Timing & trends

Canadian Farmland: The Best Investment of them All?

Screen shot 2012-02-17 at 2.38.52 PM

A Primer for Investing in Canadian Farmland.

“Put your money in land, because they aren’t making any more of it!” – Will Rogers.  When I think about burying some serious money for the long run, I think of farmland.  I’m very bullish on Canadian farmland. My reasons: 1) Canadian farmland is very productive; 2) low cost on a global basis; 3) Canada is a stable country with a very adequate supply of water, energy and fertilizer; and 4) even the weather is cooperative as its growing season gets a little longer each year.

Some of Rick’s readers ask for more details. When ever you invest in land as a non-resident, you need to check the local laws.  For example, when I was a farm realtor I had a group of Italians interested in buying a 2000-acre farm in Illinois.  Now Illinois has a law prohibiting non-resident aliens from owning farmland.  But it doesn’t prohibit corporations from buying farmland.  So, we created a corporation and bought the farm.

How does this apply to buying a Canadian farm? 


…..read more HERE

The reason there’s still big money to be made in rare earths

300px-Rareearth production.svgrees-update1

Not long after the New Year dawned, Gold Stock Trades Editor Jeb Handwerger noted certain rare earths emerging from their 2011 slumber to produce impressive gains. It’s not yet March, but the good news keeps coming. Despite dire predictions that demand is drying up, Handwerger tells The Critical Metals Report in this exclusive interview that the world remains at risk of supply shortfalls. It’s not strictly a rare earths story, either. Read on to see what he has to say about the nascent niobium space.


The Critical Metals Report: Jeb, as a student of the critical metals space who’s been watching precious metals stocks over the past 20 years, do you believe we’re seeing a renaissance in the industrial metals space?

Jeb Handwerger: It’s interesting. We saw last weekThe Wall Street Journal headline, “After Xstrata, a Mining Merger Pileup.” Of course, we always try to look beyond the headlines and read between the lines. The proposed merger between Glencore International plc (GLEN:LSE) and Xstrata PLC (XTA:LSE) is old news for my readers because for some time we’ve said we would see increased global hunger for natural resources. This transaction goes much deeper and is implicit with words not mentioned in the routine press release.

TCMR: How is it more important than just that one deal?

JH: Banks are aligning with resource seekers to create real competitors to giants such as Vale S.A. (VALE:NYSE), BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP:NYSE; BHPLF:OTCPK) and Rio Tinto (RIO:NYSE/ASE) to assimilate the resource stocks and claim resources such as copper, iron ore and metallurgical/thermal coal. The Xstrata-Glencore transaction is notable in that it confirms the rising demand from emerging nations, especially in Asia. 

TCMR: There has been a lot of nervousness among investors regarding the pace of growth of China, and the mainstream media has been reporting softening GDP growth in many of the Asian nations, particularly China. Are we not getting the straight story from the mainstream media?

JH: The way we see it, the gloom and doom that came out of Europe in 2011 and fears of recession and global contagion were overdone. We’ve seen a flight out of equities into risk-off assets such as the dollar and treasuries. But the Federal Reserve Bank has extended low interest rates from mid-2013 to late-2014, and we’re seeing stimulus underway in Europe and China. In fact, we’re now seeing a return to the risk-on trade and a return to what we consider one of the most important sectors—the rare earths (REEs). Rare earths are intrinsic to the new technologies, rapidly increasing demands and this ongoing, long-term global commodity boom.

TCMR: So you believe in the long-term growth of BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China), not just in traditional metals but also in specialty metals and rare earths?

JH: Exactly. Many analysts are overlooking a Department of Energy report that came out at the end of 2011. Analysts claim that rare earth demand is low, and that China can just open the floodgates and drown the market with heavy rare earths (HREEs). Well, a U.S. government think tank wrote a 200-page report—these are the top professors, the top scientists, the top economists coming together—anticipating a supply shortfall in certain basic elements. Instead of only two elements that are most critical and strategic, there are now five. They’re saying that in the short-term we could experience supply shortages of yttrium, europium, neodymium, terbium and dysprosium.

TCMR: Even with lack of Chinese transparency?

