And today we take up a foul and disagreeable task. We ask ourselves: what if we are wrong?

If you bought gold when we first recommended it, ten years ago, you are in a very comfortable position. Gold sells for more than 4 times as much today. But what should you do now? And what if you didn't go for broke on gold in the early '00s? Is it too late to get in on the bull market?

To give you a warning, in the following windy ambulation we come to no conclusion we haven't come to before. We say gold is going to the moon. If we are wrong about when...we will be delighted sooner than expected...self-satisfied...and insufferable for years. If we are right, we may have to wait a long time before saying "I told you so."

First, the press has certainly noticed the bull market in gold. How could it not? Most reporters say gold is going up simply because the dollar is going down. In the popular press, we found no other explanation. In fact, much of the notice of gold seems to occur within articles about the dollar. We found, for example, that the dollar is at a 15 month low...and, coincidentally, gold has just hit an all-time high.

There's something lopsided about this account of things. If the yellow metal has hit a record high, how come the dollar is down for only 15 months and not since the Flood? Makes you wonder if the dollar isn't the whole story.

Elsewhere, we find that the dollar is trading at $1.49 per euro. Wait a minute. We remember the dollar at the exact same level...was it a year ago...more...? And it's been at that same level, more or less, all the while gold has gone up more than 10%.

It's not the fall of the dollar that is driving the gold market, in other words, it's something else...it's the fall of ALL paper currencies. For when the dollar goes down, so do the rest of them - more or less. No nation wants its currency to rise too much against the greenback. Americans are still the world's biggest spenders. They spend dollars...not rubles...not euros...not zloties. A nation whose currency rises against the dollar is in a competitively weaker position. Its costs - in local currency - go up while its sales - in dollars - go down (it has to charge higher prices). Typically, central banks buy up dollars with money created for that purpose...thus increasing their own money supply and thus decreasing the value of their own local currencies relative to the dollar.

Since all the world's central banks, more or less, are doing this, all paper currencies are going down together - compared to gold.

But wait, wouldn't they be going down together against everything else too? If currencies are getting weaker...shouldn't they be getting weaker against oil...and McDonalds' hamburgers...and woolen underwear? The oil price is at $78 - where it's been stuck for a while. Oil is a special case, but almost all consumer prices are stuck too. Take out energy and food, and consumer prices are deflating in the US. Put back in the energy and food and they're just stuck. There is no sign of generalized consumer inflation - not in the USA and not in Europe either.

The only thing that is going up is gold. There is a bull market in gold and gold alone. But why?

According to the law of supply and demand, you expect the price of a thing to fall when its supply increases faster than the demand for it. In today's news are two reports on gold production. One, from South Africa, tells that a scientist says the nation's residual gold in-the- ground is much less than expected. It has been overstated by 900%, he says. Another report shows the output of from the gold mining industry clearly topping out. Gold supply, in other words, is increasing, but not as fast as it used to.

The supply of paper money, on the other hand, needs no new discoveries. Since there have been huge increases in the monetary base of paper money all over the world, it is reasonable to expect the price of paper money to go down. Gold, traditionally the thing that paper money is priced in, should go up. Speculators are buying it now in anticipation. Even central banks are buying again. And nearly everyone expects the price to continue going up.

As near as we can tell, gold is properly priced already. Comparisons are rough, but an ounce of it appears to buy about as much stuff as it did 2,000 years ago. You can buy a suit of clothes for an ounce of gold - no problem. Go to Wal-Mart; you can buy 4 suits.

As Roy W. Jastram wrote in his 1977 book, The Golden Constant, gold's "price has been remarkably similar for centuries at a time. Its purchasing power in the middle of the twentieth century was very nearly the same as in the midst of the seventeenth century."

Gold...or the people who speculate in it...may be looking ahead. Or, they are dreaming. If gold is already about where it should be why would you pay more? You must expect paper currencies to go down...to buy less stuff. In other words, you'd have to be anticipating a fall- off in the value of the paper currency.

It may come to pass exactly as they imagine it. Gold may rise and rise and rise...as paper currencies fall and fall and fall some more. In that case, we here at The Daily Reckoning headquarters as well as all of our dear readers who followed our advice 10 years ago will be delighted. Gold may hit $1,500 by the end of the year. By the end of next year it may be $3,000. By the year after, well...who knows...? "We told you so," we will say.

But there is almost always more under Heaven than speculators think. When we look into it, we see gaudy increases in the monetary base...but only very modest increases in M2, the money that buys stuff. What's more the rate of increase for M2 has fallen in half over the last 8 months. It's now only about 7% annually in the US. And when we look at the CPI we see no increase at all. And despite the 'recovery,' unemployment is still rising and house prices are still falling. So, if speculators see the price of stuff going up in paper currency terms, they must be looking way over our heads.

To more fully describe our own state of mind, we don't doubt that all the liquidity added to the world's monetary system will eventually be soaked up by paper currencies. But it could take a long time; we might be dead before it actually happens.

But since we are entertaining the possibility that we might be wrong; let us look at what is going on in more detail. If there were a real recovery - as announced in the world's newspapers and proclaimed by its stock markets - you'd expect a rising increase in demand...leading to higher prices...leading to a higher gold price.

Yesterday's news brought word of greater retail spending than anticipated. This was greeted as more evidence that a recovery is actually underway. But upon examination, we discover that the evidence comes almost all from auto sales. We also find that the number crunchers contributed to the lift by revising figures for September. These are month to month movement numbers. So you can raise October's number simply by lowering the number for September.

What's more, while sales went up...auto prices actually went down - in paper dollar terms. This doesn't sound inflationary to us.

Meanwhile, news reports said that fewer people are defaulting on credit card debt. The reports also tell us that delinquencies on credit card debt are up. So, we'd have to call that a draw.

And then there's the news from GM. The giant, government-owned auto company says it will repay its loans from the feds earlier than expected. But wait...we also find that the company continues to lose money. How then will it repay debt? Perhaps by refinancing!

Other reports are similarly confusing and inconclusive. Profits are up on Wall Street. But wait...sales are down. You can increase profits by cutting expenses (getting rid of employees, mainly). But you can't increase sales. And as long as sales are falling you have to expect lower profits in the future. (Stock market buyers...take note.)

Our colleagues over at The 5-Min. Forecast sent through this chart, illustrating the "recovery that wasn't."

"With the majority of publicly traded companies done reporting third quarter earnings," writes 5 editor, Ian Mathias, "the trend is clear: Profits were way better than expected, revenue was flat at best.

"Of what little we recall from freshman year, Finance 101 insists that profit equals revenue minus costs. Thus there really can't be any questions left as to how the market pulled off this quarter...companies are simply trimming the fat at an incredible clip. Not exactly a long- term plan for growth."

