One of the most ridiculous arguments in favour of a rising stock market is that there is a large amount of cash on the sidelines. Regardless of the stock market’s actual prospects, this argument will always be complete nonsense.

The reason is that all of the cash in the economy — every single dollar of it — is always effectively on the sidelines, because money must always be held by someone. Money never goes into any market; it just gets shuffled around between the bank accounts of buyers and sellers. For example, when Bill buys Microsoft shares from Bob, no money goes into Microsoft or into the stock market. What happens is that money gets transferred from Bill (the buyer) to Bob (the seller), with the total amount of money on the ‘sidelines’ and the total amount of money in the economy remaining unchanged. It’s the same story with every other transaction involving the use of money to buy something. It’s amazing that you can become the chief executive or the chief investment officer of a company with billions of dollars under management and not understand this basic monetary concept.

The fact is that the amount of cash on the sidelines at any time is simply a function of the preceding amount of monetary inflation. If the money supply has grown then the amount of “cash on the sidelines” will have grown by the same amount. A consequence is that the amount of cash on the sidelines grows almost every year, regardless of whether the stock market rises or falls. For example, the amount of cash on the sidelines in the US was a lot higher just prior to the 2008 market collapse than it was three year’s earlier and the amount of cash on the sidelines will almost certainly be at a new all-time high a year from now irrespective of what happens to the stock market in the meantime.

So, equity permabulls, stop insulting my intelligence by telling me that stock prices will be supported by the record amount of “cash on the sidelines”.

Gold is obviously not close to making a new all-time high in terms of the US$ or any of the other major currencies, but it has just made a new all-time high relative to the basket of commodities included in the Goldman Sachs Spot Commodity Index (GNX). This means that gold has never been more expensive relative to commodities in general than it is today.

Just imagine how expensive gold would be if it weren’t the victim of a never-ending price suppression scheme!*

*Just in case it isn’t obvious, I’m being sarcastic.

Both the proponents and the opponents of a government-imposed minimum wage tend to use data in an effort to make their respective cases. In particular, if they are in favour of a higher minimum wage they cite examples of increases in the minimum wage being followed by stable or lower unemployment to supposedly refute the argument that higher unemployment would result from a government-enforced wage hike for the lowest earners, while those on the opposite side of the fence cite examples where a higher rate of unemployment followed a minimum-wage increase. However, whether arguing for or against the minimum wage or a higher minimum wage, such arguments are misguided. The reality is that there are so many influences on the general level of employment that it isn’t possible to separate-out the effects of the minimum wage.

As is usually the case with questions regarding the effects of a policy on the overall economy, questions about the consequences of minimum wage legislation cannot be properly answered by referring to historical data. For one thing and as noted above, it will never be possible to identify what changes in the employment situation stemmed from the minimum-wage change and what changes were due to the myriad other influences. To put it another way, although economists like to use the term “ceteris paribus” (meaning: with all else being the same) in their writings, in the real world all else is never the same. In the real world there will always be countless differences between the same economy during different time periods and between different economies during the same time period. Furthermore, unlike the physical sciences it is not possible to do experiments in economics in which a single input is adjusted and the resultant change in the output observed/measured.

In economics, the overall effect of a policy must be deduced from first principles. In the case of the minimum wage, the principle of relevance is the law of supply and demand. To be more specific, the relevant principle is that, “ceteris paribus”, the quantity of a good demanded will fall as its price rises. The fact that all else is never the same in the real world means that it will never be possible to separately measure the effect on employment of increasing the minimum wage, but it is axiomatic that artificially raising the price of anything, including the price of labour, will result in the demand for that thing being lower than would otherwise be the case. That is, it is axiomatic that fixing the minimum price of labour significantly above where it would be in a free market will result in higher unemployment. No data are required.

As an aside, those in favour of hiking the minimum wage almost always word their arguments to make it seem as if the legislation only imposes restrictions on employers, but it’s important to appreciate that the legislation also restricts job-seekers. There are undoubtedly people who would gladly accept payment below the government-set “minimum wage” in order to gain the skills and experience that would make them more valuable to employers in the future, but minimum-wage laws prevent these people from offering their services for less than the limit set by the government. Do-gooders would prefer that these people were dependents of the State rather than be productive and get paid less than some arbitrary lower limit.