JH: Right, even with the lack of Chinese transparency. This is what I’ve seen and I’m studying. So very few projects with these metals will really be able to come online outside of China, and these elements are growing more and more in demand. We’re not in the 1970s anymore. These emerging countries are building new automobiles, electric vehicles and fuel-efficient, lighter vehicles. The rise in demand for smart phones in emerging nations has been huge. Look at the Egyptian revolution. Look at the Arab Spring. These events would not have occurred if not for the rise of the smart phones.

TCMR: And that doesn’t even include all the green applications—for photovoltaic cells and so forth.

JH: Right. And wind turbines. General Electric Company (GE:NYSE) just announced that it’s launching a new generation of huge, transformative wind turbines that require HREEs.

TCMR: So let’s talk about these HREEs.

JH: Here’s an interesting example of a company that has HREEs in its deposit right here in the U.S.:Ucore Rare Metals Inc. (UCU:TSX.V; UURAF:OTCQX) released an announcement that Alaska Governor Sean Parnell has allocated $8.1 million (M) in the proposed state budget for 2013 to expedite Ucore’s development as a viable corporate entity. In other words, the state government of Alaska is sponsoring explicit support for Ucore’s flagship Bokan Mountain project, which contains strategically important HREE metals of dysprosium and terbium. These metals have been highlighted by the U.S. Department of Energy as being at risk of a supply shortfall in the near term. With Ucore, Alaska has not only taken an active role in the development of a rare earth company but in reviving the whole rare earth and critical mineral industry from mining to magnets.

It certainly underscores the importance of geopolitical support. Two other companies that have secured incredible geopolitical support and have the best chances of coming into production at the end of the day are Matamec Explorations Inc. (MAT:TSX.V; MRHEF:OTCQX) and Tasman Metals Ltd. (TSM:TSX.V; TAS:NYSE.A; TASXF:OTCPK; T61:FSE).

TCMR: Are they involved in the heavies, the REEs that industry and government seem most nervous about in terms of supply security?

JH: Sweden actually has recognized Tasman Metals as a national asset, a strategic asset. Its flagship project is called Norra Karr. It’s a large HREE project—the fourth-largest HREE element project in the world and the only NI 43-101-compliant REE mineral resource in mainland Europe. It’s in a mining-friendly location with great infrastructure. What’s also interesting is that this deposit has eudialyte mineralogy. Tasman has made significant progress in developing the process flow sheet for Norra Karr, which is critical for the Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) that will be nearing completion in a few weeks. Not only has the company shown impressive rare earth recoveries, but it is able to physically separate nepheline/feldspar with low iron content. This would be a great way to significantly reduce tailings. Recoveries of the HREEs, including a high percentage of dysprosium and terbium, exceeded 90%.

TCMR: What about Matamec?

JH: Interestingly, Matamec also seems to have that eudialyte metallurgy I mentioned, and it’s in mining-friendly Québec. In December 2011, Matamec signed a memo of understanding (MOU) with Toyota Tsusho Group (TYHOF:OTCPK). The trading unit of Asia’s largest auto maker, Toyota Tsusho has agreed to buy Matamec’s output from its Kipawa mine deposit—which is in many ways similar to Ucore’s Bokan Mountain deposit—to fast-track development of Kipawa’s rare earth metals production. Kipawa isn’t a big deposit; it’s quite compact. I think that’s what the end-users are looking for, not the projects with capital expenditures approaching $1 billion (B). They like compact projects with excellent infrastructure, favorable metallurgy and geopolitical support.

That was the lesson we learned with the Australian REE company, Lynas Corp. (LYC:ASX). Look at the gray hairs Lynas has given shareholders for being in a risky political jurisdiction. Alaska is extremely supportive of Ucore.

TCMR: Aside from Ucore in Alaska, do any other U.S. assets have heavy REEs?

JH: No. Not really. Ucore has the largest 43-101 HREE resources in the United States, although we have heard Rare Element Resources Ltd. (RES:TSX; REE:NYSE.A) and Molycorp Inc. (MCP:NYSE) are beginning to explore for the heavies around their current light rare earth (LREE) deposits. Those deposits have no historical geological footprint of HREEs like Ucore’s Bokan Mountain, which has transitioned into the mine development stage. The company recently announced Ken Collison as the new chief operating officer. Ken is an experienced mine engineer with a long history of designing mines in an efficient and economic manner. 

