• 392 days Could Crypto Overtake Traditional Investment?
  • 397 days Americans Still Quitting Jobs At Record Pace
  • 399 days FinTech Startups Tapping VC Money for ‘Immigrant Banking’
  • 402 days Is The Dollar Too Strong?
  • 402 days Big Tech Disappoints Investors on Earnings Calls
  • 403 days Fear And Celebration On Twitter as Musk Takes The Reins
  • 405 days China Is Quietly Trying To Distance Itself From Russia
  • 405 days Tech and Internet Giants’ Earnings In Focus After Netflix’s Stinker
  • 409 days Crypto Investors Won Big In 2021
  • 409 days The ‘Metaverse’ Economy Could be Worth $13 Trillion By 2030
  • 410 days Food Prices Are Skyrocketing As Putin’s War Persists
  • 412 days Pentagon Resignations Illustrate Our ‘Commercial’ Defense Dilemma
  • 413 days US Banks Shrug off Nearly $15 Billion In Russian Write-Offs
  • 416 days Cannabis Stocks in Holding Pattern Despite Positive Momentum
  • 417 days Is Musk A Bastion Of Free Speech Or Will His Absolutist Stance Backfire?
  • 417 days Two ETFs That Could Hedge Against Extreme Market Volatility
  • 419 days Are NFTs About To Take Over Gaming?
  • 420 days Europe’s Economy Is On The Brink As Putin’s War Escalates
  • 423 days What’s Causing Inflation In The United States?
  • 424 days Intel Joins Russian Exodus as Chip Shortage Digs In
The Problem With Modern Monetary Theory

The Problem With Modern Monetary Theory

Modern monetary theory has been…

Billionaires Are Pushing Art To New Limits

Billionaires Are Pushing Art To New Limits

Welcome to Art Basel: The…

  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Other

The "Animal Spirits" - Wait to See the Whites of Their Eyes

Anyone interested in watching a debate over gold between John Embry (Sprott Asset Management) and Dennis Gartman (Gartman Letter) - with Bill Murphy (Gold Antitrust Action Committee) coming on later in the show as a surprise guest - can go to: http://www.robtv.com/shows/past_archive.tv?day=wed.

It is John Embry's birthday today: Happy Birthday, John!

Personally I couldn't stand Gartman's over-confident reliance on the neo-classical framework for explanations to the budget deficit and general lack of comprehension of the essence of gold bull markets. I like Embry, but he could have revealed the theoretical flaws in Gartman's answers a little better. In the debate over the budget deficit, for instance, Gartman correctly pointed out that there is no correlation between budget deficits and economic growth, or interest rates, etc. This is true as far as it goes. However, he could have pointed out that the measure of economic growth (GDP) is flawed and that higher budget deficits mean higher inflation (because the only way to finance them is via higher inflation or higher taxes), and therefore that instead of growth financed by savings you get these consumption booms financed by an interventionist entity operating on the very theory that Gartman eschews as explaining the way the world works. In another segment, Embry correctly pointed out the basic argument that the driver of higher gold prices is the falling value of money: "blah, blah, blah... the price of gold will go up." Gartman replied, shrugging his shoulders: (so) "the price of soybeans will go up." Mr. Embry could have explained the process of a gold bull market a little better as a competition between commodities for the monetary premium; all the commodities don't go up the same amount; the one that goes up most is the one that attracts a monetary premium at the expense of the main competitor for the title of THE common medium (the USd)... thus making Gartman's proposition of a future basket of commodities as money look flawed (you can have a basket if you want but the market will still prefer one of them over the others - and furthermore, the basket of commodities concept was theoretically refuted by Mises and others many, many decades ago).

Embry could have made Gartman look like a child just out of junior high school.

But instead of focusing on good versus bad economics they kept shifting the debate to the manipulation of gold prices. Gartman's position is that it is irrelevant. He kept saying "I couldn't care less." If there is any, he said, that's fine - suggesting that he'll just go on trading. I don't entirely disagree. I too think there is much more to this story than the conspiracy to suppress gold prices, but Gartman doesn't have a good grasp on that either.

Besides, I do think it's naïve to ignore speculating on the extent of manipulation and its impact on the markets - it is true that it is not possible to manipulate markets in the long term but attempts to do so can have enormous effects on volatility in the interim. To ignore the scope of intervention in any market is simply going to cause you to miss market opportunities. So, it may be "fine" in the sense that it doesn't impede our ability to trade these things, but it's not fine to bury your head in the sand. To make an assessment on gold you have to pick a side!

Either there is, or isn't manipulation.

If there isn't, okay. It's not really in the market anyway, yet, so there is little downside if that were the truth, assuming that the truth would ever be known. If there is, then you have to adjust your upside targets, higher.

That's the significance. So pick a side. One can't afford not to.

Interestingly, they were all in agreement about sentiment in the gold sector - that it was unusually somber given the stage of the current trend. I've noticed this too; it's one reason why I've remained bullish on the short term.

More follows for subscribers...

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment