Cliche red herrings against libertarianism

I am a hippy, so I guess that makes me 1.) ideologically apolitical, and 2.) radical.

But hey I am liberal as well----I mean the hippies were liberal whether they wanted to label themselves that way or not. I think the Democrats have problems and so forth----a party is a party---they both cater to many of the same interests, the same lobbies and so forth. But I will definitely pick the Democrats over the Republicans any day, and as an independent, I find them to be far more truthful in what they are saying and doing, and by that I mean that they are far less prone to project their own shadow, to be suffering less from an inflated ego-shadow complex than the Republicans and conservatives, and to be less repressive and chasing after an ego-ideal which they wish to impose on everyone.

To put it simply---I am a liberal.

But, I have spent my career in the Stock Market. I was an analyst in Tokyo for Shearson Lehman covering the Tokyo Stock Market in the 80's. I predicted the horrific Japanese crash at the beginning of 1990. I warned the people of Japan what would happen if they did not support the markets between 1990 and 1992 (even after I had left Shearson). I watched with a front row seat as their markets and economy collapsed. I also got out of the market days before the crash in 1987. Shearson's Elaine Garzarelli was credited with predicting the crash, a day or two before it happened. But I told our New York Research department by phone several weeks before hand that I was concerned over the market and saw it coming to an end (I can't say whether or not my comments had any effect on Elaine or not, I was in Tokyo, and I can't say what she was looking at or working on---but I was the only one to voice such sentiments at that time).

To be exact, I have identified every major market turn since 1986, and most minor ones too. I got out of the market in 2000 at the top of the dot.com market, and back in at the bottom in 2002. I got out at the end of December 2007, right near the top, and back in in March 2009 at the very bottom. (In fact, the market turns are so obvious it amazes me every time that people cannot see it---but no one believes me, and they are so wrapped up in the emotions that it takes them by surprise-----investors are all just a bunch of dumb sheep, and that includes most professionals---and those of you right now who are reading this and saying, "yeah right, as if anyone could spot every market turn, your full of it!" And for you I say, if I showed you the obvious it wouldn't matter one bit, because you wouldn't believe it, which is why you always get caught up in the emotions and lose money. And when you would answer back I would only hear, "Baaaah Baaaaah...")

In 1988 as I was predicting the economic downfall of Japan, I was also predicting that the US would be the global economic leader as we moved into the 21st Century. I predicted the amazing growth we would have in the 1990's. I was predicting, and explaining why inflation would be so low through the 1990's and beyond, even as unemployment remains remarkably low----it took the Fed, and Greenspan well into the late 90's to figure out why that new, never before seen, economic dynamic was happening. While many people predicted economic doom in the early 2000's and again during and after 2009, I was one of the few voices that stood up and talked about the strengths in the economy and why we would continue to move forward. I could go on and on.

So I am a liberal, and I do understand economics. I am woman, hear me strong. (---oh wait, scratch that last part---I'm a man, never mind...) I do understand economics---and I am not talking that phony Swiss economist economics that was bought and paid for by Swiss Banks to sell gold, and has since been used by all kinds of charlatans trying to sell books, newsletters, or gold investments. (though I was influenced most by a genius Swiss Economist, he was certainly not some lackey suckling from the teats of the Swiss Bank Corporation, Union Bank of Switzerland, et al...) Yes---I could write that same kind of crap just to sell a bunch of get rich quick books, but my conscience would never allow that.

There was a time when I wanted to embrace libertarianism. I thought it was a radical idea back in the 70's and I tried to see it as viable. One of my political and ideological heroes was Prince Kropotkin who believed we would all evolve into a state of mutual aid based anarchy---the perfect hippy anarchist---so of course I like less government.

Why would I, as a liberal, want to punish someone who makes something of themselves. My whole career in the stock market was based on not only making something of myself, but trying to help as many other people as possible make something of themselves too. (You are falling victim to right wing propaganda if you think liberals are out to punish anyone who wants to make something of themselves).

But I am against greed. And most of the conservative policies are based on greed. (I have to admit, I was there too, and yes I wanted to push for those very same policies that would have unfairly benefited me the more money I made---the 1980's were a dark period philosophically for us baby boomers. I even set up a business in the Philippines (Rising Dragon Investment & Holding Co) which was actually incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. I considered it 'smart business' to avoid paying any taxes in Japan, the Philippines, or the US). Even though from the very beginning as a teenager, I had trouble with Ayn Rand because of the greed implied in her philosophy---we can romanticize her all we want, but lets call it what it is.

But here is a real problem---one thing I know very well is economic crisis. I had a front row seat in Japan as their crisis unfolded. I also had a front row seat here in the US as our last crisis unfolded. I warned about both of them before they happened.

We can never do away with economic crisis and recessions. They are a part of the economic reality of the Industrial Age. In crisis, you have to have government intervention. People like to argue that the government intervened in the Japanese economic crisis. I was there---and I can tell you that it was too late when they did. I wrote articles, and I warned people all through 1990 to 1992. The government tried to pretend that the economy just wasn't that bad---they put their head in the sand. Today, they are still in that same recession. They never recovered. The only thing that saved them from a depression is their very high propensity to save.

Same with America---you have a lot of stories---a good example is the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the role of the government and so forth. I no longer worked there, but I kept very close tabs---again a front seat if you will. Despite what various people, including a few key politicians have said in the recent year or two----I took notes, and I watched! The government had numerous chances to save Lehman Brothers. The real reason they did not is because of top level discussions, dominated by those Senators and Congressmen and others who wanted to let the market work itself out. It was decided to see what would happen if it collapsed. That is all there was to it. We can point the fingers at Dick Fuld, and any one of their white knights----but that was the bottom line. Very few Americans know how serious the Lehman collapse was, and how it impacted the global credit markets. This had followed the first vote on TARP which failed (and that's a whole another story), and the second vote which went through but was a joke. Those two things---the failed vote and the Lehman collapse---in September 2008 put this nation very dangerously close to depression. Worst of all, it caused us to spend a monstrous amount of money to support this economy saddling us with a terrible debt load.

If the vote had gone through the first time (which in itself probably would have saved Lehman Brothers), and if Lehman Brothers was saved, the psychological impact alone would have saved the economy much sooner at far far less cost to taxpayers.

How would that have worked under a Libertarian economy?

 

Word.

 

Not all Hippies are Liberals; Some people believe in the Right to Bear arms. And anyone who truly believes in non-violence, shouldn't think the government is the best option to acheive those ends.

This is the typical excuse used by Liberals, but it simply isn't true.

Obama has lied about not having Bankers/Lobbyist in his White House, He said he doesn't believe the President can wage war, then, he made an unconstitutional regime change. He ended the Iraq war, long after Bush decided it would end anyway.

He is one of the biggest liars, in the History of American presidents..

Actually, Liberals support force, violence and, imposing your will forcefully on people, as any other party. They wish to take basic Human Rights away, like, the Right to Bear Arms. They don't care about any unconstitutionality pushed unto us by Obama, including his: NDAA, NDRP, HR347 or, the FAA reAuthorization act. Obama has also made 100 miles from any border a "Constitution free" zone, which covers 2/3rds of all Americans.

Obama is certainly forcing his will onto everyone, and it's even worse than Bush, because with Bush and other presidents- there was a line. Obama kills innocent citizens, takes away our Human Rights and, lies constantly.

Well, that's fine for you.

