Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Possiblity of hyper inflation / economic collapse

Rate this topic


Axiomatic
 Share

Recommended Posts

However, damage does not equate to hyper-inflation.

I agree that we may not be headed to hyper-inflation. My point was simply that, just based on the nature of trade, it's possible that the greatest damage from inflation can be done before the majority even notices that inflation is occurring.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I agree that we may not be headed to hyper-inflation. My point was simply that, just based on the nature of trade, it's possible that the greatest damage from inflation can be done before the majority even notices that inflation is occurring.

Interesting you mention that. The CPI is terribly flawed for short term measurements in that it counts "Owner's Equivalent Rent," rather than homeowner's cost in its computation. This means that as house prices were skyrocketing in the mid 00's, the resulting glut in rental units depressed the CPI, and further, the loss of disposable income depressed the demand & price of all other goods (although you could argue that the latter was offset by increased equity income and spending). In the long run, rental costs will tend to meet up again with homebuying costs, but for the past ten years, we've been duped into thinking inflation was below 4%. If you make a simple adjustment to cancel out the OER bias, you find that inflation (CPI annual growth, that is) hit a peak of over 10% in late 2005 and stayed near there for about a year. It wasn't until early 2008 that the OER adjustment began having a negative (overestimate) effect on CPI. At its peak, the OER adjustment was hiding almost six percentage points of CPI annual growth.

And when did they start OER? 1983, right around the time they were "getting a handle" on inflation. Right.

Had the Fed seen the CPI increasing at 10% in 2005, they would have put the brakes on lending and effectively popped the RE bubble more than 25% below its eventual peak.

The only reason we won't see hyperinflation is that the government has ways of letting us down gently, so rather than 100% inflation for a year, we'll see 15% inflation for five. But ask yourself which does the most damage, and which is harder to recover from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At its peak, the OER adjustment was hiding almost six percentage points of CPI annual growth.
True, although (in compensation) in the last two years, it has been showing consumer price-rises as being higher than they actually are. When taking out the OER one ought to substitute some other measure for home-ownership costs. If one uses the Case-Schiller as a proxy, the CPI calculation during the peak of the housing boom works out to about 3% higher than the CPI with OER.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, although (in compensation) in the last two years, it has been showing consumer price-rises as being higher than they actually are. When taking out the OER one ought to substitute some other measure for home-ownership costs. If one uses the Case-Schiller as a proxy, the CPI calculation during the peak of the housing boom works out to about 3% higher than the CPI with OER.

Case-Shiller is problematic because it accounts for CPI in its algorithm, so you'd have to count CPI again, but that defeats the purpose. In fact, the real power of C-S is that it uses sale pairs from the same houses, adjusted for differences in CPI between the sales dates, to calculate real price changes (averaged among thousands of sale pairs) over time. So you can see house prices hovering above and below the index value of 100 for the past hundred years or so. Shiller was the first to raise the alarm, in 2003 (!) when he saw his index rise to 150% of its long term average. (it eventually hit 226% before the bottom fell out) Anyone who says you can't see a bubble 'til it bursts is a liar or a fool.

I used the median home price index, which I know has its own problems, but is at least in the ball park, and probably conservative because the volume of sales tended towards the lower priced houses during the boom as lower-cashed folks took advantage of the situation, and because the conforming loan max restricted incentives and risk subsidies down into houses still selling below $417k. I substituted a percentage of housing CPI's OER with the home price index, based on home ownership rates for each period. This was probably also conservative because the amount of money actually being spent on home mortgages rose so quickly during that time and shifted so much money from disposable income to mortgage payments, that the share of CPI taken by housing probably should have expanded.

The cost of housing having gone down in the past two years doesn't have as much bearing on true CPI as one might think, because the volume of homes purchased at those lower prices is a small fraction of the sales at the peak (new home sales are at about 400,000/mo from a peak of over 1,200,000/mo). Most people who bought in the surge are still paying the same monthly mortgage payments, and it will take years for the overall actual cost of housing to retreat, so the marginal decline in home prices does not translate to a proportional decrease in the cost of housing, or even close to it.

