PDA

View Full Version : PMs: It's Going To Implode: Buy Physical Gold - NOW




Anti Federalist
03-11-2010, 03:16 PM
It's Going To Implode: Buy Physical Gold - NOW

Submitted by Gordon_Gekko on 03/11/2010 07:29 -0500

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/its-going-implode-buy-physical-gold-now

Evidence seems to be mounting that we are headed towards some sort of implosion in the paper Gold market, and perhaps the currency/bond markets in general. Let’s take a look:

Jacksonville, FL based EverBank – a bank with approximately $8 billion in assets and 1800 employees according to the company website – recently sent this notice to customers (courtesy of Warren Bevan):


"Non-FDIC Insured Metals Select Changes" -



Section 6.3.7. General Terms: We have added language clarifying our right to close your account. We may close your Metals Select Account at anytime upon reasonable notice to you. If we believe that it is necessary to close your account immediately in order to limit losses by you or us [GG: We really don’t give a s**t about you; it’s us that we care about], we may close your account prior to providing notice to you. Notice from us to one of you is notice to all of you [GG: the nerve of these people!]. If we close your account, we reserve the right to convert your Precious Metals to U.S. dollars and tender the balance to you by mail [GG: I am willing to bet my entire Gold stash that when you receive these "converted" dollars, they will be nowhere near the market price of physical. What did you think that whole "limit losses" thing meant?] .

If you have a "Non FDIC Insured Metals Select" account with these people, you can pretty much say goodbye to any chances of ever seeing your metal. This is a clear sign that the (already tight) availability of physical metal at the manipulated Comex futures paper price is in danger of vanishing altogether. Think about it. What is the scenario in which they avoid catastrophic losses while at the same time sending you the US dollar value of the metal? When the official or Comex price has fully decoupled from the physical price. Expect to see more such notices from banks offering Metals "Investments".

Citibank recently issued this notice to its checking account (remember the type of account where you thought you could withdraw your money whenever you wanted? Well, not anymore) customers (via Market Ticker):



Withdrawal Notice:



We reserve the right to require seven (7) days advance notice before permitting a withdrawal from all checking, savings and money market accounts. We currently do not exercise this right and have not exercised it in the past.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user176/imageroot/Citi1.png

Hmm…let me see. Why would a bank need to impose withdrawal restrictions? Has this kind of a thing happened before somewhere? Could it be because of the danger of a bank run/capital flight from the United States? Why would Citibank fear bank runs? Why would money flee the US banking system/US? Could it be because the entire US banking system and the US Government is INSOLVENT and people - fearing a collapse in the dollar’s value (in terms of real goods i.e. for all you Prechterites out there) - rush to withdraw money convert it into real goods such as precious metals? You tell me. Also, could they maybe increase this notice period from seven to whatever the hell they want whenever they want? What will you do then? Even if you don’t buy Gold with it, withdrawing your cash from America’s insolvent banks is a very wise strategy at this point.

One of Mish’s readers Construction Insider recently sent him this little nugget:


Hi Mish

I work in the construction business and something has been creeping to the forefront of my attention for the past few weeks and now it seems to be moving full steam ahead.



Banks are forcing developers/builders (especially smaller ones) to give up their properties (unsold homes and lots).



Banks say the reason is that the properties in question are no longer performing assets. I am sure there are some loans out there that are not performing and the owners are going under. I am equally sure that there are plenty of developers that are still selling homes - just not at the pace originally planned on the pro formas.



Having inside information on one of these scenarios that happened today, I cannot help but wonder what is really going on? The bank told a small developer/builder I work for that they were taking back his ongoing subdivision.



He is selling houses and updated pro formas would indicate that the current sales pace would exhaust all remaining lots within 33 months. Yet the bank stated they would only give him until April 15 to find alternative financing. The bank is also willing to let him buy the subdivision at a 33% discount to what is currently owed.



If he is unable to obtain this backing, the bank will let him walk away without penalty or consequence so they can write it off.



