Inflation Breakdown Nears
Technically, we can now say that the Amex
Gold Bugs Index has entered into a new primary bull market. We only need
the other indexes to confirm it.
A trend is defined by its sequence of lows
and highs. As far as the five-year bear market in gold stocks was concerned,
the annotated high made September 1999 in all of the gold shares represented
the last lowest high in the primary bearish sequence. Technicians take
the breakout through this level as a bullish sign, that at minimum, the
primary bear market is over.
Still, while we're really bullish, and
maybe getting a little ahead of ourselves, none of the other North American
gold indexes have accomplished the same reversal of their respective primary
bear markets. Though at this rate, this may be the last column in which
we have to say that. For all of them are pretty darn close.
By the way, please note that these reversal
points are precisely our targets for those indexes, as per our January
comments. As such, the Amex Gold Bugs index has already raced through
our target.
Source:
Reuters-Bridge
Over the past week, almost every gold stock
on our screen made fresh highs, except for Goldcorp and Placer Dome. Gold
prices made fresh 17-month highs after breaking out of a two month continuation
pattern, rising $9 to close at the $312 mark, bringing the value of Australian
gold hedges much closer to their break-even point where they turn into
a liability. Their only saving grace so far is their new position in Australian
currency hedges.
The Aussie dollar has been rising smartly
since February, and has probably moved up the level at which these hedges
break even by a couple of points. Nonetheless, the break out in gold is
a resolution of one of last week's market crossroads; the other is the
break down in the dollar index this week, or Wednesday / Thursday to be
specific. There is no question to us that the two are in fact related.
But according to at least one man they aren't.
I ran across a bullish gold article by
Paul Erdman, a CBS MarketWatch columnist that calls himself an economist.
Erdman has been a staunch dollar bull, in fact, perhaps one of CBS' most
persistent dollar bulls. And his arguments are persistently lame.
Rah, rah, you know, that kind of stuff.
Anyhow, in this article he found a way to get bullish on gold, but not
bearish on the dollar. I thought it would be entertaining, but also, I
have a point to make:
"(I suspect gold will rally, but) …not
for the usual reasons. The traditional gold bugs always based their
wild forecasts on the pending end of the world as we know and love it.
Included in almost all of the forecasts by these false prophets were
runaway inflation and a collapse of the dollar, which would then trigger
global currency chaos and lead, inexorably, to our return to a 19th
century type of gold standard. That simply ain't going to happen. Inflation
is under control. The dollar remains strong despite the ever- present
huge trade deficit and remains, in fact, the only game in town when
it comes to financing both international trade and global investment.
And there isn't a central banker on the planet that wants to remonetize
gold. But you need look no farther away than Argentina and France to
see why gold still has its place in our financial system. It remains
the ultimate hedge against the unknown catastrophe that might lie somewhere
down the road" - CBS MarketWatch, 26 April 2002.
I just had to send him a nasty one liner
email. All right, I was a little rough, but the world's journalist community
needs to be shaken up, in my view. If they aren't busy reporting on the
irrelevant past (this applies only to those journalists that comment on
the markets), they are repeating clumsy government economic doctrine.
What does it mean, "inflation is under
control?" Who is controlling it? I didn't think that anyone manipulates
markets in mainstream's world.
The irony is that Gold usually goes up
against the dollar (take note Paul) when "they" in fact do lose
control over inflation. At such a point in an inflationist system,
the dollar's purchasing power doesn't increase any longer, at the margin,
and perhaps in the aggregate. Interest rates don't stay down when they're
needed to, as bond holders are paid in increasingly abundant dollars too.
Foreign nations depending on a rising valuation for the dollar (for trade
advantage) become less interested in helping policy makers sweep the inflation
under the carpet (into asset markets). Trade frictions arise. To that
extent, an inflation breakdown is the consequence of declining confidence
that policymakers can sustain the dollar's global purchasing power.
Argentina's problems surfaced as a consequence
of their requirement to peg against the dollar. To keep the peso from
devaluing the government needed to borrow more dollars for direct and
indirect support of the exchange rate. This worked in Citibank's favor,
but the rising debt and interest rates eventually crippled the Argentine
economy. Obviously, the Argentine central bank didn't have inflation under
control.
Again, to be clear, we can't talk about
inflation scientifically unless we only apply the term to money, not prices.
