Seeking Alpha

Interesting Times'  Instablog

Interesting Times
Send Message
I could put on this bio my education, work experience, investment strategy, and a nice thin (if I can find one) picture of me in a suit looking *smart*. Sorry but that's not my intent here. Sure I invest, help family make financial decisions, and make a ton of mistakes along the way. But my time... More
My blog:
Interesting Times For All Commodities And Investments!! CHAPTER 4......
Back To Interesting Times' Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (415)
Track new comments
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thoughts on this article. I am confused..

     

    http://bit.ly/1ccadzK
    29 Nov 2013, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    IT:

     

    You needn't be confused. Another wishful-thinking article by a gold hound.

     

    Tapering and consequent rising rates will attract even more capital toward dollars and away from gold. If gold rises at some point in the future, it will only occur if economic activities accelerate to the point to rising inflation becomes a noticeable problem. And, as long as we have the current Administration's anti-banking and anti-business policies, we don't have to worry about the economy shooting off into space.
    29 Nov 2013, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Dollars away from gold?

     

    Perhaps.

     

    Yuan and rupees away from gold?

     

    Nope.
    10 Dec 2013, 07:47 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    So far the yuan and rupees haven't stemmed the tide of the bear market that presently exists in gold..
    10 Dec 2013, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    ...so far...

     

    There are only two types of markets that ALWAYS end:

     

    Bull markets and bear markets.

     

    I personally wouldn't count out over two billion people who may have reason not to trust their government's intentions.

     

    How do your everyday Chinese and Indians think about gold, anyway?

     

    Hmmm.
    10 Dec 2013, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    as mentioned so far it hasnt had any impact on the bear market, & quite frankly i have heard the "india" argument since gold@ 1500..
    of course bull & bear markets end - for those that said the bear market was ending @gold 1500 because of India , china, US policy , et al are now down another 20% .

     

    HMMM..
    10 Dec 2013, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    @ $1,500 gold ENTERED bear territory from its recent high so I don't know who told you that "the bear market was ending" at that point.

     

    Re: India and gold

     

    http://cbsn.ws/18SvqjC

     

    What arguments were you hearing when gold was @ $835 in December 2008?

     

    Probably a lot of "gold is going lower; the bull market is over".
    10 Dec 2013, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    I know when gold entered a bear market - I shorted it ..

     

    I was referring to the articles here on SA & elsewhere along with commentary that
    1. didn't acknowledge the bear market even began
    2. worse were recommending purchase (wouldnt that suggest the "worst was over ?)

     

    SO draw your own conclusions as to the Hype surrounding gold @ 1500

     

    BTW many of those prognosticators don't seem to be around now that the metal has dropped to these levels.. Assume they will be back in force if we see a $100 rally though .. Actually i don't see that happening since the resistance at 1300- 1325 is huge,, But we'll see

     

    With all due respect , If i saw 1 , I saw 20 links telling all how india was in love with gold as it cratered this year.. I have drawn a different conclusion from that "fairy tale"

     

    2008, HMM, what i heard after gold underperformed in the "crisis" months , when it was supposed to be insurance -- was the global economy will never recover and of course as the fed stepped in , the "its going to end badly" people were born and they then embarked on creating the "crisis of the month " club..with wild speculation on what was going to happen (All of which has yet to materialize) driving the "fear" trade in gold .. Period.

     

    The bloom is off this rose , gold finds its resting place and underperfoms for a LONG time ..
    Anyone wants to buy that type of "insurance " -- be my guest.. I believe one can build your wealth in other ways ..
    Best of Luck ...
    10 Dec 2013, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    & u can see links to make a case either way are a dime a dozen

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    I dont give much credibility to any of these .. Its about the environment that gold is facing in '14 , that makes up my opinion..
    10 Dec 2013, 04:14 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    -Please link to your timestamped posts around the time gold fell to $1,500. I will look for statements where you claim that you have gone from neutral to short on gold.

     

    -I've met a lot of anti-gold folks here at SA but you are the first to deny India's well-known, deep cultural connection with gold. It is remarkable that you'd call that a "fairy tale"!

     

    -What? No comment about the start of gold's "bear market" in 2008 and what happened to prices just after those predictions?

     

    -Oh, and your lack of gold education is showing when you write "I believe one can build your wealth in other ways".

     

    Gold isn't for "wealth building" it is for "wealth preservation" from generation to generation.

     

    How much did your parents pay in dollars to go to a movie, buy a house, go to college?

     

    Yep...exactly.
    10 Dec 2013, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • User 7415181
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    DVL,

     

    I'm neutral on gold and have no interest in it as I view it as a commodity. Your comment about "wealth preservation" got me to thinking - I would encourage you to read "Salt: A World History". Sounds boring, but anyone interested in history would enjoy this.

     

    My thinking bit comes from for much of human history salt being fairly rare, valuable, and differently than gold, it was/is necessary for life (nevermind food preservation). Morton came along about 130 years ago and made a very valuable commodity into a too-common thing.

     

    Not saying that's around the corner for gold, but you never know...
    10 Dec 2013, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » USER

     

    My only come back to your comment is that I did read that gold is slowly running out of mining. That *peak* gold has already been hit.

     

    No so sure about salt though>>
    10 Dec 2013, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    I will withdraw form a pointless argument with another gold bug at this time.. but will state the following as fact.. ...

     

    I dont understand gold ?, what i do understand is that it's in a secular bear market --
    As far as MY call on gold , sir it has been on the "money" as many can attest to here on this blog. please go back and review my commentary , here on SA, I'm not going to do the work for you ,,I can assure you its all here .. from the original call to calling every resistance point on failed rallies..

     

    Wealth preservation .. hardly .. it will be back at the level where it started its bull run.. a triple digit print , that's wealth preservation ?-- absurd commentary. more like wealth destruction. it pays zero to hold it ,, zero .when will people finally wake up .. You want to hold that - be my guest

     

    Anti gold , not really , more like anti an investment that at this time shows to have no meaningful upside and wont pay me to sit and wait for a meaningful upside , that sir is common sense . and at this point in time with the environment we are looking at in '14 , its dead.

     

    India , comical, another spin to make one believe someone out there will prop up the price .. good for them they can now buy it cheaper , I am happy for them ...as stated sir , its a fairy tale ..

     

    Bottom line , you & all the other gold fanatics will need a geopolitical event the likes of which no one , sir, would want for the price of the metal to rise , if that is what you are hoping for , well, that's why I will remove myself from a pointless argument .. No gold bug can produce something tangible oher than hope & stats from the lovers of gold in India - Comical
    However here is a comment that i made here on SA regarding the Gold afficianodos
    "I suggest they remain locked in the bunker surrounded by their gold coin brochures,while writing blog posts to each other and debating the exact date of "The End".This crowd loves to ply their tactics on all during a moment of doubt and weakness, but it's not necessary to listen since they have yet to be correct.They claim to be "realists" but really they're serial cynics who are unhappy and chant daily to see everyone else dragged down with them. They haven't been right yet. It's time once again to go back to ignoring them right now.Investors just need to ask themselves this question ---So why on earth would you ever follow them now ?

     

    one more fact
    As risk aversion declines, the price of gold—the classic refuge from monetary and political risk—will decline as well. Gold is still trading at more than two times its average inflation-adjusted price over the past century.

     

    Wealth preservation , comical - think again .. 
    Time to get back to productive wealth creation
    10 Dec 2013, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • User 7415181
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    IT,

     

    That's kind of my point. Salt used to be mined. A literal castle was built on a hill because a good chunk of the hill was salt and whoever controlled it was incredibly rich (Spain). Arabs would send caravans of gold across the Sahara desert to buy salt from Mali. Venice and other Italian states had tidal pools set up to evaporate sea-water to produce salt.

     

    Salt was one of the most valuable commodities in the world. It was needed for food preservation (and still is if refrigeration/electricity isn't easy). It is necessary for human life. There was a huge infrastructure in the world just for salt - Morton came along with his "evaporamatic machine" (I made that up as I haven't read the book or the wikki in a decade) and made cheap salt available to anyone with infrastructure.

     

    Think about this. Salt was probably at the time a more valuable commodity than gold - it actually immediate use. It was mined. Weider methods were tried to produce it. And at the end of the day, out of no-where, a scientist came up with a method to make it insanely cheap to what it had been priced before.
    10 Dec 2013, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » USER

     

    Your point opens up a whole different topic as well. Our dollar is now fiat money. Again, I am no gold bug but history has proven that the life expectancy of such money is less then 50 years.

     

    We are approaching that very soon. So are we "different" then all of history? Are we approaching a day when someone will not want our money?

     

    I have no clue, nor do I ever hope that day ever happens. I cannot fathom what life would be, if we even called it living. But to just dismiss it like it could never happen might not be wise.

     

    Just playing devil's advocate here. Yet gold and silver has always maintained a value during these times.
    10 Dec 2013, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    IT:

     

    Let's see, left the gold standard, as follows:

     

    Britain - 1931
    U.S. - 1933
    Germany - 1936
    Japan -1971

     

    Anyone note any "dead" currencies or economic chaos?
    10 Dec 2013, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    @USER:

     

    Well they can make diamonds now so you indeed never know.

     

    Actually, a more likely scenario though still not very likely at the same time is a meteor filled with gold crashing somewhere.

     

    Scientists think most gold on earth came from meteors so one depositing a few tons somewhere in the Antarctic or somewhere would certainly not be good for prices!!
    10 Dec 2013, 09:58 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fear&Greedtrader:

     

    Such an emotional post for someone supposedly so confident in his argument.

     

    Well, you can dismiss over a billion people who place gold at the center of its strategy for wealth preservation if you wish but I think that makes no sense.

     

    You can dismiss gold's role as a wealth preserver if you wish but no one with a reasonable sense of logic can dismiss that fact that one could have traded 150 1 oz. 1913 gold Double Eagles for 1913 dollars to pay cash for a modest American home outright.

     

    ...just as that homebuyer's great-grandson could trade 150 1 oz. 2013 gold American Eagles for 2013 dollars to pay cash for a modest American home outright.

     

    You can dismiss someone who owns stocks, equity mutual funds, bond funds, real estate and other non-gold assets as a "fanatic" if you wish but I will continue to see the whole investing and economic universe as it is instead of seeing it as a collection of stereotypes against whom it is easier to rant against.

     

    "Gold bugs" often are individuals who own many types of investments PLUS gold.

     

    Sorry to see you go...
    10 Dec 2013, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Just a note on the salt discussion:

     

    Salt is a compound made mostly of sodium chloride (NaCl) where gold is an element (Au).

     

    And salt's value came from its properties to preserve food while gold's value is in both its rarity and inertness.

     

    Be careful comparing the two as it relates to industrial innovation.
    10 Dec 2013, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    Nicely put Tack. And it gets worse. If the "solution" to greedy govts devaluing the currency and inevitably failing FIAT money etc is a gold standard, exactly WHAT is to stop the same greedy govts abandoning the gold standard once again (and confiscating gold to boot)? Ot to put it differently and turn the gold bug argument around, isnt it true that EVERY gold backed currency has disappeared? Is there a single one left? What does that do to the argument?
    11 Dec 2013, 02:04 AM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    Or indeed not good for inflation DVL. So we take the money supply out of the hands of central banks and hand it over to mining companies and celestial bodies???? ;-)
    11 Dec 2013, 02:07 AM Reply Like
  • CoinsK
    , contributor
    Comments (3357) | Send Message
     
    Good idea F&G when you think you know it all you are not able to "know" anymore.The extremism of haters of precious metals savings by people saving money outside of a bank and a corrupt system is on display again I see. You believe in IRA paper accounts right? You know ,where the retirements are IOU TAXE'S to the government .They will" tell you what you owe" (You must pass the Bill B4 they tell you what's in it sound familiar )? .Give us a break ,if some people save money in precious metals it's money they probably would NOT have saved otherwise. .
    Gold is the way to store wealth ,even if you don't agree .History proves it to be otherwise than you have stated .
    11 Dec 2013, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • CoinsK
    , contributor
    Comments (3357) | Send Message
     
    SALT never backed the U.S. dollar did it ?
    11 Dec 2013, 08:26 AM Reply Like
  • CoinsK
    , contributor
    Comments (3357) | Send Message
     
    Faulty premise 101 .A Gold standard is not the proposed reason for owning precious metals.It ;s a strawman argument by Gold haters to argue against most people that use PM's as SAVINGS. A genuine store of value . Get used to it,it's a reality. People will use PM;s for savings outside the corrupt banking system long after we are all gone. And did it long b4 we were here..
    11 Dec 2013, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    All of these countries are desperately trying to print their way to currency stability (though Germany is kind of being forced to).
    11 Dec 2013, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Gold backed currency "disappeared" because France started to ball rolling in its attempt to trade its dollars for gold.

     

    The U.S. didn't have enough to cover the bill so out went Bretton Woods.

     

    The gold standard worked fine...it was the U.S. government that couldn't stop printing the dollars because "we had a war to win".

     

    You can't blame gold for limiting war spending.

     

    You can blame war for limiting dollar stability though.
    11 Dec 2013, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Actually the U.S. Constitution says nothing about money supply being in the hands of "mining companies and celestial bodies".
    11 Dec 2013, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    No gold bug can produce something tangible other than hope & stats from the lovers of gold in India -

     

    Best of luck
    11 Dec 2013, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    Coins
    i've heard your "story " from gold 1500- and silver from 23.. to present prices.
    & u bashed all that had an opposite view of yours regarding the metals ....
    Using personal attacks because u simply had no other facts to support your case . Lets go & pull up the commentary shall we.. ?

     

    I don't "Hate" anything - I am anti an investment that produces no income , looking at an interest rate environment that will be toxic for the metals in '14 --

     

    Here is a SIMPLE fact :

     

    As risk aversion declines, the price of gold—the classic refuge from monetary and political risk—will decline as well. Gold is still trading at more than two times its average inflation-adjusted price over the past century.
    11 Dec 2013, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    1 billion gold focused savers.

     

    Not tangible?

     

    Wow.

     

    Maybe this mythical land called "India" doesn't actually exist!

     

    Spooky.