TCMR: A couple of the rare earth companies have end-user agreements in place, which tend to verify the fact that manufacturing needs a secure supply of these rare elements to produce the most efficient, lightest, strongest, most powerful motors or magnets, whatever they manufacture. Do you consider these end-user agreements positive for the space?

JH: They’re hugely important. This is exactly what investors were looking for to give some validity to the sector, because this is a new, growing industry in its infancy.

TCMR: At this point we know that Matamec has an end-user agreement with Toyota.

JH: Correct. In December, Frontier Rare Earths Ltd. (FRO:TSX) signed a definitive agreement with Korea Resources Corporation (Kores), a government-owned mining and natural resource investment company, to form a strategic partnership designed to accelerate the development of Frontier’s Zandkopsdrift rare earth project in South Africa. Kores also announced that it intends to form a consortium to join the Frontier joint venture. It would include such leading Korean companies as Samsung Group, Hyundai Motors Group, GS Group, Daewoo Shipbuilding, Marine Engineering Group and AJU Group.

TCMR: Do you see end-user agreements on the horizon for Ucore and Tasman?

JH: I do. But they’re going to have to be very careful because they have to study what works to the benefit of the shareholders. Do they wait to finalize these end-user agreements or do they take the capital upfront? These are major decisions that CEOs are thinking about. I’m surmising that not only Ucore and Tasman, but others with high-quality projects have received offers. Some REE companies may be reluctant to make deals because their shares are trading at such bargain-basement prices.

These companies know they’re really undervalued. I mean, we’re talking about potentially billion-dollar mines, and these companies are trading at market caps of $40, $50, $60M. Imagine you’re the CEO of a company and you have shareholders you’re accountable to. Do you take the money and take security, and limit your upside? Or do you wait, holding out until your valuation improves? It’s a tough call. They can’t announce anything until the deal is done. They can’t say they are in talks, but that’s most likely what’s going on behind the scenes. As I understand it, the end-users are very interested in these companies because they want to ensure their security of supply. If they know they can be competitive and have access to a good supply, they’re happy.

TCMR: We’ve talked a little about HREEs as they relate new manufacturing applications. Are there other metals you’d like to discuss?

JH: Yes. Let’s transition into the ferroalloys. Earlier, we were discussing the Glencore/Xstrata deal. Part of that story is the need for ferroalloys. These are elements such as molybdenum, vanadium or niobium that are added to steel to make it lighter and stronger. Niobium is used to make super alloys, which are important to the defense of the United States as well as in industrial development.

TCMR: How is niobium important to strategic defense?

JH: Niobium—which is on the U.S. list of strategic metals—is used to make aeronautics and defense weaponry, the newest generation of helicopters, jets and jet thrusters, missiles, rockets and things we’re not even aware exist.

TCMR: Where are the niobium mines located?

JH: Two operating mines are in Brazil and one is in Québec, the Niobec Mine, owned by IAMGOLD Corp. (IMG:TSX; IAG:NYSE). IAMGOLD recently announced a $950M initiative to triple the niobium production with plans to spend $90M in 2012, $320M in 2013 and $540M in 2014.

TCMR: That’s pretty dramatic for what’s primarily a gold mining company.

JH: Exactly. That’s one of the issues I brought to my readers—why a gold producer would segue into expanding its niobium production. The simple answer is that IAMGOLD foresees substantial profits and a high rate of return on its investment in this strategic metal. Some of the top gold miners see the same potential, due to the growth in demand for these strategic metals for technology and green energy applications. They understand that we’re living in an age of energy conservation. They smell profits. This is what capitalism is about. Where can they get the most bang for the buck?

We’re all going to be looking at how we can conserve energy, and an intrinsic part of that conversation is that steel will have to be made simultaneously lighter and stronger. It takes the addition of niobium to do that, which is part of the reason why it appears on the government’s short list of essential strategic metals.

The Obama Administration has put in a bill to increase miles-per-gallon (mpg) requirements by 2015, all the way up to 54 mpg. The automotive industry has to make cars lighter to improve fuel efficiency, but they can’t sacrifice strength, which they need to meet safety targets. That’s what makes these ferroalloys, or these alloying agents, so important. When added to steel, the niobium increases the strength while at the same time reducing its total weight. Those efficiencies trickle down into shipping, into manufacturing—all the way down the supply chain.

