Au M G!

This bears revisiting, yet again. 88 weeks ago we encouraged you to look at the “rising” price of gold from a different, opposite perspective.

Why is “rising” in quotes? Because it implies that gold is getting more expensive, when technically all it means is that it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of gold than it did previously.

No, that’s not splitting hairs. It’s a distinction with a gigantic difference. Again, it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of gold than it did previously. In other words, each dollar now buys less gold.

Why do we assume that it’s the dollar that’s the consistent source of value and the gold whose price is deviating from some norm, rather than the other way around? Especially since the supply and inherent value of gold are far less subject to political pressure and artificial maneuvering than are the supply (and inherent value) of the dollar?

We proposed that instead of quoting the price of a fixed quantity of gold in dollars, we quote the price of a dollar in the corresponding amount of gold. Hence a new makeshift currency, the Aumg (milligram of gold.)

For instance, as of this writing the price of gold is listed as $1830 per ounce. Using the reciprocal of that, a dollar is thus worth .00056 ounces of gold. Clearly ounces are unwieldy units to use here, so instead we use milligrams. There are 31,103 milligrams in a troy ounce*, therefore a dollar is worth 17 Aumg.

Which means nothing on its own. Instead we have to look at comparisons over time and across currencies.

When we first devised this idea, the dollar was trading at 30 Aumg.

Last November, it was down to 22 Aumg.

And in 1968, it was worth 883 Aumg.

It’s not as if gold suddenly got less plentiful over the last 43 years, or even the last 43 weeks. The world’s gold reserves didn’t exit the atmosphere and head for Venus. It still takes unbelievably long man-hours and prohibitively expensive capital investments for mining companies to dig gold out of the ground and turn it into something shiny and marketable. That’s part of the reason gold has been such a constant source of value throughout human history: unlike oil, natural gas, pork bellies or other commodities, the annual output of gold stays consistent (and low, especially relative to what’s already been mined.)

Dollars are a different story. First off, they’re artificial. They’re an arbitrary representation of value, created and put into circulation by a government that controls all the printing presses. Not to go Montana Freeman on you, but even the most ardent monetarist in the world would have to concede that. It’s a fact, not an opinion. And because dollars are imaginary, there’s no limit to the number of dollars the government can create. If Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke orders the Fed to create $38 octillion, it can and will. The number isn’t even limited by the amount of paper and ink available: all the Fed would have to do is increase the denominations.

Dollars are imaginary, but that doesn’t mean they’re worthless. (You can place an ad on the ControlYourCash.com sidebar, and we’ll take dollars as payment. At least for now.) But look at the numbers above if you don’t believe they’re a declining source of value.

So who cares? Prices rise, wages rise correspondingly. They’re just numbers, right? My grandparents bought a house for $40,000, but it still represented 4 years’ wages like a similar house would today. What’s the problem?

The problem is that the government owes money. Lots of it. To future retirees, to foreign governments, etc. The federal debt is the largest dollar figure regularly quoted in the media. Either those bills need to be paid, or the government must default.

Government “of, by and for the people” means that 1/300,000,000 of that debt is yours. If that sounds overwhelming, you can thank the representatives and executives you chose to represent you.

Those payments are quoted in dollars. An insolvent government has every incentive to weaken the value of each dollar it owes. It does that by printing more of them, making each dollar worth fewer and fewer Aumg.

Here’s all the proof you need that the number of dollars in circulation isn’t close to keeping pace with the gold in circulation. Those annual increases in the money supply far exceed any increases in population.

What does this mean for you? Relative to the pound, the euro, and the Canadian dollar, the U.S. dollar might stabilize. It might even increase in value. But relative to gold, wagering on the dollar is a losing bet.

Unless that federal debt gets any smaller.
(Try to contain your laughter.)

*You know that childhood brainteaser, “What weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?” The answer is the feathers. Metals are measured in troy weight, just about everything else is measured in avoirdupois weight. An “everyday” ounce is larger than a troy ounce, and besides, there are 16 avoirdupois ounces to an avoirdupois pound as opposed to 12 troy ounces to a troy pound.

**This article is featured in Totally Money Carnival #36: Football is Back Edition**

Control Everything But Your Cash

We're running out of metaphors

There’s an argument for being contrarian, and a solid one. A true contrarian would have emerged from the recent housing crisis not only unscathed, but rich. In its simplest incarnation, contrarianism means exactly what it sounds like: buy when everyone else is selling, and vice versa.

The reason this doesn’t work when you follow it to the letter is that it means you would have sold Google stock when the rest of the world was pushing it up from $100 to $579; and you would have bought GM stock when everyone else was jumping off, anywhere from $72 down to its eventual delisting. Over the course of the stock market’s history, you would have lost money.

