Firstly, my apologies for the long gap between posts. Work prevailed I'm afraid, but as we begin a new year, I thought I'd look at an issue that just seems to be beyond the understanding of most people.
The value of money.
Let me start with two scenarios. The point is to take this to an extreme, but I hope that it will "flick a switch" with you the reader; a kind of "Eureka" or epiphany moment.
You are dying of thirst in a desert. You know the next village with water is a day away, but you've travelled 3 days already and you won't make it without water. You will definitely die without a doubt, and you know that as fact. You also have a million dollars in a rucksack on your back.
A nomad wanders by on his camel, sees your plight and offers you a bottle of water which you know will get you to the village and survival... but at a cost. Yes, one million dollars!
What would you do? How much is that million dollars of paper worth now?
It's worth a bottle of water. That's all.
Another scenario about "paper", be it money or otherwise.
You walk to a shop to buy a newspaper. The newspaper has a value of one dollar. You are willing to pay that one dollar because you want the newspaper.
You buy the newspaper and walk out of the shop. What is the value of the newspaper now? If you stopped 100 people in the street, how many would give you one dollar for the newspaper?
The answer is, that if you found someone on the way to the shop to buy a newspaper, you *might* get your dollar back, however this is highly unlikely. You may get 10 0r 20 cents if you were lucky because people don't like picking up, holding, using old newspapers.
Let's step forward one day. How much is your newspaper worth now?
The answer is nothing. It has no value in dollar terms anymore.
So you see that an article has a value but to state that value in monetary terms is the wrong way to value it. Some may say this is a capitalist paradigm that we have all been hoodwinked into using, and there may be an element of truth in that. However, we have to look at commodities differently now, and value them for what they are actually worth to us as individuals and not in monetary terms.
This blog is about a potential collapse of the "system" as we know it today. It's already crumbling due to the economic crisis, but we can negate most of this by thinking very differently. I am a member of a forum which is supposed to be full of forward thinking people. These people are supposedly very understanding of the issues we may face in the near future, especially peak oil. However a recent post of mine revealed the true misunderstanding that even these people just don't get.
I asked a question regarding electric heating as opposed to oil based heating which I have in my home. The premise is, that if oil becomes scarce, I will need an alternative to keep my house warm. Post after post reveals the comparison with money.
Electric Radiators Forum Post by Troubled Times.
"It will be more expensive", "The costs will be high" etc etc. This misunderstanding is quite frightening because these are people I thought were thinking differently, however they are still comparing the value of something with a fiat, paper based monetary system.
There is also the possibility that my oil boiler will fail. This is very likely within the next 10 years and will be an expensive item to replace, if there are still engineers to do the work. They could be as rare as thatchers are today, but what was a boom industry 100 years ago. And when my boiler does go wrong, do I replace it anyway, or will that be the point at which to convert to electric heating?
If you are freezing in your home because oil is just not available, then what would you do? You have lots of money, in fact you could probably buy BP even with all their troubles, but the oil that fires your heating system is just not there.
However, the electric radiators your neighbour installed before oil was unavailable, are still going strong because electricity has managed to continue to be generated, thanks mostly to the renewables program encouraged in the previous 5 years by the Government. He has also installed a wind turbine in the back garden which he told you was £12,000 and you laughed and laughed at his stupidity, because at the time, £12,000 would have filled up your oil tank for the next 10 years!
But you look out of your window and his turbine is spinning, and he has one warm room in the house. He knows that the turbine may at some point fail, but for the time being, the £12,000 he spent seems very worthwhile. You on the otherhand have £12,000 in paper money that you saved under the mattress. You could burn it to keep warm, but then you'd probably be better off trying to build a wind turbine. You'd like to buy one, but unfortunately because of demand and inflation, they are now almost £100,000 in paper money, and you just don't have it.
So the point of this new post in a new year is to see the true value of your paper money, and to remember that what it buys today, it won't buy on systemic breakdown and to think on a different level to even the most forward of thinkers.
