bowman711

Will the Loonie Join the Party?

With the blind intent to force a new election in November, I'd say it is the Canadian Liberal Party that is putting a damper on the Canadian dollar. Even if the Liberals don't win the election, just the uncertainty that they MIGHT win is enough to scare anybody who remembers what they did to the Canadian dollar when they were last in powr.

Sell Off Ahead? 25 Ways to Profit and Protect from a Stock Market Correction

Is it possible that this over extended market rally is being kept alive by the 'bailout' money . . . that isn't being lent to businesses and consumers?

More on Gold Manipulation

Aren't all financial markets at least partially manipulated for the benefit of the super-insiders? I read the other day that as much as 20% of all stock market trading is done by Goldman Sachs . . for the ultimate benefit of a few insiders. [I have not idea if it is true or not.] Isn't there something know as the 'Plunge Protection' team? If so, wouldn't that also be manipulation of the markets?

One would do well to forget trying to get 'justice' for the manipulators and put that energy and intelligence into spotting the manipulation early for your own financial benefit?

Administration Stands Firm on Auto Dealers

I can see how closing some GM-owned dealerships could result in savings for the company, but can anyone explain how fewer independent dealerships results in MORE sales or even savings to GM?

Also, since the U.S. government is now the majority owner of GM, isn't the forced closing of dealerships synonomous with the (government) taking of property without just compensation? I thought the U.S. Constitution had something to say about that.

Muted Energy Forecasts for 2009, 2010

In the short term, anything can happen to the price of oil - e.g. a further sinking into recession would surely cause the price to go lower. A significant political or military event - such as an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program - would certainly cause a sharp spike in price.

Long term, there seems to be nothing but higher - much higher - prices:
1.) The massive inflation of the money supply, when the economy starts to recover, will surely cause higher than normal inflation in all commodities.
2.) When the economy starts to recover, there will be an investment rush into commodities as manufacturing firms begin to replenish their supply of raw materials - such as oil for plastics.
3) A recovering economy will need oil for fuel to transport commodites to manufacturers, and products to consumers.
4.) Numbers 2 and 3 will be magnified by the growth in the China, India, Brazil, and other 'new' economies competing for limited raw materials.
5.) The low prices of oil for however long it takes for a recovery will sideline exploration and development of oil, so when the economies recover, there will be a reduced supply for a world clammering for energy to produce products and bring them to market. Economic shortage means higher prices to deal with the demand.
6.) Consumers will have put off travel during the hard times, so they will have a pent up 'demand' for travel (or just taking a Sunday afternoon drive), further increasing the demand for gasoline.

Traders can play the short term changes in price; long-term investors can hardly have a better investment than oil and commodities. [The only 'wild card' is if the Obama administration can succeed in destroying enough profit-motivated business to cause businesses to decide to not continue to produce consumer goods because the profit is taxed or regulated away.]

How $30/Barrel Oil Could Save the World

Michael, I have heard you virtually every week on Michael Campbell's program for years, and I think this is about the most stupid assertion I've ever heard you utter.

When, in the history of history, has a government controlled program produced a better result than the laws of economics?

Wasn't it price controls in the seventies that had us sitting long lines to buy a few gallons of gasoline? At the time, I was in the Coast Guard and had to make a long move; we didn't dare let out gas tank get below half lest we could not find another filling station that even had gasoline.

If $30/barrel oil would be good, wouldn't $10/barrel be even better?

Simple economics will not let the price of oil go below the cost of production, plus profit, for very long periods. A government forcing a lower price, below the cost of production, plus profit would simply shut down exploration . . . and even production from wells (or oil sands) with a higher cost, PLUS PROFIT.

I think you need to drive over to UBC (Univ. of British Columbia) and see if you can audit their Economic 101 class next semester. I am not educated in political science, but it looks to me like you could use a few courses in political science as well, considering your statements on the Middle East.

Hidden Risk for Canadian Oil Sands: Environmentalism

Although the so-called environmentalist would have you think otherwise - that the oil sands companies just pillage the land and go on - the major oil sands companies are taking the environment quite seriously and spending significantly to restore the land once they move on.

None of the major 'environmental' organizations - with the exception of The Nature Conservancy - are interested at all in the environment anyway; all they want is the destruction of capitalist economies.

GM Says It Straight and Simple: Shares Are Going to Zero

I once had a stock whose balance sheet showed between $5 and $6 of assets for every $1.00 in debts . . . when it declared bankruptcy. I thought surely that should be safe. By the time they finished liquidating, the stock, it was worthless - a total loss. I doubt that GM's balance sheet looks even as good as this company's, so I wouldn't count on getting anything if I owned any GM. [The last time I owned GM stock (and my first job out of high school was in the GM world headquarters so I am kind of partial to GM) I sold for a good gain somewhere in the $36 range.]

