High Gold Prices: It's the Oil, Stupid

I'm constantly amazed at the inability of US economic and financial "expert policymakers" to understand the true reason behind gold's big move: OIL. The inflation adjusted high for gold was set in January 1980 at $2,290 an ounce. It is not a coincidence this high was set just after the oil crisis of the 1970s. The US was lucky then: it had Paul Volcker at the Federal Reserve and it had the oil reserves of Alaska and the North Sea coming online. The combination of Volcker's high interest rates and new domestic oil supplies saved the day. Unfortunately, neither of these two solutions will bail America out this time. Once again, as history repeats itself, gold prices are taking off after the 2008 oil crisis which saw oil prices of $145/barrel. Why is it so hard for the Harvard B-School "experts" and the pundits on CNBC to understand this very simple cause and effect?

US policymakers seem intent on devaluing the US dollar to improve the trade deficit. I'm just an engineer, but I wish one of these expert economists would explain to me how this currency devaluation "strategy" will work since:

• oil is the biggest component of the US trade deficit
• oil is priced in US dollars and therefore
• the price of oil rises as the value of the dollar falls

This is so obvious, yet the "experts" at the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and in the White House seem completely oblivious to this fundamental and inconvenient truth. Either they are oblivious or there are conspiracies afoot to ignore the truth about the country's dependence on foreign oil. Is this because they're in the pockets of big oil? Because they want to make the military happy by fighting foreign oil wars? Both? Your guess is as good as mine. Regardless, not solving its dependence on foreign oil is destroying America's currency and economy. If not solved, it will eventually destroy its Democracy as well.

Brazil suffered devastating economic hardships in the 1970s as a result of its dependence on foreign oil. Their oil bill doubled within a year and set off uncontrolled inflation, which reached 110% in 1980. They saw a sharp increase in short term foreign dollar denominated debt to pay for the oil (sound familiar?). This led to 15 years of economic instability. Contrary to the US, Brazil identified the problem, attacked the problem, and solved the problem. The country adopted natural gas transportation and leveraged its ethanol capabilities. Brazil reformed its banking system and passed balanced budget policies. Today, Brazil is self sufficient with oil and will soon become a major oil exporter. The real currency is strong, and the country was one of the last in and first out of the current economic crisis. Why is it that Brazilian policymakers could identify and correct their oil problem but America, with all its Ivy League economists, cannot?

Gold was up $24 Monday morning, no doubt in part due to Iranian war games being held to show the extent to which they will try to protect their nuclear infrastructure. Faced with US forces on its western border (Iraq) and on its eastern border (Afghanistan), oil and natural gas rich Iran is clinging to their nuclear infrastructure in a last ditch effort to protect themselves from the fate of their neighbors. If protecting their homeland is the goal, Iran's rhetoric on the destruction of Israel was akin to shooting themselves in the foot. While Israel may or may not have the capability to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, it is clear the US must get involved if there is any hope to protect the strategic Straits of Hormuz through which much of the world's oil flows. However, it is not a given that the US can prevent Iran from bottling up the Straits. What will happen to oil and gold prices if this conflict takes place? What will be the corresponding impact on the US economy? For a country that uses 25% of the world's entire oil supply, and imports 65% of that, a war in Iran cannot be a favorable development.

In the meantime, US policymakers continue to print money as fast as possible thinking they can solve a commodity problem (oil) with monetary and fiscal hijinx. It cannot be done. Officials have high sounding debates about whether or not the biggest threat is inflation or deflation. Who cares. The biggest threat is America's reliance on foreign oil. It's the oil stupid. The U.S. imported 357,000,000 barrels of oil in September, 2009 sending $24,700,000,000 overseas. This continues...month after month, year after year. By God, when are US policymakers going to do something about this?

America is in serious trouble. Following George Bush, who I believe was the worst President in US history, we quite likely have a candidate for the 2nd worst President in Barack Obama. Bush was obviously tied at the hip to oil power and led us into the wrong-headed war in Iraq. While getting his hands on oil reserves might seem strategically logical for a country dependent on it, it took millions of barrels of oil off the market at precisely the same time that Chinese oil demand was skyrocketing. The result, in addition to supply demand problems, was an additional geopolitical risk premium being added to each barrel of oil and wah-lah! We have $145/barrel oil and record oil company profits.

