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

New Special Report: For an in depth look at the prospects of international currencies, download Peter Schiff’s and Axel Merk’s Five Favorite Currencies for the Next Five Years.

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

Herman Cain has been gaining much traction with his 9-9-9 Plan, a bold proposal to replace our dysfunctional tax code with what could be a simpler, less invasive, and more economically stimulative alternative. While I don’t agree with the full spectrum of Mr. Cain’s policy choices, I applaud his courage on the tax front. Judging by his rising poll numbers, this appreciation is widely shared. However, the plan has deep flaws, the most glaring of which is its creation of a hidden payroll tax which represents a fourth “nine.” This serious pitfall has been unmentioned by Mr. Cain and overlooked by those who have analyzed his plan.

Cain would replace the current system of income and payroll taxes with a 9% flat-rate personal income tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% national sales tax. Great idea. Such a system would unburden businesses, provide a tax cut for most Americans, and shift taxation to consumption and away from income generation. This is exactly what our economy needs. But unlike our current corporate tax system, the plan eliminates the deductibility of wages and salaries from corporate income. The net effect is the creation of a brand new 9% tax on wages. When this fourth 9 falls from Cain’s sleeve, many of his opponents will likely accuse him of cheating.

Much of the plan’s virtue lies in its elimination of Social Security and Medicare taxes (payroll taxes) that fall heaviest on lower income workers. This includes the 6.2% Social Security tax and the 1.5% Medicare tax paid directly by the worker. But it also includes the 6.2% and 1.5% portions paid indirectly by workers through their employers. Payroll taxes are, in reality, a cost of employment. From the employer’s perspective these costs are part of the wage package. Absent these taxes, employers could raise wages by an equivalent amount without raising labor costs. Inclusive of this portion, payroll taxes currently cost workers 15.4% of their wages.

The Cain plan scraps this tax. But the elimination of wage deductibility from corporate taxes replaces it with a 9% payroll tax. Therefore a more honest name for Cain’s proposal is the 9-9-9-9 plan. The forth nine changes everything.

Cain admits that the 9% sales tax would fall heaviest on the poor, but he claims that the elimination of the payroll tax would more than compensate. But when the hidden 9% payroll tax is factored in, more than 50% of workers who currently pay an average income tax rate of just 3% would see a huge tax hike, from 18.4% (former payroll tax plus income tax) to 27%: 9% payroll tax, 9% income tax and 9% consumption tax (poorer worker generally spend all income).

On the other hand, high income tax payers get a huge break. Not counting the consumption tax, the 9-9-9 plan reduces the highest marginal tax rate from 38% (35% income tax and 3% payroll tax – on income over $105,000) to just 18% (9% income tax plus 9% payroll). For the self-employed, who can transform their wages into dividends (that are deductible business expenses under the 9-9-9 plan), the rate would fall to just 9% (all income tax, no payroll or business tax). Of course, in either case, the 9% sales tax will apply to spending, but even if 100% of earnings are spent (which is generally not true of high earners) the top rate would still top out at only 27% for the highest salaried employees and just 18% for the self-employed. In essence, tax cuts for the rich are paid for with tax hikes on the poor and middle class. If these aspects were widely known the plan would become a political dead letter.

Even with its flaws, the 9-9-9-9 plan would create an economic windfall by lowering the top corporate rate to 9% from 50% (35% at the corporate level and 15% on dividends taxed at the individual level), and simplifying the tax code to reduce unnecessary compliance costs and the economically inefficient behavior that is created by perverse tax incentives. These changes alone will make America far more globally competitive. Also by taxing individuals based more on what they spend rather than on what they earn, the plan will encourage more savings (which is a key ingredient for economic growth). As a result, the economy will grow faster, generate greater output of goods and services, and create more jobs.

The problem for Herman Cain is that unless he slashes government expenditures, his pro-growth tax structure will inevitably shift more of the tax burden to low and moderate-income people. The only way to combine tax reform with tax reductions for most taxpayers is to shrink government to a more manageable scale.

The size of the tax increases required to keep Cain’s 9-9-9-9 plan revenue neutral demonstrates just how high a percentage of our current taxes are being paid by affluent taxpayers. Couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $125,000 only constitute about 3% of taxpayers but pay almost half of all taxes. Any policy that cuts their taxes will inflict a disproportional hit on government revenue.