Even with declining home prices forcing some (small) price deflation, the gov't's only solution is to inflate the currency until home prices cover mortgage amounts, so we are in an inflationary trend right now to just break even on the mortgage situation. Stimulus helps that cause somewhat, but focusing it on ideological goals and increasing the regulation of businesses is going to drive down production, which will take the inflation trend out of the gov't's hands. I don't see any good escape from this situation, and I think it's the govt's plan to hope that the economy just rights itself, as it always has. Hope as a plan. What a concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. - sN ***

 

 

Do you believe that we are headed toward economic collapse and hyperinflation as proposed by many of the prominant free market economists such as Shiff, Faber, etc.?

If so, how is the prospect affecting your course of action? Are you doing anything to prepare?

Is anyone buying a lot of gold and silver?

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged topics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This type of question comes up from the forum from time to time, and I think the starting point ought to be a definition of terms.

Collapse: For instance, by most measures economic activity is still lower than it was a few years from now, so the recent economic collapse has not recovered, even though it has hit a temporary bottom and turned upward (on the strength of credit-creation). If you're asking if we can have another such downturn -- or even one that is as sharp but stays down (let's say) for twice as long -- then we clearly can. However, from the framing of the question, it sounds like "collapse" means something deeper. So, what do you mean by collapse? Was the great Depression a collapse in your sense of the term, or do you mean something more severe?

Hyperinflation: Once again, what types of price-rises are we talking about here? The official CPI went to 10% in the late 1980s, until Volcker letting 30-year mortgage rates rocket to 15%. Do you mean something like this, or higher? There is a huge difference between the US in the 1970's/80s and some South American country with 1000% inflation.

I think that the most reasonable expectation over a 10-20 year horizon is to see slow secular real economic growth, mixed with a couple of recession/depressions like we just experienced. I think it also reasonable to assume that price-rises are at a low right now and will go higher if one looks over a 20-year period, with market interest rates also going higher. However, to put an upper bound on it, I think it is unreasonable to expect that we will see an average annual price-rise of 10%-15% (for a typical basket of goods, not gold etc.) over the next 10-20 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge difference between the US in the 1970's/80s

There is also a huge difference between the US of the 70s/80s and the US of today. We were much better prepared for economic disruption than we are today. We have since gone from being the largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation, and individuals now have little or no savings. Short of some technological innovation leading to major wealth creation, we are going to have to default on at least part of our promises to our citizens, and our debts to the rest of the world. How those citizens and those countries will react is uncertain.

Hyperinflation is not simply "more inflation", so you cannot just compare US CPI to Zimbabwe, and say "we are nowhere near that". This ignores the rapidity with which hyperinflation occurs, and skirts the true cause: loss of faith in the currency as a store of value. That loss of faith may occur for a variety of reasons, not just from printing money.

The sooner foreign countries recognize that their food crises are the result of the Federal Reserve and other central banks exporting inflation abroad, the sooner we will have to directly deal with the consequences of their monetary policies.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the original question:

I bought some gold and silver during the financial crisis, and have been watching it rise in price since then - increasing almost 50% for gold, and almost 100% for silver. I did not buy it out of conviction that "gold is the One True Money", but merely because of uncertainty about how the government will manage our fiat currency. So long as they have the power to wipe out long-term value, I cannot rely on them to do the right thing for me. To make sure your bases are all covered, it makes sense to attempt to store value in a variety of sources, including the dollar.

I have also been interacting more with local farms (find yours: 1, 2), in order to eat healthier, to stock up on certain foods, and to have more local and reliable connections to food sources in case there is a major economic disruption in the future. I have also stocked up on rice and beans in long-term food storage containers, to a very limited extent. Not much, but I would like to do more.

I am not saying an economic collapse is a certainty - indeed nothing can be certain so long as our primary store of value is subject to the whims of politicians and Keynesian economists. But it is definitely better to be safe than sorry.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also a huge difference between the US of the 70s/80s and the US of today...

Hyperinflation is not simply "more inflation", so you cannot just compare US CPI to Zimbabwe, and say "we are nowhere near that". This ignores ...

Brian, The two comparisons (on "collapse" and "hyperinflation") were to ask the OP what type of thing he meant: did he mean CPI like the 1970s/80s or something far worse, did he mean a collapse like the great depression or something far worse.

