|
It is a brutal sport and Bas is particularly brutal and impressive. I don't think I would like to fight this way for a sport, only in a survival mode in real life. For sport, I prefer boxing with gloves or American football with a helmet.
Alpha male in a physical sense, but that is fairly low on the totem pole of economics.
|
|
|
|
I wonder if a decentralized fiat system can serve as a complementary form of money in the future.
In current fiat system money is created out of thin air, but only a few have the right to do it. What would be the decentralized version of it?
Nation-states. Been there, tried that. Ah you mean private fiats? The private banks writing fractional reserve receipts for gold in the 1800s. Been there, tried that. Many of us suggest we move to PoW decentralized crypto-currency, where in theory no one controls the debasement. My thesis is those who can't catch up with the Knowledge Age are going to join the 666 one world fiat that is coming. That will be a slavery, eugenics system, because by definition (see the "Rise of Knowledge" essay in the OP about the economics) it will be falling further and further behind economically, i.e. it will be inherently bankrupt, thus it must fund itself from the blood of its constituents. I noted years ago that 666 could be the number of man in that it is the approximate mean wavelength of red blood. Not that is causal evidence. Just saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adgx9wt63NYThe roof, the roof, the roof is on fire,
The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire,
The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire,
We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn,
Burn motherfucker burn.
So if man is five and the devil is six than that must make me seven,
This honkey's gone to heaven,
But if I go to hell then I hope I burn well,
I'll spend my days with J.F.K., Marvin Gaye, Martha Raye, and Lawrence Welk,
And Kurt Cobain, Kojak, Mark Twain and Jimi Hendrix's poltergeist,
And Webster yeah Emmanuel Lewis cause he's the anti-christ
But I can take the heat cause I'm the other white meat known as 'Kid Funky Fried',
Yeah I'm hung like planet Pluto hard to see with the naked eye,
But if I crashed into Uranus I would stick it where the sun don't shine,
Cause I'm kind of like Han Solo always stroking my own wookie,
I'm the root of all that's evil yeah but you can call me cookie
We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn,
Burn motherfucker burn Haha, joke. |
|
|
|
|
Nobody earns 1% on an investment that isn't usury. Investments have a high fail risk, thus no one attempts an investment with such low potential ROI, because the ROI has to compensate for the failure risk.
We need to end all this usury (bonds, banksters) crap. That precisely is the drag on the economy and the corruption of the Iron Law of Political Economics. I had explained upthread why guaranteed ROI is the antithesis of development, i.e. it is anti-development and megadeath directed. Evidence the coming global Sovereign Debt collapse. So just forget saving money in a bank with a fixed rate of ROI. That is part of the problem of society, not a solution to any thing.
Any way, holding a basket of stock invesments has always delivered much higher average ROI over the long-term. That is Warren Buffett's main point.
And yes humanity needs to transition to the Knowledge Age, because automation will replace all the other jobs. Evolution at work. Sorry.
I don't know what is the correct level of debasement. But I doubt it is 2 - 3%. It is probably 5+%, which btw is the historical level of debasement of the dollar. That will provide much funding for mining security. Also you assume the GDP growth rate drives the optimum rate, but it may be synergistic where the rate of debasement drives the GDP growth rate.
The key improvement of crypto-currency is that the debasement in theory doesn't end up in the hands of the banksters, which they can then use to capture the government.
Also I have an idea of how it doesn't end up in the hands of a few rich ASIC owners too. That is one of my altcoin design secrets.
|
|
|
|
Examine the game theory behind an individual's decision to buy an apple now or later if debasement is equal to growth:
If he chooses to buy an apple now he gets 1 apple.
If he waits and chooses to buy an apple next year he still gets 1 apple...
If he invests the money for a year and manages to match the rate of economic growth he gets 1.05 apples...
I am presenting logic for why currency debasement greater than the average aggregate growth rate is not optimal for it encourages excess spending/investment.
I don't think the game theory works that way in reality. Savings is power law distributed. Non-bond investors don't change their timing based on the ratio of debasement to average economic growth rate. They are targeting investments with much greater ROI, so that ratio is much less relevant than the timing of their investment. |
|
|
|
Blockchain as file storage is a fundamentally bad concept because it is incredibly expensive and the ledger provides a poor compromise between redundancy and cost.