Contrary to the rhetoric emanating from the American left, the “rich” are currently paying a lot more than “their fair share.” It is only a handful of mega-rich, those whose entire incomes are derived from dividends and capital gains, rather than salaries or business profits, who have the ability to pay lower tax rates than some members of the middle class. The left knows this but continues to build their “free loading millionaire” straw man because it makes good politics.

In the final analysis, if Cain really wants a 9-9-9 plan that doesn’t raise taxes he needs to remove the hidden 9% payroll tax.  However, the only way this could be done, without blowing an even bigger hole in the federal deficit, is to combine his plan with significant spending cuts. If he can pull that off, three nines may be a winning hand after all.

Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of ”How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.”

New Special Report: For an in depth look at the prospects of international currencies, download Peter Schiff’s and Axel Merk’s Five Favorite Currencies for the Next Five Years.

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

Earlier this week the Federal Reserve ignited a firestorm in the global markets by admitting that the U.S. economy is facing downside risks. Although it continues to sugar coat the unpleasant reality, never has such a stunningly obvious statement resulted is so much turmoil.

Once again we are seeing the knee-jerk market reaction to seek refuge in the perceived safety of the U.S. dollar and U.S. Treasuries. However I expect investors will soon discover that such assets are firmly in the eye of the storm.  As the tempest moves on, those enjoying the dollar’s current stability may soon find themselves battered by a category five monster.

Market disappointment was compounded when the Fed failed to follow up its dire outlook with a new round of quantitative easing (QE). Instead, through a policy entitled “Operation Twist” the Fed promised to sell $400 billion of short-term Treasuries and use the proceeds to buy an equivalent amount of long-term Treasuries. The markets evidently perceived this “balance sheet neutral” policy as too timid.

From my perspective, the Twist really amounts to another Fed “Hail Mary” pass that will fall short of the end zone. But, by putting the squeeze on banks and further restricting credit availability to small business the move will likely do more harm than good.

The policy rests on the false premise moving already historically low interest rates even lower will stimulate the economy into recovery. But low interest rates are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Even by the government’s debased standards, trailing headline inflation is already hovering above 4%, and, at current rates, 30-year Treasuries are negative by 100 basis points. This distortion is inflicting untold damage on the economy. Pushing rates further into negative territory seems only to invite more problems in the future.

With the Twist, the Ben Bernanke wing of the increasingly divided Fed is offering debtors the short-term gain of low long rates in exchange for its own long-term pain of limited balance sheet flexibility and diminished power to deal with surging inflation. By selling on the short end (thereby pushing up short term yields) and buying on the long end (thereby pushing down long-term yields), the Fed will flatten the yield curve. But to attain these insignificant benefits, the plan exposes the Fed, and the economy, to great risks.

First the “benefits”: Mortgage rates are already at generational lows and have recently lagged the declines seen in long dated Treasuries. Is it reasonable to believe that mortgage rates will go much lower as a result of this policy?  Even if they do, what would be the net economic benefit of a new refinancing wave? Do we really want to encourage consumers once again to use their homes as ATM machines? Even if they do, any short-term boost in consumer spending would be transitory and counter-productive to a genuine recovery.  The last thing we want to encourage is more spending, particularly on the imported products that would likely be purchased by those who refinanced.

What’s more, the program will actually increase borrowing costs for small businesses. By increasing the cost of short-term borrowing and lowering returns on long-term loans, it will severely pressure the profitability of the beleaguered financial sector. In other words the borrower’s gain is the lender’s pain. In such conditions, should we expect banks to provide more credit to small business? In fact, the move will be a devastating blow to bank balance sheets and further enfeeble a financial sector on life support.  Business credit will instead be diverted to dead end consumer spending, resulting in less business activity to grow the economy and create jobs.

Now the costs: The Fed severely underestimates the danger of loading up its own balance sheet with long dated securities. Not only does the move expose the Fed to severe losses when interest rates inevitably rise, but it drastically reduces its ability to withdraw liquidity to fight inflation. Short-term securities provided flexibility as they could be sold into a falling market with little price risk, or if need be, held to maturity. Such options do not exist with bonds maturing in 6-30 years. So when inflation continues to rise, as I’m sure it will, the Fed will be powerless to slow it without crushing the bond market and causing yields to soar.

