Thai Guru's Gold und Silber ... (Informationen und Vermutungen)

First Japan, now China:

China Industrial Output Rises 8.9%, Slowest in 3 Yrs

Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- China's industrial production rose in January at the slowest pace in three years, reflecting a government clampdown on investment by state-owned companies.

Output rose 8.9 percent from a year earlier after gaining 14.4 percent in December, according to Beijing-based Mainland Marketing Research Co. (China), which releases figures on behalf of the statistics bureau. The figures were adjusted to allow for the week-long Lunar New Year holiday falling in different months and the increase was the smallest since December 2001.

Production growth has slowed from about 19 percent since Premier Wen Jiabao in April clamped down on industrial expansion to help cool inflation and ease power shortages. Surging exports and consumer spending are taking up the slack in the economy, which grew at its fastest pace in eight years in 2004.

``There probably will be a bit further slowdown, led by fixed-asset investment, but nothing dramatic,'' said Rob Subbaraman, an economist at Lehman Brothers Japan Inc. in Tokyo. ``We would argue that it's a good thing -- growth is becoming more balanced.''

-END-

More on the stunning PPI news:

U.S. Jan. Producer Prices Rise 0.3%; Core Jumps 0.8%

Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. wholesale prices rose 0.3 percent in January, led by higher costs for cigarettes, vehicles and business equipment, a government report showed. Excluding food and energy, prices rose the most in more than six years.

The increase in the measure of prices paid to factories, farmers and other producers followed a 0.3 percent drop in December, the Labor Department said today in Washington. The core rate, which excludes food and energy, surged 0.8 percent, the biggest rise since December 1998. Treasury securities fell.

Manufacturers and other producers, struggling with rising costs for energy and other raw materials, are attempting to raise prices to maintain profits. Rising demand and less competition from abroad may be allowing some of the price increases to stick. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan this week said inflation and expectations remain ``well anchored.''

``There is an inflation risk, not an inflation problem,'' said Ken Mayland, chief economist at ClearView Economics LLC in Pepper Pike, Ohio. Mayland was the best economic forecaster for the year ended in June 2004, according to Bloomberg Magazine rankings. ``There are pressures in the supply chain and some of these are beginning to bubble up.''

Economists forecast a 0.3 percent gain in the January producer price index, based on the median of 74 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey. The core rate was forecast to increase 0.2 percent, matching the previous month's rise.

Core producer prices rose 2.7 percent in January from the same month a year ago, the biggest rise since November 1995…

-END-

From the highly regarded King Report:

Fed data released after the close shows the monetary base took a huge hit – falling $12.742B for the week ended 2/16. Total reserves fell about $6B to $43.595B, but required reserves fell almost $6B. M3 unexpectedly fell $25B for the week ended 2/7…Foreign central banks bought $3.379B in US govt securities while selling $1.335B of federal agencies. Central bank net buying of $2.043B broke three consecutive weeks of central bank net selling. Of course central banks turned buyer; the dollar declined.

Once again, Easy Al asked Congress to curb FNM and FRE growth, stating, "Going forward, enabling these institutions to increase in size, we are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk." However Al equivocated, "The risk now is, as best I can judge, virtually negligible." No risk now, but going forward the whole financial system might be at substantial risk? Sounds like a conundrum.

So yesterday Al waxes prophetically on system risk when the day before he reverted to his Sgt. Schultz of The Fed routine. Bubbles? "I know nothing." Productivity? "I know nothing." Neutral interest rate? "I know nothing." Flattening yield curve? "I know nothing." Derivatives? "I want to know nothing – do not regulate."..

-END-

From the highly regarded Jesse:

Here is my response to the pundits who claim that with growth in M3 declining since 2001the dollar will appreciate and gold will decline in value.

Basically, they're just flat out wrong. There isn't any decline in M3 growth, except some noticeable draining back of M3 into financial assets (stocks).

Interestingly, counter-intuitively, M3 exploded after the bubble burst in 2000-2001. What was the cause of this? I have several speculations on my web site.

http://jessel.100megsfree3.com/M3Custodials.png

-END-

Treasury's Role in Illicit Iraq Oil Sales Cited
Senator Releases E-Mail From Parties Involved in Shipments Banned by U.N.