I have been on the phone trying to put some of these pieces together. It seems there are many banks doing the same thing. However, there is apparently no interest [or ability - Mish] from anyone wanting to pick up land/lots at 30% - 50% discounts to today's prices.



Another interesting point is that the banks all state that they must have these situations written off or taken care of by the end of Q2.

Looks to me like DaBoyz are calling in the loans while the currency still has some value. Does the government plan some type of overt currency devaluation or expect the dollar to collapse on the currency markets of its own sorry weight? The cracks are already appearing in the Bond market. Foreigners are increasingly fleeing the Treasury auctions. The only thing keeping them going is manufactured "deflation" fears from time-to-time. A recent 30 year auction (10th February, 2010 to be precise) practically failed. This is what Mr. Denninger had to say about it:


Bad. Actually, let's go worse than bad and call it what it is - by any definition this is just one step off from "Failed."



The more-worrying factor here is that we've got this "mystery" direct buyers out here again taking nearly 25% of the offered amount (who is bidding for that undisclosed?) and another 11% taken down by The Fed for the SOMA account.



Yet even with this Treasury had to pay up to get it to go and the bid-to-cover was anemic at best.



Given the Primary Dealer system we have in this country, any BTC under 2.0 is an effective fail. To get an auction that behaves in this sort of fashion, complete with mystery direct bidders and heavy SOMA (Fed) participation, yet Treasury has to pay up in the form of a significantly higher coupon is not a good sign at all.

And this is what happened on 23rd February, 2010 for a 4-week $37 billion Treasury Bill auction (Per Graham Summers):


There are times in life when one witnesses something so outside the scope of normal experience, that at first you don’t see it.



Captain Cook’s diaries tell us that upon first seeing his ships offshore in Australia, the aborigines expressed “neither surprise nor concern.” Cook notes that it was not until he and his men approached the shore in smaller, more familiar vessels that the villagers reacted, arming themselves as “the sight of men in small boats was comprehensible to them: it meant invasion.”



Well, I had a similar experience during yesterday’s bond auction.



Roughly, 27% of the auction took place at the highest rate. This means nearly one third of the demand from competitive bidders (those who care about yield) came at the HIGHEST yield that was accepted. In plain terms, this alone tells you that investors want higher yields from Treasuries since nearly a full third of the debt issuance took place at the highest REQUIRED yield.

Of the competitive bids (meaning those bids coming from folks who care about yield), roughly 70% went to Primary Dealers (investors who HAVE to buy the debt and who usually turn around and try to sell it afterwards). To put this number into perspective here is the percentage of competitive purchases made by Primary Dealers in the last four 4-week Treasury issuances:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user176/imageroot/PDBuys.png


...yesterday’s auction featured MORE buys from Primary Dealers than almost any of those occurring in 2010. Remember, Primary Dealers HAVE to buy Treasuries. So to see them buying a high percentage of Treasuries at debt auctions means that few investors who can pick and choose what to buy are actually looking to buy US debt.



Of the remaining competitive buys (about $8.86 billion), only 32% came from Direct Bidders or those who bought debt directly from the Treasury: orders that can easily be tracked. The other 68% ($5.9 billion) came from Indirect Bidders: folks who we cannot track.



Even more bizarre, only $5.9 billion in Indirect Bidder competitive buys were ACTUALLY OFFERED. So we had a 100% acceptance rate for Indirect Bidder competitive buys.

Let’s put this in perspective:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user176/imageroot/IBAR.png


This means that the Treasury took up EVERY single cent of competitive bids coming from indirect buyers. Remember, indirect buyers are usually assumed to be foreign governments (even the Treasury website admits this).



If this was the case yesterday, then foreign governments barely bought much of anything in yesterday’s auction (only 19% of total debt issued). Moreover, it implies that Primary Dealers (those having to buy) had to gorge on the auction to make up for the fact that few if any foreign governments are interested in buying our debt anymore (including even short-term debt).


