentence is that the existence of a central planning institution that manipulates the size of the money supply and the price of credit should simply be accepted as a given. Apparently he thinks no further debate on this point is required.

However, if one accepts this premise, then why shouldn’t the government control the price of eggs, or the price of cars as well? If government bureaucrats are wise enough to plan and control the most important price ratio in the economy, then why wouldn’t it be best if they controlled all prices? Similar to most economists, Bernanke would probably agree that it wouldn’t be a good thing if government bureaucrats were indeed controlling all prices. So why exactly should the price of credit be an exception to this rule?

 

2-TMS-2Broad US money supply TMS-2, with the Bernanke era (approx.) highlighted. Even if we didn’t know anything about the theoretical arguments, it would be nigh impossible to believe that markets have not been distorted by this flood of money – click to enlarge.

 

In the second sentence Bernanke restates something that he already admits further above in his post, namely that it is not possible to actually determine the height of the natural interest rate. He alleges that this is not where critics of the Fed are coming from, but he is wrong about this as well. In fact, this is precisely the essence of the critique. We already discussed this point in some detail in “Central Banks and the Socialist Calculation Problem”. We quoted Jesus Huerta de Soto on the topic, who trenchantly summarizes the problem faced by a central economic planning institution like the Fed:

 

“Sooner or later the system will inevitably run up against the impossibility of socialist economic calculation, the theorem of which maintains it is impossible to coordinate any sphere of society, especially the financial sphere, via dictatorial mandates, given that the governing body (in this case the central bank) is incapable of obtaining the necessary and relevant information required to do so.”

 

Even Bernanke essentially admits that it is impossible for the Fed to “obtain the necessary and relevant information” to set the interest rate at the “correct” level. His excuse essentially boils down to: “We have little idea what we are doing, but we must do something; besides, we’re trying to do our best”. So the economy is so-to-speak planned on a best effort basis. We’d rather see no such planning at all.

The problem is that trying to do one’s best simply won’t cut it when attempting to do what is literally impossible. As a result, the rates set by the Fed will always be either too high or too low, and at best coincide with the natural rate for fleeting moments by sheer coincidence. The Fed’s activities are therefore most definitely distorting prices and markets – which is precisely what Bernanke denies.

Given that the Fed per experience tends to err on the side of easy money, we experience asset price bubbles and distortions in relative prices that cause malinvestment and capital consumption (as they make capital investment in long-lived projects in the higher stages of the production structure appear to be feasible although they are not). Thus the central bank is directly responsible for the boom-bust cycle. If what Bernanke writes were actually true, we couldn’t possibly have suffered any boom-bust cycles on the Fed’s watch – but we most assuredly have. Since there exist no tenable non-monetary explanations of the business cycle, where else are we supposed to look for its cause?

 

Conclusion:

In his first blog outing, Bernanke attempts to paint the Fed as a benevolent institution that cannot be held responsible for market distortions and economic cycles. It is true that the central bank has no control over the natural interest rate, but its interventions most assuredly do influence market interest rates and with that relative prices in the economy. The attempt to exonerate the Fed therefore fails – regardless of how well-intentioned its members may be, their actions in concert with the fractionally reserved banking [corr. 040115, Ed.] cartel are the root cause of the boom-bust cycles that continue to bedevil the economy.

 

3-SPXBubbles and busts in asset prices, as reflected in the US stock market. Guess what comes next.

 

Charts by: BigCharts, Saint Louis Federal Reserve Research

 

 
 

Emigrate While You Can... Learn More

 
 

 
 

Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.

   

Bitcoin address: 1DRkVzUmkGaz9xAP81us86zzxh5VMEhNke

   
 

13 Responses to “Ben Bernanke’s Apologia for the Fed”

  • FelixAM:

    “Human action is purposive and achieving a goal sooner is always preferred to achieving the same goal later.”

    That doesn’t sound right.

    I put off dessert for after the “healthy” food. Maybe long after. Maybe forever. Certainly for when its not as preferred as right now.

    Doesn’t any deferred gratification falsify that “always preferred” statement?

    Then, too, you may prefer the goal at a later time when it’s better to reach the goal. Timing, as they say, is everything. You wouldn’t want to introduce a product before the market is ready for it, for instance.

  • JohnnyZ:

    “If what Bernanke writes were actually true, we couldn’t possibly have suffered any boom-bust cycles on the Fed’s watch – but we most assuredly have. Since there exist no tenable non-monetary explanations of the business cycle, where else are we supposed to look for its cause?”

    Well, are we sure that there are no other explanations of the business cycle? My impression is that the Fed over amplifies them and may cause them / trigger them, but is not the only factor. Others are herding and extrapolation – human psychological factors so to speak.

    Pater, can you please comment on that?

    P.S.: The latest Hussman weekly gives a good summary of what is wrong with the economy. Maybe a comment on his post would also be interesting?

    • rodney:

      Hey Johnny, I see where you are coming from. The sentence you picked sounds like a blanket statement without arguments (there exist no tenable ….).

