$2100 ‘Sounds Right’ for an Ounce of Gold

[Our correspondent and occasional guest essayist Erich Simon has been talking up gold for as long as he can remember. Recently, however, after working some comparison numbers based on grocery bills we would have paid 40 years ago, he discovered that gold’s powerful rise was somewhat anemic before Helicopter Ben opened the money jets. He further notes that our apparent overestimation of gold’s strength is no accident – that even the most astute bullion investors have been fooled by our cunning masters.  For the full story, read his essay below. RA]

The dollar is down about 98% since it became global tender. Back in 1971, era of Nixon Shock, the price of an ounce of gold was $35 — in line with its 1945 conscription. Right after Nixon closed the gold window, the price peaked at $42. All things being equal (and assuming gold doesn’t get used up), at what price must gold be valued to compensate for a 98% loss from — call it inflation, debt or whatever you like. I think the math goes like this: One dollar is now 2% of its former self. If you divide the 1971 “fair market” price of $42 by .02, you arrive at $2,100. The price of gold (POG) is in fact now around $1,365.

The $2,100 level is probably more accurate than the $2,500 prediction I made years ago, when I was appalled at the large number of billionaires being hatched from the shells of millionaires. But the higher estimate can stand nonetheless, since we could easily see, from current levels, the equivalent of the 1980 spike to $850. The catalyst might be the postponed bank-runs that are baked into the cake. Mass denial would end in a flash as Americans rushed to exchange paper savings for necessities and other things with real value. Meanwhile, prices are continuing to rise.

This unbending reality guarantees an Argentina-style bust rather than a drawn-out Japanese-style suffocation. The collapse will be all the more climactic thanks to our history of negative savings. Also, there’s the prospect of outright repudiation of the greenback by the international community, even as the Fed’s trumpeting of Terrorism would seek to bring about a single world-currency.

Gold vs. Groceries

If the POG hits $2,100 it will be more or less aligned with its historical purchasing power relative to any basket of common goods. One way to gauge the global economic deterioration since 1971 inside the crosshairs of today’s Global Pawn Shop Economy (i.e., deflation) and the backdrop of overpopulation and resource scarcity (i.e., inflation) is to measure gold’s purchasing power against a basket of necessities. Such as food. A representative bag of groceries in 1970-71 (California prices) might include a pound each of pork chops (59 cents), potatoes (9 cents), apples (15 cents), onions (9 cents)… a bunch of celery (38 cents), a dozen large AA eggs (59 cents), a quart of milk (33 cents) and a can of Campbell’s tomato soup (10 cents). The total for the 1971 bag is $2.32. Today, that same bag costs (in Pennsylvania prices): pork chops ($3.95), potatoes (98 cents), apples ($1.16), onions ($1.06), celery ($1.68), large A eggs ($1.86), a quart of milk ($1.02) and a can of Campbell’s tomato soup ($1.00). The total is around $12.71.

In this off-the-shelf comparison, food prices are 5.5 times higher than in 1971. That corresponds to a gold price of about $230 ($42 multiplied by 5.5). There’s a lot of distance between $230 and $2,100. Certainly there is some slack in these numbers, and while we’d like to qualify the calculation, saying “all other things being equal,” equal they are not. In 1974, when the official price of gold was $42.22, the New York market price was $159.74. And even though food prices are, like gasoline, appearing to leap, we are still enjoying much lower prices of both on a global comparison.

A Diabolical Plan

There are many variables to consider when identifying an exact target for the POG, starting with a production cost averaging around $325 these days and factoring in the “food price of gold” after taking up 25% to 30% of the price “slack.” But when one compares the gold price with the money supply boon from 1995-2001, along with all things paper, the men at the Fed have proven clever and even ingenious in a diabolical way. All ships rise in the money tide, but they kept gold right where it should have been, all things being equal since 1971.

Most people lack the acumen, or deviant mindset, to understand how gold and the credit markets could be so heavily manipulated that the price of gold in 2001, at a long-term nominal low of $251, could arguably be closer to a long-term high in real terms. Up until 2001 the Fed sat on the POG to keep it in line with its historical purchasing power against basic necessities, and to help foster the illusion of dollar solvency. Then, to effect a managed inflation and to hide the evidence that our prosperity was hollow, the Fed allowed the dollar to lag, and gold to rise.

Worthless Savings

The POG at $2,100 would accurately show just how much monopoly money has been injected into the system. Prices of necessities, like food, are destined to accelerate higher, and that is already happening in the wheat market. Whether gold can achieve $2,100 remains to be seen because the crossover of deflation can knock the legs out at any time.