Too bad the rest of the American economy had to pay the price. Bush's only attempt at energy "policy" was the idiotic ethanol mandates (mostly made from corn) while simultaneously slapping fees on imported Brazilian ethanol which is made more sanely from sugar cane. The ethanol mandates only exacerbated the country's inflation problem by causing massive dislocations in the food chain. Enter Obama and Energy Secretary Chu. Both are in love with the oxymoronic myth of "clean coal" and neither has done anything to reduce foreign oil imports. Obama has never uttered the words "natural gas transportation" and Energy Secretary Chu should give back his Nobel prize after famously being quoted as saying he is "agnostic" about natural gas transportation. How on Earth can the US solve its energy and economic problems when the two most important energy policy decision makers are "agnostic" about natural gas but are in love with the myth of "clean coal"?

Adding to US policy problems in the executive and energy departments is the worst Federal Reserve chairman in US history (Greenspan) being followed by a candidate for the 2nd worst Federal Reserve chairman (Bernanke). One can only hope that Ron Paul is successful in opening up the secrecy and publicizing just how bad Federal Reserve policy is and who is profiting the most from it. Let me give you a clue: it is NOT middle class America. If we can stop the Fed from printing paper dollars to pay off our foreign oil bill, the country will have no choice but to address and solve the foreign oil import crisis. Like Greenspan, Bernanke too never speaks about the need to solve the foreign oil problem in order to bolster US financial health. What kind of fiscal and monetary credibility do these officials have when they never push strongly to solve the foreign oil crisis which is at the root of US economic decline?

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal reported:

If the U.S. dollar were back on the gold standard, notes Société Générale analyst Dylan Grice, then gold would have to be priced at $7,648 an ounce in order to fully back all of the dollars in circulation. That calculation is based on the U.S. monetary base of nearly $2 trillion and U.S. government gold holdings of 261.5 million ounces.

The only way to solve America's economic problems is to reduce foreign oil imports and rely on domestic energy sources. The only way to do this is by adopting and implementing a strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy like this one. The US consumes 70% of its oil in the transportation sector. Logically, the only way to reduce foreign oil imports is to reduce oil (gasoline) usage in the transportation sector. The only domestic fuel capable of doing that is natural gas. Americans could easily be refueling NGVs in their home garages while they sleep at night with clean, cheap, and abundant natural gas. All we need are policymakers to stop ignoring the foreign oil crisis that is staring them right in the face every day. Perhaps President Obama should invite Brazilian President Lula to the White House and get a friggin clue. You'd have to live on the moon to not realize the US (and the world) is awash with abundant, clean, and cheap natural gas.

In the meantime, what can Americans do to protect themselves from the foreign oil crisis and a government that has declared war on its citizens and is intent on devaluing the dollar? Buy gold and silver bullion. Buy oil stocks such as Petrobras (PBR), Exxon Mobile (XOM), ConocoPhilips (COP), Chevron (CVX), BP, and StatOil (STO). The foreign oil companies are paying good dividends and can provide more upside due to US dollar weakness.

Good luck with your investing, and if you care, contact your local Congressman or Congresswoman and implore them to support the Natural Gas Act and that you want them to adopt and support strong natural gas transportation policies. Otherwise, the American oil crisis will continue to push gold higher and higher. So hold on to your gold and don't sell it until you see the US adopt natural gas transportation. If that day ever comes, sell your gold because the US economy will thrive, inflation will fall, and balanced budgets will be possible. Natural gas transportation could usher in an era of unfettered economic prosperity that few people today can even imagine.

Disclosure: The author owns gold and oil stocks.

Comments

[longoil]

It looks like you can't even trust gold bullion in 400 ounce bars anymore either. Several gold bars shipped to Hong Kong from the Bank of London were not really gold but gold plated tungsten (which has same density as gold)

www.marketoracle.co.uk...

2009 Nov 24 06:14 AM

[Economic Philosopher]

This is a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Oil is higher because of gold. The long term oil/gold ratio is 1/15. This fluctuates but always reverts back to its mean. When gold goes to $2000, oil will be roughly $133. If Société Générale analyst Dylan Grice is correct and gold is $7,648, then oil is roughly $500 a barrel, which puts gas at about $13-$14 a gallon.

