Peter Schiff

If you’ve spent enough time in the gold community, you might be under the impression that the most imminent threat to the average American isn’t terrorism or unemployment, but rather gold confiscation. Starting with the fact that FDR confiscated gold during the last Great Depression, and continuing to the quite accurate forecast that we are headed into an even Greater Depression, unscrupulous coin dealers have been pushing investors to buy expensive “numismatic” or “collectible” coins that they claim would be protected from government seizure. The only problems are that the original motive for confiscation no longer applies and the “protection” offered by major coin dealers wouldn’t actually help you keep your gold.

THE TYRANT’S ORDER

In 1933, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102, prohibiting the private holding of gold and requiring US citizens to turn over their gold bullion or face a $10,000 fine ($167,700 in today’s dollars) or 10 years imprisonment.

For private citizens, the order listed the following exemption:

Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 [about 5 troy ounces at that time] belonging to any one person; and gold coins having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.

Seizing on this “rare and unusual” language, many coin dealers try to convince unsuspecting customers that regular bullion coins are not safe, and that it is worthwhile to pay extra for “numismatic” or “collectible” coins that would be exempt from a Roosevelt-style confiscation.

CALL THE MYTHBUSTERS

The reality is that almost all coins sold as “numismatic” or “collectible” by our competitors are really quite ordinary coins sold at high mark-ups to make these dealers extra profits. If we were in 1933, these coins would absolutely not fall under the definition of “rare and unusual.”

True numismatics are extremely rare or one-of-a-kind coins that collectors purchase for their historical and aesthetic qualities. These coins might retail for $100,000, while only containing $1,400 worth of gold. Most dealers charge a huge premium, so the coin may have to appreciate 30-50% before the buyer can even hope to make a profit. It is a speculative endeavor, and one that is likely to get even riskier as the US descends further into economic depression.

True numismatic coins, like pieces of high art, do well in good times, when people are getting richer and adding to their collections. In bad times, collectors are forced to sell because they need cash. With many collectors in the same boat, prices plunge. Even if the value of the gold in the coin rises, the gold content is only a small fraction of the coin’s value. Since premiums are contracting, the value of the coin falls. So, if you are buying gold due to fear of an economic collapse, you should buy bullion, not numismatics.

WHY WAS GOLD CONFISCATED?

In 1933, when Roosevelt issued his infamous order, the United States was still on a gold standard, meaning every 20.67 paper dollars could have been “redeemed by the bearer on demand” for a troy ounce of gold. Since Roosevelt had many public works projects to finance and also may have wanted to quietly lower real wages to drive employment, he confiscated gold and then devalued the exchange rate to $35/oz (at this point, the only people who could “exchange” were foreign governments). Thus, Americans instantly saw a 40% drop in value for the dollars they held, and the government’s profit was sequestered in something called the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which could be used by the President at whim without Congressional approval. Pretty nifty trick, huh?

It’s important to note that confiscation was necessary to Roosevelt’s plan because we were under a gold standard. Gold at that time was widely held throughout the population. If Roosevelt had devalued the dollar without confiscation, then whatever savings Americans held in gold would have been immune from this hidden tax. Furthermore, many Americans likely would have redeemed whatever paper dollars they held in fear of another devaluation. This could have wrecked the dollar’s viability as a currency.

These rationales no longer apply. In the aftermath of Roosevelt and Nixon’s dismantling of the gold standard, gold is no longer currency. Most Americans hold their savings in dollars and it is the only legal tender (which means it must be accepted in payment of all debts). Thus, President Obama and his buddy Bernanke don’t need to confiscate gold to devalue the dollar and finance excessive spending. In fact, the Fed has more than doubled the monetary base since the financial crisis started.

WHAT, ME WORRY?