I should have been more clear that I was not presenting any argument or reasoning in my final paragraph, just my expectation of the likely outcome. Also ought to add that "expected" does not mean that something else cannot transpire, just that this is the most likely outcome. However, people have volition, and the 5-year expected outcome 5 years ago was for middle-eastern establishments to remain in place, and yet that didn't help them :). To clarify my meaning further: it is unreasonable for me to expect to die this year, but I might, and I have life-insurance.

On the gold question, I own a little gold too. To me, gold is mostly insurance for "tail-risk". This means I own a certain amount as an emergency store of value, much the same way that I would own a small stock of food etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I jumped down your throat - I've just never seen the term "hyperinflation" used to refer to what happened in the 70s/80s in the US. The point of my post was to explain why hyperinflation is not simply "more inflation" (in terms of the cause), and why properly comparing the differences between the inflation of the 70s/80s and the hyperinflation of Zimbabwe - in order to determine the likelihood of future hyperinflation here - does not simply involve looking at the percentage of price increase (which is an effect). To determine the likelihood requires examining potential causes, not effects.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe that we are headed toward economic collapse and hyperinflation as proposed by many of the prominant free market economists such as Shiff, Faber, etc.?

If so, how is the prospect affecting your course of action? Are you doing anything to prepare?

Is anyone buying a lot of gold and silver?

If I actually thought this was yet a serious possibility, I would be trying to find a decent place to build a self-sufficient life -- farm animals, vegetable garden, good house, maybe some close friends on an isolated property. I grew up on a farm so I can kinda take care of myself if I have some "seed corn" to start with. Point being, I don't want to have to rely on the grid for energy or food. My only problem is communication, I'd probably commit suicide if the internet was lost, it would depress me to such a degree because it would spell the beginning of a dark age -- literally. Not really, but that would be the thing I couldn't provide for myself, it takes other people. Other people are the greatest value to me for all sorts of reasons, as long as they respect my right to refrain from doing things if I choose to -- and my right to get what I deserve, bad if I do bad, good if I do good. Gold and silver will be less valuable than foodstuff and know-how and, dare I say it, guns, in case the world goes to heck, economically -- at least until things settle down. Then the gold and silver will indeed be worth a good bit as they will be the first currencies to come back into circulation in any size.

The internet may allow the process of social degradation to be reversed, and society bullet-proofed from idiocy -- the power of so many minds communicating so quickly is unprecedented and the long term social effect is likely to be extravagantly different than even the most outlandish pundits predict.

- ico

Edited by icosahedron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

*** Mod's note: Merged into a related earlier thread. - sN ***

 

 

I listened to a debate yesterday between Peter Schiff, who predicts dollar devaluation and the possibility of hyperinflation, and Bob Prechter, who agrees with Schiff on pretty much everything but how the Fed will react, and predicts major deflation. What was interesting was that there was some major overlap in their recommendations about how to hedge against these possibilities - both recommended owning gold and foreign currencies such as the Swiss Franc. Their main difference was that Schiff recommended getting out of the dollar, while Prechter recommended holding dollars (actual cash in your hands, not simply a bank account balance).

So in looking into it, I found out that you can buy large amounts of foreign currencies at your local bank pretty easily, for a small fee. And if you ever need to exchange back into the dollar, you can simply bring the foreign currency back to the bank and get dollars at the current exchange rate (which, I'll note, is not the exact same exchange rate that is mentioned in popular media - that one is only used for inter-bank transactions over $1M).

The most common foreign currencies to hold are other so-called "reserve currencies". But several of these reserve currency countries are currently in trouble, and actively devaluing their currency (e.g. euro, yen). The only ones that appear safe are the Swiss Franc, Canadian Dollar, and maybe the Australian Dollar. For proximity reasons, CAD would be a good choice.

With all that said, what do others think of this strategy? Some possible downsides would be if there's a run on the banks and they are forced to shut their doors, it will be much more difficult to switch the foreign currency back into dollars. Another issue is if an event occurs one day and the dollar plummets in value during the day, the bank's stated exchange rate will not be updated until the next day, so you won't be able to get your Canadian dollars switched back to US dollars at the higher amount if you need cash for some reason. For reasons like these, it's still probably a good idea to have a portion of savings in dollars.