In any event, the markets did not want the Twist program, they wanted additional liquidity injections in the form of QE III. In this respect, the market is like a heroin junkie. It needs ever-greater doses of money to continue moving higher. When it gets its fix, it will rally.

But a growing popular mistrust of stimulus is currently pressuring the Fed to forestall the launch of QE III. But a few more whiffs of financial turbulence could cause the Fed to fold. When the market rally ensues the Fed will claim victory.  But the celebration will be hollow. The nominal gain in stock prices will likely be eclipsed by dollar declines and a more rapid gain in gold, oil, or other commodity prices. The result for investors will be higher nominal portfolio values but lower real purchasing power and a reduced standard of living.

But many of those who oppose QE3 do so because they believe the economy doesn’t need more stimulus not because the stimulus itself is causing the economic weakness. As a result when the economy deteriorates, support for QE III could grow. In the end QE3 will likely be far more popular than another bank bailout (possibly to be called TARP II), which may be on the table if the Fed fails to rescue the banks it may be pushing over the edge with the Twist.

But our zombie economy does not need to be perpetuated by more QE. It must be allowed to die so that a living, breathing, self-sustaining economy can replace it. By feeding our drug addiction now the Fed is impeding the recovery. QE may goose the markets and provide a short-term boost to spending, but it will also increase debt and grow the government. This process exacerbates the structural imbalances underlying the U.S. economy, making what may be the inevitable crash that much more spectacular.

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

This morning many on Wall Street were stunned by the big fat zero put up by the August jobs report, the worst showing in 11 months. The data convinced many previously optimistic economists that the United States will slip back into recession. I believe that we have been in one giant recession all along that was only temporarily interrupted by trillions of useless and destructive deficit and stimulus spending.  Unfortunately, the August numbers will increase the talk of government efforts to stimulate the economy.

But while President Obama prepares to unveil a new plan for the Federal Government to create jobs, evidence is rapidly piling up on how his Administration is actively destroying jobs with stunning efficiency. Recent examples of this trend are enough to make anyone with even a casual respect for America’s former economic prowess hang their head in disgust.

The assault on private sector employment began in April when the democrat controlled National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint seeking to force Boeing aircraft to move Boeing’s newly opened non-union production facilities in South Carolina back to its union controlled plants in Washington State. Although Boeing simply says that it is looking to open a cost effective domestic manufacturing facility (an endangered species) to employ American workers, the NLRB alleges that the company was punishing union workers in Washington for past strikes. Despite a lack of any direct evidence that Boeing was being punitive, and the fact that the company was not laying off any union workers, the NLRB has not backed down. Against little public support and nearly universal revulsion among business leaders, the NLRB is continuing its campaign to keep Boeing from exercising its freedoms and to employ people in a manner that makes sense for its business.

The Boeing move served notice that the Obama’s loyalties were firmly tied to the Union interests that were so critical to his election in 2008. This week, the anti-business tendencies of the administration came into even sharper focus.

In the telecommunications industry, service provider AT&T made the seemingly essential move in its attempt to acquire wireless specialist T-Mobile. But the Justice Department sued to block the $39 billion deal on antitrust grounds, saying that the merger between the second and fourth largest cell phone providers would unfairly restrict competition and raise prices.

In so doing, the DOJ seems to be operating under the assumption, without any direct evidence, that at least four companies are needed to provide healthy choice in the marketplace, and that three providers simply won’t cut it. More broadly, competition may increasingly come from outside the telecommunications sector (in particular from cable and satellite industries). Plus, with the speed of technological change, who knows what types of competitors will arise in the years to come. The situation reminds me of the broken merger in 2004 and 2005 between Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video. Based on antitrust concerns emanating from the Justice Department, Blockbuster backed off from the deal. Of course, just a few years later the whole sector was made obsolete by Netflix, and any advantage Blockbuster would have gained would have only been temporary.

