Gold & Silver Predictions
A. Nony Moose
around $37.
Gold will get close to $1800 then drop back until finding a floor at around
$1100.
I predict this will happen within one year from this date.
Of course, all bets are off if the USA starts to default on its bonds and nots.
Bremick
"A. Nony Moose" <a...@nony.moose> wrote in message
news:fYdvp.14258$uh5....@newsfe02.iad...
I predict you will be wrong.
oly
The blow-off rise in silver may stall here, but I wouldn't expect the
price to fall very much. Please realize that "paper silver" may jump
around while "physical silver" could command a premium "to buy".
Dealers will want to pay only the "paper silver" price, of course,
when you want to sell physical silver, at this time.
All of the paper silver games are just that, games. If you are
"speculating" with silver for short-term gains, the paper games are
fine so long as you only want settlement in paper dollars.
If you are "saving" for "hard times", then you want physical silver.
And the likelihood that the U.S. Treasury would overtly "default" are
slim and none (and BTW, Slim left town).
Why would "THEY" overtly default on "repaying" or "paying interest" on
UST securities when the PTB can create additional dollars with just a
few keystrokes on the right computer???
Tiny continous "defaults" through intentional inflation, yes. Overt
default as in "Stop the Exchequer", never.
I don't see much pullback in the PMs, really and truly.
oly
"Roßert G. Schaffrath"
> On May 1, 8:17 am, "A. Nony Moose"<a...@nony.moose> wrote:
> And the likelihood that the U.S. Treasury would overtly "default" are
> slim and none (and BTW, Slim left town).
>
> Why would "THEY" overtly default on "repaying" or "paying interest" on
> UST securities when the PTB can create additional dollars with just a
> few keystrokes on the right computer???
There are different ways of defaulting. The New York Times, if I recall
the source correctly, had an article recently on several ways the United
States could default on its debt. In essence the article points out
that the last thing the United States wants to do is default on its
international debts such as those owed to China. That will lower its
credit rating, chase away any future international investment, further
harm the dollar and put us in the same family as countries like
Argentina. However, if the Treasury decides to default on its domestic
obligations, such as all the bonds the Social Security Administration
purchased, there would be no repercussions to the United States
internationally.
So if there is any default to come, expect it to be on domestic obligations.
Jim_Higgins
Which would have horrendous political consequences at home. Parker
Brothers will soon take over from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Bremick
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:069b944a-cee0-43c9...@q32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 8:17 am, "A. Nony Moose" <a...@nony.moose> wrote:
> Silver will peak at aroung $60-$65/oz then drop back until finding a floor
> around $37.
> Gold will get close to $1800 then drop back until finding a floor at
> around
> $1100.
> I predict this will happen within one year from this date.
> Of course, all bets are off if the USA starts to default on its bonds and
> nots.
The blow-off rise in silver may stall here, but I wouldn't expect the
price to fall very much. Please realize that "paper silver" may jump
around while "physical silver" could command a premium "to buy".
Dealers will want to pay only the "paper silver" price, of course,
when you want to sell physical silver, at this time.
[Please explain "paper silver"? If you want to sell some silver at a
profit, how would you take your money? What am I bringing with me if I go
to a dealer and offer him "paper silver"?]
All of the paper silver games are just that, games. If you are
"speculating" with silver for short-term gains, the paper games are
fine so long as you only want settlement in paper dollars.
[Again, please explain "paper games", and in what other form other than
dollars would you take your gains? More silver? Gold?]
If you are "saving" for "hard times", then you want physical silver.
[Then when those hard times come, you're going to have to take paper
dollars or their equivalent in tangible needs.]
And the likelihood that the U.S. Treasury would overtly "default" are
slim and none (and BTW, Slim left town).
Why would "THEY" overtly default on "repaying" or "paying interest" on
UST securities when the PTB can create additional dollars with just a
few keystrokes on the right computer???
