The G-20’s Secret Debt Solution

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com:80/the-g-20s-secret-debt-solution-27996

The G-20’s Secret Debt Solution

by Larry Edelson 11-13-08
Larry Edelson

If you think this weekend’s G-20 meetings in Washington are only about designing short-term fixes to the financial system and regulatory reforms for banks, hedge funds, brokers, mortgage companies and investment banks … think again.

Behind the scenes, a far more fundamental fix is being discussed — the possible revaluation of gold and the birth of an entirely new monetary system.

I’ve been studying this issue in great depth, all my life. And given the speed at which the financial crisis is unfolding, I would be very surprised if what I’m about to tell you now is not on the G-20 table this weekend.

Furthermore, I believe the end result will make my $2,270 price target for gold look conservative, to say the least. You’ll see why in a minute.

First, the G-20’s motive for a new monetary system: It’s driven by and based upon this very simple proposition …

“If we can’t print money fast enough to fend off another deflationary Great Depression, then let’s change the value of the money.”

I call it …
The G-20 may propose devaluing all currencies, including the U.S. dollar and the euro.
The G-20 may propose devaluing all currencies, including the U.S. dollar and the euro.

“The G-20’s Secret Debt Solution”

It would be a strategy designed to ease the burden of ALL debts — by simultaneously devaluing ALL currencies … and re-inflating ALL asset prices.

That’s what central banks and governments around the world are going to start talking about this weekend — a new financial order that includes new monetary units that helps to wipe clean the world’s debt ledgers.

It won’t be an easy deal to broker, since the U.S. is the world’s largest debtor. But remember: Debts are now going bad all over the world. So everyone would benefit.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke … Treasury Secretary Paulson … President Bush … President-elect Obama … former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker … Warren Buffett … and central bankers and politicians all over the world agree a new monetary system is needed.
The G-20 may propose devaluing all currencies, including the U.S. dollar and the euro.

So they’ll start hashing out the details to get the new financial architecture deployed as quickly as possible.

If you think I’m crazy or propagating some kind of conspiracy theory, then consider the historical precedent …

To end the Great Depression in 1933 Franklin Roosevelt devalued the dollar via Executive Order #6102, confiscating gold and raising its price 69.3%, effectively kick starting asset reflation.

Only this time, it won’t be just the U.S. that devalues its currency. The world is too interconnected. Instead, the world’s leading countries will propose a simultaneous and universal currency devaluation.

This time, they will NOT confiscate gold. There would be riots all over the globe if they even mentioned the “C” word.

But they don’t have to confiscate gold. Here’s one scenario …

They cease all gold sales and instead, raise the current official central bank price of gold from its booked value of $42.22 an ounce — to a price that monetizes a large enough portion of the world’s outstanding debts.

That way, just like in 1933, the debts become a fraction of re-inflated asset prices (led higher by the gold price).

And this time, instead of staying with the dollar as a reserve currency, the G-20 issues three new monetary units of exchange, each with equal reserve status.

The three currencies will essentially be a new dollar, new euro, and a new pan-Asian currency. (The Chinese yuan may survive as a fourth currency, but it will be linked to a basket of the three new currencies.)

The new fiat monetary units would be worth less than the old ones. For instance, it could take 10 new units of money to buy 1 old dollar or euro.

New names would be given to the new currencies to help rid the world of the ghost of a system that failed. Additional regulations and programs would be designed and implemented to ease the transition to a new monetary system.

The IMF would be at the center of the new monetary system.
The IMF would be at the center of the new monetary system.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) would implement the new financial system in conjunction with central banks and governments around the world.

Keep in mind that the IMF is already set up to handle the transition, and has had contingency plans allowing for it since the institution was formed in 1944.

Included in the design and transition to a new monetary system …

A. A new fixed-rate currency regime. Immediately upon upping the price of gold and introducing the new currencies, a new fixed exchange rate system would be re-introduced. The floating exchange rate system would be tossed into the dust bin along with the old currencies.

This would kill any speculation about further devaluations in the currency markets, and drastically reduce market volatility.

B. To sell the program to savers and protect them from the currency devaluation, compensatory measures would be enacted. For instance, a one-time windfall tax-free deposit could be issued by governments directly to citizens’ accounts, or, to employer-sponsored pensions, to IRAs, or Social Security accounts.

Income taxes may subsequently be raised to pay for the give-away, or a nominal global type of sales tax could be enacted to help pay for the new system and the compensatory measures.

