By Mark Rogers

Is the Gold Standard set to make a return and is that return inevitable?

The answer must be yes to the first question and an interestingly qualified yes to the second.

There is little to no consensus amongst politicians and academics that the crisis we are passing through is a crisis of paper money, but even the most died-in-the-wool quantitative easer cannot but notice that QE is (a) a stop-gap and (b) that the gap refuses to be stopped.

Academic Blindness

Part of the perhaps inability to see that this is the paper money crisis to end paper money crises, is the hold that the consensus as to what caused the Great Depression has on such a wide range of academics and policy makers, the most important exponent being Ben Bernanke.

While faulty analysis is to be blamed for the position that Bernanke assigns to gold in the Great Depression, this position is also the result of the fallacy of assuming that the coincidence of two things necessarily entails cause and effect, in this case that because the gold standard existed at the same time as the Great Depression, ergo the gold standard caused the depression.

As James Rickards points out in his exceptionally informative book, Currency Wars (Portfolio/Penguin, New York, 2011), Bernanke’s argument depends on the observation that “[c]ountries that left gold were able to reflate their money supplies and price levels, and did so after some delay; countries remaining on gold were forced into further deflation.” (Bernanke, “The Macroeconomics of the Great Depression: A Comparative Approach” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 27, 1995). Rickards extrapolates: “Gold was at the base of the money supply; therefore gold was the limiting factor on the expansion of money at a time when more money was needed. … the evidence showed that gold had helped to cause the Great Depression and those who abandoned gold first recovered first. Gold has been discredited as a monetary instrument ever since. Case closed.”

But, while this academic case against gold is proved beyond controversy in the minds of policy makers, it is simply untrue. It was policy decisions that caused the problems: “As gold flowed into the United States during the early 1930s, the Federal Reserve could have allowed the base money supply to expand by up to 2.5 times the value of gold. The Fed failed to do so and actually reduced money supply, in part to neutralise the expansionary impact of the gold inflows.”

This then was what the Fed chose to do, and as a policy option was actually independent of the supply of gold. “It is historically and analytically false to blame gold for this money supply contraction.”

Bernanke’s Real Fear of Gold

“One suspects that Bernanke’s real objection to gold today is not that it was an actual constraint on increasing the money supply in the 1930s but that it could become one today. … [He] may want to preserve the ability of central bankers to create potentially unlimited amounts of money, which does require the abandonment of gold. Since 2009, Bernanke and the Fed have been able to test their policy of unlimited money creation in real-world conditions.” [Emphasis in the original.]

With the Bank of England recently following hard on the heels of the Fed. Pun intended. And one should note that the word “creation” in this context is an irony… but one that is almost certainly lost on those with an academic agenda to pursue: Mr Rickards’s last sentence above is a masterpiece of understatement!

Rickards summarises his conclusions on the false attribution of the Depression to gold thus: “the crime of tight money was not committed by gold but by the central bankers who engaged in a long series of avoidable policy blunders.” (Readers are well advised to get hold of Mr Rickards’s book: his analysis of the inaccuracies of the enemies of gold is extremely well done – as is the rest of this very important book.)

Which brings us up to date: avoidable blunders by policy makers. For how long have we been reading headlines that essentially declare Greece/Italy/Spain/the euro/the EU all to be teetering on the brink, when it is quite obvious that they are all well over the cliff and clutching at clouds to reassure themselves even as they plummet.

How does the current situation presage a return to the gold standard?

The gold standard must return, and in one of two ways. Either it is deliberately courted through enquiries as to the best form it should take and how it should be introduced, whether unilaterally at first, or in some form of international cooperation, or a unilateral introduction leading to other economies tagging along, pegging their currencies to a revitalised dollar anchored to a clearly defined gold standard… the options are adroitly canvassed by Mr Rickards.

Or, in the interestingly qualified yes to the question as to its inevitable return, it is reintroduced on the sudden as part of the emergency procedures that the President of the United States adopts to halt the chaos resulting from the unwillingness of politicians and economists and central bankers to do anything about the paper money crisis until it is too late.

Mr Rickards is extremely good on the possible agendas that will result from the present impasses: paper, in the form of multiple reserve currencies and Special Drawing Rights; Gold; or Chaos – with gold making its back door entrance as an emergency measure because by that time nobody will be able to stop it. And true to that emergency requirement, of course, gold will make its entrance by way of confiscation and the prohibition of all exports of gold from the States.

So if gold is going to make a comeback anyway, why wait? Why not prepare for its orderly reintroduction now, which will have the effect of avoiding the chaotic melt-down of value that will otherwise ensue?

“A studied, expertly implemented return to the gold standard offers the best chance of stability but commands so little academic respect as to be a nonstarter in current debates.”

In other words, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Currency Wars

Mr Rickards has written an immensely important book. He is dry and unalarmist; he is not scaremongering – the situation is already too scary for that. His recommendations are measured, and as a plea for a change of mind and heart are couched in terms of compromise – for example, he insists that the only way to defeat the Bernanke thesis is for gold advocates to take it seriously and argue the evidence on its own terms, something which he does brilliantly.

He is also illuminating on how the gold standard can live comfortably with occasional central bank manipulation of the money supply – indeed his argument with Bernanke shows just how it was the failure to do this that caused the problems that Bernanke and co. blame on gold – but in such emergency circumstances that gold will still act as a constraint on the possible solutions – i.e. will keep the interventions in check. As well as, I would say, provide the yard-stick by which such interventions can be properly evaluated as necessary.

He even suggests reviving Keynes’s suggestion, made at Bretton Woods, for an internationally gold-backed currency; he goes further and suggests that Keynes’s rather inelegant name for this substance, the “bancor”, could be adopted. Now there’s an olive branch for you.

If only Keynes had not held all his other prejudices against gold… his thinking seems to be that gold was a barbaric relic perhaps in so far as it supported nation states, but was alright as the support for a supra-government supervised international currency of last resort. Well, the European Union is teaching us a lesson about supra-government international arrangements that we should heed before the chaos that Mr Rickards so calmly describes engulfs us all.

[At a later date, I will continue reviewing the whole of this illuminating book.]

By Mark Rogers

One day.

The “sarkozy” in question? Bashing the City of London. So nothing has changed on the despising of the Anglo-Saxon economic model front, then. What else has changed as a result of the French and Greek elections?

While the Times has reported that there is a capital flight out of Greece (The Times, 8 May 2012) – which is hardly surprising – the answer to the above question is: nothing, politically.

The fireworks will be different colours after the French and Greek elections, but the unwillingness to recognise and to deal with the political death of Europe will continue: there is still no political will to recognise the failure of the euro and all the difficulties that that entails for the “union”. Not that there is much show of unity; there is little love lost on the continent for each other, but there is a determination to keep the bone of contention alive – not even the faux-radicals who have been elected to the Greek Parliament, while perfectly content to call their Northern neighbours barbarians, want to pull out of the euro! (Bloomberg here.)