This was all cunningly arranged to facility theft without protest. A lifetime of paper savings wrung from the sweat of our brows was rendered worthless as we all looked on; moreover, the same hands that emptied the social coffer are now taking the bankrupted masses by the collar into the coming chain of events.

The role of gold has been a distraction, and it is only now playing catch-up with other asset classes, some whose day has come and gone, by rising in nominal terms even as it continues to fall in real terms. In fact, if there is anyone propping the gold price it is the government, since to do otherwise would be case-closed on the indictment of our continuing Depression.

Working for Free

Even the infrastructure workers who are still holding onto jobs do not understand that they are working for free and living on borrowed time while they await Adam Smith’s invisible…fist.  And the Gold Bugs are similarly getting spun in circles, enthralled and hypnotized by wondrous paper gains, myself included. But an ounce of gold is setting up to buy no more than it did in 1971 — and then even less, to reflect the true face of macro valuations.

Limitless amounts of currency were printed after 1995 while suppressing the nominal price of gold and then managing it upwards to a level it may or may not achieve. Gold was finally “allowed” to start moving upward in 2001 while its intrinsic value, along with the value of many frivolous tangibles in prodigious oversupply, such as McMansions, is falling. Today the contamination of America’s food supply — of the world’s so-to-speak bread basket — along with the terminal decay of our infrastructure and the depletion of Third World suppliers’ resources, are polar opposites to the conditions that obtained in 1971. Yes, an ounce of gold is setting up to buy far less than what it did back then.

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • Erich February 15, 2011, 7:16 pm

    Bullion or Equities

    Physical is for people to stash store-of-value off the grid. Physical pays no interest. Physical is timeless. Physical has no serial numbers. Physical can be doled to homeless people and sold through their account.

    The Fed Effect, a lag and price manipulation scheme to garner dollar transitional solvency leading society down the path of constriction and lifestyle debasement where gold may or may not sustain advantage, plays off of interest rates and inflation perceptions and is a wild card for any hoarder of physical. The Fed mission is to keep the relative value of gold aligned to whatever the relative value of paper money and persuade society to continue to subscribe to its monopoly power game, allocating wealth how and to whom it dictates.

    Some proportion of the working population’s savings stolen through Wall Street these last ten years has found its way into the gold ‘underground’.

    Precious metals equities are subject to the same corruption and dilution endemic to the broader equity markets. Most PM equity shares are destined to fail.

    A perfect example is the planet’s third or fourth largest silver vein formerly of Apex Silver and the Soros clan down in Bolivia. With silver prices headed to the moon, Apex touted mine development and then went bankrupt. The property has been taken over by the Japanese.

    Management caused the bankrupting of Apex by gambling with investor money to bet against the price of silver. As unthinkable and unconscionable as this was, it is indictment of both PM equities and our present culture of corruption.

    Physical lends itself to alternative lifestyle by those fed up with endemic corporate corruption.

  • Erich February 15, 2011, 6:06 pm

    The ‘Fed Effect’ is a calculated lag scheme to frame the gold price inside monetary policy, to shore up the currency, which has transitioned to entitlement coupon in a Macro that is shrinking by the day and bursting at the social seam. While the nominal price continues higher, the dollars inside the ‘wealth based economy’ are degrading in what they will and will not afford (the poor, subsidized masses are no longer in the equation, they are addicts on the Fed entitlement program of subsistence to circumvent anarchy).

    A POG at $1,225 two years ago will buy more than a price at $1,500 tomorrow. The Fed plan is making the gold bugs feel rich while making them poorer the further out we go. They understand this implicitly and can at any time crash the price. Watch out for some fireworks if the gas price heads up from here into the summer driving season.

    A look at a long term annualized chart of gold and silver shows a classic blow-off top, not unlike the cubes (QQQ) back in March of 2000 when they broke trend and doubled (from 128 up to around 256), before crashing back to earth. Nothing that goes straight up does not come straight down and gold bugs should protect against a possible Bob Prechter implosion up ahead. The Fed seems hell bent on selectively bankrupting social targets, while inciting confusion, to move us along the course that they have laid out. Certainly a one third rotation out of speculative positions and into ‘the next’ category of tangibles (like Palladium if the price comes back under $700) or food commodities futures, is now warranted.