The New York Times reports that job losses continue to be "deep and enduring." Mortgage applications are running lower than they were 9 years ago. "More households report food shortages," says a Wall Street Journal headline. And insiders are still selling their own companies.

So, it still looks to us as if we are in a depression...one that will take many years to sort out. It is unlikely that the bull market in gold will reach its final blow-off top while the depression continues. But stranger things have happened. Eventually, gold will reach the apogee of its bull market. And when it does, we want to be ready for it. We will celebrate with champagne and sparklers.

Still, we wouldn't get out the party hats...not just yet.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Gold is in a Bull Market
• We are Confident the Bull Market in Gold is Not Over
• Investors to Drive Next Leg of Bull Market in Gold
• What Happens to Gold When High Inflation, Excess Cash, and Falling Dollar Jolts Economy?
• A Gold Standard, Without Gold

The Dow went up too - 203 points yesterday. It's over 10,000 again. Not very impressive for a bear market bounce. A 50% retracement would take the Dow to 10,300.

But you have to give the bounce credit. It's been going on since March. That is impressive.

And now everyone is bullish, except us. We'll see who's right... in the fullness of time...

Gold seems to be advancing towards a new milestone - $1,100. Makes us nervous. We always feel more comfortable out in the wide, open spaces...that is to say, in trades we have all to ourselves.

But gold is still a marginal holding by marginal investors - like us. Central banks - especially those in emerging countries - have very little gold. The man on the street doesn't know anything about gold. He wouldn't know a gold coin if it hit him on the head.

As gold becomes accepted as a true store of value, we can expect more and more people to want to own it.

Governments are running breathtaking deficits...and accumulating alarming debts. Japan has a national debt of nearly 200% of its GDP. Where did that debt come from? It came from 20 years of trying to buy its way out of a slump with borrowed money. Of course, it didn't work. But now, Britain and America are following the Japanese lead...and the Japanese are still at it! At the present rate, Japan's government debt will grow to 300% of GDP in 10 years. America's debt could grow to 100%...and then 200% of GDP...over the next decade (depending on whose projections you believe). And Britain, if we read the report in The Financial Times correctly, will have debt equal to 200% of GDP within 3 years.

Just what kind of crisis do these numbers portend? It's hard to say. Probably a combination of confidence, followed by debt default and inflation.

Would the US actually default? We agree with Paul Samuelson; the answer is 'maybe.' Samuelson, writing in The Washington Post:

"The idea that the government of a major advanced country would default on its debt - that is, tell lenders that it won't repay them all they're owed - was, until recently, a preposterous proposition. Argentina and Russia have stiffed their creditors, but surely the likes of the United States, Japan or Britain wouldn't. Well, it's still a very, very long shot, but it's no longer entirely unimaginable. Governments of rich countries are borrowing so much that it's conceivable that one day the twin assumptions underlying their burgeoning debt (that lenders will continue to lend and that governments will continue to pay) might collapse. What happens then?

"...People have predicted such a crisis for decades. It hasn't happened yet. The currency's decline has been orderly, because the dollar retains a bedrock confidence based on America's political stability, openness, wealth and low inflation. But something could shatter that confidence - tomorrow or 10 years from tomorrow.

"Despite huge deficits, interest rates on 10-year Treasury bonds have hovered around 3.5 percent. In time of financial crisis, investors have sought the apparent sanctuary of government bonds. But the correct conclusion to draw is not that major governments (such as Japan and the United States) can easily borrow as much as they want. It is that they can easily borrow as much as they want until confidence that they can do so evaporates - and we don't know when, how or whether that may happen."

Why wouldn't the US just "print its way out of debt?"

Because it's not that easy. In effect, the feds are trying to print their way out of debt now. They've added huge amounts to the monetary base. But that money is not getting into the real economy. Instead, it's going into vaults and speculations.

"Jittery Companies Stash Cash," says The Wall Street Journal.

And banks, too, borrow...but they don't lend. They can borrow at negligible rates of interest...and buy US Treasury bonds on a leveraged basis...producing a 20% yield. That means, the US dollar has replaced the yen as the go-to currency for speculators.

Net effect? Lots of cash in what appears to the Mother of all Carry Trades. The Financial Times:

"The US dollar has become the major funding currency of carry trades as the Fed has kept interest rates on hold and is expected to do so for a long time. Investors who are shorting the US dollar to buy on a highly leveraged basis higher-yielding assets and other global assets are not just borrowing at zero interest rates in dollar terms; they are borrowing at very negative interest rates - as low as negative 10 or 20 per cent annualized - as the fall in the US dollar leads to massive capital gains on short dollar positions."

But in the economy itself? As in Japan, very little economic progress comes from this kind of speculation.

Bankruptcies rose 7% last month. Unemployment gets worse.

The financial markets bubble up. The real economy shrivels up. And people with any sense are stocking up.

David Rosenberg, again, on gold:

We are still contemplating the massive gold purchase by the Reserve Bank of India - the largest in at least 30 years that took up half of what the IMF intends to sell. Look for China to come in next.

But here is the reality. All India did was bring gold to a 6% share of its total FX reserves from 4%. Fifteen years ago, that representation was closer to 20%. China has increased its gold holdings by 76% over the past six years but they are a mere 1.9% of the aggregate 2.2 trillion of reserves and Russia's gold holdings is just under 5%. This is not the 1990s when Bob Rubin was running a hard US dollar policy, US fiscal deficits were vanishing and gold production was on the rise. Today's world is exactly the opposite. Policymakers beginning in the 1990s wanted disinflation and got it. Now they want inflation - it will take years, maybe a decade, but it will come. For the near-term, we are still optimistic on Treasury securities but be forewarned that this view has an expiry date that is earlier than the peak we are likely to see in gold.

It is very clear that central banks are behaving in a way that would suggest that gold is now again being considered a currency within the global monetary system. As we said before, it is all about relative scarcity and a well-defined supply curve - fiat currency at this juncture does not share that quality. As a good friend reminded me yesterday, when the Fed was created nearly a century ago, it was acceptable to have at least 40% of the money supply backed by gold reserves. The US now has 8,133 tons of gold in reserve, which equates to $285 billion at this year's pricing.

Meanwhile, the Fed has spiked the punchbowl to such an extent that the monetary base now stands at $1.7 trillion. Do the math - under the old regime (which indeed hamstrung the Fed), the US alone would need to buy an incremental $400 billion of bullion or the equivalent of what would be nearly four times the typical level of annual demand. We could do the same calculation based on M2 but we don't want anyone falling off their chairs.