Also it doesn't allow for decentralized competition, innovation, and diversity of offerings. Thus it is antifragile a.k.a. the antithesis of resiliency with incremental failure, i.e. fragile. The utility of the block chain is for decentralized consensus. You don't need consensus about which files you want to store in the cloud. It actually allows for an incredible amount of competition. You can store your data on Bitcoin, but you can also store it on Litecoin, Doge, etc. etc... If Bitcoin wants to shut out data storage, Doge can always pick up the slack and become coin #1 among the file storage community. Coins will finally have a sound platform for excelling against each other in the economic arena. Sorry but that is incorrect. To launch an altcoin and reach the level of mining that the network is secure is not a feat that happens very often. Your average entrepreneur can't launch that. As I said, the level of diversified competition will be greatly inhibited. |
|
|
|
Blockchain as file storage is a fundamentally bad concept because it is incredibly expensive and the ledger provides a poor compromise between redundancy and cost.
Also it doesn't allow for decentralized competition, innovation, and diversity of offerings. Thus it is antifragile a.k.a. the antithesis of resiliency with incremental failure, i.e. fragile. The utility of the block chain is for decentralized consensus. You don't need consensus about which files you want to store in the cloud. |
|
|
|
...
Whereas if you try to limit the debasement to 0, then the banksters will still make their loans and when the economy collapses because the interest payment can't be paid, then they get bailed out by the government, because otherwise no loans means the economy dies.
Also the "economy dying without loans" is an exaggeration, as crowd-funding is likely to replace the old coercive form of financing. I meant "because otherwise no loans means the economy dies" is the political justification for bailing the banks out. I wasn't saying it is the truth. Politics is almost never about the truth. |
|
|
|
|
Any way the entire discussion about debasement is irrelevant, because there will be competing crypto-currencies and the one that wins will be the one that the most users want to use as a currency and/or store-of-value.
I believe the winner be the one that most users want to use as a currency, because I believe even Bitcoin is a not a store-of-value, rather it is a speculation and also will be any altcoin that aspires to be more used as a currency.
So I think the 0% debasement debate is really delusional noise.
So that shows how having a delusional goldbug demographic causes Bitcoin to pitch features which are really irrelevant. Thus it shows that if you want to do something big with an altcoin, you need to change the demographic you are targeting.
And thus I think I will stop this discussion and focus on things which really matter.
|
|
|
|
The argument that purchasing power of money increases in the case of economic growth and zero debasement cannot be viewed so negatively as it works equally well for all participants. The economic growth in this case simply translates into higher standard of living instead of being eaten by debasement. In fact poor will enjoy the increasing purchasing power of money much more than the rich ever would, because it makes a bigger difference for them.
Your analysis is short-sighted. With 0% debasement, the rich can loan money at the rate of growth of the economy and parasite the economic growth from the masses in the form of interest payments. With higher levels of debasement, the banksters can't make a positive real (real = inflation adjusted) return whereas the nimble smaller entrepreneur or investor can generate ROI that exceeds the broad level of economic growth and can thus make real gains. The point of higher debasement is it rewards hands-on knowledge and penalizes parasitic usury. But in the case of zero debasement, economic grows does not translate into increasing monetary base, that in turn prevents getting interest on the loans.  There is no real economic growth now for example in Europe, yet the banks and bond holders still collect interest payments. Perhaps your point is that in a debt-based economy where all activity is debt-financed then to pay compounded interest, the supply of money must also have compounded growth. While that is true, then lender makes no inflation-adjusted gains. And if the debasement is decentralized in crypto-currency, then the banksters in theory can't capture it as they do now. Whereas if you try to limit the debasement to 0, then the banksters will still make their loans and when the economy collapses because the interest payment can't be paid, then they get bailed out by the government, because otherwise no loans means the economy dies. |
|
|
|
youve completely missed the point i was making. all i said is that the times are similar in terms of we are as society hit the fork on the road again. living in capitalist world we feel that it outlived itself, just like monarchy did before. so today seems similar as we are brainstorming of future just like early marksists once did. got it?
I apologize. I don't know how I so utterly failed to read your post. I must very exhausted. |
|
|
|
If he works for 40 years before becoming disabled but lives an addition 20 years before succumbing it is easy to calculate how much he will need to save to provide for himself in his "golden" years. He needs to save exactly 33% of his salary for 40 years if he wants to maintain the same level of purchasing power for a 20 year “retirement”.
