Showing posts with label gold. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gold. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Best is Yet to Come

Have you seen the t.v. commercial that expounds on the merits of gold as an investment?

Near the end of the message, the announcer is talking about how much gold prices have increased in the past ten years or so. And then he says,

"And the best is yet to come."

Really?

Do you really want the price of gold to increase? If so, do you really understand that the price of gold is a measure of fear, inflation and political instability?

I first bought some gold back in 1979 when the price was closing in on $700 an ounce. By early 1983, the price was down to near $300 an ounce and it stayed there for nearly twenty years.

Why? The monetary policy of Paul Volcker drove interest rates way up and set off a serious recession. But it took the steam out of the double digit inflation we were experiencing. And it took away a large part of the reason that gold prices were so high. In spite of moderate inflation from 1980 through 2003, gold prices didn't increase -- which demonstrates that gold is not a pure inflation hedge. The price of gold does not correlate closely with inflation because it is also a measure of the degree of political instability. And, of course, the price is affected by large purchases and sales by governments.

Speaking for myself, I'd be happy if the price of gold were to drop from it's current level because that would be an indication that things were back to normal. Over time I do believe that gold will increase to reflect the loss of value in the dollar due to creeping inflation.

As far as the price of gold is concerned, I surely hope the best is not yet to come and that gold won't go up to $5,000 an ounce as some promoters are claiming.

Nonetheless, I will continue to maintain a portion of our net worth in what Lord Keynes called "the barbaric relic" -- just in case things get worse instead of better.

Vern

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

A Cure for Inflation?

Have you noticed that we talk about an increase in the price of gold, silver and various foreign currencies, instead of talking about a decrease in the value of the U.S. dollar?

As of about 10:30 am (central time) in the U.S., on November 15th, the spot price of gold was $1,338. If you bought some gold at $1,000 an ounce, have you made a profit of $338 (33.8%) or has the value of the dollar decreased by about 25%? If you invested in Euro's at 1.20 per dollar and sold out when the Euro was at 1.40 per dollar, have you made a profit of 16.7% or did the dollar fall by about 14%?

If the increase in the relative value of gold or other currencies versus the dollar is actually a decline in the purchasing value of the dollar, why do we have to pay taxes on the alleged gains in the value of gold, silver or other currencies?

One of the diverse suggestions for a way to curb inflation is to permit people to use gold or silver as a substitute for the dollar, but without eliminating the dollar. This would require that we do not impose a tax on any increase in the value of the competing currency in relation to the dollar. Many people would continue to use dollars to conduct business, but an increasing number would choose either gold or silver to establish the price of various products or services. This would be particularly attractive for transactions (such as loans) that expose one of the parties to a potential loss because of a decline in the value of the currency. But this would also put a lot of pressure on the Federal Reserve to stop inflating the currency.

Of course, that's simply a lot of wishful thinking on my part because there is no way the political and banking establishment would allow us to use any competing substitute for the declining dollar.

Vern

See The Tax Reform Alternative
http://www.offshorepress.com/taxreform2010.html