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 17, 2005; Page A14

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 16 -- The Treasury Department provided assurances that the United States would not obstruct two companies' plans to import millions of barrels of oil from Iraq in March 2003 in violation of U.N. sanctions, according to an e-mail from one of the companies.

Diplomats and oil brokers have recently said that the United States had long turned a blind eye to illicit shipments of Iraqi oil by its allies Jordan and Turkey. The United States acknowledged this week that it had acquiesced in the trade to ensure that crucial allies would not suffer economic hardships.

But the e-mail, along with others released this week by Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs panel's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, provides evidence that the Bush administration directly abetted Jordan's efforts to build up its strategic reserves with smuggled Iraqi oil in the weeks before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003.

The illicit oil exports took place outside the Iraq oil-for-food program, which the United Nations administered from 1996 to 2003. While allegations of corruption and mismanagement in that program are under investigation by five congressional committees, the Justice Department and a U.N.-appointed panel, the illicit oil exports outside the program have received less scrutiny. According to investigators, Iraq received more revenue from those exports than from the alleged oil-for-food kickbacks.

"The bulk of [Saddam Hussein's] illicit oil sale revenues actually came from the money he received from unregulated sales of Iraqi oil, entirely outside of the oil-for-food program, primarily to Turkey, Jordan and Syria," Levin said at a hearing Tuesday on the U.N. management of Iraqi oil revenue. "We and the rest of the world looked the other way from those sales even though they were prohibited by the U.N. sanctions regime."..

-END-

If oil, why not surreptitious gold dealings by this very same Treasury?

Uh-oh:

WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush called on Syria on Thursday to remove troops from Lebanon and let the country hold free and fair elections.

Bush said Syria should adhere to a U.N. resolution demanding its troops leave Lebanon, where former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri was killed on Monday in a bombing that many Lebanese suspect Syria was behind… -END-

A heads-up from GATA’s diligent Chris Powell:

8:08p ET Thursday, February 17, 2005

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

Greta Steyn of MiningMX analyzes the hubbub over proposals that the International Monetary Fund should sell gold to help poor countries and notes that similar proposals in 1999 were not actually defeated, as is commonly assumed. To the contrary, she writes, a couple of big IMF gold sales were made in 1999 but were structured to be only bookkeeping entries, with no new gold entering the market. You can find Steyn's report here:

http://www.miningmx.com/gold_silver/414405.htm

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

The gold shares yawned at today’s inflation news, thanks to the cabal price-capping of bullion. The XAU lost .15 to 96.29 and the HUI gave up 1.07 to 209.89. Guess The Gold Cartel wanted to make sure the HUI closed under key support at 210.

This was a very frustrating week, yet a very exciting one as far as gold’s future price is concerned. The perfect storm is forming on the horizon and few seem to be paying attention, which is just the way the Orwellians and the Gold Cartel want it. They have had their way for a long time, however, if the storm signals are correct, their days are numbered.

The US economy is quietly slowing just as inflation is rearing its ugly head all over the place. The bond and commodity markets reflected this building inflation scenario this week. So did silver. Meanwhile, the war drums towards Syria are beating louder as the smoke signals are becoming blacker.

Gold ought to blow through $430 next week and take off for its 2004 highs. Silver could really rocket. More and more investors around the world are going to want in on the coming gold play, silver too.

GATA BE IN IT TO WIN IT!

MIDAS

wichtige Kaufgelegenheit bei den Gold-/Silberaktien in den kommenden Wochen:

http://news.goldseek.com/JoeFRocks/1109084400.php

Gold, Wechselkurse und Produktionskosten

21.02.2005 Prof. Dr. Thomas Utter - Zaruma Resources Inc.

Zuerst die gute Nachricht: Eine Goldmine zu besitzen, ist wie die Lizenz zum Drucken von US-Dollar-Scheinen. Nun die schlechte Nachricht: Die grünen Scheinchen aus Washington verlieren laufend an Wert.

