Tuesday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets [View article]
The question is not who is right or who is wrong at any given earlier time, it is how the future will unfold. If you want to see where we are headed you have to at least know where you are.
Thank you David for providing us with a tool that helps us see where we are.
Still Scratching My Head over Monsanto [View article]
It is a futile exercise to speak only of potential long term effects of Monsanto's agricultural products without weighing in the benefits they provide as far a feeding a hungrier world is concerned.
This is in all evidece a case of the good far outweighing the bad.
Soybeans' Price Gains Are Fertilizers' Loss [View article]
Good article. It seems however that the next move on fertilizer stocks should come from consolidation or (M&A) rather than from an increase in consumption. Judging from the following article their are plenty of buyers interested in this lucrative market. theaustralian.news.com...]
Am I right in asking at this point, how much could the Federal reserve or other central banks in the world directly (or indirectly through the IMF) for example, manipulate the market price of gold and prevent it from reaching its true value?
When banks will start trading toxic assets among themselves, as they will surely do to create a zombie market, that's when the ---* will really hit the fan.
Low Gold Price a Buying Opportunity [View article]
What about the effect of the IMF selling of Gold as suggested during last week's G20 meetings, is that not going to mitigate the possible rise in the price of Gold because of inflation?
Low Gold Price a Buying Opportunity [View article]
What about the effect of the IMF selling of Gold as suggested during last week's G20 meetings, is that not going to mitigate the possible rise in the price of Gold because of inflation?
> I just want to know where they are getting the gold from? COMEX deliveries > are not increasing, central banks are not selling and China and Russia > have stated that they are increasing their holdings. So where is > the tons of gold coming from?
Friday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets [View article]
Johnthebear,
This is a splendid idea, now which are the senators or representatives that will have the cojones to put this to a vote in the senate and in the house.
On Mar 20 09:48 AM johnthebears wrote:
> When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems > to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.. The remaining > workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that > their job would be eliminated as well. > > Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making > this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him > a big bonus. > > Our government should not be immune from similar risks. > > *Therefore:* > > Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members > to 218 members. > > Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). > > Then, reduce their staff by 25%. > > Accomplish this over the next 8 years(two steps/two elections) and > of course this would require some redistricting. > > Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include: > > * $44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress.. (267 members > X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.) > > * $97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million > in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per > each member of the Senate every year) > > * $240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%. > > * $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those > members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government > pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr) > > * The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve > efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together > for the good of our country! > > We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient > resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track > of what your representative is doing.. > > Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back > in 1911 when he current number of representatives was established. > (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few) > > *Note:* > > Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when > the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.. Also, we > have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past > 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting > full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & > congress. > > *** Summary of opportunity per YEAR: > > $44,108,400 reduction of congress members. > > $282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.<br/> > > $150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff. > > $59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members. > > > $37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members. > > > $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction > of congress members. > > $8,073,383,400 per year, > > estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!) > > That is hope and Change I can believe IN Big Time! > > Big business does these types of cuts all the time. If Congresspersons > were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in > order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a bundle. > > > Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.. IF you > are happy with how Congress spends our taxes keep on doing as we > are. > > I think it is time for real change. In the meantime, my observation > from all the wonderful charts provided by Mr. Fry suggest long term > down lines as reflected by the MACD charts on everything, including > commodities. > > Did you notice that Russia is about to default in a major way today?
Barron's Is Way Off Base Regarding Mark to Market [View article]
And what is the prevailing interesting rate in your thinking if not the present market price?
DUH
On Feb 18 09:50 AM bobreilly wrote:
> Market Value assumes a willing seller, among other factors. When > these loans are NOT for sale and will be held to maturity, the market > value should be ascertained by a combination of existing risk of > loss, prevailing interesting rate and other perinent factors. NOT > THE *PRICE* FROM A FORCED LIQUIDATION SALE! > > DUH!
Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets [View article]
Are u seeing a reverse head and shoulder for Rimm over the 22 MA or am I seeing things?
Tuesday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets [View article]
Thank you David for providing us with a tool that helps us see where we are.
Still Scratching My Head over Monsanto [View article]
This is in all evidece a case of the good far outweighing the bad.
What to Do in This Market? Just Stay Put for Now [View article]
On Jul 01 07:06 PM Jimbob wrote:
> Look at the chart above. A Head & Shoulders has just been created.
> Very bearish - look out below.
Tuesday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets [View article]
Soybeans' Price Gains Are Fertilizers' Loss [View article]
theaustralian.news.com...]
The Power of Gold [View article]
Unsurprisingly, Bailouts Breed Corruption [View article]
Low Gold Price a Buying Opportunity [View article]
Low Gold Price a Buying Opportunity [View article]
1100 Tonnes Now in the GLD Trust [View article]
On Mar 20 12:05 PM chazgil wrote:
> I just want to know where they are getting the gold from? COMEX deliveries
> are not increasing, central banks are not selling and China and Russia
> have stated that they are increasing their holdings. So where is
> the tons of gold coming from?
Friday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets [View article]
This is a splendid idea, now which are the senators or representatives that will have the cojones to put this to a vote in the senate and in the house.
On Mar 20 09:48 AM johnthebears wrote:
> When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems
> to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.. The remaining
> workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that
> their job would be eliminated as well.
>
> Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making
> this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him
> a big bonus.
>
> Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
>
> *Therefore:*
>
> Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members
> to 218 members.
>
> Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State).
>
> Then, reduce their staff by 25%.
>
> Accomplish this over the next 8 years(two steps/two elections) and
> of course this would require some redistricting.
>
> Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
>
> * $44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress.. (267 members
> X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)
>
> * $97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million
> in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per
> each member of the Senate every year)
>
> * $240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
>
> * $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those
> members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government
> pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr)
>
> * The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve
> efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together
> for the good of our country!
>
> We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient
> resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track
> of what your representative is doing..
>
> Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back
> in 1911 when he current number of representatives was established.
> (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
>
> *Note:*
>
> Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when
> the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.. Also, we
> have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past
> 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting
> full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators &
> congress.
>
> *** Summary of opportunity per YEAR:
>
> $44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
>
> $282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.<br/>
>
> $150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
>
> $59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
>
>
> $37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
>
>
> $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction
> of congress members.
>
> $8,073,383,400 per year,
>
> estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
>
> That is hope and Change I can believe IN Big Time!
>
> Big business does these types of cuts all the time. If Congresspersons
> were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in
> order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a bundle.
>
>
> Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.. IF you
> are happy with how Congress spends our taxes keep on doing as we
> are.
>
> I think it is time for real change. In the meantime, my observation
> from all the wonderful charts provided by Mr. Fry suggest long term
> down lines as reflected by the MACD charts on everything, including
> commodities.
>
> Did you notice that Russia is about to default in a major way today?
Is It Time to Abandon the U.S. Dollar and Go for Gold? [View article]
Rumors are that Italy may be already selling some of its Gold reservers.
Barron's Is Way Off Base Regarding Mark to Market [View article]
DUH
On Feb 18 09:50 AM bobreilly wrote:
> Market Value assumes a willing seller, among other factors. When
> these loans are NOT for sale and will be held to maturity, the market
> value should be ascertained by a combination of existing risk of
> loss, prevailing interesting rate and other perinent factors. NOT
> THE *PRICE* FROM A FORCED LIQUIDATION SALE!
>
> DUH!
Are Mining Stocks a Good Bet Again? [View article]