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged topics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be that the difference between the two sides of the debate is one of time-horizon? For instance, there were people predicting the collapse of the housing bubble a couple of years before it popped, and who were losing money doing so. Or, before the recent bubble popped, there were people getting into Gold @ $850/ounce, when they could have got in @ $700/ounce in the wake of the pop.

Similarly, it is not enough to predict the fall in value of the U.S. dollar without a prediction of approximate time-frame and a prediction of how it will transpire. Perhaps Pretcher is saying there will be deflation for some time and the inflation won't be seen for a while (maybe he doesn't rule it out as a longer-term outcome).OTOH, perhaps Schiff is saying that inflation will come, even if it is not right around the corner. So, Pretcher positions for the intermediate, while Schiff positions for the longer-term (willing to take any intermediate-term reversal). Since I haven't listened to the debate, I cannot say for sure, but this is what I see among various other Austrian-leaning economists and their wayfarers these days. So, perhaps that explains the difference between the two?

In my personal -- 100% lay-person -- opinion, holding the dollar right now is pretty safe relative to most currencies, particularly vs. CAD$, likely vs. AUS$, perhaps even vs. the Yen. I have no idea on the Swiss Franc. The CAD$ is at a high against the dollar, fueled by Chinese resource-buying; similarly for the AUS$.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. while there was been a huge increase in high-power money, the private sector is still in balance-sheet repair mode (though less than it was a year ago). Therefore, effective aggregate nominal demand is being boosted by fiscal stimulus, but the private sector is not playing ball. Further, as silly as both parties are about the tiny budget cuts they both agree to, it has changed the conversation. It is unlikely that there will be any huge new fiscal stimulus other than what is already planned. From the Fed, the odds are that they will not do QE3, and even if they do it is unlikely to do much to prices (except certain types of asset prices) without renewed fiscal stimulus. So, I suppose I'd fall on Pretcher's side of this particular argument, even though we might see inflation a few years from now, I think it is unlikely to be around for the next few years. I doubt we're going to see inflation stun us. Instead, it is likely to ratchet up visibly, allowing people to position themselves without having to time the bottom/top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I initially thought their difference was a matter of time horizon, but Prechter believes that the Fed is going to weigh the dangers and decide to let banks fail and let the government default on its promises to the world and its citizens. I believe what is partially blinding him is his adherence to these cyclical theories for predicting markets. I think all such theories are out the window once the markets can be heavily swayed on the whims of a politician or Fed chairman.

If you go to schiffradio.com and sign up for the Premium account ($5 for a month access) you can listen to all the past discussions. This one is from 11/8/2010.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listen to Schiff every day and I agree with him. No way the Fed is going to stop printing anytime soon. I would rather hold precious metals than foreign currencies as a hedge against inflation, but I do see the value in holding dividend-paying stocks denominated in foreign currencies. I don't know why you would just hoard cash in foreign currencies since all other currencies are being printed down to some extent. If you haven't already, you really need to read Peter's books, Crash Proof 2.0 and The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets.

Edited by iflyboats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is from 11/8/2011.

I doubt it.

November 8th (or August 11th if you are dating European style) has not happened yet.

Perhaps you mean 2010.

As for the main topic... a "basket" of foreign currencies will be hurt--because the world economy will be hurt--if the dollar goes into the toilet, though admittedly they will suffer the effects of the dollar's going down _less_ than the dollar will, so in dollar terms your investment will seem to do well, but in absolute terms you will still take a loss (you may be able to make money on short term plays though--if you want to spend all your time watching the currencies market). I won't say anything about stocks since my track record on picking stocks is as bad as one could possibly be... but going into precious metals will at worst prevent you from losing anything and might even make you a profit if you get out at the right time. When the dollar starts to drop, people will stampede into gold and that will spike its price more than is explainable solely by the drop in the dollar.

Steve

PS If someone tries to claim the value of gold is constant, I'll expect them to explain why gold ran up from ~300 to ~800 dollars in 1980--then dropped again, as suddenly, back to about 500 dollars and eventually returned to its old trendline. The implication of this is seen when you flip things around and consider the dollars in terms of the (supposedly constant) gold: these people have to explain how the dollar went from being worth 1/300th of an ounce to 1/850th of an ounce in short order (fairly easy to explain for a fiat currency) but then regained quite a bit of its value in just a few days. Ignoring the dollar completely it's undeniable that the purchasing power of an ounce of gold shot up then dropped down again within the space of a couple of months, so the conclusion that gold can have its value altered by people suddenly demanding more (or less) of it is inescapable.

