Saturday, September 24, 2011

Gold and Silver


It is September 24th 2011 and something happened in the markets this week that caused gold and silver to drop. In two days gold dropped 9.3% the most since 1983. Has growth slowed? Have the markets been manipulated? Why are stocks dropping as well? I don’t know the answers to this but want to find out. Understanding this market will help make sense of when these dips happen and when I can take advantage of them.
There was a sell off and Jim Rogers said in a interview that Brazil started a trade war that put on big tariffs. http://www.youtube.com/user/JimRogersChannel  How does a trade war bring down gold and silver? Well, it is apparent that Brazil hit China with 30% tariffs which is causing some markets to stumble and bring down the prices of commodities and stocks. People are panicking because of this and are moving into the dollar and selling off their metals. The sell off was similar in 2008 when Lehman Brothers collapsed.
What is interesting about this dip is that gold is usually the safe haven when the markets collapse and this time money is moving into the dollar and frank. Again I ask why? Investors must feel that the dollar will help them in the short term until the dip in commodities and stocks subsides. Cash is king these days and it shows on the books of many companies and investors.
Bob Chapman http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSchiffReport has some good insight on this recent dip. He remembers what happened in 1987 when they had a similar dip and feels there is some manipulation and he sticks to his prediction of gold hitting $3,000 by February. It still doesn’t give me the answer of why the dip happens when the stock markets also dip.
The Federal Reserve has also made some announcements that have hurt the market. It seems as though every time Bernanke gives an announcement the markets do something crazy. Maybe that is a good indicator that people do not trust what the Fed is doing. Maybe that is also the reason that Ron Paul is making ground with his popularity. At least this time Bernanke said that the Fed has a grim outlook on the economy in the near future and markets need to be cautious. They have changed tune as to outlooks and the markets have adjusted to this with gold and silver following the downward trend. Still, why did gold and silver go down with this outlook and announcement?
Gold has been hit by global liquidity and when the global liquidity contracts it hurts the prices of commodities. This is the theory from Marc Faber http://www.youtube.com/user/DoomBoomGloom and the most believable heard this morning. Asset prices are down and gold and silver are just adjusting not dropping back to the levels before the crisis of 2008 when they started to rise and will continue to for the next few years.
This is a good time to watch and learn from the markets and what I want is not repeat some the same mistakes of the past. We have not learned from mistakes as this crisis has shown. Some of the most influential and supposedly intelligent experts have been wrong and now like to write their theory of what happened but never made an effort (with the exception of a few) speak when markets needed it the most. Therefore we have this market move where gold and silver have made a correction because of manipulation I can’t explain other than that I know it is manipulation. The tone about gold with some of the mainstream sites and channels are “told you soish” about commodities but their bonds they are paid to promote will crumble like no other soon. That is my prediction.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Debate Tonight

Another GOP debate and all I see in the press is the showdown between Romney and Perry.  Is that the case or is the press pushing for this?  It is a Fox debate and that is who they want.  Fox is not as fair and balanced as they proclaim. 
The funny thing is that some polls show Paul as the leader.  Such as California http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-17/politics/california.straw.poll_1_straw-poll-ron-paul-votes?_s=PM:POLITICS  but all you see is there are only two front runners.  I wonder how much difference it would make if the press was truly fair and balanced?  I also question whether Texas cancelled their straw poll because Paul was going to win making Perry look bad. http://100gf.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/ron-paul-texas-straw-poll/ New Hampshire embarrassed Perry with making him fourth.  http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/183247-ron-paul-second-jon-huntsman-third-rick-perry-embarrassed-in-new-hampshire-poll. How are people supposed to react to this?  They don’t even care or know or just go along with it. 
Are the polls wrong?  I don’t usually believe polls but there has to be some consistency to them and when it comes right down to it they are manipulated by those supporting them and disproving them.  How is the public supposed to take them seriously?  Most are like zombies!   “Whoooooh!  They said Romney and Perry are the leaders so let’s vote for them.” 
We need some changes here that people will notice.  How?  What is the point of these debates if Fox, CNN, MSNBC only put the same two candidates in the spotlight and that is all the public sees.  Why can’t the people have the debates in some warehouse somewhere so we can ask the real questions and put the pressure on.  How about conning them into thinking we really like them and are going to vote and then pull the rug out from under them.  The candidates have changed positions so many times I don’t know which one to believe.  Paul is a breath of fresh air because of how long and consistent his positions have been.  He doesn’t know what the hell to do other than speak straight to what his beliefs are.  That is what I have noticed over the years and the press does not want people to notice this.  God forbid someone is truly honest. 
That is why he likes Kucinich.  They disagree on some but not all the issues and respect each other for keeping true to their beliefs. 
That is my assessment of today’s debate.  No one gets a fair view of who the candidates are but only who the corporate press wants you to see.  It was the same for Obama.  The press wanted him to win and that was how it was.  He was their prince and now some of those talking heads are questioning things they should have been questioning when he was campaigning   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/19/liberals-vow-challenge-obama-democratic-primaries/.  I don’t think “liberals” (I hate branding) will have any real questions that would matter or that they would actually run someone else against him but it is a thought and would be for good entertainment. 
The point is that politics on both sides are broken and the press is not making it any better.  When I am watching the debate tonight it will be difficult to take in the preferential treatment of Romney and Perry but one thing’s for sure.  The only one who will stick to his beliefs is Paul.   

