To an extent not fully appreciated by the investing public, financial markets are influenced by human emotion just as much as they are by economic data, corporate earnings, and dividend yields. Of all human motivations, fear is perhaps the most powerful. When people get scared, the “fight or flight” instinct forces us to take action.

Simple dangers prompt simple responses. If we unexpectedly encounter a bear on our driveway, we immediately run into the house and call animal control (or, in the country, grab the shotgun). But it’s harder to know what to do when financial danger stalks the stock market. To be honest, most investors are clueless. Is that really a bear? Is it dangerous? What qualifies as a house?

When confronted with fear AND confusion, investors tend to look around to see what other people are doing – hoping that others know something they don’t. This is a big part of our natural and instinctive drive to seek safety in numbers. When financial markets panic, investors follow the herd. If the herd does something illogical, like buying US Treasuries when they pay almost no yield and when the government is essentially bankrupt, it is evidence that people have decided to seek safety in numbers.

But here’s the thing: this herd doesn’t have a leader. As much as we would like to think that there are rational, or sinister, individuals who decide where the herd goes and how fast it will take to get there, in reality, we just have a center of gravity around which the herd coalesces. Individuals may make an impact but the mass has a mind of its own. The center of gravity does move, but it tends to do so glacially.

As a result, we can expect that market movements in the current correction will largely resemble past corrections. However, there will be slight differences, which should be studied intently to determine where the center of gravity is drifting. It’s particularly important to notice where the herd is seeking safety.

Yesterday’s sell-off in the US markets saw the the S&P 500 lose 4.8% of its value. The Dow’s loss was, at 513 points, the biggest one day drop since December 2008. It capped a horrific 10-day plunge that knocked more than 10% off stock prices overall.

The carnage has many investors queasily recalling the nightmare days of the credit crunch of 2008. In one particularly brutal phase of that crisis, between December 16, 2008 and March 9, 2009, the S&P 500 sold off more than 25%. Fear drove investors to seek safety in traditional havens. During that time, the US dollar rallied by 8.4% while foreign currencies sold off heavily, including a 9% dip in the Australian dollar and a 3% haircut for the vaunted Swiss franc. Gold rallied 7.4% during that period, but failed to beat the dollar’s run up.

The next major correction in stocks showed a slightly different result. Between April 23, 2010 and July 2, 2010, the S&P 500 dropped 16%. During that time, the dollar rallied just 3%. Notably, this time around, the Swiss franc did not sell off, but rather rallied by about 1%. More importantly, gold rallied nearly 5%, taking from the US dollar the title of “fear asset of choice.”

These trends have gained momentum in the current sell-off. From April 29, 2011 to August 4, 2011, the S&P 500 lost 11.3%. During that time, the dollar managed just a skimpy .3% gain. Meanwhile, the Swiss franc jumped almost 13% and gold surged 5.6%. It does appear that the crowd has changed at least some of its assumptions. It no longer runs blindly into US dollars. It considers other options.

There are many theories as to what moves the herd’s center of gravity. Here, I don’t think it’s much of surprise. Since 2008, a steady drip of news stories have highlighted the staggering indebtedness of the US government, the unwillingness of its policymakers to confront the crisis, and the stubborn persistence of economic stagnation in the face of growing inflation. Although the dollar is still regarded as a place to go when the going gets rough, that opinion is not as strong as it was in the days before our economy imploded and our government became the economy itself.

I would expect the broad trends outlined here to continue. As economic data continues to disappoint, look for the stock market to continue to fall. If the drop goes too far too fast, look for an early launch of the next round of quantitative easing. QE3 may help stabilize stock prices, but it will further erode confidence in the US dollar. As a result, when the next panic hits, look for the dollar to perform that much worse than it did this time around.

Although the dollar’s doom is clearly written on the walls, the center of gravity in the financial world has moved very slowly and will likely continue to do so. Fortunately, for our readers, the direction of the movement is clear. Thus, we are positioned well in front while Wall Street brings up the rear.

by Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, and host of The Peter Schiff Show, broadcasting live from WSTC Norwalk CT from 10am to noon Eastern time every weekday, and streaming at www.schiffradio.com

I have been forecasting with near certainty that QE2 would not be the end of the Fed’s money-printing program. My suspicions were confirmed in both the Fed minutes on Tuesday and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s semi-annual testimony to Congress yesterday. The former laid out the conditions upon which a new round of inflation would be launched, and the latter re-emphasized – in case anyone still doubted – that Mr. Bernanke has no regard for the principles of a sound currency.

Tuesday’s release of the Fed minutes contained the first indication that a third round of quantitative easing (QE3) is being considered. The notes described unanimous agreement that QE2 should be completed, along with the following comment: “depending on how economic conditions evolve, the Committee might have to consider providing additional monetary policy stimulus, especially if economic growth remained too slow to meaningfully reduce the unemployment rate in the medium run.” Since the unemployment situation is deteriorating, and by all accounts will continue to do so, the Fed is essentially pledging to keep the spigot turned on. The committee also decided to look only at current “overall inflation” in making their judgments, as opposed to “inflation trends.” Since new dollars take awhile to circulate around the economy and raise prices, this means the Fed is sure to be too late in tightening once inflation starts to run away, causing more dislocations in the American economy.