“Voters shy from hard choices.” Thus Lexington in the Economist, April 28th 2012, page 42. “…voters everywhere … want many impossible things before breakfast, including low taxes and all the things that high taxes pay for.” He is, after a fashion, taking issue with Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, who concedes that the argument for small state-low tax politics is yet to be won: “Too many voters continue to like some of the things their taxes buy, such as entitlements and government jobs. If those things can be shrunk, [Mr Norquist] believes, so can their fondness for the state. Good luck with that, Mr Norquist.”

Well, Mr Norquist is perfectly entitled to point to Europe, where fondness for the state was invented and has become inbred, and in particular to Greece.

Greek voters wanted low taxes, so they simply didn’t bother to pay their taxes at all – and the tax collectors went on strike in sympathy – and they still wanted the things that high taxes pay for. A price system this is not.

The idea, fantastic as it seems, that tax collectors would go on strike against changes to their salaries would beggar belief were it not yet another strong reminder that those who advocate that the state simply pays it way out of trouble (which is what got us into the trouble in the first place) forget that the state has no money.

Even the editor of the Economist has advocated that the state in the UK should build more infrastructure (which, he says, “incidentally” provides more jobs) as a way of spending its way to recovery. This is the same Economist which considered the Socialist candidate, now victor, in the French presidential elections, M. Hollande, “rather dangerous” (April 28th) – even though he promises just such spending…

The tax collectors of Greece went on strike because they do not want their salaries cut, but in striking, i.e. refusing to do their job which is to collect the taxes out of which their salaries are paid, they are in effect cutting their incomes to zero.

The state has no money of its own: all that it spends is ultimately derived from the taxpayer: either directly, or by borrowing, which is then paid back by further despoliations of the taxpayer.

Ah! but what about Quantitative Easing? Apart from sounding like what Gargantua did after arriving in Paris, it has pretty much the same effect on the average saver: deluging the economy with printed money simply attacks the taxpayer from another angle – those who have saved see their savings and pensions eroded. Without savings, where is investment, and therefore growth, to come from?

Too much liquidity, and fake at that: QE seems to me to be essentially the government forging its own currency…

By Mark Rogers

While there is much speculation that there are moves afoot in some countries to rein in the private ownership of gold (see here and here), it is encouraging to read the following story (originally posted at L’Or et L’Argent) about how Singapore is opening up its markets to gold. This is yet another move in the free Asian economies to strengthen their positions, a welcome strength in view of the economic turmoil in the developed world and in China, whose economic future seems very uncertain.

Given that the following article points out the strong position of gold in Hong Kong, readers might like to read this fascinating account of gold dealing there; amongst other interesting points is the note that the Chinese Gold and Silver Exchange Society is the world’s oldest gold dealing exchange. Gold and stability could have no sounder exemplification than the growth of Hong Kong as one of the world’s strongest economies throughout the twentieth century and still leading the way in the new millennium!

Singapore’s move comes in tandem with growing speculation amongst gold observers that there is a slow but sure momentum building up to a return to the gold standard. The financial turmoil in Europe and the erosion of the US economy is fundamentally a crisis of paper money and cannot continue without a major shift towards the kind of stability that a properly backed currency provides. This shift will come either when the relevant governments realise that such a resolution of their problems needs to be carefully managed – or it will be forced upon them if they continue to do nothing other than roll the printing presses, which will in the end precipitate a catastrophe of an order such that even they will not be able to deny the obvious.

I shall in the very near future be posting reviews of Detlev Schlichter’s Paper Money Collapse and James Rickards’s Currency Wars, which contain detailed analyses of how our present woes are the inevitable result of fiat money, and, in Rickards’s book, an outline of how a return to the gold standard should be managed.

Meanwhile:

Singapore bows before Gold

The world’s fourth largest financial centre is seeking to open itself to the gold market. Thus, it has decided that tax cuts will apply to precious metals including gold.

The Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam confirmed a month ago that an exemption would be made to the 7% tax rate, hitherto applied to gold and all other precious metals, in order to encourage growth in trade negotiations and in particular as an incentive for producers to participate in the market.

Singapore will thus be able to compete on an equal footing with other neighbouring markets open to the gold trade, the most important being Hong Kong where producers prefer to sell their bullion – free of tax. It is evident that having to pay a 7% tax in Singapore discourages investors. This measure is completely logical and fair since no kind of taxes should be applied to a safe haven investment – the latter being basically currency.

This reduction will be initiated as of next October – which prompted certain declarations to be made at the time this measure was made public, for example, `that an important producer has expressed a particular interest in opening a factory in Singapore in the light of the announced tax change’ and furthermore that there will be more gold trading companies present in the country.

Gold has risen sharply and this is why there is so much competition between countries which are putting in place strategies to meet current requirements. If Singapore wishes to compete with its Asian neighbours who have a significant advantage, it will be extremely advantageous for it to adopt this fully justified initiative which will enable the gold market to benefit from a fall in tax or an exemption. By maintaining high taxes, Singapore has risked putting off all potential investors – the latter being welcomed with open-arms in Hong Kong and Japan.

Translated from an original article by Charles Sannat, Director of Economic Studies, AuCOFFRE.com, Paris

The Fourth Summit of the BRIC nations, a major political event.

This is a huge story and yet has gone largely unreported by the major western media. On the 29th of March in New Delhi, the Fourth Summit of the BRIC nations took place (Brazil, Russia, India, China).

“The BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) should no longer use the US Dollar in their bilateral exchanges. That is what was decided on Thursday the 29th March, 2012, during the Fourth Summit of leaders of these five nations in the Indian capital”.

Source: algeriedz.info and rian.ru

The following was decided during this meeting: an essential step was taken towards a “multipolar” global monetary system. March 29th 2012 will undoubtedly not be the date remembered in history as marking the end of the era of the Dollar. Nonetheless, the change is major.

Towards an overhaul of the IMS

We are entering a phase of disintegration of the International Monetary System as we know it. Our monetary system dates back to the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944 which was brought to an end by the Jamaican agreement of 1976 (this ended the gold standard).

So what will happen now? Stock markets are starting to fall because the issuing of European bond funds is doing badly or is disappointing (depending on your degree of optimism about the outcome of this policy), which is the case for Spain and now Italy.

What one must understand is that according to the current economic system it is the surpluses of some which finance the deficits of others, thus creating a balance. In other words, western countries are in a chronic deficit which has been, and I stress has been, financed by the major Asian exporting nations on the one hand (China and India) and the oil-producing nations on the other.

For the last few years, nobody was lending to western states (by this we mean the US and Europe) which now find themselves in an irreversibly compromised situation.

It is this lack of external funds which is pushing the central banks, the FED and the ECB to massively intervene in the markets. The only option that remains for us is indeed the use of the printing press and the creation of money with all the negative consequences that follow.

Though this Fourth Summit of the BRIC nations is a founding step towards the overhaul of the IMS this is certainly not the ultimate goal.