But, I hold gold and silver, because it has consistent value, and it only goes up in dollars. The whole dollar, is a giant bubble in the US, based on debt on the biggest Bankers in the World.. It's bound to collapse the more we print, spend and, waste.

Libertarianism is truly the only thing that allows everyone to be free. Liberals want to force guns, out of the hands of peaceful people who use them for self defense, yet, they support a president who can kill you with a plastic flying death machine. Really, Liberals claim they just want Humanitarian spending, and to end the Military-industrial complex, but you can't have one without the other. (Due to Nixons suspension of dollars-to-gold.)

Mankind as a whole is evolving. Under a Libertarian system, people would keep their money, thus allowing them to share locally. I think most taxes/ Humanitarian efforts should be focused locally, for now. But yes, I believe mankind is evolved to where, we can live together in a voluntary society.
But, it takes some work, weening people off their dependency of government.

I disagree. I'm not falling for anything, I'm just smart enough to think for myself, and realize the system, for the big sham it is.

I'm not an economist, or a business man. I am an individual who believes in true freedom, and doesn't believe the "greater good" propaganda of government. So far, everything anything politician does, (including democrats) is in the Best interest of the Elite 1%, they claim to oppose.

We didn't recover either, we just bailed out Elitists who control our currency, and rob the people. We gave them Trillions of dollars which was stockpiled in their Banks, and never got back to the people. The problem in America, which is causing this mess, is government manipulation of the stock markets, like: price setting, inflation, devaluation of the dollar etc.
This is causing hardships for Middle Class Americans, who are working just to get by.

These people pay massive amounts of taxes (Even more than the rich percentage wise.) They are struggling to afford their mortgage, and other basic Human needs. However, the government continues to steal from these individuals, to give to those who don't work or make money. That is why the Middle class is shrinking- the burden is left on us.

900 of Americans most wealthy individuals, are exempt from Social Security, so why can't any American citizens choose to opt out, of something that doesn't benefit them?

See, Liberals still want their Brand of servitude forced onto the people. We're being forced to buy insurance (which major insurance companies were behind) and, if it was up to Obama and his Liberal followers, we would have no way to protect ourselves from a government that is known for corruption, bullying the world and, executing it's own citizens without trial.


There is no freedom in this country anymore, and that's why I'm a Libertarian.

I get more into it on the topic "What happens when you scrap the welfare state."

You and I have fundimental disagreements. Why should the tax payer bail out a private company to begin with? If markets fail, than they fail. With the Amount of money we've given for bailouts, the people would've had 20 thousand each, and it would've stimulated the economy MUCH more than giving it to the 1%, who put in in their banks, fired people and, stopped giving out loans. The Market does work, and it shouldn't be on the tax payer to keep businesses in power, when most are struggling just for rent and food. The Average American pays more for government than they do for their home.

Again, I don't think the tax payer, should have to pay for a failing business, and I actually thought most Liberals agreed with that. Generally, we'd have a much stronger economy under Libertarianism, because, we wouldn't give out bailouts, and people would be able to keep the money they earned.

Banks are lies; They don't have 1/10th of the money people put in, and they rely on false confidence to keep the cycle going.

We were told when they instituted the Federal Reserve, that a Reserve currency would protect people from financial crisis, and there's alot of evidence the great depression was orchestrated as means of instituting the new Worthless currency.

I don't think our mistake, was not bailing a bunch of con artists. I think our mistake is allowing government and big business control the market, when it's supposed to be supply and demand.

Moreover, government works with some of the most corrupt industries in the World, it is those people who are too greedy and need to be punished. And those who abuse the taxpayer and government now, deserve to go out of business, but they manipulate our government to impose force on peaceful people.

A Libertarian economy would also be much stronger, because we allow small business owners to actually get on their feet, without needing $7000 for a business license. (and another 7 grand for a lawyer to read all the new regulations.)

Liberals typically believe in more government, and more government involvment, but I think the government is getting totally overblown and corrupt...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ"]John Stossel's Illegal Everything - YouTube

 

Response Part 1 of 3

Good response STpLSD25. You might be surprised (maybe not) that while we have numerous points we disagree on----there are many points which I agree with you.

I believe in the right to bear arms. Does that make me a conservative? No. But I also think that attempts to put better background checks and so forth on fire arms is not going to take my guns away. Nor do I think that limiting the amount of ammo in a clip is going to take my guns away. So I have to change a clip more often. I can still shoot.

All hippies are liberals because they want to move away from monarchies and the power of the kings. …what do you mean that is an outdated and old definition of liberalism?

Ok, all joking aside---if hippies are not liberal, then are you saying there are conservative hippies? If you look at the definition of a conservative on Wikipedia, this is what you get: “Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.”

The hippy movement was in part a reaction to the conservatism of the 50’s. It was all about exploring new lifestyles, and a new way of thinking, most all it was a rebellion against conformity and the existing institutions and the 9-5 work day followed by cocktail party meaningless existence of our parents those institutions supported.

Libertarians are on the conservative side of the political spectrum----but they are somewhat liberal in their view towards government (based on the Wikipedia definition) so if you are saying that there are libertarian hippies, then I will give you that..

You’re telling me that Obama is a bigger liar than Bush, or most other Presidents for that matter? Or better yet, he is a bigger liar than---Nixon? In terms of party lines, I am an independent. And I try to remain that way. I voted for Bush one time because I didn’t think the democrats had a worthy opponent. I am certainly aware of Obama’s mistakes and where he has failed the country----but there is so much B.S. propaganda out there about what he did and didn’t do. Like the popular meme says, ‘I don’t mind you opposing the President, I only mind you opposing him for reasons that are lies’

Regardless of his mistakes and problems, he was the best choice out there. Romney was your typical Wall Street Robber Baron wannabe. I have known many people just like him. (I am ashamed to admit it, but during the 80’s I thought a little bit like him.) I understand him very well. I can tell you exactly why his income tax was so low. Nothing that came out about him was surprising. If you want to compare Romney to Obama----well I took notes----in hopes of writing a funny but unfortunately true account of the 2012 election. I tried to be neutral, and go after both democrats and republicans----but the Republicans were far more blatant and forthright in their lies, phoniness, double standards…

I agree, especially when you are talking about democrats. Not all liberals support force though---many are against it. I am certainly against it. The Bush administration stepped well over the line, but worse he put into place the tools to enable every President after him to wield far more control than any president should. Unfortunately Obama has been very disappointing in regards to human rights. (I cannot speak to the FAA Reauthorization Act because I have not yet read it, nor who voted for it.) But look to see who wrote in the various parts of these bills that are so damaging to our rights. You don’t have to believe me---check yourself---who voted them in, who added what----the hands of the Republicans are all over these things, and oftentimes in an extortionary way that tied the Presidents hands unless he didn’t want it to go through. But like I said in my previous post---both parties cater to the same interests.

I started recommending gold as we first landed troops in Afghanistan around 2002 or late 2001, when it was still around $200. Back in the fall of 2011, I recommended getting out of gold. It was hitting a high somewhere close to $2000. The GLD which tracks gold at a price about 10% of the actual price hit 185 on that day and was significantly overbought (It is easier for me to chart the GLD. At 200 in gold the GLD would have been 20). I sold my gold holdings then, but held some 24kt gold jewelry for ‘prosperity until April 2013 when the GLD was about to break support at 150. I told everyone who was still holding to get out. The GLD hit a low near 114 in June and was overbought. I suggested getting back in. In August it was back above 137 but could not break above resistance, so I recommended selling if it breaks down. Today the GLD is around 119 and below all of its moving averages which is bearish. I cannot see anymore upside growth until it breaks above its 120-Day Moving Average. Silver is worse (though is holding support better now), and is less than half the price it was at its peak in 2011.