Now lets add debasement to this world and make it worse by adding a despotic government and a forced transition to fiat currency. If the new government debases the money supply by 5% a year but otherwise does nothing productive the economic situation deteriorates markedly for our poor worker. Even if he is one of the lucky ones and manages to captures some of that government spending (say enough keep his income in line with inflation). He will find it quite difficult to maintain his lifestyle once he no longer works. Our worker would need to double his savings rate to 66% each year if he expects to live 20 years post retirement and maintain equal purchasing power throughout his life. Other workers, those unable to capture any government spending do much worse.
The reality of the human condition dictates that we all face a potentially prolonged period at the end of our lives when we are incapable of productive work and must consume previously stored savings to survive. It is this fundamental human condition that limits how much debasement can be tolerated and why we start to fear and oppose debasement as we age.
That is why he needs to plant some children (if he can't earn enough to be wealthy enough). Sorry but math and government planning can't replace a strong family. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/01/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown/The equilibrium point between these competing inefficiencies is a debasement rate that equals the rate of economic growth.
"The rate of economic growth" does not exist. There is no way to calculate it. It is a relative thing that varies for each person and each weighting basket. Money is claims on real capital. If claims on real capital are withheld from the market when money is stored rather than invested/spent, then some real capital has been delayed. If that delay was wise, then society benefits, but if it was mistaken then society suffers. But no one can know a priori (in advance) the outcome of decision to delay. If long term isthe debasement exceeds the rate of economic growth it will introduce inefficiencies into economic decision making. Claims on real capital that optimally should have been delayed will instead be invested/spent. There is no one level where that happens in all cases. It is ladder. The higher you climb, the more higher ROI activities get prioritized and lower ROI get discouraged, but indiscriminate spending also has some effects which are not all positive. I would need to think about how to model this mathematically. |
|
|
|
The argument that purchasing power of money increases in the case of economic growth and zero debasement cannot be viewed so negatively as it works equally well for all participants. The economic growth in this case simply translates into higher standard of living instead of being eaten by debasement. In fact poor will enjoy the increasing purchasing power of money much more than the rich ever would, because it makes a bigger difference for them.
Your analysis is short-sighted. With 0% debasement, the rich can loan money at the rate of growth of the economy and parasite the economic growth from the masses in the form of interest payments. With higher levels of debasement, the banksters can't make a positive real (real = inflation adjusted) return whereas the nimble, smaller-capitalized entrepreneur or investor can generate ROI that exceeds the broad level of economic growth and can thus make real gains. The point of higher debasement is it rewards hands-on knowledge and penalizes parasitic usury. |
|
|
|
The Euro In Free-Fallhttp://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/07/politically-correct-analysis-the-lack-of-freedom-to-analyze/Not being allowed to say Greece will be forced to leave the Euroland, which is basic economic analysis is outrageous. The big firms will not allow their analysts to even utter such words for fear they will piss-off Brussels. That will of course not prevent Greece from leaving or the Euro from collapsing.
The Euro is Dead. Normally you would say long-live the dollar. But that too will have its day soon. For now, the dollar will rise and create such vertigo, we need this move to create the economic chaos the other side of 2015.75. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/07/the-euro-in-free-fall/ | The Euro elected the Yearly Bearish Reversal at the 12150 area and it has penetrated the 2010 low so far of 11880 intraday reaching so far 11801. The key support lies at a set of DOUBLE WEEKLY BEARISH REVERSALS found at 11778. If we elect that this year, the Euro will fall most likely BELOW par to the 103 area. We do have Weekly Bearish Reversals at 11850 and 11640. A weekly closing below 11640 will be devastating.
This is all part of the game at foot. I have warned the dollar had to rise and this will TURN DOWN the US economy later this year. Welcome the return of volatility. The banks may be able to trade proprietary again as they technically establish internal hedge funds for their own money, yet the real problem is emerging the lack of liquidity. You can raise heaps of cash these days. But the markets are returning to their infancy – lack of participants leading to more and more illiquidity, which translates into higher volatility. Now only a weekly closing back above the 12510 area will suspend the free fall temporarily. |
|
|
|
|
Sometimes Armstrong writes blog posts which basically say exactly what I would say. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/07/the-fools-game/The Fool’s Game
Only a fool tries to claim they are right even when the market moves against them. There can be no wrong or right for the market always wins. Blame is a fool’s game. I love these people who try so desperately to show I am wrong on some move so they can justify being wrong all the time in their view. These are people who will die penniless for they cannot see the big picture and have no interest in reforming their view – exactly like politicians. They will defend their belief to the death and consider no possibility of error.