  • jeff kahn February 15, 2011, 2:09 pm

    Leverage is the world’s biggest sucker’s game. Hasn’t anyone learned that yet? Leverage is a measure of risk. If you’re buying gold to load up on risk you’re so missing the point. Besides, over the last 10 years Gold moved from 275 to 1370. Nem went from 18 to 57. Where’s the leverage, anyway, except in a few morons’ imaginations?

    • Robert February 15, 2011, 7:20 pm

      “Leverage is the world’s biggest sucker’s game. ”

      Very well put.

  • brutlstrudl February 15, 2011, 3:19 am

    You guys give the “authorities” too much credit.

  • Tech-trac February 15, 2011, 1:07 am

    In 1930 the Moody’s Spot Commodity Index stood @ #100. AU was $20.00.
    Today that basket of foodstuffs trades near #7000.
    AU @ 70x’s $20=$1400. So it trades @ a discount.
    In #1980 Moody’s peaked @ #1545 & AU @ $850.

    Quite a premium, no?
    Will we experience again such a blowoff?
    Beats me, but so far so good.. AU has proven a store of value & hedge.

  • Don February 14, 2011, 10:10 pm

    JimK,
    Thanks for checking my math, weights
    and measures.
    Good trading.

  • bill child February 14, 2011, 9:52 pm

    more gibberish

    he could have just as weel said 8000 sounds about right

    inn the last ten years if a person had bought gold and silver he woulds be way up even at 1400 gold over the fiat

    these guys infest the dream world

    asnd confuse the mass ,

    gold will rise to fill the balance sheets of all nations as the smart ones will bacck the internation currencies with gold ,,

    whats its value ,, this guy has the answer hardly

  • dan February 14, 2011, 9:07 pm

    only the amount of ounces owned in your hand counts..all else is bs….

  • Don February 14, 2011, 8:14 pm

    My numbers work for me:
    When I was a lad in 1959 a silver dollar and dollar bill (silver cert) were interchangeable at the local bank. A loaf of bread ie. .15 = 6+ loafs for a dollar. Gasoline .16 = 6 gallons for a buck.
    Today 1 loaf of bread 2.90, 1 gallon gas 3.04. so today the silver dollar 1oz eagle will fetch 11 loafs bread; 10.6 gal gas.
    The metal is way ahead of the grocer.
    Todays buy price;
    http://www.apmex.com/APMEXTop40/Default.aspx
    Go figure.
    Successful trading to all.

    • JimK February 14, 2011, 9:43 pm

      Don, the old $1 was only .715 oz troy of silver, so with the 1 oz eagle buying 11 loaves or gallons x .715 = a current price of around 8 loaves or gallons per old silver dollar. So we’re not so far off now – the price of gas and bread are down by only a fourth, at the moment, relative to silver in 1959 – which in the case of bread, can easily correlate to it’s quality, while with gas – well, it makes it look like a bargain now.

      This comparison ignores the dwindling supply of above ground silver, the growing scarcity of arable land for wheat, and easy oil for gas, etc…

    • rmsimc February 14, 2011, 10:26 pm

      Actually, one US silver dollar = 0.77344 oz asw

    • Steve February 15, 2011, 12:44 am

      by Statute 413 grains Coin silver in a Dollar, 371 4/16ths grains of silver in a Dollar 1792 through 2011.

  • Radek February 14, 2011, 7:51 pm

    I think $2100 gold will just be a point in time when we can officially call the beginning of a ‘gold bubble’, ie. where perceived value is greater than fundamental value. It will only go up from there for a few years (or more, or less), ahead of the pace of inflation for a few years while the herd gets in. It will go parabolic to heights that rmsimc suggested. Then it will pop, and settle down, probably back to the $2100 that Mr. Simon suggested, and rise continuously at a more ‘steady’ rate thereafter.

    Slightly off-topic rant:
    This is why I have decided not to purchase any bullion of any kind. Instead I am going to take advantage of the leverage that quality gold/silver stocks offer during the run-up, hopefully sell at or near the top, wait a year, let everything crash and ‘settle down’. This will allow me to purchase more bullion due to the additional gains from leverage (as long as fees and taxes don’t make it financially unsound, as ricecake noted).

    Why would anyone in their right minds want to purchase bullion (never mind the losses due to fees, premiums, insurance, and potential future gov’t interventions) unless they believe the “end game” is a total and utter collapse of the financial system that forces us to revert to local bartering with said bullion? I see bullion ownership as an “all or nothing” scenario: either you believe the whole thing will come down and we’ll have gold/silver as the final remaining currency, or the gov’t will step in and halt the rise/inflation at some point. If you believe the latter, then owning gold will only lower your potential profit due to the above-mentioned profit-siphoning effects.