The only reason to fear confiscation is in the case that the federal government is in default and needs the gold in order to pay off its creditors. But if it comes to Washington simply stealing our assets at whim, then why would gold be the only target? At that point, real estate, stock and bond certificates, and vehicles would be much easier to seize. Gold has been prized throughout history for its high value-to-weight, making it easy to conceal and trade under tough political conditions. Consider: you could store enough gold to care for a small family for six months (approx. 9 ounces) on the inside of a belt buckle.

Remember, if Washington chooses the confiscation route, we’re talking about a situation of pure pandemonium. When governments begin abrogating property rights in that fashion, the entire market mechanism ceases to function. We saw this in the Great Depression as Hoover and then Roosevelt relentlessly attacked private property and contracts.

If the situation really gets this bad, you aren’t going to trust some government agent with the intelligence of your average TSA officer to judge whether your coins are “numismatic” enough to be exempt from confiscation. The best protection in this case would be to have your gold stored safely at home or off-shore (not in a safety deposit box at a bank, where it is more likely to be seized).

Even in the heat of Roosevelt’s confiscation scheme, government troops did not break into people’s homes. The singular (failed) prosecution under the order took place when a New York lawyer tried to withdraw 5,000 troy ounces from Chase Bank. Ironically, all the gold actually collected by the Treasury was willfully surrendered in a wave of misguided patriotism, while many “law-breakers” simply kept their gold – which is why some old coins escaped the Treasury’s furnaces and are still around today.

SHOP SMART

The bottom line is that unscrupulous dealers use the threat of confiscation as a scare tactic to get you to buy gold coins at mark-ups well above the spot value of the metal they contain. While investors buy physical gold for many reasons – lack of counter-party risk, financial privacy, portability, et cetera – it is principally a store of value, a way to protect your wealth from the relentless devaluation of fiat currencies. Your goal as a buyer is to get the most gold possible for your money, from a dealer you trust. The dealer should make the process transparent and easy to understand, and deliver a genuine product at the agreed-upon price.

As a matter of business ethics and fair dealing to our customers, I decided early on that Euro Pacific Precious Metals would not offer numismatic coins. To put it simply, I think they are a poor investment option.

Peter Schiff is CEO of Euro Pacific Precious Metals. Having spent years encouraging his brokerage clients to buy physical gold, he grew concerned about the growing number of unscrupulous dealers that tried to “up-sell” customers to rare or collectible coins with high markups. Peter Schiff’s gold coin buying philosophy is to buy for the coin’s metal value, not its claimed “numismatic” value. He decided to open his own firm to sell investment-grade bullion products at competitive prices. Euro Pacific only sells reputable, well-known coins that trade on the open market, such as American Gold Eagles, Canadian Maple Leafs, and Australian Kangaroos. To find out more, please visit www.europacmetals.com or call us at (888) GOLD-160.

[phpzonsidebar title="At Amazon Now!" keywords="schiff" num="5" country="US" searchindex="Books" trackingid="commlines-20" sort="relevancerank" id="3"]

Peter Schiff

There has been so much discussion recently about “QE 2″ that you would think the entire financial sector were about to embark on a transatlantic cruise. Unfortunately, they, and we, are not so lucky. In the year 2010, “QE 2″ doesn’t refer to a sumptuous ocean liner, but a second, more extravagant round of “quantitative easing” – stimulus. In the past, this technique was simply called “printing money.” As if the nation has not already suffered enough from the first round, Captain Ben Bernanke and the Fed are determined to compound the damage by hitting us with another monetary juggernaut. Their stated goal is to boost the economy and create jobs. However, since economic growth cannot be achieved by printing money, their QE 2 will sink just as surely as the Titanic.

The intent of QE 2 is to lower interest rates to promote job growth and avoid the apparently growing threat of deflation. But the very idea that the economy is weak because interest rates are too high is laughable. Deflation is the market’s cure for the asset bubbles that have recently burst, so any attempt to avert it will only weaken the economy further.