As for me, I shall be buying my electric radiators and storing them in my garage until they are needed. If (and its a big if) oil becomes scarce or prohibitively expensive in paper money compared to electricity, then I shall pull them out and plug them in to keep warm. The true value of money is not what it can buy today, but what it can buy if everything changes. Think differently to everyone else.
Good luck and have a peaceful new year.
As a footnote, it must be stressed that the radiators I am looking to fit are not the same as the portable, heavy cast-iron types you can buy very cheaply. These are made of aluminium with full climatic control and 98% efficient. They are commonly used in eco-homes and can be carbon neutral if connected to a renewable energy source which I intend to do.
Friday, 14 January 2011
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
The alternative fuels struggle... but why?
It's been the topic of media speculation for some time now, but it occurred to me that every industry appears to be asking the same question: "How will our industry survive peak oil?".
Airline, car, entertainment, clothing, food, all will be affected by peak oil, so each needs a contingency plan. I understand the obvious answer is "Well of course they would, and according to your (my) blog, they need to!". This is true of course, but there is a burning question...
Why?
I understand the paradigm in which we exist, namely the "global economy", and the desire, when things look likely to change, to continue that paradigm, but a serious understanding of peak oil will beg the question, "Why bother to look?"
Peak oil means that unless every aspect of our entire global economy can make the transition to an alternative fuel at the same time (almost on the same day), then the global infrastructure crumbles in days. Once the food chain grinds to a halt due to lack of transportation, so the supermarkets don't get restocked, so populations go hungry and riot very quickly. In this instance, who wants to board a plane for "pleasure"?
Who would even be thinking about buying a new car, choosing a new TV, going to the theatre, browsing that new outfit?
The basic premise of peak oil is that very very quickly, food stops being moved around, stock markets fail, and the desire to seek alternative fuel stops. Even if we had a hydrogen economy, I have yet to find a factory that runs on hydrogen or electricity that makes new parts for cars, planes or hard drives for instance.
Plastics can only be made from oil. Oil affects every single aspect of our lives as I have said many times in the blog. So the finding of a new fuel, unless we can make spare parts for all the wonderful electric or hydrogen vehicles we will be looking forward to out of hydrogen (we can't, they all depend on oil) then it's a waste of time.
Solar Panels for example.
I see the clamour for solar panels by people within the Peak Oil community, and yet this is so short sighted for those who allegedly have a deep understanding of the situation. The search for alternative fuels is an attempt to continue the paradigm that we have today, or a semblance of it. Even in the short term, the desire is not to help save humanity, but merely a perpetuation of what we are used to.
These people don;t even consider the human or natural resurces cost in the desire for these items. And I'm not just talking about solar panels here. The natural resources needed such as copper, iron, coal, silicon, lithium, these all come from poorer nations, who employ people right at the bottom of the employment chain.
There may be a pious upturned chin at the rest of the population for shopping at Tesco, or wearing Nike trainers, but without realising it, the "transition townies" are exactly the same. But they will never see it.
They will never see that their desire to install solar panels and wind turbines is exploiting the very same poor people that sew sequins on t-shirts for a well known chain store they refuse to shop in for "ethical reasons".
They will never understand that the stock of food in the cupboard pending global collapse consists of tins of fruit that has been picked by the poorest people in the world, arguably the most exploited people in the world.
So the question is... should we not accept that until we have a balance of sustainability, we should be allowing such systems (like the food chain for instance) to collapse?
Humanity of course says that no we mustn't, because that will inevitably lead to a mass die-off of people. But that's where humanity as we know it, has it wrong. That die-off is EXACTLY what's needed. An extinction of people that, if they cannot survive without the luxury of a solar panel, deserve not to be here. If, between themselves and others they cannot form a coalition or community that is determined to live free of exploitation of others, then they deserve not to be here.