C. Additional programs would be designed to protect lenders and creditors. Lenders stand a much higher chance of getting paid off under the new monetary system — but with a currency whose purchasing power would now be a fraction of what it was when the loans were originated.

So programs would have to be designed to help lenders offset the inflationary costs of their devalued loans, probably via the tax code.

Naturally, all this is a bit more complicated than I’ve spelled out above. But that gives you a big-picture outline of what the plan could look like. And I think major changes like these are going to be set in motion at this weekend’s G-20 meetings in Washington.

Would they work?

Yes. They would help avoid a repeat of the deflationary Great Depression. But don’t expect even a new monetary system to put the U.S. or the global economy back on track toward the high rates of real growth that we’ve seen over the last several years. That’s simply not going to happen. Not for a while.

Instead, I’m talking about a massive asset price reflation, negative real economic growth in the U.S. and Europe — but continued real GDP gains in Asia.

The Big Question: What gold price would be legislated to reflate the U.S. and global economy?

I can’t tell you what gold price the G-20 would ultimately agree to. But here’s what they will be looking at …

* To monetize 100% of the outstanding public and private sector debt in the U.S., the official government price of gold would have to be raised to about $53,000 per ounce.

* To monetize 50%, the price of gold would have to be raised to around $26,500 an ounce.

* To monetize 20% would require a gold price a hair over $10,600 an ounce.

* To monetize just 10%, gold would have to be priced just over $5,300 an ounce.

Those figures are just based on the U.S. debt structure and do not factor in global debts gone bad. But since the U.S. is the world’s largest debtor and the epicenter of the crisis, the G-20 will likely base their final decision mostly on the U.S. debt structure.

So how much debt do I think would be monetized via an executive order that raises the official price of gold? What kind of currency devaluation would I expect as a result?

I would not be surprised to see the G-20 monetize at least 20% of the U.S. debt markets. THAT MEANS …

* Gold would be priced at over $10,000 an ounce.

* Currencies would be devalued by a factor of at least 12 to 1, meaning it would take 12 new dollars or euros to equal 1 old dollar or euro.

The return of the Gold Standard?

“But Larry,” you ask, “how could this be accomplished when we no longer have a gold standard? Further, are you advocating a gold standard?”

If the G-20 monetizes at least 20% of the U.S. debt markets, gold could easily hit $10,000 an ounce.
If the G-20 monetizes at least 20% of the U.S. debt markets, gold could easily hit $10,000 an ounce.

My answers:

First, you don’t need a gold standard to accomplish a devaluation of currencies and revaluation of the monetary system.

By offering to pay over $10,000 an ounce for gold, central banks can effectively accomplish the same end goal — monetizing and reducing the burden of debts, via inflating asset prices in fiat money terms.

Naturally, hoards of gold investors will cash in their gold. The central banks will pile it up. At the same time, other hoards of investors will not sell their gold, even at $10,000 an ounce. But the actual movement of the gold will not matter. It is the psychological impact and the devaluation of paper currencies that matters.

Second, I do NOT advocate a fully convertible gold standard. Never have. There isn’t enough gold in the world to make currencies convertible into gold. It would end up backfiring, restricting the supply of money and credit.

What should you do to prepare for these possibilities?

It’s obvious: Make sure you own some core gold, as much as 25% of your investable funds.

Also, as I’ve noted in past Money and Markets issues, you will want to own key natural resource stocks, and even select blue-chip stocks that will participate in the reflation scheme.

For more details and specific recommendations to follow, be sure to subscribe to my Real Wealth Report.

Best wishes,

Larry

About Money and Markets

For more information and archived issues, visit http://www.moneyandmarkets.com

Money and Markets (MaM) is published by Weiss Research, Inc. and written by Martin D. Weiss along with Tony Sagami, Nilus Mattive, Sean Brodrick, Larry Edelson, Michael Larson and Jack Crooks. To avoid conflicts of interest, Weiss Research and its staff do not hold positions in companies recommended in MaM, nor do we accept any compensation for such recommendations. The comments, graphs, forecasts, and indices published in MaM are based upon data whose accuracy is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. Performance returns cited are derived from our best estimates but must be considered hypothetical in as much as we do not track the actual prices investors pay or receive. Regular contributors and staff include Kristen Adams, Andrea Baumwald, John Burke, Amber Dakar, Michelle Johncke, Dinesh Kalera, Red Morgan, Maryellen Murphy, Jennifer Newman-Amos, Adam Shafer, Julie Trudeau and Leslie Underwood.