TCMR: With only three niobium mines in production, are there other niobium deposits getting ready to meet supply requirements going forward as government and consumer demands increase for lighter, more fuel efficient and stronger steel products?

JH:It’s astonishing that the United States currently has to import 100% of the niobium it uses. It doesn’t seem right when we’re looking at a global renaissance in energy conservation that will require lighter, stronger steel. This is a much bigger market than the rare earth market.

TCMR: That’s scary.

JH: Enter center stage, Quantum Rare Earth Developments Corp. (QRE:TSX.V; BR3:FSE; QREDF:OTCBB). It’s the only company that has an NI 43-101-complaint resource of niobium in the U.S. Its Elk Creek Project in Nebraska is an ideal location for a mine. It’s smack in the middle of farmland through which major roads and rail lines are available for expansion. Quantum has both state and local support.

At one point, back in the 1970s and 1980s, this was a Molycorp Inc. asset that was supposed to go into production, but then the whole industry moved overseas. Now, Quantum is building upon the research done by Molycorp. In fact, some of the original Molycorp people are updating the findings, working on the metallurgy and the development process for the same property they worked approximately 40 years ago. Quantum has an experienced chemical engineer on board and a strong metallurgical team with decades of experience.

TCMR: How does Elk Creek compare with Niobec?

JH: Niobec has proven and probable reserves of 45.7M tons at .53% niobium. Elk Creek has an inferred resource—a much earlier stage, not reserves—of 80.1M tons at 0.62% niobium. It’s an early stage project but it’s showing that it has the potential of becoming a very large, high-grade mine. Results from its 2011 drill program indicate that Quantum hit some high-grade niobium, and that’s being factored into a new resource estimate targeted for publication within the upcoming few weeks. It could be huge.

TCMR: What about permitting? Nebraska isn’t a typical mining address.

JH: The state and local government has been 100% supportive, so initially it seems ideal for permitting. I’ve seen no opposition in what I’ve researched—only support. There should be an independent PEA published in the first half of 2012. 

We still consider it a bargain price to the investment community; the nine-month downtrend has been broken above its 200-day moving averages. The trajectory is upward at this point. Volume is growing, too, which shows that Quantum is gaining increased interest.

As I indicated, while the giant IAMGOLD is sinking $950M into Niobec in Québec over the next three years, I conjecture that we might see another mining giant out there willing to enter the highly profitable niobium market at bargain basement prices.

TCMR: It will be interesting to see what happens in terms of niobium exploration going forward. This space seems to be in its infancy, just as the rare earths sector was in 2007.

JH: The trajectory is turning upward once again. Now that we’ve completed a basing process, we’re beginning to emerge into new uptrends in these really critical industrial metals.

That said, it’s a mistake to think that the West can rely on lawyers, courts and international enforcers such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) to secure rare earth supply. That’s no way to compete with China. In fact, the WTO’s ruling against China’s export restrictions of critical raw materials may only exacerbate the underlying issue and not resolve anything. Rare earths independence is the answer. Competition is the lifeblood of capitalism. 

The companies that can secure supply at a reasonable price by crafting agreements with producers will be rewarded, but the reality is the U.S. and most other countries around the world are at risk of a supply shortfall in these critical elements. I want to make sure people hear that because it’s so important. They’re getting such misinformation and there aren’t a lot of strong voices in the sector.

TCMR: You mentioned Lynas earlier, and all the gray hairs its problems have given its shareholders. The company’s Mount Weld project contains the richest known rare earths deposit in the world, but it’s taken a while to get its refinery off the ground in Malaysia. News just came out of Kuala Lumpur on Feb. 1 that Lynas has been granted a temporary and conditional license for that operation.

JH: We are watching Lynas carefully because we think it may serve as a bellwether for the whole rare earth sector. Since April 2011 and the delays with receiving that temporary operating license to begin the commencement of refining rare earths, Lynas has had a nice bounce. Last time it did this sort of reversal from a downtrend, it made a very large gain.

TCMR: So, are you saying you’re long on Lynas?