If anyone had lingering faith that Mr. Bernanke actually has a plan to end the US government’s addiction to cheap money, the Chairman’s semi-annual testimony to Congress should have washed it away. In addition to claiming that his money-printing has helped the US economy, Bernanke told Congress that gold is not money, people buying gold are not concerned about inflation, and the external value of the dollar has no influence on its domestic purchasing power. He even took a moment to stump for President Obama’s plan to raise the debt ceiling.

By claiming that gold is not money, the Chairman demonstrates his ignorance of much of monetary history. He told Congressman Ron Paul that he had no idea why central banks hold gold, before speculating that it might have something to do with tradition. Yes, traditionally gold is money, which is precisely why central banks hold it. And gold is money because central bankers like Mr. Bernanke cannot be trusted with a paper substitute.

Bernanke further disputes the facts by claiming that the only reason people are buying gold is to hedge against uncertainty, or “tail risks” as he calls them. My advice to the Chairman is to ask the people who are actually buying it. As someone who has been buying gold myself for a decade, I can assure him that my gold buying has nothing to do with “uncertainty.” In fact, it’s just the opposite. I am buying gold because of what is certain, not what is uncertain. I am certain that Mr. Bernanke’s incompetence will destroy the value of the dollar and unleash runaway inflation.

If it were true that people bought gold to protect themselves from market uncertainty, as the Chairman claims, then the metal should have spiked in the midst of the ’08 credit crunch. Instead, it fell along with most other assets. People instinctively fled into US dollars and Treasuries because of their long record of stability. What Bernanke doesn’t understand is that his irresponsible monetary policy is undermining that faith in US assets, built up over generations. That is what’s driving gold: easy money, negative interest rates, and quantitative easing.

Finally, by claiming that the dollar’s exchange rate has no effect on domestic prices, Mr. Bernanke demonstrates that he probably lacks the competence to be a bank teller, let alone Chairman of the Federal Reserve. A weaker dollar means Americans have to pay more for imported goods. But it also means domestic producers have to pay more for raw materials and imported components, which raises domestic production costs as well. It also means that more domestically produced goods are exported, reducing the supply and raising the price of what is left for Americans to consume. This is Econ 101.

Given the Chairman’s confusion on the basics of economics, perhaps it’s no surprise that he’s put quantitative easing right back on the table, where, despite prior rhetoric, it has been all along. The Fed has always known that QE3 is coming; it’s just looking for an excuse to launch it.

The problem is that fighting a recession with QE is like fighting a fire with gasoline. As the flames of recession reignite, more QE, while dousing it momentarily, will only produce an even larger economic inferno.

At one point, Bernanke said, “The right analogy for not raising the debt ceiling is going out and having a spending spree on your credit card and then refusing to pay the bill.” He’s got the analogy right, but his conclusions are completely wrong. Yes, Congress has gone on a spending spree and it’s time to pay up. But raising the debt ceiling is like taking out a Mastercard to pay the Visa… it just makes the problem worse. If you or I go out one night, get drunk, and run up a huge credit card bill, we know that the way to fix it is to buckle down and pay it back. We might postpone vacation plans or put off buying a new car, we might cancel our cable TV subscription or gym membership. The point is that we would have to reduce current consumption to make up for the overspending in the past.

Obama claims that raising the debt ceiling is about getting a hold of the federal debt. Have you ever heard of anyone getting out of debt by taking on more debt? Has anyone ever reduced their debt without reducing current consumption? How can the Fed Chairman endorse such a preposterous idea?

Bernanke actually went a step further and warned against reducing current federal spending too sharply, claiming that such a move might impede the “recovery.” He apparently believes that it is the role of the Congress to go on spending sprees, and his role to pay the mounting bills with freshly printed dollars. The fact that this formula has produced larger and larger economic crises does not seem to bother him. I guess ignorance is bliss.

Subscribe to Euro Pacific’s Weekly Digest: Receive all commentaries by Peter Schiff, John Browne, and Michael Pento delivered to your inbox every Monday.

Click here for free access to Euro Pacific’s latest special report: What’s Ahead for Canadian Energy Trusts?

For a great primer on economics, be sure to pick up a copy of Peter Schiff’s hit economic parable, How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes.

by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital

The past few days have been very bad for the world’s largest banks. American behemoths Citigroup and Bank of America are down about 7% each. Across the Atlantic, things are far worse. BNP Paribas, Barclays, and Banco Santander are all down 13% or more… and Société Générale is down an astounding 16%!

Some pundits warn of an overreaction and suggest this is a buying opportunity for the beat-up financials. I disagree. Rather, I think the financials should now be considered toxic assets. Caution is justified.

It was only a week ago that markets were preoccupied by a downgrade of Portuguese sovereign debt and renewed concerns that Greece will need about $100 billion by year’s end to remain solvent. Now, as eyes are quickly shifting towards the first tremors of financial crisis in Italy, concerns over Greece and Portugal seem rather quaint. With an economy roughly 7 times larger than that of Greece, Italy is simply too big to bail out. Its collapse, like the sinking of a great ship, could create a vortex that drowns Europe’s major banks in red ink.