Gold is not the same investment it was in the old days---it does not back currencies anymore. Nor can we have commodity-backed currencies anymore. The Nation’s economy and the global economy is too big to make that feasible. And anyone who pushes such a policy is completely oblivious to the realities imposed on an economy by a commodity-backed currency. There are very good reasons why we went off the gold standard.

Yes, our debt, the global economy, and worse the idiocy in Washington regarding the Dollar poises a serious risk that 1.) the dollar could one day be dropped as the global Reserve Currency, and 2.) that there could be a collapse of the dollar. Do you honestly think that gold, which is simply a commodity, would hold its value through that? Either case is very serious for the US economy, and in turn the global economy. In the latter case, especially---what currency would exist to support gold prices? Where would the demand come from. The US is the strongest and most stable economy in the world right now. (There are stronger economies, but not big enough to make a difference in global economics.) China is still a 3rd World Country.

Do you know what you are suggesting when you say collapse of the Dollar? Do you think Gold will be bartered for food and necessities? Because gold does not back currencies, as the dollar collapses carrying other major currencies down with it, gold will not have any value against those currencies to push its value up in an inverse rate. It is all a matter of supply and demand. The collapse of the dollar would take that demand away very fast. Who could provide the demand after the survival-based realities of such a crisis sets in. You cannot eat gold. Suddenly it will be like the tulips in the famous crash of the tulip market in old Europe.

In my previous post I talked about investors as dumb sheep. On of the hardest things about investing is obstinately believing that you know better than the market, even as prices are proving you wrong. Being obstinate in this way has destroyed countless fortunes. You can always sell, and buy back later. Very few investors listen to me in these situations. I have even had investors tell me, "Ok, you were right. I should've listened to you. But now it is different because now the situation is even more so..." as they proceed to lose even more money.

Right now the GLD has popped back above its 20-Day Moving Average. It could potentially go higher, that is a short term positive as long as it stays above that moving average and the support below it. Then there is resistance at 120, then the 50-day moving average, the 120-Day, then 130, and so forth. If we can get above the 120-Day, and stay above it, then you will see gold possibly move back up to highs like 150 or more. But I am not holding my breath.

The markets have no room for political beliefs or ideology.

 

Response 2 of 3

You are once again playing into propaganda stereotypes of what a liberal is. I don’t think there are many liberals who want to take the guns away, for example. Let’s move on and drop the Republican vs. Democrat issues---I am liberal, but I am independent anyway.

So here is a serious question---you mentioned this before. Explain to me how you see power interests (big money that is) from taking advantage of everyone else under a Libertarian system. This is very important especially when you consider ‘who’ represents such a strong proponent of laissez faire capitalism.

Yes---I do believe that we are entering into a stage of evolution---the biggest socio-economic change we have seen since the start of the Industrial revolution. This will not happen tomorrow, or in this decade, but the changes are already occurring. But this involves a reworking of the traditional industrial age structures. The factory- or machine-based structures with their centralized control (management, government, etc) are breaking down into more network-based structures. Society is becoming increasingly subjective and localized---like the internet. Capitalism is the strongest economic philosophy to come out of the Industrial Age, and I would think that it would take part in this evolution into something new.

You say you are not falling for anything, yet you are ready to end the welfare state and let the poor and unfortunate, especially the victims of the recent economic crisis fend for themselves----exactly what the Robber Baron mentality of the 1%, and the GOP (as they sit in the breast pocket of big business) has been pushing for.

How do you propose to feed and educate the needy after taking down the welfare state? Maybe you cover that in your other post you referred to. Do you think the private sector will help? Let me say this, today I am the Vice Chairman and Treasurer of a small Non-Profit organization that helps Native Americans (The White Horse Creek Council, named after an area just down the road a few miles from Wounded Knee). Most of the people in the organization are Lakota (Sioux) so right now we mostly benefit the reservations in South Dakota, but they are some of the poorest poverty stricken areas in the Northern Hemisphere---truly 3rd world conditions. In the storm and cold that is hitting, right now as I write this, there are people freezing to death in very poor housing with cardboard and plywood walls, because they have no wood or propane for heating. It is now 7:00 pm and temperatures will hit 20 below tonight in South Dakota. By morning there will be a minimum of a handful of people, possibly more, frozen to death in their own beds on the reservations there. Tomorrow night more will die. You would think that fact would enable us to get donations to help them----but it is very hard, and the competition for donations to nonprofit organizations is fierce.

This statement tells me that you do not know how serious things were in 2008. We certainly did recover. The US has manipulated the dollar since 2008—just as we have done for decades---that I will give you. The government has not, nor is it manipulating the stock market, or inflation. (the Fed tries to manage inflation, but…) But I agree that most Americans have not benefitted from the recovery. A credit crisis is one of the most serious economic crisis a nation can experience. Unfortunately, you do not simply recover from such a thing. Unfortunately, the Nation’s very wealthy have done very well through this. But this goes back to the laissez faire and wealth producing policies during the Reagan era, and an ongoing focus on trickle down economics. These are conservative policies that have created a new Gilded Age. And not much has trickled down----yet they become more and more greedy.

I agree with you on the Middle Class---which is why I am a liberal---Not a conservative pandering to big money interests. ObamaCare was not the perfect answer to the healthcare crisis, but at least the democrats acknowledge it. Again, healthcare too is an issue of the wealthy taking advantage of the rest of the country. That is why the GOP barely even touch it (and ObamaCare was their thing to begin with). America has the most expensive healthcare in the world---and there is no justification for it. The reason behind it is simply collusion between insurance, pharmaceutical, and health maintenance companies. Even doctors often do not make that much money anymore. (My doctor at Kaiser Permanente makes less than $70,000 a year and is unable to have his own practice). The real solution is to destroy the whole system and start over again---but that won’t happen. I can get the same quality healthcare and medicine in the Philippines for a very small fraction of the cost.

Most people, liberal and conservative, agree with you. But most people do not understand how important it is in a credit crisis. Historical evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of intervention. I told you that I had a front row seat in Japan. They have been in the same severe recession since 1990. They have suffered deflation. The only thing that has saved them is that the Japanese have a very high propensity to save.

I wrote about Lehman Brothers. That alone could have pushed the global economy into a depression. I will write a separate post---to provide an economics lesson regarding bailouts.

To be exact, the Federal Reserve said that we would not suffer from deflation again. That was the reason they were set up. Of course deflation was the most crippling aspect of all the depressions that came before it (No, Ron Paul, deflation is never a good thing and the examples you give are not even examples of deflation.)

The Federal Reserve has done a stupendous job in that regard. The Great Depression was a deflationary event, but that caught them off guard. Since its inception, and other than the Great Depression, the US has never again experienced deflation outside of 2 solitary months. We have also enjoyed a century of low volatility in inflation, and even when it hit the very high rates of hyper-inflation in the 1980’s it was still less than the volatile peaks we hit before the Fed was created. I have charted US inflation back to the 1700’s so I do know this to be certain.