So the search for alternative energy, and the dependence on technology to "fix" the paradigm we are facing is an anomaly. The fact is that even if we found the miracle fuel, our First World and its contents is built on oil and petroleum products, so even if we could run a car on water, we certainly couldn't make the spare tyres it needs to run on out of hydrogen or solar energy.
Unfortunately, this is where 90% of the Peak Oil community fails at the first hurdle. The non-lateral thinking that is needed for the transition is not a perpetuation of business as usual (such as oodles of wind turbines or solar panels), it's an understanding that alongside science, there needs to be a humanitarian balance that says, if we cannot sustain the human population at these levels, we need to instigate a cull. The cruel thing is (or perhaps for the better), the First World won't make it. But there are a billion people that do not depend on oil at all. They have never depended on electricity or oil, so they will know no difference. They are the poorest in the world (or the richest if we look at it correctly) and yet they will make it.
So let's learn one thing from this struggle for a new energy; it won;t make any difference, and my advice would be to get used to living in the dark, or learn to make candles.
Airline, car, entertainment, clothing, food, all will be affected by peak oil, so each needs a contingency plan. I understand the obvious answer is "Well of course they would, and according to your (my) blog, they need to!". This is true of course, but there is a burning question...
Why?
I understand the paradigm in which we exist, namely the "global economy", and the desire, when things look likely to change, to continue that paradigm, but a serious understanding of peak oil will beg the question, "Why bother to look?"
Peak oil means that unless every aspect of our entire global economy can make the transition to an alternative fuel at the same time (almost on the same day), then the global infrastructure crumbles in days. Once the food chain grinds to a halt due to lack of transportation, so the supermarkets don't get restocked, so populations go hungry and riot very quickly. In this instance, who wants to board a plane for "pleasure"?
Who would even be thinking about buying a new car, choosing a new TV, going to the theatre, browsing that new outfit?
The basic premise of peak oil is that very very quickly, food stops being moved around, stock markets fail, and the desire to seek alternative fuel stops. Even if we had a hydrogen economy, I have yet to find a factory that runs on hydrogen or electricity that makes new parts for cars, planes or hard drives for instance.
Plastics can only be made from oil. Oil affects every single aspect of our lives as I have said many times in the blog. So the finding of a new fuel, unless we can make spare parts for all the wonderful electric or hydrogen vehicles we will be looking forward to out of hydrogen (we can't, they all depend on oil) then it's a waste of time.
Solar Panels for example.
I see the clamour for solar panels by people within the Peak Oil community, and yet this is so short sighted for those who allegedly have a deep understanding of the situation. The search for alternative fuels is an attempt to continue the paradigm that we have today, or a semblance of it. Even in the short term, the desire is not to help save humanity, but merely a perpetuation of what we are used to.
These people don;t even consider the human or natural resurces cost in the desire for these items. And I'm not just talking about solar panels here. The natural resources needed such as copper, iron, coal, silicon, lithium, these all come from poorer nations, who employ people right at the bottom of the employment chain.
There may be a pious upturned chin at the rest of the population for shopping at Tesco, or wearing Nike trainers, but without realising it, the "transition townies" are exactly the same. But they will never see it.
They will never see that their desire to install solar panels and wind turbines is exploiting the very same poor people that sew sequins on t-shirts for a well known chain store they refuse to shop in for "ethical reasons".
They will never understand that the stock of food in the cupboard pending global collapse consists of tins of fruit that has been picked by the poorest people in the world, arguably the most exploited people in the world.
So the question is... should we not accept that until we have a balance of sustainability, we should be allowing such systems (like the food chain for instance) to collapse?
Humanity of course says that no we mustn't, because that will inevitably lead to a mass die-off of people. But that's where humanity as we know it, has it wrong. That die-off is EXACTLY what's needed. An extinction of people that, if they cannot survive without the luxury of a solar panel, deserve not to be here. If, between themselves and others they cannot form a coalition or community that is determined to live free of exploitation of others, then they deserve not to be here.