Tiny continous "defaults" through intentional inflation, yes. Overt
default as in "Stop the Exchequer", never.
I don't see much pullback in the PMs, really and truly.
[I wish I knew for sure, but I still feel bullish, too.]
oly
> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
Nowadays, many people make their bets on gold and silver using
"exchange traded funds", this is what I am calling "papre silver" (a
thought which is hardly original to my provincial little mind).
These are kinda like mutual funds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund
see the section on Commodity "ETFs"
Some of the ETFs are really huge. Some ETFs are supposed to hold the
underlying gold and silver, but there is a lot of arguement whether or
not they really do this on a 100% coverage basis.
If you are interested in trading for short terms gains, but are wary
of traditional commodities markets (or don't have the larger amounts
of money to play the futures markets), these ETFs are very very
popular.
oly
oly
wrote:
The Federal Reserve Bank is purportedly already buying between 1/3 and
2/3 of all newly issued Treasuries, as well as many other toxic assets
from the big banks. The balance sheet of the FRB has exploded since
2008 and there seems to be no way to stop.
The new money put out in the American banking system has largely been
hoarded by the big banks, so far, as they are very afraid for their
solvency and continued existence. However, the potential monetary
"tinder" for a rip-roaring inflationary forest fire has already been
laid on the floor of the financial forest (anybody got a light for
Messrs. Bernanke and Geithner's cigarettes?).
There will never be an overt default, internationally or
domestically. Incestuous Treasury and FRB finance will likely cause a
huge inflation, but there is simply no reason to default.
As the FRB goes from program to program, the flow of new monies into
the system could be irratic; but note that during the Weimar inflation
era there were periods when the mark regained some ground for a few
weeks or so, only to fall again.
oly
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
And yes, I know, on the evening of 5/1/2011, Gold is down 1% and
Silver down 10% after the first hour of trading. Probably 24 or 48
hours from now, the PMs will make all that back up. The U.S. dollar
index hasn't had any corresponding recovery so far during the early
trading tonight.
The present story on silver is very long, a veritable treasure field
for conspiracy theorists. The commodities exchanges are very busy the
last few days, raising margin requirements for those who would trade
silver (and gold). This sort of thing is part of what "THEY" did to
the Hunt Brothers many years ago.
oly
"Roßert G. Schaffrath"
Unfortunately the "political consequences" would change nothing. If all
the incumbents were voted out, you would still have the stalemate we
currently have as the House would flip to Democratic control and the
Senate would flip to Republican control. It would not matter what party
the President was in :/
Clearly I do not think there is an acceptable solution to our current
dilemma. It is like the country is on autopilot and we are flying
toward a mountain. Everybody is too busy arguing over who should take
over the controls and whose course should be followed to pay attention
to where we are headed.
A. Nony Moose
""Roßert G. Schaffrath"" <rscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4dbdeb01$0$9061$607e...@cv.net...
> Clearly I do not think there is an acceptable solution to our current dilemma.
The solution is simple and already known to the Feds: raise taxes (esp. on the
top 2% of wage earners), eliminate the salary cap on Social Security taxes, make
Social Security need based (clearly people with a large retirement income and
accumulated wealth should not be receiving SS.) and finally, cut spending on the
military by ending this futile war in the Mid-East and eliminating foreign aid.
Bremick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund
[Thanks. I am somewhat familiar with ETF's and considered one before
finally deciding to open a Kitco Pool account instead. The information I
gathered suggested it could be more difficult to sell ETF shares under
certain conditions. With Kitco, I could indeed take posession of actual
bullion if I chose, but I decided not to. I found it easy to sell xxx
ounces online rather than to deal with physical bullion. So in essence, if
I understand correctly, "paper silver" would be comparable to paper stocks
or mutual funds, where you don't actually take posession of anything.]
oly
> ""Roßert G. Schaffrath"" <rschaffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:4dbdeb01$0$9061$607e...@cv.net...