In addition to exposure to sovereign debt from insolvent nations like Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, major US and EU banks are also massively exposed to toxic mortgage debts, the value of which continues to be eroded by crumbling real estate markets across the West. Meanwhile, at the least opportune moment, the banks are being besieged by ill-targeted regulations devised by vindictive politicians. Finally, banks’ balance sheets are skewed by ultra-low interest rates and new rules that shield them from pricing their assets to market. Beneath a thin veneer of smoke and mirrors, serious risks remain.

Intractable budget negotiations in Washington and Rome have significantly increased the likelihood of default by the West’s two major economic blocs. It could be reasonably inferred that we are entering a new phase of sovereign decline: the US is within weeks of temporary default; Italy is teetering; and the consensus on Greece is shifting toward the ‘German fix’ of bondholder haircuts. What’s worse, there are no long-term solutions readily apparent. The EU is so rigid that it’s only option is to break into pieces, while the US is so pliant that its main political parties are allowed to waste precious time scoring political points at the expense of the greater good.

Since the EU does not have a formal mechanism for handling default, large European banks have been ‘persuaded’ for many months by the ECB and national governments to invest in the debt of financially challenged nations within the EU, most importantly that of Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (PIIGS). This approach was considered more politically viable than direct investment by the ECB. Now, these European banks are left holding the bag. Since there is still no viable mechanism to deal with this debt at the sovereign level, it’s no surprise that EU banks are being hit hardest in this correction. The question remains: what were they promised in exchange for ‘walking the plank’ into the debt abyss?

American banks have a lesser exposure to sovereign debt of the European PIIGS, but many of these institutions have made massive profits by selling insurance derivatives known as credit default swaps to their European counterparts. This is the same strategy that brought down insurance behemoth AIG in the wake of the 2008 Credit Crunch. Therefore, major American banks are far more heavily exposed to PIIGS debt than first appears. It’s as if they have learned nothing. Even conservative, and supposedly bulletproof, money market funds have exposure to EU bank debt.

I do not expect all of these banks’ shares to go to zero. Powerful governments are likely to resort to almost any means to salvage their grotesque central-banking/fiat-money system. Likely, that will include eventually forcing their citizens to rescue their banks again — but this time from even larger losses. However, in the meantime, the financials’ earnings and share prices could suffer dramatically.

Moreover, Italy’s situation brings some larger questions to the forefront: what happens when the next round of bank bailouts bring major sovereigns to their knees? Where will you want to have your assets positioned if the EU comes apart at the seams, or the US stops paying its soldiers and seniors? What’s your plan if the central banks flood the market with even more cheap money?

Readers are strongly encouraged not to waste time gambling on shaky financials, but rather to build themselves an ark of hard assets and start rowing away from the sinking great ships of state. You don’t want to be caught in the vortex when they go down.

by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital

Last week, the Greek parliament voted by a narrow margin to pass an economically crippling austerity plan of some $40 billion in return for some $159 billon of fresh liquidity injections. Although many hailed the event as a needed first step on a long road to recovery, I believe the austerity program will make a bad situation worse.  It is a flawed solution that stems from a false premise: that Greece should continue to be part of the euro zone, and continue to use the euro as its currency.

To return to national economic viability Greece must abandon its use of the euro currency, which has become a financial straight jacket. Nevertheless, Greek politicians may have agreed secretly to accept the austerity in name only, in return for a liquidity bailout that will buy time for European unity to solidify. Once political unity is restored, we should expect more massive financial transfers from northern countries, present day Germany and Britain, to the subsidized southern regions.

As its price to maintain the status quo, central bank lenders, including the IMF and ECB, are demanding that Greece sell off some $72 billion of its national assets. The likely buyers will be international companies based in the EU, U.S. and possibly even China. Such a fire sale can’t restore the Greek economy, but it gives the appearance that the Greeks are paying something for their loans, and it provides cover to northern European politicians who are feeling increasing frustration from voters who have been continually asked to foot the bill for southern European profligacy.

In contrast, Greece could have decided instead to abandon the euro and devalue a new Greek currency unilaterally to pay its debts. This is the typical remedy for marginal economies that have gotten into debt quicksand. Most certainly, devaluation would reduce Greece’s standard of living by slashing the purchasing power of Greek citizens. But in recompense it would boost exports and improve Greece’s balance of payments. The Greeks could then begin the hard work of restoring their economy while maintaining ownership of their national assets.

However, if Greece was to abandon the euro, the shaken confidence could lead to a euro collapse, bringing to an end the idealistic dreams of a unified Europe. Politicians are desperate to avoid this no matter what it costs their increasingly subjugated peoples.

In addition, a Greek debt default would trigger massive losses on the books of EU banks, many of which had been ‘persuaded’ by their governments to invest in Greek debt. Also, major U.S. banks have profited hugely by selling Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) to insure these loans.  Indeed, they have insured some $32.7bn of Greek debt alone. Furthermore, U.S. banks have invested directly in European sovereign debt. In other words, the financial pressure to keep Greece from defaulting is enormous.

The euro is the world’s second largest reserve currency. Its dissolution would cause huge shockwaves in a currency system that already is causing some investors to hedge in precious metals. A collapse of the euro could likely send gold, silver and most food commodities skywards in price. As a result, politicians and the bankers share a common interest in saving Greece from debt default and so salvaging the euro, regardless of the effect on the Greek people.