2009 Nov 24 06:27 AM

[lucky lenny]

Michael,

Ever think of supply and demand? I don't think price of oil has anything to do with price of gold. Good luck somehow blaming the Repubs. When u liberals just elected someone who is Jimmy Carter-stupid.

2009 Nov 24 06:55 AM

[jrainspe]

Since you know so much about it already, why do we need Ron Paul? You just tell us.

<<Ron Paul is successful in opening up the secrecy and publicizing just how bad Federal Reserve policy is and who is profiting the most from it. Let me give you a clue: it is NOT middle class America.>>

I too am just an engineer, but never forget, like doctors, lawyers, economists, etc. 50% of all engineers finished in the lower half of their graduating class.

2009 Nov 24 07:01 AM

[Davewmart]

The assumption in the article that gas supplies for the US can be expanded indefintitely may be flawed, as with the progressive decline in public standards has led to an equivalent debasement of oil reserves figures to the notorious mark-to-fantasy in the financial markets.
Gas reserves are now taken at pretty much whatever the various companies say it is - when they have huge financial incentives to overstate them:
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b42...
And:
seekingalpha.com/artic...

Please read all 3 parts - they are well worth it.

Another point is that any responsible Iranian Government will certainly develop nuclear weapons.
They have some of the largest oil reserves in the World, and are faced with a heavily nuclear armed superpower who has shown that it is prepared to at least arguably invade nearby countries to secure supply, and a similarly nuclear armed Israel which does not hesitate to use military force to secure it's objectives.
Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton has overtly threatened Iran with nuclear obliteration.
It amy be felt that this is not a fully objective picture, and does not show the other side of the story for either Israel or the US, but this is not germane to the argument, as this is certainly the way things will be seen by any Government of any complexion in Tehran.
Claims that the Iranian nuclear program are for civilian use are therefore most certainly disengenuous.
American and Israeli policy make it quite certain that Iran will develop nuclear weapons.
What would America do if the Secretary of State of another power had threatened to obliterate them?

2009 Nov 24 07:11 AM

[redbaron]

'Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton has overtly threatened Iran with nuclear obliteration.'

This is bogus, as Iran's nuclear program started way before Clinton was Sec. of State. Why not use the Republican equivalent, instead of Clinton, as the Bushies had way more to do with the Iranian nuclear program than anything the current administration has done.

2009 Nov 24 07:40 AM

[Davewmart]

'This is bogus, as Iran's nuclear program started way before Clinton was Sec. of State. Why not use the Republican equivalent, instead of Clinton,'

Wht is bogus about it? I could certainly have used numerous other examples, many from the Republicans, such as McCain's jolly jest: 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.'
However, I selected Clinton from numerous other possibilities as subsequent to issuing such threats as a Presidential candidate she was appointed Secretary of State by Obama, and thus her remarks cannot be glossed but represent the official US attitide.

2009 Nov 24 08:02 AM

[Andy1234]

The government can print a lot of money.....I wouldn't say the DJIA will not go over 11K or below 6.8K.......I have a feeling that the worse the economy is....the higher the market will go....but on an inflation adjusted basis....or the market priced in oil or gold.....the DJIA will continue to decline in purchasing power....although the dollar price will increase.

Mike does make some sense....as peak oil comes....more dollars will be exported.....if that money is not invested back into our debt....we could see massive inflation.......especi... if other countries use our dollars to buy assets or commodities....massive rise in the price of assets and commodities.


On Nov 24 08:05 AM Vodka wrote:

> On November 27, 2009 all of America will run to buy gifts for Christmas,
> this is already presented like a Gold Rush and shoppers are urged
> not to miss a thing on sale.
> Analysts are pushing sales estimates Sky High and accordingly Wall
> Street trading desks are buying, buying, buying.
> And all this markets buying in centered around one thing, which is
> YOU the shopper.
> I don't urge you not to buy, all I want to say is that whatever you
> will buy, it will be more things than last year but worth less money.
>
> When numbers will be revised, the selling panic will follow and you
> will have much less money and much more debt on January 1, 2010.
>
> Whatever will happen this shopping season, know one thing: DJIA will
> never break 11000 level, so if you are long stocks and I know you
> are long because you hold it since 2008, the maximum the market will
> go up is 6-8%, to the downside it will go below 6800 on the DJIA.
> Think if this risk/reward is right for your future. abrakadabra.notlong.com

2009 Nov 24 08:25 AM

[LoveShorting]

Michael, brilliant. You hit the nail on the head but there are no signs currently that the idiotic or corrupt energy secretary will move even one muscle even once to push nat gas. How can a nobel prize winner be so dense? (or has been bought and paid for?)