And finally today, we're still ruminating about what to tell you about our trip to the ranch. The funny thing was...it had little to do with cattle ranching...and a lot to do with the personalities that we brought with us. It's no easy job being a parent...especially when the kid is 38 years old...and not your kid.

More to come on that another time...

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Gold is Money
• An Irish Bond Bomb
• Denmark, Spain, the U.K. and Ireland Have Begun to Register Falling Housing Prices
• Where Do the Feds Get Any Money?
• Borrowing and Paying Back in a Foreign Currency

Last week, stocks went up. Stocks went down. Not much was proved one way or another. The week ended in a draw, as near as we can tell.

But we think we are making progress in understanding what is going on. The private sector is de-leveraging. Now, it's the public sector doing the heavy lifting. It is leveraging everything it can.

Leverage in the private sector led to the banking crisis/bear market of 2007-2009. Debt always leads to trouble. Next up: a crisis in the public sector.

But wait...hold on...not so fast...we haven't reached the end of the private sector crisis yet! Bank lending is still falling. House prices are still falling. Unemployment is still falling. Soon, stock prices will be falling again too...

First, let's see what's in the headlines. Last week there was a lot of press about the pay czar and his efforts to limit compensation in the companies that the feds bailed out. The public and the news media love this sort of thing. It's a battle between the greedy rich and the public interest, or so they believe. The public hates bankers. But they don't want to see just pay capping; they want to see knee-capping. We'd like to see it too. Or maybe public flogging. Or at least a lapidation or two.

But our true sympathies are with the greedy CEOs. After all, they stole the money fair and square. They should be allowed to keep it. The feds wanted to leverage up the financial sector by giving money to the banks. What'd they expect? The bankers took it.

Yes, the financiers are paid outrageous amounts of money - far beyond anything they are worth. In fact, if you studied it carefully, you'd probably discover that their net contribution to the betterment of mankind is now negative.

The bankers are betting that the money they were given by the feds will be worth less next year than it is this year. So they exchange it for everything and anything, confident that when it comes time to pay it back it will be even easier to come by than it is now.

So far the bet has gone their way. Copper has doubled. Gold is up 20%. Stocks markets all over the world are up 60%. Foreign currencies, too, have beaten the dollar.

Will the wager against the dollar continue to pay off? Well, that's the big question. If so, you should stay in stocks, gold and commodities. If not, you should move to cash.

But it hardly matters to the gamblers. They're playing with someone else's money! If the bets go well, they pay themselves huge bonuses. If they go badly...well...hey...gimme a bailout!

In the long run, bets against the dollar are almost sure to turn out okay. All paper currencies go to zero, eventually. But in the short run, who knows? The whole world is betting against the greenback. With such a massive short position against the buck, it would be just like Mr. Market - aka Mr. Mischief- maker -- to send the dollar up.

But you can't blame the bankers. They're performing a very valuable service. They are helping to separate fools from their money. Too bad we taxpayers are the fools....

Among all the whiners and kvetchers about bankers' huge bonuses hardly a single one draws the obvious conclusion:

That them that deserve to go bust should be allowed to do so.

"I remain of the view," writes Martin Wolf, a bit pompously, in The Financial Times, "that the only thing worse than rescuing the system would have been not rescuing it."

He's welcome to his opinions. And if he used his own money to bail out the bankers we would have no objection. In that case, it would just be a futile and foolish act. Instead, he insists upon using our money...which raises the charge from stupidity to larceny.

Another message that came through last week was that the real economy is not improving. Good news came in from several quarters. But the news that really counts - housing prices and jobs - was bad.

"It's all bad. That's all we know," said John Stepek, editor of MoneyWeek. "People ask if we're going to have inflation or deflation. The bulls think we're going to have inflation. The bears bet on deflation. But I'm not sure it matters. We're probably going to have both.

"The point is, whichever we have, it's going to be the bad sort. Neither inflation nor deflation is necessarily bad. Prices have to adjust. That's how the market conveys its signals. When prices rise, it tells producers to get busy and increase output. When prices fall, it tells them to lay off. In the natural order of things prices usually fall. Or, they should fall. This is 'good' deflation. It just means that producers are becoming more efficient, as they should. There's good inflation too - when prices rise due to increased real demand. When people earn more money, they can buy more things; prices rise.

"But what we're going to see is bad. Bad inflation. And bad deflation. It is the result of monetary problems and mismanagement. And it is going to send all the wrong signals and inevitably make things worse. First, the deflation is bad because it is result of a massive de- leveraging accompanied by a write-down of debt and assets. It's a depression. Or a major recession. Or a 'great contraction.' Call it what you will. It's a deflation in which prices fall...and it's not going to be any fun.

"Then, there's most likely going to be bad inflation too - caused by the central banks printing too much money. This is bad inflation because it is just an increase in the quantity of paper money, not an increase in real demand.

"We don't know exactly what is coming. But whatever it is, it will be bad."

Another big item in last week's financial press was the "Cash for Houses" scheme. The feds give new house buyers an $8,000 tax credit. But since not all new buyers buy because of the credit, the actual cost to the government per additional new house purchased is much higher than 8 grand. For each additional house purchased because the credit taxpayers are paying as much as a quarter of the entire cost of the house.

And now there is a proposal to extend and broaden the credit. Soon it may be "Cash for Everything."

This sounds crazy, but there are a lot of economists who think more stimulus is necessary. Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman, for example. And Richard Koo, mentioned here last week. They've seen what happened in Japan. And they see that the real economy is not recovering as they hoped it would. Now, they warn that America might have a "Lost Decade" if it doesn't continue to stimulate the economy.

How long must it continue bailing out and stimulating? Until consumers have finished de-leveraging, they say. How long will that take? Maybe another 5 years, by our calculation...maybe much longer.

But wait...the whole problem is too much debt, right?

Yep.

But the only way the government can stimulate is by going further into debt, right?

Yep.

And isn't the budget deficit already at $1.6 trillion...or 11% of GDP...the most it has been since WWII?

Yep.

Well, then where's the benefit? Won't the public sector have to de- leverage too?

Bingo!

How does the public sector deleverage?

Two possible ways - honestly...and dishonestly. It can pay down its debts to a level at which they can be carried even if interest rates go up sharply. They did it after the War Between the States...after WWII...and even during the Clinton years. Believe it or not, when the Congressional Budget Office looked ahead in 2001, it saw a budget SURPLUS for 2008 of more than $600 billion. Surpluses had been coming in for years during the Clinton administration. They thought it would keep going like that. Instead, 2008 saw a DEFICIT of nearly $500 billion.

The higher the debt and deficits go the harder it is to pay them down honestly. Eventually, the feds reach the point of no return...like a guy who's so deep in debt he can't possibly work his way out. Then, you get another crisis...either in the form of default...or (hyper) inflation...or both.