      The point he was trying to make, though, is that monetary theories of the business cycle have been around since at least the 18th century, with classical economists like David Ricardo. These theories were complemented by Austrian School Economists starting with Menger and Böhm-Bawerk, and even today, research is intense in this area. Thus, more than 200 years of thinking have gone into developing these ideas.

      Contrast that with today’s mainstream economists, who derive all their knowledge from a phantasy known as “The New Economics” (See Henry Hazlitt’s book for a line by line rebuttal of Keynes’ theory). The essence of this absurd notion is that economic crises are intrinsic to the market economy (an unsubstantiated assumption), and the government must step in to correct them. What this means, basically, is that they *don’t have* a theory of the business cycle. They simply brush the issue aside.

      That’s why what seemed like a blanket statement is actually true.

      To be honest, I have never heard of the “herding and extrapolation – human psychological factors” theory of the business cycle. Can you elaborate on that?

  • BrotherJohnF:

    Welcome to the blogosphere Benny Bubbles. Unfortunately for you we don’t just let spout some nonsense without being challenged to defend your arguments. It doesn’t appear you are up to the task. I predict a quiet exit from this new endeavor for you ;-)

    Thanks Pater

  • Ooops! Thanks for catching the “baking cartel” :) ! This is an error the spell-checker overlooks, has happened a few times to me already. We will transform this evil cake and bread oligopoly back into the money printing collective as originally intended.

  • No6:

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

  • rodney:

    The Bernank’s first blog post is as lame, ridiculous and shameless as one could expect knowing the guy. I couldn’t possibly write a reply to this creep without launching into expletives in the very first paragraph, and you get credits for shutting this buffoon’s mouth with nothing but powerful arguments and elegant, 100% logical theories.

    His standard excuse that it is all done in the name of economic growth, after six years of growth rates at the frontier of recession, is sickening.

    • I must warn you, Sir, this is an ad – hominem – attack !

      : )

      • rodney:

        Dear moderator, this is not really true. It does not qualify as an ad-hominem-attack if the credibility of the person is doubtful (see Wikipedia). Is the ex-Chairman-turned-blogger credible? You be the judge.

        I find the expressions used perfectly accurate, and no foul language was used. But I see your point and I will refrain in future from commenting on the person’s character.

        • ATexasLibertarian:

          An ad hominem attack is “attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument” according to dictionary.com. I don’t think it has anything to do with whether this person’s credibility, at least, this is the definition that I’ve come to know.

          I agree with your judgments of Bernanke wholeheartedly, but it is a logical fallacy (one that I’ve also committed many times by the way) to attack the character and not the argument.

          Rothbard’s opinion of ad hominem, was that it was perfectly fine, AS LONG AS after the logically fallacious attack, you then go on to attack the person’s argument. I think I heard him say something like this in a video where he gave a lecture on Keynes. I tend to agree with that fat little Jewish guy on most things. =)

        • Your presence here is highly appreciated, Rodney, be assured, thank you for your insightful comments.

          kind regards

  • ATexasLibertarian:

    “The attempt to exonerate the Fed therefore fails – regardless of how well-intentioned its members may be, their actions in concert with the fractionally reserved baking cartel are the root cause of the boom-bust cycles that continue to bedevil the economy” – Did you catch that???

    “…fractionally reserved baking cartel…”

    Man I had no idea. Not only does a baking cartel exist, but it has aligned itself with the Fed, AND performs fractional reserve baking! I’m only guessing this means they dilute their flour to devalue the pies that customers are forced to enjoy, and since these bakesters enjoy cartelistic privileges, the customers have no legal options to enjoy real pie elsewhere!

    Sorry couldn’t resist.

    Awesome typo and even better article. I had heard Bernanke was going to start blogging, and I thought to myself that this is the kind of drool that would find its way into the info-sphere as a result. Well at least he is going to give us Austrians some easy material to tee-off on for laughs, at least as long as the whole central banking mythos maintains popular, if resigned, approval in America and abroad. His contention that real interest rates are “probably” negative is absurd, and I think this article properly lampoons him for it.

    His assertion that high interest rates are good for the economy is somewhat baffling. Is he admitting that his purposeful actions to lower interest rates was part of a subversive effort to destroy the U.S. economy? Interesting… I was under the assumption that Keynesians believed low interest rates create prosperity and that this is why they attempt to artificially lower them, in a third-gradian attempt to dupe the market into thinking it is prosperous without the necessary effort; sort of like pushing up your bicep from behind while flexing to give others the false appearance of strength, rather than actually working out and gaining the muscle.