To say that the Great Depression was orchestrated is crazy talk that does not take into account human nature, the power of greed, and how the economy works. I have studied the Great Depression as well as the many depressions that came before it. There is a very consistent 2-decade socio-economic cycle in the US economy, and the Great Depression occurred right about on time based on this cycle. It is because of this cycle that I predicted a major economic event to happen after the peak of a super-bull market in the mid to late 2000’s back in 1988. In the mid to late 2020’s we will see another similar (but hopefully less drastic) event occur.

Yes---so does big money think that. What they would do to get big government off of their backs!

I actually agree with you on big government, to an extent----so convince me that Libertarianism would not just allow the wealthy to have more freedom to manipulate and control the weak.

 

Response 3 of 3

An economics lesson on the credit crisis.

One of the biggest problems with a credit crisis that inevitably leads to a depression without any kind of intervention is the psychology that surrounds such events. This is the psychology of fear.

For most of 2008, the majority of Americans had no idea how severe the credit crisis was. To them it was just a problem on Wall Street and maybe the housing market. This was the same thing in Japan, where even the government believed that the crisis would be contained to the real estate and stock markets. Here in America, the government was well aware of its severity, as was Wall Street.

Leading up to September 2008, as there was talk of TARP money and bailing out Wall Street, the American people, still clueless, were very strongly opposed to the bail outs. The markets knew how critical the bail outs were, and were fairly confident that the government would not let them down. The markets had hit a bottom in July with a panic sell off, and were ready to bounce back up. There were some very key indicators, for example, Apple had crossed above its 120-Day Moving Average (which was a key indicator of a bullish recovery during that decade), that said that the bottom had been hit and the market was ready to move higher. I had recommended moving back in on that bottom and we were making money from that point. In fact, it was a replay of the very same kind of bottom we had hit back in July 2002 (the first side of a double bottom).

Unfortunately the American people, clueless as they were, reached out to their congressmen and come the beginning of September on a Friday afternoon, instead of doing right for the economy, they followed the demands of the American people and voted it down. The market—poised to jump, instead broke down. I immediately warned everyone to jump out. It was a horrible disappointment.

The American people were happy, thinking that the crisis did not affect them. Until Monday morning----as the first news to break was that car dealers could no longer get car loans to finance. Steadily over that week horrible news continuously came out, the economy of Iceland collapsed, credit dried up, and we were quickly heading into a tailspin. Steadily they came, one news item right after the other---Americans now knew of how serious the situation was.

Here is what could have happened if the bail out was voted in on that Friday. The market would have jumped, most likely starting a running streak of recovery. The American people would have been disappointed over the weekend, but come Monday morning, as the bad news started hitting, they would have realized, some earlier than others, that it was in fact a good thing. “Wow… Thank God that got voted in…” The stock price of Lehman Brothers would have recovered with the overall market---because this was a bounce off the bottom---and that alone would have saved the company as they would have been in a better position for any one of their white knights to take over. There never would have been a question as to whether the US Government would participate or not in supporting the company.

The biggest impact of all from that first vote would have been psychological. In a credit crisis-----that is all you need to save the day----to turn around the psychology at an early enough stage to make a difference. July 2008 would have been the market bottom, the credit markets would have avoided that tumultuous Lehman Brothers collapse, and the people’s psychology would have been saved before things got too far out of hand. THE MONEY DID NOT EVEN MATTER! It was a psychological thing!

WE WOULD HAVE ENDED UP SPENDING A FRACTION OF THE MONEY WE NEEDED FOR BAIL OUTS BECAUSE THE PSYCHOLOGY WOULD HAVE CHANGED SO QUICKLY.

Instead this is what happened: the market collapsed and suddenly people realized they were up the proverbial creek without a paddle. The American people were broadsided. The market broke down further to new lows. Lehman Brothers continued to collapse, scaring the would-be acquirers and white knights. The US Government decided to let Lehman Brothers collapse, which happened later in the month, sending the market lower and freezing the global credit markets in a dangerous crisis. Some key credit markets used extensively here in the US, such as 7-Day paper market completely collapsed never to recover again. Meanwhile the congress and the senate argued over the TARP bill, and the election was pushed back further and further as the economy worsened.

Finally at the end of September, the TARP Bill was up for the vote, and it passed, but it was filled with so many ridiculous riders that Wall Street realized that they had just been played for a fool by a bunch of clowns in the Bush Administration. The market reaction was that of falling off a cliff---like the beginning of a bear market crash, not like you would see ¾’s of a year into a bear market. We didn’t hit the bottom until March 2009.

So how big a factor was the psychology of fear that permeated the American economy? Companies across the nation increased the lay offs---even when those companies could not justify it. I personally know of 5 or 6 companies that cancelled back logs of orders in the summer of 2009 because the recession was going to get far worse. These were orders that were guaranteed, all they had to do was manufacture and ship---but instead, management layed off the workers, cancelled their own orders for raw materials, and cancelled the orders, refusing to take more-----because the economy was going to get worse, management reasoned. All through America wholesale orders could not be filled, because companies were irrationally cutting back. Even companies that wanted to spend money could not. (This went on even as the economy’s ongoing recovery was painfully obvious.)

But here is probably the biggest telltale sign of how the psychology was so destructive (which actually turned out to be a good thing). I am sure you have seen how explosively massive the growth in the Nation’s money supply was----because of the difficulty of bailing the nation out of this crisis. In a normal situation, that would have been terribly inflationary. Prices would have quickly gone through the roof.

There are two reasons why that did not happen: 1.) most other nations had to do the same thing to bail out their own economies; but most importantly, 2.) velocity (the circulation of money in the economy) was so weak for so long that all that new money had no inflationary impact.

Weak velocity is the one economic measure that clues us into how a credit crisis turns into a depression. Low velocity is what leads to crippling deflation. People and companies are afraid to invest. Banks are afraid to lend out money. People and companies are afraid to spend. Borrowers don’t try to borrow…The money just sits. When everyone stops spending, investing, lending, and borrowing the economy only worsens. This creates a vicious cycle---a graveyard spiral into economic stagnation and collapse.

The US economy has a lot of underlying strength thanks to years of plant investment and investment in increasingly efficient technologies. This was a process that started in the late 1980’s and was responsible for the incredible growth we experienced in the 1990’s. This momentum is still pushing us forward, and also helped us recover despite all the problems. But the psychology alone was a killer.

Another example of the psychology is how many people have participated in the market. At the bottom in March 2009, the Dow was at 6469. Friday it hit a high a few pennies from 16470. This is an incredible gain----10,001 points from the bottom to last Friday. But this incredible market is almost entirely composed of professional and big investors, Small investors have stayed almost completely out.

Without those bailouts we would still be in a most serious depression, with money still not circulating in the economy, and without any way to get people to spend, invest, borrow, lend, or anything else. That is why Japan is starting their 24th year in the same recession.

In a libertarian economy, how will you stimulate spending and investment in such a situation? The answer that such a crisis would not happen is preposterous. In fact if you do away with the Federal Reserve, you lose the one source of stability that prevents the worst part of these crisis---deflation. Not to mention the fact that the Fed is also a key source of stimulus as well. (Then if you were to add a commodity backing to the currency, you are in effect placing a governor switch on the economy that will force such economic problems, including deflation, onto the economy every time it starts to grow too much against its reserves, including from population growth, business growth and overall healthy growth).

This is also the major flaw in Ron Paul’s idea for a banking system. If you take the lending facility out of banks, and place it in a risk-type institution, people simply would not invest money into such institutions during such crisis. The economy would simply lose that strong stimulus that the housing market provides to help the economy recover.