[Blockierte Grafik: http://www.goldinvest.de/publi…es/901120050221074909.jpg]

Vor gut einem Jahr lag der Goldpreis bei 415 USD/Unze, brach dann Mitte Mai auf 375 USD/Unze ab und stieg Anfang Dezember auf ein Jahreshoch von 454 USD/Unze, um dann zum Jahresende auf 435 USD/Unze zurück zu gehen – immerhin noch eine Jahressteigerung von 5 %. Aber da die Steigerung des Goldpreises fast parallel zur Schwächung des US-Dollars verlief, sah es in anderen Währungen recht trüb aus. Auf Basis des südafrikanischen Rands fiel der Goldpreis im Jahre 2004 um 12 %. Im Januar 2004 wurde in Johannesburg noch über den Goldpreis gejubelt – über 3.000 Rand wurde für die Feinunze bezahlt. Ein Jahr später: Ernüchterung. Der Preis rutschte auf 2.500 Rand/Unze ab, da der US-Dollar am Kap der Guten Hoffnung deutlich an Wert verlor: Musste man im Januar 2004 noch 7 Rand pro US-Dollar bezahlen so bekam man ab Mitte 2004 den „Greenback“ schon für 6 Rand. In anderen Währungen sah es ähnlich aus: Im Euro-Bereich fiel der Goldpreis 2004 um 3 %, in Kanada um 2 % und in Australien war in lokaler Währung gerade mal ein Preisanstieg über das Jahr 2004 von 2 % zu verzeichnen.

Mehr als die Hälfte der weltweiten Goldförderung geschieht zu Nicht-US-Dollar-Kosten und wird daher bedroht von einem schwachen US-Dollar, gleichbedeutend mit einem schwachen Verkaufspreis für Gold in der Heimatwährung.Betrachtet man zum Beispiel die südafrikanische Harmony Gold Mining Ltd., die mit rund 3,5 Millionen Unzen Goldförderung pro Jahr weltweit Platz 6 belegt. Umgerechnet auf US-Dollar produziert Harmony die Unze Gold zu Kosten von 410 US-Dollar. Rechnet man noch 30 bis 60 US-Dollar pro Unze für Abschreibungen hinzu, so stellt dies nicht gerade ein sehr profitables Geschäft dar, das „Shareholder Value“ wachsen lässt.

Um so verständlicher der verzweifelte Versuch von Harmony einen Goldproduzenten zu übernehmen, der auch außerhalb Südafrikas produziert. Hierfür kam natürlich nur Gold Fields Ltd. in Frage, da AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. – der andere südafrikanische Goldminenbetreiber – sicherlich ein zu grosser Fisch war. Aber Gold Fields wehrt sich mit Händen und Füssen gegen eine Übernahme und mit Erfolg. Die Anteilseigner von Harmony haben einer Übernahme nicht zugestimmt. Wenn der Goldpreis in Rand nicht stärker wird (durch schwächeren Rand und/oder deutlich höheren Goldpreis) wird es für fast 40 % der Weltgoldproduktion, die aus Südafrika kommt, in der Zukunft sehr eng.

Für Goldproduzenten in den USA oder in Ländern, deren Währung quasi an den US-Dollar gekoppelt ist, wie fast alle lateinamerikanischen Währungen oder der mexikanische Peso, sieht die Welt schon besser aus. Die Yanacocha Mine in Peru der Newmont Mining produziert Gold zu Kosten von unter 100USD/Unze. Günstige Geologie und gute Goldgehalte helfen hier, aber kein Währungsproblem zu haben, hilft auch.

Der Goldpreis angesichts der Wechselkurse, ist alles andere als glänzend. Bei den Goldminenaktien hatte sich dies selbst im Jahresverlauf 2004 mehr als deutlich gezeigt, trotz des gestiegenen öffentlichen Interesses an Goldanlagen. Anfang 2004 waren die meisten Goldaktien und Goldindizes auf einem Höhepunkt, um dann bis Mitte 2004 einzubrechen. Wenige Aktien haben das Preisniveau von vor einem Jahr wieder erreicht oder gar parallel zum US-Dollar-Goldpreis gar überschritten. Massive Gewinnmitnahmen und schwache Finanzzahlen vieler südafrikanischer und australischer Bergbaufirmen, wegen des Wechselkurs-Problems, haben die Kurse gedrückt. Dies ist die schlechte Nachricht.