So basically the demand from the indirects (i.e. foreigners) for US Debt is drying up and the Treasury is taking all of whatever miniscule amounts they are offering. As if that was not enough, we had another similar auction on 9th Match, 2010 (via zerohedge):


Two weeks after the indirect hit ratio in the 4 week auction came at a record 100%, today it was once again at almost at the all time possible high, with Indirect Bids of just $6.744 billion taking down $6.683 billion, resulting in a 99.1% hit ratio. The chart of the recent Indirect hit ratio in recent 4 week bill auctions is attached

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/madoff/Indirect%20Hit%20Ratio%203.9.jpg

What’s more, the yield doubled from two weeks ago. What we are witnessing here, in my opinion, is the beginning moves of a complete and total repudiation of the US Bond market, and indeed, all dollar denominated paper financial assets.


Jim Sinclair recently had two gentlemen from Poland and Russia speak up at his Toronto meeting. This is what they had to say (in Jim’s words):


Dear Extended Family,

I believe the most important event at our Toronto CIGA meeting was the testimony of two attendees.

Two men spoke independently. One is a Canadian resident from Russia and the other from Poland.


Both said the same thing, "All the signs that preceded our inflation of more than 100% per year are here now in the West."


What more do you need to know?


Regards,
Jim

Any unbiased observer who knows how to put two and two together will be able to tell that something very fishy is going on. The urgency with which trillions in debt is being shoved down the market's throat at the worst possible time for the US Economy has the distinct smell of the government trying to extract every last bit of money from those stupid enough to buy the bonds before it all blows up. Rest assured, a huge chunk of this money is being funneled to the insiders who are most likely covertly using it up to buy real assets for themselves while keeping the crowds distracted with the stock market circus.

The bond market is the backbone of the US Ponzi Finance system. When it goes – and the day is not far in my opinion - the whole enchilada will come crashing down. Any type of financial asset that has a counterparty – which is pretty much all the paper assets in the world – bonds, futures, any and all derivatives and yes, even the paper currency – will crash. What will they crash against? Yes, that’s right - Gold. All the world’s capital – trillions, perhaps quadrillions of it - will come rushing into the very tiny physical (NOT paper) Gold market. Remember, the world’s real physical capital – real assets such as land, oil-refineries, mines, infrastructure, etc. will not vanish, only it will be re-priced in terms of Gold and its ownership transferred to those who hold it. Since everything stays on this planet, it is a zero-sum game and the winner will be Gold. In other words, an ounce of physical Gold will command a lot more in real purchasing power than it does today. Just like a national currency is a claim on goods and assets within that country, Gold will be a claim on global goods and assets worldwide.

Paper Gold Will FAIL

Today what you think of the price of Gold is nothing but the price of paper Gold. "What is the difference between the two? We are still getting the metal at the price we see on the COMEX, are we not?", you may ask. Sure, but the key word is still. Even today you have to pay "premium" to the futures price to get physical ranging from about $50 for some coins to about $10 for bars. When it all blows, these “premiums” will skyrocket and the price of physical WILL decouple from the official paper price (this is what the guys at EverBank are scared s--tless about), as we already witnessed in 2008 – and this is the good scenario. Indeed, we may have a situation where there is no physical available at any paper price.

1. The GLD ETF

The problems with the GLD ETF are too numerous to enlist here but why bother when they have already mentioned 'em all in their prospectus! It is simply another Wall Street scam designed to rip off the retail investor and rest assured, when the SHTF, you will be the last in line since the insiders need somebody to hold the bag in order for them to get bailed out. YOU will be the one left holding the bag. Unless you have a direct line to Ben Bernanke, I suggest you get the hell out of any paper ETF’s such as GLD, SLV, etc. Remember AIG? It’s all good until it isn’t.