Let’s talk about deflation for a moment. Americans have forgotten how serious that is, and some even think it would be refreshing after a period of inflation. Deflation is a drop in prices—so it seems that it would be nice to be able to buy things at a cheaper price. But as prices drop, companies cannot make money. Soon the raw materials in inventory become more expensive than the finished product. Production is cut back, wages are lowered, people are layed off, putting more people out of work, or with less money, who will not be able to buy things. Prices fall further, and the situation grows worse. Unfortunately, other fixed costs such as loans do not decrease. Farmers cannot sell produce to cover their costs. Even though everything grows cheaper, people cannot buy them, no one can make money, no one can cover their costs, and there are no happy endings here. Deflation is far more insidious than inflation. The Federal Reserve was set up just to fight this, and they have done a very good job. How would a libertarian economy take care of that?

Do you see the problem with letting the market take care of itself in such a crisis. It cannot, which is why we had so many crippling depressions in the 1800’s. Nor can we prevent such things from happening. The only way to stop such events is to eliminate greed, euphoria, fear, and panic. In other words, you have to eliminate humans and replace them with fully objectivistic robots, free of any human nature.

Finally, I would like to again point out that had the TARP been voted through the first time, we would have spent a fraction of what we did to stimulate the economy and bail it out. The biggest thing was to turn that psychology around before the true fear set in.

 

Then, this should be interesting, and I'm open to hearing your views.

Well, there's a couple reasons I dis agree. Perhaps most importantly, the people retain the Rights to Bear Arms to protect us from tyranny. If the maximum rounds in any clip is 10, individuals would not truly have protection.

Social Security and the DHS have enough stockpiled enough ammo (individually,) to shoot every citizen 5 times.

Also, I think background checks are meaningless, honestly. I mean, many people are turned down due to non-violent drug crimes. And besides that, if someone is not locked up in prison, doesn't that mean they are a free citizen? We've given them a second chance. I mean, I could see the significance in screening for murderers or other violent crimes, but I think these background rules, are just keeping regular citizens from protecting themselves, and runs contrary to the Constitution.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Like I said, I think hippies are individuals who believe in non-violent methods for all types of Human Conflict. But I'm a hippie, and I identify a lot with the Right; I believe the government is too big and invasive, and has gotten far too involved with our personal lives. I also want to preserve the American Rule of Law, because that's our freedom to say and do what we please freely. If we lose that, we will all be a bunch of caged dogs.

/
I agree. Hippies were the counter-culture, and different from anything before it. Yeah, that is what I'm saying. I'm Libertarian, but I just want people to be free and live free. Our government has expanded 10 fold since the 1960's, and government today can hack into your laptop cam, and watch you making lunch. I bet, if that happened in the hippies day, they'd be fighting these abuses of power.

But sadly, (and I don't mean to generalize,) it doesn't seem like many Liberals are doing anything about this stuff.

None of my reasons are lies, I've read these laws, followed up with stories on the News, etc.

HR347-Makes it a Felony Charge to "distrupt the orderly conduct of Government" around Secret Service agents- obviously, a violation of Free Speech Rights.


The NDAA-The Obama Administration fought for the Right to "indefinitely detain" any American citizen "suspected of terrorism" without trial.

[FONT=&quot]He's made an Unconstitutional Regime change in Libya, and tried again [/FONT]

Liberals like to say that, but it's simply not true. They believe in extensive force, including forcing taxes onto people, and forcing guns away from peaceful people.

Actually, Obama fought for the Right to detain citizens.

Leftist divert the blame away from Obama, but actually he's just as guilty as Bush, if not worse

I hold silver. But, either way- the dollar is based on nothing but bad debt. I disagree with you here.

Ill get back to you on the rest later, but I've had a long day at the airport.

 

Since I too believe that we are on the verge of another socio-economic event on the caliber of the Industrial Revolution I am trying to make sense of how things should shape out. I have worked for several years now on how I think we can resolve the Post-Modern Crisis----as well as how it is being resolved. In fact this is the subject of three books I am in the process of writing. I have got the philosophical, psychological, and in many ways the sociological side down. I am still working on the socio-economic and political side of it.

As a Hippy I believe in questioning everything. Therefore I always challenge my own beliefs. I do not want to fall victim to my own dogma. If you can convince me on the questions I have raised here, then I may very well see this evolution as one into Libertarianism. I am sure that capitalism will play a part in this new social evolution.

Well, I will give you that. I don’t agree with you exactly, and I still disagree that the liberals are trying to take away anyone’s guns. My dad has a 30 calibre browning machine gun that he bought at a gun show. His only limitation on shooting it is the cost (it shoots about $100 of ammo per minute), oh yes, and where he can shoot it. We used to take it up to my uncle’s farm, but it scares the crap out of his neighbors, even if they are far away. The gun I hope most to inherit one day is his German Luger. I am sentimentally attached to his 1917 Enfield too---the first gun I ever shot.

Anyway, I live in Colorado, and we have had far too many mass shootings over the past decade or two—including in schools. You have to take a test to drive a car, for example, and cars don’t kill people, people kill people.

Yes the government is too big. Our civil rights are rapidly disappearing. I write about this continuously. Unfortunately most of our young people are too busy playing Playstation. Yes we stood up and fought for our rights. Today most people could care less. I had hopes for the Occupy Wall Street Movement. But…

Perhaps you are confused by the fact that too many baby boomers, who enjoyed changing the laws to make America a better place back in the 60’s and 70’s, enjoyed it so much that they did not know when to stop. My generation is now screwing things up---sorry to say----I mean, sure tobacco smoke is bad for you, and I don’t smoke, but come on already---we are going overboard trying to make things good for everyone.

But the other problem is that the whole country has shifted to the right. Democrats today are about as liberal as Reagan. Seriously the democrats are as conservative as the Republicans of 20 years ago. The Republicans are like the right in the 1950’s.

But that does not mean that liberals are doing nothing. I have done some work with a non-profit called Grassroots Campaigns here in Denver. They provided the campaign office for Obama here in Denver during his campaigns. They try to fight for civil rights and to protect our civil liberties---in fact most people (liberals) joined the organization just for that purpose. But they have to work on the campaigns that the organization is hired for---and most of it is dealing with the problems the conservatives continue to put out there: women’s rights, gay rights, and so forth. As one of their directors told me, “It is almost like these basic rights are being challenged to keep us busy, so that we can’t fight out against domestic spying, and drones, and all these other dangers the government is pulling on us.”

Who is challenging women’s rights, gay rights, and other such things in order to return us to a lifestyle of the 1950’s? The tea party and the GOP.

As long as that News is not FoxNews

Yes, and this had full Republican support. There were only a few nays from both parties.

Yes—this is the one I talked about. The NDAA 2012. This one was the one that Obama had his arms tied on. Obama did not fight for this. He had to get the bill through in order to fund the military, but the Republicans would only vote it in if he allowed them to place that very rider on the bill defining (very loosely) terrorism and allowing one to be held with out trial for that. (Don’t you watch C-Span?)

The vote for that was as follows, 5/26/11 House vote Yes: 227 Republicans to 95 Democrats, No: 6 Republicans to 90 Democrats. 12/14/11 House vote, Yes: 190 Republicans to 93 Democrats, No: 43 Republicans to 93 Democrats. (The Rider was placed on before the second vote as I recall). Clearly the Democrats were the ones mostly opposed. The Senate vote on 12/15 had both parties equally supporting it but time was running out to fund the military.