     

    lol.
    11 Dec 2013, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • CoinsK
    , contributor
    Comments (3357) | Send Message
     
    Only in your alleged mind .Use the real numbers I opened in 2003 Gold less than $400 and Silver less than $5.00 an Oz. Try again F&g with another "Story"?
    11 Dec 2013, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • CoinsK
    , contributor
    Comments (3357) | Send Message
     
    So you aren't anti-Savings? When do you take some off the table and store some wealth in your scenario.What would you "store" it in? A CD , (a liability) ? How about a Money market account?
    11 Dec 2013, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    anyone want to add a comment to the China story that was posted here or are we just looking at the facts that support the gold 'story"

     

    Yep all of the pm 's were bought at much lower prices , no one bought after that -- no bought at 800 - 1200 ,, etc.. or even 1900 ----comical
    all of the silver was bought at $5 :)

     

    another "story"
    11 Dec 2013, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • CoinsK
    , contributor
    Comments (3357) | Send Message
     
    Previous post @ F& G
    11 Dec 2013, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • CoinsK
    , contributor
    Comments (3357) | Send Message
     
    I'll post this where it was answered with another personal attack by F&G .
    Only in your alleged mind .Use the real numbers I opened in 2003 Gold less than $400 and Silver less than $5.00 an Oz. Try again F&G with another "Story"?
    11 Dec 2013, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • CoinsK
    , contributor
    Comments (3357) | Send Message
     
    Maybe not a "goldbug " but others do just fine with it. :)
    11 Dec 2013, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    DVL: Explain how come every country that dropped the gold standard recovered better and faster from the GD than those who held on to it longer (France actually held on longer than most)? If "working fine" means holding back economies with millions unemployed as a result I suppose it did....
    11 Dec 2013, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    DVL. The US constitution doesnt have to: it's simple economic reality. If money is gold then the money supply is a factor of gold supply. More gold found and mined equals more supply and thus more inflation. Google the South African gold discoveries in the 19th century and the resultant inflationary period over many years. Heck just look at the Spanish Empire for that matter!

     

    So yeah, absent a CB and fiat currencies, money supply is determined by mining companies and meteorites. Great!
    11 Dec 2013, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Are you blaming gold for unemployment?

     

    Really?
    11 Dec 2013, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Please name the mining company that had more revenue than Standard Oil in 1890.

     

    Which Senators fought for the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by noting the power of gold mining companies to collude and fix prices?

     

    None?

     

    Perhaps gold mining (and its supposed control of U.S. money supply) was not quite the issue you think it was.
    11 Dec 2013, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    No DVL. I dont blame gold for anything. It is an inanimate object. What I said (and it is pretty manifestly true) is that those countries that adhered longer to the Gold standard in the GD stayed depressed longer and deeper than those that left. The ones that got out first recovered quickest. I didnt realise that bit of history was even disputed. Is it?
    11 Dec 2013, 04:28 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    DVL. What on earth are you asking me these questions for? Did you not understand what I said? Can I make it any more clear? The more gold, the more money supply and according to monetarists (in a gold standard economy) that equals inflation. This is EXACTLY what happened in the late 19th century with the discovery of the Jo'burg fields. Thus, if gold becomes your money then mining companies and meteorites become the main determinants of inflation. Is that too complex to understand? I was only making a quip on the other chap's post about gold supposedly coming from meteorites but somehow you now seem intent on bringing up all sorts of irrelevancies. Are non-sequiturs part of some strange strategy you have to avoid thinking about what I said logically and responding in kind?
    11 Dec 2013, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fabsy:

     

    http://bit.ly/Jfpsho
    11 Dec 2013, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • AIWIMMF
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    Tack

     

    I think you just don't get it, leaving the gold standard only causes a problem after 83 years I predict in exactly 28 days, the UK will collapse soon followed by the US and Germany.

     

    I'm buying gold and ammo get ready canned food (no better investment out there, you can't have too much tuna)
    11 Dec 2013, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    I'll put that in the same "non-sequitur" file DVL. At least I had the courtesy to explain my thinking. Perhaps you are incapable of explaining yours?
    11 Dec 2013, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    I'll put that date in my calendar AIW. At least I can be grateful your prediction comes after Christmas.
    11 Dec 2013, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    Fabsy and Tack

     

    ... guys, you are focusing only on one half of the equation with your "gold standard" perspective.

     

    Tack notes to IT that Britain, US, Germany, and Japan left the gold standard, and asks:
    "we do not note 'dead' currencies or economic chaos?"

     

    In the gold standard, there are two components: (1) gold and (2) the currency that is backed by the gold. The way I see it, these gold standard currencies did disappear as you point out Fasby, but the gold did not. The gold is still here.

     

    Why did they disappear? Wasn't it because the currency component outgrew the gold component? The problem was not with the gold, except that there was not enough of it. The gold did not become undesirable. The problem was with the currency component which expanded too much.

     

    European nations bought up US gold with their dollar reserves. Gold was more desirable than dollars. They still like gold and hold it as an asset though it does not back the currencies.

     

    Now, though there are no gold standard currencies, investors may still back, or augment their own currency holdings and equity portfolio with gold. Isn't that what central banks do?

     

    I would say we have "controlled chaos" as opposed to "crisis chaos." Tack, you are right that these currencies are at least functioning, but it is all relative - and debt based. It's a very tentative system with a lot of wild cards.

     

    Yeah, we will not be seeing gold standard currencies coming back. Private individuals and investors will use gold along with cash holdings, and of course CBs will continue to hold and add more of it.

     

    Don't forget to consider both sides of this equation.
    11 Dec 2013, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    JW:

     

    I am fully conversant with the issues. I just contend that gold is not money, nor should it be.

     

    I, like many others, just see no rhyme or reason to have the amount of currency available to serve economies be dependent on the serendipitous discovery and production of gold. If one is going to draw an arbitrary correlation between unrelated items to control currency production, why gold? Why not diamonds, or copper, or number of redwoods in Yosemite or swallows in Capistrano? It doesn't make any sense to limit the money supply to an entity that bears no correlation to general economic activity and/or population expansion.

     

    Now, if people still find gold a desirous entity to own, that's fine, and it attains its own value, independent of any currency application, due to the usual supply-demand effects. And, the price, in dollar terms, is a result of that relative relationship, too. The same laws apply to any commodity, whether it's diamonds, copper, or pizza pies.
    11 Dec 2013, 09:40 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    JW. Tack beat me to it. The issue is not whether or not gold has any value, it has the same value as any other inert object which is whatever anyone is willing to pay for it. No, the issue is whether or not we should have our currency backed by gold and thus, as stated, have the money supply dependent on mining companies and celestial bodies.

     

    There are very real disadvantages to having a gold standard and it is really quite ignorant for some here to ignore them becuase they are blinded by an infatuation with the metal itself.

     

    Among my chief gripes with the typical anti-fiat/pro gold buggery out there is the idea that runs as follows:

     

    "We cant trust governments not to cause hyperinflation so the answer is to impose the gold standard"

     

    BUT

     

    If you cant trust a government (and independent Central Bank etc etc) to not hyperinflate, HOW CAN YOU TRUST THEM NOT TO SIMPLY ABANDON THE GOLD STANDARD AGAIN? And confiscate gold etc etc.

     

    See my point? Too many people are so obsessed with gold they view it as some magical panacea. The only RATIONAL reason for this is that many are talking their book and actually promoters and marketers of gold products. Otherwise the belief that a gold standard solves all inflation problems and suddenly makes everyone "honest" is simply a delusion.
    12 Dec 2013, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    F:

     

    The issue is even more fundamental than whom to trust. Even if gold were adhered to without exception by governments, it has, if not the same likelihood of easily being made inflationary, it has the very real likelihood, proven many times in history, of being very deflationary.

     

    It's baffling why gold adherents see deflation, as less of a problem than inflation. In fact, it's quite the reverse. Economies prosper when money flows and is exchanged, but deflation makes currency more valuable each day than the things it buys, so people are encouraged to hoard it, and commerce stops dead in its tracks. This is what causes depressions, and it's very difficult to escape them if one cannot increase government spending in the alternative, which can only be done by creating additional money supply, which, of course, is impossible, if constrained by a strict gold standard.

     

    It's much better to have fallible system with flexibility than a fallible system without flexibility.
    12 Dec 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    Fabsy and Tack

     

    Thanks for giving your perspectives. Appreciate your viewpoints and
    and explanations.

     

    John
    12 Dec 2013, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fabsy:

     

    O.K. I'll spoon feed it to you then.

     

    You are making a weird, unsubstantiated correlation between unemployment rates and gold. ("Keepng a gold standard = millions unemployed")

     

    I am just saying that it makes no sense.

     

    But I can imagine a politician ignoring the 40 or 50 REAL reasons why his constituency is unemployed (like trade policy, for example) and just blame a basic element for all of the economic problems.

     

    Yeah, I can imagine a politician doing that.
    12 Dec 2013, 10:33 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fabsy (regarding your 12/11 X:35 PM post):

     

    I get it now...you are confusing "money supply" with
    "credit supply".

     

    I was wondering why you believed that the 19th century U.S. Treasury was just waiting around for some more gold to be mined before paying government bills.

     

    Maybe this will help you:

     

    http://bit.ly/1j1F4Vr
    12 Dec 2013, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    Coins, point me to where I said a gold standard equals high unemployment? I dont believe I did. But what I DID say is that those countries that left the gold standard first were the fastest to recover in the Great Depression. I can explain to you why that was and even why under certain circumstances adherence to a gold standard does indeed cost jobs (something like this is actually happening with Eurozone periphery countries stuck in the Euro) but I am not sure you would even understand the basic economic concepts involved.

     

    Would you like me to try anyway?
    13 Dec 2013, 09:13 AM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    DVL. What are you talking about? How did I confuse money supply with credit? Why is it people here seem so concerned with either misrepresenting pretty clear posts or building strawmen! WHAT ARE YOU SAYING I SAID???

     

    To repeat, in a gold standard Austrian utopia where GOLD=MONEY, what would happen to inflation if suddenly vast amounts of gold were discovered somewhere easily accessible or, say, a metorite chock full of the shiny stuff fell to earth?

     

    Well, that is pretty much what happened in South Africa in the late 19th century: From Brad de Long:
    "For example, the discovery and exploitation of large gold reserves near present-day Johannesburg at the end of the nineteenth century was responsible for a four percentage point per year shift in the worldwide rate of inflation--from a deflation of roughly two percent per year before 1896 to an inflation of roughly two percent per year after 1896. In the election of 1896, William Jennings Bryan's Democrats called for free coinage of silver as a way to end the then-current deflation and stop the transfer of wealth away from indebted farmers. The concurrent gold discoveries in South Africa changed the rate of drift of the price level, and accomplished more than the writers of the Democratic platform could have dreamed, without any change in the U.S. coinage".

     

    So yes, long run inflation will be primarily a function of mining company investment programmes and celestial bodies. We will all just have to hope there is never a supply shock one way or the other.
    13 Dec 2013, 09:25 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fabsy:

     

    What you are writing regarding money supply and gold supply being locked together really doesn't make a lot of sense.

     

    In fact, of all the somewhat reasonable objections to a gold standard I've heard over the years yours may be the most bizarre.

     

    But, hey, the fiat system we have now is working great, right?

     

    No money shocks, no deflation, no inflation.

     

    Just print until our problems go away.

     

    I just don't understand why the Fed doesn't print $100 trillion per year.

     

    We could totally fund any project any politician can dream up with zero negative consequences!!
    13 Dec 2013, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    Ahh yes the "fiat" money argument ...

     

    MMM, maybe a more prudent approach to what is really happening with the Fed;
    It's a myth that the Fed has been "printing money" with abandon as a result of its QE bond purchases. This myth persists, despite strong evidence to the contrary (i.e., the fact that inflation remains very low despite four years of massive QE purchases, Oh sorry that doesn't fit into the "gold" thesis" ), because the majority of people fail to understand the mechanics of Quantitative Easing. QE bond purchases do not create money; they create bank reserves, which are very different from money. Bank reserves can't be spent anywhere, because they exist only on the Fed's balance sheet. Banks don't lend bank reserves, they use them to collateralize their deposits, which in turn are a function of total lending activity. The huge expansion of bank reserves could potentially result in a huge expansion of the money supply as banks need extra reserves to support increased lending. BUT it has not, because
    a) banks have been reluctant to expand their lending activities, and b) the public has been reluctant to borrow more. Not only banks, but the entire world remains relatively risk-averse, preferring to hold significantly more cash and cash equivalents, of which bank reserves are an important part.
    Banks have instead been content to hold on to the majority of the reserves the Fed has created. This is due to the fact that the Fed started paying interest on reserves in 2008, which makes reserves functionally equivalent to T-bills, and the fact that banks have wanted to increase their capital and fortify their balance sheets, and bank reserves fit that bill.

     

    SO, This idea that the Fed is "printing money" with abandon, and that this is seriously debasing the U.S. dollar, is a fiction borne of ignorance of how monetary policy actually works. Fed policy may indeed pose the risk of serious debasement in the future, but to date there is little or no evidence to suggest that this has occurred. (yes now I wil hear from the "it's coming " crowd) They have had it al wrong to date , there is noo need to listent to that "pitch" now ..

     

    In fact ,currency has grown at a 6.8% annualized rate since early 2007, the same rate that we have seen for the past 20 years. !! Currency actually grew at a faster rate from 1993 through 2003 than it has in the past six years, and the former was a period when inflation averaged 2.5%. In the past six years, inflation has averaged about 2.2%. So the recent growth in currency is nothing out of the ordinary, and does not necessarily imply higher inflation than what we have seen in recent decades. It is also important to note that the Fed only supplies currency on demand, in exchange for bank reserves. Thus, the Fed cannot "force-feed" currency to the world. The world holds only as much currency as it wants to hold, so growth in currency is not necessarily inflationary at all.
    A chart to support that view..
    http://bit.ly/18J4fVR

     

    At the end of the day many are divided into two camps, two theories : doom, conspiracy, it wil end badly , & the out of control Fed, AND the "other" approach , price action, economic & market signals ---- one has worked the other hasn't .

     

    Care to take a guess as to which has helped an investor's bottom line.

     

    If one has not recognized the recent positive global economic news that the market told us about and continues to tell us about , then their pre conceived notions will never be changed and I simply wish them the best of luck ..
    13 Dec 2013, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    DVL. Please try to understand what I write and not come up with your own idea of what you wish I said. Now answer me this. In a GOLD=MONEY world that you seem to desire, what happens to inflation if there is a massive increase in available gold? At least make a stab at answering that question. Then you might understand what I wrote and its context. Did I say shocks cant happen with Fiat money? Where? When? What I DID say is that control of the supply of gold is in the hands of mining companies and celestial bodies (in a droll reference to an earlier poster). Tell me exactly what it is that you have a problem with?
    13 Dec 2013, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Hey sounds good!

