Willem Buiter Apparently Does Not LIke Gold, and Why Remains a Mystery

Dr. Willem Buiter of the London School of Economics, and advisor to the Bank of England, has written a somewhat astonishing broadsheet attacking of all things, gold.

I have enjoyed his writing in the past. And although he does tend to cultivate and relish the aura of eccentric maverick, it is generally appealing, and his writing has been pertinent and reasoned, if unconventional. That is what makes this latest piece so unusual. It is a diatribe, more emotional than factual, with gaping holes in theoretical underpinnings and historical example.

I suspect that commodities such as oil and gold are giving many western economists with official ties to government monetary committees a stomach ache these days. Perhaps this is just another manifestation of statists and financial engineers facing the music, as illustrated by the second piece of news from Mr. Buiter on the US dollar, from earlier this year.

Here are relevant excerpts from his essay, with my own reactions in italics.

Financial Times
Gold - a six thousand year-old bubble
By Willem Buiter
November 8, 2009 6:02pm

"Gold is unlike any other commodity. It is costly to extract from the earth and to refine to a reasonable degree of purity. It is costly to store."

This is inherent to its rarity. It is desirable because it is scarce and useful, and this requires greater protection against theft or accident. Euro notes are far more costly to store than the paper and ink which is used to make them, at least for now.

"It has no remaining uses as a producer good - equivalent or superior alternatives exist for all its industrial uses."

This is an absolute howler to anyone who cares to look into industrial metallurgy. Gold is one of the most malleable and ductile of metals, with excellent conductive properties, slightly less than silver and copper, but is remarkably resistant to oxidation; that is, it does not tarnish. It is widely used in electronic and medical applications for example. What limits its use is that it is scarce, it is expensive, and that there are other competing uses, not that superior solutions have been discovered based on their fundamental merits.

"It may have some value as a consumer good - somewhat surprisingly people like to attach it to their earlobes or nostrils or to hang it around their necks. I have always considered it a rather vulgar metal, made for the Saturday Night Fever crowd, all shiny and in-your-face, as opposed to the much classier silver, but de gustibus…"

Silver is indeed an attractive metal, and had been used for jewelry and coinage throughout history for its unique characteristics. Silver was the metal of the common man, and gold was the metal of kings because of its greater beauty and scarcity.

The garishness and lower class status of gold is of course reflected throughout history, in the funereal artifacts of the Pharoahs, the Ark of the Covenant, the mask of Agamemnon and the adornments of Helen of Troy, the exquisite beauty of the Emperors of China, and the treasure of the Aztecs. Perhaps Willem is merely used to the cheap 'bling' being sold in market stalls, and should occasionally shop on High Street for better goods.

"Because to a reasonable first approximation gold has no intrinsic value as a consumption good or a producer good, it is an example of what I call a fiat (physical) commodity. You will be familiar with fiat currency. Unlike what Wikipedia says on the subject, the essence of fiat money is not that it is money declared by a government to be legal tender.

It need not derive its value from the government demanding it in payment of taxes or insisting it should be accepted within the national jurisdiction in settlement of debt. Instead the defining property of fiat money is that it has no intrinsic value and derives any value it has only from the shared belief by a sufficient number of economic actors that it has that value.

The “let it be done” literal meaning of the Latin ‘fiat’ should be taken in the third sense given by the Online Dictionary: 1. official sanction; authoritative permission; 2. an arbitrary order or decree; 3. Chiefly literary any command, decision, or act of will that brings something about."

This is where Willem's tortured reasoning reaches a crescendo of nonsense. Firstly, we have already shown that gold has many industrial and decorative uses contrary to his misstatements, and has been valued throughout recorded history in its own right in diverse societies and cultures.

By his definition anything that is priced by the market is fiat. It is a broadening of the definition so as to make it completely useless, or a narrowing of the definition to a few 'essentials' by some unstated arbitrary measure so again to make it useless.

The definition of fiat with regard to an instrument of the state is perfectly well known, despite his attempt to distort it. The ruling authority makes a decree, and so let it be done based on that power. Willem seems to confuse a fiat currency with barter, or some traditional custom of value. What is customary is not 'fiat' but a popular convention ordinarily for fundamental reasons.