So the search for alternative energy, and the dependence on technology to "fix" the paradigm we are facing is an anomaly. The fact is that even if we found the miracle fuel, our First World and its contents is built on oil and petroleum products, so even if we could run a car on water, we certainly couldn't make the spare tyres it needs to run on out of hydrogen or solar energy.
Unfortunately, this is where 90% of the Peak Oil community fails at the first hurdle. The non-lateral thinking that is needed for the transition is not a perpetuation of business as usual (such as oodles of wind turbines or solar panels), it's an understanding that alongside science, there needs to be a humanitarian balance that says, if we cannot sustain the human population at these levels, we need to instigate a cull. The cruel thing is (or perhaps for the better), the First World won't make it. But there are a billion people that do not depend on oil at all. They have never depended on electricity or oil, so they will know no difference. They are the poorest in the world (or the richest if we look at it correctly) and yet they will make it.
So let's learn one thing from this struggle for a new energy; it won;t make any difference, and my advice would be to get used to living in the dark, or learn to make candles.
Monday, 9 August 2010
Can we avoid "The Corporation"?
A recent discussion on a forum board I like to visit, raised questions regarding "Corporatocracy"; i.e the Corporation being more powerful than any government. After asking a few friends privately, just in conversation, I realised the reaction invariably was "Oh, I never use Tesco's", "I wouldn't DREAM of venturing into Primark!", " I buy all my vegetables and meat from a local farm shop".
Very laudable, and I truly believe that their hearts and minds are in the right place, however I asked the question...
"Can we avoid The Corporation?"
Firstly, let's establish a definition for a "Corporation", in the context of a global business. There are many I've found but I believe this best sums up what is perceived by most people as "The Corporation".
'A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members. There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business.'
So gong back to my friends, there are a number of Corporations we avoid, and we may have all number of reasons for doing so. I personally avoid ASDA because it is a part of the Wal*Mart Group which has been fined for a number of issues including child labour, and abuses of employees such as forcing people to work overtime, discrimination the list goes on. To quote Wal-Mart Watch executive director David Nassar who issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Department of Labor’s announcement that Wal-Mart is required to pay over $33 million in unpaid wages to current and former employees:
“Today’s announcement is just the latest in a disturbing pattern of Wal-Mart’s disregard for the law. It’s yet another example of how Wal-Mart fails to live up to its legal and moral responsibilities as the world’s largest private employer."
But can any of us avoid any corporation that doesn't have a dubious history of some sort? Before I give a few examples which I believe none of us can avoid no matter how hard we try, or how ethical we feel we are behaving, let me just say one thing.
This is not a criticism of anyone who is trying their best to make ethical decisions regarding where they spend their money. The reason I am posting this on my blog is purely as a way of perhaps assisting us all in thinking a little more laterally. I firmly believe that there is no way, if you reside and work in the Western world, or the First World (however you like to put it) you can avoid the Corporation. However by thinking a little differently, we can at least be aware of our decisions, and constantly improve on them.
The message here is simple:
Do your very best, for the situation you are in, on the money you have, for as long as you can.
That being said, I wondered how ethical I am, and I like to think I avoid what I perceive to be various Corporations that do not behave fairly, or with the best interests of the world as a whole. But there are those which I cannot avoid all of the time.
One was only today, I bought petrol from a Shell garage. I avoid Shell because for various reasons; most can be found here at Corporate Watch. Try as I might,I used Shell for the first time today in over a year. I could not avoid the Corporation.
I avoid Coca-Cola, mostly because of the Mark Thomas Report and the links to the Nazi regime during World War Two. Yes, I've seen Snopes that says this is nonsense, but if it's incorrect, then why doesn't Coca Cola take action?
I don't have anything to do with Nestlé either.
I'm not going to go on with more examples, but I realised that despite me not patronising all of these Corporations, I in fact am a bit of a hypocrite. Even this Blog is hosted by Google, who are possibly being prosecuted by the Australian Government over Privacy violations. I don;t agree with Google's policy on digitising the global book library, nor do I advocate their streetmap.
