David Leonhardt, who continues to use his considerable journalistic powers for evil, makes a good argument in his column today that "record" gold prices are fictional and not a reliable indication of inflation. It's sound economic commentary that is actionable by investors - but of course the only reason he did it was to defend the liberal presidential administration's stimulus programs against charges they are inflationary.
The notion that gold is more expensive than ever happens to fit with a larger narrative that also does not square with the facts — namely, that inflation is an imminent threat. This can be a bit confusing, I realize, because inflation plays two roles in the story: past inflation distorts our view of record highs, while future inflation is the concern of some of those people making a big deal out of gold.
Dave, you're just as liberal and a better writer than all of The New York Times' editorial page columnists put together - what's holding up your promotion?
Comments