Boom2Bust.com

Weekend Videos

Just got back to blogging late Friday evening. Had to entertain my relatives from Canada who are in. Like the Irish a couple of weeks ago, they shopped liked it was Christmas in July to take advantage of the weaker dollar. I know one thing for sure. Foreigners sure love our “strong dollar” policy…

“Oil Crisis”
Becky Quick
CNBC, July 18, 2008

From the CNBC website:

The House may vote on releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and CNBC’s Becky Quick.

You can view the 3 minute 18 second video here.

Note to Congress- there is no quick-fix for the energy crisis. I’m starting to consider donating funds to Jim Puplava’s proposed program, “No Congressman Left Behind.”

Apparently, it’s a non-issue now anyway, seeing that after oil prices suffered their biggest weekly drop ever, Yahoo! Finance asks tonight, “So is it time to declare the energy bubble popped?” By the way, the Associated Press is reporting that terrorists are trying to enter the United States with European Union passports. Good thing Congress wants to deplete oil stockpiles meant for a national emergency. Like a major terrorist attack, for example. If you think 9/11 was a one-off event, I have a bridge that spans the East River out in NYC that I can sell you for a really good price…

“Is government clueless about economy”
Jim Jubak
MSN Money, July 18, 2008

From the MSN Money website:

Washington is talking us into a deeper crisis. Neither the President nor Congress gets it: When you owe as much as the US does, keeping your overseas creditors happy is the most important thing, says Jim Jubak.

You can view the 4 minute 7 second video here.

Jubak said in the segment:

The Saudi government has gone into serious discussions about taking its currency off the dollar peg.

“Christmas In July”
The Dandy Warhols, “Little Drummer Boy” (1995)
YouTube Video Link

Congress Approves National Colosseum

Not really. But Capitol Hill politicians might as well allocate funds to build one, complete with chariot races and gladiators to keep us happy, considering the way they’re pandering to the masses these days. When Congress only has a 20% approval rating (Gallup), what else would you expect? Something like what happened today. Hoping to sooth the economic pain (and gain the electoral support) of Joe Six-Pack and Suzy Soccer Mom, both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, in a direct challenge to President Bush, voted to temporarily halt the shipment of thousands of barrels of oil a day into the government’s emergency reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a system of underground salt domes on the Gulf Coast, was created by the U.S. government in the seventies as a precaution against major interruptions of oil supplies. With 701 million barrels in storage, it is currently 97% full, yet the equivalent of only two months of oil imports.

The Senate voted 97 to 1 in favor of suspending the shipments, which average about 70,000 barrels a day, until the end of the 2008. Only Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado voted against the measure. Presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton also voted to halt the shipments as well. John McCain was not present for the vote. Mirroring the same bipartisan support as in the Senate, the House voted 385 to 25 in favor of halting the program.

For some time now, Congress has wanted to tinker with the SPR, jawboning on and on about how curbing deliveries to and/or drawing from the emergency reserve (by the way, what part of “emergency” don’t you get?) can ease tight oil supplies, curb market speculation, and possibly lower crude oil prices. Case in point. MSNBC’s John Schoen wrote back on May 19, 2004 (that’s right, 4 years ago):

With oil prices stuck above $40 a barrel, attention has turned to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a vast stockpile of oil stored underground that the U.S. continues to add to. While Democrats call for releasing some of those reserves to help ease oil prices, President Bush Wednesday repeated his long-standing position that the stockpile should only be used in the event of a critical cutoff of fuel needed to maintain the country’s national defense…

“Since the price of oil is so closely tied to inventory levels, filling the SPR under these market conditions both depletes private sector inventories and pushes up prices for America’s consumers,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., in a floor speech in April defending an amendment to defer SPR purchases.

More recently, New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer has introduced an amendment to draw 1 million barrels a day from the reserve for the next 30 days.

“Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?”