In light of the current and future competition that is sure to change the way consumers talk with one another over great distances, AT&T and T-Mobile are much better positioned to survive as a combined entity. In any event if AT&T can’t buy T-Mobile, someone else will. The company’s parent, Deutsche Telecom, has stated its intention to divest itself of its American subsidiary.

So why not help American business survive in an increasingly competitive market? Most likely antitrust lawyers at the DOJ have been otherwise bored with the lack of merger deals to scrutinize (another downside to a weak economy), and this transaction just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the legal activism will certainly cost jobs. Even the unions recognize this and have supported the merger.

But the absurdity of the current environment reached a peak when the DOJ, and agents from, get this, the U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service, raided the Nashville factory of the legendary Gibson Guitar company. The raid resulted in agents carting off more than a half million dollars of supplies and essentially shutting the company down. The take down of one of America’s commercial icons apparently resulted from Gibson’s purchase of partially finished ebony and rosewood guitar fingerboards (these endangered trees are carefully managed) from an Indian supplier.

Now here’s the interesting part. The Indian government had issued no complaint about the transactions and there was no evidence that the company had violated U.S. law. The DOJ acted simply on suspicion that Gibson had violated Indian law. Since when do U.S. companies have to make sure that they comply with laws of every country in the world before they produce a product?

I had the good fortune on interviewing Henry Juszkiewicz, the CEO of Gibson on my radio show this Thursday.

Nice interview, though I wish Paul would choose more optimistic words when he speaks. All of this “I’m afraid there will be people in the streets like we’ve seen in other countries” talk is worrying Grandma and Grandpa voter out there. It reminds me of my penchant for jokingly yelling “WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!” at the top of my lungs while going over the first big drop on a roller-coaster. You know, just for fun. Of course, Ron Paul is being serious and he’s right. I just don’t know if that is earning him the kind of votes he needs to rise even further in the polls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFkcjwZOA8

by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital

The basic unwillingness of politicians to face economic and financial realities has caused the United States and European Union to face currency collapse. The politicians are content literally to paper over the problem with massive amounts of newly printed currency. This means that savvy investors, facing major real losses, are turning increasingly to gold. In essence, even though currencies are no longer on a gold standard, they are increasingly being “redeemed” for gold in the marketplace.

For decades, fiscally irresponsible US Administrations have gradually reduced the world’s richest nation, with a currency perceived as ‘good as gold,’ to the position of the largest global debtor, with a debased currency. Furthermore, US stock markets have offered little real return. Indeed, the Dow stands just below 11K, down over 3K points from its all-time high on October 9, 2009. Discounting for inflation shows a loss close to 4K points, or a fall of over 25 percent from its all-time high. Meanwhile, equities in emerging markets have often shown handsome returns.

The recent political wrangling in Washington has damaged the financial credibility of the United States, prompting a long overdue debt downgrade by ratings house Standard & Poor’s. This removes a fundamental pillar supporting the dollar as the global reserve asset of choice.

In Europe, the unwillingness of politicians to face the fatal structural flaws within the euro is encouraging a fear-driven economic recession, sovereign debt defaults, a banking crisis, and, potentially, a currency collapse. This is hurting the euro’s formerly bright prospects of replacing the dollar as global reserve.

This week’s Merkel-Sarkozy summit meeting amounted to nothing constructive. The most popular topic was instituting a Tobin tax on forex transactions. This would, of course, drive financial markets out of the EU to more friendly environments. But more importantly, it leaves the major structural issues of a two-speed Europe unaddressed.

With nothing achieved by the EU’s ruling Franco-German axis, European banks are correctly seen as increasingly vulnerable to further EU sovereign debt defaults. Of course, former communist Merkel and her French ‘poodle,’ the socialist Sarkozy, will find no problem in transferring toxic bank assets to the public purse. But it will require more market anguish before they dare to do it. Once this happens, the euro will be locked on the same railway to devaluation as the dollar.

China’s yuan has strong fundamentals, but is not properly situated to vie for a place on the world stage. It is neither backed by hard assets nor freely floating. Though this policy is changing, it is not yet a true alternative to the dollar as it maintains a fixed exchange ‘band’ to restrain its true value.

