Editor’s Note: With the U.S. elections just eight months away, it is important for investors to now start considering how each presidential candidate could potentially affect their portfolio, particularly their gold investments.
Kitco News has launched a new series – Gold-Ocracy – that asks veteran industry experts how they think Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and of course, Donald Trump could affect the global economy. Stay tuned every Friday as a new expert opinion is unveiled and as they share who they think would be best for gold and stock markets, as well as who they think the Federal Reserve fears most at the White House.
(Kitco News) -
This week, we get thoughts from the politically savvy and libertarian Doug Casey, who says a Donald Trump White House might not be such a bad idea as some have made it out to be.
You can also catchup on previous articles:
- Week 1 of the series included comments from famed financial commentator Dennis Gartman.
- Week 2 had comments from 25-year veteran commodities trader Vince Lanci.
- Week 4 had longtime trend forecaster Gerald Celente saying Wall Street would be delighted with Clinton in the White House
- Week 5 shares insights from famed economist Mark Skousen, who says Clinton is the less likely candidate to rock the Fed's boat.
- Week 6 check out market visionary Keith Fitz-Gerald comments on the U.S. presidential candidates and why he thinks the U.S. central bank may not be too happy about Trump's lead.
- Week 7 read now to find out why veteran market watcher Rick Rule thinks Trump & Clinton would both help gold.
- Week 8 read now to find out why Dundee’s chief economist Martin Murenbeeld thinks Trump would likely hurt the dollar, and thus gold.
Expert: Doug Casey
Claim to fame: Founder, Casey Research
- Which presidential candidate would be best for gold? Why?
According to Doug Casey, the “worst” candidate for the country will actually be the best candidate for gold. “So, [Bernie] Sanders would be best—his policies will act to destroy the dollar fastest, and drive people into gold,” he told Kitco News.
- Who would be best for the U.S. economy and the dollar? Why?
Although Casey argued that none of the candidates understand much about economics, he thinks that GOP frontrunner Donald Trump might just be best for the U.S. economy.
“Trump is actually best for the long term because he’s likely to upset the apple cart, which needs to be overturned. It’s full of rotten apples,” he said. “He says a lot of silly things, but he’s most likely to radically cut back on government spending and least likely to start World War 3.”
- Who would be best for stock markets? Why?
While some might argue that Hillary Clinton or John Kasich might be best for the stock markets, as they would be likely candidates to continue pursuing policies that would prop them up further, Casey says it might just be Trump.
“Since we’re already in a stock market bubble due to super low interest rates combined with money printing, more of the same would be a disaster. It’s best that the bubble be popped sooner rather than later,” he said.
“The answer is again Trump, because at this point higher stock prices aren’t good for the stock market; they’ll just result in the rich getting richer in the short run, and a bigger crash later.”
- Who do you think the Fed would least and most want in the White House? Why?
After quickly making the case to abolish the Federal Reserve altogether, Casey noted that Kasich and Clinton would be the likely candidates the central bank would want in office, “both of whom are lifelong unprincipled political hacks, just instruments of the Deep State.”
- Of the candidates running now, who would be your best pick?
“None of the above, of course,” he said.
“But Trump, since he actually has some understanding of business, is least connected to the political class, is most likely to confront the corrupt nature of the system, and least likely to start World War 3, is the best choice. And as pissed off as the average guy is, I think he’s going to win.”
As a side bar, Casey focused his attention on gold and the U.S. dollar again, suggesting that the U.S. should get back on a gold standard in order to prop up the country’s economy.
“Ultimately—and fairly soon—the U.S. will again have to at least link the dollar to gold,” he said. “That would be best for both the dollar and gold, because it can’t be done at under $10,000 an ounce at this point,” he said. “But none of the current candidates has a clue about either economics or gold.”
By Sarah Benali of Kitco News; firstname.lastname@example.org