Ground-breaking events in international relations

Discussing the topic of the monetary system without mentioning the political dimensions would be a mistake. The future International Monetary System will be shaped by the international balance of power and alliances between the major players in the context of the fight for access to energy and agricultural resources and in the broader sense to raw materials. A strong axis is taking shape amongst the BRIC countries, and Iranian diplomacy is also far from insignificant.

The trans-Atlantic relationship remains strong despite the strains and divergences. Lastly, one should not imagine that the United States of America will let their status as world leaders slip away without a colossal “fight”. American policy has always been based on a simple concept: “America First”.

We are thus entering a new phase in the current crisis:

In 2007, the subprime crisis led to a financial and stock market crisis.

The financial crisis led to an economic recession.

The economic recession lead to massive state intervention in the form of stimulus packages which resulted in massive debts for these states.

The debt crisis can only lead to a major monetary crisis.

The monetary crisis (which is on its way) will lead to the restructuring of the International Monetary System.

And… the manoeuvres have already begun. The global repercussions will be deeply felt, as the International Monetary System is to the global economy what tectonic plates are to geology. We are touching upon the essential part. The tremors will truly be felt.

Will you be ready?

We here at Goldcoin.org have had the pleasure to interview Señora Lizette Paternina, the editor of LingORO.info, a blog dedicated to gold investment, gold coins and the unstable economics of our time. Her story has an interesting evolution based on the response she had to her blog articles. The popularity of her blog has paved the way for the launch of a commercial website, LingORO.com, which enables the Spanish speaking market to have access to a proven, reliable method of gold investment.

Editor: When did you first launch the blog LingORO.info?

Lizette: In March 2011 I posted my first article on line having spent some months previous immersed in the research of blog content. The first article is always special and I remember the feeling of excitement when I saw the visits to my blog and knew that people were reading my article. I was encouraged to continue producing and evolving content that was obviously attracting a growing audience.

Editor: What do you look for in an article?

Lizette: A story that tells a truth, with substance, meaning, logic and often on a subject ignored by the mainstream media. My articles present information to readers regarding the current economic climate and its impact on all of us. Many things are left unsaid that need expressing and this can be particularly true in the gold industry. I am originally from Colombia and so issues regarding “ORO VERDE” that could be so important for the survival of whole communities & their livelihoods need highlighting. Similarly I fully support the Clean Extraction initiative for 100% traceable gold that respects people and the planet. It is also important to have an historic perspective on the economy and gold investment as well as for the evolution of everyday changes in the economy. To this end I like to combine numismatic and historical facts about gold coins as well as the story of certain important coins that have a particular place in Spanish or Latin American history.

Editor: Why have you launched LingORO.com now?

Lizette: This is the ideal moment to launch an alternative method of Gold Investment to the Spanish and Latin American markets because there is no similar offer currently available. The current market is based more on jewelry and physical possession of gold bars and coins. However, our experience suggests that this is not the best way to invest in gold as it is difficult to realise a good value at resale when you inevitably have to sell it back to a dealer. Our business model allows Members to freely trade between themselves, therefore maximizing the opportunity to realise the full potential of their gold coins. It’s easy, practical, logical and has a proven track record in the French and the English speaking worlds as demonstrated by our sister sites AuCOFFRE.com & LinGOLD.com.

The advantages of LingORO are that investors can buy and sell on-line 24/7 from anywhere they want and also that we offer vault storage – this model allows ease of resale.

Editor: What type of products are available and why? Where do they come from?

Lizette: Only professionally sourced investment quality gold coins are available – these are all verified and sealed in cases. We also have a focus on certain Spanish and South American gold coins which are of great interest including the 25 Pesetas, The 50 Pesos and the Soles and Libra from Peru.

Editor: Why should we invest in gold?

Lizette: Gold is an excellent way to save, it is an alternative to the traditional bank products which have proved to be unreliable (particularly during the current crisis) and of course it is a diversification of a portfolio. Perhaps most importantly Gold is the safe haven currency when all other currencies are failing and losing value.
It is worth noting that most investments have a risk attached – that is to say a risk to the counterpart offered in the investment. If these are shares, certificates, funds etc there is a possibility that the counterpart to your investment ie. the shares or assets supposedly backing funds could fall to zero in a crisis due to company failure, the debt cycle or unscrupulous traders who have oversold their funds such as is the case with ETFs (less than 20% physical gold to back the certificates sold).
Gold can never fall to zero as it has consistently had value for 6000 years which is better than any modern day currency or fund.
Finally, we should think of gold as an insurance against economic crisis. It will protect your wealth against inflation and it will always maintain purchasing power whatever happens during the crisis. No other product can offer this. If you have a house you usually have fire insurance in case one day the unthinkable happens. At least you have the peace of mind that you can rebuil it.
If the crisis deepens as is largely expected our whole way of life could be challenged – therefore it is prudent and wise to take out an insurance against the effects of crisis.
As in the case of fire insurance it is wiser to buy insurance before the catastrophic event!

Editor: Do you have a message to the people?

Lizette: Choose a good option that helps you save not only in a moment of crisis but which will also work for them during normal situation.
Gold protects money and the people can have a real savings to leave for the family or indeed help them with the costs of life, houses, holidays, cars, university fees etc.
We have a beautiful collection of professionally certified coins that are designated as investment quality which is not always the case elsewhere. We offer quality of service as well as trust and confidence with our Members.
My message to investors is to look at what we have to offer and then compare this to other methods that they have traditionally used and evaluate which is the better option for you – that way I know I will be welcoming lots of them real soon.

Editor: Many thanks for your time and best of luck with LingORO.com

Lizette: You’re very welcome and thank you. I am a regular reader and fan of Goldcoin.org because there are so many interesting facts and articles that are pertinent to the economic situation and the gold market. I often post links to your articles and sometimes translate quotes made by economists and commentators about the gold market. I wish you continued success with your blog and hope to see you in Spain soon.

By Mark Rogers

Taxation in the modern state is an attack on wealth and its creation.

Which is illogical, because without wealth creation there can be no tax base.

The Welfare State was founded, and is foundering, on conundrums such as these. So perhaps it is not surprising to see a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer engaging in what amounts to left-wing style class warfare.

George Osborne has just announced that he is “going after the wealthy tax dodgers”. As reported in The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 10th April, he has been examining “anonymised” tax returns furnished by HM Revenue and Customs which show the completely legal measures that some very rich people have been using to reduce their tax bills, through what the Chancellor and the Revenue are pleased to call “loopholes”.

If the measures are legal, how can those who use them be called “dodgers”? (And see here for another example of the Revenue being rude.)

Osborne has cleverly turned the issue into a moral one and in doing so has introduced a novel legal concept on the hoof. These schemes of tax avoidance have been dubbed “aggressive” avoidance, as if by hurling an adjective about what is legal is suddenly rendered “un”-legal.

Now one of these legal “loopholes” is offsetting tax liabilities by making donations to charity, which in the nature of things would be large ones for the offset to work. Closing this “loophole” is therefore going to deprive flourishing charitable organisations of substantial and necessary sums.