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • How to Stick It to Your Banker, the Federal Reserve, and the Whole Doggone Fiat Money System
      Bernanke Redux Somehow, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke found time from his busy hedge fund advisory duties last week to tell his ex-employer how to do its job.  Namely, he recommended to his former cohorts at the Fed how much they should reduce the Fed’s balance sheet by.  In other words, he told them how to go about cleaning up his mess.   Praise the Lord! The Hero is back to tell us what to do! Why, oh why have you ever left, oh greatest central planner of all...
  • India: Why its Attempt to Go Digital Will Fail
      India Reverts to its Irrational, Tribal Normal (Part XIII) Over the three years in which Narendra Modi has been in power, his support base has continued to increase. Indian institutions — including the courts and the media — now toe his line. The President, otherwise a ceremonial rubber-stamp post, but the last obstacle keeping Modi from implementing a police state, comes up for re-election by a vote of the legislative houses in July 2017.  No one should be surprised if a Hindu...
  • Moving Closer to the Precipice
      Money Supply and Credit Growth Continue to Falter The decline in the growth rate of the broad US money supply measure TMS-2 that started last November continues, but the momentum of the decline has slowed last month (TMS = “true money supply”).  The data were recently updated to the end of April, as of which the year-on-year growth rate of TMS-2 is clocking in at 6.05%, a slight decrease from the 6.12% growth rate recorded at the end of March. It remains the slowest y/y growth since...
  • What is the Buffet Indicator Saying About Gold?
      Chugging along in Nosebleed Territory Last Friday, both the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq composite indexes closed at record highs in the US, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average only a whisker away from its peak set in March. What has often been called the “most hated bull market in history” thus far continues  to chug along in defiance of its detractors.   Can current stock market valuations tell us something about the future trend in gold prices? Yes, they actually...
  • The 21st Century Has Been a Big, Fat Flop
      Seeming Contradiction CACHI, ARGENTINA – Here at the Diary we have fun ridiculing the pretensions, absurdities, and hypocrisies of the ruling classes. But there is a serious side to it, too. Mockery makes us laugh. And laughing helps us wiggle free from the kudzu of fake news.   Is it real? Is it real? Is it real? Above you can see what the problem with reality is, or potentially is, in a 6-phase research undertaking that has landed its protagonist in a very disagreeable...
  • A Cloud Hangs Over the Oil Sector
      Endangered Recovery As we noted in a recent corporate debt update on occasion of the troubles Neiman-Marcus finds itself in (see “Cracks in Ponzi Finance Land”), problems are set to emerge among high-yield borrowers in the US retail sector this year. This happens just as similar problems among low-rated borrowers in the oil sector were mitigated by the rally in oil prices since early 2016. The recovery in the oil sector seems increasingly endangered though.   Too many oil...
  • Will Gold or Silver Pay the Higher Interest Rate?
      The Wrong Approach This question is no longer moot. As the world moves inexorably towards the use of metallic money, interest on gold and silver will return with it. This raises an important question. Which interest rate will be higher?   It’s instructive to explore a wrong, but popular, view. I call it the purchasing power paradigm. In this view, the value of money — its purchasing power —is 1/P (where P is the price level). Inflation is the rate of decline of...
  • Rising Oil Prices Don't Cause Inflation
      Correlation vs. Causation A very good visual correlation between the yearly percentage change in the consumer price index (CPI) and the yearly percentage change in the price of oil seems to provide support to the popular thinking that future changes in price inflation in the US are likely to be set by the yearly growth rate in the price of oil (see first chart below).   Gushing forth... a Union Oil Co. oil well sometime early in the 20th century   But is it valid to...
  • Warnings from Mount Vesuvius
      When Mount Vesuvius Blew   “Injustice, swift, erect, and unconfin’d, Sweeps the wide earth, and tramples o’er mankind” – Homer, The Iliad   Everything was just the way it was supposed to be in Pompeii on August 24, 79 A.D.  The gods had bestowed wealth and abundance upon the inhabitants of this Roman trading town.  Things were near perfect.   Frescoes in the so-called “Villa of the Mysteries” in Pompeii, presumed to depict scenes from a...
  • A Bumper Under that Silver Elevator – Precious Metals Supply and Demand
      The Problem with Mining If you can believe the screaming headline, one of the gurus behind one of the gold newsletters is going all-in to gold, buying a million dollars of mining shares. If (1) gold is set to explode to the upside, and (2) mining shares are geared to the gold price, then he stands to get seriously rich(er).   As this book attests to, some people have a very cynical view of mining...  We would say there is a time for everything. For instance, when gold went ...
  • Silver Elevator Keeps Going Down – Precious Metals Supply and Demand
      Frexit Threat Macronized The dollar moved strongly, and is now over 25mg gold and 1.9g silver. This was a holiday-shortened week, due to the Early May bank holiday in the UK. The lateral entrant wakes up, preparing to march on, avenge the disinherited and let loose with fresh rounds of heavy philosophizing... we can't wait! [PT]   The big news as we write this, Macron beat Le Pen in the French election. We suppose this means markets can continue to do what they wanted...
  • The Knives Come Out for Trump
      A Minor Derailment GUALFIN, ARGENTINA – Yesterday, stocks fell. And volatility shot up.   When too many people have too many knives out at once, accidental cubism may result   Reports Bloomberg:   The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled more than 370 points, Treasuries rallied the most since July and volatility spiked higher as the turmoil surrounding the Trump administration roiled financial markets around the globe. Major U.S. stock indexes...

Support Acting Man

Austrian Theory and Investment

Own physical gold and silver outside a bank

Archive

j9TJzzN

350x200

Realtime Charts

 

Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]

 

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

 
Buy Silver Now!
 
Buy Gold Now!
 

Oilprice.com