OK, I admit it. I watch the television series The Walking Dead. If you’re not familiar with this triumph of modern Kultur, it’s a cable TV show about people battling zombies in a post-apocalyptic world.
Basically, The Walking Dead’s premise is that an exotic disease killed off most of the world’s population, but in the process reactivated the basal sections of their brains. Now the not entirely deceased entities prowl the land as zombies. As a counterpoint to these “walking dead” critters, an array of struggling humans battle to survive, every Sunday night at 9 p.m. (Season Four starts in October.)
What does this have to do with investing? Glad you asked!
The Walking Dead helps, in perhaps a peculiar way, underpins a new investment thesis. It’s all based on the Fed’s “dead money” philosophy.
While there may be no way of stopping the Fed’s plague of zombie money from flooding the market, there’s still plenty you can do to “arm yourself” against its deadly advance.
Specifically, you can buy into the idea of holding gold or buying a few undervalued gold companies.
I recently uncovered a fascinating chart, from Bianco Research LLC, of long-term U.S. interest rates covering 222 years, from 1790–2012.
Pretty cool chart, eh? I could discuss this chart all day. But the take-away here is that since 1790, the average long-term interest rate on U.S. Treasuries has been about 5%. When you look back over all of U.S. history, interest rates have almost never been under 3%, excepting during the total national effort of World War II. Keep that 5% in mind!
So what are the current interest rates for U.S. 30-yr bonds? At last check, according to the U.S. Treasury, they’re sitting at just above 3.6% — up over the past five months on the hopes of a Fed taper.
What’s the point? As the chart shows, historical rates for U.S. bonds have averaged about 5% over the past 222 years. Yet right now, according to the U.S. Treasury, short-term bonds yield just a hair above nothing. Medium-term bonds (one-five years) yield way under 1.5%.
We’re a long way below the historical average of 5% money, right? Treasury yields are as dead as doornails. Looking ahead, what if there’s even a slight reversion of Treasury rates to the historical mean? What if these near-dead current interest rates start to rise via the Fed’s promised taper?
What do these superlow, historically anomalous Treasury interest rates tell us? On that point, I’m reminded of the words of the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, who wrote that “Public opinion always wants easy money, that is, low interest rates.”
Well, clearly, we have a government policy of easy money and monetary populism. The U.S. government — and its associated class of media and financial enablers — wants cheap interest rates to mask the true cost of horrific, irresponsible levels of federal borrowing and spending. Low interest rates are just grease for the country’s financialized treadmill to nowhere.
With Treasury bonds continuing to offering historically-low interest rates, it sets a funereal tone for interest rates through the rest of society. Why bother saving? Could it be that American money is “cheap,” in terms of interest because over the long term, it’s not worth all that much anymore? Do you see the issue?
Back when I took the basic survey economics course at Harvard — Economics 10 — I recall the late Otto Eckstein (who worked for presidents Kennedy and Johnson) saying that cheap money destroys capital. That was just a fundamental point. If you missed that, you failed the course.
In other words, we live in a capital-intensive world. Capital requires savings and investment. Yet low interest rates undermine people’s incentive and ability to save and invest. So low interest rates are — over any prolonged period of time — thoroughly destructive toward capital in many ways.
We could go back to von Mises, who stated, “True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse soon or late, and to bring about a depression.”
Soon or late? My bet is soon.
I could carry on this economic discussion, but I’ve laid enough foundation. Let’s get to what von Mises called “real money” — that is, gold.
Prices for gold and silver are down on the year — gold off 20% and silver down 28%. One sage banker explains — in the Wall Street Journal, no less — that the economy is improving. Thus people are less inclined to “keep their money idle” by buying gold, he says. Better to “put your funds to good use,” he says, by channeling it into other investments. Really?
Evidently, this banker-guy missed the class in which the instructor taught that “gold is money.” Because there’s nothing “idle” about holding gold. Ask the rest of the world, especially the East. They’re buying gold.
Indeed, my tally of national central banks that have been buying gold, in recent months, includes Russia, Turkey, India, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. What do they know?
Of course, China is also building a gold stash, but not bragging about it. They’re building nuclear weapons, too, and not bragging about it. To paraphrase that oft-noted Las Vegas line, what happens in China stays in China.
Back at Harvard, I learned that gold is money. Then again, I learned that in the Geology Department, from the mining geology guy, Prof. Ulrich Petersen, and not in the Economics Department.
Still, every now and then — back in the 1970s — one could overhear a Harvard economics professor say something like “a dollar is as good as gold.” Yes, it was a reminiscence of the days of the Bretton Woods Agreement, which established the dollar as a currency “backed” by gold.