Tomorrow, we're off on the road to the Andean highlands...

No phone. No internet. No fax. No Blackberry. No iPhone.

We've got cows to round-up, wrestle, and vaccinate.

In the meantime, we'll leave our "Crash Alert" flag flying...and send a message as soon as we can...

Until then,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Bankers Take Money From the Government and Use it to Speculate
• The More Money in a Financial System the Less Each Unit is Worth
• Warren Buffett: People Do Not Make Money by Betting Against the US Economy
• The Feds Are Trying to Avoid Deflation
• The Battle Between the Forces of Inflation and Deflation Wages On

Keep in mind most of the earnings news is garbage. Earnings are whatever an accountant wants them to be. Compared to last year - which was a shocker - this year's earnings are bound to be better. And when analyst's expectations are subjective, are you surprised to learn that the people who sell you stocks think that earnings are "surprisingly" good?

That said, the official unemployment figures in Australia appear to be going down. Consumer confidence numbers are back near all-time highs. At least here in Australia, the stock market and the economy are reading from the same prayer book. Both are singing the praises of the recovery (second coming of the Goldilocks Economy).

Amen.

In the States, it's a little harder to figure out why stocks are singing such a different tune than the American economy. But it's not impossible. Take oil.

While the higher price is good for oil companies and investors, you know it's going to take money out of the pockets of consumers. Lower oil prices were a windfall for drivers all over the world in the last year, putting more discretionary income into the family budget. A higher oil price, as always, is a tax on consumer spending.

But we come here neither to praise nor bury the recovery. In fact, we come here to point out that the recovery is an imposter. It's a financially-fuelled bear-market rally dressed in respectable clothing. The underlying problems in the economy are still there, dishevelled, dirty, and unwelcome in polite company . And the main problem is simple: too much debt (public, household, and corporate).

Or as Michael Hudson said in a previous interview, "The economy has reached its debt limit and is entering its insolvency phase. We are not in a cycle but the end of an era. The old world of debt pyramiding to a fraudulent degree cannot be restored."

It cannot be restored, but the rate of its collapse can be arrested so that the members of the financial oligarchy can sell their stocks to a gullible public. And that's what you're seeing now. It makes for an incredibly tradable market. But it does make it harder to value corporate assets when balance sheets remain so badly skewed by a) bad assets b) unrealistic expectations of future consumer demand based on credit.

Advantage speculators. Disadvantage investors. And speaking of speculators...

Here's a prediction about the U.S. dollar. It will find a floor. But that floor could be much lower. The greenback's collapse is driving more countries to hold Euros, yen and gold in their foreign currency and monetary reserves. This could have a funny effect, though. It will put the spotlight on the fiscal conditions of Europe and Japan. And what do you think could happen then?

The Euro and the Yen may be better off, relatively speaking, than the dollar at the moment. But only relatively. In absolute terms, they are "deeply flawed" currencies as well, to use a Jim Rogers phrase. In the long run, most paper currencies fail. In the short run, there's going to be a lot of volatility until a new monetary regime replaces the old one.

All of this bodes well for precious metals investors...in the long run. But don't be surprised if governments get hostile to gold, at least for every day investors. Central banks will own it. But it might get harder for everyone else.

We began the week wondering about the cycles of history and markets. We wondered whether Australia is following the Anglo-American cycle into a long-winter...where people lose confidence in each other, in government, and in the institutions they relied on in the past for law and order, employment, and prosperity.

We're not much closer to answering that question, and there's only one day in the week left! Perhaps it will take more time. In the meantime, if you are interested in the idea of cycles and history, there's a great article by Nick Paumgarten in the October 12th edition of The New Yorker. There are a few quotes from it below.

"Cycle theory is a kind of Gnostic offshoot of technical analysis. The nothing that things generally happen in cycles goes back thousands of years - Joseph's seven-year-fat-lean cycle - but in the West the formal inquiry into economic cyclicality too hold in the mid-nineteenth century. The British economist William Stanley Jevons correlated economic cycles to the sun, proposing the fluctuations in sunspot activity might affect crop outputs.

"Around the same time, a Frenchman named Clement Juglar identified an economic cycle of seven to eleven years. In the nineteen-twenties, Nikolai Kondratiev, a Soviet economist, concluded that capitalism was inclined to half-century cycles of boom and bust and boom again, rather than, as Marx believed, a single inexorable collapse..."

"It was the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, he of 'creative destruction,' who called these cycles Kondratiev waves and popularised them in the West. In the Kondratiev waves and other commonly cited cycles - the Kitchin (three to five years), the Kuznets (fifteen to twenty-five years)-the time span is flexible.

"They are suggestions, not rules. Hardcore cyclists, on the other hand, often seek and find instances of periodicity as rigid and fixed as the laws of physics, which is why hardcore cyclists are often dismissed as mystics and freaks.

"It is easy to scoff at cycle theory. Its whiff of predestination chafes the scientific mind. Our culture's fundamental belief in causation and consequence, to say nothing of free will, does not easily accept the suggestion of helplessness, or of some kind of as yet unidentified exogenous force. God may decide the outcome of football games and debilitating illnesses, but he does not intervene in matters of investing and finance.

"And yet patterns exist, and we slowly discover them. Seasons, migrations, moons: the template is there. Consciously or unconsciously, most people accept certain components of cycle theory. We seek and see patterns in things. It is the way our minds work, presumably, for the purpose of survival."

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Business Cycle Theory Explained by Joseph Schumpeter
• There Are Two Ways of Studying Economic Theory
• Krugman Warns That the Run-up in Stocks Can’t Be Justified By the Fundamentals
• Economic Crisis Discussions in the House of Lords
• Modern Economic Theory

October is almost half over. Will we get through the month without a major sell-off?

Dear reader, if you think we know the answer to that you've got us mixed up with someone else. Someone who is crazy.

No one with his wits about him thinks he knows what the stock market is going to do.

Still, here at The Daily Reckoning, we have our hunches. We think it's time for a major pull back. Frankly, we'll be disappointed if we don't get one soon. Because, once again stocks are too expensive.

Too expensive for what? Too expensive for the circumstances.

The Dow rose another 20 points yesterday to a new bounce record. Oil rose to over $73. Gold didn't budge.

Of course, everyone now knows that the recession is over. NABE interviewed 44 economic forecasters. Four-fifths of them said the recession was over.

But we don't care what they said. These are the same seers who missed the biggest single event in financial history. There are many banking crises, recessions, panics and defaults in the record books. But none were as great as the one that hit September a year ago. Most economists didn't see it coming; why should we trust them to tell us when it is going?

