|
A steadily growing drumbeat is sounding throughout financial mediadom; a major
commodities blowout is in the cards. The most widely quoted reason is a U.S.
recession that will sympathetically pop the commodity bubble.
It seems to me that these views are intertwined with a changed perception
of how the economy works. A new paradigm if you will.
People used to pay homage to the notion of a business cycle, a somewhat predictable
and even stately progression of economic growth leading to excess, followed
by a corrective recession. After which the cycle would begin anew.
In today's bold new world, however, most investment observers overlay onto
the business cycle a shifting series of rapidly rising - and falling -- sector-focused
bubbles.
Because of their noticeable size and influence, it seems to me that the bubbles
can mask the underlying business cycle to some extent. Case in point, we all
easily recall the dot.com bubble but have a harder time recalling what the
prevailing economic times were in the late 1990s. What came after the dot.com
bust? Why, the housing bubble, of course.
Of course, bubbles have always occurred. But they appeared only periodically,
every generation or so. Prior to the dot.com bubble that heralded in this new
era, economic activity was more broadly distributed. When times were good,
the sectors that normally benefited, all benefited in something of a range.
Today, however, while most remain somewhat range bound, a single sector appears,
Godzilla-like, to cast a shadow over the broader financial landscape. It is
that sector that then receives the lion's share of the focus and the investment
flows, quickly becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of late it has been the turn of the commodities to stalk the land. And, if
you believe the pundits, it is time for the monster to be brought low. If not
by Mr. Market alone, then with the help of the regulators with all their many
WMDs (Weapons of Market Disruption).
Before commenting on whether or not I believe they may succeed, a brief observation
on the origin of this new bubble era.
In my view, it is largely due to the massive amount of money in various forms
sloshing around the globe, most of which emanates from the Quicky Print
Fiat Money Machines which have been reliably chugging away at central banks
around the globe for decades now.
One of the primary outcomes of this odd chapter in monetary history is that
the notion of the value of money has been pretty much thrown out of the window...
though not one person in a thousand understands that the game has changed.
For example, the Chinese are correct in thinking their reserves include 1.4
trillion foreign currency units, but that fact is increasingly disconnected
from any reliable measure of future value.
Underscoring the point, 1 trillion U.S. dollar units set aside 5 years ago
are today, adjusted for inflation, worth just $620 billion. But who can say
what those 1 trillion units will be worth five years hence?
While it would require far more electro-ink than time allows for today, it
is my contention that the utility of the fiat monetary system is beginning
to fade. After all, at its core, the acceptance of unbacked money is an act
of faith.
And people are losing faith in the fiat currency units they are being asked
to accept in exchange for their many labors, or in return for their tangible
assets -- and what is more tangible than commodities?
Back to the Bubble
So, are commodities merely the latest bubble, a bubble now resting up against
a pin? Or is something else going on?
In my view, the explanation hinges on the difference between, say, a dot.com
fantasy company run by a couple of twenty-somethings and, say, oil... the stuff
you use to get to work in the morning... or to assure the icicles stay on the outside of
your windows.
As much as you might enjoy the software offered by your favorite dot.com,
when push comes to shove, you could probably manage without. Oil? Food? Good
luck.
To a lesser or greater degree, the same acid test can be applied to the value-add
of Bear Stearns and the other financial stocks versus, say, the iron that supports
your local highway bridges. Or the copper that is so important to all manner
of electronics.
Or even houses and condos bought on speculation by people who couldn't afford
them versus the nickel needed to create the stainless steel that is everywhere.
It is my simple contention that while selected commodities can and will get
ahead of themselves (and probably already have)... the underpinning reality
for their higher prices has far more to do with the value of the currency units
they are priced in than with some broader investment fad. To this date, I can
count on one hand the number of friends of mine outside of the business circles
I run with who have made any investments in commodities.
Add into the equation the clear supply and demand challenges for many of the
core commodities and the bubble doesn't seem quite so bubbly.
Here's a picture of commodities against both the U.S. dollar and the major
currencies (ex-dollar).

And gold?
Well, while useful in certain industrial applications, gold as a commodity
has a unique utility - it is considered as tangible money the world over. It
is portable, easily divisible, durable and unquestionably accepted around the
world. In an environment of a global crisis in confidence in fiat money, gold
will provide a critical function that will only grow in importance in the months
and years just ahead.
In short, the occasional corrections aside, this show is far from over.
David Galland is the managing director of Casey Research, LLC,
publishers of BIG GOLD, a unique publication dedicated to providing
actionable research on producing and near-production gold and silver companies.
To learn more about our 3-month, risk-free trial offer with 100% money-back
guarantee, click
here.
|