I switch on a tap in my house and gratefully drink fresh water, however I abhor the various policies of global water companies that supply my house. (See Blue Gold - World Water Wars)
I switch on a light, I'm using electricity generated by Eon who were fined for "Anti-Competitive behaviour" I may not actually pay Eon personally, but just by being connected to the National Grid, I will at some point be using electricity generated by them, albeit unknowingly.
I take medicines, I drive on roads built by construction companies, I shop at a local farm shop that probably uses Shell fuel and fertilisers to grow the vegetables I eat....
I can hear you screaming "STOP! that's taking things way too far!"
And I agree of course, but it does beg the question. Despite our best efforts, are we able to avoid the Corporations that aren't as ethical and responsible as we would like?
The answer of course is no, we can't; however we can do one thing, and that's make conscious decisions and do our very best. I firmly believe that is enough.
Very laudable, and I truly believe that their hearts and minds are in the right place, however I asked the question...
"Can we avoid The Corporation?"
Firstly, let's establish a definition for a "Corporation", in the context of a global business. There are many I've found but I believe this best sums up what is perceived by most people as "The Corporation".
'A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members. There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business.'
So gong back to my friends, there are a number of Corporations we avoid, and we may have all number of reasons for doing so. I personally avoid ASDA because it is a part of the Wal*Mart Group which has been fined for a number of issues including child labour, and abuses of employees such as forcing people to work overtime, discrimination the list goes on. To quote Wal-Mart Watch executive director David Nassar who issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Department of Labor’s announcement that Wal-Mart is required to pay over $33 million in unpaid wages to current and former employees:
“Today’s announcement is just the latest in a disturbing pattern of Wal-Mart’s disregard for the law. It’s yet another example of how Wal-Mart fails to live up to its legal and moral responsibilities as the world’s largest private employer."
But can any of us avoid any corporation that doesn't have a dubious history of some sort? Before I give a few examples which I believe none of us can avoid no matter how hard we try, or how ethical we feel we are behaving, let me just say one thing.
This is not a criticism of anyone who is trying their best to make ethical decisions regarding where they spend their money. The reason I am posting this on my blog is purely as a way of perhaps assisting us all in thinking a little more laterally. I firmly believe that there is no way, if you reside and work in the Western world, or the First World (however you like to put it) you can avoid the Corporation. However by thinking a little differently, we can at least be aware of our decisions, and constantly improve on them.
The message here is simple:
Do your very best, for the situation you are in, on the money you have, for as long as you can.
That being said, I wondered how ethical I am, and I like to think I avoid what I perceive to be various Corporations that do not behave fairly, or with the best interests of the world as a whole. But there are those which I cannot avoid all of the time.
One was only today, I bought petrol from a Shell garage. I avoid Shell because for various reasons; most can be found here at Corporate Watch. Try as I might,I used Shell for the first time today in over a year. I could not avoid the Corporation.
I avoid Coca-Cola, mostly because of the Mark Thomas Report and the links to the Nazi regime during World War Two. Yes, I've seen Snopes that says this is nonsense, but if it's incorrect, then why doesn't Coca Cola take action?
I don't have anything to do with Nestlé either.
I'm not going to go on with more examples, but I realised that despite me not patronising all of these Corporations, I in fact am a bit of a hypocrite. Even this Blog is hosted by Google, who are possibly being prosecuted by the Australian Government over Privacy violations. I don;t agree with Google's policy on digitising the global book library, nor do I advocate their streetmap.
I switch on a tap in my house and gratefully drink fresh water, however I abhor the various policies of global water companies that supply my house. (See Blue Gold - World Water Wars)
I switch on a light, I'm using electricity generated by Eon who were fined for "Anti-Competitive behaviour" I may not actually pay Eon personally, but just by being connected to the National Grid, I will at some point be using electricity generated by them, albeit unknowingly.
