I don't want to get too political so I won't get too specific or name names. But 2 of these nominees are really unqualified IMO to sit on the Fed. I could see a problem down the line with a 1987 "Gang Of Four" sequel and Powell overruled on some key aspect of monetary policy. The overall composition of the FOMC is safe but having 4 of the 7 governors novices/unqualified appointees is scary. As a reminder, all 7 Governors sit on the FOMC (which sets monetary policy)...the head of the NY Fed has a permanent seat, too....and then the other 4 members rotate from the 11 Federal Reserve Banks. I had a chance to have lunch with the NY Fed Chairman a few years ago. I've never seen such lack of skill in monetary policy in nominees. They may know economics, but not the right disciplines. It's like asking an orthopedic surgeon to do a coronary bypass. Keep an eye on this.
I doubt the nominees themselves would spark a surge in gold, regardless of qualifications. If anything, such a surge would probably be set off by a sudden, catastrophic loss of confidence in the dollar. A loss in a war with China over Taiwan, for example, or perhaps protracted unrest following a disputed 2024 presidential election.
A surge in gold is not sparked by members of the FOMC, but by the direction its collective membership chooses. Good decisions can more reliably be made when based on empirical evidence than on untested theory. I fear that we may be departing from that time-tested axiom.
I am old enough to remember -- and I was a Fed Watcher as part of my job at the time -- how the markets did NOT like when Paul Volkcer lost control of the Fed to the "Gang Of 4." Your points about a war are well-taken. But short of that, these Fed nominees are the most unqualified I have seen in my lifetime. It'd be one thing if this were pre-2020 and deflation were still a concern. But inflation is running 4-6% and 1 more misstep and we'll be talking about double-digit inflation, Jimmy Carter, sweaters, and malaise.
True, but the direction of the collective membership now might include 2 nominees who think that the Fed's mission includes "green" nonsense and someone who thinks that demographic differences are under the control of the Fed. It's scary.
These nominees are only interested in an agenda, and have nothing to do with good monetary policy. Think "Great reset" and banking done with ESG scores.
I'm not saying tomorrow that the Fed is going to have a problem but you also know another crisis is coming -- could be in 1 year or 3 years or 5 years -- and I really would prefer battle-tested folks from firms like Goldman Sachs than tenured academics writing PC stuff on a campus.
What's scary is that people who may satisfy the technical requirements for a job are being hand-picked to make sure their "feelings" steer their decisions.
By the way, a gold surge wouldn't be bad for me personally but, as a reflection of what the USD is worth, it would be terrible for the American People. I don't mind if gold doesn't go up, as that would mean America is getting back on track.
I really do not believe they are appointed to oversee the mechanics of the process. Most appointments are of the good old boy syndrome. All we can do is accept, give them the benefit of doubt, hope for the best! The American way; not the best but beats the rest...
Yeah, the Crypto Bowl is right around the corner, so for the short term most money will likely flow into bitcoin and cryptos. That said, we can hope, hopium never hurt anyone! https://fortune.com/2022/02/03/crypto-super-bowl-commercials-binance/
I think at most 10% of money in crypto/BitCoin would go to gold/PMs, so it's not insignificant but not all of it would go there. Most of the $$$ in crypto would go to stocks, options, consumer purchases, or online gambling. I do believe without ANY crypto/BitCoin, that gold is closer to $2,500 and maybe even $3,000 than $1,800.
They're so new we're not sure if they are an equity or what asset class. May take a while to sort out.
You think that crypto has taken that much? 700 to 1400 dollars in value? This one is a good read. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...seem they are,a stupendous variety of results.
Figure all the cryptos are worth $1 trillion or so right now. 10% of that earmarked for PMs and the bulk to gold....$100 BB....over the last few years.....$25 BB a year.....yeah, I think that's a reasonable guestimate. Anybody who says ALL or MOST of that $1 trillion in crypto/BitCoin would go to gold/PMs is way too aggressive. Saying $5,000 or something is very aggressive. Low-to-high I'd say $2,200 to $3,000 or so.