Besides they've got the whole thing wrong. It isn't a recession; it's a depression. There is no recovery from a depression; instead, the economy has to re-invent itself in another form. Things aren't going 'back to normal,' in other words. Because the period leading up to the crisis was not 'normal;' it was a bubble. After a bubble explodes, you have a lot of debris to clean up. The bigger the bubble, the more damage it does when it blows up.

"The force of a correction is equal and opposite to the deception that preceded it."

You've heard our dictum before. In fact, you've heard our explanations for all these points before.

We just lived through the biggest bubble in history. Get ready for the biggest bust. Not just two years of falling stock prices and news- making bailouts. Not just 10% unemployment. Not just 100 bank failures and 30% off housing prices.

Noooo... We're talking about a worthy correction...a real correction...a noble and distinguished correction...a correction that can hold its head up in public.

This is a correction that will take many years...one that will knock housing prices down for at least five years...and stock prices down to the point where people no longer want to buy them. It's a correction that goes deep enough and continues long enough to do its work - wiping out the bad investments and mistakes of the Bubble Era, while allowing the survivors to pay down their debts and build up their savings.

Now, here's a confusing little item. Yesterday's news tells us that consumer spending as a percentage of the entire economy has edged up to 71%. Now wait just one cotton-pickin' minute. How could consumer spending be going up?

Hold on, cupcake. It's not going up. It's going down. It's just that the other components of the economy are going down even more.

In the second quarter consumers spent $195 billion less than they did the year before - a 1.9% drop. In the 20 years before that, consumer spending increased at an average rate of 3.3%. So, you do the math... that's an about-face of more than 5% of GDP - a loss to the economy of about $700 billion!

Consumer credit is going down (we reported the figures earlier in the week)...unemployment is going up...consumer spending is going down...

..those are not the circumstances in which stocks sell for 27 times earnings...and move higher. Those are the circumstances in which stocks crash.

David Rosenberg:

"By some measures, the S&P 500 is already trading at valuation levels that would ordinarily be consistent with an economic expansion that is five-years old as opposed to a recovery that, at best, is in its infancy stages.

"On an operating ('scrubbed') basis, the trailing P/E multiple on the S&P 500 has expanded a massive 10 points from the March lows, to stand at 27.6x. Historically, when the economy is taking the turn away from contraction towards expansion, which indeed was the case in Q3, the trailing P/E multiple is 15x or half what it is... While we will not belabor the point, when all the write-downs are included, the trailing P/E on 'reported' earnings just widened to its highest levels in recorded history of nearly 140x, which is three times the levels prevailing during the height of the tech bubble."

So, here goes...yes...today, we are officially running our "Crash Alert" flag up the pole here at the London headquarters of The Daily Reckoning. Cross Blackfriars Bridge and you might see if flapping in the wind, between the two huge gold balls on the roof.

Our Crash Alert flag is out because stocks have become too expensive...and because this bounce should be reaching its apogee by now. Already, central banks are talking about cutting back on their efforts to sustain the bounce with easy credit. Australia led the way last week with a rate hike.

It is also becoming clearer and clearer that the feds' efforts aren't really working. They can give money to their friends in the banking industry. They can give money to speculators who then make bets on the stock market, among other things. They can bailout major companies. But they can't really get much money into the real economy.

Au contraire; they take money OUT of the real economy. The feds will absorb $700 billion of private savings this year alone...to finance their deficit. They expect $1 trillion deficits at least for another 10 years. That won't leave much money for the private sector.

Naturally, Washington, DC, is doing well. While unemployment is near 10% in the rest of the nation, it's only about 6% in the Washington area.

But let's face it... What's good for Washington is bad for the rest of the nation. The feds have used this correction to increase their power...and add to their wealth. The average federal employee now earns twice as much as his counterpart in the private sector - if the fellow in the private sector has a job at all.

A news item tells us that TARP recipients spent $114 million lobbying for their bailout money - most of it going into Washington, of course.

And the feds now own major stakes in what used to be the private sector - insurance, automobiles, and banking industries.

This has been a great period for government. Money, power...it is all floating down the Potomac like raw sewage...and coming to rest in the capitol city.

Our advice to the feds: enjoy it while you can. When stocks fall again...and people figure out what a mess you've made of the economy...you'll be lucky if you aren't tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Economists Agreed the Stimulus Was Working and the Recession Was Coming to an End
• Household Debt Represents Spending Taken From the Future
• Feds’ Plan is to Reflate the Economy
• Debt Built Up to Levels Even Obama Says Are “Unsustainable”
• A Battle Between a Natural Market correction and an Artificial Attempt to Avoid it

Another pile of hay had another message: "Farmers On Strike."

The story behind these signs has a depression-era, black and white, look to it. Newsreels from the Great Depression show US farmers dumping milk rather than sell it at deflated prices. Now, French farmers do the same. Prices have fallen so low that many refuse to sell it at all.

But they can't stop milking the cows. So what do they do with the milk? They give it away. Or, in a few instances, they throw it at the government's farm agency offices.

Meanwhile, a story in The New York Times explains one of the reasons why milk has become so cheap. New technology makes it easier and cheaper to produce good milk cows.

Technology and globalization are inherently deflationary. The former increases productivity, thus lowering the cost of output. The latter lowers prices by directing business to the world's lowest-cost producers.

Deflation is the natural order of things. Inflation is always an artifice caused by government. Central banks 'target' a certain level of inflation because they think - or say they think - that a bit of inflation helps create full employment. And it does, sometimes. But it does it by treachery. Inflation hoodwinks the working class. It reduces their real wages, making them cheaper to employ. Then, the proles wise up. They realize that prices are rising. They demand more wage increases. That is when inflation begins to get out of control and presidents get out the 'Whip Inflation Now' buttons.

Every time government offers to solve a problem, it inevitably makes the problem worse - except, occasionally, in rare episodes when a government-organized national defense pays off.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Australian Dairy Prices Up Due to Grain Prices
• Cattle Prices Have Risen Only 1% This Year
• Feds’ Plan is to Reflate the Economy
• China Fueling Inflation in Australia & New Zealand
• An Abundance of Paper Money is Causing Food Prices to Soar

The importance is dependent on your perspective. Those people who are not borrowing money to spend are thus suffering the pangs of a lowering of their lifestyle, which depended on borrowing money to spend; and then they come around, whining about stupid things like, "Daddy, things have gone up so much in price that I need more money, which you would give me if you loved me. Don't you love me? I love you! Won't you please love me, daddy?"

And so I ask, "Can't you love me if I don't give you any money?" and they say, "No. You could borrow the money, and then we would love you", and I reply, "I have been borrowing money and now I can't pay them back" and so the kids say, "Then borrow some more!"