Predicting the Next Great Bubble

Why would 'global warming' hurt the food supply? Can't farmers farther north grow enough food to replace any that is lost further south due to higher summer temperatures?

It seems to me that what might be bad for the farmers in the southern U.S. should be great for the vast farms and ranches in Canada.

Is the Correction in Gold and Silver Over or Just Beginning?

I hope you are right. I bought $15 (in the money) puts yesterday morning to cover all my SLV holdings.

To Larry house - you don't need to trade in and out, but you can hedge with options to (hopefully) profit from the ups and down in your precious metals holdings. I suppose I could have sold calls, but then you run the risk of some world calamity happening, gold and silver shooting way up . . . and having to sell your holdings way below their then value. [With puts, all one would lose is what you paid for them, in my case, $1.65/share.]

Will a 'Silver Bullet' Finally Kill the Metal Manipulators?

Is 'Hedge Fund King" John Paulson, who I believe I read has bought nearly 10% of GLD very uninformed, or is he part of the manipulator group? Or, something else?

A (Popular) ETF Down 97%?

FAZ could be viewed as akin to purchasing an insurance policy. You pay a few hundred or thousand dollars every year for your house insurance, and 'lose' your 'investment' every year. Likewise, with FAZ; If there is no crash in financial stocks, a small loss could be considered as insurance while the majority of your stocks are going up. But, if there is another crash, especially if it goes lower that the previous low (i.e. that if this current rally ends like its counterpart rally after the 1929 crash), it will certainly help to offset any losses that you suffer in the majority of your portfolio.

Why Gold ETFs Trump Gold Bullion

"Jeremy Siegel’s database shows that $1 invested in gold in 1800 was worth $0.98 in 2000 when adjusted for inflation."

This statement is meaningless unless it is compared to something. How much was $1.00 invested in the 'DOW or 'S&P500" in 1800 be worth 200 years later?

chux08 said: "I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!! A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT GOLD DOES. IT HOLDS A STEADY PRICE FOR 200 YEARS AND THIS IS BAD???????"

If the $.98 in 2000 is in current dollars, and the $1.00 in 1800 is in those dollars, then it says that the actual value of gold dropped at a slightly greater rate than the $1.00 during those 200 years.

The only way this statement can mean something would be if it is compared to some product or other commodity. How much of a barrel of oil would $1.00 worth of gold buy in 1800, and how much oil would it buy today. That is a valid comparison.

Gold Cannot Be Inflationary, But the Dollar Sure Can

Auto44, I am not sure how you are thinking when you say 'WHERE DID THOSE DOLLARS GO? THEY ARE STILL SOMEWHERE. THE PRINTING PRESSES ARE ADDING TO THAT.'

If I have 100 shares of stock i bought at $50/share ($5,000), and the stock drops to $30/share, ($3,000), there is $2,000 that has gone noplace; it is no more. You say it is still 'somewhere?' Where? From what I have seen, the government isn't printing money anywhere near fast enough to compensate for the 'dollars' lost just in real estate and the stock market, not to mention retail stores closing, auto company losses, etc.

If, as you say, the money is someplace, it would have to be that for every dollar stockholders and real estate owners have lost, there is someone else who has 'gotten' those dollars and is getting fabulously wealthy. I don't see any evidence of that happening. Some people may be getting wealthy shorting stock, but not nearly as many as who've gotten poorer as their portfolio has gone down in value.

Gold Cannot Be Inflationary, But the Dollar Sure Can

I don't know how many dollars of wealth have been lost - have vanished - in the meltdown of real estate and the decline in the stock markets, but I am sure that it is far more than the 'dollars' printed by governments to counter this loss of wealth and to try to get the economy moving again. It would seem that if $10-trillion of wealtlh has been lost, and the government prints $5-trillion in new dollars that the net effect would still be deflationary, not inflationary; just half as deflationary compared to if no new money was printed.

If so, that would explain why gold is not already skyrocketing like the chart in this article. It won't be until the real estate market recovers and the stock market is in a new bull market, and passes the difference between the dollars lost in the meltdown and the new money printed, that gold will start to skyrocket. [But then, couldn't the government begin to contract the money supply to keep gold at a steady level? I doubt they would contract the money supply - they need inflation to 'pay' for the money governments have borrowed - but it is within the realm of possibility.]