     

    Let's boost QE up to $5 trillion dollars per month in asset purchases (remember it is impossible for QE to cause bubbles).

     

    Every traded asset in the global market can be purchased by the Fed with new currency ("reserve" currency, that is).

     

    With a put on everything under the sun corrections and crashes are rendered extinct.

     

    The Treasury can issue a few hundred billion dollars in new bonds per week and finance the complete overhaul of every square mile of infrastructure in the country.

     

    Health care? Free.

     

    College education? Free.

     

    We can just issue bonds and the Fed will buy them with new (reserve) currency.

     

    Since QE is NOT money printing and bubbles are impossible please tell me why this plan wouldn't work.
    13 Dec 2013, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    I don't have any problem with what you wrote. I like to hear ideas from all parts of the spectrum no matter how weird they are.

     

    What I am saying is that even the most ardent anti-gold people that I've heard have never suggested that one of the main flaws of the gold standard is the risk of a sudden, out-of-left-field increase in the global gold supply.

     

    ...or that the "money" supply would be controlled by mining companies. (Wow!)

     

    I don't "desire" for gold to be money...gold was money long before my grandfather's grandfather was born.

     

    I honestly can't understand how an intelligent person can look at the Fed balance sheet, how its grown and how there is no discernible exit plan by the Fed governors then turn around and mock the stability of a precious metals backed currency.

     

    Its madness!!

     

    Does it not matter to anyone that you need more and more dollars to buy the same kind of goods that you purchased twenty years ago?

     

    Why is "inflation" a natural and desired economic phenomenon?

     

    Isn't there something to be said for stability?

     

    Why do central banks hold gold?

     

    Are they "gold bugs"?

     

    Are a couple of billion chinese and Indians ignorant when it comes to the "worthlessness" of gold?

     

    Maybe Asians don't have any sort of long history to learn from when it comes to the "barbarous relic".
    13 Dec 2013, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    DVL,
    In case u missed it

     

    At the end of the day many are divided into two camps, two theories : doom, conspiracy, it will end badly , & the out of control Fed, AND the "other" approach , price action, economic & market signals ---- one has worked the other hasn't .

     

    MY fault for the confusion,, I Probably should have added "reasonable" to the 'OTHER" approach - the one that has worked ..

     

    and also added "ABSURD notions" to the side that hasn't worked..

     

    Now care to take a guess as to which has helped an investor's bottom line.

     

    If one has not recognized the recent positive global economic news that the market told us about and continues to tell us about , then their PRE CONCEIVED ABSURD NOTIONS will never be changed and I simply wish them the best of luck .

     

    Note: the word ABSURD is used in the context of "failed" or to keep it so all can understand , absurd strategy = failed strategy

     

    Now i think i have it right ... Sorry for the mistake..

     

    Well maybe i did miss the point -- oh ,, yes i did , "it's all going to end badly" -- That's it ,,lets take that as gospel from the failed strategy mob..

     

    HMM,, by the way "Fiat" is a car ..

     

    http://bit.ly/Jo0VXf

     

    Good luck to the "it has to end badly crowd"
    13 Dec 2013, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    Fabs:

     

    Even worse is what happens when vast stores of gold suddenly disappear, as in the infamous 1857 sinking of the S.S. Central America. That ship, on its way to New York from San Francisco, was laden with gold and sunk off Cape Hatteras. That singular event caused the Panic of 1857, leading to a worldwide depression by 1859.

     

    Imagine, global commerce halted because one ship sank, laden with some shiny metal, otherwise meaningless to the actual trade of goods, deprived commerce of its medium of exchange. And, the Government couldn't replace it because gold was money.

     

    The deflationary scenario, occasioned by gold, has occurred much more frequently than any inflation caused by serendipitous discovery. Gold shortages were common, due to failure of production to keep up with monetary requirements and/or because of hoarding in times of fear.
    13 Dec 2013, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fear&GreedTrader:

     

    You haven't told me why we don't have a $5 trillion per month QE and if it is a bad idea why...

     

    I'll let you try to figure that one out without you contradicting your previous statements.
    13 Dec 2013, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    DVL:

     

    You simply have a misapprehension of how fiat money and the Fed work.

     

    The Fed can and should create money up to any limit, as long as that limit isn't promoting inflation. In fact, it's been offsetting the ongoing credit contraction elsewhere. Apparently, they can print $85 billion, and it hasn't sparked inflation, despite the endless predictions to the contrary. Of course, that doesn't mean that they can print $5 trillion without negative effect, any more than you can hold your breath under water for two hours, even if you could do it for two minutes without causing havoc.

     

    The whole point of Fed operations is to balance demand and supply. If demand is weak, as it has been, they provide more. If demand is too strong, they raise rates and/or sell bonds and contract the money supply. It's really rather elementary.

     

    P.S. I'd suggest following and reading SA member, Lawrence Kramer, as he carries on a very intelligent discussion on this topic.
    13 Dec 2013, 03:57 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Tack:

     

    {2008}

     

    Bear Stearns.

     

    AIG-FP.

     

    Lehman Bros.

     

    ...but no sinking ship filled with gold.

     

    Thank God we didn't have a gold standard...there probably would have been a global crisis of some sort.
    13 Dec 2013, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    DVL,

     

    Comical ... Give me a break !!

     

    after you tell me which strategy has worked. & why anyone should believe anything from anyone it the "blame it on the fed crowd"
    They have had it wrong from Day ONE ---

     

    It wouldn't matter what or how i replied sir ,, cause you once again didn't read my statement in full

     

    If one has not recognized the recent positive global economic news that the market told us about and continues to tell us about , then their PRE CONCEIVED ABSURD NOTIONS will never be changed and I simply wish them the best of luck .

     

    Why is it that the pre conceived notion crowd reads only what they want to read .. I've seen it here at least 5 times today in responses to Fabsy ...
    13 Dec 2013, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    Tack,

     

    'that crowd" simply cant get it -- I tried

     

    it's always greeted with an "absurd notion" comeback .. as if one will really believe that voice now ..
    13 Dec 2013, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fear&Greed:

     

    Let's see your vaunted Fed announce on Monday a complete, immediate end to QE.

     

    The economy is strong again, right? So why not?

     

    How is the Fed going to shrink its balance sheet and when?

     

    Why not sell off the assets NOW?

     

    The economy is strong, right?

     

    If the economy is not strong then why not?

     

    5 years and TRILLIONS of QE and for what?

     

    ... a "not strong" economy?

     

    So, yeah, let's see what happens to these well-tuned, stable markets (both debt and equity) after such a Monday press conference.

     

    Remember the economy is strong and the Fed's actions have fixed everything with no side effects.
    13 Dec 2013, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    DVL,

     

    That is the "canned " reply from the "doomers" when it comes to the fed and the markets
    your comment ..
    "So, yeah, let's see what happens to these well-tuned, stable markets (both debt and equity) after such a Monday press conference. "

     

    To dismiss the 26% YTD gain or the 170% increase since the end of the bear market by citing how the markets may react on Monday is yet another "canned" , pre-conceived thought that is absurd.

     

    The answer to all of your questions lies here including the end of QE
    http://bit.ly/ZuafPa

     

    yes the fed , tapering and your portfolio , its all there,

     

    Now enough of the nonsensical banter, after all the readership really needs ideas and strategies that they may wish to employ to create wealth. ..

     

    I have put together thoughts on that link above. Now please enlighten us , since the readership wants to know , how would you suggest one position themselves for 2014 ..

     

    OR is it the same old story - take shots at the guys that have had it right, citing them as "fools" because they were positioning themselves correctly . Constantly ignoring the facts and reciting the mantra that it's all going to end badly , there is another crisis around the corner..

     

    Now, I find it amazing how so many experts (apparently you are one of them by your response) come out to tell us how the Fed has made mistake after mistake and have painted themselves into a 'corner" with their policies. I simply answer that their argument is pure nonsense. They would also have one believe that the entire cast of central bankers around the globe also do not know what they are doing. Now somehow they want us to believe "they" have the answers. In one word that's "absurd". They have been wrong for years now , I for one choose not to follow any of that "advice" now.

     

    My answers and strategies are there for all to see.. Please give us your ideas /strategies & what we should all do now

     

    I'll leave you with this :
    Most of your favorite crash-fetishists have track records that you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy. It is one thing to be aware of the potential for terrible things to happen, it is quite another to give up on life and opportunity altogether.

     

    If the shoe fits ....
    13 Dec 2013, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    DVL:

     

    Your comment is simply more evidence of how confused you are.

     

    If all those companies, you mentioned, had been gold-laden ships, we'd still be in a major depression because the losses would not have been able to be replaced. We'd just have to do without. Instead, unlike when the gold was lost and useless, and the Government paralyzed, the Fed was able to replace the radical credit contraction, occasioned by those failures, by providing new money -- yes, right out of thin air, imagine that!

     

    So, five years after the near calamity, we have companies running at record levels, the market recovered, and unemployment reduced almost to historical standards. This would seem preferable to 1930's-like 30% unemployment, people living in shanty town on the Washington Mall, and a depression that didn't really end until the U.S entered WWII.

     

    But, perhaps, some think that would be better, just so long as the Fed didn't "print" money.
    13 Dec 2013, 05:02 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    So...Tack...you are all for an immediate end to QE?

     

    The economy is strong and the gains in the market have had nothing to do with artificially cheap credit, right?

     

    Let's remove your beloved Fed and see what happens.
    13 Dec 2013, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    DVL:

     

    It's not the Fed's job to guess whether the market can or cannot withstand the instant withdrawal of QE. It doesn't have to. As long as the market allows the Fed to operate without causing an inflationary effect, it doesn't have to do anything. When the market dictates otherwise, they can do any or all of stopping QE, selling bonds, increasing the discount rate, and/or increasing the interest paid on reserves.

     

    Should I gleen from your tone that you're in the camp of assessing the market's performance the past five years, as "it's all phony?" If so, you have mistaken a sensible strategy by the Fed in the wake of 2008, accompanied by sensible market and economic reaction to that strategy, for a policy that you expected to fail catastrophically, and therefore you cannot understand why the economy and markets have advanced, or accept that they should have.
    13 Dec 2013, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • Robert Duval
    , contributor
    Comments (4072) | Send Message
     
    Tack, the Fed is not printing money, and the amount of QE is irrelevant. They are not directly debasing the currency. But of course that's not the whole story, as it's perception that matters.

     

    The perception is that the Fed is printing money, and of course they are taking TB's and MBS out of the system from the primary dealers.

     

    These dealers are simply holding excess reserves, but tell me honestly there is not market speculation happening by the dealers in risker segments of the market, using these excess reserves as collateral. There have been studies on this -- hence observe the direct correlation in markets to large Pomo days.

     

    Is this the Fed's intention? They cannot create demand for loans, it doesn't exist. If I don't need or want any more oranges, changing the supply or price doesn't matter. I simply don't need oranges.

     

    What QE has clearly done is raised speculation, and I think far above the organic economy. The economy is sluggish due to demographics and deleveraging, plus fiscal policy, and the fed cannot fix this. Therefore the risk by encouraging unlimited margin, levered speculation -- did you know corporations are holding all time record debt loads that more than offset the cash on balance sheets -- offsets any benefit at this point.

     

    Banks are swimming in reserves. They don't need more. In 2008-9, I would have done agressive QE. But it's time to pull back.

     

    These actions, if only through perception, also weaken the dollar, which everyone is trying to do. The risk is, someone gets really ticked off and it progresses to outright trade wars from a shadow currency war.

     

    Inflation is not the risk, deflation is. And the Fed has no power to stop it, only slow it down by what they have done in inflating asset values. Only time and fiscal policy can really tackle deflation.
    13 Dec 2013, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Robert Duval
    , contributor
    Comments (4072) | Send Message
     
    The other arguement that can be made, is QE is deflationary. Let's assume instead of zero short rates they were 2%. This would generate a ton of spending by those holding savings deposits and other risk free assets, and this income would all be spent.

     

    Lots of folks really need to simply have some interest bearing savings. The equity risk is inappropriate for their situation. But zero income for these millions of people is deflationary.

     

    Let's examine the other side. If I had a prospective business project with a 15% roi, do you think I care about 2 % points for interest?

     

    We need higher short rates plus an agressive infrastructure plan in the US, like a multi year 2 trillion plan for roads, rail, transmission lines. That's an investment !
    13 Dec 2013, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » MACRO

     

    "an agressive infrastructure plan in the US, like a multi year 2 trillion plan for roads, rail, transmission lines. That's an investment !"

     

    Wasn't this the POTUS plan all along for the QE'S ?

     

    I THOUGHT I read that this was where the money was suppose to go. Am i mistaken?
    13 Dec 2013, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3754) | Send Message
     
    "Shovel-ready" is how he referred to the jobs that would be created by his stimulus program.

     

    It was a larger lead balloon than the ACA.
    13 Dec 2013, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » AIW

     

    Please bring something better to the table...Thanks!
    14 Dec 2013, 07:33 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Tack: You are arguing that the Fed has had ZERO positive effect on the equity markets.

     

    If I am wrong and you are saying that, indeed, the Fed HAS had a positive effect on the equity and bond markets then how can you (at the same time) argue that our economy is doing just fine no matter the actions of the Federal Reserve?

     

    Either the Fed manipulations are having an effect or not.

     

    All I ask is that we see what happens when the Federal Reserve stops expanding its balance sheet and starts shrinking the balance sheet back to historical norms (balance sheet to GDP).

     

    If the gold price over $1k is a fiction from "gold bugs" then why isn't the 10 Year below 3% a fiction from the Fed?
    14 Dec 2013, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    "Shovel ready projects" was the scam before "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"
    14 Dec 2013, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Still waiting...

     

    Why not a $5 trillion per month QE?
    14 Dec 2013, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    DVL:

     

    I am saying that the Fed policy was and has been appropriate for the conditions faced after 2008. We were in a massive deflationary spiral due to the enormous private-sector credit collapse. The Fed took up the reins to counteract that by massively increasing the money supply to counteract that destroyed credit. That this was the correct policy is there to be seen, now, in living color for anyone who wishes to shed Fed-blinder biases. The economy is doing quite nicely at 3% growth, the markets have fully recovered, and then some -- not directly because of the Fed, but because of how the economy is actually performing; P/E's are not sky high -- and unemployment continues southward each month.

