Publisher’s Note: It’s ‘Gold Week’ Monday here at Port Phillip Publishing. And there’s a rush on copies for The New Case for Gold that’s almost as frantic as the growing rush on gold itself.
Hundreds of people have reserved copies in the last 48 hours.
Only 7,000 are being printed (and mailed for free).
If you want one, you better get your skates on. At this rate they could be gone by the end of the week. For more info, and to see if you meet the terms of the giveaway, click here.
Why did Jim Rickards write this book?
In part because he became sick to death of hearing stupid arguments AGAINST owning gold over the next three years. As Jim told me:
‘I wrote the book so, when you hear these arguments, you don’t have to be cowed or intimidated.
‘You’re at a cocktail party and you say something, you know, I’m interested in buying gold, or you just bought some gold. And immediately someone has something to say to you that’s designed to embarrass you or humiliate you, or whatever.
‘And it doesn’t hold water.
‘Let me give you a simple example. People say there’s not enough gold to support the international monetary system. A gold standard sounds good, but the global financial system is so large, there’s not enough gold to support the money supply.
‘As I show in the book, that’s nonsense.
‘There’s always enough gold. It’s just a question of price. At $1,250 an ounce, no, the amount of gold we have would be highly deflationary. You’d have to shrink the money supply to maintain the parity and that would be deflationary.
‘That would repeat Churchill’s blunder of 1925, which threw the UK into a depression, three years ahead of the rest of the world.
‘But at $10,000 an ounce? At that price the same amount of gold will support a much larger financial system. So you always have enough gold to support finance, it’s just a question of price.
‘So the math is: What is the implied non-deflationary price of gold if you’re on a gold standard or something like it? And the answer is $10,000 an ounce at the low end, $50,000 an ounce at the higher end.’
Those seem like massive numbers.
But Jim didn’t make them up. The calculations are all here, in his new book.
I’m convinced you’ll find it a revelation. It’s an eye-opening exposé, even if you’re a gold sceptic.
Because, as Jim shows, when you take these robotic, kneejerk reaction responses you hear from the gold bashers, and actually analyse them, you find that they don’t hold water. There are very few good arguments against gold.
But, in the essay below, Jim Rickards plays gold basher advocate and tries to think of some ways to make a case against gold. Enjoy…
In this urgent investor report, Daily Reckoning editor Greg Canavan shows you why Australia is poised to fall into its first ‘official’ recession in 25 years…
Simply enter your email address in the box below and click ‘Claim My Free Report’. Plus… you’ll receive a free subscription to The Daily Reckoning.
Jim Rickards’ Case against Gold
Jim Rickards, Strategist, Strategic Intelligence
Recent history has been a long and volatile ride for gold investors.
The most recent Fed decisions…
The ‘Brexit’ leave vote…
Today I want to take a look at gold — and, in particular, the case AGAINST the Midas metal…
Starting from a low of about US$250 per ounce in mid-1999, gold staged a spectacular rally of over 600%, to about $1,900 per ounce, by August 2011. Unfortunately, that rally looked increasingly unstable toward the end.
Gold was about $1,400 per ounce as late as January 2011. Almost $500 per ounce of the overall rally occurred in just the last seven months before the peak. That kind of hyperbolic growth is almost always unsustainable.
Sure enough, gold fell sharply from that peak to below $1,100 per ounce by July 2015. It still shows a gain of about 350% over 15 years. But gold’s lost nearly 40% over the past four years. Those who invested during the 2011 rally are underwater, and many have given up on gold in disgust. For long-time observers of gold markets, sentiment has been the worst they’ve ever seen.
Yet it’s in times of extreme bearish sentiment that outstanding investments can be found — if you know how and where to look. There’s already been a wind change for gold so far this year.
And using complex dynamic systems analysis, a trusted colleague of mine and I have developed a new thesis and strategy for profiting in the gold market.
The takeaway? Do not buy another ounce of gold until you read what I have to say.
Today, I show you three main arguments mainstream economists make against gold…and why they’re dead wrong.
The first one you may have heard many times. ‘Experts’ say there’s not enough gold to support a global financial system. Gold can’t support all the world’s paper money, its assets and liabilities, its expanded balance sheets of all the banks and the financial institutions in the world.
They say there’s not enough gold to support that money supply, that the money supply is too large. That argument is complete nonsense. It’s true that there’s a limited quantity of gold. But more importantly, there’s always enough gold to support the financial system. But it’s also important to set its price correctly.
It is true that, at today’s price of about $1,300 an ounce, if you had to scale down the money supply to equal the physical gold times 1,300 that would be a great reduction of the money supply. That would indeed lead to deflation. But to avoid that, all we have to do is increase the gold price. In other words, take the amount of existing gold, place it at, say, $10,000 dollars an ounce, and there’s plenty of gold to support the money supply.