Nun zur guten Nachricht: Unter dem heutigen Scenario ist das Produzieren von Gold in vielen Regionen sehr teuer. Das Angebot an physischem Gold kann daher nicht wesentlich zunehmen und wird weiterhin der Nachfrage hinterherhinken. Gold wird immer rarer. Dies sollte zu einer mittelfristigen, deutlichen Goldpreis-Steigerung führen, die sich auch in Nicht-US-Dollar-Währungen wiederspiegelt. Für den risikobewussten Anleger gibt es daher im unterinvestierten Goldbereich ein mittel- bis langfristiges Aufwärtspotential. Allerdings sollte der Anleger sich mehr als früher über das Währunsgrisiko in den Produktionskosten seines Anlage-Objekts von Fachleuten informieren lassen.

Zum Schluss noch die Mode-Frage: Und was ist mit China? Der Yuan wird von etlichen Kreisen als deutlich unterbewertet bezeichnet. Kommt es zu einer Aufwertung, so hilft dies dem Goldpreis zweiseitig: Die Goldproduktion in China wird teuer, es kommt von dort weniger auf dem Markt; Achtung Goldaktien-Anleger: Auf das Währungsrisiko bei zukünftigen chinesischen Goldproduzenten achten. Für den chinesischen privaten Goldkäufer wird Gold billiger, also wird mehr gekauft.
http://www.goldinvest.de/publi…&sc=&i=&y=2612&s=&offset=

Gfms und Investic haben den 4. Quartal Hedge-Report über Gold veröffentlicht:

http://www.mineweb.net/sections/gold_silver/413743.htm

Die Hedge-Positionen bei Gold haben sich insgesamt um 3,6 Mio. Unzen verringert.

February 21 – Gold $427 up 20 cents – Silver $7.39 unchanged

Steroids, Major League Baseball, Gold And GATA / What’s Behind The Hideous Brown/IMF Dog And Pony Show

Nature can provide for the needs of people; nature can't provide for the greed of people...Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)

GO GATA!

As soon as the Access Market opened on Sunday evening, gold was immediately taken down a little over $1. The dollar was unchanged. After gold was hit, the euro sold off a bit and followed gold down. This pattern occurs over and over again ad nauseam.

Today, a firm physical market brought gold right back up with the AM Fix coming at $427.10 and the PM Fix at $427.15. The yen and pound were slightly firmer with the euro a tad on the weak side.

Late Saturday afternoon I was minding my own business and turned on the tube for a little relaxation, which led me to the Fox News Watch Show. One of their featured topics covered the very visible ex-Pro baseball player Jose Canseco, who has written a best seller book, "Juiced : Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big," about major league ball players using steroids, of which he was one of the prime users. Only a few years ago Canseco played for the World Series winning New York Yankees.

What struck me was how a number of the panel on the show, the most outspoken being Neil Gabler, expressed opinions that a feature of this story was how the press abrogated the public trust by not investigating what has been an open secret for some time. The female on the news panel explained the reason why was that a member of the press who tried to break the story about pro ballplayer steroid use would be denied access to the players, the winning teams, and to what the public wanted to read about. The slant of these journalists was that everyone was benefiting from the Home Run binge; new records year after year, increased attendance, and this new excitement was good for business (sounds like the Mafia). Thus: "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil." Boy, is that familiar. What was fair and honorable has been thrown overboard by the baseball world. Greed won over principle, tradition and fair play.

Some baseball related points:

*This one amusing. Athletes can build their bodies through regimented weight training routines, but NOT their heads. According to a couple of the Fox show panelists, it seems the head sizes of the home run hitters like Barry Bonds have grown noticeably.

*What about the veterans who earned all-time records without the benefit of drugs? How can the achievements of the drugged ones be compared to those greats? This is a national disgrace in that the baseball world turned a blind eye to the obvious for its own financial motives. In doing so it has rendered the cherished hitting records of the all-time Hall of Fame baseball players to uncompetitive status.