Now one of these legal “loopholes” is offsetting tax liabilities by making donations to charity, which in the nature of things would be large ones for the offset to work. Closing this “loophole” is therefore going to deprive flourishing charitable organisations of substantial and necessary sums.

And it is to be observed that such charities find more efficient and targeted ways of spending the money they receive through such donations. Can the government be expected, can the government even promise, to spend the money that it thus intends to steal as efficiently? Of course not.

One obvious practical problem that also looms is that many of these allegedly “aggressive avoiders” are foreigners, who settled here because of the way the tax rules had already been drawn up: they run businesses, they spend – in other words, they are already “contributors” in various ways to the economic life of the country. If the rules that encouraged them to settle here are changed, then they will simply leave, or if they stay, the taxes imposed on them will dry up certain expenditures, which will amount to much the same as if they had departed.

So the plans to deal with people who have done nothing illegal will have the opposite effect: less wealth creation, less voluntary “distribution” through getting and spending of that created wealth through the rest of the economy and more government waste – of human resources as well as cash…

Once upon a time, these things were done so differently: here is the opening paragraph of A. J. P. Taylor’s volume in the Oxford History of England, “English History 1914-1915”:

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without any restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-1914, or rather less than 8 per cent. of national income.

By Simone Wapler (translated from an article originally published in France)

In the middle of a difficult economic situation, investors rush for gilt-edged securities, among them: gold. But watch-out for the swindlers… do not confuse actual stocks with virtual stocks.

Everyone is talking about gold at the moment, especially as it is falling. Those who believe in a gold bubble are licking their lips. These bears are primarily to be found in the world of the big money men, the people who explain to you that your money must be made to “work”… in their own interest, clearly, just like Goldman Sachs. A recent survey carried out in France by the IFOP for the company AuCoffre.com produced surprising results. This particular French company is on the way to becoming the leading French company selling gold coins online. According to this survey, 68% of French people believe that gold is an investment with a future, but 60% find that it is incomprehensible and reserved to a privileged audience.

Some people who recently tried to buy gold through their banks found that it was not easy. Banks prefer to put forward their own certificates, or trackers, that are supposed to respond to the price of gold, rather than sell physical gold.  At first sight, if people want gold it is because they think that it will go up. Which is completely untrue. It is not gold that rises but currencies that drop. Here is the rise in the price of gold in the main currencies over the last 10 years:

• Peso 694%
• Rupee 487%
• US$ 474%
• Rouble 443%
• Pound Sterling 421%
• Real 339%
• Euro 287%
• Yen 262%
• Rand 262%
• $CAD 258%
• Francs 219%
• AU 186%

It is obvious that with the help of the crisis and the restarting of dubious monetary transactions, currencies continue to lose ground to gold and therefore its rise (since it is the commonly used term) continues. It is because currencies fall, with the dollar in the lead, that the central banks of the emerging country buy gold to diversify their reserves.

Who are the people holding gold for investment?

Out of the 166,000 tons of gold extracted from the ground, the central banks have 28,000 and private sector investment 30,000. Gold for investment is therefore to be found in the safe deposit boxes of the central banks, therefore the official sector, but also (and especially) in the private sector and in this case in two forms: in a shared form with the ETC (Exchange Traded Commodities) and in a private form for individuals. The ETCs are continuously listed certificates, in theory guaranteed by a physical gold reserve. Private individuals may also choose to obtain gold through their bank, and store it in their bank. In this case gold appears simply as one line on the bank account statement (1 ingot with a value of €40,000) and the bank stores it. Benefits: reduced management fees (since they are shared with others) and the safety of the large deposit-box of your bank.

But the real question is “does everyone actually have the gold that they claim to have”?

Why does the Fed refuse to have its reserves audited?

Our eyes are immediately focussed on the Fed, its colossal balance sheet of bad debts and its gold reserves. The Republican Senator Ron Paul has been asking for years for an audit on the gold reserves. In vain. [And see here for an analysis of this problem.] Just to stir up more problems, false ingots lined with tungsten have been discovered. They would appear to be of American origin.

Why do the central banks loan out their gold?

During the double decade (1980-2000) and the flat-period in the gold market, central banks engaged in the regrettable practice of giving gold out on loan in order to get some income from this dormant stock-pile. They can loan it out to commercial banks which use it to satisfy demand from an institutional client, for example. The last report on these strange practices goes back to 2006 and emanates from a private player, the specialized trader Blanchard. One then has to ask the question: do the ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) ETCs actually possess their gold?

There exist various legal arrangements according to country. The following question is often repeated: wouldn’t these reserves not just be gold out on loan?

When banks give gold in exchange is it their own or your own?

In February 2011, The Wall Street Journal informed us that gold is accepted in the swaps transactions of commercial banks.  At this date, the inter-banking market is completely seized up. Banks are terrified and refuse to lend between themselves. Where does this gold, that suddenly appears, come from? Is this gold out on loan by central banks or is this the famous gold in the pipeline of the customer? Deafening silence.

Comex sets the price of gold… paper gold. The largest futures market in the world remains Comex. A futures contract is a bit of paper which bears an expiry date, a commodity, a quantity and a price. At the expiry date, the owner of the bit of paper has a choice: to take delivery at the agreed price of the commodity or “roll-over his position”, i.e. take the following contract. The majority of speculators choose the latter. In the warehouses of Comex, there is therefore much less gold than that which is covered by the futures contracts which circulate. So much less that the Canadians (who are large gold producers) got annoyed: Comex sets its prices, disconnected from reality, on paper. Short sellers are financed by the lobby of the large US banks and everything is distorted, they claimed.

A revolt was organized in 2008 Vaporize Comex (Let’s smash Comex). Principle: that the holders of futures contracts ask for delivery, in unison, all on the same date to show to the face of the world that the warehouses of the Commodities Exchange were almost empty. The Canadian rebels had agreed on a contract at the end of December. Shortly after, rumours circulated according to which certain contract holders had agreed not to take delivery in exchange for substantial compensation in dollars…

 And that’s why the premium goes up!

 Simone Wapler is Chief Editor for Agora Publications (financial analysis and consultancy).

Source: Reuters

A lucid analysis from France on the logic of gold investment

Translated from an original article by Charles Sannat, Director of Economic Studies, AuCOFFRE.com, Paris

With regard to the economy, we have just gone through a “settlement” period with the Greek crisis. But in reality nothing has been settled. As far as Greece is concerned, we have gained a few months’ respite in so far as that country remains indebted to the tune of more than 120% of its GDP and nothing indicates that a recovery in the public finances can succeed. Having said that, we shall see within 12 to 24 months.

More worrying of course is the economic situation of Spain and Portugal, with here too monumental social damage in progress and popular demonstrations which are starting to become extremely significant in the fight against austerity plans. Beware. Spain is not Greece. Spain is a great country, with a great history and Franco’s nationalism only dates back to 1975, i.e. yesterday. As any expert on Spain will tell you, that country will never accept a Greek-style humiliation. The Prime Minister has in fact called a stop to certain reforms. And he is right-wing. Spain will not be able to find a way out of the economic, financial and property crisis with a strong euro which does not correspond to the intrinsic characteristics of its economy. The same applies to Portugal.