Those terrorists who blow themselves up expecting 73 virgins are weak-minded individuals who have been sold a belief they want to believe. They want to believe in something so bad because they have nothing else in life. This is a human condition that afflicts so many in markets as well. No matter what you show them, they are MARRIED to an idea and will never change and attack anyone who says they are wrong. That is just the fate of so many people within society regardless of what the concept might be.
Unfortunately, this is why they become the masses who must be slaughtered to create the panic. There are three key groups:
The common people who act based upon what they experience
The self-anointed “sophisticated” participant who marries an idea
The “professional” who follows traditional analysis because that is what they were told
Then there is the enlightened group, which stands-back and observes, willing to change and go with the flow. If you look at politics, presidential election show this group who swing back and forth and are their own objective mind fluctuates between 5% to 13% since no president has ever captured more than about 63% of the popular vote. Effectively, about 45% are democrat and 45% are republican and no matter what you say to show them they are wrong is simply rejected and will never be considered. They are married to a concept and that ends all discussion or debate.
Hence, you are correct. People who want to immediately blame someone are just fools for they are incapable of ever growing into an enlightened mind. They will remain stagnant captured by a belief they cannot and will not ever consider is just wrong. The world is wrong – never them. |
|
|
|
this idea of knowledge age reminds me of the mid 19th century times when most educated classes came to conclusion that monarchy has completely outdated itself and new system is needed
It is quite exasperating for me that most readers commit a category error every time they attempt any form of logical analysis. Or at least it appears that way to me since it is extremely rare that a reader posts something that demonstrates they comprehend my writings. I would at least love to see someone argue on point, rather than arguments that don't even address the specific points I've made in my writings. We have the repeating examples in history of paradigm shifts in technology creating technological shifts in employment and massive unemployment initially, e.g. the Luddites in the First Industrial Revolution and the massive unemployment that lead to World War 1 and 2 caused by Second Industrial Revolution. Those were preceded by the First Agricultural Revolution then the Second. We've already had the First Computer Revolution which has shifted jobs from the West to the call and BPO centers in the developing world. Next comes the Second Computer Revolution which will automate most existing jobs. Even Oxford University did a research paper predicting 47% of existing jobs will be replaced by automation before 2033. Even we have the clear analysis in the "Rise of Knowledge" essay (find link in the OP) I wrote in 2010 or 2011, which clearly explains why finance can not finance non-fungible knowledge production, whereas it could finance menial labor and fixed capital infrastructure for factories. I wrote another essay in 2013 to reinforce the points in the "Rise of Knowledge": http://unheresy.com/Information Is Alive.htmlAll of that and you compare it to some idea about changing monarchy  I can lead a horse to water in the desert, but I can't teach it to drink if it is that discombobulated. Apologies perhaps I should be more sympathetic. If we had a white board and classroom setting where I could interact with you, we could more efficiently explain all the ideas that are in my writings. I think people have a difficult time with reading comprehension. They respond better in a verbal, interactive setting. |
|
|
|
This is really narscistic, but Eric S. Raymond has an interesting blog going and since I was describing my background upthread and we were also contrasting other goldbug analysts, I will post this here, for lack of a better place to post it, in case Eric doesn't approve my comment. This is relevant to the thread topic, because nerd-like skills may be what is in demand in the new economy. How do we explain the nonstandard nerd?http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6617&cpage=1#comment-1386145My mother says I was the only child she knew of that disassembled my toys. I had this photo of me in diapers with a hammer in one hand, and the "put the shapes in the matching shaped hole" toy in the other. I remember alternating playing with arithmetic in my head (i.e. analytical) and doing telepathy with UFOs (i.e. imagination and creativity) while laying down in bed for the evening. Yet I was also getting bloody noses daily from playing tackle football from age 5. I was so dexterous I could rarely be tackled. I remember entertaining random adults in conversation in the park or other public venues from this age. I remember a photo me dancing and singing with great enthusiasm and apparently talent. For example, I could emulate the jazz instruments faithfully with my mouth. I remember during Mardi Gras I could sprint through the crowds at full speed dodging everyone and being quicker in scrappling the black kids for doubloons. In high school I was top athlete in Cross Country and Track & Field, winning for example junior varsity league champion in 10th grade with a time of 16:40 for 3 miles, which was only my first year to take up long distance running. I am undersized at 5'7" and 49 years old. I remember at age 5 helping my father design the construction of a wooden platform for the bed he put in the back of his VW bus (which he built to leave us and go live in Belize). Even while I was coding million user software, I would alternate with athletics and extrovert activities. I was also a natural leader in both the work place and athletics.