Greece’s vote to accept austerity has yet to be enacted in specific cuts and taxes, but when they do, expect public resistance that will dwarf what we have seen thus far. At that point we can expect this debate to be revisited. I believe that when the pressure becomes too intense, Greece may in fact return to the Drachma.

I have consistently argues in these columns that a sovereign debt crisis would develop into a possible currency collapse. The beginnings of this endgame can be seen today on the streets of Athens.

By its very definition, fiat money is something created out of thin air: the word ”fiat” is Latin for ”let it be done” (as in, by decree). But the convenience that such a currency system offers central bankers is paid at the expense of savers. With nothing of real or lasting value on which to anchor, the value of fiat currencies can always blow away like ashes on a windy day.

For the past 40 years or so, every country on the planet has relied on fiat money. To a very large extent, this means that the national economies are far more exposed to the whims of their central bankers than they have been in the past. So, if central bankers go off their meds, the danger to the currency becomes profound. Unfortunately, at America’s Federal Reserve, it seems the inmates are now running the asylum.

We are being led to believe that falling prices are evil, and that only an increase in inflation can save our economy. From the moment the financial crisis took hold in 2008, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has looked to lower the dollar’s value and cause asset prices to rise – especially in real estate. But his pitch is wildly off the mark. The Fed can’t control the exact rate of inflation, nor can it direct where inflation will be distributed across the economy. In other words, inflation is like a knuckleball: once you let it loose, you’re never really sure where it’s going to go. And Bernanke’s pitches are so wild it would make Tim Wakefield jealous.

Thus, we are seeing rising prices everywhere except where Bernanke really wants them – real estate. Data released last week shows that the median price of existing homes declined 5.2% in February compared to the previous year, to $156,100. New home prices fared even worse; the median sales price dropped to $202,100 in February, from $221,900 a year earlier – a tumble of some 9%!

However, commodity prices provide the arena in which the the Fed’s lack of inflation control becomes most apparent. So far this year, gold is up over 4% and the CRB Index is up 8%.

Meanwhile, over the same period, the dollar has dropped over 4% against other fiat currencies, according to the Dollar Index. This has occurred despite global economic developments that would normally benefit a currency that has “reserve” status: Japan, the world’s third largest economy, has been taken off-line due to a catastrophic earthquake; the EU is facing another massive bailout bill as Portugal failed to pass austerity measures; and, a sandstorm of destabilizing revolutions is sweeping through the Middle East. Yet, instead of providing a safe haven for skittish capital, the dollar has recoiled.

It’s really no wonder that faith is waning. As the dangers of inflation become increasingly apparent, there is still no prospect for a change in policy any time soon. By all reasonable accounts, commodity prices will continue to surge as real interest rates continue to fall. Right now, the yield on the one year T-bill is .23%, while the YoY increase in inflation is 2.1%. And this is using the government’s twisted figures! I estimate real interest rates are somewhere close to -8.75%. Therefore, investors are being thrust into the arms of precious metals and away from dollar-based assets. There really isn’t much choice.

However, since the real estate market was in a prolonged and lofty bubble, it will be the last asset class to respond to the Fed’s dollar debasement strategy. Although Bernanke is noted for his Great Depression scholarship, it should be obvious by now that he never spent much time studying asset bubbles. If he did, he would have learned that gold took decades to recover from its crash in 1981. The NASDAQ is still 45% below its all-time nominal high set over a decade ago. And, unlike housing prices, these markets were allowed to clear themselves after their respective crashes. Prices dipped more than 70% before turning north in earnest. In contrast, home prices are being kept in a rump bubble by Fed stimulus. Amazingly, since 40% of the core CPI is owner’s equivalent rent, Bernanke will continue to miss the mark about the true level of the inflation he has created.

The aftershock of the real estate bubble has sent millions of homes into foreclosure, left 11% of homes vacant, and caused 23% of mortgage holders to be without any equity in the home. Unless the Fed starts to create credit to buy houses directly off the market, it will be very difficult to get real estate values to move higher.

It is clear that by trying to channel his inflation into just one asset class, Bernanke has placed the entire US economy in severe danger. He now faces a serious conundrum. Does he raise interest rates significantly to fight inflation at the cost of a second housing market collapse, or does he sit idly by and watch the broader economy become as unaffordable as a resetting Option-ARM mortgage? Neither choice is pleasant, but one thing’s for sure: if the bond vigilantes start to raise interest rates for him, we’ll know his knuckleball missed the strike zone.

by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital

While the world’s attention has been focused on the physical destruction wrought by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the desperate attempts to contain the fallout from the shattered Fukushima Daiichi plant, and the daunting problems that Japan faces in rebuilding its infrastructure, few have truly illustrated how long-lasting and widespread the radiation’s effects may be. There has also been little mention of how large radiological events affect economies of countries outside the immediate fallout zone. In truth, the disaster could make as much of an impact on investors in New York, London, or Sao Paolo as it makes on an investor in Tokyo.