And Congress’ assertions that curbing shipments to and/or drawing from the SPR could help with our supply problems, dampen speculation, and lower oil prices? Wrong, wrong, and wrong, according to the experts (or, at least, people who know what they’re talking about). Regarding the supply problem, the 70,000 barrels that are being sent to the reserve on a daily basis represents only 0.3% of the 20 million barrels consumed by Americans each and every day. 0.3%? Can anyone tell me how this could possibly help alleviate tight supplies? Regarding the perception that high oil prices are caused by speculators, legendary energy investor T. Boone Pickens told attendees at the Oklahoma State University’s Energy Conference on April 23:

Only 5 percent of oil is in the commodity pool. If you did run it up, it would be briefly. Speculators cannot move it that much.

He would know. Finally, a number of politicians believe (or want us to believe) that halting shipments and even drawing from the SPR will somehow lower oil prices. CNN Money’s Steve Hargreaves wrote today:

A statement from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said it could bring down gas prices by as much as 24 cents a gallon.

Or so she claims. The CNN Money staff writer also wrote:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts oil prices would fall by only about $2 a barrel - or shave 4 to 5 cents a gallon off the price of gas - if the president suspended deliveries to the SPR.

“It’s a very small amount” of oil going into the reserve, said EIA oil market analyst Doug MacIntyre. “And it’s very transparent to the market.”

Should I believe House Speaker Pelosi or the EIA? Tough call, right?

Here’s something to think about. A possible explanation for the high price of crude oil is that global demand is running at 87 million barrels per day, while the global oil supply is at 85 million barrels per day. Furthermore, while older oil fields are starting to go dry, no suitable replacements are being found. Finally, even though the U.S. economy is slowing, for every 1 barrel of reduced American demand there are 14 barrels of increased demand from developing countries like China, India, and Brazil.

Oh, but this just in…

“Middle East Oil Cut Off By Coordinated Attacks Throughout Region” and “Gulf Oil Infrastructure Destroyed By Category 5 Hurricane”

Well done. Thanks for saving me that nickel.

Sources:

“Senate votes to halt oil reserve shipments”
H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press, May 13, 2008

“House votes to stop adding to oil stockpile”
Tom Doggett
Reuters (UK), May 13, 2008

“Debate flares over strategic oil stockpiles”
John W. Schoen
MSNBC, May 19, 2004

“Oil stockpile a drop in the bucket”
Steve Hargreaves
CNN Money, May 13, 2008

“Pickens: Oil to go to $150 a barrel”
Jerry Shottenkirk
Journal Record, April 24, 2008

Why Americans Should Worry

Let me tell it to you straight. The. Math. Politicians. Sell. Does. Not. Work. And if we don’t start dealing with the truth soon, this country could face dire consequences.

-David L. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, October 2007

On February 15, David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, announced his resignation as head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Since November 9, 1998, Walker has served as the nation’s chief accountability officer, leading the GAO in its mission to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. Back on February 15, Richard Cowan wrote in Reuters that:

Walker repeatedly urged Congress to waste no time in reforming massive government programs, such as health care for the elderly, which will grow significantly as the U.S. population ages.

“The picture I will lay out for you… is not a pretty one and it’s getting worse with the passage of time,” the blunt-talking Walker told Congress more than once.

Despite those warnings, Congress and the White House have yet to begin cooperating on how to tackle the huge growth in health care and retirement benefit costs.

Back on December 18, 2007, I wrote:

On Monday, the Bush administration released its Financial Report of the United States Government for the 2007 budget year. And guess what? The U.S. government is promising $45 trillion more than it can deliver on Social Security, Medicare, and other benefit programs, according to the Associated Press yesterday…

Even worse, when the gap in funding social insurance programs (Social Security, Medicare, Railroad Retirement, and Black Lung Program) is added to other government commitments, the total shortfall as of September 30 increases to $53 trillion, up more than $2 trillion in just a year, according to the report. Comptroller General David M. Walker, who serves as the head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), said Monday that, “Our government has made a whole lot of promises in the long-term that it cannot possibly keep.”

Yesterday, Bill Donoghue from MarketWatch had this to say about Walker’s departure:

Facing indifference on the Hill and unrealistic spending promises, Walker is resigning with five years still remaining in his term to head the newly formed Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Peterson, senior chairman of The Blackstone Group and Commerce secretary in the Nixon administration, has pledged an astounding startup budget for the foundation of $1 billion.