I found that when I followed my mental curiosity I would get totally consumed in it and lose awareness and concern for the outside world. I spent an entire summer in the basement building an elaborate train world. I lost my high school girl friend in the summer after graduation, because my friend had an Apple II and I discovered programming for the first time. Lately I bathe bimonthly, yet this doesn't seem to affect the attraction women have for me.
I think people maximize the talents they have. Some nerds may be deficient in either sociably appreciated talents and or lacking the confidence that they have such talents, and thus they may become consumed by the mental talents which they have. For example I am not nearly as comfortable with written expression as I am with verbal or physical activity. Yet my reading comprehension is very high, and my programming is accurate and debugged. I briefly flirted with spelling bees in early elementary and did well afair, but I seemed to lose interest in it as I prioritized my analytical, abstractions, and athletics talents. Also I loathe memorizing pedantic details, thus I am less erudite than others. I prefer to load up the details for something that is interesting to me at the moment and analyze it. Then I tend to forget all but the most generative essence. Oh and I recognized early on that other kids in the neighborhood were better at Rubik's cube, board games, and even memorizing sequenced tones (sequential patterns) than I am. It seems I want to parallelize my thought processes, even my patience or attention to detail in writing suffers because I tend to write the end of the sentence at the same time as I write the start. I prefer verbal because I can hear what I am thinking instantly versus this slow process of typing out what I am thinking. I think this is why I like programming, because most of the effort is thinking out the relationships then the coding is very succinct. |
|
|
|
If money and ownership would be abolished...
...there would be no exchange, i.e. no economy and thus no production. We would all starve to death. You don't understand the critical importance of fungibility and the maximum-division-of-labor. In short, you don't comprehend economics. |
|
|
|
Armstrong's myopia is that he wants to blame everything on government and not look at the holistic synergies between for example the centralized control over the debasement of money and the Iron Law of Political Economics. Thus Armstrong is blinded to the breakthrough in the relationship between the people and the State provided by the solution to the Byzantine's Generals Dilemma that Satoshi's Proof-of-Work provides! That is why I emphasize that the key improvement in money (as a unit-of-exchange) provided by crypto-currency is the not the elimination of debasement, but rather that the debasement can't be centrally captured! What Bitcoin's marketing and design as a better gold did was to take what is most innovative about the invention (i.e. the decentralization of control) and direct it away from unit-of-exchange towards a store-of-value, thus potentially obviating its breakthrough in terms of benefits for the people versus the State. We all know something is wrong. It has nothing to do with what is money. It is all about fiscal mismanagement.
(1) Gold declined from 1980 into 1999 and all these fundamental stories were still there. (2) Gold rose into 1980 without backwardation.(3) We had a Gold Standard under Bretton Woods in 1945 and it collapsed in 1971 precisely in 26 years as always! It was the fiscal mismanagement and the fact money was backed by gold then meant absolutely nothing. Also I am doubting Armstrong's claim that gold doesn't track inflation. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/06/commodities-trade-differently-always-have/Gold is the worst investment from a inflationary standpoint if you expect it to track inflation for it does not and will not. From this perspective compare it to the Dow that rose from 1,000 to nearly 17,000 since 1980. You would have made far more money in stocks than gold. Nonetheless, Gold will rally sharply in a burst and catch up to some extent. It is a matter of time – not if. That is true of all commodities. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/06/gold-the-real-breakout/Gold indeed is not linear so it will not track inflation because it is a commodity. This results in bursts of price movement that amounts to catch-ups that get everyone excited assuming it will last forever and it never does as is the case with any commodity. We ran these charts to demonstrate that gold was in a bear market and that it was really declining in a basket of currencies in the 1980s and early 1990s. It depends how we define the term "inflation", because the definition Armstrong is using is ambiguous: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16212.htmlNote that a reduction in purchasing power is the same effect as holding a negative real interest rate asset during price inflation. Thus, we can conclude mathematically that prices do not have to rise, to get the effect of price inflation on the private sector. And thus we know the reason why gold is a hedge against negative real interest rates (click to see very compelling chart!), and not a hedge against inflation or deflation (which this article proves are ambiguous)...  |
|
|
|
Should we wind up in a hard gold backwardation...