In other words, a certain amount of gold can always support any amount of money supply if its price is set properly. There can be a debate about the proper gold price, but there’s no real debate that we have enough gold to support the monetary system.
I’ve done that calculation and it’s fairly simple. It’s not complicated mathematics.
Just take the amount of money supply in the world, and the amount of physical gold in the world, divide one by the other, and there’s the gold price.
You do have to make some assumptions, however. For example, do you want the money supply backed 100% by gold, or is 40% sufficient? Or maybe 20%? Those are legitimate policy issues that can be debated. I’ve done the calculations for all of them. I assumed 40% gold backing. Some economists say it should be higher, but I think 40% is reasonable.
That number is $10,000 an ounce. In other words, the amount of money supplied, given the amount of gold if you value the gold at 10,000 dollars an ounce, is enough to back up 40% of the money supply. That is a substantial gold backing.
But if you want to back up 100% of the money supply, that number is $50,000 an ounce. I’m not predicting $50,000 gold. But I am forecasting $10,000 gold, a significant increase from where we are today. But again, it’s important to realise that there’s always enough gold to meet the needs of the financial system. You just need to get the price right.
Regardless, my research has led me to one conclusion — the coming financial crisis will lead to the collapse of the international monetary system. When I say that, I specifically mean a collapse in confidence in paper currencies around the world. It’s not just the death of the dollar…or the demise of the euro…it’s a collapse in confidence of all paper currencies.
In that case, central banks around the world could turn to gold to restore confidence in the international monetary system. No central banker would ever willingly choose to go back on a gold standard.
But in a scenario where there’s a total loss in confidence, they’ll likely have to go back to a gold standard.
The second argument raised against gold is that it cannot support the growth of world trade and commerce because it doesn’t grow fast enough. The world’s mining output is about 1.6% of total gold stocks. World growth is roughly 3–4% a year. It varies, but let’s assume 3–4%.
Critics say that, if world growth is about 3–4% a year and gold is only growing at 1.6%, gold is not growing fast enough to support world trade. A gold standard therefore gives the system a deflationary bias. But that’s nonsense, because mining output has nothing to do with the ability of central banks to expand the gold supply.
The reason is that official gold — the gold owned by central banks and finance ministries — is about 35,000 tons. Total gold, including privately held gold, is about 180,000 tons. That’s 145,000 tons of private gold outside the official gold supply.
If any central bank wants to expand the money supply, all it has to do is print money and buy some of the private gold. Central banks are not constrained by mining output. They don’t have to wait for the miners to dig up gold if they want to expand the money supply. They simply have to buy some private gold through dealers in the marketplace.
To argue that gold supplies don’t grow enough to support trade is an argument that sounds true on a superficial level. But when you analyse it further, you realise that’s nonsense. That’s because the gold supply added by mining is irrelevant, since central banks can just buy private gold.
The third argument you hear is that gold has no yield. It’s true, but gold isn’t supposed to have a yield. Gold is money. I was on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo recently. We had a discussion in the live interview when the issue came up. I said, ‘Maria, pull out a dollar bill, hold it up in front of you and look at it. Does it have a yield? No, of course it has no yield, money has no yield.’
If you want yield, you have to take risk. You can put your money in the bank and get a little bit of yield — maybe half a percent. Probably not even that. But it’s not money anymore. When you put it in the bank, it’s not money. It’s a bank deposit. That’s an unsecured liability in an occasionally insolvent commercial bank.
You can also buy stocks, bonds, real estate, and many other things with your money.
But when you do, it’s not money anymore. It’s some other asset, and they involve varying degrees of risk. The point simply is that, if you want yield, you have to take risk. Physical gold doesn’t offer an official yield, but it doesn’t carry risk. It’s simply a way of preserving wealth.
I believe the primary way every investor should play the rise in gold is to own the physical metal directly. In fact, I always say that at least 10% of your investment portfolio should be devoted to physical gold — bars, coins and the like.
But there are good ways to do this. And bad ones. And there are also OTHER strategic ways you can take advantage of gold’s rise, aside from buying physical bullion. You’ll find them outlined in by book, The New Case for Gold.
SHIPPING NOW: Limited Special Editions of
The New Case for Gold
|James G Rickards is an American lawyer, economist, and investment banker with 35 years of experience working in capital markets on Wall Street. He is the author of The New York Times bestsellers Currency Wars and The Death of Money. Jim also serves as Chief Economist for West Shore Group.|
We have printed, and are shipping, just 7,000 Special Australian Edition copies of his latest book The New Case for Gold. (All you need is a valid Australian mailing address.) Don’t miss out. To reserve your copy, click here.
For The Daily Reckoning