A popular hypothesis is that of the “permanent bull market”, which states that any downturn in the market, however long, is but temporary. Accounting for inflation, the Dow is well ahead of where it was when it started and it always will be over any given period if you just wait long enough. Therefore, just wait long enough.

The problem is that humans have life expectancies on the order of only a few boom-and-bust cycles. Generalities don’t really help when formulating an investment strategy. Yes, you can figure out which stocks to buy by analyzing fundamentals – in fact, we recommend it because we can get you started for a mere $3.50 – but even that implies that there’s a future worth investing in.

Not to go completely nihilistic on you, but ask yourself the following questions. Seriously. Don’t just read them, think about the answers.

  1. Is there a particular number the Dow could rise to that would give you confidence in the American economy?
  2. If so, what’s that number?
  3. When do you realistically think we’ll get there?
  4. (And did you factor in inflation?)

I recently asked the president of a publicly traded foreign company this very set of questions. Conducted orally, so he couldn’t see which one was coming next. Here were his answers:

  1. Yes
  2. 13,000
  3. (hesitating) 2013? Maybe 2014.
  4. (more hesitation)

Crossing your fingers and trying to convince yourself that things can only get better is better than being pessimistic, it would seem, but eventually you have to start quantifying things and weighing your situation against inflexible time horizons. Us each getting a year older every 12 months is the only constant. What the economy does is, of course, variable.

The following are not opinions:

America’s credit rating now at its lowest level ever, on par with Belgium’s.

If the Greek or Irish economy tanks, the damage can be somewhat contained. Not so for the country with by far the world’s largest GDP.

With a few notable exceptions, no member of either party in the United States government’s legislative or executive branches is remotely serious about reducing its size (and therefore reducing the size of its current and future obligations.)

Those same government functionaries have all but stated that their goal is to eliminate risk, which is a functional impossibility. Of course, the buzzwords they use are far more benign (“keep Americans in their homes”, “make the rich pay their fair share”, “put America back to work” et al.)

People are at least finally learning how to save.
(Ha! Just kidding. It’s true that that’s not an opinion, but it is a falsehood. People are borrowing more than they have in years.)

——–

The consensus opinion among the populace seems to be to wait and see. But an enterprising contrarian can’t decide to simply do the opposite of nothing.

At Control Your Cash we try to keep away from giving specific investment advice. Not because we’re not professionals, but because our M.O. has always been to teach people to fish. That being said, it’s time to champion hard assets.

Real estate is finite. With a growing population, it would seem that real estate’s value will always increase in the broadest of terms. (People need to live and conduct business somewhere.) Gold and other precious metals are finite, at least until alchemy makes a comeback.

“But technically, everything is finite”, you argue. Which would be true if we’re restricting our discussion to the tangible. But there is literally no limit to the money a worrisome government can create. If you don’t believe that, or think it’s an overreaction, go ask a Zimbabwean. Or a Weimar-era German, if there are any left.

Inflation isn’t just a devaluing of the currency. It’s a way to punish the poor at the expense of the rich (because rich people, almost by definition, keep a smaller ratio of their wealth in cash than poor people do. Rich folks can buy assets and hold onto them. Those whose wealth consists primarily of cash aren’t just too tempted to spend it, they’re too subject to the machinations of a market that conducts business in weakening dollars.)

Sooner or later, a government with overwhelming obligations and too many creditors will have no choice but to employ the nuclear option: if you owe lots of dollars, it makes sense to make each dollar you owe worth less. If you can do it, that is. You can’t. Governments can. And shortly, will.

**This article is featured in the Yakezie Carnival-September 11th, 10th Anniversary Edition**

What that dollar in your pocket isn’t worth

Balloon bursting

It's a bursting balloon, not a rotting orange. Same thing.

First, read this. Can’t be bothered? To summarize, a year ago we questioned the convention of quoting the price of gold in terms of dollars, instead of the other way around. After all, gold is more stable and less subject to manipulation than money that the Federal Reserve creates out of ether.

Back then, the U.S. dollar traded at 29.65 milligrams of gold (Aumg.)

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, the closest thing we have to a pure autocrat in the modern world, assures us that the dollar’s value is strong and its purchasing power uncompromised. After all, inflation has been negligible over the past year, right?

Measuring yesterday’s devalued dollar against today’s is one thing. Measuring it against gold is something different. Today, the dollar’s trading at 21.77 Aumg. At the rate we’re going, another 3 years and the value of the dollar will be eradicated.

Here’s some more currency value fun. It’s an updated chart from that 2009 post, with a bonus row for our longtime readers:

October 2009 valueValue today
44.1830.19
£48.1535.08
yen.33.27
Swiss franc29.1422.52
Mexican peso2.261.78
renminbi4.343.27
Russian ruble1.01.71

Yeah, inflation’s nothing to worry about. Neither in the United States nor around the world.

Go out today and buy a hard asset. Or two.

**Featured in the Wealth Builder Carnival #16**