2. The Gold Futures Market

The futures market is nothing but a tool for the dollar managers (US Government/Fed/Bullion banks) to manage/control the price of Gold. Any rational observer with an iota of brain who has watched the gold market for any reasonable length of time can tell that the price is intentionally driven down during the Comex trading hours. If you don’t believe this, either you’re in denial or worse – collusion - and IT WILL end up costing you big time. Given the massive, concentrated and long-term (the entire past decade - they haven't been net-long - not once - during that time period) nature of their short positions, it really isn’t that hard to deduce that the banks do not nearly have enough metal to cover their shorts and that the sole intention of the massive short position is to control the price. Whenever the price rises (or threatens to rise) the big bullion banks ala JP Morgan create massive naked shorts introducing fake supply of Gold in the market, thus driving the price down. “But the price has been rising for the past decade, hasn’t it? So how can you say they are driving it down?”, many people ask. Well, the constraint on the bullion banks has been the availability of the physical metal. If the metal is not available, the fraud of the paper market is exposed and they lose their price managing ability. So they allow the price rise to a level at which there are some weak hands willing to sell and then they hold it there till all the sellers have been exhausted (I am assuming the Fed has already sold all the US Gold during the past decade). So strong are Gold’s fundamentals that despite the massive rigging, all they have been able to do is slow its rise. The weak hands who sell the physical metal at every price rise have helped them in this endeavor. But soon, as the bond market implodes, they will run out of sellers. Treat the availability of real metal at today's paper price a gift and buy as much as you can.


To those who think that the Comex shorts will be crushed one day and the price of paper Gold will do a moonshot, to them I will say that you are dreaming. The Comex shorts will be crushed, but not in their own casino! If and when a majority of paper Gold longs demand delivery a force majure (who do you think the US Government will side with?) will be declared with cash settlements and/or offers of equally worthless GLD shares (don’t tell me you didn’t know about this). By some accounts, this is already happening. What will happen to the paper price then? That’s right – it will utterly collapse even as the physical’s price is rocketing. Paper gold holders will dump it all to buy the physical – which, unfortunately – will most likely not be available at all. Yes, yours truly has been trading the paper [Gold] markets himself, but only with the objective of converting the paper profits onto the metal. Having said that, in light of the sum total of the recent developments mentioned in this update I think it is too risky to be trading right now and one should just sit 100% in physical Gold and some currency for day-to-day needs.


Additionally, there is increasing evidence that the Europeans have withdrawn support from Wall Street’s paper Gold market (COMEX and the LBMA, which also operates on a fractional reserve basis as documented here) and are in favor of setting up a physical only Gold market (this is quite a long story - for details, I suggest you go through FOFOA’s blog). Jim Willie had this to say in a recent piece (he’s been accurate on many things so far, so I at least pay attention when he has something to say):


Fast approaching is the event of GAME OVER for London, a condition that has already reached critical level, according to a key reliable source of information with London connections and direct experience with its market events. How long can a major metals exchange sell contracts but have miniscule supply of gold in their vaulted possession? The paper gold market and the physical gold bullion market have finally separated in a practical manner, meaning actual gold has almost no role anymore in London paper contract settlement. The absence of gold in London requires extraordinary tactics to settle contracts and to obtain gold bullion. Red tape procedures delay delivery for individuals, and bribes accompany gold delivery demands as standard practice. The London Bullion Market Assn has almost zero gold, its supply having been drained in high volumes since early December, a process currently in acceleration. The opportunity to convert fiat money into precious metal at prices considered reasonable is also vanishing. The London gold banker said,

"There is going on a lot more than meets the eye. The physical system is actually consolidating bigtime and is organizing itself with lightning speed, totally hidden from pretty much anyone, even the so-called insiders. The paper precious metal market and the physical precious metal market have defacto disconnected. The paper and physical gold markets currently operate in parallel universes. The outflow of physical metal from bank vaults is happening at a mind bending pace."

Wall Street and the US Dollar are being increasingly marginalized at the global level with China having instructed its companies to renege on Wall Street’s derivative contracts last year; Russia, Middle-East and China setting up their regional currency blocs; Germany calling for an end to the CDS casino and the recent exclusion of Wall Street banks from European Government bond market. For obvious reasons, none of this is getting much play in the lapdog US media.