2009 Nov 24 08:55 AM

[William Davison]

So you buy Gold which pushes up the price and then the miners mine more Gold out the ground using lots of energy and then you take that gold and put it in vaults back underground again. That's a Zero sum game as far as humanity is concerned.

Buffett 1998 "Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."

It just makes Peak Oil problems worse, we waste capital and energy instead of using it to develop new energy sources and we have been warned before on this.

"So Midas, king of Lydia, swelled at first with pride when he found he could transform everything he touched to gold; but when he beheld his food grow rigid and his drink harden into golden ice then he understood that this gift was a bane and in his loathing for gold, cursed his prayer" (Claudian, In Rufinem)."

2009 Nov 24 09:06 AM

[Ferdinand E. Banks]

A very interesting and for the most part important article. Brilliantly written. But I still can't join the gas team. When talking about Brazil, gas got some exposure. However, among other things, when they deregulated electricity in Brazil it was a catastrophe, because they thought that it would let to a heavy dose of investment in gas, which didn't happen.

And yes, there is something strange about the energy secretary. The strangest thing is his surrounding himself with people who know absolutely nothing about energy, and thus becoming their shill. in energy matters

2009 Nov 24 09:11 AM

[fatpitch2]

Michael:

Matt Simmons, not a dumb-bunny, is pushing NH3 (Ammonia) as an alternate fuel source for transportation. His claim is that the current fleets can be converted to run on NH3 at a reasonable cost, and that NH3 can be mfg. from clean energy sources (wind, solar, wave, ....).

Have you any thoughts on this?

2009 Nov 24 09:38 AM

[WayneS]

We use natural gas to heat our homes. In vehicles, heat is a waste product. Gasoline and ethanol is not much better. Diesel engines are the most efficient we have. My one-ton dually truck gets 23 mpg, better than most cars. Even the vehicles that can get better than 23 mpg don't because of bad driving habits. These habits not only waste 25-40% of the gasoline purchased, but kill and maim millions per year. The US exports vehicles to Europe that get 47 mpg.
At $4/gal, waste was curtailed and 1700 lives were saved.
Over half of the cost of a gallon of gasoline goes to taxes. Gas stations don't make a profit on gasoline. Never did. Refineries are losing money. We import 70% of the crude.
Why doesn't "government" fix the problem. We the people would vote them out of office for messing with our right to waste gasoline with fast, imposing vehicles. Lose/lose situation.

2009 Nov 24 09:49 AM

[Michael Fitzsimmons]

thanks for all the comments. i'll jump in here and add my 2 cents worth (which is worth alot less than it used to be):

longoil: you know, i always wonder about conterfeit precious metals. it wouldn't be hard to do, the profit motive is certainly there, and it's quite difficult for a small investor to check. i was going to check some coins by trying to measure electrical resistance, which is very easy to calculate. but this doesn't work very well because with an ohm meter all you really measure is surface resistance. so, a counterfeit bar as you described, would pass that check. my only solace is that i will be selling the coins back to the same outfit i bought them from, or, bartering them for goods & services so it's up to the other guy to check them. suggestions?

EconomicPh: oil is higher because of gold? that's ridiculous. you say that oil will be $133 when gold goes to $2000, so i have just one question for you: what was the price of gold when oil was $145 last year? further, how do you explain the chart in the article and the price of gold in the early 80's? your logic appears to be severely flawed. you must be one of the "economic experts" i spoke about in the article.

lucky lenny: apparently you cannot read as the article blamed both republicans and democrats (i.e. bush AND obama). funny you mentioned jimmy carter: he is the only president in US history to reduce foreign oil imports and did so by 50%. no other president has even reduced them one barrel. great president to mention in context of this article, as after carter reduced foreign oil imports, gold fell like a rock. see the chart in the article.

jrainspe: we need ron paul's legislation (which is picking up cosponsor very quickly) to force the fascist and secret Fed to reveal just how it is spending mine (and yours) tax-payer money by giving it to the millionaire and billionaire executives at the biggest insurance, banking, financial service, and mortgage firms that made money twice: once by the financial fraud that drove them to bankruptcy, and secondly by receiving the bonus bailout money paid for by you and me and given by the Fed to their best buddies. if you don't see the problem here, i can understand why you finished in the lower 50% of your class. your logic in stating that most doctors, lawyers, and engineers were along with you in that bottom 50% is also severely flawed.