>
> > Clearly I do not think there is an acceptable solution to our current dilemma.
>
> The solution is simple and already known to the Feds: raise taxes (esp. on the
> top 2% of wage earners), eliminate the salary cap on Social Security taxes, make
> Social Security need based (clearly people with a large retirement income and
> accumulated wealth should not be receiving SS.) and finally, cut spending on the
> military by ending this futile war in the Mid-East and eliminating foreign aid.
Rambling thoughts......
Entitlements are only a side-show nowadays.
The big liabilities come from proping-up the crippled financial
markets/ ensuring the supply of foreign oil via the military.
Perhaps they could take the four biggest "too-big-to-fail" banks and
break them up into 200 or 300 smaller institutions?
Perhaps they could close Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
How about a direct new federal tax of $5.00 per gallon on gasoline?
(We already pay that much keeping the war machine going to keep the
oil coming here, plus the kids who have gotten killed since 2003, we
just ignore those costs). That money should go directly towards the
Pentagon budget.
Giving an elderly couple a guranteed income of $1300 per month isn't
what's breaking the system, even if they don't actually need it. If
you "means test" social security income, then shouldn't you refund the
contributions of someone who won't recieve it? Fair is fair.
Just rambling, not disagreeing so much. But it's not entitlements so
much...
oly
"Roßert G. Schaffrath"
> ""Roßert G. Schaffrath""<rscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4dbdeb01$0$9061$607e...@cv.net...
>> Clearly I do not think there is an acceptable solution to our current dilemma.
>
> accumulated wealth should not be receiving SS.)
Implementing such a change then converts it from "Social Security" to
"Senior Welfare". For better or worse, the whole principal behind
Social Security was everyone pays in and everyone collects. In some
ways, you wind up rewarding those who spend whatever they have as fast
as it comes in and you penalize the savers. Personally I have no
objection that Bill Gates will someday collect SS. That is how the
system was structured. He pays in, he collects. Granted he will
probably turn the check over to charity.
Plus, if you do change the system to a needs based formula where only
the poorest people collect it, you will most likely cause what FDR
warned about if only a select few were eligible to collect; people who
do not have any skin in the game will eventually have the votes to kill
the program entirely. After all, if a majority of people are paying the
taxes yet not getting anything in return, they will elect politicians
who will bow to their wishes and defund the program.
Otherwise, removing the salary cap makes sense and also not increasing
the payout year after year would help as well.
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
My understanding is that for many American speculators, the ETFs are
where the real action in PMs takes place. One would hope that they
are run properly (i.e., according to their Prospectuses, at least).
oly
oly
Bremick
[That was one of my concerns, too. By buying and selling actual bullion
oneself, there's no need for fund managers. And yes, it was a surprise to
see silver dive back into the $43-$44 range when the market opened today. I
agree that it likely will trampoline back to the upper $40's again within
the week.]
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, these things don't run in straight lines, and many observers
have been looking for a $5 change day (just not looking on the
downside, of course). There was a $3 to $4 move over the recent long
Easter weekend.
There has already been a little price rebound tonight.
My thinking is that is you adjust the price-history for 1979 and 1980
into present-day dollars, we presently are only at 25% of the old
record prices.
Also, although I don't believe that silver is nearly as scarce as some
promoter-type people would have you believe, silver IS scarcer today -
back in the late 1970s, the U.S. Government still had stockpiles of
the stuff (which have long since been sold).
oly
P.S. Perhaps I should start another thread - won't $15 or $16 1964
Kennedy, and earlier Franklin and Walker halves just kill coin
collecting eventually? $30+ for very-iffy condition Morgan and Peace
Dollars? No way for a young collector to get anything worthwhile
cheaply, and at the same time many of our current little "treasures"
will hit the melting pot???
A. Nony Moose
You argument is based on the fallacy that most people wouldn't collect SS on a
need-based formula.
