The Gold BUGS Index (HUI) dropped sharply on Monday 11th January, but managed to hold above its 50-day and 20-day moving averages by the barest of margins. It therefore hasn’t yet fallen by enough to signal an end to the rebound that began on 17th November.

However, while the HUI is hanging on by the skin of its teeth, several high-profile gold-mining stocks have already broken out to the downside. For example:

1. Despite offering excellent value, KGC clearly broke below support on Monday and appears to be heading for a test of its September low.

2. B2Gold (BTG) broke out to the downside last Friday and extended its decline on Monday. It does not yet offer great value and the recent downside breakout projects significant additional weakness prior to a sustained bottom, but it sure looks ‘oversold’.

3. Royal Gold (RGLD), one of the world’s lowest risk and highest-quality gold stocks, made a new bear-market low on Monday. The price action suggests that the stock is on its way to $30, but the risk/reward is very attractive at $35 or lower.

4. Newmont Mining (NEM) plunged below the bottom of a 3-month price channel on Monday and appears to be heading for a test of its September low.

With the US$ gold price having broken above resistance at $1088 last week and having held above its breakout level during the pullback of the past two trading days, why has the gold-mining sector been so weak?

I think it’s mainly because of what’s happened to non-gold mining stocks. As illustrated below, the Diversified Metals and Mining Index (SPTMN) has fallen by about 20% over the past 5 trading days and plunged to a new bear-market low on Monday 11th January. The gold-mining sector is certainly capable of bucking a general downward trend in mining stocks, but it would take a lot of strength in the gold price to offset the downward pull caused by the sort of general mining collapse seen over the past few days.

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”.