|
Ultimately, supply has to equal demand. That reality most of us accept. We
can, for example, only consume the amount of adult beverage residing in the
refrigerator. Once we have done so, no level of wishing will provide any adult
beverages. In a fair world, too, we would all have the same amount of adult
beverages in our refrigerator at any point in time. And as we write those words,
we wonder why government does not do something about adult beverage inequality.
And as we wrote those words, second thoughts developed. Any attempt by governments
to redress adult beverage inequality would result in all having less adult
beverages. Certainly, that would be undesirable.
Extending those thoughts further brings us to the realization that only in
government does the supply of money not have to equal the demand for money.
Everywhere else, the supply of money dictates what can be consumed. Everywhere
on earth, money is in balance. That reality of balance may be about to visit
the U.S. Treasury. Those government agents residing there need to raise more
than $2 trillion in the coming year from gullible global investors to finance
Obama regime's plethora of pork and populism.

Our first graph is all about money, something about which greedy Gold bugs
like to think. The black squares are a three-month moving sum of the U.S. trade
deficit. Each month the U.S. buys from the rest of the world more than it sells
to the rest of the world. Any balance due is paid with dollars, the fiat money
of the U.S. Due to oil prices having fallen and the massive recession in which
the U.S. finds itself, that trade deficit has been declining. In short, things
are so bad U.S. consumers can not afford to buy as much as they previously
did.
That black line is also the supply of surplus dollars in the hands of foreign
countries. In the fall of last yeas, countries from which the U.S. was buying
goods and services were receiving considerably more dollars than they were
spending on U.S. goods and service. To keep the wheels of global commerce spinning
and their own citizens working, they were more than willing to supply those
dollars to the U.S. government and various formerly somewhat independent agencies.
That red line of circles is the amount of U.S. government debt that official
foreign institutions bought, again on a three-month moving sum basis. For most
of the time shown in the graph, foreign countries were receiving far more dollars
than they were investing in U.S. debt. Recently, that has started to change.
Notice that those two lines in recent times are moving together. In
the latest data, 90% of the dollars going to foreign countries to pay for
the U.S. trade deficit was being reinvested in U.S. government debt. While
mathematically that ratio can rise to more than 100%, practicality means
it can not. A ratio of more than 100% would mean governments are investing
more dollars than they are receiving in U.S. debt. In short, they would have
to take dollars away from their citizens in order to help finance the U.S.
government. That probably is not going to happen.
Should the U.S. trade deficit continue to shrink, the amount of U.S. debt
to be bought by foreign central banks will fall. Unless the U.S. trade deficit
rises, the amount of U.S. debt that can be bought by foreign institutions will
be capped. In short, the supply of money for the U.S. government from gullible
foreign official institutions is being capped at a new, lower level.
That means Obama will need to turn to the Federal Reserve to monetize a goodly
portion of the more than $2+ trillion deficit of the U.S. government in the
year ahead. Markets understand that, even if the Council of Economic Advisors
does not. That continues to explain the reaction of markets portrayed in the
graph below to the Obama regime.

Silver investors, in particular, have enjoyed the Obama regime. Perhaps that
group understands more fully the implications of a Federal Reserve forced to
monetize a national deficit. Gold investors, too, have prospered. Chinese investors,
as portrayed by the Shanghai Stock Exchange Index(SSE), have realized that
China's business climate and prospects for economic expansion are better than
those for the U.S. under the current ruling regime.
With wealth confiscation a center piece of the policies of the Obama regime,
investor choices are limited. U.S. investors should be moving to Gold coins.
If possible, move financial assets outside of the U.S. Non U.S. investors should
be moving financial assets out of the U.S., if invested there.
Globally, investors should be moving to Gold coins. As we will talk in a later
article, the apparent, at least partial, capitulation of tax payer friendly
nations to the demands of the U.S. and other tax payer unfriendly governments
will increase materially the demand for Gold coins.
Governments around the world seem to be moving in two directions. First, wealth
confiscation is becoming a higher priority. Quite worrying about Gold confiscation.
Worry about the real threat, wealth confiscation by governments such as the
Obama regime. Second, with rare exception government are intent on debasing
their fiat monies. The rise of Gold on a global basis is a natural reaction
to this widespread debasement of fiat money.

Last week, as shown in the graph above, we got another buy signal for Gold
as traders toyed with paper equities. Each of these periods of temporary
price weakness in Gold should be used as a buying opportunity. Finally,
for those looking for a historical cookie cutter to understand unfolding events,
look to the wealth confiscation schemes of Argentina in 2002 and 2008.
GOLD THOUGHTS come from Ned W. Schmidt,CFA,CEBS
as part of a joyous mission to save investors from the financial abyss of paper
assets. He is publisher of The Value View Gold Report, monthly, and Trading
Thoughts, weekly. To receive these reports, go to http://home.att.net/~nwschmidt/Order_Gold_EMonthlyTT.html.
|