JH: Yes I am. But we have to remember that a temporary operating license to refine rare earths under certain conditions doesn’t automatically mean the sky’s the limit. There may be a response through the sector. Other companies may realize that the rare earths and Lynas can get to a state of eventual cash flow as a pioneering model for the whole rare earth sector.

TCMR: Is the elimination of some of the names in this space likely?

JH: Certain companies have been highly promotional, so investors should do their homework. 

TCMR: What would you have them watch out for, specifically?

JH: Check out the management. Make sure they have competent mining engineers and third-party consultants. Make sure they are staying on track with timelines. Check out their NI 43-101s and metallurgical results. Study the historical geological footprints to understand if it is a heavy- or light-predominated asset. Don’t take claims for granted. Make sure they have good infrastructure so their Capex does not become prohibitive. Understand the geopolitics involved. These are just a few of the important things that rare earth investors need to review. It’s not just geology, but also the metallurgy and potential radiation—and how they’re dealing with it. A whole mix goes well beyond the tonnage and grade. It’s so important to have an open-minded, broad perspective; you want to avoid getting myopic by focusing on one area and losing sight of the whole big picture.

TCMR: Bottom line, do you consider the rare earth space is a good place for investors? Or is the space so complex that investors would be better advised not to join the party?

JH: The way I see it, demand is increasing for these elements, for smart phones, for the smaller, more efficient and lighter products, technologies and alternative clean energies. Demand is growing rapidly. 

The number of companies that will be able to get into production is limited. Mining is a tough business, and especially tough in rare earths, where you have so many moving parts. Despite that—or perhaps because of that—the rewards will be great for the high quality companies that get it done, the innovative, visionary companies whose management thinks outside the box. I’m confident that some of these companies will make a fortune. And so will the people who invest in them

TCMR: Thank you, Jeb. It’s been a pleasure.

Gold Stock Trades Editor Jeb Handwerger is a sought-after stock analyst and best-selling writer who’s syndicated internationally and known throughout the financial industry for accurate, in depth and timely analysis of the general markets, particularly as they relate to the rare earths, precious metals and, nuclear sectors. He studied engineering and mathematics and received his undergraduate degree from University of Buffalo and a masters degree at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. Teaching technical analysis to professionals in South Florida for some seven years, Handwerger began a daily newsletter that grew to become Gold Stock Trades: Mining for Winners in any Market, with thousands of readers from more than 40 nations who are interested in the North American resource markets. Click Here to subscribe to his free newsletter.

Want to read more exclusive Critical Metals Report articles like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators and learn more about critical metals companies, visit our Critical Metals Report page.

Buffett: Why stocks beat gold and bonds


Today the world’s gold stock is about 170,000 metric tons. If all of this gold were melded together, it would form a cube of about 68 feet per side. (Picture it fitting comfortably within a baseball infield.) At $1,750 per ounce — gold’s price as I write this — its value would be about $9.6 trillion. Call this cube pile A.

Let’s now create a pile B costing an equal amount. For that, we could buy all U.S. cropland (400 million acres with output of about $200 billion annually), plus 16 Exxon Mobils (the world’s most profitable company, one earning more than $40 billion annually). After these purchases, we would have about $1 trillion left over for walking-around money (no sense feeling strapped after this buying binge). Can you imagine an investor with $9.6 trillion selecting pile A over pile B?


….read the entire article HERE

Tectonic Change?

Overall Perspective

  • At the end of September the prevailing panic atmosphere could no longer drive down stocks, commodities and corporate bonds. Some of our technical work was indicating a large and growing number of individual stocks registering very oversold conditions. The gold/silver ratio which had signaled the pending decline in April resisted going higher.
  • The conclusion was that choppy, but rising action for orthodox investments could run to a good high at around January.
  • For the past few weeks we have been reviewing the question “Are we there yet?”
  • Yes we are – and then some!

Credit Markets

  • Excess is again evident in the credit markets and a couple weeks ago an outstanding performer–municipal bonds (MUB) – registered an Upside Exhaustion. As the reversal comes in, we’ve thought that it would represent the potential reversal in bullishness for most spread products.
  • This would include corporate and sub-prime mortgage bonds.
  • A few days ago the MUB dropped a couple of points from 113.67 to 112.50. This is the sharpest plunge since the one in October 2010 that led to the “Muni-panic” that ended in January 2011.
  • Monday’s Financial Times headline indicated that bullish sentiment is rampant with “Record Global Sales of Junk Bonds”.

