Rosenberg Says Buy Gold, Buy Oil, Buy Commodities

Economist David Rosenberg expects the US dollar to fall. His Recommendation is to buy commodities

That image of the dollar index is relative to June 2001. This is the chart I use.

Technically Speaking

Technically speaking there is no support until 80 or so. That appears to be what Rosenberg is talking about.

Fundamentally Speaking

I believe expected rate hikes will not happen. Moreover, the US deficit is out of control and worsening. This is dollar negative.

However, widely expected ECB rate hikes and tapering are also unlikely. This is Euro negative (dollar positive).

Related Articles

Unlike Rosenberg, I suggest: Forget oil, buy gold.

Why?

Oil is an industrial commodity and the global economy is weakening. We may be in late stage inflation similar to the surge that took oil to $140 in 2008.

Globally, if central banks fail to meet hiking expectations, gold rates to be a beneficiary regardless of what the economy does.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments
No. 1-25
Realist
Realist

Hey Stuki. Not sure what your point is. I suggest you take some actuarial courses so you understand how math works.

KidHorn
KidHorn

CBs target lots of prices. If you look at what happens with gold many times. Someone dumps hundreds of millions if not billions of contracts all at once when there's light volume. No individual has enough of a position to do this and no one would be dumb enough to do that. Only someone trying to drive the price down, who doesn't care if they profit, would do that. I've seen the same thing happen when stocks tank. In the opposite direction. Some idiot buys a lot of index futures during light trading. Way more than an individual could buy. They're trying to pay the maximum price. Not the minimum.

Stuki
Stuki

@Realist

Any “Pay me now, I promise someone else will pay you back long after I’m gone” scheme, is always set up to maximize how much you pay now, while minimizing how much you’ll get paid back later. That is, after all, how you maximize the amount available to those running the scheme in the first place.

Pretending people are in the business of maximizing your utility at some point long past when they themselves are likely dead, over their own utility in the here and now, is pretty unrealistic for a realist……

US or not US has exactly nothing to do with it.

“Requirements” and “projections” are no more than minor bumps in the road. Which need to be lobbied and obfuscated into supporting the scheme runners’ ability to lay claim to as much as possible of the available money for themselves.

Realistically, that’s just how people work. All people. All the time. Not just the people the man on “our” TeeVeee says are somehow baaaad. As opposed to the ones he says are gooood, so we should be happy that they allow us to give them our money in exchange for promises that they really care about little us, and have a degree stating that they are unusually gifted at picking random numbers.

Realist
Realist

Hi Jon. Are you saying that American pensions are being run poorly intentionally? Wow! For what reason? As to how to maximize shareholder value in the long term, look at any of your neighbour’s pension funds in my previous list. They aren’t all perfect, but they look pretty good to me.

Stories