Old monetary habits die hard. Hey, maybe old monetary habits were the right thing to do, in their day. They deserve to die hard.
At any rate, I’ve never thought that U.S. currency was real “money.” Those green pieces of zombie paper are merely a medium of exchange, and “legal tender for all debts, public and private.” Where did I get that offbeat, countercultural idea? Well, start with the text that’s printed on every Federal Reserve note, that’s where. It says exactly that.
There’s a difference between currency and money. Modern America has been able to get away with blurring the currency-money distinction for a couple of generations. But with federal spending out of control, each day brings us closer to our own, contemporary version of economic apocalypse.
Really, who needs a zombie apocalypse, when you’ve got a federal government that spends astronomical sums of “money” that, apparently, comes from nowhere? Well, okay, it comes from the Federal Reserve. But when you get down to the essence of things, Fed-money is equivalent to a “Big Bang money machine” — from nothing, comes something.
This reminds me of a story — a true story, no less. I was in the Pentagon, some years ago, in the days of the Bush II-administration. It was E-Ring stuff. I was in the very spacious office of a very senior guy in the U.S. Air Force. We were discussing energy issues, particularly Air Force programs to spur a U.S. “synthetic fuel” industry.
Our discussion touched issues of government funding of private industrial development, and questions about who owns the intellectual property (IP). New energy-development technology has national security implications. Should the IP go into the public domain? Or do we keep parts of it classified?
One of the military staffers at the table spoke up, and said, with a downbeat voice, “I don’t know if we can keep this kind of tech classified. We’re terrible at keeping these things under wraps for long.”
As everyone around the table nodded in agreement, I decided to test their hearing. I said, “That’s true. Really, the only two national secrets we’ve ever been able to keep are about those space aliens, and the captured flying saucer in Area 51, and that there’s no gold in Fort Knox.”
The room went quiet. You could hear a pin drop. The senior Air Force guy leaned over the table, and looked right at me. He said, “Really? There’s no gold in Fort Knox?”
That’s all for now. Thanks for reading.
Byron Kingfor The Daily Reckoning
Ed. Note: Every day, the Daily Resource Hunter gives readers an incredible leg up in the resource investment space. Complete with tons of boots-on-ground research and expert analysis, readers also learn about specific ways to profit from the best companies in this sector. And it’s free! So what are you waiting for? Sign up, for free, right here.
Original article posted on Daily Resource Hunter
One reason is that global oil demand growth is moderate, due to the creeping worldwide lack of economic confidence.
Byron King is the editor of Outstanding Investments, Byron King's Military-Tech Alert, and Real Wealth Trader. He is a Harvard-trained geologist who has traveled to every U.S. state and territory and six of the seven continents. He has conducted site visits to mineral deposits in 26 countries and deep-water oil fields in five oceans. This provides him with a unique perspective on the myriad of investment opportunities in energy and mineral exploration. He has been interviewed by dozens of major print and broadcast media outlets including The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, MSN Money, MarketWatch, Fox Business News, and PBS Newshour.
you know, germany also thinks there might not be gold in fort knox – they suspect their gold is gone too! that’s why they are asking for it back. perhaps we used it to pay off the aliens so they wouldn’t destroy us.
There have been quite a few disappointing numbers in the global economy recently. But as these numbers are just economic "snowflakes" building toward a financial avalanche. All you need is one to push it over the edge. And as Dave Gonigam explains, the deciding snowflake may come from Switzerland. Read on...
After the 2008 financial crisis, little could be heard over the deafening cries of "mission accomplished." And while the Fed's massive QE program seemed to work, the question remains: for how long? Addison Wiggin explains why the next round of QE will fail miserably, paving the way for the IMF to step in with something called "special drawing rights." Read on...
Global warming is one of the most debated subjects of the last few years. But regardless of whether you're a "true believer" or a merely an unconvinced skeptic, there are significant ways to make serious money from this controversial topic. Today, Addison Wiggin brings you three of them. Read on...
Under the auspices of benefiting public health, the government has been administering medication to you and your family for generations. But is it really necessary? Or worse... Could it actually be harmful? Chris Campbell takes a closer look at this, and other personal health decisions the feds don't trust you to make...
Commodities have been in freefall lately. Everything from corn to soy beans to precious metals is headed lower right now. But is this just a brief downturn, or is this the beginning of a long-term trend? Greg Guenthner explains, with a closer look at one specific precious metal that could snap back violently before heading lower. Read on...
The inflation vs. deflation debate is a heated one. Heck, it almost brought Peter Schiff and Harry Dent to blows. But at the core of this debate is a common misunderstanding of the nature of both inflation and deflation. Today, Jim Mosquera seeks to explain each... and which one the U.S. is more likely to experience. Read on...