Nick Knight
>The solution is simple and already known to the Feds: raise taxes (esp. on
>the top 2% of wage earners), eliminate the salary cap on Social Security
>taxes, make Social Security need based (clearly people with a large
>retirement income and accumulated wealth should not be receiving SS.)
So, here I am, about to participate in an off-topic political discussion.
However, I've wanted to comment on the niavety of people who seem to think
this is "the answer" and I have yet to find the right medium. Ha!
I am NOT in or near the "top 2%" of wage earners. However, if I were, I'd
have to wonder ... what extra do I get out of the government that warrants
paying them 30% of my millions/billions over someone who is paying $5-10k a
year in taxes? The answer would be little to nothing. Why should someone
who has millions have to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes? If he makes
billions, is his "fair share" millions?
When folks split a dinner check, do they ask who makes more, figure out a
total and a percentage for each diner and split the bill that way? When
they go to the grocery store, does the billionaire pay more for tomatoes
than the normal housewife or middle manager? Why should they? Does their
vote count extra? Their opinion? When they retire, is not their
theoretical return capped by social security to some max? Even if they
would pay millions? WHY would they pay millions? Particularly if your
suggestion gets considered and they never see a piddly cent?
I'm sure I can find a heated debated with the bleeding hearts about why they
should. I'm not really interested in debate ... just want to express my
opinion and leave it at that. I'll simply say that I don't see it, and I
never will. It just doesn't make sense to tax billionaires at a high flat
rate for every additional dollar they make.
Let's ask this to anyone who wants to argue. If someone offered you a
million dollars to move to Europe or the Bahamas, or Fiji ... would you do
it? Mind you, you could visit the US and even continue to own and spend all
the time you want in the house you own today. Lots of flexibility, but you
get a million dollars. Or maybe it's a few hundred thousand, or a few
billion ... it certainly would be worth considering, eh? Well, that's what
US businesses are doing, because other countries are taxing more favorably.
Google, Microsoft ... it's "good, smart business" for them. I'm sure this
can work for individuals, too.
THAT'S what we want to do ... send the rich people and successful businesses
to other countries. Yep, that's the solution.
When I spend too much and have trouble covering my credit cards (and I do,
on occasion, and it's mostly because of an addiction to coins and stamps and
old cars), I have to slap myself and make sure I spend less the next month.
Or, put more pressure on my credit line. Until that runs out. I can't
expand my credit line just because I want to. I can't demand raises from my
very profitable employer. I am responsible for my own spending and debt.
As is this country. How 'bout we fess up and pay the piper?
>finally, cut spending on the military by ending this futile war in the
>Mid-East and eliminating foreign aid.
Now there's something we can agree on.
Nick
oly
> ""Roßert G. Schaffrath"" <rschaffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:4dbdf87b$0$5311$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/1/2011 7:36 PM, A. Nony Moose wrote:
> >>news:4dbdeb01$0$9061$607e...@cv.net...
> >>> Clearly I do not think there is an acceptable solution to our current
> >>> dilemma.
>
> >> make Social Security need based (clearly people with a large retirement
> >> income and
> >> accumulated wealth should not be receiving SS.)
>
> > Implementing such a change then converts it from "Social Security" to "Senior
> > Welfare". For better or worse, the whole principal behind Social Security was
> > everyone pays in and everyone collects. In some ways, you wind up rewarding
> > those who spend whatever they have as fast as it comes in and you penalize the
> > savers. Personally I have no objection that Bill Gates will someday collect
> > SS. That is how the system was structured. He pays in, he collects. Granted
> > he will probably turn the check over to charity.
>
> > Plus, if you do change the system to a needs based formula where only the
> > poorest people collect it, you will most likely cause what FDR warned about if
> > only a select few were eligible to collect; people who do not have any skin in
> > the game will eventually have the votes to kill the program entirely. After
> > all, if a majority of people are paying the taxes yet not getting anything in
> > return, they will elect politicians who will bow to their wishes and defund
> > the program.
