|
Picking through the rubble of last week's news headlines, there was one particular
newsy piece that, while I've seen it before, it struck me in a particularly
odd manner this past week.
The piece in question was a reference drawn by a much celebrated and well
known pundit who repeatedly attempts to label "gold bugs," or as I prefer -
advocates of sound money, as haters of government.
While this well known writer shall remain nameless, so as not to personalize,
I would like everyone to stop for just one moment and consider this: is the
pursuit of sound money; or for that matter the advocacy of a gold standard
- synonymous with hating government? Speaking for myself, I would like to be
on the record that I am an advocate of sound money and I am also proud of being
identified as a "gold bug."
As to the assertion that gold bugs hate government - on a personal note, I
would like to offer this: I am wary of absolute power since history has shown
its propensity to corrupt and I tend to differentiate between unbridled and
responsible government.
In that vein, I am of the belief that perhaps the most essential and solemn
task that responsible government is charged with - is the carrying out of the
minting and preservation of sound money.
The Forgotten Golden Rules
Empirically, we are living in a period where all vestiges of sound money have
been abandoned - globally. History has shown and is a constant reminder that
such actions always produce, shall we say, less than desirable outcomes - like
social upheaval or war. For the record, I'm no big fan of the former or the
latter either!
I also find it noteworthy that the same pundit referenced above, while making
disparaging remarks about gold bugs out of one side of his mouth, likes to
revel in self adulation regarding his gold trading prowess - all the while
being 'loathsome' of the resulting profits [derived from a rising price of
gold] out of the other side of his mouth. Now that's a perplexing yet profitable
conundrum, no?
What strikes me as being odder yet, said profits would never have been possible
without irresponsible profligacy [reckless money and or debt creation] on the
part of government or monetary authorities. Does this mean that said pundit
favors irresponsible spend thrift government or does it mean he only ascribes
to such governance when financial benefits accrue to himself personally?
You see, what bothers me more than anything is when someone intuitively knows
that something is wrong, but either applauds or encourages the action so as
to personally benefit from it - all the while wrapping themselves in the flag
or attempting to lay claim to the moral high ground.
Hurricane Haste?
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that since Hurricane Katrina ravaged
the Gulf Coast the U.S. Dollar has strengthened and stock markets have rallied
- all in the face of the most costly natural disaster to ever afflict the U.S.
of A? Current guesstimates on the rebuilding costs are pegged in the 200 billion
dollar range with USA
Today estimating that daily rescue/recovery/rebuilding efforts in the range
of 2 billion per day.
Given that the U.S. - as a country - has no savings of her own and pre Katrina
deficit spending already required the importation of approximately 2 billion
in foreign capital [representing about 80% of the world's savings] - these
are numbers that are widely reported, which basically no one refutes. So, lest
I be accused of ill thought toward government once again - can anyone tell
me where this additional 2 billion per day in new disaster relief money now
being spent is truly coming from?
So many questions and so few straight answers!
|