     

    And, this has all been achieved without stimulating a spike in inflation, which is what critics feared and what led to the huge spike in gold prices. Many thought the dollar would fall apart and we'd soon be Zimbabwe. That it hasn't, and won't, work out that way is what's contributed to the large subsequent losses in the price of gold.

     

    As for stopping QE, the Fed can ease off whenever it decides the moment is right, by keeping an eye on growth and inflation measures. And, yes, if they didn't change, the Fed could continue QE, if it wished, indefinitely. Obviously, the economy can absorb it, if we don't see any inflationary changes. That doesn't mean they necessarily will continue, just that they could.

     

    It perplexes me when some want to label anything that the Fed does as some kind of phony measures, "inflating" the economy. The Fed is part of our overall monetary system, and it's actions are just as real and relevant as the Government's fiscal and tax policies or actions by the private sector to expand or contract. No one says the results of a tax cut or Government spending project are "phony," but, apparently, monetary policy is, to some.

     

    You say you wish to see what happens when the Fed contracts its balance sheet back to norms. But, this isn't some arcane experiment that they just launch on a whim; the Fed will alter its actions when the economy sends signals that it's growing faster and/or generating inflation. The Fed doesn't have to guess in advance.

     

    As for gold, barring some geopolitical event of huge magnitude, the outlook appears rather grim because, as rates rise, the dollar will rise, and that's not favorable for gold. And, if the Fed would take any other action to contract the money supply, that would be even worse.
    14 Dec 2013, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    DVL:

     

    Apparently, you choose not to read or accept the answer. Restating, again, just for you:

     

    "The Fed can and should create money up to any limit, as long as that limit isn't promoting inflation. In fact, it's been offsetting the ongoing credit contraction elsewhere. Apparently, they can print $85 billion, and it hasn't sparked inflation, despite the endless predictions to the contrary. Of course, that doesn't mean that they can print $5 trillion without negative effect, any more than you can hold your breath under water for two hours, even if you could do it for two minutes without causing havoc."
    14 Dec 2013, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    So gold prices went up because of inflation expectations?

     

    What was your excuse in the early 2000s when no one was talking about inflation?

     

    ::::::
    "We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting. One way to think about it is that maybe some of the headwinds that have been concerning us, like, you know, weakness in the financial sector, problems in the housing sector, balance sheet and de-leveraging issues -- some of these headwinds may be stronger and more persistent than we thought."

     

    -Ben Bernanke
    June 22, 2011
    .........................
    “Where does the Fed get the money to buy [assets],” Congressman Keith Rothfus asked the Chairman. “Do you create the reserves,” he queried in a follow up, receiving a simple “yes” from Bernanke. And finally, the money shot: are you printing money? “Not literally,” the Fed Chairman surprisingly responded.

     

    -Forbes Magazine
    July 17, 2013
    .........................
    “Nobody really understands gold prices and I don’t pretend to really understand them either.”

     

    -Ben S. Bernanke
    July 2013
    .........................

     

    Your "the Fed knows all and is in total control of all outcomes" stance conflicts with the actual words of the Chairman himself.

     

    Please explain.
    14 Dec 2013, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    So Tack, or anybody else, what is the magic number?

     

    Where EXACTLY is the line between "Only positive effects from Fed actions" and "[X] amount of new currency creation will cause inflationary pressures".

     

    I can never get a straight answer to this question.
    14 Dec 2013, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    DVL:

     

    For the record, you better go check your records again because gold didn't begin a meaningful rise until 2006. And, yes, it was inflation related, as home prices were skyrocketing off the charts.

     

    You rail against the Fed, but don't seem to accept what's been obvious. The Fed's recent actions seem to avoided a 1930's-like outcome, which occurred back then precisely because the Fed stood by, with hands in pockets, nad watched a massive currency contraction, leading to the worst economic conditions in the country's history. The Fed didn't react, back then, until almost 1935, and by late 1938 the money supply had only just barely recovered to 1929 levels, much less been expanded. The results of that course are there in the history books for all to see.

     

    I don't know about your case, specifically, but it seems to me that much of the grousing about the fed here in SA emanates from people who made the wrong bets, i.e., that the policies would be ruinous, so they stayed away from the stock markets or stayed in gold, and, now, they realize that they either missed out on huge gains altogether, or they sit, still, in gold, watching it's price decline 35%.

     

    It really doesn't much mater what happens in the future, when the Fed must alter its course to address whatever changes in the economy that may ensue. That doesn't in any manner suggest that they should have never acted in the first place and should have allowed the economy to collapse into a modern very of the Great Depression.

     

    For investors, the challenge, as always, is to make the correct assessments for the world, as they find it, not as they imagine it should be.
    14 Dec 2013, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    To me gold is like a no liability passbook account or "rainy day" fund meaning most of my assets are in stocks, bonds and real estate.

     

    Personally I thought people who were out of the market in Q1, 2009 were insane.

     

    So my feelings about the Fed aren't based on any sort of sour grapes for missing the equity asset inflation of the last few years.

     

    My feelings for the Fed turned sour during the housing boom. I couldn't understand why Greenspan was ignoring the obvious.

     

    His actions helped pour gasoline on a fire that nearly brought down the global financial system.

     

    I trust gold (and silver) because the precious elements are not beholden to corrupt politicians or compromised central bankers.
    14 Dec 2013, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    DVL:

     

    Well, at least it's good to hear that your moniker isn't misplaced. I, too, am a value investor, who focuses on depressed high-yield issues. It's treated me very well for a long time.

     

    Greenspan didn't handle things as well as he might, but, also, our beloved Congress was hellbent on providing near-free houses for every citizen, as they pandered for votes, regardless of the consequences. They even threatened some banks that resisted with "redlining" and prosecution. The results were entirely predictable.

     

    Regardless, once 2008 happened, the fed had to choose how to react, and it appears that Bernanke made the correct choices. It appears that many, who criticize, don't adequately weigh what the consequences of inaction would have been.

     

    As for gold, it is and always has been a fear-driven commodity that follows the VIX, more than any economic measures. It's only a store of value if it's bought at just the right time, like almost any other commodity. And, as an investment over a longer period of time, it's utterly squashed by equity returns.

     

    If some wish to imagine they'll be saved if they have a few ounces in the back room and Armageddon arrives, I suppose that's fine, if it allows them to sleep better, although I think they'd find that expectation a mirage, if all hell finally did break loose.

     

    In any case, as always, investors must play the cards that are on the table, so railing about this or that policy makes for great political debate, but is useless in evaluating investment decisions. Those that allow their political beliefs to influence their investment moves usually perform very poorly.
    14 Dec 2013, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • User 7415181
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    @ Tack,

     

    I enjoy your commentary and read it a good bit. Question for you - with preferreds getting hammered over the last six months, do you think they're worth starting to buy at these levels? I usually want an 8% market yield at the minimum and the company paying a current yield and a positive pe is a plus.

     

    I've bought into RAS, NRF, and RSO preferreds when they're under par over spring and summer and am considering adding more shares over the next few monthly paychecks as the yields are nice and the companies seem to be considered mreits even though they seem to have more diversification than that, and thus are getting slaughtered along with everything else.

     

    And there seem to be other types of preferreds going on sale that would meet my criteria for buying, so kind of a pupu platter of opportunities.
    14 Dec 2013, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    User:

     

    Yes, it hasn't been the best of times for preferreds since last May, especially any that are considered, rightfully or wrongfully, MREITs. I, too, hold RAS, NRF, and RSO preferreds, the former two for a long, long time, the latter as an addition, when prices dropped.

     

    The past year has seen every kind of yield issue sold off on expectation of higher and higher rates, while go-go growth stocks had a field day. However, I am not tempted, especially now after a lot of the action has already occurred, to jettison yield in favor of growth. On the contrary, I suspect the growth stuff may be a bit extended, and i think that rates will stabilize, or even reverse, if the economic growth slows down or if profit-taking ensues that sends money back toward more defensive positions. And, I believe that the taper (it it really happens) effect has been exaggerated in the price moves seen.

     

    I have added a few super-high-yield preferreds, recently, mostly from the energy sector. I am steadfast in choosing cumulative-preferred issues, only selling at discounts to par, and where I am confident that the dividends will continue to get paid in almost any conditions.

     

    A great place to check out preferreds and other yield issues is http://bit.ly/1ftWghq. There, you can get complete lists, sorted from highest to lowest yield. Some issues worth consideration:

     

    GRH-C
    GST-B
    CPE-A
    MILL-C
    ADK-A
    MHR-C
    ARR-B
    DBLEP
    NYMTP
    CYS-B
    NCT-B

     

    Also, and for the same reasons, I am again keeping a close eye on muni-bond CEF's, which have been murdered this year. Several of them are selling at steep discounts to NAV, and the prices have continued to fall, even as NAV's have levelled off or even risen. That's a signal that it may be time to add some, for me. A list of some to check out at http://bit.ly/o4ngfR:

     

    MHI
    IQI
    MUH
    MZF
    PMM
    BFZ
    OIA
    NMA
    MUA
    EOT
    MHF

     

    Feel free to comment or inquire further.
    14 Dec 2013, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    DVL,
    Instead of questioning those that have had the story right (Tack) and given the fact that he continues to give out ideas and advice that are helpful., why not give us your ideas on how one can profit in '14 ..

     

    Is gold a buy here ? , do u see much upside in '14 for the metals , do u think the equity markets will be down next year perhaps drastically ..?

     

    Please , its tiring to hear these arguments from you and other folks that just seem to want to discredit the "correct" story , acting like the ones that have prospered here are fools . All the while having nothing to offer in the way of advice to help others along ..

     

    If your 5 trilion question was directed at me , perhaps you didn't read that i stated it was an absurd notion..

     

    Please give us something , instead of second guessing and questioning the crowd that has the message correct..

     

    I answered your thoughts on what happens after the fed departs in my blog , its my opinion,,, you wanna take the other side of that, be my guest, but as i advise others that wish to listen to those that have had it "wrong" will get you nowhere .. why listen now ?

     

    Enjoy the day ...
    14 Dec 2013, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    DVL,
    I suppose you have the answer as opposed to the army of PHD's at the fed and all of the central bankers around the world,,

     

    Preposterous, nonsensical notion,, and I suggest quite an arrogant position from those that have "fed odbession disease' , and of course have had it wrong. (notice how that is the commmon thread in the argument from the PM crowd. - When does the light go on ? )

     

    BTW there is a cure for fed obsession disease .. :)
    14 Dec 2013, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • Robert Duval
    , contributor
    Comments (4072) | Send Message
     
    Tack, I'm interested in your response to my 2 long comments in this blog to you.

     

    Otherwise, I agree with you and think Mreits and muni Cef's are a great buy here. Among your lists above, any strong favourites one over another? I am long Agnc and looking at Cef's and perhaps Mlp's.
    14 Dec 2013, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    M:

     

    Presently, I hold some of all the preferreds listed. Perhaps, I might consider GST-B and CPE-A as slight favorites, but it's somewhat subjective.

     

    Of the muni funds listed, I'd probably pick MZF & PMM, as favroites at the moment, although many have favorable attributes now.

     

    I'll try to respond to your earlier posts, above.
    14 Dec 2013, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    M:

     

    We're in full agreement that the Fed isn't printing money. I don't believe I've ever suggested that they were. The excess reserves are an indication that their efforts are not resulting in excess credit formation.

     

    I don't agree that there is excessive market speculation, overall, as P/E's remain most reasonable in aggregate, especially given today's low discount rates. There is speculation on various Internet and etch names, but that is more the exception than the rule.

     

    The Fed's actions haven't had much impact on the dollar in quite a while. It's been rising along with anticipation of higher rates. Personally, I favor a stronger dollar because the holder of the reserve currency must, by necessity, run current-account deficits, and stronger dollars encourage more imports, which benefits the overall global economy. So much money flows into the U.S that it lacks nothing to invest or fund domestic projects, should it choose to do so. I don't see any chance of any trade wars.

     

    In regard to your last paragraph, I partly concur and very much disagree. I concur that deflation remains a greater concern, even now, than inflation. That's why continued QE poses almost no immediate inflationary risk. I completely disagree that the Fed is powerless to address deflation. The facts confirm this almost indisputably.

     

    In the '30's we had a passive Fed, allowing all that credit contraction to occur unopposed by Fed policy. We know what those results were. Now, we have had a very activist Fed, and we see, five years later, a mostly recovered economy and markets back at healthy levels. It puzzles me why the elevation of markets is seen as some phony endeavor. Not only do markets reflect the underlying economics -- hence, no super-elevated P/E's -- but they have an enormous part to play in the economy's recovery, itself. The "wealth effect" is a very real phenomenon, not some phony side show. When those with investments make money, they feel better and spend more. No surprises there.

     

    As regards corporate debt, that's not really a problem either because it's not the debt levels, per se, that matter, but the cost of servicing that debt. Companies have been wise to issue lots of long-term debt at historic low rates, as this is when you want to be a debt seller, not buyer. It's when rates get high, that's it's better to sell equity and eschew debt issuance. Companies are, even now, highly liquid and making excellent returns. It's not a looming crisis.

     

    Hope that covers it.
    14 Dec 2013, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • Robert Duval
    , contributor
    Comments (4072) | Send Message
     
    All fine but you are not addressing the lack of organic growth and demand. This has been an extraordinary weak recovery when factoring in the Feds actions.

     

    Yes, nominally PE ratios are fine mostly (shiller PE ratio is useless to me), but did you see the study - I think by BAC -- that 60% of the earnings increase since 2009 is due to share buybacks?

     

    To me the real bubble may be in the junk bond market. I think investing in these covenant light loans at 5% is lunacy. The pipeline is full of supply. Any risk aversion will cause a big widening of spreads. And the total supply does matter if buyers get saturated.

     

    Other things concern me -- is elevated sentiment, weak technicals and breadth, more supply, and public ( and correct ) bulls like David Tepper and others seriously reducing risk.

     

    Never mind this parabolic move in twitter -- means little but is interesting.

     

    I'm convinced we are likely to have a substantial corrective move in the next 3 or 4 months. -- then go higher.

