Linc

Fool's Gold (Part 2)

It's a little misleading that you write about how gold bugs talk about gold as if it's indexed to inflation when it's not, but at the same time you write about how gold has gone up 4x while ignoring inflation. If an investor's primary concern is return as measured by increase in purchasing power I'd think gold's rise has been much more muted than 4x would indicate due, of course, to inflation. I actually agree with your position on gold overall but I just thought I'd point out that the "run up" has not been nearly as pronounced as nominal prices would indicate.

The Reagan Counterrevolution

You've put it quite well. It saddens me that people who believe in a free market are viewed as heartless industrialists that wish to trample the poor and the weak in their quest for prosperity. In fact, I believe in a free market - I believe that it is the best path to prosperity for ALL people and our country.


On Nov 09 06:28 PM Ruven77 wrote:

> What is more alarming than Schiff's correct analysis is the fact
> that so many of you who bother to read this kind of thing not only
> don't agree with it but. as is the habit of the left, rather than
> debate or refute the pertinent issues would rather trash the icons
> of the opposing side whether it is Sarah Palin or Ronald Reagan.
>
>
> Who is John Galt?
>
> I get little satisfaction knowing that your world will tumble around
> you when you manage to finally have your way. One of the great tragedies
> is that those of us who would be content to continue to work and
> save, building a future for ourselves and our families and the greater
> good that our 'selfishness' would contribute to, will suffer as well.
>
>
> I have told both my two college age children that they should not
> necessarily expect to live out their lives in U.S., that they do
> not owe it to the commonweal to allow themselves to be enslaved to
> the collective. These days, however, there are few places left for
> the well meaning individualist to escape to and most of us still
> love the country of our birth in spite of the perverted cripple that
> creeping multiculturalism and despotic socialism has turned it into.
> We would rather not leave but whether my children move to Shanghai
> as Rodgers advises, take a job with some roving foreign multi-national
> or fall into poverty with the rest of the 'prols' you are unlikely
> to get any more productivity out of them than did Stalin, Mao or
> Pol Pot. They too thought the rank and file would eventually fall
> into line either out of fear or lethargy.
>
> I remind you who cheer on the coming 'where's-mine-ism' that The
> American Revolution was fought under the chant of 'No taxation without
> representation' and that every Chinese regime in history was overthrown
> because it repressed and starved its populous. You think this is
> a revolution? You haven't seen a revolution until people who would
> rather be working than fighting decide it's time to fight.

The Reagan Counterrevolution

User 294358,

You're imagining Mr. Schiff has certain opinions and views that he actually doesn't. You've read quite a bit between the lines in his latest post here... and you're projecting your impotent anger on to it. Just because someone is interested in protecting their wealth doesn't mean that they don't care about the country, support corruption, etc. etc.

Mr. Schiff is interested in true economic prosperity for our country and believes that current government policies are misguided and counter-productive. I know this because I've read one of his books. He's really quite sane and makes his points persuasively. If you disagree with this views that's up to you but please keep your childish lashing out to yourself.

On Nov 09 08:27 AM User 294358 wrote:

> So... still... the only important thing in all of this is your "portfolio"?
> And you'll still support anything that boosts your portfolio no matter
> what it does to the rest of the country? And you'll oppose anything
> that levels the playing field between Wall Street parasites who make
> their living sucking the life's blood of this country and producing
> nothing while the people who actually work for a living go without
> basic necessities in order not to adversely affect your "portfolio"?
>
>
> Is there anything... anything at all... that might take precedence
> over a slight reduction in the amount of wealth in your "portfolio"?
> Are you truly so greedy... so selfish... that you would outsource
> the wealth of this country to one of those with "freer" economies
> (Communist China I presume) if any attempt were made to lower the
> gap between your "portfolio and my dinner table and reogn in the
> stupidity that brought us the current debacle in which you and your
> ilk remain bulletproof while we working stiffs take the hit for your
> stupidity and greed?
>
> Excuse me again, but isn't outsourcing most of the decent jobs and
> much of the investment in this country something you've already been
> doing for a while now?
>
> Of course I've gone on way too long but attitudes like yours, based
> on maintaining the Wall Street stranglehold on the wealth of this
> country was most likely the main reason Obama was elected in the
> first place. Just what the hell do you accomplish by threatening
> to take your little marbles and go somewhere else to play if he doesn't
> continue the exact same policies that brought us the biggest financial
> meltdown since 1929?
>

Banning Shorts Works in Fancy Restaurants, Not the Marketplace

The Vet: People and institutions can be bullish on stocks they buy but don't "pay" for. It's called using margin. People borrow money to buy stocks just as they borrow stocks to sell them for money.

Banning short selling is not only inconsistent, but it will extend irrational bubbles and make the resulting crashes that much worse - both on the level of individual stocks and indices.

Any true investor is all for short selling as it leads to more honest prices. Only someone who doesn't know what they own or would sacrifice long-term value for short term gain would want to get rid of short selling.

Naked shorting is another story though...

The New Energy Cold War: The Warsaw-Tehran Connection

jjason: While I agree with the thrust of this article, I'm disturbed by the nonsense you are propagating concerning oil speculation.

I don't know how many times economists have to work it out for people. You see prices going up and speculators making money and you are unable to conceive of any other relationship between the two other than that one must cause the other.

Speculators, in fact, serve a purpose. They take the risk of holding oil that producers do not want to take and that consumers cannot yet use. They allow producers to hedge their risk of changing oil prices.

Who knows what will happen tomorrow? Companies that produce oil do not want to be at the whim of geopolitics so they contract with speculators at market prices based upon what is currently known. If a giant new oil field is discovered tomorrow they are protected from the resulting oil price collapse while the speculator loses. If they did not have this protection then some of the smaller producers might go out of business in tough times, lowering the production of oil, and, wait for it, raising the price.

Ultimately, prices are going up because supply is more limited than consumers would like (and because we're inflating our money supply, but I digress). If you are accusing speculators of hoarding oil, I would ask you why the producers themselves don't hoard it if it's so easy to make money doing so.

Macro Trends Spell Doom for Banks and Their Profits

User 251091: Do some due diligence on the numbers you are using in your appraisal. GDP and inflation are understated just as employment is overstated. Consider that the government has revised the formula for these figures many times in the past 20 years - always leading to better numbers, never worse ones.