Physical Gold in your personal possession is the only thing that will survive the coming financial Armageddon. What we are witnessing right now is nothing but the calm before the storm. Keen observers are hearing rumblings beneath the ground signaling an imminent volcanic eruption. Once it blows it will be too late to take action. Trading paper markets for paper gains is like picking up pennies in front of the steamroller. It’s time to stop trading and just buy the physical metal. The window of opportunity to convert your casino chips (fiat money) into real money, i.e. Gold, is getting smaller by the hour. He who panics first, panics best.

hugolp
03-11-2010, 03:18 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=235345

Anti Federalist
03-11-2010, 03:30 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=235345

D'oh

Should have know bobby24 would have beaten me to the punch on that.

I wish people would use the headline from the article so there would be some common search terms.

Oh well.

weatherbill
03-11-2010, 03:35 PM
I have silver for sale 1 oz bullion $18 per oz if anyone is interested, includes shipping and insurance

not a dealer

check my ebay record under weatherbill - it is good - pm me if interested

cbc58
03-11-2010, 07:29 PM
so what happens if there is a flight to the dollar and treasuries if other nations implode first? all this conspiracy stuff is a great read... but the stock market was supposed to go to 2000 and instead it went up to 10k+.

what happens if they outlaw physical gold like before? weatherbill here is selling his silver.... why??... if things are supposed to get so bad?

specialkornflake
03-11-2010, 08:01 PM
This is what I know:
1. The fundamentals of the US economy are poor.
2. It's good to be prepared.

the count
03-11-2010, 09:47 PM
so what happens if there is a flight to the dollar and treasuries if other nations implode first? all this conspiracy stuff is a great read... but the stock market was supposed to go to 2000 and instead it went up to 10k+.

what happens if they outlaw physical gold like before? weatherbill here is selling his silver.... why??... if things are supposed to get so bad?

the stock market is where it is because the banks took the government money at almost zero percent and invested it instead of lending it as was the plan.

tmosley
03-11-2010, 09:54 PM
Yup, the stock market is being held up by pure inflation, and it is leaking out into the regular economy. How long before the leak becomes a torrent?

Pauls' Revere
03-12-2010, 01:18 AM
This is what I know:
1. The fundamentals of the US economy are poor.
2. It's good to be prepared.

My County:

Merced County jobless rate ties record
By JONAH OWEN LAMB
jlamb@mercedsun-star.com
Merced County's unemployment rate skyrocketed in January to 21.7 percent, matching the county's highest rate ever recorded in February 1996.

The grim numbers were released Wednesday by the state's Employment Development Department.

The county's December's unemployment rate was 19.8 percent.

gonegolfin
03-12-2010, 11:52 AM
And this is what happened on 23rd February, 2010 for a 4-week $37 billion Treasury Bill auction (Per Graham Summers):


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user176/imageroot/PDBuys.png

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user176/imageroot/IBAR.png

So basically the demand from the indirects (i.e. foreigners) for US Debt is drying up and the Treasury is taking all of whatever miniscule amounts they are offering. As if that was not enough, we had another similar auction on 9th Match, 2010 (via zerohedge):


Full article ...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/190362-something-very-strange-is-happening-with-treasuries

Concerning Summers' article ... I sent the following to a private mailing list subscriber of mine in late February when he asked me to comment ...


I think that if he (Summers) would have done some more research, he would have found that what is happening now (w/respect to bid concentration by the Primary Dealers) is not different than what transpired last year (or other years ... for example, pre-crisis).

Let's look at "Primary Dealers as % of Competitive Buys" for some other dates from 2009 (dates are the date of the report, not the auction ... but within a day or so) ...

1/8 66.1%
2/3 63.6%
2/10 54.6%
2/18 51.8%
3/3 58.5%
4/7 64.3%
4/14 64.4%
4/21 61.2%
4/28 59.5%
5/5 64.6%
5/12 63.9%
5/19 71.9%
5/27 67.9%
...
9/29 70.8%

The story is the same in 2008. There were several auctions over 70% and many over 65%. For example, I sampled the months of May/June ...

5/6 64.3%
5/13 71.2%
5/20 70.8%
5/28 73.0%
6/3 69.7%
6/10 61.3%
6/17 75.9%
6/24 57.0%

This is considerably worse than what is happening now.

