Responding to the response
This time around, both central banks and governments have gone “all-in” in their response packages and the scale of the support and liquidity provided dwarf the measures that we saw in the 2008 crisis. Of course, the question remains whether this will all be enough to help save the economy from these massive self-inflicted wounds.
However, one thing is clear so far and that is the uniformity of the political handling of the economic crisis. All officials and representatives appear to be on the same page and using the same type of language to describe their interventions. They all present said packages and measures as a direct and essential response to the coronavirus, as though they are meant to provide relief from the effects of the disease itself.
At this point, it is really important to get one thing straight: SARS-CoV-2 did not cause bars and restaurants to close, it did not ground entire fleets of airplanes and it most assuredly didn’t fire 6.6 million Americans from their jobs. The virus itself is responsible for leading to, contributing to or accelerating the death of 43,500 people globally so far and for sickening a lot more, but it did not cause trillions of losses to the global economy, nor is it responsible for the deep recession we’ve just entered. Governments did that all by themselves, and their central bankers set the stage.
A cure that is far worse that the disease
There is no denying that the coronavirus is dangerous and by no means do I intend to dismiss the many thousands of deaths that have been associated with it. In my mind, there is no such thing as an “acceptable” number of deaths and human lives are not mere statistics, to be weighed in a cost-benefit analysis to optimize some imaginary bottom line. But that doesn’t change the fact that tragedy, death and suffering are all part of the human experience. Of course, some can be prevented and we should absolutely do our best to do that, but with a rational and clear mind, with a solid plan and with precision, lest we end up causing a lot more suffering to a lot more people.
In this case, at the very least, one would have expected a targeted, science-backed approach to control the epidemic. Focusing on the isolation and protection of the most vulnerable groups, informing people about the actual risks that they and their loved ones may face, in a calm and collected manner, and encouraging self-quarantine where medically advisable would be the rational direction. Personal responsibility would make a lot more sense as a basis for a state’s response, while adopting a rational, consistent and cool-headed tone to avoid mass panic and confusion would be the mature thing to do.
And yet, the approach that most governments have chosen to deal with this crisis seems to be entirely devoid of such reason and clarity. Perhaps driven by panic at the thought of the collapse of their poorly designed and disastrously mismanaged public healthcare systems, or perhaps driven by pure incompetence and a bureaucratic rigidity that only has an ON and OFF setting, they have decided to kill the entire economy, to freeze the lives of their citizens, and allow fear to triumph over reason.
Unfortunately, the damage that they have already inflicted goes well beyond the death of any kind of economic growth. The political and social implications are, arguably, even more terrifying. For one thing, the lines that have been crossed with the sudden and far-reaching implementation of the new rules and restrictions can never be uncrossed. The unilateral enforcement of these measures, that in most cases went undebated and unvoted for, showed just how far a state can go and just how many of its citizens rights it can “temporarily suspend”, if it has a good enough excuse. It can force them into virtual house arrest, it can scrap their basic right to free movement and peaceful assembly, it can take away their livelihood and their businesses and it can certainly fine them or even lock them up if they fail to comply with the new rules. All that and more it can do, even during peacetime, and even without ever having discussed such scenarios, put them to the vote and receive a mandate in an election.
It’s also interesting to note that there’s hardly any difference between political lines and “convictions”. So-called “conservative” leaders and parties, that are meant to safeguard the rights of the individual and the constitutions of their countries are enforcing the same measures with the same gusto that their left-leaning peers do elsewhere. Thus, even if there ever was a vote on these matters and even if the citizens were actually asked for their opinion, it probably wouldn’t be much of a choice.
At this stage, it is still very early to spot the political consequences of these actions. Most people are still paralyzed by fear, which is pumped at great doses into their homes by the media. At the same time, the “gifts” and the “relief” that the governments have promised them are still enough to keep them for realizing the real extent financial distress that most households are set to face over the coming months. However, once the dust settles and the virus panic subsides, once the “free money” stops being enough to cover basic needs and once the mass bankruptcies start piling up, another fear is bound to spread and this one will be a lot better justified. Financial hardship has always manifested in political division and social strife and it can be argued that we’re already seeing the first cracks appear in many Western nations.
Investment strategy for a harsh crisis
I’ve been talking and writing about the possibility of a “harsh crisis” for a very long time. Even though I’ve never seen one in my own lifetime, I’ve been taught a great deal about the importance of being prepared by the countless lessons provided by history. I’ve found most of these lessons in books and historical analyses, but I’ve also learned a lot by listening to those who carry living history with them, the actual survivors of such scenarios.
Obviously, we are not in such a crisis yet and I sincerely hope we won’t get there either, but hoping alone is not a great investment strategy. I do expect this economic downturn to get worse and depending on how long it lasts and how deep the damage is, it could also have serious socio-pollical consequences. This could take many different forms and at this point it is impossible to predict the direction it could take. While it is, clearly, hard to prepare for such “unknown unknowns”, we can prepare for what we do know and for what we’ve seen before.
As we outlined before, the banking system is simply not fit for purpose when it comes to storing one’s assets and preserving value. The risks are far too great and the credibility of all major banks in times of crisis is so deeply eroded, by their own record, that no sane investor would trust them to safeguard their wealth, especially in times like these. As for mainstream investments in general, the mayhem in the markets over the last month should have convinced even the most optimistic investor that the times of easy money in stocks are over, irreversibly so, probably for a long time. Both these factors paint a dark picture for speculators and for stock gamblers, but they do offer solid support to the case for physical precious metals and for other real, tangible and directly owned assets that can be safely stored outside the banking system.
If there ever was a time to rely on physical gold to get us through this storm, this is it. Those who had already headed the warnings and prepared for exactly this scenario that we’re facing right now are reaping the benefits. However, I sincerely believe that this is only the beginning. No matter how paper gold prices might move from day to day, and irrespectively of the short-term gains or losses some might book in a week, for the long-term investor, the only way is up.
Claudio Grass, Hünenberg See, Switzerland
This article has been published in the Newsroom of pro aurum, the leading precious metals company in Europe with an independent subsidiary in Switzerland.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.