     

    I do think there are better opportunities than the US for the next secular move higher, like brazil perhaps again one day, or turkey.

     

    Better demographics. The fed cannot fix the demographics in the US, only soften the impacts.
    14 Dec 2013, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    I can't disagree with what you write except a couple of things:

     

    1. I never felt the Fed should have done nothing in 2008. There was no doubt a major crisis was brewing. My problem is that once the house fire is out eventually the firemen have to leave and let the family re-build.

     

    What we have now is a situation that has morphed into a semi-permanent Fed policy of responding to market conditions instead of letting the free market work as it should. Bernanke should have ended QE after QE1 by setting a hard date for the end of MBS and Treasury purchases.

     

    Then the Fed should have dutifully began selling the assets to realign the balance sheet to historically normal levels in relation to GDP.

     

    Now we have a system of addiction on our hands as institutions assume that the Fed will be their to provide demand for fixed income assets. That is neither normal or healthy.

     

    2. Gold's bull market, IMHO, began as a reaction to the Long Term Capital debacle, the Asian crisis of the late 90s and the Dotcom Bubble Burst.

     

    I really think there is a growing fear that with algo trading dominating equities and political intervention in the bond markets no one is quite confident in the markets any more as a center of free and fair trade. The Flash Crash really painted the picture of markets spinning out of control.

     

    I'd never make gold and silver more than 20% of my net worth but 10% to 20% gives me piece of mind that no matter what crazy stuff happens in the electronic controlled and politically manipulated markets I'll have SOMETHING tangible of value to hold onto to.
    14 Dec 2013, 03:53 PM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    Tack:

     

    I have a valid question about the Fed "creating money." With QE the Fed is sucking up Treasuries and mortgage securities. The money though is paid to the banks that they buy these things from and the Fed then holds the securities it bought. The banks probably got the money to buy the securities from the Fed to begin with, maybe back in 2008.

     

    Therefore the Fed is not directly increasing the money supply unless the dealer banks extend credit. Right?

     

    It seems to be a loop. The government spends and issues T-bonds. Dealer banks buy them and after a while, (maybe next day) sell them to the Fed: securities disappear into the "Fed black hole;" dealer banks get their money back right away. QE money so far has not gone into the economy and is not causing inflation unless the dealer banks make loans.

     

    It seems the money is created on the "front end" with the actual gov't spending, not Fed QE. Unfortunately the money spent may not be capital investment.

     

    I have read Lawrence Kramer. He advocates more and more government spending to stimulate the economy - even if it is borrowed to finance boondoggles or to issue more food stamps or entitlements. He doesn't differentiate investment spending for infrastructure, from spending to buy toilet paper. Even Keynesians may have problems with that.

     

    I don't consider that very genuine or innovative.
    14 Dec 2013, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fear&Greedtrader:

     

    Please point out the post timestamp where I called someone a "fool".

     

    I didn't know it was improper to question those with a differing opinion.

     

    The $5 trillion question was directed at you and you are dodging it like crazy because you recognize the point of asking it.

     

    Based on what you've written you believe that constant QE is NOT money printing and has no ill effects on America's fiscal situation.

     

    So, I ask again, why not $5 trillion per month in bond purchases? If that figure is too high and will cause problems then explain why. Then explain why $5 trillion is too much but $85 billion, like Goldilocks's porridge, is just right. Explain your thesis for us please.

     

    Regarding my outlook for 2014:

     

    I have NO IDEA what the metals will do. But I'll tell you this...if gold slams down to $700 like you expect I will buy a LOT more and if it goes to $3,000 like some (not me) expect then I'll harvest some gains on my gold related equity holdings. I don't buy gold and gold related assets for a quick trade.

     

    Stocks? Well if the E supports the P in the S&P 500 P/E ratio at a reasonable multiple then I'd assume that stocks will be fine.

     

    But, as I've said before, it would be REAL interesting to see how strong America's markets are if the Fed suddenly took away the punch bowl (not that the Fed has any effect on the S&P 500 gains of the last few years, right?)

     

    ...and please try not to be too upset with those of us who'd rather question than bow down to Krugmanites.
    14 Dec 2013, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fear&Greedtrader:

     

    What happened to the power of that "Army of PhDs" in 2005, 2006 and 2007?

     

    Heck, man...even Greenspan and Bernanke have admitted to making mistakes.

     

    Why do you hold these guys on such a high pedestal?

     

    You talk like they are the Justice League™!
    14 Dec 2013, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • User 7415181
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    @ Tack,

     

    Well, you have either rubbed off on me or the authors I like to read have rubbed off on you. Or you have rubbed off on them. GRH and GST preferreds I have owned over the last year and sold due to my car emergency - I still have some of the ARR.B - CYS I am thinking about.

     

    The munis - MHI was the first cef I bought into and is the one I regret selling (even at a nice profit) though it was at a premium and was never at a discount. I am currently looking for ones that have eps greater than the distributions...

     

    MUA - thank you for reminding me of that one! Again, I used to own some, but sold a while back. May have to think about buying into it again.

     

    Bottom line, the big discount to nav cefs and preferreds are in line with our thinking. Which disturbs me.
    14 Dec 2013, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » USER

     

    "Which disturbs me."

     

    You need to get out of that hospital job as that seems to be rubbing off on you as well:)
    14 Dec 2013, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    DVL
    Your comments here in this blog and elsewhere (I've read your "history" here) on SA imply the "fool" comment , (more on that later)

     

    You read what u want to read sir, my views ,"thesis" that you so desire , and answers to your questions are in the blog.. If you don't wish to read, it so be it..

     

    You "assume stocks will be fine" given the "E" ,,wow even with the debacle ,the fed printing, the economic collapse to come !
    Interesting ... and a bit hypocritical ....

     

    The 5 trillion question isn't being dodged sir- I don't "dodge" anyone or anything here on SA .-- Quite the contrary, its being ignored as it's another absurd notion of yours ., A game I don't wish to play .. Get real Sir !

     

    Isn't Tack's analogy of the fed and the absurd 5 trillion question and you holding your breath for 5 minutes ,mean anything to you ?, Do u get that point or did u selectively not read that ? ...

     

    My original call on gold was a triple digit print , $700 ? well maybe, although it actually has the chance to make a "round trip" all the way back to the mid 400's ( not that i'm calling for that just yet) We will need for the stars to line up just right , secular bull in equities to continue = secular bear in gold.. My calls on the metal have worked to date .I'm fortunate , but was roundly chastised for making those calls.. As long as i'm criticized the better the chance my calls wil come to fruition..
    Read before you write.. Sir ,,

     

    No one asked you to bow down sir , but maybe have the decency to give a LITTLE bit of acknowledgement to some that are aware of what is happening around them had the foresight to see it and shared it with others.. and now are roundly criticized by you and others for their beliefs. ( is that better than the word fool ?) or is it better to sit in a bunker reading gold coin magazines telling each other how the fed has taken us to the brink of disaster.. trumpeting the naysayer theme throughout . Doubting all that is laid out before them , holding onto to ONE belief -- that gold is manipulated.. and it is the great insurance policy that will see one thru the disaster to come ,,

     

    Here's something to ponder on the "insurance " thesis (from my blog)
    Gold as the The insurance and hedge , didn't seem to be as effective as most think. During perhaps the worst financial crisis we have witnessed where the S & P dropped from Jan '08 (1378) to the low on March '09 (666) . In that same time period in Jan '08 Gold was 900 , in March '09 Gold was 892.. Unless you put ALL of your assets in GOLD at precisely the RIGHT moment , I then agree one would have stayed even.. I DOUBT many did just that , since the mantra is to have only a small percentage ownership in Gold. So owning gold and not practicing risk management as far a equities are concerned gave no one insurance .. Period.

     

    Don't u find it a bit unusual that the PM fanatics tell us equity investors that we are going to lose it all in the next crash ,but i"ve yet to see or meet one that practices risk management when it comes to the metals.? its Buy and hold until the end .. even if it's down mega percent .. we'll just wait fo the next debacle .. well that doesnt seem to work does it ?? or is there a worse finacial crisis for us on the horizon ??

     

    Question the Krugmanites all you wish sir, but when they give u answers and results---- well what can I say after that .. that's your choice - for me I'd rather question those that are in denial .. seems a bit more logical.

     

    Your Krugmanite ..

     

    GOOD LUCK & enjoy your evening .
    14 Dec 2013, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » FEAR

     

    Am I understanding you correctly that you are expecting $700 gold?

     

    Just trying to understand the above comment.

     

    Thanks!
    14 Dec 2013, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    IT,

     

    please read again, i called for a triple digit print in gold, from the outset ..
    the $700 comment was in response to what DVL "inferred" that i said.

     

    In reality , if it cracks 1000, what's the diff. between 900 & 700 , both prices crush anyone that has held the metal ..

     

    1000 means another 15-20% downside from here ... I expect a bounce in Jan, IF it doesn't happen , then IMO triple digit prices are next .... there wil have to be a geopolitical event that no one would want to change that view ..
    14 Dec 2013, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » FEAR

     

    Ok, I disagree we will see triple digit numbers anytime soon. But well see.

     

    However their is a difference between $900 and $700 because someone I know has a breakeven point in between those two figures:)

     

    Again, it only crushes a person if they sell. I know plenty who post here who have no plans on selling at any price!

     

    Quite frankly you guys have been going at it for so long I am losing who says what ...lol..
    14 Dec 2013, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • User 7415181
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    IT,

     

    I was pretty happy yesterday when I got home from work. I got an interview lined up for Monday. I spent a couple of hours researching the company this morning - it has settled recently for Medicare fraud for up to 2010 and is still under investigation as far as I can tell. I don't think I'm going to that interview.

     

    Yes, I get disturbed when someone else is recommending the same things I like. Mainly because I view myself as a contrarian/value investor.
    14 Dec 2013, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    Nice one Tack. So we can add the treacherous high seas to the other factors we should leave money supply in the hands of.
    15 Dec 2013, 06:26 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    JW:

     

    I think you have assessed it more or less correctly. Presently, the money is being spent once, by the Government, then residing in excess reserves at the Fed, paying 0.25%. It's latent lending resources, but, presently, there isn't demand to absorb them.

     

    LK presents very good reasoning, as to why current policies are not inflationary and why the Government should not stop spending, if the private sector doesn't ramp its own demand, and if the market doesn't send signals that the behavior is inflationary.

     

    However, where I, too, have problems is not with Fed policy, but with Government (Administration) policy toward all of entitlements, spending strategy and business, itself. Regarding the former, it hasn't seen an entitlement it doesn't wish to expand, which directly subsidizes unemployment at the margin, as the greater the rewards for not working, the more that will choose such a course. Secondly, dovetailing with my first complaint, the Government should be tying transfer payments to productive work and achieving worthwhile national aims by focusing that spending and available labor on various projects (plenty available for debate). Lastly, the Government is fostering the low business demand for expansion by adopting punitive attitudes and policies toward business, regarding regulations, mandates, taxation, etc. So, in essence, the attendant need for the Fed and Government to "take up the slack" is in many ways self fulfilling.
    15 Dec 2013, 07:49 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    IT,
    Not a problem with disagreeing ,but i had a lot of folks , many here in this blog who disagreed with me back a few months ago about the price then and where it stands today ..

     

    The point i tried to make with the 700-900 remark ,is that if someone has stayed in this long from the highs of 1900 . what's the difference ... they are buried..

     

    If one wants to stay in it forever , so be it .. I don't see it as a viable option for me or anyone who asks my opinion to tie up funds , that will produce no yield... It's opposed to a theory I have of having money work for me .. that's all.

     

    Now anything can happen but For those that deny the current environment Gold faces , then they reside on a different economic planet from the one I am on . So be it..

     

    It's also curious that I never get a response when i comment on how gold really didn't help anyone nor provide insurance during the worst financial crisis in history.. The facts are there.. but seemingly get dismissed ..

     

    Which draws my conclusion that those that are holding for the "inevitable" disaster " have no argument .. unless they are truly "bunker' types and then i simply dismiss their entire thesis..

     

    And for those that are holding out for that perfect environment where gold can shine (inflationary), well trust me, there will be plenty of time to get in on making that a part of a portfolio. , so I go back to my original comment why tie up funds now for something that may be years down the road..

     

    Enjoy !
    15 Dec 2013, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    Tack, are you implying that unemployment lately is the result of lack of motivation on the part of the unemployed rather than scarcity of jobs?

     

    And am I correct in understanding that unemployment benefit is very much a finite resource?

     

    Bottom line, is it your case that entitlements are driving unemployment and that the "rewards" for not working are so great they are discouraging work? If so, there are two sides to that equation are there not?
    15 Dec 2013, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fear&GreedTrader:

     

    Please point out the post where I claimed there would soon be an "economic collapse". Do you have to make up stuff to "win" your arguments? Why?

     

    I never said stocks can't hold up (I OWN stocks) so where is the hypocrisy? Why make up stuff?

     

    How is "ignoring" a question not dodging a question? It is very simple, just explain whether or not $5 trillion in monthly asset purchases would be good, bad or neutral for America's balance sheet. (...And don't rely on some other poster's explanation...I'd like to read yours.)

     

    Also, why are you so emotional about bad mouthing an asset that makes up less than 10% of people's portfolios?

     

    So you think gold has zero worth...fine. But for other prudent savers gold and silver serve as a hedge against flash crashes, algo trading computers, politically compromised central bankers, permanent quantitative easing and monetary policies made up on the fly.

     

    You want to put your faith in the very same people who didn't see the mortgage bond disaster coming less than a decade ago?

     

    Be my guest but some of us will look for tangible alternatives to digital wealth preservation that have stood the test of time.
    15 Dec 2013, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    Fabs:

     

    As unpopular as it is to the "fairness" and "victim" crowd, yes, Government policy, across the board discourages job formation and job seeking. Regarding those unemployed, each extension of unemployment benefits and increase in any and all other forms of assistance subsidizes an increase in unemployment. This isn't debatable; it's a simple law of economics. If it were not so, then all subsidies and taxes would be meaningless in influencing behaviors, and we know they're not.