We should not forget our own country, France. If we recall, in 2010, there were 1.42 working people for every retired person. Retirements will end up by no longer being paid for because there is quite simply no more money. The problem is not in 20 years’ time. It is now.

France is also in bankruptcy. The Court of Auditors in France, chaired by the Socialist Migot, has stated that it is necessary to dispense with indexing pensions to inflation. With real inflation of 5% per annum, in 10 years’ time a pensioner will lose the equivalent of 60% of his purchasing power. That is the reality.

Lastly, let us remember the end is nigh atmosphere at the end of 2011 (that was three months ago). One really wondered whether the euro would have survived by Christmas. What has changed since then?  One simple but basic fact. Over-indebted countries (France and Germany) became even more indebted, to temporarily save a country like Greece from immediate bankruptcy. But it is the entirety of our economic system which is in an irremediably compromised position. Nobody is able to say so. Even less the “people” behind the system. That is self-evident.

The only truth is the following: infinite growth related to mass consumption thanks to abundant and cheap energy in a finite world is a system likely to fail.

• A gold purchaser does not buy gold to speculate.
• A gold purchaser does not buy gold to get rich.
• A gold purchaser does not have a view on the financial results of the next quarter.
• A gold purchaser buys gold because he or she has a fundamental analysis of the current dead end in which the global economy finds itself.
• He or she buys gold because each serious crisis ends up by finding a “monetary” resolution that is usually painful.
• He or she buys gold because gold has been the Vera Valor (true value) for more than 6,000 years whilst the euro barely celebrates its 10th anniversary.
• He or she buys gold because before 1914 the currency was gold; because in the inter-war years those who had given up gold got to know a period of hyperinflation which led to Nazism coming to power with the disastrous consequences that we all know.
• He or she buys gold because in 1971, the dollar was no longer convertible and only the banknote plate continued to function unsupervised.
• Above all, he or she buys gold because he or she knows, and it is a historical certainty, that nothing is immaterial. During the last century we saw five different international currency systems or one every 20 years on average.
• He or she buys gold because the current system will change. Regardless whether it is in six months or six years.
• Gold buyers buy gold because they know that whatever the outcome of change, they will have simply kept the value of their assets. And it is that which will make all the difference.

Everyone else is half-witted, rendered moronic through TV and lobotomized by the eternal Welfare State. They will suffer. But this last sentence should of course not be quoted. It is OFF the record as they say. And I will not even give a small coin (out of gold) to a tramp when he goes around begging with his small sign: “May I call upon your kindness, Ladies and Gentlemen, in helping a former paper salesman by giving a bit of change to eat and help me to remain clean.” These people are ruining French people, just as with the Russian loans, or the assignats, and with each devaluation… In short it is necessary to know history and fully understand that they do not support us. The people act as compensation for the rich (banks and the system).

That’s why gold is bought.

Gold is rising I am happy. Gold is falling I am equally happy because I can buy more.
A gold buyer is always happy:-)

By Mark Rogers

It is a universal truth that revolutions devour their children: this is ruefully acknowledged in the cases of the French and Bolshevik revolutions – considered “good” revolutions, as if Robespierre or Lenin were somehow accidents.

The revolution that is now unwinding with a vengeance is the Welfare State. It may seem overdoing it to call the Welfare State a revolution, but consider: it is normal to discuss the Welfare State in terms of safety nets, short-term solutions to modest problems like seasonal unemployment and housing for the poorest, or, in a more wide-ranging version of the arguments for it, as a necessary bulwark against economic catastrophes such as the Great Depression.

Yet the Welfare State itself devours so many resources and applies them without the constraints of market discipline, with the accompanying bloating of the civil service to administer it, that this in itself constitutes a revolution in economic and political habits. Add to this that as a result huge numbers of people have come to perceive government as a necessary arbiter of the way they live and the provider of their needs: this is an even bigger revolution.

For example, many people live in council flats and houses and survive on benefits including housing benefit. What the benefits system effectually does, in consequence, is to deprive people of any assets whatsoever, including themselves. That is, those who live entirely at the provision of the state do not exercise the assets they possess in hands and brains to carve out a living for themselves – it is not worthwhile to do so, as they are better off on benefits than working. This is a major reversal of those virtues that Keynes reviled (as we have noted here): industry, thrift, independence, a proper self-respect.

What this means is that the Welfare State is the chief driver of what we may call “de-development” in the western democracies. This takes two forms: the destruction of economic facts (see the discussion here) and the culture of dependence on government. Both have their origins in the misplaced desire to assist the poorest in society. The subprime crisis, for example, has its origins in FDR’s “New Deal” and the creation of the government-backed savings and loans “banks”. The massive growth of these institutions in itself became a problem, compounded by the Clinton administration’s drive to force lenders to lend to the poorest African Americans, under penalty of being convicted and fined for “racism” if they did not do so – ignoring the economic reality that no-one’s interests were served by deliberately creating debt in households that manifestly could not afford to repay it.

The bundling of “toxic debts” into securities that could then be traded was the banks’ and the markets’ ingenious but short-sighted nostrum to deal with one consequence of government intervention that had gone badly wrong. It may have kept western economies afloat a few years longer, this juggling act by the banks – but the policy behind it seems to have been somewhat Micawberish, waiting for something else to turn up…

And what has turned up is the massive bankruptcy of the Welfare State, nowhere more obviously epitomised than in the eurozone. Entirely driven by the manifest fact that the Welfare State is unaffordable, as is bluntly stated by those who know this – those who don’t, harp on about services being “underfunded”, as if unsustainable taxation only needed to become even more unsustainable and the problem would be solved!

As James Bartholomew points out in his crucial book “The Welfare State We’re In” it is only in the Welfare State that the poor are taxed – in ultra-capitalist Hong Kong the poor pay no taxes because the threshold on earnings before taxation kicks in is high, meaning that everyone has a chance to better themselves.

It should be more widely understood that bankruptcies are a sign of a healthy economy – stripping out ill-conceived or unworkable economic projects. This is the core of the eurozone crisis: what are we being told doesn’t work?

By Mark Rogers

The Federal Reserve’s holdings of gold are not only non-existent, contrary to what many people understand, they do not even amount to paper gold.

In 1933, the first year of his presidency, President Roosevelt ordered the seizure of private holdings of gold (with some exceptions for jewellery and dentistry); this was followed in 1934 by the confiscation of gold from the banks. This was allegedly in response to the shortage of gold caused by the great depression.

In 1934 the United States fixed the dollar price of gold at $35/troy ounce (devaluing the dollar thereby). This became known as the “statutory” or “legal” price. In spite of all that subsequently happened, the U.S. refused to consider an increase in this price of gold, not the establishment of the Bretton Woods agreement and the International Monetary Fund, nor the devaluation of the pound sterling in 1949 which in effect raised the price of gold in the sterling area without a rise in its price in the dollar area.