Davewmart: where in the world did you read in this article that gas supplies can be expanded indefinitely? what i have said in the past (but not in this article) is that the US has enough natural gas to power:
- home heating
- industrial
- replacing ALL coal plants with nat gas generation
- power half the cars and trucks in the US
for at least 60 years, and more likely closer to 100 years. the world is similarly blessed with abundant, clean, and cheap natural gas. i guess some people do live on the moon. wrt iran, i explained US forces on two borders forced iran to develop nuclear capability, so you are preaching to the choir.

LoveShorting: thanks - i needed some support on this one! by the comments left so far, i wonder if anyone is even reading the article ;) anyhow, yeah, chu is pathetic! he should resign immediately or obama should fire him. for those two to be agnostic about the largest, cleanest, and cheapest domestic fuel the US has, and the only fuel capable of being scaled up to reduce foreign oil imports, well, it's criminal.

WilliamDave: well, interesting notes. so i am interested - what are you doing to protect your net worth in these times? i have a garden and wish i could have some chickens, goats, and cows but unfortunately i live in a neighborhood that doesn't allow such. i'd also like a big pond stocked with fish. those will be the things of value when the US eventually goes through a huge currency change. and that is coming as long as we stay addicted to foreign oil (just like in brazil).

2009 Nov 24 10:07 AM

[SABTrader]

Here's an idea.
Instead of spending $25 billion a month on oil buy a nuclear power plant or two from france and use the power to recharge the batteries in all the new electric cars that got bought with the cash for clunkers program.

2009 Nov 24 10:09 AM

[Michael Fitzsimmons]

fatpitch2: i did not know about this so thanks for the post. however, i am not sure why we'd need ammonia when we have abundant, clean, and cheap natural gas. if we built out a natural gas infrastructure correctly, we'd make many of the new pieces of that puzzle be compatible with a future hydrogen energy infrastructure which long term is the best solution. i haven't read simmons' work on this issue, but if you can point me to an article, i'd be interested to read it. thanks.

WayneS: but diesel comes from foreign oil, and it is foreign oil that is bankrupting the country. although i agree that diesel engines are more efficient, i disagree that diesel is the solution because it is not a *domestic* source of energy and therefore will not help the US unshackle the chains of foreign oil, deficit spending, a weaker currency, and a failed foreign policy based on fighting oil wars we cannot afford.

2009 Nov 24 10:16 AM

[Michael Fitzsimmons]

User514292: ha ha ha! that post was hilarious!

2009 Nov 24 10:19 AM

[Todd Peterson]

I'm in general agreement with your views on oil. However I don't really see gold as that big of an issue, or particularly related to oil. Gold was used as a means of exchange in the old days, but it doesn't have more value than anything else, unless you need a filling in your tooth.

The main value of gold, as people buy it, is as a landing cushion if human civilization as we know it breaks down. In that case I'll rely more on my AK-47, 12 gauge, and .45. And my supply of rice and beans and hideout in the far north.

The end of the world as we know it is a definite possibility; read Jared Diamond for a taste of history on Collapse of civilizations.

But barring a sudden collapse of civilization, we must move with a weak dollar policy. Its the only way to reduce our trade deficit and revitalize our manufacturing sector. In actuality, in terms of purchase power parity, the dollar is not really misvalued, but China is throwing the whole world out of whack with their undervalued currency. But since we can't control them, and we can't cut off trade with them, our only recourse is a weak dollar policy. Most sensible economists will accept this, and the only reason it isn't more widely stated inside the Beltway is that it is politically incorrect.

Regarding the price of oil again, it will soon begin to be listed in other currencies than the US $ and that will be painful, but it will lead to the type of changes that the author of this article has been seeking, so it will be healthy pain.

In the meantime, because oil contracts are denoted in dollars, oil becomes cheap for Europeans and others who have currencies that get stronger on our weak dollar. If we want to strengthen our dollar we need higher interest rates, but that will raise the cost for our government and citizens to manage their debts. There is NO easy way out. A weak dollar policy is the ticket for now. And that will push oil up. But who cares about gold..... I don't.