Certainly an indicator I use to determine the health of the equity markets is flows into short term treasuries. But you can simply look at the yields to make this assessment.

Additionally ...
He is trying to make the case again that foreign governments are not interested in buying our debt anymore. Among many related quotes ... "In plain terms, a debt auction that features a high percentage of competitive buys coming from Primary Dealers is BAD NEWS. It means investors generally aren’t buying US debt. It also means that foreign governments (those who have funded US debt auctions for decades) aren’t buying much anymore either."

Such a determination cannot be made by looking at these auction results. The Primary Dealer list is made up of large foreign banks throughout the world. These large foreign banks are primary dealers for their respective central banks and are an obvious conduit for foreign official purchases of US Treasury debt. In addition, the Fed is looking to expand the list of foreign primary dealers and has several willing candidates. My concern here is that this setup becomes a way for the Fed to provide bailouts to foreign financials (swapping cash or treasuries for less liquid and valuable primary dealer assets). But to assert that foreign official buying is drying up because non-primary dealer purchases (especially indirect bidder purchases) are low is not understanding the complete picture. The TIC data (especially the annual version) will give us the most accurate story.

Also, the Primary Dealers are limited in the amount of inventory they can continue to hold. If they cannot resell it, then this will be reflected in their bids at auction (rising yields). But the fact remains that they have been able to unload their short term treasury debt.

One final comment ...

"One could potentially argue that this indirect buying came from the Fed covertly buying under the guise of an indirect bidder (the Treasury recently changed the definition of what qualifies for an indirect bidder to make it more vague)."

No. The Fed has not purchased any treasuries since last October (this is different than replacing maturing treasuries in its SOMA portfolio). This is simple to validate by looking at the Fed open market operations and actual specific treasury holdings (identified by CUSIP).

Brian

cbc58
03-13-2010, 08:31 AM
Brian,

Can you translate your post into normal consumer speak? Are you saying that this type of auction buying is realitivly normal and not an indicator that things are going to implode just yet?

Really hard to seperate conspiracy theory vs. reality here. You seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to this stuff.

YumYum
03-13-2010, 10:03 AM
Brian,

Can you translate your post into normal consumer speak? Are you saying that this type of auction buying is realitivly normal and not an indicator that things are going to implode just yet?

Really hard to seperate conspiracy theory vs. reality here. You seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to this stuff.

He speaks in economical hermeneutics. Hermeneutics was invented by alchemists. The Fed invented economical hermeneutics to confuse the public. For instance, before the Fed, banks viewed loans as a liability, since they didn't have the government to bail them out. Now loans are viewed as an asset. Sitting on reserves is a liability, and yet when you and I have reserves in the bank it is an asset. A major advocate of economic hermeneutics was John Maynard Keynes. Here is what he said:

"The study of economics does not seem to require any specialized gifts of an unusually high order. Is it not.... a very easy subject compared with the higher branches of philosophy or pure science? An easy subject, that which very few excel! The paradox finds its explanation, perhaps, in that the master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man's nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the Earth as a politician."

Austrian economists like Rothbard, Schiff and Hayek explain things in simplified terms.

Learning Keynesian economics is like learning another language.

gonegolfin
03-13-2010, 10:36 AM
Brian,

Can you translate your post into normal consumer speak? Are you saying that this type of auction buying is realitivly normal and not an indicator that things are going to implode just yet?

Really hard to seperate conspiracy theory vs. reality here. You seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to this stuff.
The principal point I was making was this ...

Summers made a big deal in his article about the Primary Dealers dominating the competitive purchases, which according to him translated into foreigners shunning treasury debt. He posted what he felt were some alarming concentrations of primary dealers bids as a % of all competitive purchases.

I simply pointed out that if he would have done some more research he would have found that what is happening now (w/respect to purchase concentration by the Primary Dealers) is not different than what transpired last year (or other years ... for example, pre-crisis). In fact, I pointed out that what happened in 2008 pre-crisis was worse w/respect to these purchase concentrations by the primary dealers. Yet, foreigners were purchasing treasuries at ever increasing rates throughout this period.