I take medicines, I drive on roads built by construction companies, I shop at a local farm shop that probably uses Shell fuel and fertilisers to grow the vegetables I eat....
I can hear you screaming "STOP! that's taking things way too far!"
And I agree of course, but it does beg the question. Despite our best efforts, are we able to avoid the Corporations that aren't as ethical and responsible as we would like?
The answer of course is no, we can't; however we can do one thing, and that's make conscious decisions and do our very best. I firmly believe that is enough.
Current reading...
For those that are interested, (and no I am not linking to Amazon with these to earn money) I recommend:
Just finished
Tescopoly - by Andrew Simms.
Not just a "Tesco Bashing Fest" although that's not such a bad thing, this is about the corporate food chain, the alleged abuses of planning rules, and touches on the effects of Peak Oil and Climate Change on the distribution of food and goods and the creation of CO2 for some pointless plastic that we all seem to "need". (We don't, we're just told we do). Great book, but if you are already well versed on corporate affairs and plutocracy, then it's probably only useful as a reference when seeking out stats for articles etc. One criticism, which is a personal opinion; I think there could have been more criticism of us, the public, because we demand this stuff. A direction to the reader to understand there are no "rights to choice", and to reject 20 different brands of tomato soup. As a sidenote, I haven't shopped at Tesco's since October 2006, although I do go to Sainsbury's once per month. However after reading this book, Tesco is certainly the bad boy on the block in my opinion.
8/10
Current reading:
The Secret History of the Amercan Empire - John Perkins.
So far so good, up to page 60 and this is very engaging. Perkins is (by his own definition) an Economic Hit-Man (EHM). He was employed by the US Government to meet with foreign government officials to "encourage" them to assist US corporations to extract natural resources amongst other things, including oil, copper, minerals etc. Countries would be encouraged to take huge loans from the IMF and World Bank at interest which could be used to build infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, transport systems etc. However, most of this money, according to Perkins, ends up in corrupt officials pockets, who in return allow various corporations access to the wealth of resources, including cheap labour.
Will do an update of this when I've finished the book.
Next reading:
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World - Niall Ferguson.
Saw Professor Fergusons wonderful series on Channel 4, looking forward to reading this book soon.
Just finished
Tescopoly - by Andrew Simms.
Not just a "Tesco Bashing Fest" although that's not such a bad thing, this is about the corporate food chain, the alleged abuses of planning rules, and touches on the effects of Peak Oil and Climate Change on the distribution of food and goods and the creation of CO2 for some pointless plastic that we all seem to "need". (We don't, we're just told we do). Great book, but if you are already well versed on corporate affairs and plutocracy, then it's probably only useful as a reference when seeking out stats for articles etc. One criticism, which is a personal opinion; I think there could have been more criticism of us, the public, because we demand this stuff. A direction to the reader to understand there are no "rights to choice", and to reject 20 different brands of tomato soup. As a sidenote, I haven't shopped at Tesco's since October 2006, although I do go to Sainsbury's once per month. However after reading this book, Tesco is certainly the bad boy on the block in my opinion.
8/10
Current reading:
The Secret History of the Amercan Empire - John Perkins.
So far so good, up to page 60 and this is very engaging. Perkins is (by his own definition) an Economic Hit-Man (EHM). He was employed by the US Government to meet with foreign government officials to "encourage" them to assist US corporations to extract natural resources amongst other things, including oil, copper, minerals etc. Countries would be encouraged to take huge loans from the IMF and World Bank at interest which could be used to build infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, transport systems etc. However, most of this money, according to Perkins, ends up in corrupt officials pockets, who in return allow various corporations access to the wealth of resources, including cheap labour.
Will do an update of this when I've finished the book.
Next reading:
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World - Niall Ferguson.
Saw Professor Fergusons wonderful series on Channel 4, looking forward to reading this book soon.
Sunday, 8 August 2010
The elephant on the farm? Wheat prices.