Standard US Foreign policy. It’s wrong—but there’s nothing new about that. You cannot find a single year where the CIA has not been busy on that very thing in at least one, but typically many countries, around the world. After the fall of Kaddafi, the rebels found documents in his office that proved that even as he was an enemy to the US, he was also a friend----managing secret CIA prison for us.

…Any country that wants to be a friend to the US, should pay attention to the bombing of Cambodia to see how they have to play with us. Of course they don’t really have a choice. We have 10 times all the other nations combined in foreign-based military bases.

Anyway---there is nothing different from any other president in this regard.

You are sounding like FOX News.

Conservatives, I suppose, are all about lowering taxes? Let’s see, Romney was very clear about lowering taxes for the wealthy. He tried to be vague about everyone else, but when pinned down his plan had higher taxes for the middle class. Because this was so unpopular his actual plan before election included a somewhat higher tax for the wealthy, but the real tax burden was clearly still on the middle class. This included removing exemptions on mortgage interest, which would hurt the middle class far more than the higher levels of the upper class. My own taxable income would have jumped over $10,000.

I don’t support anything that would make me pay a higher tax. I think it is very unfair that I have to pay so much in taxes, while Romney and all his buddies make far more money and get away with a roughly 15% tax rate. And don’t tell me that it is because his only income is dividends. I know how the game is played---I’ve played it, and I know he is playing it.

But the Patriot Act (Thank you President Bush) has made it very difficult for me to play that game, and yet the very wealthy still have no problem. It is now more difficult for me to open up an offshore trust, offshore corporation, or any other such entity to shield such income, which can be paid back to me as dividends, especially from countries that have a favorable dividend taxation agreement with the US.

SO---I am against the wealthy paying a smaller tax than me especially considering how much wealth accumulation has occurred since the 80’s while most of the country has grown increasingly poor, and we are reeling from a credit crisis, so I push for tax reformation on the wealthy. Therefore, according to conservatives, I am all about raising taxes, as if I wanted everyone’s taxes to go up. (I don’t)

Meanwhile the conservatives are all about lowering taxes, but in truth, it really means retaining lower taxes for the upper class, while they get shafted as their politicians continue to raise taxes for the middle class, and most of the country continues to carry the burden while the upper class doesn’t. Aren’t you old enough to remember Bush promising to not raise taxes, saying, “Read my lips.” Everyone likes to say he was lying, but the upper class did not see any increase in taxation---that should be obvious by now.

Oh and speaking of force, Republicans are all about non-violence and the use of force. This is why Nixon did not bomb Cambodia and went on the air to tell the Nation that he was not bombing, and was not going to bomb, Cambodia. (“Damnit! Who flew those nosy reporters into Cambodia! I want those pilots shot!”)

Detainment is a serious problem in this country---made even more serious by the for-profit prison system (again big business). Our Nation’s Judicial and Police systems are becoming very corrupt---not in the old small-time country cop ways, but in a more devious and hidden way (i.e Corporate ala Healthcare industry way). Since marijuana became legal in Colorado, for example, crime and revenues have dropped. Not to worry there is a promising new revenue source: our jails are filling up with domestic violence cases at an alarming rate. Police show up to make an arrest now, not to find out if anything actually happened or not—they (the cops) will tell you what happened. Taxpayers pay for the incarceration, but it is big business, (and in my county, a company owned by 8 or 12 judges) that make the profit.

Again if you are talking about NDAA 2012 the facts don’t support that he was fighting for it---he was blackmailed into accepting it. But he hasn’t done anything to remove the powers of the Patriot Act, and he was late on even addressing domestic spying. And who knows how far that will go to actually doing anything.

Bush and his crazy Vice President set a very bad precedent for the Presidency with the Patriot Act and the destruction of our civil rights. As the liberal social commentator Naomi Wolf said, and I paraphrase as I don’t the exact quote at hand, once such powers are given to the Presidency, history has shown it is very hard to take them away, even with each successive President.

Obama has made a lot of mistakes. But he has also done quite a bit especially with the economy despite the Republicans fighting him every single step of the way. I don’t divert blame from him when he is doing something I don’t agree with or that infringes upon my rights. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, for example, are just as quick to blame Obama and the democrats when they start doing wrong.

IN fact this is one of the conservative attributes of Shadow projection. They are so busy name-calling and accusing the democrats of infringing upon civil rights, and of always accusing democrats of protecting Obama and so forth that they fail to question their own problems. I mean, do you honestly believe that a woman’s body shuts down to prevent impregnation during a rape?

A good example of this is Voter Fraud---Republican policies that were especially intended to prevent minorities and students and others, who would likely vote for Obama, from voting. This was even acknowledged by Boehner. Yet all my conservative friends insisted how important it was to keep voting legitimate and fair (while the incidence of actual voter fraud was extremely rare, and statistically negligible). But guess what---when it came to voter registration---fraudulent practices happened all over the country, and they were almost entirely committed by---not democrats or minorities----republicans.

Anyway---let’s stop this liberal vs conservative, or Democrat vs. Republican crap. I have more liberal friends than conservative and everything you have described as what liberals are for, does not describe me or my friends, and in many ways we are worried about the same things as you are. It is apparent that you have bought into the conservative propaganda hook line and sinker and are biased against liberals. Truth be told, the Democratic Party is too conservative for most true liberals----like I said, this country has shifted very far to the right.

Big government is a problem with liberalism. But that still does not mean that liberals are all for big government—especially one that steps on our liberties and civil rights. But we are for making sure everyone can eat, and has a place to sleep, and can earn enough money to live on. And this is the struggle, a government big enough to do that, but not so big it starts stepping on the little guy.

Let’s stick to Libertarianism and whether it is a viable political and economic philosophy.

Yes, we are saddled with way too much debt. But it is not inevitable that the dollar will collapse. And Gold and silver are markets. I used to warn the Japanese that land is a market, and you can’t escape that. They would argue that I didn’t understand Japan---that there is only so much land, and there are so many people. Etc etc… I would then tell them of an island nation that was even smaller and with less land than Japan, Singapore. They had the same beliefs, and the same land-based bubble sparked by the hotel industry in Singapore’s case, until it all collapsed in economic crisis. Land was one of the major themes that drove the Japanese stock market in the 80’s. In 1988 the signs were so obvious that it could not continue. It all collapsed in the beginning of 1990.

You can lead a horse to water… Most people disagree with me on things like this. And that is how I make money in the market---because no one believes. I actually teach people how to read charts and to invest the way I do. More than once I have been asked if this is such a good way to invest, and if I teach it to too many people, won’t that defeat its purpose? The answer is no, and there is nothing different, or revolutionary, or even new, in what I do. The simple fact is that no one believes what is happening. I could teach a 100 people how to be contrarian, and when the market peaks, hopefully, at least 1 or 2 or maybe 5 people might actually use what I taught them to get out. There was a lady back in about November 2007 (when I was still working) who got upset with me when I tried to tell her what was coming. She said, “No one can see a market crash coming! That’s why they are unexpected.” I tried to reason with her, “That’s kind of my point…” I was trying to tell her what to watch for. I insisted that it was not the time to get out, because there was still upside to the market, but the time to get out was rapidly approaching. But she would have nothing to do with that. Later in 2008 I happened to look at her account. She had sold everything on a panic bottom—at a huge loss (I bought back in on every panic bottom to make a quick profit).