In fact, one of the reasons the US economy is in such bad shape is that interest rates are already too low. Low rates have encouraged excess borrowing, by both individuals and governments, and discouraged saving, fueling new asset bubbles at the expense of legitimate investment. As a result, the dead weight of debt has simply overloaded our economy, and our creditors are getting nervous. What we need now is to make hard choices, not engage in more easing – to deleverage, not borrow more.

Worse still, by keeping rates too low, the Fed has enabled the US government to grow significantly larger than it otherwise could had its borrowing been restrained by higher rates. Absent these low rates, Washington likely wouldn’t have passed expensive new healthcare and financial regulation reforms; they would be too busy trying to keep the lights on in the Capitol.

For this and other reasons, the bogeyman of deflation is really not a concern at all. It’s not a threat because falling consumer prices could serve as a relief for many suffering from layoffs and pay cuts in the recession. Even if it were a threat, it’s not even likely because so much liquidity has already been created and an infinite amount could still be created at will by the Fed. Consumer prices are already rising across the board, despite a contracting economy, so what’s all this talk about deflation?

The Fed is quick to point to falling real estate prices. But a drop in real estate will no more cause consumer prices to fall than the real estate boom caused them to rise. Real estate prices are too high, and the economy will never truly recover unless they are allowed to fall. It is interesting that when real estate prices were rising, the Fed did not raise rates to bring them down, but now that they are falling, the central bank feels compelled to lower rates to prop them up. If falling real estate prices threaten deflation, why did the Fed not perceive an inflation threat when real estate prices were rising?

My thinking is that, at the end of the day, all this deflation talk is a red herring. The true purpose of QE 2 is to disguise the decreasing ability of the Treasury to finance its debts. As global demand for dollar-denominated debt falls, the Fed is looking for an excuse to pick up the slack. By announcing QE 2, it can monetize government debt without the markets perceiving a funding problem. If the truth were known, a real panic would ensue. So, the Fed pretends buying treasuries is simply part of its master plan to boost the economy, even though, in reality, it is simply acting as the buyer of last resort.

If the Fed really wanted to help the economy, it would raise rates quite dramatically. Instead of preparing for QE 2, it should be unloading the debt it purchased during QE 1. Of course, that is not so easy to do – which is precisely why I was against QE 1 from the beginning. However, even though the exit will be painful, going down with the ship will be even more unpleasant.

Higher interest rates and a commitment from the Fed to refrain from purchasing Treasury debt would force the government to dramatically reduce spending. If we combine less government spending with fewer regulations, reform our tax code in a way that stops punishing savings and investment, stop all government subsidies for real estate so that prices can fall to affordable levels, and allow all insolvent entities to fail, then a real recovery will take hold.

If the Fed refuses to set sail on QE 2, then her loyal passengers might complain, but at least the US will be on solid monetary ground as it tried to rebuild a viable economy. If instead we board QE 2 (and QE 3 and QE 4 thereafter), then we are headed to a sea full of icebergs called interest rate spikes, and all on board will surely drown in a sea of worthless Federal Reserve Notes.

For a more in-depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar, read Peter Schiff’s 2008 bestseller “The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets” and his newest release “Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse.”

Peter Schiff

As business owners undercarego the yearly ritual of passing through eye-popping health insurance premium increases to their employees, it’s easy to understand why any attempt at health insurance reform would be met with some degree of hope. Unfortunately, President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress are about to take a very bad system and make it unimaginably worse.

While ramming their new legislation through Congress, the Democrats have taken great pains to point out that they do not intend to “socialize medicine.” But make no mistake, that’s where we’re headed. Even if some naïve centrists believe that their efforts have denied the Left a total victory, the practical implications of the current legislation sow the seeds for complete capitulation.

This first round of reform could be labeled as the ‘neutron bomb’ of the insurance industry: it leaves some of the private apparatus standing, but it irradiates whatever remains of the industry’s market viability.

The bill’s centerpiece is a clause prohibiting insurers from denying coverage based on a pre-existing medical condition. However noble and marketable an idea, this proscription removes the very basis upon which any insurance model operates profitably.