That money will attack what the foundation considers “the most substantial economic, fiscal and other sustainability challenges of our current age” — including federal entitlement programs, health care, unprecedented trade and budget deficits, low savings rates, mounting foreign debt, soaring energy consumption, an uncompetitive educational system, and the proliferation of nuclear warfare materials. Maybe Congress will listen this time.

The departing Comptroller General told Reuters:

As Comptroller General of the United States and head of the GAO, there are real limitations on what I can do and say in connection with key public policy issues, especially issues that directly relate to GAO’s client — the Congress.

My new position will provide me with the ability and resources to more aggressively address a range of current and emerging challenges facing our country.

MarketWatch’s Donoghue lamented:

This sounds to me like the ultimate sell signal on America…

When the nation’s best-informed watchdog resigns and few are acting on his recommendations on his “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour,” it’s time to reconsider over-optimistic domestic stock investments and look elsewhere, or bet against the U.S. market.

Source: stock.xchng

The “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour” is a joint public engagement initiative by the Concord Coalition, the Budgeting for National Priorities Project at the Brookings Institution, and the Heritage Foundation, created for the purpose of explaining in plain terms why budget analysts of diverse perspectives are increasingly alarmed by the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook.

(Note: The author disclaims any personal liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence of the use and application, either directly or indirectly, of any information presented herein.)

Gold: Barbarous Relic Or Investment Superstar? Part 2

In part one of a three-part series on gold, I noted that the price of the metal has risen significantly in the past year, despite all the arguments leveled against gold by its detractors. Meanwhile, the metal looks to be headed for its seventh straight annual gain. Gold bulls point to the following as having a significant impact on its price in 2007:

U.S. Dollar Weakness- The U.S. currency is down four out of the last five years, and has dropped almost 11% so far this year based on the Federal Reserve’s U.S. Trade-Weighted Major Currency Index. This autumn it’s been at its weakest against the euro since the European currency started trading in 1999, the lowest against the Canadian dollar since it was floated in 1950, and at a 26-year low versus the British pound. The end of the U.S. housing boom, the subprime mortgage crisis, and a credit crunch, in conjunction with forecasts for a slowing U.S. economy, have weighed down the U.S. currency. The increased threats from dollar diversification by countries holding large numbers of greenbacks in their foreign currency reserves, sovereign wealth funds looking to exchange their dollars for other assets, and more nations looking to decouple their currencies from the U.S. dollar have only made matters worse for the world’s reserve currency. Assuming the existence of a strategic inverse relationship between gold and the greenback, investors have poured money into the precious metal and related investment vehicles. Validating such actions have been forecasts by legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, Jim Rogers, and George Soros, who all predict that the U.S. dollar is going lower. Back on October 25, Buffett was quoted by CNBC as saying, “We are still negative on the dollar. We bought stocks in companies that are earning their money in other currencies.” On November 15, Rogers told Bloomberg that, “If you have dollars, I urge you to get out. That’s not a currency to own.” Finally, on June 2, AME Info reported that Soros said, “A slowdown in the United States will be transmitted to the rest of the world via a weaker dollar.”

Geopolitical Risk- The continuing stalemate between the West and Iran over its nuclear program, political instability in Pakistan, and Turkey’s spat with Iraq are just some of the more recent geopolitical risks that have driven the price of gold higher. The ever-present danger from Al-Qaeda should not be forgotten either. Consider the following warning from Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), where for 6 years he was in charge of the search for Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. When asked by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty earlier this year if he expected more attacks on the United States or in the West on the scale of September 11, 2001, Scheuer’s response was:

Oh, I think greater than 9/11. I don’t think it will happen in Europe, but I do think it will happen in the United States. Bin Laden has been very clear that each of Al-Qaeda’s attacks on America will be greater than the last, and I think the only reason we haven’t seen an attack so far is that he doesn’t have that attack prepared. But when he does, he will use it. And try to get us out of the way, which of course is his main goal.

Stephen Walker, director of global mining research at RBC Capital Markets, said last week that increasing geopolitical risk, combined with combined with rising economic uncertainty, “should continue to provide incentives for investors to increase their exposure to gold as a safe haven.”

