Not much follow-through in the stock market. Investors are drifting away, preparing for the holidays. Dow up only 11 points.
But whoa… what’s this? Gold took a pounding yesterday, down $41, to close below $1,200.
Remember when gold began its correction from over $1,900? We guessed that the correction could wipe out half the gains, which would put the bottom at around $1,150.
Gold came close to that level once, then bounced. It looked like the correction was over. Now we’re getting close again. If gold doesn’t bounce again, we could be in for a vicious price collapse.
Why? Is it because the Fed is now in tightening mode? Is the ‘Great Experiment’ over? Did it work?
Or have gold investors just misjudged things?
Our guess: no, no, no and no. The Great Experiment is not over. The Fed is not tightening. The economy has not revived. And gold investors have judged correctly that the feds’ policies won’t cause growth or inflation. Instead, they’ll lead to stagnation, which could last for many years. Just look at Japan.
Gold’s day will come; but it won’t come tomorrow.
“Fed’s taper decision signals end of era for easy money,” declares the Financial Times.
The Financial Times always seems to get the story wrong, at least on the editorial pages. Editor Martin Wolf is a giant in his field. And lest readers still be able to think clearly after reading him, he brought Larry Summers onto the editorial page to obscure any residual clarity.
But rarely is the news portion of the paper as mixed up as the editorial pages. Yesterday was an exception. Bernanke’s decision to cut $10bn of quantitative easing per month hardly qualifies as the “end of an era for easy money”. He’s still pumping up the Fed’s assets by $900bn a year. Not only that, but he made it clear to investors that the age of EZ money was by no means over.
Interest rates are likely to stay near zero “well past the time when the jobless rate declines below 6.5%,” he told the world.
And how long will that be? For all the talk about “transparency” we have no better idea now than we did before he opened his mouth. As always, the Fed can do what it wants, when it wants. And it can do so for reasons of its own.
When the merde hit the fan in ’08, the then US Treasury chief Timothy Geithner was on the phone almost around the clock with Goldman Sachs head honcho Lloyd Blankfein.
Was it really any surprise then that the feds rushed to the scene of the accident with painkillers? Is it really any mystery now that the financial industry is hooked on them?
Bill Bonner on markets, economics & the madness of crowds
To sign-up to Bill's free daily email just enter your email address below
Nah. Here at the Daily Reckoning we like to keep things simple. We can’t understand anything that is too complex. The gist of the story is as follows:
The role of government is to protect the people who control it – almost always the people who own the most assets.
That is why government is (almost) always extremely conservative, looking into the future and doing its best to prevent it from happening.
But capitalism is forward-looking. It needs the air and light of an open economy, where people can fail and well as succeed.
So, the elites gradually pervert capitalism, turning it from a dynamic system full of booms and busts, into a crony programme meant to protect the rich from crises of ‘creative destruction’.
Before the feds stepped in, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers had collapsed. The crisis of ’08-’09 was on course to destroy all major Wall Street institutions.
When the papers applaud Ben Bernanke for having “avoided another Great Depression”, what they really mean is that he saved Wall Street speculators from getting what they deserved. Even Goldman Sachs probably would have gone broke and been forced to re-organise.
So too, the crisis left the feds with sharply lower tax revenues and should have brought much lower spending. Left to live on actual tax receipts, US federal government spending would have been cut by a third in 2010.
Lobbyists would have been fired. Contracts would have been lost. Giveaways would have stopped, for the simple reason that there was nothing to give away.
And real wealth would have been reclaimed by the productive private sector. This money would have been redeployed in new ventures by now with new hiring and new output.
In other words, a good, old-fashioned crisis was lost. And with it was lost an opportunity to cut back the zombies, the insiders, the Wall Streeters and K Streeters and the ‘undeserving rich’ generally.
But here at the Daily Reckoning, we also look on the bright side. There will be another crisis!
• Don't miss Bill's next Daily Reckoning. To receive the next article straight into your inbox as soon as he's written it, enter your email address below.
New to MoneyWeek?
Welcome, and thank you for visiting us.
Here at MoneyWeek, our aim is simple. To give you intelligent and enjoyable commentary on the most important financial stories of the week, and show you how to profit from them.
If you've enjoyed what you've read so far, we've got something you'll definitely be interested in.
Every week day, Monday to Friday, we send out a thought provoking and often controversial email called the Daily Reckoning. In it, we try to figure out the markets and how current economical events are shaping the world we live in. If you're interested in investment opportunities and the markets, we think you should be reading it…
With your permission, I'd like to send you the Daily Reckoning for FREE.
To sign-up enter your email address below.
We hope you enjoy your stay on the site.
Editor, The Daily Reckoning