If a valuation is highly peculiar to a region and time it might be an eccentricity, like tulipmania or ladies fashions. But calling a mania a "fiat" degrades the language in an Orwellian manner, because one comes from the people and is popular, and the other from the authorities and is often embodied in the laws.

If something has universality, the likelihood is that it is well-founded on an essential reasonableness, satisfying some basic need and utility. People desire a store of value that is stable and reliable everywhere and anytime, and not subject to the vagaries of the local ruling elite. And the judgement of the history is that nothing fulfills that desire better than gold, or gold in combination with silver.

If a price is established by law without regard to the market, it is 'fiat.' That is the difference between a decision of the marketplace and a regulation from a ruling authority. No wonder English banking is in such a mess, if this is their conception of valuation. They can no longer see any substantial difference between the will of the people and the diktat of the state.

The best way to explain this perhaps is by example. Let us imagine that tomorrow young Tim of the US Treasury announces that the US government will no accept Federal Reserve notes in payment of legal debts, public or private, and that further the US was issuing a new currency called the amero for which Federal Reserve notes would be redeemed at 100 to 1, that is 100 FRNs for one amero.

What would the market price of Federal Reserve Notes around the world do in response to this? Is this outlandish? No it is remarkably common in the history of paper currencies. I witnessed this personally while in Moscow during the collapse of the Russian rouble in the 1990s, and it made a distinct impression.

And what if young Tim decreed tomorrow that the US would no longer accept gold for taxes or provide as payment for its debts? Oops, too late. Nixon did that in 1971. And gold is now at $1,100 per ounce versus about $45 then.

A fiat currency is an instrument of debt, a bond of zero maturity, an IOU. It has a counterparty risk, and is not sufficient in itself.

That, Willem, is what is meant by fiat, the contingency of value upon some official source. If it were possible let Willem and I go back in time to ancient China, or even Victorian England, he with his pockets filled with euros, and mine with Austrian gold philharmonics, and we will see whose definition of value stands the better.

Governments can effect the price of any commodity negatively, by force of law, but its value is not contingent on government backing per se, except in instance of subsidy, but based on the utilitarian decision of the marketplace. Governments do not force people to buy gold, except indirectly through reckless management of the national economy. They do often compel a people to perform their economic transactions in the official currency however, so that it may be taxed, directly by percent, or indirectly through inflation.

Or as George Bernard Shaw put the proposition, "You have a choice between the natural stability of gold and the honesty and intelligence of the members of government. And with all due respect for those gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, vote for gold."

I don’t want to argue with a 6000-year old bubble. It may well be good for another 6000 years. Its value may go from $1,100 per fine ounce to $1,500 or $5,000 for all I know. But I would not invest more than a sliver of my wealth into something without intrinsic value, something whose positive value is based on nothing more than a set of self-confirming beliefs.

It is fortunate indeed that Willem does not wish to argue this point, because his proposition on this score smacks of mere petulance. In the words of financier Bernard Baruch, "Gold has worked down from Alexander's time... When something holds good for two thousand years I do not believe it can be so because of prejudice or mistaken theory." And he is right, unless you are looking at history with very selective contortions.

There are also historical benchmarks for the value of gold, that being one ounce of gold for a man's suit of fine clothing that holds remarkably well. How then could anyone say that gold is in 'a six thousand year bubble?'

But why such an odd, almost hysterical essay now, with such an outlandish title unsupported by any data?

It is probably simply the rankling irritation that all statists and financial engineers feel when confronted by something that resists their control and manipulation. Or it may be related to some unfortunate decisions made by the Bank of England, or the Bundesbank, to enter into trades with the people's gold on the well-intentioned advice of their economists, a decision which is now coming back to haunt them, causing them to peer into an abyss of public anger.

Who can say. But there is a time of uncertainly in stores of wealth and currency coming. Below is a news article from earlier this year about a European economist named Buiter, who is predicting that the US dollar will collapse. That is because the US dollar is contingent on the actions of the Obama Administration, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve.

And gold is not, unless the US begins to emulate Herr Hitler. "Gold is not necessary. I have no interest in gold. We will build a solid state, without an ounce of gold behind it. Anyone who sells above the set prices, let him be marched off to a concentration camp. That's the bastion of money."