    • anon February 14, 2011, 8:45 pm

      “Why would anyone in their right minds want to purchase bullion …”

      Privacy. I have it and nobody knows I have it.

    • mikeck February 14, 2011, 10:34 pm

      “Why would anyone in their right minds want to purchase bullion …”

      As anon said plus, bullion is wealth while paper is, well, paper. I would never be without some bullion, too risky for me, but I also have some mining shares just in case the paper remains convertible to real wealth, i.e. paper that I can exchange for bullion.

      When/if we reach Reference Point Gold, I suspect it will stay very close to that figure…I have no clue what the “authorities” will decide to do with “visible” paper.

  • ricecake February 14, 2011, 6:32 pm

    My friend bought some silver and gold in China last year but worrying when can get the money back and gain some “profit” too. Said that the processing fee is expensive in trading precious metals.

    Be care! Gold and Silver are not cash. And Gold Silver dealers are not the bank/bankers. The banks always have the upper hands. They can get zero interest capital lend to you for 5% – 20% interest rate so they can take the metal cheap from you and re-sell in much higher prices plus they charge you processing fee which is likely pretty handsome. The political and the law on their side. Not yours. They write the rules.

    • Steve February 15, 2011, 12:42 am

      Ricecake, specie Dollars are Cash. The only question is; which side of good versus evil does one plays on? If one want to turn cash into fiat fraud – well !

  • rmsimc February 14, 2011, 5:53 pm

    Interesting thought experiment…but that is all that it is. Using some ‘traditional’ methods of trying to find gold’s equillibrium produces a range measured in logarithic terms.

    Using per-capita personal income (1973 v. 2010) would see gold currently at $315.

    The ‘one good suit’ metaphore places gold at $800.

    12 ounces of gold would buy a entry-level Ford in 1934. Today, 12 ounces of gold will purchase an entry-level 4-door sedan built in the USA (see Kia Sorento).

    Based on a single head of cattle in 1884, gold should now be at $9,044.

    Comparing our national debt in 1978 v. 2011; gold could be priced at over $14,000 today.

    One possible scenerio: TPTB will ‘allow’ the price to get up to about $7,000 by 2015-2017 at which time the big confiscation will occur across the entire World. After which, the price per oz will immediately double and then we’ll get the one-world-currency for international settlement.

  • Other Paul February 14, 2011, 5:48 pm

    Quote from Mr. Simon’s article:
    “A lifetime of paper savings wrung from the sweat of our brows was rendered worthless as we all looked on….”

    Many have been blessed by accumulating savings through work which in an earlier era would have been considered almost worthless, such as “paper-pushing jobs” (now in air conditioned offices).

    Conversion of a large portion of fiat-measured wealth accumulated doing “sweatless jobs” into tangibles would appear to be a very prudent idea.

    • Steve February 14, 2011, 6:08 pm

      Best description of the Chicago Board of Trade and “Futures” I have seen, wherein the “have” people control the profits of 1000 cattle, on a 1000 ranches, in 1000 counties created by hard working men in the mud, well B.S.

  • rockingham February 14, 2011, 5:48 pm

    In the summer of 1960 my mother brought home some peaches and nectarines and they were 15 cents a pound. I have a way of remembering this. These days (in the summer) they are 80 cents to one dollar a pound. So fresh fruit has gone up 6-7 times in 50 years

    Nixon closed the gold window at $35/oz but really it was bubbling up at 40-42 in Europe so that is a better number to compare to today’s $1350. That makes a 33x increase

  • kevin February 14, 2011, 5:30 pm

    All calculations for are plausible but to base an arguement using the undervalued price 1970 is as futile as using the 1980 overvalued price thus.

    Supply of both currency and gold remains the most valid pricing scheme.

    • Steve February 14, 2011, 5:46 pm

      Seems that using any “value” except a Dollar at 413 grains silver Coin 90% is just; figures don’t lie, but liars figure. In fact People, the word Dollar is a legislatively defined term for the united States of America (actually for the several States, Article I, sec. 10, cls. 1, Const.). The rest is just Singapore, Canadian, Aussie, or territorial forms of script from foreign nations. The word Dollar is established in “meaning”, and “value”. Judge the rest of the world based upon the constitutional ‘value’ of the Word. Misuse of the American word “Dollar” is an explanation for “figures don’t lie, but; liars figure”.