And then you have those who think they are contrarians---like an investor I knew for many years, but from 2009 to well into 2010 he insisted on shorting (or betting against) the market. He tried to tell me that the economy this, and the economy that, and how bad everything was, and so he thought he was contrarian in a market that was going up. I tried to explain to him that he was not contrarian at all---that almost everyone thought the way he did. All in all, he lost well over $900,000 trying to short the market, as I profited all the way up.

Anyway---I tell everyone that “Anything can happen.” I am out of gold as I said (never got into silver), but hopefully gold will bounce up, and carry silver with it for your sake. The SLV dropped back below its 20-Day Moving Average today, but the GLD has held onto support on its 20-Day. It could move up I guess. Don’t ride them too far down.

 

Well now. It seems we finally have in MW someone that actually knows what he is talking about, sans the emotion of the usual political stances. I do not include myself in the knowledge he has gained experientially. The emotional part of the ups and downs, I get. It's a complicated rig to those of us that haven't put the time in trying to play it. For me, to reduce it to its simplest level---nothing (commodities) is created with price tags attached.

 

Thank you Scratcho---I appreciate it.

 

Well, that's cool. I'm not saying every Liberals want to take away guns. But I know some Liberals personally who believe only cops/government should have guns.

Well, cars do kill people (as much as guns do anyway.) If guns kill people, pencils misspell words. I'm saying much like you were; guns don't kill people, people kill people. They could use a steak knife to kill people.

Secondly, I don't like the idea of government knowing everyone who has guns, cause then they are simply able to show up at your door, and take them away.

People still fight for our Rights. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't. A lot of them are complacent, or, don't pay attention to politics.

I agree. Things are getting insane. But I don't attribute that to the baby-boomers, I attribute that to the group of families which have been controlling our system since that time. (the clintons, Bushes etc)

I disagree here. The true Right is meant to believe in small and limited government. I think the problem is the reverse. We've been expanding government since the 1960's, and the fear of terrorism has given the government a pass from many people, to impose on our freedom.

Woah, buddy! Obama doesn't represent Civil Liberties in any sense of the word.

What is "womens rights?" cause I don't personally believe "Right to choice" is a true right. I think it's legalized genocide to keep population down. Many of the big time Liberals (like Ted Turner) believe in limiting people to 1 child per family. That is overboard.

Gay rights and women being treated as equals, is a reason to fight.

The dangerous stuff, is the most important to me. Obama can drone strike an American citizen tommorow And claim it's legal cause he's done it before. But, I think supporting Obama and opposing his policies is still counter-productive. This is my problem with you Liberals (and I mean no offense) but you blame republicans, when Obama fought for the ability to detain people without trial, and ordered the death of innocent citizens. So, to support him, I don't see that as standing up for the Constitution/Human Rights at all.

Okay, I'm not part of the GOP. That doesn't refute the fact that Obama and the Democrats are still taking away our freedoms.

WHY? CNN, MSNBC and, ABC have a strong Liberal/leftist bias. Yet, Liberals refuse to watch the one channel with differing opinions. I watch all stations, but it's easy to see their bias when you don't align with either party.

Do me a favor, watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMgamzziQMM"]CNN Founder Ted Turner Supports Population Reduction To 2 Billion - YouTube

Also look up "Syria danny" and see how CNN was allowing someone to lie about what was happening there, to gather support for war.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Obama did fight for the ability to indefinitely detain people. It was declared "unconstitutional" and his administration brought it to court, and got them to reconsider by fighting it. I'm sick of hearing from Liberals, how Obama's hands were tied, and there was nothing he can do, when he fought for the ability to do this.

That doesn't make it okay.

Again, that doesn't make it okay. That's the same excuse he uses "well, we've done it before" It doesn't change the fact that it creates more enemies,Obama's a war monger and, we're going in the total opposite direction than the Constitution.

You're sounding ignorant. I'm not even a Republican. Yes, I lean to the Right, but not everyone who leans to the Right are like the morons on Fox. Mainstream Republicans and democrats are equally to blame for this mess, but most Liberals blame republicans and refuse to blame Obama for anything. It's very closed-minded and misguided.

Im not a mainstream Republican. I certainly didn't vote for Romney. Conservatives are supposed to believe in less taxes and smaller government. But today, they are just like the democrats (bought and paid for)

Liberalism does nothing to take that tax burden off the middle class, or help the middle class at all. They want to raise taxes and, expand government.

I believe in abolishing taxes, and implimenting the fair tax only. (everyone pays 23%.) Idc about Romney. Im not a Romney supporter, so you're wasting your breathe

I don't want the rich to pay less than the poor/middle class either. The reason why the political Right says Liberals want taxes to go up, is because they want the taxpayer to pay for wasteful programs like healthcare and, pre kindergarten.

Dude I'm not a republican. I'm getting sick of saying it! But you're sitting here blaming republicans Like democrats don't star wars, and that's not true either.

http://rt.com/usa/ndaa-appeal-mayer-forrest-161/

Obama DID fight for it. He doesn't care about the people or our Human Rights, he does whatever he wants. And democrats and Liberals do nothing to stand up for those human rights.

Obama's only added worse laws, and you're refusing to blame him for what he's actually done.

What do you consider the right? Left is total government control. No one's shifted to the right, if anything, we've shifted to the left by massively expanding government.

You don't think it defines you or your friends, but it does. And I say that because you're supporting a man who is perpetually taking away our rights, starting wars and, bypassing congress and the Constitution.

Making sure everyone has a place to eat, sleep and earn money, is the Liberal excuse. We're getting paid the same amount as we were in the 70's, and we're getting paid less than when we were on a silver/gold standard.Liberalism is just about expanding the size and scope of the government, and wasting even more of our money.


Let’s stick to Libertarianism and whether it is a viable political and economic philosophy.

Endless printing is causing gold and silver to go up. Sure, it goes up when demand is up, but that's normal for anything. I get my silver below market value, so I'm not worried about it. I'm not going to buy gold at 2K an ounce either.

But, if you look at the 14% devaluation of sterling, or Romes devaluation of the currency, you'd see that America is playing with fire by using fiat paper money. It can easily collapse.

 

I'm pretty sure this isn't 2011 anymore.

If you had been paying attention to the markets, you would know that gold has peaked and has been dropping throughout the year... silver too. That tends to happen when you have a good year in the markets.

If you really want to cling to your free market delusions, you should get a new narrative... better yet, get one that doesn't involve comparing a 2000 year old economy to a modern one.

Stop listening to youtube and all of the people trying to get rich from their doomsday predictions.

 

Price going up and down is normal for anything. But gold has consistently gone up, and is a currency metal. and has been steadily rising since the 70's. one year of prices going down doesn't mean anything. Election year will make prices go up, and we are well above levels seen in 99-2000

I watch the facts of what's going on. I'm sure you'd rather me be a complacent Liberal like you, who doesn't look deeply into the situations. But, that's not me.

 

And listen to CNBC istead, which is apparently where you get all your (dis)info from.

 

Gold went up because of the panic... and it went down because the markets were so healthy last year. Then it got to the point where things were too expensive for anyone to buy them, but the tapering is helping with the much-needed market correction. The markets are going to a lot bumpier in 2014 because of the end of the stimulus. This isn't propaganda, conspiracy or opinion-- it's fact.

Gold could go up if there's another massive panic... but it's not a sure thing by any stretch. There is no such thing as a sure bet in the markets.