So, obviously there is nothing in this particular set of data that suggests an implosion soon. What I do think is a red flag (he did not point out, but I did) is the bevy of new foreign banks that are and will be operating as primary dealers.

Brian

gonegolfin
03-13-2010, 10:54 AM
He speaks in economical hermeneutics.

No. When I write anything of substance, I am going to come right at the reader with the appropriate terminology and concepts (and facts to support my points). I will also provide some background when I feel it is necessary (while trying to achieve balance with respect to the length of the content). When you are discussing the Fed, the Treasury, and its operations, this is important. If you fail to do so, your stuff can (and will) get picked apart by the mainstream and Fed/Treasury apologists. This is a problem I think is resident with the sound money movement. Too many folks writing content speak at too high of a level (without the required substance) and are incorrect on some of their understanding of the system. This misinformation can then be used to discredit the movement, which is unfortunate.

I am sorry that you are not yet at the level where you can fully comprehend my content. But that is no reason to attempt to insult me. If the others on this board feel that way, then maybe this is not the board for me to post content. But I think there are some folks on this board that do understand and at minimum there are many that can ask intelligent questions for clarification ... which benefits others less knowledgeable but learning. Maybe you can get there and will begin to understand what I feel are very important points.

Brian

YumYum
03-13-2010, 11:09 AM
No. When I write anything of substance, I am going to come right at the reader with the appropriate terminology and concepts (and facts to support my points). I will also provide some background when I feel it is necessary (while trying to achieve balance with respect to the length of the content). When you are discussing the Fed, the Treasury, and its operations, this is important. If you fail to do so, your stuff can (and will) get picked apart by the mainstream and Fed/Treasury apologists. This is a problem I think is resident with the sound money movement. Too many folks writing content speak at too high of a level (without the required substance) and are incorrect on some of their understanding of the system. This misinformation can then be used to discredit the movement, which is unfortunate.

I am sorry that you are not yet at the level where you can fully comprehend my content. But that is no reason to attempt to insult me. If the others on this board feel that way, then maybe this is not the board for me to post content. But I think there are some folks on this board that do understand and at minimum there are many that can ask intelligent questions for clarification ... which benefits others less knowledgeable but learning. Maybe you can get there and will begin to understand what I feel are very important points.

Brian

I am not insulting you. I am merely pointing out that since the creation of the Fed the terminologies that are used in finance are very confusing. I credit you and applaud you for the fact that you understand this economic language.
I also enjoy reading your post; I and others are learning alot from your contributions. But many here don't understand Keynesian jargon (that is not an excuse not to learn it) and if you could explain in illustrations and in layman's terms the way Peter Schiff does, I feel more people will benefit from your valuable input.

gonegolfin
03-13-2010, 12:16 PM
I am not insulting you. I am merely pointing out that since the creation of the Fed the terminologies that are used in finance are very confusing. I credit you and applaud you for the fact that you understand this economic language.
I also enjoy reading your post; I and others are learning alot from your contributions. But many here don't understand Keynesian jargon (that is not an excuse not to learn it) and if you could explain in illustrations and in layman's terms the way Peter Schiff does, I feel more people will benefit from your valuable input.
If that was not your intent, then I apologize. The statement "He speaks in economical hermeneutics. Hermeneutics was invented by alchemists. The Fed invented economical hermeneutics to confuse the public." seemed to imply that I write the way I do in order to confuse folks. On the contrary, I write in such a way as to instill a sound and accurate understanding of the concepts. This requires a certain amount of complexity.

BTW, this is not Keynesian jargon. When I write of the mechanics of the Fed/Treasury, I am simply describing what is happening. It has nothing to do with any school of economic thought. When I offer my opinion on what our leaders should be doing (and not doing), this is steeped in the economic theory to which I subscribe (Austrian).