In the 1950s the volume and value of the world trade in gold kept on increasing, leading to the idea that a universal rise in the price of gold could be brought about by its dollar revaluation. The growth of the world’s monetary gold reserves as then valued fell far below the increase in the current volume/value; thus, it became clear that the annual yield of new gold (at the same valuation) could not express the increasing volume of goods produced. The U.S. gold reserves had by now fallen to well below the level at which they guaranteed paper money. Nonetheless the U.S. price of gold remained the same.

Decoupling the dollar from gold

In 1972 the “statutory” price was adjusted to $38/ounce and again in 1973 to $42.22/ounce. These movements were followed in 1975 by the revocation of the prohibition on ownership of gold by private parties.

Amongst the banks that had had its gold reserves confiscated was the Federal Reserve – the Treasury was the authority which performed the confiscation. The fact that the Federal Reserve is quasi-independent of the government (somewhat analogously to the Bank of England before it was nationalized in 1946), explains the apparent anomaly of the state confiscating its own reserves.

The Federal Reserve was obliged to sell its gold to the Treasury at $20.67/oz, in return for which it received gold certificates worth around $3.617 billion.

So why does the idea persist that the Federal Reserve has any gold reserves at all? Because the deal done with the Treasury issued in those certificates just mentioned, which is why the Federal Reserve lists them, as the “Gold certificate account”, in its accounts, consistently valued at the final price of 1973.

The Fed’s “paper gold” not even paper gold

Dr Ron Paul, member of the House of Representatives, is the champion of getting the Federal Reserve to be audited by the Government Accountability Office: that task has always been undertaken by the Federal Reserve itself (surprising as that may seem). Hitherto his efforts at getting this into law have met huge resistance and evasion by the Federal Reserve (which is not surprising at all).

On the first of June, 2011, testimony by Scott G. Alvarez, General Counsel, and Thomas C. Baxter Jr., General Counsel, Federal Reserve (formal testimony here) before the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., of which Dr Paul was the Chairman, on Federal Reserve Lending Disclosures, exposed the nature of the “gold certificate account” in exchanges between Dr Paul and Mr Alvarez.

Crucially, it transpires that these certificates are not even claims to the actual gold that the Treasury confiscated. Said Mr Alvarez: “No we have no interest in the gold that is owned by the Treasury. We have simply an accounting document that is called gold certificates that represents the value at a statutory rate that we gave to the Treasury in 1934.″

In a fascinating analysis of this extraordinary statement, GoldNews.Com discusses what this means in terms of the relationship between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve: “The Treasury, however, in a desire to realize the value of the gold without selling it, used their gold as collateral against gold certificate issuance to the Fed in exchange for fresh cash for the Treasury to spend. The Treasury is able to print as many gold certificates as they choose, under one restriction from the Gold Reserve Act: the amount of gold certificates outstanding shall at no time exceed the value of gold held by the Treasury, priced at the statutory rate. This meant any increase in the value of the Treasury’s gold could be matched by printing gold certificates and those certificates could be used to acquire new Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) from the Fed.”

This is Quantitative Easing with a vengeance! In order to have more money to spend, the Fed is asked to print more notes, in return for which, and in order, presumably, not to disturb the “statutory” price recorded on the Fed’s accounts, the Treasury then prints more gold certificates.

An upshot of this is that the dollar is worth a good deal less than is assumed. And a corollary of this is that the manner in which the Treasury acquired the gold and its subsequent valuation as “gold certificates” would explain why, as noted above, the U.S. insisted on maintaining the dollar price at $35 for so long: it was an accountancy exercise and no more, and continues as such to this day.

Does this, at least in theory, mean that should there ever be a deal whereby the Fed buys its gold back from the Treasury, it would do so at that “price” on its books?

The analysis of this extremely complicated state of affairs by GoldNews.Com can be found here (Part One) and here (Part Two, from which the substantial quotation above has been taken).

Credit no measure of true value

Here, in the light of the above discussion, is a sobering observation made by C.H.V. Sutherland, then Keeper of Coins at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, in “Gold: Its Beauty, Power and Allure” (published by Thames and Hudson, 1969): “Collapse of the gold standard was followed by the era of credit currency. We accept a bank-note for the payment of £1, but in accepting it we receive in fact only the bank’s promise to pay £1. We accept a cheque, similarly; but a cheque again is no more than its drawer’s promise that his bank will pay us another bank’s promises. The growth of ‘money’ in this sense – and of course it is not money at all, in any true sense, but an extension of credit – is one of the most remarkable features of economic life since 1914 [emphasis added].”

There is considerable historical irony in the fact that President Roosevelt ended Prohibition in 1933, only to enact another prohibition on the private ownership of gold, with consequences which are still unravelling in the “current” financial crisis: I say “current” because the problems of paper money have been unravelling ever since the decisions about gold related above were taken – just as the same President’s New Deal, with its state-backed savings and loans funds, is a fundamental cause of the subprime crisis.

By Mark Rogers

This street 观前街 Guan Qian Jie, in Suzhou, near Shanghai, is full of Gold shops

During the seven days of the Chinese New Year’s holidays, people have bought 3.62 billion yuan’s worth (0.5761 billion dollars) of gold in Beijing, 15.5% more than last year. It was also reported that just two shops in Beijing during this same period managed to shift 1.5 tonnes (GoldCoin.org Chinese source). At GoldCoin.org we have previously reported on the expansive buying of gold in China in our article “Chinese queue at malls to beat Bernanke’s inflation with gold“.

John Stepek, editor of Money Week, recently pointed out that “Chinese citizens don’t have many options as far as saving their money goes – you can’t get an above-inflation return from your bank account, and the local stock market is a casino.”

What is happening? And why is it happening?

As with the eurozone, the flight – on this scale – into gold indicates extreme economic uncertainty and a desire to shore up one’s savings in the only real safe haven. Yet isn’t China supposed to be an economic powerhouse? Isn’t Beijing planning to float the renminbi (yuan), in an attempt to replace the dollar? Isn’t the Chancellor of the Exchequer actively working with the authorities in Hong Kong to make “sure that London is the western trading centre for the Chinese currency”, turning “the City into an offshore trading centre for the renminbi” (The Financial Times, 16 January, 2012)? The renminbi is about to become fully convertible this year – isn’t it?

Well, perhaps not: “capital account liberalization looks off the table … At the moment, the transfers out of China are manageable, but then again the economy has only begun to falter. No officials, even ones less obsessed about control than Beijing’s, would open up a capital account in a quickly deteriorating economic environment. Therefore, events are working against Zhou Xiaochuan [Governor of the People’s Bank of China], and so is Chen Deming, the boss of the Ministry of Commerce. Chen has tenaciously defended the interests of exporters by blocking currency liberalization, and with the country’s trade surplus set to decline—to about $150 billion last year from $183.1 billion in 2010 and $196.1 billion in 2009—it is unlikely that Chen will now let central bank reformers get their way. … If Beijing opens the currency wall and the markets are not ready, flows of investment cash could—and probably will—lead to a catastrophe. At this time, it will take years to get China’s banks and markets in shape for unregulated flows of currency. So don’t expect capital account convertibility this year or even next.” This is the analysis of Gordon Chang (author of The Coming Collapse of China, and Forbes contributor, here: “China says Yuan will be fully convertible soon”).