A system of insurance requires that premiums be collected from a pool of low-risk people so that funds are available in case a high-risk event befalls a particular person. In that way, premiums can be low and coverage can be widely available, even if the benefits offered are hypothetically unlimited.

For example, homeowners buy fire insurance even though their houses are very unlikely to burn down. Recognizing that a fire could wipe them out financially, most homeowners endure the cost of coverage even if they never expect to collect. The same model applies to health insurance in a free market.

However, the health care bill removes the need for healthy individuals to carry insurance. Knowing that they could always find coverage if it were eventually needed, people would simply forgo paying expensive premiums while they are healthy, and then sign on when they need it. But insurance companies cannot survive if all of their policyholders are filing claims!

Correctly anticipating this incentive, the Senate bill imposes an annual fine which gradually escalates to $750 for those who fail to buy coverage. So what? I would gladly pay $750 in order to avoid the $8,000 per year I pay now for personal health insurance. Currently, I’m relatively healthy for a 46 year old and I don’t anticipate making a big claim. But if I do, under the new rules I can always get ‘insurance’ after the fact. Heck, if I can stay healthy for the next couple of decades, I’ll save a fortune. Think about how much easier the decision would be if I were 20 years younger! Since most people are capable of figuring this out, the entire insurance industry would collapse under such a system.

There can be no question that $750 annual maximum penalty is a mere placeholder. It is the camel’s nose under the tent. When the non-discrimination provision kicks in, the only way these companies could remain solvent would be for Congress to raise the fine to the point where the penalty is greater than the gain of skipping coverage.

For me, that would have to be roughly $8,000 per year. Introducing such a fine right now would have surely killed the bill. So, the wily wonks in Washington have chosen to move slower, knowing that once the first step is taken, the second becomes inevitable.

However, there is another, more devious possibility. Perhaps our elected officials actually intend to bite the hands that feed them. They could double-cross insurance companies by not raising the fine in five years, thereby forcing the industry into bankruptcy as millions of healthy people opt-out. During the ensuing ‘insurance crisis,’ our courageous leaders could ride to the rescue with a nationalized, single-payer system.

The real tragedy is that the current bill does nothing to restrain the forces that are propelling healthcare costs into the stratosphere, namely: regulatory bans of insurance competition, the out-of-control medical malpractice industry, federal programs and subsidies, and a tax code that favors a third-party payment system – which alienates the patient from the cost of his care.

To consider that many in Washington have the nerve to market this multi-trillion dollar monstrosity as a “deficit reduction bill” is to realize that our representatives have lost all touch with reality. For those keeping score, the government made similarly rosy projections in the mid-1960′s when Medicare was first introduced. The inflation-adjusted cost of that program already exceeds the original estimate by a factor of ten. That’s probably where we are headed this time around.

For a more in-depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar, read Peter Schiff’s 2008 bestseller “The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets” and his newest release “Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse.”

Peter Schiff

As the unemployment rate crossed the double digit barrier for the first time since Michael Jackson learned to moonwalk, President Obama announced that he will convene a “jobs summit” to finally bring the problem under control. Using all the analytic skill that his administration can muster, the President is determined to figure out why so many people are losing their jobs and then formulate a solution. That’s a relief; for a while there, I thought we were in real trouble! In fact, the absolute last thing our economy needs is more federal government interference. If Obama really wants to know what’s behind entrenched joblessness, he should start by looking at the man in the mirror.

Obama is pursuing, with unprecedented vigor, the same policies that have for decades undermined our industrial base and yoked us to an unsustainable consumer/credit driven economy. This doubling down on Washington’s past failures is destroying jobs at an alarming rate. Today we learned that the September trade deficit surged by 18.2%, the largest gain in ten years. Much of the deficit resulted from Americans spending Cash-for-Clunkers stimulus money on imported cars – or “American” cars loaded to the sunroof with imported parts. In exchange for more domestic debt, we have succeeded only in creating foreign jobs.