And Willem, if you do not understand that, the principle of the contingency of fiat money, you understand nothing of economics. But I think you do understand it. Perhaps you are merely grumpy and out of sorts today, having eaten a bad sausage, with a case of dyspepsia. It does happen, off days and intemperate remarks, but not to eminent Financial Times columnists and distinguished professors when they wish to be heard on important matters.

It seems as though Mr. Buiter just doesn't like what gold is doing right now, rising in price, and the real story may lie in why he and the brotherhood of western central bankers are so concerned about it.

"We looked into the abyss if the gold price rose further. A further rise would have taken down one or several trading houses, which might have taken down all the rest in their wake. Therefore, at any price, at any cost, the central banks had to quell the gold price, manage it. It was very difficult to get the gold price under control but we have now succeeded. The U.S. Fed was very active in getting the gold price down. So was the U.K." Eddie George, Governor Bank of England, in a conversation with CEO of Lonmin, September 1999

Financial Times
Willem Buiter warns of massive dollar collapse
By Edmund Conway
5:34PM GMT 05 Jan 2009

Americans must prepare themselves for a massive collapse in the dollar as investors around the world dump their US assets, a former Bank of England policymaker has warned.

"...Writing on his blog , Prof Buiter said: "There will, before long (my best guess is between two and five years from now) be a global dumping of US dollar assets, including US government assets. Old habits die hard. The US dollar and US Treasury bills and bonds are still viewed as a safe haven by many. But learning takes place."

He said that the dollar had been kept elevated in recent years by what some called dark matter" or "American alpha" - an assumption that the US could earn more on its overseas investments than foreign investors could make on their American assets. (I think it is related to a subsidy, a kind of droit de seigneur, granted to the dollar by the central banks as their reserve currency in lieu of a gold standard. And that is the regime that is collapsing with the overhang characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. - Jesse) However, this notion had been gradually dismantled in recent years, before being dealt a fatal blow by the current financial crisis, he said.

"The past eight years of imperial overstretch, hubris and domestic and international abuse of power on the part of the Bush administration has left the US materially weakened financially, economically, politically and morally," he said. "Even the most hard-nosed, Guantanamo Bay-indifferent potential foreign investor in the US must recognise that its financial system has collapsed."

He said investors would, rightly, suspect that the US would have to generate major inflation to whittle away its debt and this dollar collapse means that the US has less leeway for major spending plans than politicians realise..."

Dr.Mishkin or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bubble

Former Fed governor Fred Mishkin distinguishes between bad bubbles, that hurt banks, and good bubbles like the tech bubble, that just hurt investors and distort the economy.

Is the Fed creating a bubble in equities now? Probably.

Do they care, are they concerned? No, not according to ex Fed governor Fred Mishkin.

We find that there is an odd framing of the question, which seems rather binary. Either there is a bubble, or no recovery, because the Fed must tighten and risk a new recession.

There are other things the Fed and the Treasury might do to ecourage banks to lend, rather than to engage in market speculation in imitation of Goldman Sachs, the trading bank with no depositors or borrowers.

Here is why Fred Mishkin has learned to stop worrying and love irrational exuberance fueled by reckless monetary expansion and financial engineering.

There is also the little detail, by the way, of the kinship between the credit bubble, created by the Fed, in response to the collapse of the tech bubble, which was also created by the Fed. Fred seems to think the credit bubble had a virgin birth.

So, preserve your precious bodily fluids while you read this, and be on the lookout for economic preverts and their quantitative preversions.

Financial Times
Not all bubbles present a risk to the economy
By Frederic Mishkin
November 9 2009 20:08

There is increasing concern that we may be experiencing another round of asset-price bubbles that could pose great danger to the economy. Does this danger provide a case for the US Federal Reserve to exit from its zero-interest-rate policy sooner rather than later, as many commentators have suggested? The answer is no.

Are potential asset-price bubbles always dangerous? Asset-price bubbles can be separated into two categories. The first and dangerous category is one I call “a credit boom bubble”, in which exuberant expectations about economic prospects or structural changes in financial markets lead to a credit boom. The resulting increased demand for some assets raises their price and, in turn, encourages further lending against these assets, increasing demand, and hence their prices, even more, creating a positive feedback loop. This feedback loop involves increasing leverage, further easing of credit standards, then even higher leverage, and the cycle continues.

