http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=20691
I had to get Scott in here somewhere as some-like the reader Greg-seem to be having Sumner withdrawal-I haven't written so much about him the last few days as he hasn't written since Saturday.
I myself already have commented on the big drop in gold-it's down about 25% from it's high.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/04/gold-bugs-cant-explain-gold-prices.html
I think another Diary of a Republican Hater reader, Tom Brown, speaks for many when he speaks of some level of Goldenfreude in the face of the collapse. This is understandable as the Internet Austrians and other assortment of gold bugs are very annoying and it's great to see mud in their eyes yet again. David Glasner had a great speculation of what caused the drop in gold: Ron Paul did it.
"Juliet Lapidos, on the editorial page editor’s blog of the Times, points an accusing finger at Ron Paul, dredging up quotes like this from the sagacious Congressman.
As the fiat money pyramid crumbles, gold retains its luster. Rather than being the barbarous relic Keynesians have tried to lead us to believe it is, gold is, as the Bundesbank president put it, ‘a timeless classic.’ The defamation of gold wrought by central banks and governments is because gold exposes the devaluation of fiat currencies and the flawed policies of government. Governments hate gold because the people cannot be fooled by it.
"Fooled by gold? No way.
"But the honorable Mr. Paul is surely not alone in beating the drums for gold. If he were still alive, it would have been nice to question Murray Rothbard about his role in feeding gold mania. But we still have Rothbard’s partner Lew Rockwell with us, maybe we should ask him for his take on the gold bubble. Indeed, inquiring minds want to know: what is the Austrian explanation for the gold bubble?
Still I think Greg gets it right in what's really important about the drop in gold prices:
"Full disclosure guys. I am very much in the goldenfreude mode for the reasons Mike stated above about confidence and a proper understanding of money. Will these crashes make most people examine their views? Probably not, for reasons Krugman talked about a couple days ago, but we really dont need MOST people to we just need a majority of those who make the policy choices to."
For me that's the key. For me it's the educational opportunity it gives us. In truth gold is just another commodity these days like any other. When it goes up it's not because the market has lost faith in the dollar. When it goes down it's not because the market has regained faith in the dollar or anything else to do with monetary policy.
What is interesting is what gold is doing now. Not just gold but all commodities. Since 2003 when gold has gone up most other commodities have gone up and when most commodities have gone up so has the stock market and the overall commodities. Lars Christensen has a piece that shows that gold and the other commodities are sinking while the stock market keeps going up.
Now this is interesting. As Lars notes, there's been speculation of what this means: does mean that the world economy is about to slow down? This question is natural as during the last 10 years when the global economy has climbed so have commodities and when it's fallen so have commodities.
Lars invokes Sumner who tells us to never reason from a price change. The basic point Lars makes here is correct. We certainly can't argue that the economy is about to tank based on the correlation between commodities and the economy-actually what's interesting is this correlation has suddenly stopped.
It might mean the economy is going to slump if commodity prices are down because of slowing global demand. However, it could be good supply reasons causing it. What we've seen actually is commodities seem to have topped out back in 2011 while the stock market has continued to rise and the economy has grown.
So the long correlation between commodities and growth may have broken down. Oil for instance has basically been flat since then. This means the absolute price has actually come down which is a welcome development for consumers and businesses.
Man! I was Jonesin' for some Sumner, Thanks Mike!
ReplyDeleteBTW, wtf do you think he means when he says "never reason from a price change" It seems a very odd thing for a guy who is always talking about money and its affect on prices. Ive never been sure what he's trying to get at.
He means that there are two reasons a price may change:
ReplyDelete1). A drop in demand. This slows the economy. If oil prices drop because of lower demand this is bad for the economy.
2). An increase in supply-or technology improvement, etc. This drop in oil doesn't mean that the economy is slowing but is all to the good. The economy continues to grow while we get lower consumer prices. Win-win.
Okay.......... but you still reason from a price change. The change in price is what gets you looking. You can find the answer in a couple places and you may not like one answer but I still dont agree with him if that is what he is saying.
DeleteA drop in demand for oil is NOT a bad thing except for oil executives, and it doesnt, at least not anymore, necessarily mean the world economy is slowing. Oil is a commodity much like gold and has speculative market forces that can add 20-30% to price according to some people, whom I think make a VERY persuasive case.
The point is that a price change may mean more than one thing-not necessarily a drop in demand. That's his point.
DeleteNow I don't necessarily agree that a drop in oil demand is good for everyone except oil executive. We can talk about speculation but if you look at the last 10 years oil has traded basically procylically.
As I said in this post that correlation has now begun to fade. Still the drop could be a supply issue.
Usually in the past when oil has dropped it's been an indicator that the economy is slwoing. Now there's cause and effect. So we can debate the cause and effect. However when global demand plummeted in 2008 so did oil. That wasn't a good thing because the reason was that the economy had weakened.
Again the speculation case is itself, well, speculative. There may be something in it but it's also clear from looking at what oil did-along with other commoodities-that it's been procyclical-until recently. Again, my point in this piece is the correlation is fading. Why though may well not be demand.
The point is a drop in oil prices based on oil supply is a good thing for both consumers and busineeses-the overall economy and may well not be a good thing for oil execs-though they may be able to make up for it by selling more in volume.
I guess the one demand story that might be salutory is if everybody became very consicous of environmental or conservation issues. If the alternative fuel industriy was successful this might show relative demand for oil go down while overall demand going up-that would be a good thing, I agree.
But generally demand dropping is bad-unless it's only relative demand.
"The point is that a price change may mean more than one thing-not necessarily a drop in demand. That's his point. "
DeleteNot sure why he feels the need to point that out really. Anyone with any basic economic interest already knows that. There are very few things that have only one determinant. I think its also a case of him trying to sound professorial but really dodging the issues.
I made an incomplete point in my last comment. I erased part of my comment and now realize there was some I meant to keep that got erased sorry.
I meant to add that the demand for oil is really a demand for energy and multiple supplies of energy are now coming on line so oil supplies are not as crucial as they were even 10-15 years ago. Nat Gas and renewables are taking off.
If the drop in demand for oil is because people are just spending less over all and all the middle men like distributors and manufacturers are needing less then yes its a sign of a slowdown but if households are just driving better cars and being wiser in their use its good. As of now its a bit of both think but we do have plenty of households who would use more oil if they had more income.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes I am. I'm probably going to write about that later
ReplyDeleteTK for the link though as I hadnt read Yglesias on it yet. It's potentially a big deal for R&R to get called out like this.
ReplyDelete