Naturally, private investors and foreign central banks are turning to the very monetary instrument that they never should have abandoned: bullion gold. That is why the gold price is rising in $50 leaps per day, with only small corrections. Gold is being re-monetized. [Learn the difference between rare and bullion gold in Euro Pacific Precious Metals' new special report, free for download HERE. Please note: Euro Pacific Capital and John Browne are not affiliated with Euro Pacific Precious Metals.]

Still, despite our continued warnings, and perhaps motivated by yield or a misplaced sense of safety, some investors still are tempted into dollars and US Treasuries, driving them to negative real yields of up to three percent. This may prove to be one of the largest financial traps in history, potentially devastating the savings of many investors. It reflects a fundamental investment strategy flaw.

It has been held that most wise investors should look not at yield and capital appreciation, but at total return. The only need to differentiate between yield and capital growth is for tax purposes. Some investors avoid gold still, because of its lack of yield. This can be a costly mistake when gold’s meteoric capital gains are taken into account.

Some are skeptical because of the performance of silver during the spring. However, it must be remembered that silver is still up some 125% year-over-year. The drop from $50 to $35 was directly related to an unprecedented triple-margin hike by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The exchange made the same move against gold, but the yellow metal shrugged it off through buoyant demand.

Indeed, while silver is temporarily hobbled by worries of global depression and a corresponding drop in industrial demand, gold appears to have no such reservations. Silver may ultimately surge well past gold as the emerging markets prove themselves able to stand on their own despite an ailing West. But gold is a pure monetary trade, and its signal is indisputable.

As long as politicians continue to paper over their problems by issuing more fiat money, gold will regain its crown as the king of monetary instruments.

Paul Krugman sounded the war cry this Sunday on Fareed Zakaria’s program Global Public Square. After all, he asserted, only spending equivalent to another World War could lead us back to prosperity. That, and a healthy dose of inflation.

Krugman argued that inflation would address our debt problem by reducing our bill in current dollar terms and that the Second World War was a giant stimulus plan that actually worked. Thankfully, he added the refrain, “Hopefully we don’t need a world war to get there,” but I sensed a tinge of regret in his voice. After all, the Keynesian economist’s favorite pastime is seeing people waste their lives digging holes in the ground or sacrifice their lives in war. Both acts create economic growth according to the topsy-turvy logic of men like Krugman.

The truth is that wars are a miserable misallocation of capital and usually leave financial ruin in their wake. The US did not boom in the ’50s because we fought World War II, but because we resoundingly won. It was the byproduct of having an unscathed manufacturing base, solid infrastructure, an intact military, most of the world’s gold, and the only reserve currency.

The logical implication of Krugman’s arguments remains that working in productive employment is not at all necessary. If this is true, why not have people just save gas and stay home? The government could simply borrow and/or print money and send it to foreign countries that are dumb enough to produce goods and services for US consumption. Christina Romer, former Chair to Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, also sided with Krugman in a commentary posted in Sunday’s New York Times finance section. In it, she pontificated on the lessons to be learned from the Great Depression, saying: “It would be a mistake to respond by reducing the deficit more sharply in the near-term. That would almost surely condemn us to a repeat of the 1937 downturn.” This misdirection demonstrates her lack of understanding of what causes economic depressions in the first place.

The cause of the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Great Recession beginning in December 2007 were one and the same – an over-leveraged economy. Easy money provided by the banking system eventually brings debt in the economy to an unsustainable level. At that point, the only real and viable solution is for the public and private sectors to undergo a protracted period of deleveraging. The ensuing depression is, in actuality, the healing process at work, and is marked by the selling of assets and the paying down of debt. Unfortunately, our politicians today are focused on fighting the natural healing process of deleveraging by promoting the accumulation of even more debt.

During this latest economic contraction, the Federal Reserve has taken interest rates to near 0% for the past 2 ¾ years, and it has just promised to keep them there for an additional 2 years! Meanwhile, the Obama administration is leveraging up the public sector to record levels in an effort to re-leverage the private sector. The government’s philosophy is tantamount to sticking a frostbitten man in the freezer so he won’t have to suffer the pain associated with the thawing of his extremities.