Supply and Demand- Last Friday, the Telegraph (UK) announced:

The era of ‘peak gold’ has arrived. Try as they might, miners cannot find enough ore at viable costs to replace their fast-depleting reserves, even if they dig miles into the centre of the earth.

The global mine supply of gold peaked in 2002, and has fallen every year since. Last year alone, the mine supply of gold fell 15%. Also in 2006, South Africa, the world’s single-largest gold producer, produced its lowest amount of gold since 1922 with overall output down 72% since its 1970 peak. It should be noted that no major new mine production is expected in the near-term either.

On the demand side, RBC Capital Markets noted last Wednesday that demand is rising as consumption increases in China, India, and the Middle East. On Thursday, a study by precious metals consultant GFMS Ltd. showed that global gold demand in the third quarter rose 19% year-on-year on the back of robust inflows into bullion investment funds and improved jewelry consumption. The report revealed that the increase in investment demand replaced jewelry buying as the major source of growth for the third quarter. Demand grew sharply in India, China, Turkey, and the Middle East, while it slowed in the United States.

Outside of U.S. dollar weakness, geopolitical risk, and supply/demand factors, gold bulls say that some of the drawbacks which Bloomberg’s Michael Sesit spelled out in part one are actually advantages to owning the precious metal. Critics of gold like to point out that it “doesn’t earn a return.” Michael J. Kosares, President and Founder of Centennial Precious Metals, Inc., argued in his book The ABCs of Gold Investing, that:

Those who criticize gold because it fails to offer a return do not really understand gold’s position as the fixed North Star of asset value around which all other assets rotate. Gold is a stand-alone asset. It relies on no individual or institution for value. Gold investors prefer it this way. In the ultimate sense, this is what money is and what money should be.

Another criticism directed at gold, said Sesit, is “the world’s biggest holders of gold, major central banks, aren’t overly eager to keep owning it.” If so, gold bulls ask why central banks hesitate to unload the metal. In 2006, net central bank sales amounted to just 319 tons, less than half of the 659 tons recorded in the previous year.

Love it or hate it, bulls and bears, gold is here to stay. In the final part of this series, I will talk about where this precious metal may go from here.

(Part 3 will be posted on Wednesday)

Sunday Edition: September 9, 2007

Lest We Forget
Ahead of the sixth anniversary of 9-11, Osama bin Laden appeared on video to ridicule President Bush about the war in Iraq and to remind the world of his escape from capture. The leader of al-Qaeda also told Americans they should convert to Islam if they want the war to end. Bush’s homeland security advisor, Frances Fragos Townsend, appeared on two Sunday talk shows and played down the capabilities of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Townsend, who was appointed Homeland Security Advisor by the President in May 2004 and has a legal background, told viewers of “Fox News Sunday” and CNN’s “Late Edition”:

This is about the best he can do… This is a man on a run, from a cave, who’s virtually impotent other than these tapes… We know that al-Qaida is still determined to attack, and we take it seriously… But this tape appears to be nothing more than threats. It’s propaganda on their part… There’s nothing overtly obvious in the tape that would suggest this is a trigger for an attack.

I wish I shared the same view of al-Qaeda as Ms. Townsend, as the majority of U.S. intelligence analysts feel that al-Qaeda are anything but impotent. According to the Associated Press today:

Terrorism experts say the network is regrouping in the lawless Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The latest National Intelligence Estimate says al-Qaida is growing in strength, intensifying its efforts to put operatives in the United States and plotting against U.S. targets that will cause massive casualties. The U.S. is in a “heightened threat environment” and al-Qaida is the most serious threat, the analysts found.

Enter Michael Scheuer, CBS News consultant, former CIA analyst, and author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America. Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran, was the head of “Alec Station,” the CIA’s unit responsible for tracking al-Qaeda, from 1996-1999. Ironically, Scheuer was mentioned in bin Laden’s latest video. “If you would like to get to know what some of the reasons for your losing your war against us, then read the book by Michael Scheuer,” said bin Laden. White House aide Frances Fragos Townsend said the video was nothing else but propaganda. CBS News said on Saturday that the Intel Center, an independent analysis group which had studied the tape, along with Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff, believe the tape is not an indication of an impending attack on American interests. But Scheuer disagrees. He told CBS:

The Intel Center is almost always right. I think there’s an overwhelming threat in it. Bin laden, again, offered us a chance to convert to Islam, which is required in their religion before they attack us. So to say there’s no threat in this message is just 180 degrees incorrect.