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Today's Political Thinking

The Libertarians of the day, that is in the 60s, were part of the anti-Vietnam movement that made so much attention but one never knew that that was the case. Murray Rothbard talks about it a lot in his books and gives a good description of what Libertarianism was and how it has evolved. It is great that they often times put politics aside and joined groups such as the communists and rightists for anti-war movements. Today we see so much hype around not joining the right and it is hard to pin what a politician really feels and believes in because so many of them change their views.

For example we have Perry from Texas that used to work for Al Gore in the 80s and actually wrote Hillary Clinton a letter praising Hillary care. He also forced young girls to inoculate with Gardasil through an executive order that no politician should do. He was influenced then by Merck through campaign donations and what would he do now that he is running for president as a conservative. We don’t know what he stands for and seems fake to me from all angles. He even looks like a slick Willie that no one should trust under any circumstances. There was a picture on Drudge showing him talking with Ron Paul and he looked like he was a typical Texan ready to stomp anyone who opposes him.

The politics are thrown around by so many groups that influence it is hard to follow consistently therefore keeping it difficult for the average person to understand how this system works. The one who gets the flock wins and in this case it is the one with the crony-capitalist connections and both Republican like Perry and Democrat like Obama.

Today’s politics is so focused on keeping or eliminating Obama’s presidency one way or another. People on the left have so much into this president that they feel it is a must that he succeed although they are losing faith in him. While they are losing faith in him it is mainly because they do not like the way he reacts to the “racist” right wing who only wants him out because he is black. I am detested by the constant use of “it’s because he is black” argument but I can’t say that they are all wrong but I do think it is mainly because people are caught up in this right left debate and no party wants to give the other credit where credit is due. This makes it difficult to pick who the real candidates are. The ones I guess are pure are Kucinich and Paul. They are ideologically different on the economy but together on war and civil liberties.

Is that what people should do in politics? What we see today is to oppose no matter what we see is the same view because we want you out of office. Is there any difference from the American Right or Left or the establishment we have today? Are they really influenced by the same interests that are working behind the scenes? I think so.

I never would have guessed that Obama would have pushed us more into war and continued the policies of Bush but he did. It amazes me how much he has alienated the labor groups even though he still speaks to them about their mission to help the working man. People are frustrated and what is going to happen is that they are going to riot all over the country if they don’t get their way in the next 4 years if Obama gets in. I can’t for the life of me see any difference in this because there are no jobs in the future if we keep outsourcing production overseas.

Political movements have a mission to make their views heard. Is the Libertarian view the one that makes the most sense? To me it is. For the first time I see a system and theory that makes sense and I understand better after seeing the confusing issues covered from the leaders today. There are not many Ron Paul’s out there. Obama is a great speaker and first drew me in with his teleprompter reading. It was good to see a young, good-looking guy up there saying what people wanted to hear but that is what it was. Telling people what they want to hear and never really telling us where you stand even though deep down most knew. Or maybe not!

I have recently read an article from a progressive professor and author in the NY Times who brought to light the fact that we never really vetted Obama like we should have. The hype of America brought him to power and a lot of it was because he was black even if that is not politically correct to say. He pointed out that no one really knew what Obama’s views were and he never made an impact politically when in office as well as never publish anything, other than his book, in 12 years of teaching law. He isn’t what people thought that is for sure and I don’t see him bringing the country together any time soon. The right will make sure of that either way but even some rhetoric on the left is leaning towards getting a new more progressive politician in office.

I believe he is progressive enough but was just overwhelmed by the powerful elite who have put most of our presidents in for the past 100 years. The president has become less and less powerful and more of a puppet. Obama was no different and that is what people are starting to understand even if they don’t realize it yet.