If you were confused through the above two paragraphs we recommend re-reading
them thinking of inflation in only this way - inflation is too much money
relative to how much is in demand. That simple fact could help more people
understand how the process of inflation eventually distorts the economy's
structure of capital (I would say it thins it out), and ultimately undermines
its real profits. As long as the transfer of wealth (let's be candid)
occurs in an environment of evenly dispersed, and rising, nominal wealth,
nobody will be the wiser. Consider it a way in which policymakers buy
your vote.
Yet, it is precisely this process (of inflation)
that is itself responsible for the invariable loss of control over inflation.
This was learned long ago, but obviously, it hasn't reached the so-called
economists that write for a larger population than we do - that fact itself
works in favor of the policymakers trying to "control" it (the
inflation).
It must be hard for a country like Argentina
to maintain monetary discipline when its partner, who manages the international
reserve currency, doesn't. We could criticize the policies of Argentina
and others as excessive, but not if we were criticizing them as governors
of dollar policy we couldn't. The dollar enjoys benefits other currencies
don't, which have much more to do with policy and trade than the soundness
of the currency.
The Fed has one of the hardest working
printing presses of the entire G7, but it has mastered an ability to manage
investment and inflation expectations. There are few governments in the
world as busy as this one is in "controlling" the inflation, and as a
consequence, in creating shortages in commodity markets that will ultimately
come back and bite their controlling carcasses in the behind.
The 20th century is bound to a tale of
monetary exploitation. The world we know and love is something we're all
still working towards. It wasn't yesterday's world. Moreover, the rise
of gold is not going to herald the end of the world. It is a barometer
of economic justice and it is a capitalistic process of healing such injustices
as our monetary authorities frequently bestow upon the free market system,
unwittingly or not. The only way to prevent a frequent devaluation in
dollars against gold in the long term is to keep governments out of the
market system altogether. And this includes the market system that determines
the money, above all. The 20th century's monetary doctrine is effectively
an interruption in the market process that otherwise determines the best
money for the global economy.
When I say governments should stay out
of markets, I'm not talking about regulation; I'm talking about non-neutral
intervention.
The end of the inflation era is not the
end of the world. It is the beginning of a brand new era. The so-called
"prophets" will be right, but in most cases they are only free market
economists warning of market rebellion after years of monetary abuse.
It will be the end of Erdman's era, but
the world will be a better place for it someday. There won't be so much
green cheese, so to speak.
Getting there may be scary because those
who "control the inflation" today are the same people (they) that control
the world's wealth. Their control over that wealth is dependent upon the
ability to sustain the inflation agenda, which in turn is dependent on
their ability to optimize the purchasing power of the dollar, and affect
the market's judgment so it continues to be the global common medium of
exchange. The scary part is in what
policies these parties will prefer the government to pursue in order to
protect their interests in the inflationist system.
It would also be scary that the economy
would collapse those industries that grew around, and have come to profit
from, the inflation. The less governments interfere with the markets,
however, the faster the rising unemployment will stop. The alternative
is to only extend the length of time that markets could heal the economy,
and there is where the most amount of policy blunders lay. A vote for
dollar supremacy is not a vote for free markets, at least not so long
as it is a tool of the Fed's (something they'll wholeheartedly deny by
the way).
As for what is behind the breakout in gold.
It isn't Argentina, or France, or Japan for that matter. Those are all
just parts of the puzzle. It's the dollar, stupid!
There can be no question of a relationship
between gold and the dollar, and it cannot be coincidence that gold prices
rise on days the dollar and stocks are down. Indeed, there is no question
in my mind that rising gold prices are forecasting a break down in the
US dollar, broadly, and in the primary sequence.
Primary bullish support for the dollar
index now stands at between 108 and 111, and primary bear market resistance
for gold prices stands at $328 to $338.
Both markets are headed in that direction
now.
Ed Bugos
Editor - The GoldenBar Report
www.goldenbar.com
29 April 2002
The
Goldenbar Report: is not a registered
advisory service and does not give investment advice. Our comments are an
expression of opinion only and should not be construed in any manner whatsoever
as recommendations to buy or sell a stock, option, future, bond, commodity
or any other financial instrument at any time. While we believe our statements
to be true, they always depend on the reliability of our own credible sources.
Of course, we recommend that you consult with a qualified investment advisor,
one licensed by appropriate regulatory agencies in your legal jurisdiction,
before making any investment decisions, and barring that, we encourage you
to confirm the facts on your own before making important investment commitments.
Email this Article to a Friend 
Printer Friendly Version