2009 Nov 24 10:23 AM

[Davewmart]

Michael,
Ammonia is a useful fuel, as are methanol and dimethyl ether.
All of them are produced from natural gas, and have different pros and cons.
Unfortunately, it is difficule to assess whether the US actually has teh massive reserves of natural gas that it is said to have, as they have allowed the same mark-to-fantasy as they have in the financial markets.
Basically, a company has reserves of whatever it says it has:
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b42...
At minimum to make shale gas profitabl;e prices need to rise a long way from where they are at present, and producible reserves may be so overstated that although the US still has very large supplies you can't really switch just about everything to depend on natural gas.

Ideas of producing ammonia, methanol from renewables then shipping it off are financially absurd.
The reason is that most renewables are intermittent.
Say you have a very good wind resource, in Texas, which gets power 35% of the time.
That means that you would compound the inefficiency of trying to use a reasource which is not always available with the cost of having equipment to convert the electricity to liquid fuel - and could only amortise that over 35% of the time!
On top of that you would be collecting this resource from an immensely distributed system.
Renewables advocates counter that you could use batteries or other storage to improve the time power was available.
Well, the storage system costs still more money
The costs don't bear thinking about.

I except some specialist instances, for instance using biomass to proiduce biogas on farms to power agricultural equipment.
Incidentally, biogas is far more energetically efficient in it's fuel cycle than all the liquids, and ethanol etc:
news.mongabay.com/bioe...

These are however relatively minor markets, although important.
Apart from natural gas, you really have two alternatives to produce liquid fuels:
Coal and nuclear.
Both of these can run around the clock, and so make use of the equipment efficiently.
Of the two, at least in the short term, my money would be on coal.
Most of the process is well known, and if is, I believe, likely to be cheaper than converting electricity to liquid fuels.
It should not be imagined that the resulting fuel would be anything like current costs for petrol though - and changing over would be a titanic project.
No doubt you could keepo essential services going this way, but not the present US car fleet.
Most drivers would be priced out.

One other comment in a long post.
Storage of energy in a metal compound has potential, and may be easier than producing liquid fuel.
One fuel cycle available is to use zinc and 'burn' it in a fuel cell, then remove the zinc oxide and recycle it.
The process as about 30-50% efficient:
web.cc.ncu.edu.tw/~gfey/%283%29%20zinc%...

Using this cycle you could pump out the old zinc oxide particles and pump in new zinc granules, in a similar way and in similar time to filling a petrol car.

We ain't got this technology yet though, and there are numerous difficulties, amoungst them damp degrading the zinc.

We would also have to build nuclear power stations in factories, en masse - but we need to get our heads around doing that anyway, as there is no way at all that renewables alone can do the job.

I hope this gives you some starters for looking into a fascinating subject.

2009 Nov 24 10:26 AM

[Mel Shapiro]

This is an excellent article... right on the mark. I have been hammering away at these same themes for a couple years now, but seemingly, to no avail. At first I thought it was simply leadership incompetence, but now I believe it is purposeful destruction of the American economic system, all with an effort to take control of the entire system - from banking to energy - half done! A collapse of the dollar will usher in the need for even more government "control."


What this country needs is jobs that produce something usable. America grew strong on the back of cheap energy. Pennsylvania
oil, then Texas/Oklahoma oil, then Louisiana oil, then California oil and lastly Alaskan oil. Those reserves are for the most part gone. Natural gas, offshore oil and gas, and nuclear energy, if developed with purpose, would once again restore America's its historic economic advantage: Cheap Energy. In
most major American cities, the most costly part of a CNG transportation system is already installed.... gas-lines already serve most of those homes and businesses. Nuclear power plants can provide fill-up energy in any garage with an electric vehicle and an electrical outlet.

The development of these three energy sources, the technology of all three proven, material for development available, and talent available and idle, is the solution to American economic and energy woes. Jobs are needed right now! Jobs that create valuable long-lasting infrastructure that keeps paying back for generations to come is the direct and simple path to long term prosperity.

The bald face fact that these steps are not being taken makes one wonder what the agenda of our leadership truly is.

I am long gold, long oil.

2009 Nov 24 10:26 AM