Stock Markets

Checklist for a Top

  • Is it up when it should be?


  • Are there signs of enthusiasm?

The AAII ratio of bulls and bears has soared to 74 and the Rydex Bull/Bear ratio is almost at a new record high (chart follows). This confirms Ross’s work on the VIX reviewed in the ChartWorks “Complacency Abounds Oh-Oh!” of January 24th.



  • Momentum is also very high as the RSI on the S&P reached 75 – the highest since February 2011.
  • The “Sequential Sell” pattern has completed.
  • Ross notes that the number of individual stocks registering Upside Exhaustions is soaring, typical of an important top.  The gold/silver ratio has been unable to break below 50.


  • The US dollar is in a pattern that can lead to an outstanding rally. The January 27th ChartWorks “Pulling Back To A Buy Zone” is the latest update.
  • A significant rally in the dollar would likely be associated with increasing concerns in the credit markets. Perhaps the season when “fixes” by desperate policymakers seem to be working is ending.






The above is part of report that was

published for our subscribers February 9, 2012.


Link to February 10, 2012  ‘Bob and Phil Show’ on TalkDigitalNetwork.com:


Real Estate: A Vital Investment Sector

Screen shot 2012-02-15 at 12.32.16 AM

There is no question that real estate has been one of the (5) primary sectors within the economy. Real estate speculation has been systemic. In effect, it was the inspiration behind both the South Sea Bubble and Mississippi Bubble of 1720. While I provided a forecast for real estate of the United States in the issue of November 15th, 2009, I have also written about the Athenian Real Estate Crisis and Speculative Bubble during the 4th Century BC in the October 2010 issue.

Real Estate Bubbles often preceded serious economic declines. The US Great Depression of the 1930’s Market Correlation shows the layout of the various sectors. The commodities peaked with the Great Bubble of 1919 and generally declined into 1932. The stock market bubble was brewing headed into 1929 shifting from the Railroad stocks that peaked in 1907 to the first Industrial stock boom lead by the automobile industry. Howevever, you will notice the biggest bubble was in Real Estate (TOP LINE). The most famous Real Estate Bubble going straight into 1925 was the Florida Land Bubble. People were building places, selling them to other investors, while there really was nobody actually living in a lot of the places. That was no different than the Real Estate Bubbles of the 1790’s.

Ed Note: This is the first two paragraphs plus Canada of a 33 page report analysing every significant real estate market in the world. Martin does all of the historical analysis going back 1000’s of years, and Petra Gajdosidova does the markets today. Go HERE to gain a per access service to Armstrong Economics specific forecasts for time & price.


The Canadian housing boom shared some aspects of the US boom, including low (5%-10%) deposit and for a short period, no money down mortgages. The houshold debt to income ratio has continued climbing steadily for the last decade and is now at US and UK levels. The value of housing related debt in Canada has nearly tripled in the last decade to C$1.3 trillon (Bank of Canada). A large percentage of Canadian mortgages are insured by the Canada MOrtgage and Housing Corporation, i.e. the taxpayer (CMHC) insurance is required for all mortgages with less than 20% downpayment).

While some Canadian cities offer reasonable affordability compared to household incomes, Vancouvers housing is, by any measure, highly overvalued and vulnerable to a sharp correction. Prices have risen 55% from their 2009 trough to a level 29% above their prior peak. The average home price reached nearly C$800,000 (according to CMHC).

Strong Asian demand has provided a boost to already high prices. Thousands of mainland Chinese have moved to Vancouver (following the earlier waves of immigration from Taiwan and HK); thousands more invested in (mid-range to high end) real estate in order to park their cash in a stable Western country and/or to set their children up at Canadian colleges and with eventual Canadian citizenship, all driving prices to what are now clearly unsustainable levels.