I'm an advocate of the problems facing farming over the coming years, in particular, the depletion of fossil fuels which will cause severe disruptions to supply, mainly because of natural gas being essential for fertilisers, and the drying of corn prior to milling. There is also the problem with distribution being more expensive because of higher fuel costs, as well as climate change, GM crops (Monsanto patenting seeds), and of course expensive labour.
However, the elephant on the farm so to speak, is the current price of wheat which has almost doubled in one month. This may be due to speculation, or possibly the decision by Russia to halt all wheat exports, but whatever the cause, we are facing a very real problem within the next few months. Corn touches practically all foodstuffs, in the same way fossil fuels do. Pick up almost any food and it will contain corn, or a corn derived product. Including beer and lager of all things!!
Wheat prices: 26/6/2010 CLOSED: $456 then reaching a high of almost $800 on August 5th.
This could be the rank outsider (or should I say Rank Hovis outsider!) coming from the rear of the pack to challenge oil as the main problem facing us in the short term. Linked? Yes possibly, in fact certainly, but oil and wheat have always been connected, but only recently we've seen wheat absolutely stride ahead.
Not sure what to do for the best, but my guess will be that prices will fall back a bit, but that doesn't change the fact that these prices are "futures", so the damage has already been done, we will see higher food prices very soon which will then hopefully fall again when this episode is over.
However, the elephant on the farm so to speak, is the current price of wheat which has almost doubled in one month. This may be due to speculation, or possibly the decision by Russia to halt all wheat exports, but whatever the cause, we are facing a very real problem within the next few months. Corn touches practically all foodstuffs, in the same way fossil fuels do. Pick up almost any food and it will contain corn, or a corn derived product. Including beer and lager of all things!!
Wheat prices: 26/6/2010 CLOSED: $456 then reaching a high of almost $800 on August 5th.
This could be the rank outsider (or should I say Rank Hovis outsider!) coming from the rear of the pack to challenge oil as the main problem facing us in the short term. Linked? Yes possibly, in fact certainly, but oil and wheat have always been connected, but only recently we've seen wheat absolutely stride ahead.
Not sure what to do for the best, but my guess will be that prices will fall back a bit, but that doesn't change the fact that these prices are "futures", so the damage has already been done, we will see higher food prices very soon which will then hopefully fall again when this episode is over.
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Don't panic Mr. Mainwaring!
Recent Gold Price Falls.
I had an email from a concerned reader of my blog whether the recent fall in gold prices is the "sell-off" that I have predicted recently. I can assure you that it's not. The sell-off to manipulate the gold price will be fast and of cliff-edge proportions.
It has to be said that this reader was in the UK, so that explains why the recent fall has occurred. It's not the price of gold that has fallen (although it has very slightly) it's the UK pound strengthening against the dollar.
Let's do some simplistic figures. These are not indicative of current trends, purely easy to understand examples.
First thing to remember, is like almost all commodities on the global markets, gold is traded in US Dollars. (USD).
Let's assume on 1st August 2010 the USD and GBP exchange rate is: 1 GBP = 1.5USD
Also, on this date, 1 ounce of gold equals US$1000
Therefore, on the UK market, 1 ounce of gold is UK£750
Now let's go forward one week.
On 8th August 2010, the exchange rate has changed and it is now 1 GBP = 2 USD (i.e the pound has strengthened against the dollar).
On this date, i ounce of gold, is still US$1000
However, because of the different exchange rate, the cost of 1 ounce in the UK is now only £500.
The perception is that the gold price has fallen (in the UK), however it has remained the same price on the open market. Of course if you hold gold, then it looks a lot worse, but do remember:
The actual gold is still exactly the same, but it is being compared to a fiat currency, so do remember this when you see prices quoted in currencies other than USD, to look deeper.
I hope that gives you an alternative insight into holding gold.
Kieran.
I had an email from a concerned reader of my blog whether the recent fall in gold prices is the "sell-off" that I have predicted recently. I can assure you that it's not. The sell-off to manipulate the gold price will be fast and of cliff-edge proportions.