The gold world, the CFTC, The Gold Cartel, the SEC, and the Bush and Clinton Administrations have turned a similar blind eye to the gold scandal. The difference is what they have allowed to occur, while turning their own blind eye, is going to devastate the average American in the years to come. This game these Gold Cartel bums and silent allies are playing will have profound ramifications beyond comprehension for the average Joe and Jane out there in our once great country.

There will come a day (after the stock market tanks, the value of their home has plummeted, and their hard earned savings have evaporated) when the average American will demand to know what happened and why. You can count on GATA leading the charge to explain the deal to them. By then gold will have rocketed above $800 per ounce and it will be the GATA ARMY which will have the upper hand, as we all will have the answers the American public will be clamoring for.

CARTEL CAPITULATION WATCH

Weekly S&P
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/SW/X

Seems to me the US stock market is putting in a giant double top, which has ominous implications for the months ahead. At the same time, it appears gold is about ready to charge through $430 in the VERY near future.

Many of the pundits on Wall Street are concentrating on the growing number of dividends, high corporate cash levels, firm corporate profits, etc., as reasons to be bullish. My bet is that the macro level re Iraq and US fiscal problems will overshadow the micro when it comes to the market. In addition, the good news which propelled the US market to a recovery over the past couple of years is over. Low interest rates, government stimulus and various tax cuts have run their course with their effects diminishing in the months to come.

The controversy over how China will affect the world economic scene rages on. Another piece of the puzzle for those trying to figure out what lurks in the future regarding this emerging economic behemoth:

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Foreign direct investment in China rose 10.7 percent last month from a year earlier as companies such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Coca-Cola Co. expanded to tap demand in the world's fastest-growing major economy.

Investment increased to $4.1 billion, as the government allowed 3,563 foreign companies to build stores and factories in January, China's Commerce Ministry said on its Web site. Contracted foreign investment, or investment pledged but not yet delivered, also surged 27.7 percent to $12.8 billion, the ministry said. This figure is an indicator of future investment.

China, the world's seventh-largest economy, attracted a record $60.6 billion from foreign investors last year, as companies tapped low labor costs and a market of 1.3 billion consumers. Government efforts to slow the economy by curbing credit to industries such as steel, autos and real estate haven't deterred foreign investors such as Pirelli & C. SpA...

-END-

More on Greenspan and inflation:

Hi Bill,
I hit the Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS) Website yesterday after the latest Producer Price Index (PPI) inflation numbers were released for January.

The headline PPI numbers were +0.3% January vs. December and 0.8% for the "core" (minus food and energy). Energy was -1 % in January (!) and food was -0.2%. The preceding are all seasonally adjusted.

What really startled me was that after hearing all week from Greenspan that inflation was well contained I found the following:

From the BLS Website (PPI January prices relative to 1 year ago - not seasonally adjusted basis which are the numbers I trust):

Crude Goods: +10.8%
Intermediate Goods: +8.7%
Finished Goods: +4.2%
Now how long do you think it will take for these prices to work their way through the pipeline?

Also of note is that the price of crude goods in January 2004 was 16.1% higher than January 2003 (i.e. crude good prices in January 2005 are 26.9% higher than in January 2003).

Link: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm

I can see why the Japanese stopped buying US Treasuries in September 2004. Why would they want the currency risk plus risking the underlying capital when inflation is clearly coming through the pipeline and will surely force interest rates up shortly?

Any adjustment to M3 and interest rates typically take 18 months to affect the price levels.

I can see why Greenspan dropped the word "measured" from the FOMC interest rate statement.
Regards,
Dave.

Then courtesy of http://www.Prudentbear.com and Doug Noland's latest Credit Bubble Bulletin, we hear the specifics of the exchange between Chairman Greenspan and Congressional Representative Ron Paul on Wednesday before the House Banking Committee.