The world’s most significant nuclear accident occurred 25 years ago at Chernobyl, Ukraine. Although its effects are now well-documented, many forget how thoroughly the damage was covered up at the time. To avoid panic, the Soviet authorities grossly downplayed the risks to those living near the plant, as well as those who lived hundreds, and even thousands, of miles away. In the months that followed, high levels of radiation were detected as far away as Scotland!

While we can hope that the present-day Japanese are more prone to candor than the Cold War-era Soviets, a series of botched and contradictory communications from Tokyo Electric Power, the operator of the plant, and the Japanese government have given us reasons to worry.

As higher levels of radiation are found in Japanese fish and vegetables, there is a growing suspicion that the full effects of the radioactive release have been downplayed to the public. It is becoming increasingly impossible to keep the concern from spreading beyond the islands of Japan. Pacific fishing companies and mainland Asian agricultural concerns are under heavy scrutiny.

The accident will inevitably alter long-term energy planning around the world. The growing political traction that nuclear power has gathered over the last decade or so, as the price of fossil fuels has climbed, may be irrevocably damaged. With so-called “green” energy unable to replace the wattage that will be lost by a waning nuclear sector, look for the traditional fossil fuels to fill the breach. But the effects of Japan’s nuclear accident go beyond health and energy policy.

After the EU, US, and China, Japan has the fourth largest economy in the world. Japanese industry provides many of the high-tech systems that are essential for producing relatively low-tech products such as automobiles. Already the US computer industry is being affected by shortages of vital parts manufactured in Japan.

But the financial fallout from the crisis looms even larger than the health, energy, or industrial issues. The Japanese people are stoic, disciplined, and very hardworking. Recovery in Japan is likely to be faster than many expect. However, in order to repair the flood, quake, and nuclear damage, Japan will likely need to spend trillions of dollars (hundreds of trillions of yen). This is the crisis that may sink the developed world.

For decades, Japan has deeply indebted itself through central banking strategies pioneered by America and Europe. Faced with successively deeper recessions, it has prevented industrial restructuring by funding industrial failure. By reducing interest rates to near zero and boosting government spending, Japanese governments have progressively transferred the unserviceable debts of the country’s private sector to the public ledger. The result is that Japan’s debt, currently standing above 200 percent of GDP, is heading for 300 percent by 2020, or some 20 times its tax revenues. Facing such statistics, the rating agencies have placed Japan on “credit watch.” This leaves Japan with few options for raising the money to repair its industry and infrastructure.

If the Japanese start to draw on their national savings by selling part of their $882 billion of US Treasuries, they risk igniting a dollar-selling stampede and a damaging spike in US interest rates. To avoid this, it is highly likely that Japan will yield to American pressure not to sell any of its Treasury holdings. It is likely Japan has already been assured covertly, by the Fed and other G-7 central banks, of massive currency swap arrangements to come. This technique would allow for a more orderly repatriation of funds but would send many confusing signals into the financial markets – and lead inevitably to dangerous speculations.

For a world awash in debt, the Japanese destruction comes at an inopportune time. Unfortunately, authorities on both sides of the Pacific are as dishonest about these debt problems as Tokyo Electric Power has been about the severity of the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi.

It now appears that the United States has finally succeeded in its efforts to destroy confidence in the U.S. dollar. Given the currency’s reserve status, its ubiquity in financial markets, and the economic power and political position of the United States, this was no easy task. However, to get the job done Washington chose the right man: Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. Thanks to Bernanke’s herculean efforts, investors across the globe have now been fully weaned from their infantile belief that the U.S. dollar will remain the ultimate safe haven currency.

The proof of Ben’s success can be seen in comparing how the foreign exchange markets reacted to the recent crisis in the Middle East with how they reacted to the financial crisis of 2008. Back then, investors looking for safety abandoned their foreign currency positions and piled into the U.S. dollar (the market for U.S. Treasury Bonds in particular). As a result of these fund flows, the U.S. dollar surged 20% from August to November 2008.

However, during this latest round of global destabilization the dollar experienced no such rally. In fact, the greenback shed about 5% of its value since the Tunisia revolution began in December of 2010. The reason should be clear; the Fed has placed international investors on notice that it will unleash even greater doses of dollar debasement at the first whiff of additional economic weakness, deflation threat, or dollar appreciation. Just this week, Bernanke once again made clear that despite what he considers to be a better growth outlook at home and abroad, and spreading global inflation, the United States will not pull back from monetary accommodation, even as other nations conspicuously do so. The architect of U.S. monetary policy has stated explicitly that dollar debasement will continue for the indefinite future.

Knowing this, why would any international investor seeking a “safe haven” choose to park assets in U.S. sovereign debt? If Bernanke is to be believed, continued economic weakness in the U.S. will cause low-yielding Treasuries to lose value due to inflation while the weakening dollar erodes the underlying value of the bond in real terms. This is a one-two punch that sane investors will seek to avoid. It is no coincidence that a record percentage of U.S. Treasury auctions are now being bought by central banks, for whom sanity is a lowly consideration.

But in reality, the Fed has much less influence over the dollar’s value than do central bankers in Beijing. There is little disagreement among economists that without Chinese support, the dollar would be a dead duck. But for the last twenty years or so the monetary arrangement that pegged the yuan against the dollar served the interests of both countries. The U.S. enjoyed a flood of cheap imports, the benefits of ultra-low interest rates, and a strong currency. The Chinese received a booming export economy, which accounted for about a third of the country’s GDP, and the ownership of a significant portion of the future of the United States. To maintain this peg, the People’s Bank of China had to print trillions of yuan and perpetually hold more than $1 trillion U.S. dollars in reserve.