     

    Furthermore, a recent report indicated that over 3 million listed job openings in this country remain unfilled because of lack of qualified applicants. There, again, is demonstrated the bankruptcy of transfer payments without requisite action on the part of the recipients. There are myriad ways that recipients could be mandated to provide consideration for such payments, e.g., government infrastructure projects, maintenance services on publicly-owned property, requirements to take courses or training to become better qualified to fill all those unfilled jobs. But, none of this happens because the politicians offering all this largess simply wish to pander for votes, not improve the country or the actual situation of the recipients. They literally want a captive, dependency class of voters.

     

    The only people who should be entitled to long-term public assistance should be those unable to perform some needed tasks, whether through incapacity (not today's phony workmen's comp) or other genuine inability. Otherwise, everybody should make a contribution of some kind, if they expect to be paid.

     

    The very worst part of this trend of recipients, now reaching proportions where ~50% pay no income taxes, is that soon the majority will have no incentive whatsoever to contain costs, as they don't pay for them. This is the tipping point for any democracy, as seen rather clearly by astute observers (de Toqueville, Tytler) hundreds of years ago. As a nation, we better wake up soon.
    15 Dec 2013, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    DVL,

     

    Ahh yes now we get down to what is really behind your arguments - the gov't , faith in the fed.. now flash crashes, distrust, central bankers, conspiracy, manipulation, another financial disaster. . I knew it was there it just takes time to flush that out ..For THAT is the crux of the PM argument, period. It always is and always will be beacuse investing in Gold relies on fear .. BUT didn't I mention that Gold didn't provide insurance during the worst financial collapse in history or did u choose to ignore that , you seem to take in only what u wish to hear.. and now u recite the "fear prayer" to me .. . The comments are factual sir , read it ..
    You wont convince me of your ideological theories (all of which have been debunked) and I wont convince you of mine ,

     

    I laid out my scenario as to why I have taken my stance on Gold, countless times. Here in my blog & elsewhere on SA . Now lay out yours---but please leave out that the people in india and China are going to be buying gold . (that too has already been debunked) Tell us all why people need to have 10- 15 or 20% of a non producing asset in their portfolio with a toxic environment ahead. That is like me telling you or anyone else to buy a broken stock that has no catalysts in the foreseeable future , to sit and wait for a turnaround that may never come .. and telling one to buy more as the price drops---that's ludicrous. Even though that stock may only represent a small portion of one's portfolio . (can u grasp that concept as being the same with gold - the small percent part ? why would one do that with a stock ?) and maybe if one did tell you to buy that stock it may just have a dividend that will add income - Gold doesn't ....
    Now, IF and when that stock does turn around there will be plenty of time to see that and react.. The SAME applies to GOLD ...It 's not immune to the laws of the markets and trading , because its someone's "precious" metal ..

     

    So , please enlighten us do we add gold here ? are you adding gold here ?? Or do u not want to back yourself back into that corner just in case the price drops ..My stance at the moment is that you dont touch Gold here unless the backdrop changes.
    I also find it amusing that the people that trumpet the "its only a small percentage" of one's portfolio, keep saying they wish the price go down so they can buy more , after all didn't they have a full position already ? since most tell me they bought at much lower prices and of course they never sell (even in a bear market) and are still holding on .. Well which is it .?. .. I do know one thing the emotion ,hope & prayer from this crowd is comical and to a certain extent ----hypocritical .. 

     

    Sit & hold all u wish.. I wish u the best of luck !
    Good day Sir :)
    15 Dec 2013, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » FEAR

     

    A few years ago I also thought gold would appreciate in this current QE environment. I might be wrong. But not sure the final verdict is in yet.

     

    As you know I am no gold bug. I own stocks , especially (PSEC) RIGHT NOW because of the high dividend. I also appreciate your demeanor in the response you have given.

     

    Trust me plenty are watching the conversations going back and forth and are learning from all of you. I know I am..

     

    I would of never had bought any gold at $1900. Like I said mine was bought a long time ago. With no expectations attached either. If I can profit from it one day so be it. If not then my daughter gets to make that decision.

     

    But it is such a small position because of reasons mentioned above and below by many..
    15 Dec 2013, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • dnorm1234
    , contributor
    Comments (1003) | Send Message
     
    >Again, it only crushes a person if they sell..

     

    There is an opportunity cost to holding under performing investments, and it's real.
    15 Dec 2013, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » DNORM

     

    Did you hold through the "lost decade" for stocks?? Gold did just fine then you know..

     

    Again, holders of PM'S aren't looking for opportunities to sell. If you don't own any you won't understand the thought process..

     

    I bought gold below $800 so am I underperforming right now? I am holding them for a much different reason. Now paper trades are for different reasons.. But physical is an animal way different.. Only a small amount as I also like stocks.Especially beaten up ones !

     

    Enlighten us to what you would buy right now? Better yet why not join us with our portfolio challenge so others can follow your investment decisions. Many are learning from watching the trades...

     

    Thanks!
    15 Dec 2013, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    IT,
    The environment you anticipated with QE may in fact still materialize, who knows. We do know that the inflation part of that equation hasn't materialized (of course that will spark a whole new debate which I won't get into here) IMO the price of gold and its recent behavior is signaling that fact.

     

    Down the road there may well be inflationary pressures that will spark gold higher , but for me I'd rather wait and see , as I believe as with any financial instrument there will be time to get on board when the conditions are favorable..

     

    Should there be a geopolitical event that triggers a quick knee jerk rise , well, i'll miss that . but as we have seen some of those knee jerk reactions dissipate rather quickly ( Syria comes to mind) .
    Many take my stance as a perma bear on gold or a gold hater.. I have stated here, i dont hate gold. I state my position on what I See, right or wrong.. Many dont appreciate that. What i dislike however is an investment (stocks to gold) that I feel is not productive in my portfolio. If the day comes when I see the backdrop change for gold . i will approach it as I would a non dividend paying stock , what are the known catalysts to have it go higher . I dont see any for gold right now , if i'm wrong so be it..
    For those that have some and wish to hold , that's fine , but I dont march to the tune of those that say its a "must" to own some .. and they seem to pick every price level to tell one that it's a must own ..
    Enjoy your birthday ! :)
    15 Dec 2013, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    Tack: where would you put the level of unemployment in absolute terms for the US under "full employment"? I dont know the level myself but I do know that every economy has to have a certain amount of slack. So even an economy running very sweetley indeed at full capacity will have a lot of unfilled jobs. Now, yes, of course at the margin even offering a dollar a day unemployment benefit "might" influence someone to stay away from work but its a stretch. On the other hand, if employment offers only 2 bucks a day but means childcare and travel costs etc then we have a problem dont we? In other words there are two sides to this equation.

     

    Personally I dont see entitlements as the biggest problem, not when compared to the outrageous assymetry between the top 1% and the lower 20. No sir. If you were right, and the poorest really were miling the system then we would be seeing wealth disparity shifting their way. It isnt and it hasnt for a very long time, actually getting worse in the crisis. Look, I really am not a Marxist and I am very much pro markets, but its getting too easy to ignore facts and blame the poor in the US. Its also way way too hard to talk about welath disparity as the huge problem it is in America without somewhat shooting from the hip in a gut-reaction.

     

    Let's put it this way: how DO you deal with the HUUUGE shift and polarisation in wealth and income shares in the US without some form of re-distribution? Or do you think the poor are getting too good a deal and the wealthiest are being creamed? If thats so, why do the numbers show the exact opposite? Again, not trying to be argumentative and I suspect we are in agreement about incentives in general but I am not so sure you have this one in perspective. The moochers are mostly on the other end: the carried interest parties, the offshore haven crew and the rentiers. The system is FAR more stacked their way than the lower middle class or the working clss. To say otherwise is frankly, a bit ridiculous in the face of the data. Romney is a much bigger moocher than the average poor person. There really isnt any disputing that is there?
    15 Dec 2013, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » FEAR

     

    I don't have the experience you have. I have always said I am clueless with stock charts. I invested using Vanguard and followed TACKS'S value method. I believed in Buffet's philosophy of buying good stocks when others are selling them.

     

    But for someone clueless like me I just bought my PM'S at a time when I thought was right. Expected to hold them until many years later, if at all. I started out as a coin collector with numismatics. It was a hobby.

     

    Then I turned around and bought bullion. I know quite a few people who have had coins and bullion passed down to them from their parents and if the cashed out now they would be just fine.

     

    That is a reason I bought mine. If my daughter one day has them when I am gone and needs them for whatever reason then I can smile wherever I am in the after life !

     

    I am by far NOT a gold bug but bring up coins and metals because I have been a collector for years. Plus to jumpstart a conversation here and there:)
    15 Dec 2013, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fear&Greedtrader:

     

    I haven't mentioned any "conspiracy theories". If I have then please point at least one out.

     

    Nothing I've mentioned is "secret" or "hidden".

     

    Again, please point out ANYTHING I've written that isn't well known and universally acknowledged. (I know you won't but I thought I'd at least try to get you to back up the stuff you've just made up).

     

    The more I read what you write and the more I examine your writing style the less I feel I am dealing with a rational person.

     

    Why would anyone follow articles on something they hate with a passion just to broadcast that hatred for all to see? It doesn't make sense that a basic, simple element should cause so much anger especially if one isn't required to buy it.

     

    Why does the Federal Reserve, which you apparently hold in higher regard than the Catholic Church, currently store ~ $300 billion worth of the "worthless" metal gold? (...and that is just ONE central bank!)

     

    Why do people waste their money on the non-yield producing asset of medical insurance?

     

    How much money did you lose on gold trying to trade it like Twitter stock? (after all...why else would you be so angry at a simple element?)

     

    And finally, will gold be less than $1,000 by Valentine's Day?

     

    If you say "no" or "I don't know" then please stop talking about "toxic futures" as if any of us know what the (immediate) future holds.
    15 Dec 2013, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » DVL

     

    I have to say something here. FEAR has been a member of this blog from the beginning. Back then we mostly spoke about stocks and related investments.

     

    He did not seek out this blog for an opinion ONLY on PM'S.. He has given very valuable advice to many.

     

    I just felt that since you are new to the blog FEAR did not just join in because of the metals. He has been here quite a while. I differ with him about the metals as well. But I respect his opinion.

     

    What I have learned from reading Mike Maloney it was stated that deflation might indeed come first then hyperinflation. I still feel that might happen. This game is far from over, so time will tell.

     

    I like the dialog going back and forth but I hope we can just keep it professional so that all stay and give us an education.. You have brought up valuable information and I hope you continue to do so as well as Fear..

     

    Thanks!
    15 Dec 2013, 03:57 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    DVL.
    yes i'm irrational that's what i get for putting all of my positions and strategies in my blog.. I am totally transparent here on SA , and have no agendas, for the last time read my commentary in my blog -
    http://bit.ly/ZuafPa

     

    Gold will not be less than 1000 by valentines day ,, as i dont see another 20% drop in the metal in two months .. but the toxic environment will surely be there during '14 . Whether you wish to accept that or not .. The immediate future will be a rising interest rate scenario, if you don't see that, then no one here can help you ... & if you have some facts to support gold in that environment please share them ..

     

    I have attacked gold sir, not you , .. so i simply say to you now --

     

    move on !
    15 Dec 2013, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Robert Duval
    , contributor
    Comments (4072) | Send Message
     
    I'm not convinced of the rising rate environment as yet. That seems to be the strong consensus, along with an accelerating economy. Im not convinced of either of those beliefs.

     

    I expect both a hard treasury rally at some point soon, along with a potential tradeable rally in PM's.
    15 Dec 2013, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • CoinsK
    , contributor
    Comments (3357) | Send Message
     
    Good points IT. I know that many of us that deal in PM's know how to manage our risks.The reason I SELL PM's is simple, I can replace them at a better price.I sell most bullion at about 10% over the spot price. If someone brings in Gold coins I will pay them about 99% of current market or spot price. The truth of the matter is that in December I want the market to go DOWN on Silver now because we order our MONSTER Box of 500 ASE in January. I am currently selling 2013 Eagles for around $25 to $26 each. I can replace them for about $23 at current spot price of Silver. Not a bad deal if you can get it. All of us in the business want HIGHER spot prices for February,that's when our Coin show tour begins.:)
    15 Dec 2013, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » JBT

     

    OCARE report. Shock anyone?

     

    http://huff.to/1jau87U
    16 Dec 2013, 01:03 AM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3754) | Send Message
     
    Disaster of epic proportions...
    16 Dec 2013, 07:23 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Interesting Times:

     

    I never said that Fear&Greedtrader joined this blog ONLY to bad mouth gold.

     

    I never said he shouldn't offer his opinions.

     

    Also, Interesting Times, how professional is it for a poster to claim someone else wrote something that they've never written?

     

    I'd never say someone shouldn't share their opinions.

     

    I would like you or anyone else to explain to me the psychology of someone following articles on an asset that they hate then broadcasting that extreme dislike of that asset in the comments section.

     

    I don't like RetailMeNot, Inc. (SALE) as an investment so wouldn't it be weird if I went to every article that mentions it and began to rant against those who do like it as an investment?
    16 Dec 2013, 07:56 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fear&Greedtrader:

     

    You "have no agendas"?

     

    O.K. then...

     

    How do you feel about gold?
    16 Dec 2013, 08:01 AM Reply Like
  • CoinsK
    , contributor
    Comments (3357) | Send Message
     
    @DVL. what you have stated is the issue IMO. The way some rail against the PM's makes it appear that they lost money at one time in that sector. I have a mutual fund manager as a friend and he's not in favor of PM's ,which I totally understand. he also is a realist and knows that I was very fortunate to have had about 1/2 of my investments in a coin store and Metals business in the 2007-2008 market crash period. I paid my building off when gold was at $1000.00 Like any good investor ,I took profits and diversified. How does someone have so much knowledge that they can say that was a bad move? And investing is more about the future,the business model must change. But we are supposedly one trick pony lovers when we don't jump on the hating metals bandwagon. There's plenty of opportunity in or out of metals ,if someone does their due diligence.
    16 Dec 2013, 08:06 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    DVL,
    an OPINION is not an agenda - Let me explain ,,,,

     

    IF i had an agenda i would be short and pounding the table for gold to go down , However if you would read my blog , it reveals that i closed my short position a while ago when gold dropped under 1300... So as i have mentioned all along i'm pretty transparent here on SA ,

     

    grow up already

     

    maybe we can continue this conversation next Dec -- .& see if gold is 1500 , 1000 or about the same....