As far as Peter Schiff is concerned, he does not offer a detailed look at the Fed/Treasury. He stays at the 1000 foot view. He does not have this foundation concerning the mechanics. If that is all you want, then fine. But if you want significantly more depth, then read my stuff. He has also made many mistakes in his writing/understand of Fed and Treasury operations. These mistakes began during the crisis in late 2007 and 2008. He was incorrect w/respect to the real operations that were being conducted.

Another author to read that does have a firm understanding is Gary North. He makes a mistake from time to time (as we all do). But he also takes input and will publish corrections. We communicate often on these issues.

Brian

YumYum
03-13-2010, 01:02 PM
If that was not your intent, then I apologize. The statement "He speaks in economical hermeneutics. Hermeneutics was invented by alchemists. The Fed invented economical hermeneutics to confuse the public." seemed to imply that I write the way I do in order to confuse folks. On the contrary, I write in such a way as to instill a sound and accurate understanding of the concepts. This requires a certain amount of complexity.

BTW, this is not Keynesian jargon. When I write of the mechanics of the Fed/Treasury, I am simply describing what is happening. It has nothing to do with any school of economic thought. When I offer my opinion on what our leaders should be doing (and not doing), this is steeped in the economic theory to which I subscribe (Austrian).

As far as Peter Schiff is concerned, he does not offer a detailed look at the Fed/Treasury. He stays at the 1000 foot view. He does not have this foundation concerning the mechanics. If that is all you want, then fine. But if you want significantly more depth, then read my stuff. He has also made many mistakes in his writing/understand of Fed and Treasury operations. These mistakes began during the crisis in late 2007 and 2008. He was incorrect w/respect to the real operations that were being conducted.

Another author to read that does have a firm understanding is Gary North. He makes a mistake from time to time (as we all do). But he also takes input and will publish corrections. We communicate often on these issues.

Brian

Brian, dealing with the Fed is like dealing with a serial killer. What you provide is the forensics and an in in depth analysis on the methodology the serial killer uses to murder his/her victims. I and others on this board play the part of a detective: we try to determine how the killer will strike again. Yet, nothing can be absolutely concrete without the testimony of the forensics expert. That is where you come in. Many people depend on your opinions and input. You have established yourself as the most astute individual on this forum regarding financials. We all pay attention to you and respect your opinion, but many on this board are not economic majors and would appreciate if you would explain things to us in terms that we can understand. Brian, you could be the next Peter Schiff if you follow my advice. People will pay for your advice. I would.

cbc58
03-13-2010, 01:15 PM
Brian, you could be the next Peter Schiff if you follow my advice.

Wow, someone thinks highly of themselves. How old are you? What is your formal economics training/education and line of work?

YumYum
03-13-2010, 01:25 PM
Brian, you could be the next Peter Schiff if you follow my advice.

Wow, someone thinks highly of themselves. How old are you? What is your formal economics training/education and line of work?

I am 21 years old. I do not think highly of myself, but I know talent when I see it. Brian has talent.

gonegolfin
03-14-2010, 09:58 PM
We all pay attention to you and respect your opinion, but many on this board are not economic majors and would appreciate if you would explain things to us in terms that we can understand. Brian, you could be the next Peter Schiff if you follow my advice. People will pay for your advice. I would.
First, I am not an economics major myself. I have degrees in Computer Science. I have simply studied economics, monetary policy, and the financial markets in my spare time.

Second, I think it is a good thing to raise the level of discourse. If it means hitting a complex subject head on, I do it. But I do not simply throw things over the wall. I will attempt to answer any and all questions if the matter needs to be broken down.

Third, in no way do I want to be Schiff.

Brian

jon_perez
03-16-2010, 10:30 AM
Another author to read that does have a firm understanding is Gary North. He makes a mistake from time to time (as we all do). But he also takes input and will publish corrections. We communicate often on these issues.Yeah, I love to read Gary North's stuff, they do seem to make lots of sense. The one idiosyncracy with North though, is that he always manages to connect the otherwise excellent economics discussion with biblical and religious references.

Regardless, these do not seem to affect the reliability of his writings on the Fed stuff.