But recently, having led to rampant money supply growth and inflation in China, the peg has become more trouble than it’s worth, particularly from the Chinese perspective. The latest reading on YOY money supply growth has China’s M2 increasing by 17.2%; which has helped send their reported CPI up 4.9% YOY.

Inflation in China is pushing up the prices of its exports. According to the latest survey released February 14th from Global Sources (a primary facilitator of trade with Greater China), export prices of various China products are likely to increase in the months ahead, especially if the cost of major materials and components continues to soar. The survey of 232 Chinese exporters revealed that 74% of respondents said they boosted export prices in 2010. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in early January that its China import price index rose 0.9% in the fourth quarter after holding steady for the previous 18 months. And Guangdong, the biggest exporting province, said recently that it would increase minimum wages by around 19% this March.

But here is the rub; China maintains its peg in order to keep export prices from rising in dollar terms. But the peg is now causing export prices to rise anyway. As a result, the policy is a dead letter. The simple fact is that the threat to China’s exports will exist whether they let their currency appreciate or not. But a strong currency offers the benefit of greater domestic consumption, while a weaker currency offers nothing.

The Chinese government will take the path that preserves and balances their economy while enriching their entire population, rather than go down the road to never ending inflation. For China the realistic hope is that the greater purchasing power of a strong currency will enable their growing middle class to supplant U.S. consumers as the end market for China’s own manufacturing efforts. However, for the U.S. the challenge will be to develop a diversified manufacturing base in an expeditious manner before surging interest rates, a plummeting dollar and soaring inflation overwhelm the economy.

The dollar’s recent reaction to the turmoil in the Middle East and China’s inflation problem illustrate that we have come to a watershed moment in American history. The decade beginning in 2010 should prove to be the decade in which the U.S. dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency. As bad as that blow may be, the loss may provide the shock needed to get our economy back on a sustainable path. The real danger lies in refusing to adapt to the changing environment. Our current economic stewards are acting as if the dollar’s status is written in stone, when in fact it’s hanging by a thread.

Civil revolt is currently spreading across the Arab world. What began in Tunisia has now metastasized into Bahrain, Egypt and Libya. Though two dictators have been ousted, the chances that these regimes will fundamentally transform from autocracy to a system of free markets and property rights are also up in the air. An important question is whether or not Saudi Arabia will eventually get into the mix; and, if so, whether the current struggle in Libya would morph into a proxy war between Saudi Arabia (Sunni Muslims) and Iran (Shiite Muslims). It remains to be seen whether the new regime in Egypt-whatever form it ends up to be – will allow Iran to use the Suez Canal to parade warships across the Mediterranean Sea and into Syria. If so, what would Israel’s reaction to such a perceived provocation be?

There are many unknowns, but what is known is that the turmoil has had an immediate and significant impact on the price of oil. WTI is now trading just below $100 a barrel and Brent Crude is already well above the century mark. If the unrest does indeed spread to Saudi Arabia – which produces 12 million barrels of oil per day and is the second largest producer in the world – mainstream analysts have made some wild predictions about how high the oil price could reach. Rising energy prices will further cripple the third world, which has already been placed under extreme pressure from skyrocketing food costs.

The United Nations announced in early February that global food prices were at an all-time high. The USDA indicated this week that 2011 corn inventories will be the lowest since 1974. Despite the fact that farmers have boosted the output of wheat, rice, and feed grain by 16% since 2000, demand has outstripped supply by 4 percentage points. Corn is up 95% and wheat has increased 70% since their year-ago levels. Overall, global food costs have jumped by 25% YoY since January 2009.

It is evident that global consumers continue to get pummeled by rising food and energy prices. Meanwhile, in addition to coping with rising inflation rates, the US consumer is also being hurt by the continued contraction in the price of houses – which are typically their primary assets. S&P/Case-Shiller indicated on Tuesday that their National Index dropped 4.1% from Q4 2009 thru Q4 2010. Home values have now dropped for 6 consecutive quarters and clearly indicate the real estate sector is suffering a double dip. The ramifications of all the above data are foreboding for US GDP growth. Most importantly, anemic economic growth will worsen our debt-to-GDP ratio and thereby place further pressure on our already damaged balance sheet.

The Fed’s reaction will be as predictable as ever.

We already know that Chairman Bernanke exculpates the Fed for any blame in creating inflation either domestically or abroad. In fact, he refuses to even consider rising food and energy prices in his definition of inflation. Americans could be paying $50/pound for ground beef, but as long as their houses are still losing value, Bernanke doesn’t see an inflation problem. Meanwhile, they’re eating squirrel for protein while making payments on a mortgage twice as expensive as the house.

The truth is that Bernanke doesn’t know what causes inflation, so he can’t be expected to spot it, much less do something about it. Using the Fed’s own history as a guide, Bernanke will view rising commodity prices as a threat to GDP growth and a sign of pending deflation. That’s because the Fed is caught up in a ‘Phillips curve’ philosophy that only equates economic growth and prosperity with inflation. In short, Bernanke believes that slow growth and rising unemployment rates equate to deflation, despite plentiful contrary examples in history.