      If I judge the current government form 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) by the definition of the word “Dollar” that form is foreign, corporate, Roman, and anarchy. Guess what, 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) ‘United States’ defines a foreign corporation.

      If one judges the writings above based upon the American word “Dollar” what is discovered ? How can anyone write to a Free Man, a Sovereign, when that man only speaks of debt script tallied against himself and his get as an inheritable estate in Fee?

  • AndyB February 14, 2011, 5:24 pm

    The PM to watch is Ag, not Au. Given the effective destruction of silver in its ever expanding industrial uses, IMO that the GSR, within a decade, might be totally reversed, given the supply metrics. If there is a COMEX default this year (quite possible), the GSR will drop at least to 20:1. This time around gold will follow, silver will lead.

  • Edward February 14, 2011, 3:41 pm

    Somewhat anemic before the Bernank’s Q ease? The facts state otherwise, since gold rose by well over 100% from 2004 and 2008. That’s not anemic. As for $2100 dollars for gold being about right, well, that calculation wrong as well, given that the amount of debt globally that needs to be extinguished, and it will be, by gold, is, conservatively, very conservatively, in the tens of trillions. It’s not just about purchasing power anymore, Mr. Simon.

    That

    • Steve February 14, 2011, 5:33 pm

      Gold didn’t rise, FRN’s lost preceived value. Or, in other words the tally count for debt doubled against the massess.

  • JimK February 14, 2011, 3:32 pm

    Nixon did something else – his sec of agriculture, Earl ‘Rusty’ Butz (who’s career ended when he infamously commented that ‘all that black people want is loose fitting shoes, …’ the rest can’t be repeated here) promoted cheap food so as to depoliticize the cost of food. One of the promoted innovations was High Fructose Corn Syrup, which delivers a lot more sweet from the same amount of corn (watch Sugar: The Bitter Truth). In the years since, we now have GMO foods, chemical sweeteners, fluoride gassing of all produce, raw meat packaged in Carbon Monoxide to keep it red for a week, etc. To make a meaningful comparison to the food prices in 1971, we should compare the price of food from Whole Foods Market, or maybe a notch down (because there was pesticide use in ’71 already). The food staples are the most corrupted – eggs, milk, corn, pork, chicken, beef – there must be an adjustment that takes into account the quality.

    So I reckon a higher price for the current bag of groceries would be a more accurate number. But the dynamic of people returning to farming/gardening as the squeeze continues, will grow to a torrent as word spreads regarding quality and as people realize that it is the best way to put food on the table. We’ll see veggie gardens and nut trees in every suburban yard, along with government inspectors appointed by FDA Director Hamburg’s advisor Michael Taylor – former Monsanto VP and Attorney – trying to stop us from being able to feed ourselves via expanded ‘food safety’ laws that Hamburg has vowed to implement as her second priority (after getting all the pregnant women and small children vaccinated for swine flu – seriously, read her speech).

    It appears that the analysis of the gold prices using food prices alone lacks depth.

  • Phil C February 14, 2011, 2:06 pm

    I suppose the author realize that food price inflation lags behind the printing press. This means, if this evaluation above is correct, gold is currently at a bargain compared to other commodities.
    However, more food price inflation is to come to catch up with all this money printing done more recently that has not yet been fully accounted in the commodity sector. And of course, unless Washington decides to actually drastically cut spending (could that be really happen?!) to stop the deficit, their deficit will increase even more (in $ term) because of this food price inflation (ie more food stamps), providing a feedback loop. This won’t stop until they decide to seriously tackle the deficit and … unfunded liabilities.
    As usual, Washington typically kick the can down the political road to the next term so, I expect this to be done by the politicians stuck in that term with no musical money “chairs” left…

  • roger erickson February 14, 2011, 1:58 pm

    Seems to be a spurious argument.

    When the population of the USA becomes, say 600 mil, do you think there will have to be more nominal $US in circulation, for that size population to use? You betcha. Will the world supply of gold have also doubled?

    Currency supply has to scale with population & economic dynamics. Various commodities do not. So what is the point of this article?

    • Robert February 14, 2011, 6:56 pm

      “Currency supply has to scale with population & economic dynamics. Various commodities do not.”

      -Huh?

      Elaboration, please?

      The only thing that fluctuates in a fixed quantity monetary system are prices, but since prices are all relative to sentinment based on the theory of exchange, the net result is the same zero-sum game that occurs if money/liquidity supplies are varied around a generally stable price level.

      Same dance, different tune.

      Currency supply does not have to scale with population. This is the Keynesian logic trap- That is, you simply can not regulate price levels and guarantee liquidity in ALL markets by varying the supply of a single currency unit via policy.