And, in a terrifying revelation, I realized that it is not only my children, but all the rest of the economy that is totally dependent on everybody else borrowing money to spend, too.

So now you see how Chaos Theory was right, and that all things are connected to all things? If not, then pay attention to how they will now commence to all drag each other down into the Nightmarish Hell Of Inflationary Insolvency (NHOII).

And it doesn't take a real genius to see why, but the point is not that the American people were stupid enough to think they could get a perpetual free lunch by borrowing money to pay for it, or even that a smaller subset of those who are suffering the pangs of a lowering of their lifestyle is composed of those who also think that they can call me on the phone and either 1.) Ask to borrow some money from me, or 2.) Ask me to pay them back the money I borrowed from them.

My response is the same, in that I give neither one of them any money because I don't have any money; so to one I laugh in scorn, and to the other I say that I have just put a check in the mail to them, and that they will get their money soon, and if it hasn't arrived in a few months, call me back and I'll write you a new check and get it right into the mail.

The point is that a much larger subset of those who are suffering the pangs of a lowering of their lifestyle is composed of those people who think that they can elect government representatives who legislate all problems out of existence, that will tax me and then give the money to them, or the Federal Reserve will create more money to loan to investors with which to buy government debt so that the government can spend, spend, spend us into blessed Utopia. Either way, it's Bad, Bad News (BBN).

And, alas, one way or the other, they are right. Unfortunately. And that is one reason that I weep, alone, in the Mogambo Bunker Of Bunkers (MBOB), doors locked, radio blaring, machine guns cocked and loaded, mostly drunk or nearly so, soon to be blissfully comatose.

Another reason that I cry so piteously and drink so abusively is that all this new government borrowing will create so much new money that it will destroy the dollar's buying power, taking my own country down with it.

The only reason that I stop bawling like a little crybaby is the knowledge that the people who own gold, silver and oil will get rich, rich, rich, and since I own gold, then people will want me to loan them a few bucks out of my huge stacks of money because they are starving, and their children are starving, and I will say, "No!" and it will be thin gruel indeed for them to hear my mocking voice again echoing in their heads, "Buy gold, silver and oil, you morons, because your stupid government is letting a private bank (that misleadingly calls itself the Federal Reserve when it is, in fact, neither) to create so damned much fiat money that it will produce catastrophic inflation in consumer prices that will destroy the country, just like it has done to every other stupid country in the last 4,000 years that let its stupid government increase a fiat money supply at its whim! Hahahaha! Now you see why I always said you were freaking doomed! Hahaha!"

But I feel terrible, as this constant infliction of inflationary pain by heedless expansion of the money supply is so unnecessary, and that is why I was pleasantly surprised to read in The Wall Street Journal the headline "Central Banks Consider Gold" in its Commodities Reports column.

The reason is easy to see if you read the article backwards, in that there was a question about central bank buying "last week, when gold saw a record single-day gain", especially Chinese central bank buying of gold, which is already the ninth-largest holder of gold in the world but which holds only 1% of its foreign-exchange reserves in gold, although it actually said it would like to hold more. And Mark O'Byrne at Gold & Silver Investments says that he would "be surprised if the Chinese hadn't been nibbling at the gold market," which leads to the news that Asian banks "are seen as keen buyers" of gold, which leads to the news that "other central banks are now far more likely to be holders of gold", which leads us back to the second paragraph that "Turbulence in the financial markets and recent US dollar weakness are helping the precious metal claw back its reputation as the central monetary anchor within the international monetary framework", which leads to the opening paragraph of "Central banks may be starting to turn one of the few assets in which they can invest; gold."

In short, those crafty Chinese, a fifth of the world's population, may be getting ready to issue a gold-standard money, which will instantly make their currency the strongest in the world, which is just what a country needs if it wants to import a lot of things cheaply so as to respond to demand for internal economic growth without stoking inflation in prices!

And, fortunately for those of us who both love to have large profits handed to us and who also own gold, a Chinese gold-standard may soon make a dream come true as gold would skyrocket when priced in suddenly depreciated dollars.

Whee! This investing stuff is easy!

Until next time,

The Mogambo Guru
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Borrowing Money is no Longer in Fashion
• Does This Mean You Should Sell Your Gold?
• Why Do Men and Women Want Money and Power?
• Millions of Zimbabweans Face Starvation due to Nationalisation caused by Hyperinflation
• The Return of the Cattle Market

First, we hope you bought gold many years ago. That would make it simpler. Then, we could say: hold! Gold is an antidote to paper. There is so much paper...and so much more apparently on the way...that the gold play seems like a winner. It's a bet that the money system that has been around since August '71 is going to fall apart.

We still think that is a good bet. Our Trade of the Decade remains. Buy gold on dips; sell stocks on rallies. We've done well with this trade; we'll stick with it a bit longer.

But what if you don't own gold? The yellow stuff is now over $1,000. In fact, it looks like $1,000 could be a new support level for the metal - with most of the support coming from the Chinese. China has relatively little gold in its central bank. It must see what we see - the weakness of the dollar and of the dollar-reserve monetary system. It must worry about the value of the $2 trillion or so it has in dollars. It must also wonder how it is going to run its economy if the dollar falls apart. American buyers were its consumers of first and last resort. To whom will China sell if its most important customers' money becomes worthless?

Recent comments by a group of Chinese officials make it clear that they are thinking of these things...and that they have decided to add more gold to their reserves. In fact, all the central banks have become net buyers. No more selling off gold reserves. That is seen as a mug's game - which it is. Replacing gold with paper? C'mon, what were they thinking?

So China is a buyer. Trouble is, it has to be a discreet buyer. It has too much money. It could cause the price to skyrocket overnight. Then, it would be paying too much. So, perhaps it does what we do - China buys on dips! For example, the order may have gone out: buy gold whenever the price goes below $1,000.

We don't know what their buying strategy is...but the Chinese are probably going to be big buyers over the next few years.

Should you buy along with the Chinese? Should you compete with the Chinese for each ounce of gold that comes on the market?

Good question. Unfortunately, we don't have a good answer. So let's try a different question: Is gold going up or down?

The answer to that is simpler: gold is going up...then down...then up again. It is going up because the feds - including the feds in China - are encouraging speculation. Then, it is going down when the next phase of the bear market reasserts itself and the speculators run for cover. Then, it is going back up...much farther and faster...when the Fed becomes desperate and finally throw caution - and dollars - to the wind. We're confident this last stage will arrive. Our hesitation is that it will take much longer than we expect. Gold may rise in a deflation...but it soars in a period of inflation. That period could be a long way off.

The feds can't revive the consumer economy. Despite all you read...the consumer economy is probably going to limp along for many years. No boom in consumer spending = no inflation.