     

    in the meant time as stated earlier -- grow up ...
    16 Dec 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    DVL,

     

    the last time i looked there is no "not "allowed to comment" button on this site..
    anyone can post their opinions wherever they wish
    Simply Because its best to allow folks to post the "other side" of the story , maybe someone got the message when i stated my opinion on Gold @ 1700-1800 .. some 500 dollars or so or an astounding 27% from that level..

     

    & perhaps we might just see another 20% shaved off of the price .. That's why ..

     

    Case closed

     

    Grow Up..
    16 Dec 2013, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    JBT:

     

    The biggest disaster is yet to come, when we discover the same types, seeking more goodies, who voted Obama and his like into office, continue right on electing similar candidates, the foregoing results notwithstanding.
    16 Dec 2013, 10:21 AM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3754) | Send Message
     
    Tack,

     

    That's what it's all about - the freebies. 69% of those who "applied" for Obamacare insurance so far qualified for Medicare. Is there any doubt that there won't be much change in that number going forward?
    16 Dec 2013, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    TAck,JBT,

     

    Maybe, just maybe we'll start to see some of the dems distance themselves from this.. After all the guys/gals there have only one desire- "get re-elected" and their constituents have already started to give them an earful. I can only see this backlash getting worse.. I know its wishful thinking, but maybe we'll see some changes on this front..down the road..
    16 Dec 2013, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    F&G:

     

    I'd concur, if it were like the old days, when it was the "taxpayers," who decided elections. But, now, we've reached the arithmetic divide, and those not paying taxes have become energized voting groups, now comprising the majority in most districts and certainly the majority in broad-based elections, like Senate and national contests.

     

    Consequently, socialism is here to stay, and probably expand rather rapidly, consequences be d***ed.
    16 Dec 2013, 10:50 AM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » DVL

     

    "I would like you or anyone else to explain to me the psychology of someone following articles on an asset that they hate then broadcasting that extreme dislike of that asset in the comments section."

     

    Sorry if I misunderstood your post. I was only trying to make the point that FEAR did not just drop in here to talk about gold. Were 41 chapters along and most aren't gold related.

     

    Now if he has made a comment you don't agree with then please point out your concerns as you have been. But the quote above I interpret as you considering him a person who is following only gold.

     

    That just happened to be a topic discussed in part of this chapter. He always has participated in other stock discussions. Make no mistake you are free to question his posts. But he isn't just picking on us PM people...

     

    Now as far as your quote above I have asked the same question of others who never participate unless they can just bash gold.....I asked them the same exact question you just did ! I hope I cleared up my comment for you.
    16 Dec 2013, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fear&Greedtrader:

     

    As I've not told anyone here to "grow up" it seems as if you are the one who is immature.

     

    One shouldn't get so emotional and personal while trying to defend one's position.
    18 Dec 2013, 04:16 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Fear&Greedtrader:

     

    Please link to the post where I declared that some should "not be allowed to comment".

     

    Thanks.
    18 Dec 2013, 04:17 AM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » TACK

     

    Thanks!
    29 Nov 2013, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • Biz Bluetree
    , contributor
    Comments (307) | Send Message
     
    Well, I'm not afraid to say I don't believe the Fed will taper, the wheels will come off, and if they begin they will soon reverse direction and throw more logs on the fire. IT, in that article you referenced on my thread... The author said they will taper next year unless a crisis of some sort happens (paraphrasing) ...what I don't hear many people talking about is the up coming debt ceiling debate and possible gov shut down in January/February '14.... If they revisit October with all the stubborn foolishness displayed last time - it could spell disaster. The world is fed up with US hegemony and recklessness. The FOMC meeting in March could be the most anticipated event to come down the pike in a long time.
    29 Nov 2013, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    BB:

     

    Debt-ceiling debates are political theater, nothing more.

     

    Yes, the world is fed up with U.S. and the dollar. That's why they rush to buy U.S. Treasuries at near record-low yields. More meaningless political jabber.

     

    Anyone who makes investment decisions on these premises is going to suffer accordingly.
    29 Nov 2013, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » TIPS set for worst year ever !!!!!

     

    TIPS fared even worse than regular Treasurys in the bond market selloff this summer, and - down 8% YTD - are headed for their poorest performance since they were brought to market in 1997. The 10-year yield gap - the difference between 10-year yields on nominal and inflation-protected Treasurys, and a measure of inflation expectations - has shrunk to 2.14% from 2.5% at the start of the year.

     

    TIPS owners for years have accepted negative real yields on the expectation the Fed's monetary ease would lead to higher inflation. With inflation still quiet and the Fed set to wind down its QE, where's a TIPS bull to turn to? 2014 may be even worse, says JPMorgan, which sees CPI no higher than 1.7%. Combined with what the team expects will be a 120 basis point rise in real yields, it translates into a 8.4% loss for TIPS.

     

    Maybe bailing out TIPS next year would be a Yellen-led Fed indicating a greater tolerance for higher inflation and yet more delays in the taper.
    29 Nov 2013, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • Biz Bluetree
    , contributor
    Comments (307) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Tack, I realize it is political theater, and I make no investment decisions based on that tom foolery, but, and this is a BIG BUT,,, the rest of the world doesn't see it as theater - and last time I looked no body is rushing to buy US treasuries, that's why the Fed is going to find itself buying more and more of them - hence, no taper. The Chinese for instance is turning its US debt holdings into gold and other hard assets like buying (and over paying) for 1 Chase Plaza from JPM. They can't get rid of dollars and bonds fast enough.
    29 Nov 2013, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    Biz,

     

    the author's comment :
    "what I don't hear many people talking about is the up coming debt ceiling debate and possible gov shut down in January/February '14.... If they revisit October with all the stubborn foolishness displayed last time - it could spell disaster."

     

    According to the people trumpeting this "noise" , we have already been thru this type of 'disaster" on at least two other occasions in the last two years.. Remember Nov '12 - S & P 1350 , all one has to do is go back and look at the articles written then. The S & P is now @ 1800.. .Listening to that nonsense did little for the average investor .. Savvy investors ignored that rhetoric and instead enhanced their 401K's & IRA's substantially .. There is no compelling reason to those that continually have the story wrong.
    The "wheels" will hardly come off -- My take on the Fed & Asset reduction..
    http://bit.ly/1cRgnTY

     

    http://bit.ly/1cRgnU2
    29 Nov 2013, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    Biz:

     

    I know you are seeing macro trends, like the Chinese accumulating gold to back their currency with real assets, while the west sells its gold; the US feels good about itself because for the fist time in a few years its deficit was actually UNDER 1 trillion - (that's frugality?)

     

    These macro developments like the US debt issue and the Fed issuance of hundreds of billions of dollars by QE security purchases, do not have, or have not had immediate consequences. The consequences have been time and time again pushed down the road.

     

    You are right that the rest of the world is getting fed up with the dis-functionality of the US leadership at home, that thinks it at the same time it may dictate the affairs of other nations. I have lightheartedly referred to them as ADHD Jr High kids (with law degrees). The other nations (BRICs) are arranging trade agreements that discard the current rules of trade that have dominated for the last 50 years or so.

     

    The things that have been kicked and pushed down the road will eventually become a hard reality that will have to be dealt with. I feel the last two debt ceiling crisis have been strikes one and two. Some view these debt ceiling "crisis" events as political theater, as if it is only an internal US affair. However there are hundreds of spectators viewing the theater while the actors on the stage perform. These spectators are the other nations of the world. They are about to become disgusted with the "production" and walk out.
    30 Nov 2013, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    PS - by the way great article:
    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    It reminded me that I should probably be buying some more silver now, and advised which were the best coins to buy.
    30 Nov 2013, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    Some thoughts from a blog comment I made on 9/26

     

    Facts on the debt issue :

     

    Because of low interest rates, debt service as a percentage of GDP is 1.5%, half of what it was in 1989. And while rates will go higher at some point, I'm suggesting that rise will be modest and produce volatility but be manageable as we just witnessed when the 10 yr rose to 3% and the S & P rallied to a record high of 1725. I'm still waiting to hear the "bear" argument to counter that last incident.

     

    The change in this debt problem is already taking place: We've seen dramatically higher tax receipts over the last several months , because of economic growth and a rapidly shrinking deficit. The deficit will soon be well below 3.1% of GDP, the 40-year average, and is projected to shrink to 2.1% of GDP by 2015.

     

    Since hitting a high of $1.478 trillion in February 2010, the U.S. federal budget deficit has plunged by 54% to a new, post-recession low of $679 billion in the 12 months ended August 2013. A contributing factor accounting for the bulk of the decline: federal outlays have declined. Virtually NO ONE expected the budget outlook would improve so quickly and so dramatically.

     

    Relative to GDP, Gov't spending has declined by over 15%, from 24.4% of GDP to 20.6%, while revenues have increased by almost 17%, from 14.2% of GDP to 16.5%. The budget deficit is now a mere 4.1% of GDP, down from a high of 10.2%. In less than 3 years, the federal budget outlook has gone from dire to almost normal. Amazing facts that for those that are in "denial" , will continue to dismiss.

     

    So the debt issue was "pushed down the road" and now shown to be improving. Simple facts on an issue that ALL had wrong..

     

    And now I will add;
    Perhaps "kicking the can" isn't what the naysayers want all to believe.. Maybe its better as shown by the above facts to have the "flexibility" to "kick the can". If you've ever run a business then you know this; you have a list of things you can spend on now and then you have a list of things you'd like to spend on when you're in a better financial position to do so. Sure there's a moment when you have to take some pain, but being able to choose the moment is not a negative, no matter what the ideologues say.

     

    Perhaps the "its all going to end badly crowd" should "think again "
    30 Nov 2013, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    F&G:

     

    I often wonder why those who scream that the Government should pay off its debts, or just default, don't practice the same by rushing down to the bank to pay off their mortgage in full, or just stop payments on their mortgage and default.

     

    Wait! You mean servicing the mortgage and paying it off over time is more sensible? Imagine.
    30 Nov 2013, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    Tack,
    great analogy ...
    30 Nov 2013, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3754) | Send Message
     
    Tack,

     

    That might make sense if the government was "paying it off over time". They are not. They are accumulating more at an alarming rate.

     

    The same homeowner in your example does not burden himself with an additional house every year.
    30 Nov 2013, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • Biz Bluetree
    , contributor
    Comments (307) | Send Message
     
    Thank you John... and thanks for the above comment, too. Guys like you and me are clearly in the minority, but that's OK... everyone is entitled to their own opinion and far be it for me to try to convince anyone to do what I do or think what I think - or to defend myself from accusations based on truth or untruth. Reality is still a perception based phenomenon.

     

    To extend your baseball metaphor, the next round of political theater in Jan & Feb could be strike three. Or the straw that breaks the camel's back - however you want to say it. All I can do is follow my own signs and what I'm seeing is when the rest of the world gives up on USD - it's game over in the land of the free. And even those holding PMs may not be safe if crippling capital controls are implemented. Godspeed, brother.

     

    Best,
    biz
    30 Nov 2013, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    J:

     

    Most homeowners are not recipients of ever-increasing income, although a few are.

     

    Government, as the beneficiary of GDP growth, has endlessly-increasing income to service debt, not to mention power to create money, if necessary. As I have mentioned elsewhere, P&G was formed in 1837 with little or no debt. Now, they have more than $33 billion. Are they in trouble?
    30 Nov 2013, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3754) | Send Message
     
    Tack,

     

    In 2012, P&G had annual revenue of 84 billion dollars. So, no, $33 billion in debt is not a problem for them.

     

    In 2012, the US Government had annual tax revenues of $2.3 trillion. The federal debt in 2012 was $16 trillion.

     

    See the difference?

     

    I understand governments may have to and probably should run with deficits and debt. But a return to sanity of something like, I dunno, 3 or 4 times revenue would seem like a better target for which to aim.

     

    As it is right now, the ratio is getting out of whack, and it's accelerating.

     

    http://bit.ly/5BsyVl
    30 Nov 2013, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    John:

     

    I'm not "pro-Government" and actually agree with you on the issue of degree. Trending toward ever-larger and more powerful Federal Government is not a positive. I was just trying to emphasize how the Government is different from the average homeowner.
    30 Nov 2013, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    Come on now Tack-

     

    You just told us (commented to Fire) how you were able to retire early and comfortably because you paid down your mortgage early:

     

    "I was able to retire early to a very comfortable lifestyle because I spent much or my working years paying down my home mortgage, as quickly as circumstances would allow"

     

    Yes there is a difference between homeowners and government but even though the Fed can "print" money, the game will only last as long as others trust in the "Full Faith and Credit" of the US.

     

    As JBT pointed out, the debt is way out of proportion, about 6.3 times the revenue. The current deficit looks like it will come in at -972.9 billion for the year ended in September. Not too great.

     

    Full Faith and Credit has its limitations even if they can print money.

     

    Like Dirty Harry said: " A man's got to know his limitations."

     

    Uncle Sam's going to find out he didn't know his..
    30 Nov 2013, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » JW

     

    I have posted this a few times. It helped me build up what I have ..

     

    It coincides with BIZ'S article for those interested.

     

    http://bit.ly/R9bKtt

     

    Makes plenty of sense..
    30 Nov 2013, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    JW,

     

    The latest on the federal budget deficit ..
    http://bloom.bg/1b4nhqI

     

    or am I not to believe the numbers being presented,
    30 Nov 2013, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3754) | Send Message
     
    I lean more towards "deficits don't matter" (I don't lean much in that direction, but a little). But good god! The debt! Keep the deficits, but manage the debt.
    30 Nov 2013, 04:11 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    JBT,

     

    I am not rallying here in favor of the Gov. , to the contrary , I have stated many times about my disdain for the present and seemingly endless nonsense that is on display from the DC crowd.

     

    However , i don't let politics influence my investment decisions. IMO, mixing the two, is a recipe for disaster. The point that I believe needs to be taken from the facts presented on the deficit is that not too long ago , this was by all accounts a DIRE situation that has now being rectified by factors in the economy as it slowly improves.

     

    So once again for those that still remain in doubt about the recovery , one needs to explain exactly how this situation is improving.. To that end ,might we see the other DIRE situations that are constantly brought into the picture , slowly rectify themselves. ?

     

    All is not perfect , far from it , but the "it has to end badly " crowd, may be in for a surprise .Remember the cries of "This will end badly" on the heels of QE2 being announced in the summer of 2010. ??