Earlier today Frances Townsend said that, “We ought to remember, six years since the tragedy of September 11th, we haven’t seen another attack.” I understand her logic, and I fear it may be tragically flawed considering who it’s being applied to.  One defining characteristic of Osama bin Laden is patience. His favorite Islamic verse is, “I will be patient until Patience is outworn by patience.” Remember this: In 1993, bin Laden started plotting the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; it took two years to coordinate the attack on the USS Cole; eight years passed between the two attacks on the World Trade Center.

Lest we forget.

Christopher E. Hill
Editor
editor@boom2bust.com

Weekend Edition: June 30-July 1, 2007

This afternoon, the United Kingdom raised its terrorism threat level to critical, the highest level possible, after a vehicle plowed into the Glasgow International Airport terminal building and burst into flames. According to CNN, authorities are assuming the incident is directly linked to the discovery of 2 explosives-laden cars in London on Friday. In the United States, security is being boosted at airports across the country as I write this post.

The other day, I talked about the threat posed by natural disasters, specifically hurricanes, to the U.S. economy. Today I’d like to focus on man-made disasters, particularly the threat of nuclear terrorism. Warnings of a nuclear attack on American soil have originated from the government, the military, and academia, as well as the private sector. In the 2004 American presidential election, both President Bush and his opponent John Kerry agreed on only one fundamental point. In the first televised debate the two were asked, what is “the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?” President Bush, who answered second, said, “I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network.” According to journalist, author, and former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams in his book The Al Qaeda Connection, Vice President Dick Cheney, while on the campaign trail, warned that a nuclear attack by al-Qaeda appears imminent. Upon leaving office, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge both indicated that plans for a nuclear attack on the U.S. might be carried out. General Eugene Habiger, the former executive chief of U.S. Strategic Weapons at the Pentagon, claims that an act of nuclear terrorism is “not a matter of if, but when.” Graham T. Allison, Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s JFK School of Government, concludes that the chances of a nuclear terrorist attack in the next decade are greater than 50%. He was quoted in WorldNetDaily on April 20 to say, “From the technical side, Richard Garwin, a designer of the hydrogen bomb who Enrico Fermi once called, ‘the only true genius I had ever met,’ told Congress in March he estimated a ‘20 percent per year probability with American cities and European cities included’ of ‘a nuclear explosion — not just a contamination, dirty bomb — a nuclear explosion.’” Finally, legendary investor Warren Buffett, who establishes odds against cataclysmic events for major insurance companies, predicts that a nuclear attack within the United States is “virtually a certainty.”

Dr. Allison, a well-know nuclear terrorism expert, explained at a Council of Foreign Relations forum in April why the stakes are so high for terrorists to conduct a nuclear attack. He said, “[T]he effect of a nuclear terrorist attack would reverberate beyond U.S. shores. After a nuclear detonation, the immediate reaction would be to block all entry points to prevent another bomb from reaching its target. Vital markets for international products would disappear, and closely linked financial markets would crash. Researchers at RAND, a U.S. government-funded think tank, estimated that a nuclear explosion at the Port of Los Angeles would cause immediate costs worldwide of more than $1 trillion and that shutting down U.S. ports would cut world trade by 7.5 percent.” Dr. Williams paints a grim picture of what would happen if a 10-kiloton nuclear device is detonated in New York City. In his book he says, “The financial and cultural center of America would cease to exist. The GNP would drop more than 3 percent in a matter of seconds. One of America’s ports would be closed indefinitely. Millions of Americans would lose their jobs… Within hours of the blast, the US economy would fall into a deep depression from which it might never recover.”

The detonation of a nuclear device in an American metropolitan area is a chilling thought. Such an event could in and of itself trigger a financial crash in the United States. In an upcoming post, we’ll look at a purported al-Qaeda plan to detonate nuclear devices in several U.S. cities simultaneously.

Have a SAFE weekend!

Christopher E. Hill
Editor
editor@boom2bust.com