      This is the fundamental lesson that the present circumstances (food, oil, and material prices that are rising against ALL policy based currencies, yet are remaining statistically stable relative to each other)are teaching us LOUD and CLEAR. I find it unfortunate that so many theorists can’t look past the basic premise that economic distortion via policy is NOT the same as market self-regulation.

      Ben Bernanke may have fired the 2nd “shot heard around the world” when he declared week before last that it is not the Fed’s responsibility to harbor concern about what effect Fed dollar policy has on other country’s economies…

    • Benjamin February 15, 2011, 3:05 am

      Roger: Currency supply has to scale with population & economic dynamics. Various commodities do not.

      Robert: -Huh?

      Maybe I can help shed some light on roger’s side. Mislead as his oft-made points are, he does raise a good one here.

      According to my “pet theory”, a weight of gold/silver can create any amount of currency dependent on how much people are willing to coin.

      By necessity, this limits the extent of government power to those times of wide-spread need (such as threat of invasion or great natural disaster). People would coin more metals to weight the currency higher in order to signal that they will postpone their own saving and consumption so that government has the necessary room to act. In the meantime, we tighten, as a high currency weight would (temporarily) obliterate savings and reduce personal consumption. Once the coined and loaned weight were returned, chances are the weight of a currency would be even lower than before the period in which it rose. This is so losses can be made up, and savings re-established to their previous (or even greater) levels.

      But there is not always a pressing need to empower government to act. Still, there is reason to expect that over any time period, free people would naturally weight the dollar lower, for the same reasons: debt accumulates, business ventures fail, and all manner of unexpected things occur by which savings would become strained.

      Population increases would also be a reason, as more births (being “nothing more” than more people requiring a number of years before they become productive rather than consumptive burdens) is debt for which currency weights would lower in order to deal with.

      Whatever the reason, creating currency is quite necessary, but really no big deal provided the means to do so is in the hands of those who would be most impacted by NOT having that means. Done that way, saving is guaranteed to take place, as is the dishoarding of savings in its own good time. Government then by necessity becomes a smaller force, tasked with protecting rights (and carrying out that task means staying small and out of the way until called upon by a high currency weight).

      What roger misses: Today, what we have is virtually the same thing as having a currency weight which trends higher and higher, by government/central bank decree. Savings are decimated, and borrowing, which results in certain default, guarantess the weights are raised more, so that more CREDIT _NOT_ created by the people is created by the bankers in order to empower government well beyond where people would rather have them. Yes, the corrupted regime of central bank credit accomodates an ever-expanding population. But they are not an empowered population, able and/or willing to do what they must. So, in the end, central bank credit will prove MOST ineffective a means to sustain economies.

      What an unsettling number of hard monetarists miss (not necessarily Robert, but for the record…): They make no distinction between inflation caused by authoritarianism and the brand of inflation which has been described here. This in turn causes them to overlook the whole “scale to population” argument on which oppistion to hard money rests (which btw is best solved by the market, not policy). This is a very dangerous blind spot, as not making that distinction sees a continued reliance on Brand X. But thankfuly this blind spot is just that, and not a fatal flaw in the hard money argument. We can very easily get out of this mess so long the right things are done. And that means inflation, like it or not, is always going to be that means.

      Anyway, given that currency weights have been _virtually_ on the rise in the last century (at least), we can expect future currency weights to be quite a bit lower than ever recorded in the history of man. The idea that hard coin won’t buy much is… Plain wrong. Until we have a global-scale natural disaster, man-made crises will always see resources and trade kept at minimal levels (on the whole, but your region may vary greatly).

  • bozzy February 14, 2011, 1:47 pm

    Sorry Erich, but your notion of current food prices being “correctly” valued in dollar terms seems a little bizarre. Since this is the underlying plank of your argument, I think the piece fails.

    But: I would be very interested to see the argument reworked to account for lag and slippage, M1 vs GNP, growth in M1 vs growth in GNP etc. Maybe I should ask that of Shadowstats…..

  • VegasBob February 14, 2011, 1:02 pm

    Actually, comparing apples to apples would require comparing the value of a dollar in 1913 to the price of gold in 1913, and then comparing the value of a dollar in 2011 to the price of gold in 2011.