An article in this week’s New York Times by veteran writer Louis Uchitelle confirmed a fact that I have been alleging for years. Uchitelle pointed out that foreign outsourcing of component manufacturing has led to consistent overstatement of U.S. GDP and productivity. The connection goes a long way to explain why we keep losing jobs even as GDP is apparently expanding.

As our economy becomes less competitive due to higher taxes, burdensome and uncertain regulations, and capital flight, more manufacturing and services will be outsourced to foreign firms. However, the flaw in GDP calculation allows the output of those foreign workers to be included in our domestic tally. Since we count the output but not the worker responsible for it, government statisticians attribute the gains to rising labor productivity. To them, it looks like companies are producing more goods with fewer workers.

The reality is that we are producing less with fewer workers. The added “productivity” comes from higher unemployment and larger trade deficits. This is a toxic formula that will have lethal economic consequences.

Don’t expect the brain trust at the President’s job summit to fret much about these details. That public relations stunt will likely ignore the root cause of the economic imbalances and instead stress the need for government spending on training and education, i.e. more public debt. The unemployed do not need government theatrics, they need actual jobs. But as long as the government props up failed companies, soaks up all available investment capital, discourages savings, punishes employers, and chases capital out of the country, jobs will continue to be lost.

To really fix the unemployment problem, the President must look past his peers in government and academia to understand how jobs are actually created. In the private sector, all individuals have a choice to either work for themselves or someone else. Since labor is far more productive when combined with capital (office equipment, machinery, business models, and intellectual capital), those who lack these assets themselves often choose to work for others who have sacrificed to accumulate them. This increased productivity is shared between the worker and the owner of capital, and both are better off.

However, for one person or company to choose to offer a job to another, there must be an incentive to do so, and they must have the necessary capital. In the first place, employers must commit to paying wages and benefits, comply with government mandates and regulations, and subject themselves to potential lawsuits from disgruntled employees. All of these costs must be measured against the extra profits an employer hopes to earn by hiring an additional worker.

If profit opportunities exist, jobs will be created. Otherwise, they will not. Of course, anything the government does to raise the cost of employment, such as a higher minimum wage, mandated heath care, or greater regulatory burdens, not only prevents new jobs from being created but also causes many that already exist to be destroyed. Anything that diminishes the profit potential of extra hiring will diminish the number of job opportunities that are created. Also, since it is after-tax profits against which employers measure risk, the higher the marginal rate of income tax, the less likely employers will be able to hire.

Finally, in order to hire workers, employers must have access to capital to expand operations. Anything the government does to discourage capital formation automatically diminishes job creation. By running the largest federal deficits in history, Barack Obama is diverting all available capital to the Treasury, and is in effect waging a war against private capital formation.

If the President’s summit truly intends to find the root cause of unemployment, his advisers don’t need Bureau of Labor statistics or complex modeling software, just the courage to drop their dogmatic belief in central planning and embrace the laws of economics.

Peter Schiff

For the most part, the value of the dollar is given cursory attention by the financial media. Typically, its movements are assigned an importance on par with much less determinative metrics such as natural gas futures and construction permits. It’s only when major milestones are reached that anyone really takes notice of the dollar. We are living through one of those times.

The great dollar rally of 2008-2009 has come full circle. When the financial crisis exploded in its full ugliness in mid-2008, the dollar, which had steadily declined over the previous four to five years, put in a rally for the record books. By March 2009, as investors across the world sought safety from the financial storm, the index had surged more than 25%. Since then, the dollar has steadily declined to the point where nearly all those gains have vanished. In short, the panic rally has given way to the long term trend.

So, as the dollar index makes fresh 52-week lows on a nearly daily basis, discussion on the greenback is heating up. And while real insight on the topic is hard to find, the debate centers on the battle between two conventional opinions – both of which are wrong.