It has to be said that this reader was in the UK, so that explains why the recent fall has occurred. It's not the price of gold that has fallen (although it has very slightly) it's the UK pound strengthening against the dollar.
Let's do some simplistic figures. These are not indicative of current trends, purely easy to understand examples.
First thing to remember, is like almost all commodities on the global markets, gold is traded in US Dollars. (USD).
Let's assume on 1st August 2010 the USD and GBP exchange rate is: 1 GBP = 1.5USD
Also, on this date, 1 ounce of gold equals US$1000
Therefore, on the UK market, 1 ounce of gold is UK£750
Now let's go forward one week.
On 8th August 2010, the exchange rate has changed and it is now 1 GBP = 2 USD (i.e the pound has strengthened against the dollar).
On this date, i ounce of gold, is still US$1000
However, because of the different exchange rate, the cost of 1 ounce in the UK is now only £500.
The perception is that the gold price has fallen (in the UK), however it has remained the same price on the open market. Of course if you hold gold, then it looks a lot worse, but do remember:
The actual gold is still exactly the same, but it is being compared to a fiat currency, so do remember this when you see prices quoted in currencies other than USD, to look deeper.
I hope that gives you an alternative insight into holding gold.
Kieran.
Friday, 6 August 2010
Spun out of control.
I have mentioned many times before in both forum posts, articles and this blog, that there was definitely a consensus between the media, government and financial circles to deliver good news, even when the bad news is so dire, they search for a shred of positivity to deflect the heat. I quote from a previous post of mine here on 23rd July:
"...whilst this is conjecture and my promise is to give fair warning of such, have you noticed how there is no "bad news"? When we had the collapse of 2008, Michael Howard MP complained to the BBC that Robert Peston (Bongo Bob - the drum of the city as I call him), shouldn't have reported so quickly causing the markets to suffer even more.
Even now, when reading the BBC and Bloomberg sites, they're scattered with good news, and yet, when I read further away from the mainstream, I still see some very worrying trends, especially in the US housing market."
So why this post?
Well, today it has been announced that the US has shed 131,000 jobs. No glossing over the facts from BusinessInsider.com, MarketWatch.com, EuroInvestor.com, even the BBC tells it like it is (well, it's not the UK directly is it now).
However, let's look at Bloomberg. The headline and first few sentences say:
Come on Bloomberg... you need to do better than that. Your core audience is investor driven and they'll soon see through the spin and move elsewhere. To everyone else that watches the financial news closely, it shows we need to diversify our news, and distill the truth from as much information as possible.
"...whilst this is conjecture and my promise is to give fair warning of such, have you noticed how there is no "bad news"? When we had the collapse of 2008, Michael Howard MP complained to the BBC that Robert Peston (Bongo Bob - the drum of the city as I call him), shouldn't have reported so quickly causing the markets to suffer even more.
Even now, when reading the BBC and Bloomberg sites, they're scattered with good news, and yet, when I read further away from the mainstream, I still see some very worrying trends, especially in the US housing market."
So why this post?
Well, today it has been announced that the US has shed 131,000 jobs. No glossing over the facts from BusinessInsider.com, MarketWatch.com, EuroInvestor.com, even the BBC tells it like it is (well, it's not the UK directly is it now).
However, let's look at Bloomberg. The headline and first few sentences say:
U.S. Companies Add 71,000 Jobs; Unemployment at 9.5%
Companies in the U.S. added workers in July for a seventh straight month at a pace that suggests the labor-market recovery will be slow to take hold.
Private payrolls that exclude government agencies rose by 71,000 after a June gain of 31,000 that was smaller than previously reported, Labor Department figures in Washington showed today. Economists projected a 90,000 July increase, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey.Come on Bloomberg... you need to do better than that. Your core audience is investor driven and they'll soon see through the spin and move elsewhere. To everyone else that watches the financial news closely, it shows we need to diversify our news, and distill the truth from as much information as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)