In conclusion, advocating for a higher government-mandated minimum wage and including as part of your case the assertion that employment will not be adversely affected is equivalent to holding up a sign that reads: “I am clueless about the most basic principle of economics”.

I’ve seen articles explaining that rising interest rates are bearish for gold and I’ve seen articles explaining that rising interest rates are bullish for gold, so which is it? Are rising interest rates bullish or bearish for gold? The short answer is no — rising interest rates are neither bullish nor bearish for gold. Read on for the much longer answer.

I’ll begin by noting what happened to nominal interest rates during the long-term gold bull markets of the past 100 years. Interest rates generally trended downward during the gold bull market of the 1930s, upward during the gold bull market of the 1960s and 1970s, and downward during the gold bull market of 2001-2011. Therefore, history’s message is that the trend in the nominal interest rate does not determine gold’s long-term price trend.

History tells us that gold bull markets can unfold in parallel with rising or falling nominal interest rates, but this shouldn’t be interpreted as meaning that interest rates don’t affect whether gold is in a bullish or bearish trend. The nominal interest rate is not important, but the REAL interest rate definitely is. Specifically, low/falling real interest rates are bullish for gold and high/rising real interest rates are bearish. For example, when gold was making huge gains during the 1970s in parallel with high/rising nominal interest rates, real interest rates were generally low. This is because gains in inflation expectations were matching, or exceeding, gains in nominal interest rates (the real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the EXPECTED rate of currency depreciation). Also, the 2001-2011 bull market occurred in parallel with generally low real interest rates.

Very low real interest rates are artifacts of central banks. In the US, for example, the Fed’s actions ensured that the real short-term interest rate on “risk free” (meaning: no direct default risk) debt spent a lot of time in negative territory during the 1970s and during 2001-2011. In effect, “very low real interest rates” means “excessively loose monetary policy”.

Something else that affects gold’s price trend is the DIFFERENCE between long-term and short-term interest rates (the yield-spread, or yield curve), with a rising yield-spread (steepening yield curve) being bullish for gold and a falling yield-spread (flattening yield curve) being bearish. It works this way because a rising trend in long-term interest rates relative to short-term interest rates generally indicates either falling market liquidity (associated with increasing risk aversion and a flight to safety) or rising inflation expectations, both of which are bullish for gold.

As is the case with the real interest rate, under the current monetary system the yield-spread tends to be a symptom of what central banks are doing. If money were sound and free of central bank manipulation, then the yield-spread would spend most of its time near zero (the yield curve would be almost horizontal) and would experience only minor fluctuations, but thanks to the attempts by central banks to ‘stabilise’ the markets the yield-spread experiences huge swings. For example, the following chart shows the huge swings in the US 10yr-2yr yield-spread since 1990. The periodic up-swings in this chart were generally due to the Fed exerting irresistible downward pressure at the short end of the curve while the discounting by the market of currency depreciation risk caused interest rates at the long end to be ‘sticky’.

Last but not least, gold is influenced by the economy-wide trend in credit spreads (the differences between interest rates on high-quality and low-quality debt securities). Gold, a traditional haven in times of trouble, tends to do relatively well when credit spreads are widening and relatively poorly when credit spreads are contracting. This is because widening credit spreads typically indicate declining economic confidence.

If the three main interest-rate drivers (the real interest rate, the yield-spread and credit spreads) are gold-bullish then there’s a high probability that gold will be in a strong upward trend in terms of all currencies and most commodities. By the same token, if the three main interest-rate drivers are gold-bearish then there’s a high probability that gold will be in a strong downward trend in both nominal and real terms. However, it’s not uncommon for the interest-rate conditions to be mixed. The past year is a good example of a mixed interest-rate backdrop for gold in that during this period the credit-spread situation was generally gold-bullish (credit spreads were widening) while the real interest rate and yield-spread trends were generally gold-bearish. The net effect of this interest-rate backdrop was slightly bearish for gold.

In summary, gold benefits from low/falling real interest rates, an increasing yield-spread (a steepening yield curve), and widening credit spreads, each of which can occur when nominal interest rates are rising or falling. You can therefore ignore the “rising interest rates are bearish for gold” and the “rising interest rates are bullish for gold” arguments. The relationship between gold and interest rates is not that simple.