"US retail sales surge as economy strengthens," announces a Reuters' headline. Don't believe it. Between the seasonal adjustments and the feds' giveaways the retail sales numbers are meaningless. The real story is that there is little - or no - real organic improvement in the economy. The largest banks that get federal bailout money, for example, have actually reduced their lending for 6 months in a row.

But the feds can stimulate speculation. The dollar has become the 'carry trade' currency. The big players borrow in dollars...and use the money to speculate - against the dollar! They buy gold. They buy Brazilian bonds. They buy aluminum futures. They buy stocks.

The Dow rose 108 points yesterday. Oil rose over $72. Almost all commodities are up - except natural gas.

The post-crash party seems to be going well. It may continue. But the underlying problems of the real economy have not been corrected. They will rise up like zombies in a bad horror movie and bring the party to a close. Absent support from the Chinese, the price of gold will probably go down along with everything else. Which brings us back to the question we dodged.

"Dad, I made $2,000 just in the last couple of days...on that gold play I got in. But I'm nervous...should I sell it?"

Jules has graduated from college. He's investing his meager savings, trying to put together a big enough stake so he can take a year off from work and concentrate on his career as a composer and performer.

"Jules...I don't know," began the answer. "But you're a young guy. You can afford to speculate. If it goes your way, you make money. If it goes against you, you learn something...and you have plenty of time to recover.

"It looks to us as though this party is going to continue for a while. If I were you...I'd stick with it a while longer."

Our advice to a man of 21 is not the same as our advice to a man of 60. The older man would get older advice:

"Gamble not thy whole wealth on the gold market," we would say.

The older man needs gold. But he needs it as insurance...as a reserve against catastrophe...as a form of savings. The Fed has been negligent and derelict. It is not protecting America's money and Americans' wealth. The average fellow has to do it himself. He has to have reserves of his own...reserves of real money - gold.

He should buy. He should hold. He should buy the dips. But he should not speculate on higher prices...nor risk his wealth gambling in the gold market. Most likely, after this speculative boomlet, the price of gold will go down. How much? How far? For how long? Of course, we don't know the answer to those questions.

We're not buying now. But we already have our position in gold. We will add more - on the next big dip.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• China is a Key Driving Force in the Gold Market
• Bankers Take Money From the Government and Use it to Speculate
• Gold Doesn’t Always Need Inflation to Rise
• Chinese Yuan Marches Towards World Domination
• India Beats China to Walk Away With 200 Tonnes of IMF Gold

And when we ran out of money, no problem! There was more where that came from. In one sense we couldn't spend money fast enough. As soon as it was gone, there was more suddenly available. So we just finance the house again, take out some equity (which always rises) and do one of two things - Pay off credit cards (so we can load more debt on them) or just spend the cash on things a home improvement (that is no longer reflected in the price of the home) or a vacation.

Remember how MasterCard taught us that those memories were priceless? Hope you got some good ones... because you "done bought something you can't eat," as one of my teachers used to say.

At a time when we are drowning in debt, we are also out of money.

When a debtor is out of money, he has no ability to repay. And when a creditor has borrowers who are out of money, the creditor has no income. No earnings. No power to make better loans.

So how are banks in America posting "profits"? How did Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG and Wells Fargo jump 400% in stock price? Are they worth 400% more? Are their earnings up 400%? And where in the world did all this money come from?

These companies were just bankrupt... yet found a way to get back above water. And not just above water - they are making moon-shots!

Their share price should be zero (or less, if possible!). How are they worth so much more now?

As I have written before, mark-to-market accounting rules were repealed in favor of a fictitious slight of hand. Banks no longer have to list their distressed assets at the fire sale price they should be worth. Instead they get to record their value as the price they bought them, or what they believe they will be worth in the future.

In other words, it's like me refinancing my house, but doing my own appraisal and assigning it whatever value suits me. I want cash out? Just pad the value of the house. I can't afford a higher payment? No worries, I just pad my reported income. Two years down the road I can't afford my payments anymore? Easy, just follow the same refinancing procedure all over again.

But my family and I would only have one toxic asset to deal with. The banks have them coming out the wazoo!

They are still in possession of the faulty loans and derivatives that caused this entire mess in the first place. Nothing has changed - except the accounting!

The banks always counted on that. This time, however, they are the ones left holding the bag. What are they going to do with all this JUNK? How can they unload it without attracting suspicion? How can they clean up their books without the short sellers making a profit off their downfall? They can't. It's a Catch-22.

But the real problem is that the US banking system would come crashing down in a minute if this were known and understood by the general public. The banks know it. The Fed knows it. I suspect that there are some congress people who know it.

But here's where the rubber meets the road. Government engineered a bailout. They wanted the banks to lend to Joe Consumer. But the banks didn't. And frankly, Joe Consumer didn't want it. He was too busy trying to figure out how he was going to repay all the money he had already borrowed against his house. Especially with the boss breathing down his neck, threatening job terminations if he wasn't more productive than some cheap labor in India.

So the banks were sitting on a good deal of the money from the Fed in order to protect them from future losses. Some of them have even paid it back. But the truth is, from an accounting standpoint, they don't need it anymore. From an accounting standpoint, their mortgages and derivatives are all valued at a big fat surplus. Why keep federal money? Why incur interest charges when "all is well"?

If they can show a profit from an accounting standpoint... and if they can repay their bailout money (plus interest)... and if they can still service the customer at the drive-in window or the teller counter, what's the big deal? What am I crying about?

It's all because those toxicities still exist. And they all have to be accounted for, whether the government says so or not.

We should have learned, or have been reminded of, one of the greatest lessons in the world from convicted felon Bernie Madoff: "Be sure your sin will find you out."

Even the greatest engineered schemes on the planet come undone at some point. No Ponzi scheme can continue forever. But if you are very bright (as Madoff was), you can keep the game going for a long, long time.

But what if you're not brilliant? After all, I doubt the government is as smart as Billionaire Bernie. Luckily, if that's the right word, the government has another way to keep the game going, using one thing it has that Madoff didn't.

Cash.

Gobs and gobs of it.

The government's massive wad of cash is what keeps the game going. And foreign investors lending us money. And millions of pensioners happy as long as they receive their check on the first of the month. And the multitudes of purchased votes that are blissfully sitting on the dole.

But it's not just the United States. Every country in the world is in the same pickle - because every developed nation believed they could successfully manipulate the game. The problem now is that the governments are running out of money. The United States has been broke for a long time, of course, but it could still trade on the value of its good name... and it did. Other nations are not so lucky.

The United States still possesses the reserve currency status; other nations aren't so lucky. We still boast the largest GDP; other nations are not so lucky. I'm pretty sure we still have higher tax receipts, and more room to raise taxes than other nations. But somehow, I can't bring myself to call that lucky...