>
> > Otherwise, removing the salary cap makes sense and also not increasing the
> > payout year after year would help as well.
>
> You argument is based on the fallacy that most people wouldn't collect SS on a
>
> - Show quoted text -
My experience is that for a least 50% of the people whom I know who
collect Social Security, that is their only, sole source of cash
income. Especially now that the Federal Reserve Bank has a ZIRP (zero
interest rate policy). Many older folks who had some money in the
bank have had to eat through their principal, since their interest
income is for shit.
I will grant that one-half of the 50% mentioned above have a house
that is paid for. But this itself brings in no cash, and often real
estate property taxes must be paid out of the Social Security check.
Means testing is dubious and would no doubt promote early transfers of
property to other family members and other forms of fudging. This is
already the case just to shield assets from the nursing home, and
would be worse with SS means-testing.
oly
Nick Knight
>Let's ask this to anyone who wants to argue. If someone offered you a
>million dollars to move to Europe or the Bahamas, or Fiji ... would you do
>it?
Sorry, I made a mistake. This isn't a one time payment ... you'd get 1
million dollars every year you stayed there. Where "staying there" means
that is your residence of record, but you can travel anywhere you want.
Nick
"Roßert G. Schaffrath"
> ""Roßert G. Schaffrath""<rscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> Otherwise, removing the salary cap makes sense and also not increasing the
>> payout year after year would help as well.
>
> You argument is based on the fallacy that most people wouldn't collect SS on a
> need-based formula.
>
The same "fallacy" that the Federal Income Tax, as originally proposed,
would only apply to the top 1% or so of the population. We know how
that worked out. Once there is a formula for determining need, that
formula will be adjusted depending upon who is in power. With a liberal
regime, it will be structured to cover as many people they can find
including those who probably wouldn't qualify because "it is the right
thing to do". With a conservative regime, the pressure would be to cut
it as much as possible, much like the Medicaid debate going on now.
Either way, as sure as the sun rises in the morning, many people will
find themselves paying but not getting a benefit.
Give the politicians flexibility and they will bend it until it breaks.
Bremick
Or getting a benefit without having to pay at all as do 40-50% of the
households who can deflect all taxes with deductions.
Bremick
"Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
news:4dbe321b$1$avpx$mr2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Apparently no one cared about your "mistake" or your reluctant thoughts.
Might as well killfile yourself..
mazorj
A news story I heard yesterday on states raising taxes for high-income
residents cited studies showing that fears that the rich would move to
another state were baseless. Statistically, there was very little
difference in the "move out" rate for those whose taxes went up versus those
whose income was high enough to be just below the cut-off level for the tax
increase. So the avoidance of additional taxes is far outweighed by the
desire/need to live close to their businesses or jobs, plus the loss of
estblished social networks plus the hassle of moving.
So if the average high-income American isn't going to move one state over to
avoid a marginal state tax increase, how many do you think are going to
leave America altogether to avoid the marginal increase from additional
federal taxes? Perhaps a few, but that's all.
> When I spend too much and have trouble covering my credit cards (and I do,
> on occasion, and it's mostly because of an addiction to coins and stamps
> and
> old cars), I have to slap myself and make sure I spend less the next
> month.
> Or, put more pressure on my credit line. Until that runs out. I can't
> expand my credit line just because I want to. I can't demand raises from
> my
> very profitable employer. I am responsible for my own spending and debt.
> As is this country. How 'bout we fess up and pay the piper?
While there are many parallels between the principles of personal and
government finances, there are many important differences. An obvious one
is that your boss doesn't go arbitrarily slashing your salary income every
once in a while just to give himself a raise, whereas the rich periodically
give themselves a raise by pushing through tax cuts - which slashes
goverment income (and thereby causes substantial government revenue
shortfalls).
Nick Knight
>Apparently no one cared about your "mistake" or your reluctant thoughts.
>Might as well killfile yourself..