If someone wants to make the claim that over the long haul, gold is constant, I'll be more sympathetic. But I was discussing a short term play (bailing out at the top of a spike) when I stated it would be possible to make a real profit off of gold, so any denial of that claim is a denial that gold can make short term (i.e., temporary) changes in its real value. Well, I said I'd be more sympathetic, but I wouldn't actually agree with it, as there would have to be an explanation for how gold managed to get as low as $250 an ounce about ten years ago when the dollar clearly was _not_ deflating. I conclude from this that gold functions as a commodity in today's market, not an _absolute_ barometer of value. Its value can be and has been manipulated, it can go through bubbles, etc.

But at least it cannot be inflated at some government's whim!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the main topic... a "basket" of foreign currencies will be hurt--because the world economy will be hurt--if the dollar goes into the toilet, though admittedly they will suffer the effects of the dollar's going down _less_ than the dollar will, so in dollar terms your investment will seem to do well, but in absolute terms you will still take a loss

I think that depends on the time scale. They may drop in the short term due to the shock of a US dollar collapse, but assuming they do not print to try to devalue their currency and maintain an exchange rate with the USD, their currencies would gain strength against the dollar, giving their citizens more purchasing power, which is good for their economies.

I like

of 5 Asians and 1 American living on an island, in which the Asians are charged with doing all the work of gathering/preparing food, and the American is charged with doing the work of eating the food. Removing the American does not collapse their system - rather the Asians prosper as a result. Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

0120-monetary-inflation.jpg

I would highly recommend checking out more about this graph (and other posts at the website it came from) before you think about trading in your U.S. Dollars for other currencies.

The post that image came from is here: The Largest Economies and Monetary Inflation.

I hope this helps.

Given that the Federal Reserve no longer reports their broadest measures of monetary expansion, this chart may be comparing apples to oranges. We cannot check, because they don't cite their exact sources.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the Federal Reserve no longer reports their broadest measures of monetary expansion, this chart may be comparing apples to oranges. We cannot check, because they don't cite their exact sources.

M2 (which is still reported) increased about 30% between the two periods. I haven't been able to find official data on M3 any more. The OECD, IMF, and World Bank do not disclose what they consider broad money, or have not updated their data set to 2010. Shadow Stats estimates M3 was about $14 trillion at the end of 2010. In 2005 is was reported by the Federal Reserve at $10.2 trillion. This would put the money supply increase at about 40%. This is still not as much as most of the other major countries.

Do you know of a place that publishes estimates of M3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other way in which that chart may not be a proper comparison is that the US economy is more highly-leveraged than other economies. A monetary expansion has a much greater impact in a highly-leveraged economy with easy credit. So in the US, a little monetary expansion goes a long way toward increasing prices. I would be interested in seeing a comparison in the expansion of not just the direct money supply, but also the money "supply" incurred through lending and debt. Given that we are the world's largest debtor nation, I can already predict what that chart will look like.

Shadowstats is the only site I know of that gives alternative estimates.

Here's an interesting article discussing the ways in which the money supply is under-reported in the US.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one is predicting really high (10% of more) sustained (3 years or more) increase in the general level of dollar-denominated prices, real estate would seem to be one of the better "real" values not subject to speculation at the current time.

While I would bet against such a price-rise in the next 2-3 years, if I were to change my mind, I would probably look for some good ways to hold diversified real-estate via some type of REIT, along with gold/silver etc.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other way in which that chart may not be a proper comparison is that the US economy is more highly-leveraged than other economies. A monetary expansion has a much greater impact in a highly-leveraged economy with easy credit. So in the US, a little monetary expansion goes a long way toward increasing prices. I would be interested in seeing a comparison in the expansion of not just the direct money supply, but also the money "supply" incurred through lending and debt. Given that we are the world's largest debtor nation, I can already predict what that chart will look like.

Shadowstats is the only site I know of that gives alternative estimates.

Here's an interesting article discussing the ways in which the money supply is under-reported in the US.