    The average price of gold was $18.92 in 1913 (http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf). So if the dollar has lost 98% of its value from 1913 to 2011, we can divide $18.92 by 2% to get a current gold price of $946 an ounce. If we accept the government’s lies that inflation was nonexistent in 2009 and 2010, we can substitute the price of gold from 2009 rather than today’s price. Coincidentally (perhaps not), the average price of gold in 2009 was $972.35, compared to the estimated value of $946. So up until the end of 2009, gold was effectively tracking the dollar’s loss of value.

    My take is that the price premium over $1,000 per ounce of gold is the expected inflation resulting from Bernokio’s unrestrained money printing. We should be expecting 35% or higher cumulative inflation over the next could of years, though the government’s numbers will undoubtedly be falsified to get the inflation rate down to politically acceptable levels.

    • bozzy February 14, 2011, 1:48 pm

      Respect! VegasB.

    • Anthony F February 14, 2011, 4:47 pm

      Vegas Boy,
      I tried your link, for the price of silver 1975-2007,
      but it failed. Could you please give it a try- Thanks
      Using Kitco’s 1996 gold /silver ratio
      it projects a silver price of 17.50
      This is very interesting since there was a band of support/resistance in the 17-19 price range.
      But this ratio was invalidated in 1980 when it was aprox $ 850/48.70 ? today’s equivalent to $ 78.20 for silver
      Thanks AF

    • Steve February 14, 2011, 6:02 pm

      From the statistics above:

      Coin Dollar / Eagle ( 20 Dollar ‘value’) 1913
      Coin Dollar / Eagle ( 50 Dollar ‘value’) 2011

      Value of Dollar 1913 = 413 grains 90% Coin silver
      Value of Dollar 2011 = 413 grains 90% Coin silver

      Value of a Federal Reserve Note 1913 = Dollar
      (U.S. Treasury Department)
      Value of a Federal Reserve Note 2011 = Zed/Zero/0
      (Federal Reserve)

      Title to Property 1913 = Allodial
      Title to Property 2011 = Fee

      Allodial = freehold – the opposite of the British Feudal System (Websters Dictionary 1828, Blacks Law Dictionary 1968)
      Fee = Feudal, fee, fife, feod, feud, feudal tenant, peon serf, slave. (Websters Dictionary 1828, Blacks Law Dictionary 1968)

      Now go get the “Deed” to your estate and SEE that it is an inheritable estate in Fee “Fee Simple Absolute” via the British Feudal system of Lands/Government in succession.

      American Citzen debt at live birth 1913 = Zed/Zero/0
      U.S. corp. citizen debt at exit from the womb = 257,000 to 450,000 frn tally debt depending on who’s stats are used.

  • Benjamin February 14, 2011, 11:08 am

    Sorry if this posts more than once, but it’s not showing up (I’m thinking it had something to do with one of the accompanying links, a .pdf, which I’ve altered to link to the main site; hope this works!)

    “Yes, an ounce of gold is setting up to buy far less than what it did back then.”

    Maybe, but there is something to consider in the longer and unfolding trend.

    The gold/oil ratio is at ~2g/bbl, and has been trending down for at least the past three years since I started looking at it (from time to time). During this roughly three year period, petroleum consumption (see table 1.3)…

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.html

    …was bumpy but more or less flat between 08-10. Yet the g/o ratio wound up at two, which is as cheap as it was in the first half of the 1950s(!).

    But longer term, consumption began to decline as early as 2004, only dropping sharply about a year before our current troubles began. At the same time, the g/o ratio wasn’t exactly heeding that irresistable pull…

    http://pricedingold.com/crude-oil/

    …Until it had no choice. In both 2004 and 2007, it tried to go higher, failed, and fell both times. I guess it couldn’t be speculated higher and oil, wanting to be cheaper in gold, did just that!

    On a side note, Egypt is still up in the air, but it looks they’ll be getting their democracy. This would take too long to talk about, so suffice to say, I think in the coming years, falling energy prices there (and across the Mid-East OPEC nations) will balance out with rising prices here, to keep the g/o ratio around 2-3. However, this can be dashed on the rocks quite easily. If the Tea Party doesn’t get those military adventurism cuts that neither side wants, and especially if Egypt either doesn’t “change” or doesn’t spark enough change throughout that region if it does, then anything I’ve said today is out the window.

    Lots of ifs, ands, and what-have-yous, so…We’ll see.

    But we must also consider that central bank currencies are worthless and have this nasty tendency, in the longest ongoing trend, to simply evaporate. As Steve often enough points out, the Fed itself says this about their own currency. Now, check your charts and tell me how many continentals, confederate dollars, soviet-era rubles, old Mexican pesos, and so on… Will buy ANYTHING.