The first camp, which is generally supportive of government intervention in the economy, argues that dollar’s decline is a positive for both the economy and the stock market. The second camp, which tends to fall on the more conservative end of the political spectrum, views the dollar’s decline as a problem but feels that tough talk and slightly higher interest rates are all that is needed to restore ‘King Dollar’ to its throne.

First of all, a weak dollar is no better for Americans than a lower paying job is for a worker. And although I would prefer that the dollar remain strong, I know that currency values are a function of supply and demand, not wishful thinking. The past years of reckless monetary and fiscal policy have created conditions that must push the dollar down. Vastly expanded debt levels and monetary expansion have created a greater supply of dollars, while poor investment performance and diminished industrial capacity have lessened the demand for dollars.

The regrettable truth is that while the weak dollar will help rebalance the global economy, it is not a panacea for the U.S. The fall is no more worthy of celebration than a student celebrating falling grades on his report card. If the dollar does not recover eventually, Americans will suffer diminished living standards. To avoid this we must make difficult reforms now. If we continue our current policies, we run the risk of a complete dollar collapse. Far from helping to solve our problems, this would be a true nightmare scenario.

On the other side of the argument, those who correctly equate a weaker dollar with a weaker America mistakenly believe that mere posturing by officials or trivial rate hikes would be sufficient to restore the dollar’s lost vitality. We are long past that point. The best we can do now is to accept the penalty of a weaker dollar as punishment for our prior failures, and start building for the future.

To save our currency, the Fed must get very aggressive with interest rate hikes and reign in the supply of dollars that have flooded the world over the past few years. The federal government must also do its part by cutting spending, which means no more stimulus and no more bailouts. Undoubtedly, these actions will have unpleasant economic and political consequences. A student who studies harder may have to miss a party or two. A simple analogy, but unfortunately it is that simple.

Even in the unlikely event that our political leaders take these courageous steps, the near-term trajectory of the dollar may still be uncertain. A dollar rally that results from higher interest rates and a narrowing federal deficit may soon fade as the recessionary forces that such moves would unleash act to weaken the dollar once again. But at least we would be building a foundation upon which the dollar could eventually find some footing.

With a restructured economy, higher savings, more capital investment, lower government deficits, and higher interest rates, the United States would once again attract international investment. Funds would flow here not out of fear, as they did last year, but out of confidence. The dollar’s strength would not rest on the willingness of foreign governments to buy our debt, but the willingness of foreign consumers to buy our products.

Only then could King Dollar regain its throne.

For a more in-depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar, read Peter Schiff’s 2008 bestseller “The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets” and his newest release “Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse.” Click here to learn more.

More importantly, don’t let the great deals pass you by. Get an inside view of Peter’s playbook with his new Special Report, “Peter Schiff’s Five Favorite Investment Choices for the Next Five Years.” Click here to dowload the report for free. You can find more free services for global investors, and learn about the Euro Pacific advantage, at www.europac.net.

Peter Schiff

For those market boosters who are prattling on about the possibility of a “jobless recovery,” I offer an invitation to join me for a breakfast of “fat-free bacon,” “eggless omelets,” and “no-carb bread.” As unappetizing as such a meal may sound, it would nevertheless offer more substance than the oxymoronic concept of an economic resurgence without job creation.

Those who do cling to the absurd belief that, absent exponential productivity gains, the economy can expand while workers are being laid off will undergo a massive test of their convictions now that it’s clear the employment picture is bleak. Today’s weaker-than-expected report on non-farm payrolls revealed that employers shed 263,000 jobs in September. The losses propelled the headline unemployment rate to a 26-year high of 9.8%. U6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most complete measure of unemployment, has risen to a dismal 17%. This figure includes those people who want to work full time, but have simply given up looking, or who have accepted part-time work in the interim. As it is similar to the methodology used during the Great Depression, U6 offers better historical perspective on the severity of our current crisis.

Taken together with yesterday’s larger-than-expected pickup in unemployment claims (first time claims rose by 17,000 to 551,000), today’s report makes it certain that the job market is still contracting, even while some indicators like GDP and consumer confidence are moving in the opposite direction.