During the Great Depression, real GDP plummeted 32%. The Great Recession, through which we are still struggling, began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. But, in contrast to the 1930s, GDP during this recession shrank only 3.6% from the fourth quarter of 2007 through its low point in the second quarter of 2009.

The contraction in GDP during the Great Depression was the direct result of consumers paying down debt and selling off assets. Household debt as a percentage of GDP reached nearly 100% in 1929. To put that number in perspective, household debt did not go back above 50% of GDP until 1985. And it was not until the first quarter of 2009 that household debt once again approached the 1929 level.

Between the start of the Great Depression and the end of World War II, household debt fell from 100% to just above 20% of GDP. Getting there was a painful process, but such de-leveraging was the only real cure for an economy swimming in debt. Thanks to government efforts to carry on our debt-fueled consumption binge, during today’s Great Recession, household debt has barely contracted at all – it has only been reduced to 90% of GDP as of Q1 ’11.

To make matters even worse, during this current crisis our government’s response has been to dramatically increase its own borrowing. At the start of the Great Depression, gross national debt was 16% of GDP. It peaked just below 44% when the Depression ended. While the national debt did increase significantly during that period, it was still relatively benign compared to other Western governments. The US entered this current Great Recession with gross national debt equal to 65% of GDP. It has since exploded to 98% of GDP!

US federal debt did rise dramatically during World War II, topping out at 120% of GDP in 1946. But consumer debt plunged concurrently. So, while Washington was adding debt to fight and win a global war, households were taking the necessary steps to ensure their balance sheets were well prepared for the aftermath of the battle.

Today, for the first time in our history, gross national debt and household debt are both at least 90% of GDP.

Mr. Krugman and his allies believe that we can grow our way out of this recession like we have in the past few. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with a completely different animal. In every past recession, the government, under the guidance of Keynesians, decided to put off deleveraging in return for artificial growth. Well, that tab has come due.

Since these economists keep trying to spend like it’s World War III, we are moving inexorably closer to causing Great Depression II. If policymakers and mainstream economists fail to understand that the progenitor of a depression is debt, they will also be unable to provide a genuine solution. Instead, by pushing public debt past the point of our creditors’ willingness to lend, they may ensure that this next Great Depression will be accompanied by runaway inflation. If history is any guide, this is a truly lethal combination.

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

This week’s wild actions on Wall Street should serve as a stark reminder that few investors have any clue as to what is really going on beneath the surface of America’s troubled economy. But this week did bring startling clarity on at least one front. In its August policy statement the Federal Reserve took the highly unusual step of putting a specific time frame for the continuation of its near zero interest rate policy.

Moving past the previously uncertain pronouncements that they would “keep interest rates low for an extended period,” the Fed now tells us that rates will not budge from rock bottom for at least two years. Although the markets rallied on the news (at least for a few minutes) in reality the policy will inflict untold harm on the U.S. economy. The move was so dangerous and misguided that three members of the Fed’s Open Market Committee actually voted against it. This level of dissent within the Fed hasn’t been seen for years.

Many economists have short-sightedly concluded that ultra low interest rates are a sure fire way to spur economic growth. The easier and cheaper it is to borrow, they argue, the more likely business and consumers are to spend. And because spending spurs growth, in their calculation, low rates are always good. But, as is typical, they have it backwards.

I believe that ultra-low interest rates are among the biggest impediments currently preventing genuine economic growth in the US economy. By committing to keep them near zero for the next two years, the Fed has actually lengthened the time Americans will now have to wait before a real recovery begins. Low rates are the root cause of the misallocation of resources that define the modern American economy. As a direct result, Americans borrow, consume, and speculate too much, while we save, produce, and invest too little.

It may come as a shock to some, but just like everything else in a free market, interest rate levels are best determined by the freely interacting forces of supply and demand. In the case of interest rates, the determinative factors should be the supply of savings available to lend and the demand for money by people and business who want to borrow. Many of the beneficial elements of market determined rates are explained in my book How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes. But allowing the government to determine interest rates as a matter of policy creates a number of distortions.