But as it is an "option," I have to think that whatever smarts our government does have, someone will eventually realize it. Good Lord, deliver us.

I do not honestly think that anyone can seriously contest us in the role of reserve currency, no matter how many times China rattles the saber.

Twenty years ago, China couldn't even feed its own people or keep them employed. Now it is boasting a 7% annual growth rate. Despite the massaging that may be done to the numbers before they are released, we can already see that a country growing solely on stimulus cannot grow very long. The weaknesses in China's underbelly are already becoming apparent. She is an export economy. And people are not buying.

She cannot save the world, whatever her strength might be.

There is another round of destruction coming. The banks will have to come clean. If you thought the residential crunch was stunning, wait till you see what's coming on the commercial front. It will be a tsunami of epic proportions. Banks are not lending now, and the chances of business expansion are lower than at any time in recent history. No one will be buying excess of anything except maybe food and precious metals, so businesses will not continue to post profits. Without profits you can't service the loans you have, and rolling them over will be out of the question. The day is coming... don't let it catch you by surprise.

But until that day arrives, we must deal with what we have.

Regards,

Bill Jenkins
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Gold Coins for $870-$890 An Ounce
• Madoff Astonished SEC Didn’t Verify His Claims
• Social Security a Bigger Scam Than What Bernard Madoff Schemed
• The Baddest Bank in the West
• Who Was the SEC Harassing Instead of Madoff?

Apparently the current set-up of having the US dollar as a reserve currency isn't working very well.

They're quick learners at the UN obviously!

Their report makes some of the right noises, "The dollar-based reserve system is increasingly challenged." Hmm, a slight understatement there. If "increasingly challenged" is a euphemism for "dead" then we'd agree.

But we don't think that's what they mean.

So, what do they plan replacing it with?

Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs. If you've got no idea what that means, it's simple.

An SDR is something made up by the boffins at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to act as an "international reserve asset."

The rationale for the creation of the SDR was that "the international supply of two key reserve assets - gold and the US dollar - proved inadequate for supporting the expansion of world trade and financial development that was taking place."

Look, your editor won't pretend to be a grade 'A' student of monetary theory, but to us the creation of the SDR is part of the reason the global economy is in the current mess.

That gold was deemed to be inadequate for "supporting the expansion of world trade and financial development" tells you that's when the Western world begun its massive spending spree.

Back in 1969 with the creation of the SDR.

A spending spree that couldn't be achieved just through stealing money from citizens through the tax system, but one which could only be kept going by the creation of more money.

It was, you could argue, the beginning of the 'consume, don't produce' Western economies.

The problem that SDRs 'solved' was the ability to crank up the printing press. Of course that didn't happen straight away. There's always a transition with these things.

First, as it happens, like the US dollar, the SDR was backed by gold. But if you're creating a new reserve that you want to be more flexible than gold (ie. You want to print more money and spend it), then backing it with gold isn't going to work.

Because backing a currency with gold helps to maintain the value of the paper currency. If you know that your $1 note is redeemable for a set quantity of gold then it will maintain value.

It means the banks can't - or shouldn't - create more paper money than the reserves they have in gold to back it up.

Simply put, it creates and requires discipline. Something that bankers and governments in the 1960s weren't happy with. The 'inflexibility' of gold makes it harder to for governments to spend and makes it harder for banks to lend.

Therefore the creation of the SDR was a stepping stone to abandoning the reserve status of gold. And sure enough, four years after the SDR was invented, US President Richard Nixon closed the gold window at the Federal Reserve and there was no longer any obligation for US dollars to be exchanged for a fixed weight of gold.

Instead the US dollar was backed by nothing, and so the SDR was backed by the US dollar and other currencies which were also backed by nothing.

Yet it is this 'worthless' SDR which is being touted as the new reserve currency.

But why should the SDR make any difference? It won't. An SDR is just a weighted basket of other currencies. Unless it is backed by something tangible, such as gold, then it will prove to be equally as worthless as the US dollar it is replacing.

Perhaps, bankers and governments will see the error of their ways and make a call for these new SDRs to be back by gold...

Not a chance.

There are several reasons for that. One, as I mentioned above, is that gold forces a government and its central bank to be disciplined. It cannot circulate more money without having a corresponding increase in its gold reserves.

If it were to do so then the paper money - or certificates - would not be fully backed by gold. This would cause the value of the paper to decrease - the greater supply of one thing relative to another devalues it.

If people got wind that the central bank was printing more money without increasing its reserve of gold, there would be an increased demand for physical gold. There would be a run on the banks.

The other problem gold has is an image problem. Take this comment from a recent article by Alan Kohler over at Business Spectator:

"But while there's no doubt the gold will continue to be underpinned by the demise of the dollar, it is not a currency. I can't go into JB Hi-Fi with a lump of it and buy a TV."

"Central banks around the world own about 26,000 tonnes of it, which represents 8.5 per cent of total reserves, but it's not legal tender. It's just a commodity they got stuck with because it used to be a currency a long time ago and will never be again."

It's fairly common of the attitude the mainstream press has to gold. They don't understand that it is a store of value.

Kohler claims you can't go into JB Hi-Fi and buy a TV with a lump of gold. He's quite correct on that score. But it wasn't so long ago that is effectively what consumers did. Maybe not for TVs but for other items.

Under a gold standard where your dollar was backed by gold, consumers were exchanging a gold backed dollar for goods. It was an exchange of gold for goods, only that a paper note was used as a proxy.

What's so crazy about that? Nothing.

But if you look at Kohler's other comment about 26,000 tonnes of gold being only 8.5% of total reserves it gives the game away for the real reason bankers and governments don't want a gold backed currency.

Inflation.

It's no coincidence that since the early 1970s global paper currencies have lost about 90% of their value. Virtually every currency you name is worth significantly less today than it was thirty-odd years ago.

That's not because prices have risen, it's because currencies have become devalued.

As Kohler, perhaps unwittingly admits, central banks and governments have embarked on a massive money printing exercise.

If paper money still had the backing of gold then global economies would not have one-tenth of the current problems we are currently facing.

The fact that the UN and other government organizations are proposing to replace one currency backed by nothing with another currency backed by nothing signals they are either ignorant or are intentionally pursuing policies guaranteed to deliver economic destruction.

And more importantly to you, to guarantee the continued devaluation of your money and wealth.

Kris Sayce
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• US Dollar Declining as China’s Currency Rises
• Special Drawing Rights Used as the World’s Reserve Currency?
• An International Currency Not Just on Paper
• A Gold Standard, Without Gold
• The U.S. Dollar vs Inflation, Americans Vote for the Dollar