There is no question that the sense of panic has temporarily subsided. In recent interviews, Treasury Secretary Geithner has been almost giddy in his descriptions of the recovery – all the while crediting his own policies for averting disaster. Americans are once again taking the government’s bait by spending money they don’t have to buy things they can’t afford. Evidence of this trend was contained in data released earlier this week which showed that even while income growth was largely stagnant, U.S. consumers showed the biggest month-over-month increase in personal spending in ten years! With the same report showing a 25% drop in the savings rate, the source of the spending money is clear. But depleting savings and increasing borrowing does not a recovery make.

To really recuperate, the government must allow market forces to restructure our economy. The government and individuals must rein in their spending; we must replenish our stock of savings, allow interest rates to rise, asset prices to adjust to economic reality, insolvent businesses to fail, and wages to reflect productivity. To accomplish these goals, subsidies that distort market forces must be removed and regulations that undermine our competitiveness must be repealed.

None of this can be accomplished without a degree of short-term economic pain. However, if we endure it, the payback will be a real recovery with plenty of new jobs that don’t rely on government stimulus money. If we refuse to allow the economy to experience a real recession, we will never have the benefit of a real recovery. Instead, we get the “jobless recovery,” a veneer of apparently positive indicators that merely obscures the underlying rot.

Over the last few decades, our industrial job market has atrophied while service- and public-sector jobs have grown unsustainably. We must restore balance. New jobs will have to come from areas that produce goods; bloated service and government sectors must be allowed to shrink. By propping up the sectors that need to contract, and running staggering budget deficits, the government cuts off the capital necessary to fund sectors that need to expand.

In truth, many of the service-sector jobs that exist today, such as real estate sales, mortgage finance, home improvement, and auto sales, were created in an environment of ever-increasing home equity, rising stock prices, and almost unlimited access to cheap consumer credit. With home equity gone, stock markets flat, and credit depleted, Americans find themselves needing to save rather than spend. But Washington has put through policies that have counteracted our good instincts.

While we were focusing our economy on consumer spending, much of the rest of the world was saving for the future. As such, we must begin to produce more for export, so that we can sell goods to those who have the savings to pay for them. That is the only way we can repay our debts, replenish our savings, repair our infrastructure, and rebuild our industrial base.

Another prerequisite to any real economic expansion is the potential for business owners to earn profits. With increased regulation and higher taxes on the way, these incentives are being diminished. In fact, via a phenomenon called ‘regime uncertainty,’ our current policy path is actually encouraging businesses to contract in order to prepare for a more hostile business environment.

Robust economies utilize all spare capacity, or restructure it for better use. Having 17% of our able-bodied population sitting at home or working part-time at Cinnabon indicates that our present policies are weakening the economy – even if GDP is growing. There is no “jobless recovery,” only senseless cheerleading.

Note:
This message, including attachments, is from Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. member FINRA/SIPC. This is not a solicitation of any order to buy or sell. The information contained herein is deemed to be reliable but is in no way warranted by us as to accuracy or completeness. Messages are monitored and retained by the Company, but the Company cannot guarantee the security of this message. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by return e-mail or calling 800-727-7922. You may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not the intended recipient.

Disclosures:
Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. is a member of FINRA and SIPC.  This document has been prepared for the intended recipient only as an example of strategy consistent with our recommendations; it is not an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security or instrument or to participate in any particular investing strategy.  Dividend yields change as stock prices change, and companies may change or cancel dividend payments in the future.  All securities involve varying amounts of risk, and their values will fluctuate, and the fluctuation of foreign currency exchange rates will also impact your investment returns if measured in U.S. Dollars.  Past performance does not guarantee future returns, investments may increase or decrease in value and you may lose money. Data from various sources was used in the preparation of this document; the information is believed but in no way warranted to be reliable, accurate and appropriate. Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. employees buy and sell shares of the companies that are recommend for their own accounts and for the accounts of other clients.