Declining demand for Chinese exports

Certainly the Chinese economy gives plenty of reasons for this degree of pessimism. One of the most important indicators of China’s burgeoning woes is the troubled eurozone: Europe was China’s biggest export market, but Europe has practically ceased importing. The immediate consequence of this is that recession is perceptibly looming in China, indeed there are, for example, reports that China’s steel industry is seriously struggling with the potential closure of many mills (The Economist, Jan. 23-Feb. 3, 2012). Add to this the optimism expressed at the recent Davos summit by American business leaders that the coming on stream of shale gas in the United States is going to dramatically reduce manufacturing energy costs there, thus enabling American manufacturers to repatriate production.

So does this explain the Chinese flight into gold?

Inside a typical gold retailer in Suzhou, China

See a previous article on Goldcoin.org called “1 Billion to buy gold as Chinese gold rush grows” for some facts and figures.

The figures are certainly impressive – not to say astonishing. But is it certain that these figures represent only concerned citizens anxious to preserve their wealth? The active encouragement of the People’s Bank of China, referred to in the cited article, that “1 Billion Chinese citizens buy gold as a way of preserving and protecting their wealth against inflation, economic crisis and the falling values of major currencies” could bear another interpretation: namely that the Chinese authorities are contemplating at some future tipping point to announce a patriotic handing over of individual gold holdings to the state – i.e. confiscation.

Moreover, let us look again at the declared intention of that same People’s Bank of China to make the renminbi fully convertible this year. The massive purchases of gold may have yet another interpretation: as a means of supporting the value of the renminbi when it floats in spite of the problems that both Mr Chang and Mr Stepek discuss in their articles cited above. And that raises another enigma.

China remains, politically, a Communist state, and remains fundamentally unfriendly to the Western powers – witness its recent active unwillingness to censure the Syrian butchers. That it has liberalised its economy since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, and that this has opened trade barriers and brought prosperity to millions of Chinese is not to be doubted; but this has all taken place in terms of a closed political system that holds the whip hand over the economy, “state capitalism” interpreted in the interests of the Chinese Communist Party, that is, a fascist-corporatist economic model.

This raises intriguing possibilities in terms of those thousands of purchasers of gold. For while there are corporations that clearly function under the rubric of the Chinese State there are many more enterprises that appear to be private corporations but are in fact shells for the State (the Chinese corporate structure emulates in many ways the systems of incorporation that for a long time successfully hid the fact that ultimately it was the shameless and cruel King Leopold II of Belgium who owned the Congo Free State). And just as this operates at the corporate level, so may it operate at the individual level: there is simply no way of knowing how many of those individual or smaller-scale enterprises who are buying up gold may in fact be agents of the state.

A Chinese Gold Standard?

Remember that according to the World Gold Council and GFMS reports, China is the World’s largest producer of gold and is second only to India for gold consumption (but catching up fast). No coincidence here either!

So to answer the questions raised at the beginning of this article: What is happening? We don’t actually know. And why is it happening? One shudders to think….
…. But then imagine if one day the Chinese government “requires” private investors to place their gold in the People’s Bank for the good of the Nation – the national gold stock would swell considerably – maybe enough to back the Yuan with a Gold Standard and thus achieve its ambition to be the World’s Reserve currency?

A young investor contemplates the potential of gold

The continuing furore over bankers’ pay led to the recent decision by Stephen Hester, the Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, to forgo his contracted bonus, worth just under £1 million. Wayne Rooney, the popular footballer, earns that in five weeks.

Top executive pay in the banks hovers around £1.2 – £1.35 million; these salaries are complemented by bonuses, which are largely or entirely paid in shares. Total remuneration for bankers is therefore high (albeit that a large element, the bonuses, may be said to be nominal). But, compared to the remuneration of other high earners, is it excessive?

Wayne Rooney earns £18 million a year, a combination of pay, score bonuses and sponsorship fees. Yet he is not damned for greed. Pop stars and film stars earn as large if not larger incomes; in fact some earnings are so high it is hard to find out exactly how high they are – the singer Rihanna, for example, is rumoured to be worth £70 million but her total income and net worth are undisclosed.

We hear nothing, however, about the impulsive greed of such people. Footballers’ transfer fees, when they do cause eyebrows to be raised, are justified in the context of the competitive world of international football, and the explanation seems to be accepted, notwithstanding the huge discrepancy between what bankers and footballers earn. So whence the moral froth?

Footballers and singers and film makers give people pleasure; their fans follow them, paying to see their latest games or films or buying their latest songs. Their value as entertainers is taken for granted by their audiences; it is easy to understand what they do, thus their value for the individual is measured instantly as a factor of that individual’s enjoyment of their endeavours. It is equally understood that their earnings are simply an aggregate of the money that audiences willingly pay to be entertained by them.

Given that bankers exercise, and are expected to exercise, an enormous responsibility for the deposits and savings of their clients, why is this fact not equally well understood? Presumably because the actual workings of the banking system and high finance are not amenable to the sort of instant understanding that facilitates the benign regard in which entertainers are held. That is, the fury directed at bankers is born of sheer ignorance.

There is another moral issue that lies behind this debate, and that is the way in which poverty (and therefore wealth) has come to be defined in the affluent west: it has ceased to be defined in absolute terms. The Poverty Site states the case for “relative poverty” thus:
“The view that relative poverty is not important is a perfectly valid position to take – it is just not the view that the authors of this website, along with most other researchers, the EU, the UK government, and politicians of all hues across the political spectrum take. So, for example, the government’s target of halving child poverty by 2010 is defined in terms of relative poverty.”

At least this makes it admirably clear that “relative poverty” is defined politically, that it is a political tool, designed to justify high taxation and providing politicians with their raison d’etre. Such a definition therefore helps perpetuate our contemporary intrusive and anti-wealth creation political system. The politicians needed someone to blame when that system imploded – and footballers just didn’t seem to fit the bill…

We continue to examine the folly of the modern mortgage, following our previous discussions on Golcoin.org in When Debt’s called Credit and When Debts called Credit 2.

There are many reasons why members of what we ought to call the pseudo-propertied classes might need to sell the houses on which they are paying a mortgage, even if the primary reason for owning the mortgage was to have a home rather than an investment asset. Those reasons may include the break-up of a marriage, a growing family needing more room, or the need to move to take up employment.

However, if the market has dried up, there are no buyers. This means that the pseudo-owner has negative equity in the property – the house is now worth less than the mortgage that still must be paid off. There are various ways in which this can be calculated but the honestly stated value is now – zero. No buyer, no value, only a liability.