It was bad enough that the Fed held rates far too low, but at least a fig leaf of uncertainty kept the most brazen speculators in partial paralysis. But by specifically telegraphing policy, the Fed has now given cover to the most parasitic elements of the financial sector to undertake transactions that offer no economic benefit to the nation. Specifically, it will simply encourage banks to borrow money at zero percent from the Fed, and then use significant leverage to buy low yielding treasuries at 2 to 4 percent. The result is a banker’s dream: guaranteed low risk profit. In other words it will encourage banks to lend to the government, which already borrows too much, and not lend to private borrowers, whose activity could actually benefit the economy.

This reckless policy, designed to facilitate government spending and appease Wall Street financiers, will continue to starve Main Street of the capital it needs to make real productivity-enhancing investments. American investment capital will continue to flow abroad, denying local business the means to expand and hire. It also destroys interest rates paid to holders of bank savings deposits which traditionally had been a financial pillar of retirees. In addition, such an inflationary policy drives real wages lower, robbing Americans of their purchasing power. The consequence is a dollar in free-fall, dragging down with it the standard of living of average Americans.

Until interest rates are allowed to rise to appropriate levels, more resources will be misallocated, additional jobs will be lost, government spending and deficits will continue to grow, the dollar will keep falling, consumer prices will keep rising, and the government will keep blaming our problems on external factors beyond its control. As the old adage goes, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

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

Last week Fed Chairman Bernanke raised eyebrows and denied history when he asserted in front of Congress that gold doesn’t qualify as money. Yesterday he took the unprecedented step of announcing that the Federal Reserve would keep interest rates near zero for at least the next two years. In very short order thereafter it required much more of the money that he believes in (U.S. dollars) to buy the money that he doesn’t believe in (gold).

In any event, it was beyond unusual for the Fed to make such an explicit time commitment on monetary policy. To underscore this fact, three voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee came out against the policy. Such dissent within the Fed’s ranks has not been seen in decades. But Bernanke’s shameless appeasement of market fears did interrupt, if only for a few hours, the free fall on Wall Street. Wiser investors, understanding how a more activist Federal Reserve will destroy the value of the dollar, moved to gold, pushing the metal up to north of $1,750 per ounce.

The economic forecast contained in the Fed statement was far gloomier than earlier pronouncements. Bernanke sees continued sluggish growth for the U.S. economy and subdued inflation. Normally under such conditions gold should be expected to fall. However, as we have said consistently, these times are far from normal.

Readers will know already that we believe that the U.S. Treasury market is a gigantic wealth trap. Even before the Fed’s statement, investors seeking safety from European debt fears and staggering losses and unnerving volatility in the equities markets had flooded into U.S. Treasury securities. Nevertheless, this week has thus far seen a stampede into Treasury securities, causing yields to plummet. One-month Treasuries now yield 0.02 percent, making them no better than cash; the 5-year yields 0.93 percent, 10-year 2.17 percent and the 30-year 3.56 percent. Assuming a Consumer Price Inflation rate of 3.2 percent, all new investors in U.S. Treasury securities with a maturity of less than 30 years are losing ‘real’ money. In addition, with little prospect of further interest rate reductions the possibility of capital gains through Treasury investments are essentially nil.

These negative returns will eventually act as a pressure for funds to drift away from the bloated bond market into the beaten down equity market. But the total size of the global bond market is more than twice the size of the global equities markets, so these fund flows, when they occur, may make an outsize impact on equity prices.

In addition, the Fed is debasing the U.S. dollar at an increasing rate. Despite the fact that other nations are following suit to protect their exports, the dollar is set to fall further. Indeed in criticizing the S&P downgrade last week, Former Fed Chairman Greenspan said that the Fed need not be concerned about debt service because it can just “print more money!”

Facing negative real yields, the prospect of further credit rating downgrades and a falling dollar, investors in U.S. Treasuries are setting themselves up to be plundered.

On the other hand, despite recession fears, the upward march of gold continues, with many mainstream investment firms now setting price targets north of $2,000 per ounce. But skepticism remains, with some analysts pointing out that the price of gold is in “record” territory and is therefore highly speculative. However today’s gold price of $1,760 is still about 30 percent below the inflation adjusted high set in 1980 when gold struck $850 per ounce. From my perspective, with a sovereign debt crisis threatening, a currency collapse looming, and a chronically persistent low interest rate regime, gold looks positively cheap.

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.