Representative Ron Paul and Monetary Sanity:

Representative Ron Paul: "Mr. Greenspan, yesterday you were quoted as saying it was imperative that the Congress restore fiscal discipline. And of course you’ve made that point, I think, very often over the years. I have tried my best to vote accordingly, but sometimes I find myself in a lonely category.

I have found that we have a group here that is quite willing to vote for deficits for domestic programs. Then we have another group that’s quite willing to spend for militarism abroad. Then we have another group that likes both. So if you look around for people who are willing to maybe cut in both areas, it’s pretty hard to come by.

But you, in the past, in answer to some of my questions have answered that you believe that central bankers have come around to getting paper money to act in many ways just like gold, and therefore, there was less of an imperative for a gold standard. I haven’t yet been convinced of that.

Take, for instance, the current account deficit. You know, under a gold standard there’s a lot of self-adjustment. And we certainly wouldn’t have the exchange rate distortions between the renminbi and the dollar. So I think there’s a lot of shortcomings under the paper standard with the current account deficit.

Also, although the argument is made that the CPI reflects that there’s little or no inflation, that if you look at the price of bonds or if you look at the cost of medicine, if you look at the cost of energy, there’s a lot of price inflation out there. And also, if you look at the cost of houses, which are skyrocketing, which then is reflected into tax increases, the consumer is still suffering from a lot of price inflation that we in many ways in Washington try to deny.

But I think in an effort to discipline the Congress that the Federal Reserve would have a role to play as well, because in many ways the Federal Reserve accommodates the spending because you’re capable of buying bonds, and when you buy our debt that we create, you do it with credit it out of thin air. So it is that facility of the monetary system that literally encourages or actually tells the Congress they don’t need to be disciplined because there’s always this fallback, that we don’t have to worry, the money’s out there, which would not be available, obviously, under a gold standard. But I would like to quote from a famous economist that sort of defends my position. It says -- he says, ‘In almost a hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard, is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. Government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds.’

Further stating: ‘In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statist antagonism toward the gold standard.’ And, of course, I’m sure you recognize those words because this is your argument."

Mr. Greenspan: "I do."

Representative Ron Paul: "And I would say that isn’t it time -- if we ever get concerned about our deficit spending, and we’ve considered a real imperative, why shouldn’t we talk about serious monetary reform? Do you think that the gold standard would limit spending here in the Congress?

Mr. Greenspan: "First of all, that was written 40 years ago, and I was mistaken, in part. I expected things that didn’t happen. And nonetheless, my general view towards the type of gold-standard effect remains to this day -- my forecast of what was going to happen subsequent to that period has proved, fortunately, wrong. And as I said to you in the past, we have tried to manage the Federal Reserve over the years, really since October 1979 – because remember, up to that point we were in some very serious inflationary trouble -- since then I think we have been remarkably successful, in my judgment.

And while I still think that the gold standard served us very considerably during the 19th century, and mimicking much of what the gold standard does is what we do today, I think in that context so far we have maintained a stable monetary system. And I do not think that you could claim that [the] central bank is facilitating the expansion of expenditures in this country."

-END-

Which takes us to Richard Russell’s interpretation of that exchange:

Speaking of Alan Greenspan, I listened to the Congressman Ron Paul of Texas confronting Greenspan about inflation and gold at this week's Humphrey-Hawkins meeting. And Greenspan gave a most interesting answer, one that explains a lot about Greenspan's thinking and his rationale as he operates today in a world of fiat currencies.

Greenspan said that the Fed is operating as though the dollar was still backed by gold. In other words, Greenspan was saying that the Fed, by managing the markets, was literally taking the place of gold. At that point it was clear that Greenspan did not want to delve further into the subject of the Fed and gold.

The obvious question that Greenspan was avoiding was this -- If Fed "management" of the nation's money is so expert, even without the discipline of gold -- why has the purchasing power of the dollar been declining year after year, decade after decade? And, of course, that's the one subject that Greenspan doesn't want to touch. So the slow, systematic destruction of the dollar and the nation's savings goes on. Maybe that's the real reason why Americans save nothing today. And maybe it's the "hidden" reason why Americans are buying houses rather than (or as a substitute for) gold today.

-END-