PMs: Did Ron Paul Slay The Gold Bull?

[swissaustrian]

I don´t agree with the conlcusion of the following article that gold would plummet under president Paul, it would rather stabilize.

Did Ron Paul Slay The Gold Bull?
By Brady Willett
The price of gold was off by nearly 5% yesterday, with comex gold losing over $97 an ounce on an intraday basis. This price collapse is comparable, in percentage terms, to the carnage seen in other precious metals, but well beyond the damage seen in other ‘risk’ areas of the marketplace (i.e. commodities and equities). Accordingly, the question deserves to be asked: why is gold outpacing the recent decline in other ‘risk’ areas of the marketplace?...
what no one in gold land is doing is blaming Ron Paul.
‘End The Fed’ or End The Gold Bull?
On the surface, there is no larger political supporter of gold and precious metals than Ron Paul. After all, Paul’s investment portfolio is heavily slanted towards gold, Dr. Paul’s image was once (illegally) emblazoned on precious metals coins, and he has constantly – since Nixon closed the gold window – championed gold as being real/sound money. Yet despite being pro-gold, what should be remembered is that Paul is, first and foremost, anti-fiat or anti-Fed. In other words, if given the power Paul would abolish the Fed, which, in Austrian-speak, would stop the inflation that serves as one of the major engines behind skyrocketing gold.
This brings us to the rather extreme speculation that Paul’s recent surge in some polls could be adding some pressure to the price of gold. Did any gold bugs take notice when Paul posted a ‘big increase’ in Iowa?
In short, Ron Paul is the only politician within striking distance of the Presidency that offers any hope that the dollar can be salvaged as a viable currency longer-term. Despite being one of the only politicians that has spent 40-years accumulating gold, if the highly principled Paul actually did get elected he would undoubtedly adopt policies that harm his current investments. President Paul would balance the budget, rein in the Fed’s printing presses…and gold would likely collapse to levels most do not think is possible.
As for the difficult question of why gold has outpaced the recent decline in other ‘risk’ areas of the marketplace, it is worth remembering that gold has raced ahead of all areas of the marketplace for many years now. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a healthy pause in the ongoing precious metals bull, so long as central banks, when tempted to do so, remain free to print.
[email protected]

http://www.fallstreet.com/dec1511.html

 

[Steven Douglas]

if the highly principled Paul actually did get elected he would undoubtedly adopt policies that harm his current investments. President Paul would balance the budget, rein in the Fed’s printing presses…and gold would likely collapse to levels most do not think is possible.

Gold "collapse"? Against what - the dollar? Other commodities? Paper derivatives? Without all the derivatives in place, giving constant market distortion, physical gold would be positively untouchable. This is all backwards fiat-centric moron-speak for, "My bus may not be leaving after all - the ground itself could be moving!"

Ron Paul's proposals would result in a collapse...of paper...including, as a consequence, paper gold, which would most certainly "collapse to levels most do not think is possible". But gold itself has never, EVER "collapsed". Its scarcity has only been misrepresented, fully distorted, even now, like silver (although not nearly to the same extent), which fully errs on the side of an illusion of abundance.

Go ahead, decouple gold even further from the fiat currency, and eventually all the paper that misrepresents it, by allowing the physical to compete freely with the dollar on the open market. We'll see soon enough how long it takes for Thier's Law to trump Gresham's Law, and which of these two currencies is actually prone to a "likely collapse to levels most do not think is possible".

 

[Blueskies]

lol, wut?

Ron is still seen as a long shot by the vast majority of people. Even if he was elected president, he can't retool the Fed from day 1.

Gold is rolling over because we're back in deflation-on mode due to building stress in Europe.

 

[QE Is Theft]

Gold would do the opposite if Dr. Paul won.

It would skyrocket.

Why?

Because we would be going back on the Gold standard.

And there isn't enough physical Gold to go around.

Ergo, the price per ounce would blow through the roof.

10...20 thousand per ounce....it's anybody's guess.

 

[bluemarkets]

Ron Paul wants to legalize gold and silver as legal tender ...

If that's not bullish for PM's I don't know what is

 

[Xenophage]

I suspect that a Ron Paul presidency would rally the dollar, thus sending gold prices downward in terms of the dollar. One of Ron's first moves would be to fire Bernenke and appoint an Austrian Fed chief. There'd be heavy speculation that interest rates were soon to rise, and they most assuredly would.

Ron could not abolish the Fed as President. I don't even think he could get a repeal of legal tender laws. He may be able to push congress for a full audit.

You all seem to have a rather overly optimistic appraisal of a Ron Paul presidency.

 

[xFiFtyOnE]

Don't count on that. Ron has over a year before he can get into office. Even then he will have a hell of fight that could take several more years before anything is actually done about the Fed. With the economic condition we are in now, time is not on our side. To be honest, I don't think Paul will make it in time to save the dollar.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I suspect that a Ron Paul presidency would rally the dollar, thus sending gold prices downward in terms of the dollar. One of Ron's first moves would be to fire Bernenke and appoint an Austrian Fed chief. There'd be heavy speculation that interest rates were soon to rise, and they most assuredly would.

Ron could not abolish the Fed as President. I don't even think he could get a repeal of legal tender laws. He may be able to push congress for a full audit.

You all seem to have a rather overly optimistic appraisal of a Ron Paul presidency.

You do realize what site you're on right? That would be like going over to Mitt's site and saying that his supporters seem too optimistic about him being president and what he would do. Seriously, did you hit your head today?