With regards to leverage, I think you might also enjoy these two articles:

http://www.cqcabusinessresearch.com/2011/04/09/bric-central-bank-leverage-data/

http://www.cqcabusinessresearch.com/2011/04/08/the-federal-reserve-is-more-leveraged-than-lehman-bros/

Thank you for recommending that article. I would bet that the same measures used to understate the increases in the U.S. Dollar would also be used in other countries. My point is that the whole world is printing money, not just the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that the whole world is printing money, not just the United States.

Definitely. But if the US is going to keep all of its promises to its citizens and creditors, it will easily eclipse all other nations in terms of printing. It has been able to avoid this in the last few years, due to its status as a reserve currency, but it cannot avoid it forever.

I will note that the primary alternative currency recommended by both Schiff and Prechter is the Swiss Franc, and you can see by your own chart partially why that is. The Yen has also been a popular recommendation, though I wouldn't touch it after the latest disaster and the reaction of the BOJ in devaluing their own people's currency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, as silly as both parties are about the tiny budget cuts they both agree to, it has changed the conversation. It is unlikely that there will be any huge new fiscal stimulus other than what is already planned. From the Fed, the odds are that they will not do QE3, and even if they do it is unlikely to do much to prices (except certain types of asset prices) without renewed fiscal stimulus. So, I suppose I'd fall on Pretcher's side of this particular argument, even though we might see inflation a few years from now, I think it is unlikely to be around for the next few years. I doubt we're going to see inflation stun us. Instead, it is likely to ratchet up visibly, allowing people to position themselves without having to time the bottom/top.

Well if the Federal Reserve stops quantitative easing, what is going to keep the stock market looking positive and thus "reinforcing" any perceived strength in the dollar? The Fed has very few options, the U.S. economy is between a literal rock in a hard place. The 3rd largest buyer of our treasury debt was recently rocked by a natural/nuclear disaster, 12% unemployment or more, 50 trillion in debt liabilities - I don't need to give you all a summary of what we are looking at.

We have been here before, and to save the dollar from an inflationary collapse Volker had to raise the interest rate to around 18%. Our economy is so frail right now that I doubt it could withstand a 250 basis point increase on interest rates. I'm sure the number of defaults on housing, student and auto loans would jump through the roof at the same time.

If the Fed implements QE3 it will increase the prices of everything. Furthered QE will only demonstrate to the rest of the world how dire the straights are here in the U.S., countries will move even faster to transact outside of dollars and buy less of our debt. How does expanding the money supply result in the prices of things staying the same or decreasing?

I do believe that we will continue to see deflation in luxury goods. Ipads, Flat screen T.V.s, cell phones, game consoles, computers etc. However when you look at the prices of food and energy - there will be continued inflation.

Inflation is unlikely to be around for the next few years? Have you gone grocery shopping lately, how about put gasoline in your car? The only reason Americans haven't really felt the effects of inflation is because we have the worlds highest standard of living. I think Americans only spend about 12% of their income on food - which isn't too much. We can offset a marginal price increase in everyday goods thanks to our standard of living.

But when you see the prices of gasoline jump from 3.30 to 4.00 a gallon in the course of 5 months, you see the prices of onions, rice, pork, eggs, milk, wheat increasing across the board - that my friend is inflation, and although prices haven't been increasing enough in this country to cause alarm, the same can't be said for the rest of the world (China).

How about the prices of gold and silver? Silver prices were up 80% last year!!! Gold prices were up around 24%. That's not inflation? What would you call it? Not a bubble, that's for damn sure.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/marc-faber-everything-going-only-federal-reserve-there-no-inflation

Peter used this metaphor in his radio show a few days ago about how inflation hits an economy. He likened it to when you get in the shower and you want to turn up the temperature. You turn it up a little and the water doesn't get any hotter, you do it again, and again, and again until finally the water is boiling and you burn yourself. Look at how hyper inflation hit the Weimar Republic in Germany, it wasn't a gradual controlled course over a few months. Things were going a long just fine, we had some deflation, then prices were increasing a little here and there until BAM hyperinflation.

http://dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id=00546

I hope you all have been buying gold and silver or firearms. If not I work with Euro Pacific Precious Metals, I'd be happy to help you all position yourself to protect your purchasing power and to educate you if needed - PM me if intereted B)

Edited by ChefGuy89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...