And yet, you found the time to reply. Which fortifies my first, middle and
most recent impression of you.
Or, perhaps, just maybe, someone read the post and saw that I wasn't going
to argue it. Even more likely, I convinced folks that the original proposal
was Just Plain Dumb. Who knows. I don't care.
Should I thank you for your opinion? I'll pass.
Nick
Nick Knight
>So if the average high-income American isn't going to move one state over
>to avoid a marginal state tax increase, how many do you think are going to
> leave America altogether to avoid the marginal increase from additional
>federal taxes? Perhaps a few, but that's all.
If it's marginal, they won't. If they are suddenly paying SS tax on
millions? Well, moving a state over won't help. It's all a matter of
scale.
I forget which show I saw ... 60 minutes? 48 hours? Interviewing Google
and MS higher-ups, asking why they are moving operations to Europe. Mind
you, digital operations can go anywhere with little moving overhead. taxes
were the reason. You tax enough, and it becomes significant enough, people
will adjust.
But then I'm arguing. And Bruce says nobody's supposed to care.
Nick
Nick Knight
>once in a while just to give himself a raise, whereas the rich periodically
> give themselves a raise by pushing through tax cuts - which slashes
>goverment income (and thereby causes substantial government revenue
>shortfalls).
W-w-w-w-wait. A "raise" means they manage to keep more of the money that
they actually made? Funny. See, this is the lapse in logic that I find so
interesting. Just cut the irresponsible spending.
I'll killfile this thread now. If we could all argue logically, it would be
one thing. I just don't get into countering silliness as a prolonged
effort.
Nick
Bremick
> In <ipm96k$9ts$1...@dont-email.me>, on 05/02/2011
> at 08:48 AM, "Bremick" <rem...@cox.net> said:
>
>>Apparently no one cared about your "mistake" or your reluctant thoughts.
>>Might as well killfile yourself..
>
> And yet, you found the time to reply. Which fortifies my first, middle
> and
> most recent impression of you.
Seems to me you've killfiled me in the past. Odd you could read my post.
Or are your killfile boasts just bluster?
>
> Or, perhaps, just maybe, someone read the post and saw that I wasn't going
> to argue it. Even more likely, I convinced folks that the original
> proposal
> was Just Plain Dumb. Who knows. I don't care.
If you didn't care, why bother to post at all?
>
> Should I thank you for your opinion? I'll pass.
Please go killfile yourself.
Bremick
I said nobody apparently cares about what YOU think, since you don't seem to
care yourself.
Bremick
Funny, you post your profound observations and then "killfile" the responses
when they don't reach your standards. No tolerance at all for silliness?
Post something more mature.
mazorj
> In <ipnafq$koj$1...@dont-email.me>, on 05/02/2011
> at 06:04 PM, "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> said:
>
>>once in a while just to give himself a raise, whereas the rich
>>periodically
>> give themselves a raise by pushing through tax cuts - which slashes
>>goverment income (and thereby causes substantial government revenue
>>shortfalls).
>
> W-w-w-w-wait. A "raise" means they manage to keep more of the money that
> they actually made? Funny. See, this is the lapse in logic that I find so
> interesting. Just cut the irresponsible spending.
Since you are so literal and so metaphor-challenged, I'll have to remember
to put metaphors in quotation marks to be sure that you get it. Of course I
know the difference. But the effect is the same, which was my point. And
I'll wager that you knew that I know the difference; but you're just looking
for an excuse not to have to justify or engage in any challenges to your
diktats.
> I'll killfile this thread now. If we could all argue logically, it would
> be
> one thing. I just don't get into countering silliness as a prolonged
> effort.
You don't want to make any effort at all. You nailed your theses to the
wall and exited stage right. (Make that "nailed your theses to the wall"
and "exited stage right" - those are metaphors, Nick, not literal
descriptions. And in your case stage "right" was not a randomly chosen
literal direction, it's an apt metaphor for your views.)
> Nick