Keynesians Jump The Gun on Inflation


Advocates of government stimulus are running victory laps on recent developments that appear to vindicate their strategy. In particular, Paul Krugman compares the sluggish growth in Europe to the somewhat-less-sluggish growth in the US to prove that stimulus was more effective than austerity. Other economists are using government inflation measures to defend Fed Chairman Bernanke’s easy-money policy. The only problem is, they’re calling the race before the finish line is even in sight.

As usual, Paul Krugman overlooks basic economics (which, despite his Nobel Prize, is a science about which Mr. Krugman really knows very little). The reason stimulus is so politically popular is that it appears to work in the short-term. However, appearances can often be deceiving, as they are right now in the US. Stimulus merely numbs the pain of economic contraction, as the underlying trauma gets worse. Austerity might slow an economy down, but at least the wounds are able to heal. America has chosen the former and Europe the latter, albeit not quite as large a dose as needed. The fact that in the short-run Europe is suffering more than the US does not vindicate Washington’s approach. On the contrary, this is exactly what is to be expected.

What we’re seeing is like a race where each runner has a broken ankle. One has a coach who tells him to pace himself and not worry so much about winning this one, while the other coach gives his runner a shot of painkillers and tells him to give it all he’s got. Of course, early in the race, the doped-up runner is going to be flying down the track like nothing’s wrong, while the other runner might be limping at half his normal speed. However, when the drugs wear off, the sprinter is liable to collapse from pain, leaving the better-coached runner to limp across the finish line. 

The true test is not the immediate effects of stimulus or austerity, but the long-term results. For that reason, Krugman’s conclusions are meaningless. The apparent success of stimulus simply results from spending more borrowed money on government programs and consumption. But don’t we all agree now that this is exactly what caused the financial crisis in the first place?

As far as inflation is concerned, a vindication of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is equally premature. First of all, it’s not that Quantitative Easing will lead to inflation; it’s that QE is inflation. Secondly, there is a lag between QE and rising consumer prices, so the jury is still out as to how high consumer prices will ultimately rise as a result of current and past Fed policy mistakes.

But even more fundamentally, it is absurd to look solely at government price measures, which are built to understate inflation, and conclude that QE has not already produced an elevated cost-of-living. For example, the 2.4% rise in the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) Index in 2011 is more of an indictment of the accuracy of the index than a vindication of Bernanke. In fact, of all the ways the government purports to measure inflation, the PCE is perhaps the most meaningless, as it relies on built-in mechanisms like goods substitution to hide a lower standard of living. As an example of how this works, imagine you are used to eating farm-fresh butter but have to switch to cheaper but also less-healthy margarine from a factory; the PCE would say you are no worse off. That’s exactly why the Fed chooses to use this uncommon metric.

Mark Gertler, an economics professor at New York University, argues that even the Consumer Price Index, which rose at a more vigorous 3.2% in 2011, proves Bernanke’s critics wrong. According to Gertler, the CPI has risen at an average annual rate of 2.4% thus far under Bernanke’s tenure, significantly less than the 3.1% average under Alan Greenspan, and the 6.3% under Paul Volcker.  However, Gertler overlooks two key points. First, the methodology used to calculate the CPI was much different during the Volcker era. If we still calculated the CPI the way we did then, the numbers would be much higher for both Greenspan and Bernanke. Second, given the huge economic contraction that has taken place under Bernanke, consumer prices should have fallen– significantly. The fact that they rose anyway indicates tremendous inflation.

Of course, the Fed’s ability to stimulate the economy with inflation only works as long as bondholders remain ignorant of its plan. For now, the seemingly hopeful news reports are giving the Fed cover to keep stimulating. As long as the market remains convinced there is no inflation, the Fed can continue to create it. However, once the effects are so pronounced that even the PCE can no longer hide them, the Fed will be in a real bind.

Think of our two runners again. Even after the race is over, the fellow who chose to dope up likely injured himself even further. He might have even ended his career. So, the early dash and the cheer of the crowd in that one race was clearly not worth the many years of misery he would incur in the future.

Regardless of what the triumphant Keynesians would have you believe, my analysis continues to be that the current combination of monetary and fiscal stimulus is driving us toward disaster. Instead of a real recovery, the US will experience an inflationary depression. Europe, on the other hand, will suffer much less, precisely because it was not seduced by the short-term appeal of stimulus.

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.

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

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.