Since he believes rising commodity prices are deflationary and have nothing to do with his own loose monetary policy, the Fed is likely to expand its balance sheet to a greater degree. The fact that the Fed’s massive money printing effort is the progenitor of global food riots completely escapes him. As more damage is done, the Fed will use the resulting contraction in GDP to justify a third round of quantitative easing – further harming the GDP.

Unfortunately, the vicious cycle of stagflation will grow more acute with each iteration of the Fed’s love affair with counterfeiting. Countries that make the mistake of continuing to peg their currencies to the US dollar will suffer more inflation and more destabilization. Since it will be hardest for the US to ditch the dollar, our hopes are dimmer.

Based on his recent public comments, Fed Chairman Bernanke seems determined to give the U.S. dollar the reputation of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak: an unwanted relic of the past that everyone agrees must go, but stubbornly clings to a privileged position. The dollar is currently the world’s ruling currency, but, as with Mubarak, I believe that growing public discontent will spur regime change quicker than most pundits expect.

Clearly, the most significant problem facing central bankers around the world is the recent eruption of inflation, which is sparking unrest in Asia and the Middle East. With respect to this issue, Bernanke is alternating his responses through two different personas.

Sometimes he chooses to act like Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Information Minister who, in the opening days of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, continued to deny the presence of American troops even as U.S. tanks rumbled behind him. The parallel to Bernanke’s testimony to Congress today is striking.

Speaking to the House Budget Committee, Baghdad Ben not only claimed that there is no evidence of overall inflation in the U.S., but that even food and energy prices are rising less than 1% annually. This is simply not true. He then claimed that the Fed’s massive QE purchases of U.S. Treasuries do not distort the yield curve, despite the fact that he has stated repeatedly that the program was specifically designed to lower long-term rates.

The reason behind these lies should be evident. Acknowledging inflationary threats would force him to raise rates. But Baghdad Ben knows that the current economic “expansion” is a lie built on a weak foundation of ultra-low interest rates. He knows that even marginally higher rates will trigger a savage return to recession. In his view, the only choice is to sell us an elaborate fiction – even when it obviously conflicts with the facts.

At other times, Chairman Bernanke assumes the persona of Marie Antoinette by professing regal indifference to how his own actions negatively impact the great unwashed. In a rare Fed press conference last week, Bennie Antoinette showcased this “let them eat cake” attitude by declaring that U.S. monetary policy is solely designed to benefit the U.S., and that any adverse consequences in other countries are not his problem. As a result, he broadly absolved the Fed of any blame for global inflation, putting it instead on foreign governments for not allowing their currencies to appreciate and for keeping their interest rates too low.

It is this type of attitude from our top monetary policy maker – to either deny inflation or to lay blame elsewhere – that will accelerate the day of reckoning for the dollar.

Amazingly, for all its flaws, the buck remains the world’s reserve currency. So, for now, the U.S. continues to enjoy all the rights and privileges that come from that status, including lower consumer prices and lower interest rates. But along with those benefits comes the great responsibility of not conducting monetary policy in a vacuum. Since the dollar is the benchmark currency, when it is debased, other currencies must follow suit. Because of the massive printing effort underway for some time now, the dollar has gone from an instrument of stability to an instrument of inflation.

A reserve currency must not go on in perpetual decline. Since abandoning the dollar as a reserve implies radical change with unknown consequences, governments have been very reluctant to take the chance. So, they are acting to preserve the status quo. But, in so doing, they’re creating inflation in their own countries. Unfortunately, this strategy may prove more risky in the end.

Other factors are also influencing foreign central bankers to stick with the devil they know. For one, as emerging markets compete to export to the United States, no one wants to surrender what it perceives to be its competitive advantage. None of these governments yet understand that if the dollar were to collapse, new customers would be instantly created in those countries whose currencies appreciate against the dollar.

Emerging markets also feel obligated to protect the value of the trillions of dollars that they already hold in reserve. Like traders throwing good money after bad, their instinct is to average down their cost of their position. The reality is that the more dollars they buy, the more they will ultimately lose. Once they realize that the rise in their own currency will more than offset their dollar losses, they will cut their losses and run.

When emerging-market governments decide they do not want to eat Bennie’s cake, but rather keep their own bread prices from rising, they will have to pursue the tighter monetary policies. When that happens, the dollar will lose its reserve status.

When the rest of the world no longer links their currencies to ours, the Fed will truly not have to worry about fueling global inflation. Instead, all of its inflation will burn through our banks accounts right here at home. And that blaze, so concentrated, will burn a lot hotter than the fires we see abroad.

Subscribe to Euro Pacific’s Weekly Digest: Receive all commentaries by Peter Schiff, Michael Pento, and John Browne delivered to your inbox every Monday.

Click here for free access to Euro Pacific’s new special report: What’s Ahead for Canadian Energy Trusts?

Be sure to pick up a copy of Peter Schiff’s just-released economic fable, How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes. Click here to learn more and order.