Eventually, the bubble bursts and asset prices collapse, leading to a reversal of the feedback loop. Loans go sour, the deleveraging begins, demand for the assets declines further and prices drop even more. The resulting loan losses and declines in asset prices erode the balance sheets at financial institutions, further diminishing credit and investment across a broad range of assets. The resulting deleveraging depresses business and household spending, which weakens economic activity and increases macroeconomic risk in credit markets. Indeed, this is what the recent crisis has been all about.

The second category of bubble, what I call the “pure irrational exuberance bubble”, is far less dangerous because it does not involve the cycle of leveraging against higher asset values. Without a credit boom, the bursting of the bubble does not cause the financial system to seize up and so does much less damage. For example, the bubble in technology stocks in the late 1990s was not fuelled by a feedback loop between bank lending and rising equity values; indeed, the bursting of the tech-stock bubble was not accompanied by a marked deterioration in bank balance sheets. This is one of the key reasons that the bursting of the bubble was followed by a relatively mild recession. Similarly, the bubble that burst in the stock market in 1987 did not put the financial system under great stress and the economy fared well in its aftermath.

Because the second category of bubble does not present the same dangers to the economy as a credit boom bubble, the case for tightening monetary policy to restrain a pure irrational exuberance bubble is much weaker. Asset-price bubbles of this type are hard to identify: after the fact is easy, but beforehand is not. (If policymakers were that smart, why aren’t they rich?) Tightening monetary policy to restrain a bubble that does not materialise will lead to much weaker economic growth than is warranted. Monetary policymakers, just like doctors, need to take a Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”.

Nonetheless, if a bubble poses a sufficient danger to the economy as credit boom bubbles do, there might be a case for monetary policy to step in. However, there are also strong arguments against doing so, which is why there are active debates in academia and central banks about whether monetary policy should be used to restrain asset-price bubbles.

But if bubbles are a possibility now, does it look like they are of the dangerous, credit boom variety? At least in the US and Europe, the answer is clearly no. Our problem is not a credit boom, but that the deleveraging process has not fully ended. Credit markets are still tight and are presenting a serious drag on the economy.

Tightening monetary policy in the US or Europe to restrain a possible bubble makes no sense at the current juncture. The Fed decision to retain the language that the funds rate will be kept “exceptionally low” for an “extended period” makes sense given the tentativeness of the recovery, the enormous slack in the economy, current low inflation rates and stable inflation expectations. At this critical juncture, the Fed must not take its eye off the ball by focusing on possible asset-price bubbles that are not of the dangerous, credit boom variety.

Peak Oil: WhistleBlower at IEA Claims Oil Production Statistics Are Manipulated

Here's one for the peak oil crowd, and those who suspect that the US and others have been manipulating certain market information for their own purposes, to promote a hidden agenda, to manage public perception.

Skeptical as always for now, but let's see what happens with this story.

Guardian UK
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Terry Macalister
9 November 2009 21.30 GMT

Exclusive: Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.

The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."

The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies...

SP Futures Daily Chart and the Triumph of the Swill

It looks like the bulls want to take this squeeze up to the 1105 trendline, with six bull days under their belt since the tag on the lower trend line last week.

This rally is being accomplished on thin volumes, thick liquidity, and weak regulations dominated by trading programs, with obviously fabricated and highly overstated fundamental underpinnings.

As Lloyd Blankfein would characterize it, the Wall Street banks are just "doing God's work," or at least the work of some power and principality with a favorable inclination to greed, pride, and deception, if these masters of the universe were to acknowledge any power greater than themselves.

No doubt there are some good intentions in the government behind a desire to manage the markets higher. After all, a rising stock market is a sign of wealth and prosperity to the superficial elite based on their own personal portfolios. Especially if one ignores all the jobless, homeless, and suffering people being victimized in their highly exclusive empire of the ego.

But who can stop a people determined to be rich without productive labor, with a self-obsession capable of subordinating even heaven to their personal greed and vanity? This will end in an ocean of tears.

The banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, and balance restored to the economy, before there can be any sustained recovery.