And now for the real story: http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/03/06/gold-backwardation-the-real-story/It was writings of this significance that cemented my respect for Armstrong. Btw, in debate in private email, I found flaws in Antal's logic. He like Hommel had some interesting ideas, but seems to not be as grounded as Armstrong. Then gold vanishes in the 7th century and does not appear again until the 13th century. The Spanish discovery of America brought back so much gold and silver, Europe went into a major inflationary period and the two metals declined with inflation insofar as purchasing power was concerned. Hence, comments that claim the price of gold does not decline, no matter how much of the stuff is produced, is just not true.
...
Now let’s talk reality. The Gold backwardation is simply nothing more than the collapse in interest rates as capital lost faith in banks and then the Sovereign Debt Crisis began with Greece in 2010. Much of the liquidity that came to gold in the early years was OPEC money. It had absolutely nothing to do with gold. The problem was OPEC was getting all this cash, but religiously they could not earn interest. Thus, I took clients and showed them if we bought gold and sold it forward we were earning the effective interest rate but it was called the “carrying cost”. Backwardation in this case is not indicative of any shortage whatsoever or a collapse in “trust” of the dollar. The dollar has been rising! Just look at German interest rates on short-term paper went negative by 0.6%. This has NOTHING to do with fiat and people losing faith in paper money –yada, yada, yada. If that were true, interest rates would not COLLAPSE, they would SOAR because people would not trust government bonds and they would have to pay up. The flight to quality would reverse into PRIVATE assets as it did even during the German Hyperinflation.
Backwardation in gold is a money issue and it is simply the yield curve – nothing more. It has gone negative just as US government T-Bills went negative. If the “carrying cost” of gold was 500% higher than the 90 day paper interest rates, then you have a guaranteed trade by selling the forward and collecting that premium over the 90 day rate. Professionals arbitraged that and thus the “carrying cost” must collapse to be even with interest rates or there would be a endless guaranteed trade.
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The stories posted are astonishing. If they were remotely true, then you would see the same trend emerge everywhere and interest rates would rise if people did not “trust” paper dollars and government debt. There are many people pontificating nonsense that is just gibberish. This sophistry is getting people to buy gold for the wrong reason and risks only their sale when they figure out the story is just bullshit.
Buy gold because it is an INSURANCE policy against the transition. It is distinguished because it is MOVABLE, from classes such as real estate that are IMMOVABLE. The problem emerging with gold is government is out to track every ounce and tax any sale. They are trying to eradicate the underground economy. That does not mean they will succeed. It also means they will try. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/24/gold-perpetual-propaganda/Gold is not in permanent backwardation. You obviously never heard of carrying costs that are related to the interest rate. Nothing is EVER permanent. Stop the idiotic explanations. You cannot point to a single relationship in history that is ever permanent except stupidity. Just like the propaganda that silver is suppress and it will soar to 16:1 because that is where it use to be. Good one.
“Isn’t the Comex just a price suppression scheme as the volume is usually 50% to 100% of open interest?” That is up there with communism. We just answered that in the Swiss press that published the Socialists who claim that commodities are higher than they should be because of speculation and therefore all futures markets should be closed to eliminate speculation. This is the pinnacle of pure stupidity. Every study shows that markets reduce volatility and the price of a commodity is stabilized by creating a market. If there was no COMEX, the price of gold would be far less because you could not sell it without a market. I was a market-maker. All the stores buying gold would not have existed if they could not have sold what the bought from the public, someone refined that jewelry, and then resold it into COMEX. If you want no markets, I will be be glad to send you a Karl Marx TShirt I suggest you wear.
Isn’t the Comex Gold inventory likely make believe? The COMEX is not the only warehouse. Inventories are routinely manipulated to get people to buy or sell. They shipped silver to London for the Buffet Rally. Everyone rushed out to buy saying there was a shortage because it was moved to London where it was not reported. Again, if you are so desperate to cling to things like this to say you are right and the entire free markets are wrong, good luck. Governments cannot even manipulate what you claim can be done.
Are you trying to survive and make money? Or are you just spreading propaganda that is created by gold promoters to get people into a zealot state that they will continue to buy even when they lose money? Gold is a market and it rises and falls like everything else. It is trading NO DIFFERENT from the rest of the commodity sector. Everything is linked and everything has its cycle and time. Why should gold rally when the MAJORITY of people see nothing wrong? Until the majority of people question government, which is coming, then and only then will gold rally on a sustainable basis. It did not even exceed the 1980 high adjusted with the bogus CPI numbers that stand at $2300 today. When gold exceeds that number – THEN AND ONLY THEN is real bull market underway. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