EXCEPT you can count on the markets going up in the long term, which is why gold has gained since the 70s... because the markets themselves have gone up. A LOT of things have gained since the 70s, and also since 99-00.

In fact, the same thing happened to your average run-of-the-mill index fund.



That's why they say making money on your investments depends on time in the markets, not timing the markets.

 

I get most of my information from Canadian News channels.
But I pay close attention to the markets on a regular basis.

I know it's not quite the objective journalism you would get from Fox, Climate Depot, Infowars, or your ass, but it does the trick.

 

I hear Ross Perot loved to listen to Canadian news channels, as far back as the older Bush.

 

yes, there is a problem there too---and the 1% has steadily gained quite a bit of power over the past few decades.

These are difficult waters you are treading on---the true right--conservatism--is about maintaining and protecting the status quo and the traditional institutions. Fascism is a far right wing ideology that promotes a strong government that seeks to achieve a state run strictly by the traditional institutional ideals (most often religious based). Its strictness is meant to force everyone into the same line of thought and action, and because these ideals are believed to be superior, society will achieve a higher ideal.

Once again, you look at the history of conservative presidents, and you find a history of increased taxes, increased government, and so forth. I am continuously amazed at how repressive conservative politics is in the US, and yet the GOP (I know you are not GOP) continuously speaks out against big government and taxes----it is a classic case of the Jungian shadow. It is also classic Jungian shadow projection---and it is typical of people who have repressive personalities and seek control----they see the world as evil and controlling and so forth, but what they do not see is that it is they themselves who are repressive and seeking control in order to right the wrongs they see in the world. But all they are doing is trying to match the world to their own repressive ego-ideal. The control they see out in the world, is actually a reflection of their own struggle for internal control, but they have repressed it as a shadow element. This is why so many conservatives get into trouble over the very things they are fighting against---Spitzer is the perfect example---because they do not recognize that it is themselves who they are fighting with---not the outside world.

Yes----bigger government is a problem with many liberals----Socialism is just as much a part of the left as is fascism a part of the right. The difference is that the liberals that are for bigger government do not lie to themselves, and therefore mislead the people. But not all liberals are for bigger government just as not all conservatives (i.e. libertarians) are for bigger government.

Case in point---your religious ideals (I am not saying they are right or wrong) mean that, if I am hearing you correctly, you want to take women's rights away regarding abortion. I have lived in countries where abortions are illegal, such as the Philippines. This law causes a lot of problems there. But even here in the US---I am friends with a couple that is very religious. Their teenage daughter got pregnant in a State where abortions were illegal. She was afraid of telling her parents because she had been raised 'right.' Her boyfriend found someone to do the abortion. She went home in a lot of pain, and bleeding. Later that night, when her condition became much worse, and she had already lost a significant amount of blood, her parents rushed her to the emergency room. She lost consciousness on the way, and died not too long after in the ER.

Abortion clinic vacuum systems do not kill babies, Doctors do (OK---I'm just joking there about the abortion clinics!) But I am not joking about my friends.

I don't deny that CNN, MSNBC, and the others do not make mistakes or mislead the people. But how often do they get caught at outright lying, and fabricating testimonies the way FOX does. I watch FOX too sometimes---it is so blatant that it reminds me of the News in the Philippines. I do not align myself with either party either, but my god Fox news is so blatant...

Like I said about Ted Turner---he is part of the 1%.

You are right, it is not OK. My point there was in the last statement, which should fit both of our agendas, if neither of us are aligned with the Republicans or Democrats---he is no different from any other president in this regard. The point is that everyone attacks Obama, including yourself, as if he is the worst president we've ever had, and that all previous ones, especially those of the GOP, were so much better than he. That is just not true.

This actually fits in with a big point I have made elsewhere---of course the democrats are busy defending Obama----it is like kids playing in a rec room. The conservatives are so busy attacking Obama, and trying to prevent every move he makes, that the liberals are forced to defend him. Just look at our interaction here----then the real issues such as domestic spying, get pushed under the rug.

Who cares if he is not an American citizen or how much his dad influenced his life, if he is then able to take away our civil liberties or do things that harm the country while everyone is fighting over a bunch of stupid things. This is why I think America's fascination with conspiracy theories is so dangerous----we focus on all kinds of things that the government may or may not have done, or the New World Order, or Pagan influences in the government, or the Jews or all kinds of crazy crap----and while everyone is looking over here arguing about the doctoring of a video that supposedly made an airplane when there wasn't one-----the government quietly does what it is doing----and no one cares. How can we focus on the real problems when you have to wade through tons of Bullshit just to get to it.

That is an interesting video---I don't know much about RT News---but I would like to have seen an actual quote from the White House press room, or Obama. It keeps referring to the White House, in the article and what I saw of the video---but I would like to see an actual quote. (I couldn't watch the whole video because I could not get a steady data stream. I don't know if it was the connection or a root kit virus I have in my computer).

I was in Europe in August and September 2012. I may have missed something. I will have to research this further.

The shift to the right is widely documented, and I have seen it in very many facets of American life. It is the rise of Apollonian control--as Nietzsche would describe it if he was alive today. The opposite, the Dionysian dynamic is anything but conservative.

I defend him---like the kids in the rec room---because I believe in sticking to the truth and the issues not a bunch of propaganda. I never once said that I support him----I certainly think he was the best choice going in the last election----I continuously said, if the conservatives do not like him---then give us someone better to vote for! Still there are things he has done right, and the right wing refuses to acknowledge that.

Yes---finally lets do that. Stick to Libertarianism. The problem is that for many Americans there has been little wage growth for many decades. Meanwhile the amount of wealth owned by the upper class has shifted sharply in their favor. This has nothing to do with the silver/gold standard. If you think that everyone had enough money to live a decent life under the gold standard, than you are oblivious to America's economic history. But yes, there was a time when the minimum wage allowed one to live a better life than it does now---this is a problem of wage growth not how we back our currency.

Gold and silver have been in a down trend since 2011---that means prices have been going down. Since I last wrote, gold has gone up a bit---the current resistance is the 20 Week Moving Average. Silver has not done anything. But so far that rise is very small compared to the down trend since 2011.

fraggle rock has a good point. Previous examples of fiat currencies have little to do with Modern day Industrialist, or post-industrialist society. Money is all about value---just like gold is---in economies where there is a very primitive market system---an abstract value (which both gold, silver, paper money, or any other value of exchange is) cannot be held the same way as it is in a complex market system. If you need me to expand on this, I will.

 

You are right, we are in a long term up trend, but considering that the peak was in 2011, the drop since then does not fit the argument you hold of why it is dropping---2011 - 2014 is also a long term trend.

The question is, what if we break below that long term trend line that you have---the blue one rising up along the bottom. (By the way---2001 was when I started promoting gold).

However look at that large divergence on the MACD---that suggests that we could see a bounce back in prices--if that happens, then like I said before, the key is, will it break through resistance. I listed several resistance areas earlier, like 12000, (120 on the GLD) and other prices, the 120 Day Moving Average is key, also the various supports we broke through since 2011. right now the 20 Week moving average is a key resistance.

Such a bounce may provide a chance for people to get out who are still holding, on the other hand, if it breaks to new highs, it gives good reason to hold. Anything can happen.

But like fraggle rock said, there are a lot of markets where prices have risen. This will be a tough year---I expect to see a market bottom this year.