     

    For sure they have already been surprised as their notions of doom have kept them on the wrong side of the trade, continually scoffing at those that have had the story correct.

     

    Sitting in a bunker , looking a Gold magazines , debating the "exact date "for Armageddon in my opinion is not an investment strategy that produces results..
    30 Nov 2013, 04:55 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3754) | Send Message
     
    Fear,

     

    Agree in regards to investments, etc. You know by now how I invest, and it is investment in the long-term success not only of the companies, but the country itself.

     

    I just hate bloated government, and the ever-increasing debt is a sign of that growing bloat.
    30 Nov 2013, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    Fear:

     

    My source for the year end 2013 deficit of -972.9 billion was from the OMB.

     

    Table 1.3—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS

     

    (Table 1.3 It is the third table on the list)

     

    http://1.usa.gov/OohFth
    30 Nov 2013, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    JW,

     

    That appears to be an estimate whereas the bloomberg report was actual info .. So it appears the estimate will be revised at year end to show actual data..

     

    The "strongest " october revenue on record , surely must make some 'take notice' that something positive in the economy is underway ...

     

    Then again many wont see it until it's way too late .
    30 Nov 2013, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    As the government fiscal year ends Sept 30 (it's not on the calendar year) the number is pretty close to being the final number for 2013

     

    Fiscal year 2014 for the government started Oct 1.
    30 Nov 2013, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    JW,

     

    Thanks for the clarification -- So it looks like we are in fact off to a good start ,, with the 'strongest" october revenue on record .. I believe that was the point I was attempting to make to debunk the "no recovery" crowd.
    30 Nov 2013, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    I can't believe I didn't get more "likes" from my quoting of Dirty Harry. Don't like Dirty Harry? Or is it that I cast Uncle Sam as a Dirty Harry antagonist?
    1 Dec 2013, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • User 7415181
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    JW,

     

    I believe I speak for more than just myself here when I ask for clarification before I just hand out likes for any old thing: What is your opinion of The Dead Pool?
    1 Dec 2013, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    The Dirty Harry quote "A man's GOT to know his limitations" was from Magnum Force. I think I saw Dead Pool only once. I'll have to get it and watch it again. Generally I like all of the Dirty Harry films, though they relate only to corruption on a local level that Harry has to deal with - as well as with deranged murderers, and do not have larger implications to the investment world and government spending/debt universe.

     

    I will watch Dead Pool again though and let you know, though I won't be able to do it today. Have to do some Tax prep CEs
    1 Dec 2013, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • User 7415181
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    JW,

     

    Masochist though I am, even I will not watch The Dead Pool willingly. I remember as a child my now-deceased grand parents' faces of despair as they returned from the theater and my father asked them how it was...

     

    Yes, I was all of nine years of age at the time. And would much later learn the wonders of Dirty Harry as all generations must. But, by God, I was correct to remember that moment in time as a child, because when myself and my friends rented The Dead Pool as stupid 20 somethings, I was reminded that even with generational differences, there is something that binds all of humanity. And bad movies might be it.
    1 Dec 2013, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • User 7415181
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    I got off track. Yes, I will like your comment above. But you must watch The Dead Pool in its entirity and give us a synopsis that's not Wikkipedia-based. And I DO know these movies and will know if you're faking. This is because I had to work on Thanksgiving and will have to work Christmas as well.

     

    Happy Turkey Day to all!
    1 Dec 2013, 04:21 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Someone will actually "LIKE" a comment on this blog...Pinch me, I must be dreaming !!

     

    So much valuable information is loaded on this blog it is quite frankly embarrassing. FEAR, TACK, USER, and all the others are literally giving away free financial advice..

     

    But I have been down this road before as you all know..
    1 Dec 2013, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • John Wilson
    , contributor
    Comments (1281) | Send Message
     
    User

     

    I did look on Wikipedia to jog my memory to see which Dirty Harry movie it was, but I will personally watch it again to present my take on it. Your story sounds like me when I watched the vampire horror movie "Black Sunday" when I was 11.
    http://on-msn.com/1bBFMo4

     

    What I won't do for a "like"
    1 Dec 2013, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » USER and JW

     

    Wanna watch a Horror show. Just watch my NY Jets !!
    1 Dec 2013, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • User 7415181
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    JW,

     

    It's on. I take Dirty Harry seriously. And Death Wish. But, by the beard of the prophet, I know when to shave.

     

    IT,

     

    I may be giving away free financial advice, which may or may not be accurate, but what is more important is your EXACT opinion on which Death Wish movie jumped the shark? I know you're older than me, so there is no excuse.

     

    And yes, I will need more than just a wikkipedia copy/paste. I will need a description of the gang-tattoos worn by the leader who has the best death scene with a rocket launcher in the series. And your emotional input as to what was the end of the series.

     

    If you don't get what I'm saying, consider if you would buy every season of Miami Vice on DVD?
    1 Dec 2013, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » USER

     

    I can't even remember what I ate for lunch and you want my opinion on this?

     

    Seriously I am not a movie buff. My wife is always asking me about certain scenes and I have that deer in headlights look ....
    1 Dec 2013, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • User 7415181
    , contributor
    Comments (719) | Send Message
     
    IT,

     

    This is important! Might I recommend you buy all five of the Death Wish movies at Walmart or wherever over the next week or so?
    1 Dec 2013, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    Very good comments Tack. We do agree on a lot of things :-)
    1 Dec 2013, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Sure...I see no lines at WalMart anyway..:)
    1 Dec 2013, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » FABSY

     

    Welcome... I kinda remember you commenting once that you predicted gold will go down to $500 bucks. I think the article was over the summer.

     

    Do you still see that happening?

     

    Thanks!
    1 Dec 2013, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    Interesting Times: Actually no, from memory I said I don't CARE if gold goes to 500 (or 4000) and wouldnt be surprised either way. I regard gold as a speculative investment, a trading vehicle if you will, and would never make such a prediction.
    2 Dec 2013, 05:23 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    Most people don't take out loans they can't afford.

     

    For those people that do, bankruptcy is often the final option.

     

    The U.S. government can just print its way out of overspending.

     

    How do trillions of new dollars make each existing dollar unit more valuable?
    10 Dec 2013, 08:03 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8608) | Send Message
     
    So "ever increasing income" otherwise known as tax receipts are growing faster than government borrowing?

     

    Really?

     

    What about future promises also called "entitlements"?

     

    Are those growing slower than tax receipts too?
    10 Dec 2013, 08:05 AM Reply Like
  • Fabsy
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    John WIlson:

     

    There is actually no reason to believe the current US debt burden is unsustainable looking out to the medium term and the issue then is how to address the long term. There are very very solid economic arguments for spending today which conform to well established economic principles.

     

    To understand what Tack meant by "govt is different from a household" I suggest you Google "The Paradox of Thrift" which neatly eviscerates the homespun rubbish of many deficit scolds who insist on the fallacy that a household budget is in any meaningful way the same as a government budget and economic policy. It is so laughably wrong it is embarassing to hear anyone make the comparison.
    13 Dec 2013, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • Ninja Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (807) | Send Message
     
    JBT,
    better analogy...
    20 Dec 2013, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Did anyone watch the Steelers game last night? If you did what should Mike Tomlin be penalized for that gross mistake he made standing on the field..

     

    1) A fine
    2) A suspension
    3) BOTH.
    4)NOTHING.

     

    I have officiated sports for over 25 years and it is my opinion he knew exactly what he was doing.. Still can't figure out why the referee did not throw a flag either..

     

    Honestly some one , including the ref, could have been hurt on that play. I think it was a bush play on his part.

     

    That white area is for a reason...We refs should not have to worry running that someone is standing there why we are watching the action on the field..

     

    Others?

     

    Figured today is a slow market day so looking for some input..
    29 Nov 2013, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    IT:

     

    I'll indulge you.

     

    The NFL is reviewing. He'll be fined, almost certainly, but it will be a wrist slap. No way on Earth he's suspended.
    29 Nov 2013, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3754) | Send Message
     
    I did not watch. Lost interest in watching football when my team laid down and let the Lions, no less, trounce them. :)

     

    We watched some of the "Ridiculousness" marathon, instead.
    29 Nov 2013, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » TACK

     

    Do you consider this potential penalty on Tomlin as a slap on the wrist? I don't..

     

    This can be worse then a suspension since Pitt is essentially done this year anyway !

     

    http://bit.ly/1hs2d1u
    1 Dec 2013, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    IT:

     

    If Pitt would get stripped of any higher-level draft pick, it would be far more than I would have expected, although I honestly believe it would be richly deserved because it's obvious that, not only was he adjacent to the field in an area prohibited to coaches, the replay shows he intentionally stepped toward and onto the field, not away from it, and, finally, he's been disingenuous about all of it in his comments and as his smirking face confirmed on film.
    1 Dec 2013, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » TACK

     

    As you know I am an official for colleges and high schools. I am more upset that the official didn't penalize him. He just ran around him.

     

    That official will get undressed for a huge missed penalty. Tomlin stepped on the field as he was looking over his shoulder. The smirk didn't help matters.. Tomlin knew exactly what he was doing.

     

    A third round pic might do the trick.. Anything higher would raise my eyebrows..
    1 Dec 2013, 11:07 PM Reply Like
  • nocnurzfred
    , contributor
    Comments (548) | Send Message
     
    Fell asleep during the Cowboys/Packers game, woke up near the end of the first half. That halftime show honey was interesting, and the second half was really great.
    29 Nov 2013, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • Firehawk734
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    Roseanne Marathon Has Been On. Go Lions!
    29 Nov 2013, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Some are posting that China has lost it's taste for gold. Maybe this will change your mind ?

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    29 Nov 2013, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » BLACK FRIDAY !!!!!

     

    Where I live the reports from those brave friends of mine who actually attend this massacre report the lines and crowds were WAY less then years before. They could not believe it.

     

    So are more using the internet or are we going to have a crappy retail report ?

     

    If it is a disappointing report what does it really mean? My daughter has a part time job at Kohl's and they sent her home early >>>
    30 Nov 2013, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    Oh, please.

     

    Most of the stores now moved Black Friday to Turkey Thursday. Did you see the photos of the absolute mobs at Macy's in NYC on Thursday night.? Malls and stores elsewhere were packed. Fist fights were breaking out over parking spaces.

     

    You're expecting poor Christmas sales? They'll be boffo.
    30 Nov 2013, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5101) | Send Message
     
    Apple & ebay seemed to get off to a good start

     

    http://bit.ly/1b6IfEm

     

    & other retail trends that are in play ----
    E- Commerce is set for its first $300b+ U.S. year, growing north of 12%. Mobile commerce growth accelerated in 3Q to 26% from 24% and should be a major driver in 4Q, growing >35% according to comScore.

     

    So its a lot more than just getting in a car and going to the store these days..
    30 Nov 2013, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Please TACK

     

    Every year those photos tell a much different story.. Standing on line tells nothing about purchases.. Let's see when the final numbers come out.

     

    I would bet my house you personally did not stand on any of those lines. Were you?
    30 Nov 2013, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » From an article I just read. When you set the bar so low most number look great. They aren't !

     

    "Overall, the retail trade group expects retail sales to be up 3.9 percent to $602 billion during the last two months of the year. That's higher than last year's 3.5 percent growth, but below the 6 percent pace seen before the recession. And retail experts said it's going to be difficult for stores to get shoppers to keep coming back into stores without bargains."

     

    Important line .. "but below the 6 percent pace seen before the recession"

     

    Things aren't what they seem !!
    30 Nov 2013, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    IT:

     

    Corporate results tell the story, and they have been telling the same story for about five years, now, but some wish to believe "next month" will be the bad one, no matter how often that's dispelled.
    30 Nov 2013, 11:34 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » TACK

     

    Spoke to my daughter and she said when her Kohl's store opened up they had 20 people on line. Not the 200 they expected. Then during the night and until 6 am they had about another 50 customers..

     

    Now at Northface, which is in Woodbury commons, a huge outlet mall, they pulled in 600k in those two days..

     

    Those two stores are separated by about a half a mile. The person who manages the Northface said they were busy non stop but that people seemed to have a list and stuck to it. She did not notice much impulse buying..

     

    Woodbury Commons has about 300 to 400 stores. The lines weren't as long because of the increase in hours opened. But I was amazed that they pulled in that much money.
    2 Dec 2013, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » TACK

     

    Still think we will have robust Christmas sales?
    14 Dec 2013, 07:38 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13401) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely.
    14 Dec 2013, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » My words from above.

     

    "So are more using the internet or are we going to have a crappy retail report ?"

     

    Btw Tack my daughter was working Turkey Day at 8pm.. Goes to show you how deceiving photos can be.. Now lets see what the retailers say about the rest of the months sales..

     

    I just love starting conversations:)
    30 Nov 2013, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • Biz Bluetree
    , contributor
    Comments (307) | Send Message
     
    If Ben Bernanke drives a new car off a dealer's lot, but no one’s there to see it - does the car appreciate in value? OK, that’s a trick question, but the answer is sort of, since that new car drives the economy. After the car is off the dealer’s inventory list it boosts consumerist GDP and makes the recovery almost look real.

     

    Interesting what yarn can be spun when the numbers are made up.
    30 Nov 2013, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (11063) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thanksgiving, Black Friday sales edge up

     

    Thanksgiving and Black Friday sales at brick-and-mortar stores rose 2.3% on year to $12.3B, ShopperTrak estimates.

     

    The research firm reiterates its forecast that sales for the whole of the holiday season will increase 2.4%, the weakest growth since 2009.

     

    Foot traffic for both days grew 2.8% to over 1.07B store visits.
    Online sales +20% on Thanksgiving and +19% on Black Friday, says IBM.

     

    Mobile traffic accounted for almost 40% of all online visits on

     

    Friday. Mobile sales rose to 26% of total online sales on Thursday and were around 22% on Friday.

     

    Increased store openings on Thanksgiving seem to have eaten into sales on Black Friday, while online transactions again took business away from physical purchases.

     

    Anecdotal evidence suggests that consumers came with plans of what they wanted to buy, with the result that there was much less impulse shopping.

     

    "The research firm reiterates its forecast that sales for the whole of the holiday season will increase 2.4%, the weakest growth since 2009." If I am reading this right retail sales isn't looking as good as some suggested ?? WEAKEST GROWTH SINCE 2009 ??
    1 Dec 2013, 03:35 PM Reply Like