    So I think it premature to say that gold won’t be buying much in the future. And between three possibilities (depression on steroids, hyper-inflation, total disintegration of central bank currencies/return to hard money), I’d say that strengthening currencies is out of the question, which has to mean gold and silver stay strong no matter what.

  • mario cavolo February 14, 2011, 9:33 am

    Warning: Do not drink wine before reading the above article. While an appreciated treatment, its a tough one to follow.

    Meanwhile, anyone who really thinks according to… “This unbending reality guarantees an Argentina-style bust rather than a drawn-out Japanese-style suffocation.” … that the dollar is going to “collapse” or that the U.S. will have that Argentina moment is bloviating on ludes…there are far too many ingredients in the global economic stew which will ameliorate such an otherwise sensational and globally devastating final outcome, so also feel free to pray I’m right.

    Cheers, Mario

    • Cam Fitzgerald February 14, 2011, 3:39 pm

      Damn. you caught me Mario!

  • Hajdar February 14, 2011, 9:26 am

    Cam, you’re not alone pal.

  • Cam Fitzgerald February 14, 2011, 8:47 am

    Forgive my idiocy but I feel confused by todays article.

  • Steve February 14, 2011, 6:49 am

    The “Value” of Gold is 50 silver Specie Dollars as defined by legislative act 413 grains Coin silver (90%), 361 4/16ths grains fine. The rest of what is going on is just delusional speculation based in spin. Ya All are just pawns in a tally scheme to calculate your portion of limited liabilty against Liberty debt/

    • Robert February 14, 2011, 5:52 pm

      Ahhh… but isn’t it true that even a Pawn, when protected by his peers, can checkmate the King?

      Regarding Erich’s discussion regarding the price of Gold and its purchasing power in relation to essentials, the timing is prescient, because I have wondered (and pontificated with others in discussion) exactly “how many ounces” would a person need to nake it through their entire life in a world gone mad?

      I’ve been working on an analysis of Gold as a barter mechanism, and I’ve focused my study on the one place on Earth where there the service economy is virtually non-existent, Agriculture is absolutley minimal, and industry can only run at the same rate that fuel slowly trickles in… Zimbabwe.

      In Zimbabwe- workers must produce a minimum of .1 gram of gold to buy enough bread to feed a family of 4 for one day. Mind you, this is not “Happy Meals and Subway” we’re talking about- this is .1 grams for a lump of baked flour, water, yeast and maybe a little salt.

      I consider Zimbabwe to represent the most dire of all poverty centers on Earth, and so I suspect that their “Gold to Bread” exchange ratio is probably represents and reflects the truest minimalist price level that actually facilitates an economic (read: mutually beneficial in a valuation sense) exchange.

      However, if such an exchange had to be made, I feel I would rather be the one with enough surplus bread to trade, rather than the one with enough surplus Gold.

      Gold price in dollars? …. I just don’t care. I have enough physical bullion to extinguish all my current debt, and to have a surplus that I expect will capitalize a susbsistence lifestyle if the need should arise. Yet, as long as my creditors accept green paper, then I will abide by Gresham’s law and continue paying them in green paper.

      Everyone take note of one key observation that Erich points out- the “post Nixon” market price of Gold did not jump to $42 as popularly declared- $42 was merely the government’s published number.

      Jewelers looking for metal to create their wares were paying $150 plus for it by the end of 1972. Plug that number into the myriad of inflation calculators out there…

    • Steve February 14, 2011, 6:18 pm

      Robert, in the “void” of individual Covenant Endowed Rights secured by Contract and Rule of Law; the might of the fist overcomes those that are weaker. (From: The “Laws of Nature” learned on the banks of the South Umpqua River’.) All remain at Liberty to use their fists, what remains uncertain is the outcome. I would guess the mantra from the river back East would be “Don’t take my gold, or;____”

    • Robert February 14, 2011, 7:14 pm

      “I would guess the mantra from the river back East would be “Don’t take my gold, or;____”

      Porter Stansberry:

      “If you try to take my Gold, I will shoot you in the face”

      quoted from:

      http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7570703/

      🙂

  • FranSix February 14, 2011, 6:15 am

    I have been following this one viewpoint for a very long time, as regards the gold price. The price is still important, though people may say its the storing of physical gold that is the important thing, and that price may be irrelevant.

    Good discussion about inflation adjusted gold & silver charts with accompanying pdf file:

    http://talkdigitalnetwork.com/2011/01/2011-positive-precious-metals-3/