Late last year a particularly galling instance of this problem was reported: that while middle management jobs are to be found in the South-East of England, those who live in mortgaged properties elsewhere in the country cannot avail themselves of these employment opportunities because they cannot sell their houses. If they are at risk of losing, or have lost, their jobs where they live, or simply wish to earn a larger salary as their families grow they are effectively trapped by their mortgage.

It is also reported that in many cities in the U.K. it is now cheaper to buy than to rent; this should really come as no surprise as this simply enlarges on the fact that it has been made cheaper to buy because of the credit available to do so. The more houses are bought up, the less properties are available to rent, and so rents climb. Renting of course answers the need for flexibility in terms of being able to move as jobs become available, or the family grows.

Yet owning your own home has long been trumpeted as a form of security, both for oneself and for one’s locality. Home ownership was widely encouraged through mortgage tax relief in the 1980s. Homes were seen as a bulwark against daft left-wing local authorities, the reasoning being that the greater the number of people who owned their homes, the more they had a direct interest in how their local authorities were run, in part because the rates they paid became visible to them as householders (rather than being an invisible component of the rent which the landlord charged them). This may have been a laudable aim – but mortgage tax relief was not the answer, as it became one of the chief engines of rapidly over-expanded credit, and therefore the heightened insecurity we are all now experiencing.

In the United States it is estimated that 50% of mortgage holders are “underwater”: “When factoring in second mortgage debt, seller closing costs, and sales commission, more than 50% of owners with a mortgage are unable to sell their homes and pay off their debts.” For more on this enormous tally of insecurity go to Irvine Housing Blog:

by Mark Rogers

Earlier this month on Goldcoin.org, we looked at hazardous gold mining operations in South America (Unclean Gold). The context was the Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto’s findings that the vast majority of the world’s poor operate in economies that give them no access to title and other capital-realizing legal arrangements. There will be a great deal more to say about these insights, but here I want to address an important distinction that needs to be made about eco-crisis and the environment. This is to clear up some of the misapprehensions voiced by critics of capitalism and free trade, such as “Occupy” and many of the rancidly left-wing organizations financed by Soros.

The anti-globalization movement has global ambitions far in excess of those entertained by the merchants and manufacturers who drive globalization. The latter want to acquire or produce their goods at the best possible costs and sell them for the best possible prices. Not only are these relatively modest ambitions, but they are also perfectly normal: merchants and manufacturers down the centuries have always traded on these assumptions.

A main platform of anti-globalizers against the despoliation allegedly caused by capitalist enterprise is environmentalism, and this vision is entirely holistic – i.e. global! They also embrace goals far in excess of what any economy can bear, especially a developing one: the grandest is the demand that carbon emissions are reduced by an improbable amount in an unachievable time…

The reason: “global warming”. However, this is an ideology and can have no bearing on what real people struggling in real economies must do to survive and prosper. Hence the refusal of India and China to sign up to carbon quotas; hence the puzzlement of Africans and South Americans that they should be sacrificed, denied the possibility to improve their lot because of the perceived “fate of the earth”.

Global warming is now a legislative fact, and it is so because the wrong science is used: the study of the “greenhouse effect” is based on the composition of gases, i.e. chemistry. However, what drives the climate is convection, i.e. physics. The Earth is 70% water, and the land mass that makes up the rest contains high mountain ranges: the effect is the creation of a planetary climate which helps regulate temperatures over time.

“Environmentalism” is merely another attempt by those who despise wealth creation, and all the benefits that flow from it, to reduce western economies and suppress emerging ones.

Yet are there not serious ecological problems such as the unclean and illegal gold mines discussed earlier? Of course there are, but refusing to be blinded by environmentalism means approaching such eco-crises more circumspectly. That is, each crisis must be seen on a case-by-case basis, and not dove-tailed into a wider and misleading perspective. Why should what needs to be done – and more to the point that can be done – to alleviate a local problem, be deferred until globalization and the environment are “fixed”? The attempt to co-opt the unclean gold mines into a productive framework, would demonstrate that such problems can be solved on their own terms – and give true value not only to the gold extracted but to the lives and work of the extractors.

By Mark Rogers

France’s loss of the triple A rating sharpens the focus on what needs to be done to avoid the Eurozone’s crisis deepening further. What happens in France in the immediate as well as the long term future is therefore of concern to those outside France as well as those within. This week it was made clear that through increased IMF funding, the UK is likely to be contributing to the bail out funds, although the UK remains committed to countries not currencies. Of particular concern to English readers is the likely reaction in France to the required social reforms. And of course the flight into gold helps strengthen the hand of the wise investor.

The loss of the triple A is only one of the superficial symptoms of the trends of 2012. The economic crisis continues to deepen, which may well cause the price of gold to climb more quickly than envisaged, but not initially.

The consequences for the economy…

This is not due to having been warned of the possibility of such a loss. Since October last year, the agency Moody had been holding the sword of Damocles over Gallic heads.
The downgrading of the French credit rating from AAA to AA by the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s has far graver consequences than would be implied by the speeches of leaders who wish to give reassurances, a mere few months ahead of the elections.

The interest rates at which France borrows and which are already twice as high as those of Germany will increase, to cover the risk of default. The first direct impact on the economy is the flight of investors and thus a fall in the CAC 40 index.
And for individuals
Higher interest rates on mortgages, tax hikes, diminished access to credit… the French will have to curb their spending. All the large companies in which the State has a stake (EDF, GDF, France Telecom, Renault, SNCF…) will see their financing costs increase, which inevitably will impact the expenditure of individuals, not to mention the degradation of public services.

Is the A lost forever?

Of course, France can regain its triple A, but how soon and, especially, at what cost?
The corporate VAT plan is only a tiny initiative when viewed in the light of the catastrophic impact of such a downgrading. According to Norbert Gaillard, consultant at the World Bank, France can only recover its AAA at the expense of important social reforms and “a drastic reduction in public expenditure”. Flexibility of the job market for greater competitiveness, extending the period of contributions to pension funds, elimination of the 35 hour working week… Are the French ready to give up their social gains whilst increasing their daily expenditure? Working more and earning less money?

The consequences for gold

As soon as the credit rating of a country is downgraded, the cautious markets fall, demand for gold increases and hence its price. Initially, the need of banks for liquidity can result in a massive withdrawal following the resale of credit and a fall in the price of gold on the markets, as has been already more or less the case since December. One should therefore take the opportunity to strengthen one’s position on gold and buy now because the secondary effect once the selling off stops will see: gold reach new highs this year breaking the $2000 an ounce barrier and beyond.

Fools or Gold?

Once the dominoes of Debt start to tumble the skies the limit but more importantly, when states fail, currencies collapse or sovereign debt strangles everyday life, where would you rather have your “money”?
In a tangible precious asset with perennial true value?
Or tied up in the worldwide web of debt derivatives, Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) and untraceable off-ledger accounts?

The choice is simple, give your money to the crooks you’ve been conditioned to trust with blind faith and risk losing everything or buy something solid that you own and trust yourself to manage it properly?

It’s what they call a no-brainer!