Back in October of 2009, when Congress first announced the formation of a commission to investigate the cause of the 2008 financial crisis, I knew immediately that their ultimate conclusions would support the agendas of their respective political parties. (Watch the video blog I recorded that day) Particularly, I knew that the commission’s Democrat majority would use the crisis to justify more government involvement in the financial markets. These concerns have now been fully validated.

Given that I was one of the few people who had accurately predicted the magnitude of the housing bubble, and had laid out in my 2007 book Crash Proof the specific consequences for the banking system and the economy when it burst, I immediately contacted the commission offering my services as a witness. In particular, I assumed that the Republicans on the panel would appreciate hearing from someone who thought that the crisis resulted from too much rather too little government regulation. (see my 2008 Washington Post op-ed)

To burnish my credentials, I sent the commission a list of articles I wrote between 2004 and 2008. Much of that pre-crash critique is summarized in a speech I gave in 2006 to The Western Regional Mortgage Bankers Association.

However, despite these supporting materials, my repeated outreach to the commission bore no fruit. At that point, I realized that they had no interest in giving any visibility to the narrative that I favored, namely that the ultra-low interest rates engineered by the Greenspan-Bernanke Federal Reserve were the primary factor behind the financial crash of 2008.

Ignoring how low rates created the crisis is like blaming the crash of the Hindenburg on bad weather, poor piloting, lazy ground crews, and overly emotional broadcast journalists, while ignoring the 200,000 cubic meters of flammable hydrogen gas that the airship held in its structure.

The Democrats clearly wanted to place the blame squarely on “greedy” bankers and “derelict” regulators who had fallen under the spell of the “laissez-faire” impulse favored by Republicans. These conclusions would sanction Democrat plans to garner even greater government power.

Yet, even the Republican minority opinion widely missed the mark. In their dissenting opinion, three Republican commissioners blame the crisis on global factors beyond the ability of US policymakers to control. While it is true that other nations suffered housing bubbles, they did so because their own central banks also kept interest rates too low.

The best result was a third minority report, authored by Peter J. Wallason. He correctly blamed government-insured mortgages and government-mandated loans to non-creditworthy minority borrowers for the housing bubble, yet omitted the key role played by the Federal Reserve in making those loans “affordable.”

The government has been subsidizing housing since the Roosevelt administration, and we never had a bubble of this proportion. It was not until these guarantees were combined with a 1% federal funds rate that they became supercharged. It was the unfortunate combination of government guarantees and cheap money that produced such a toxic brew.

During the bubble, a large percentage of loans, particularly those in high-priced markets like California, had adjustable rates. These rates were popular as a direct result of the ultra-low fed funds rate, which made them significantly cheaper than traditional thirty-year fixed-rate mortgages. Some of the most popular subprime loans were of the “2/28″ variety, where borrowers enjoyed artificially low “teaser” rates for the first two years only. For conforming loans, Fannie and Freddie actually guaranteed mortgages based solely on borrowers’ ability to afford the teaser rate, even if they could not afford the resets. Therefore, without low rates from the Fed, most of these ARMs never would have been originated.

Most importantly, it was low rates that made overpriced homes seem affordable. Buyers paid attention to monthly payments, not home price. These mortgages were tailor-made for real estate speculators and home flippers, whose only intention was to make quick profits on the resale. Higher rates would have put a lid on home price appreciation, as potential borrowers would not have been able to swing the higher payments.

Meanwhile, the low rates themselves created investor demand for mortgage debt. With Treasuries and CDs offering pitiful returns, investors were encouraged to look elsewhere for (seemingly) low-risk investments with higher yields. This created unprecedented demand for Fannie- and Freddie-insured debt as well as new varieties of mortgage-backed securities.

Since Wall Street needed additional mortgages to package, lending standards steadily eroded to meet the demand. Much of the demand came from foreign sources looking to recycle large trade surpluses, which would have been much smaller had the Fed not kept rates so low.

The reality is that no one wants to blame the crisis on loose monetary policy because monetary policy is even looser now then it was then. If the commission had correctly blamed the housing bubble on easy money, then it would have called into question current Fed policy. Given the fragility of our economy and its continued dependence on low rates, no one has the guts to open that can of worms. If so much economic damage was done by a 1% fed funds rate, imagine how much damage is being done by 0% rates, supercharged by quantitative easing.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans want the Fed to turn off the monetary spigots for fear of the short-term shock. That is why even the most vigilant government regulators would not have prevented the financial crisis. Any official who tried to rain on the real estate parade would have been out of a job.

Of course, the fact that three separate reports drew three separate conclusions – strictly along party lines – shows that politics was the driving motivation behind the entire farce. Even with the benefit of hindsight and $9 million taxpayer dollars, this commission still came up empty.

The conclusion that should have been drawn is that we do not need more regulation. Government interference has done enough damage already. We simply need to return to a sound monetary policy and get the government out of the mortgage and housing markets. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen.

For in-depth analysis of this and other investment topics, subscribe to Peter Schiff’s Global Investor Newsletter. Click here for your free subscription.

Click here for free access to Euro Pacific’s new special report: What’s Ahead for Canadian Energy Trusts?

Be sure to pick up a copy of Peter Schiff’s just-released economic fable, How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes. Click here to learn more and order.

You can watch the entire show here at CSPAN.org.