A video from the Copenhagen Climate conference....Source.
Watch it and listen. He explains why the market must and will be taken down.
Top Three Videos – August 8, 2026
2 days ago
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
OK Obama, One Chance to Pull A "Jackson"!
Obama spoke these words recently: "If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have," Obama told reporters at the White House on Thursday, flanked by his top economic advisers and legislators."
Now we'll see what his follow through is. If he breaks up the banks he's bound to make an awful lot of folks mad. Maybe they'll get over it quickly enough sunbathing on their yachts watching the US Military clear off all that beachfront property for them that they will soon be developing. That should cheer them up!
Anyway. Look at Geithner in the back. Does he look scared to you? He doesn't to me. He looks mad as hell. You know what he must be thinking, "Ohhhhhhh no. What am I going to tell my masters? They wanted an inside guy in the White House and they'll blame this on me for not "advising" "him" properly....(sneer). Throw in a hiss for good measure?
Seriously though, when any of ANY of these guys speak I just can't believe them. What will busting these banks up do anyway? I have an idea....that Shadow Banking system we used to have before the market blew up...yeah that one. They're going to reinvent it. Overnight. JPM and GS et al, are all right now spinning companies off to handle all their trading for them. They'll remain "banks" doing "bank" things like taking in boring deposits and giving out small loans...YAWN! But the beast they'll spawn off on us? Well, what else can they do to prop the markets up? The Fed needs a faucet to pour money out of and the banks have a cup that ne'er over-floweth.
One big problem they'll have though is it might be a good political stunt for Americans but the rest of the world might see it differently. Already the markets are off all over the world. Now world leaders get to see politicians duke it out with the banks in the media circus so the Democrats can toughen up their look after the health care debacle in an election year. Maybe they'll even accidentally accomplish something.
I just hope they take off the gloves. Hey, do we get free bread at the match?
Now we'll see what his follow through is. If he breaks up the banks he's bound to make an awful lot of folks mad. Maybe they'll get over it quickly enough sunbathing on their yachts watching the US Military clear off all that beachfront property for them that they will soon be developing. That should cheer them up!
Anyway. Look at Geithner in the back. Does he look scared to you? He doesn't to me. He looks mad as hell. You know what he must be thinking, "Ohhhhhhh no. What am I going to tell my masters? They wanted an inside guy in the White House and they'll blame this on me for not "advising" "him" properly....(sneer). Throw in a hiss for good measure?
Seriously though, when any of ANY of these guys speak I just can't believe them. What will busting these banks up do anyway? I have an idea....that Shadow Banking system we used to have before the market blew up...yeah that one. They're going to reinvent it. Overnight. JPM and GS et al, are all right now spinning companies off to handle all their trading for them. They'll remain "banks" doing "bank" things like taking in boring deposits and giving out small loans...YAWN! But the beast they'll spawn off on us? Well, what else can they do to prop the markets up? The Fed needs a faucet to pour money out of and the banks have a cup that ne'er over-floweth.
One big problem they'll have though is it might be a good political stunt for Americans but the rest of the world might see it differently. Already the markets are off all over the world. Now world leaders get to see politicians duke it out with the banks in the media circus so the Democrats can toughen up their look after the health care debacle in an election year. Maybe they'll even accidentally accomplish something.
I just hope they take off the gloves. Hey, do we get free bread at the match?
End of the Dollar Continues
Headlines today:
Russia’s Central Bank Boosts Gold Holdings 4.1% in Month
Russia moves into Canadian dollars
Keep investing in dollar denominated assets at your own risk.
Russia’s Central Bank Boosts Gold Holdings 4.1% in Month
Russia moves into Canadian dollars
Keep investing in dollar denominated assets at your own risk.
All Manipulations End
An excellent article below. $17 is the lower band for the channel silver has been in. Anything under $17 is a steal and won't be around long.
The biggest danger to silver right now is a market crash. If that happens it's anyone's guess what silver will do. I predict the COMEX prices will crash and you will again see physical shortages of silver with big premiums.
Therefore, waiting for the prices to drop to buy silver will be a moot point because where will you buy it? I started buying silver at $18 just off of $21 and I promise you there was difficulty in even finding the stuff. Most places were sold out. The US Mint even suspended the production of certain coins and ELIMINATED the production of others...
Read on....
Silver: The Race Is On
Ed Zimmer
What do the following items tell you? Price of silver falls by nearly 5% in one day. In less than 11 days the available stock of silver to cover paper shorts falls by nearly 15%. In the first few minutes of oveseas trade, silver begins to recover it's losses.
The answer is that the race to own silver is on. From the US Government saying that it can't get enough blanks to make the silver eagle to the fact that silver stocks are continuing to decline rapidly since the first of the year, the signs are all pointing to an increase in the future. Allow me to point out what I am seeing and you can make up your own mind.
On Wednesday, January 20th, prices in New York for silver plummeted 4.7%, down 89 cents on the day. Yet the World Spot price not only stops the crash, but turns slightly positive in the first few minutes of trade. It would appear that traders outside the US have a different view of the value of the silver metal.
Tuesday, January 19th. the COMEX totals of silver on deposit shows 113 Moz of silver combined on deposit. While that is up slightly from the 112.6Moz in December, the numbers are seriously misleading. On the 8th of January, total stocks were at 111.5 Moz of which 54 Moz were registered to cover contract positions, 57 Moz was eligible to cover contracts, but were actually owned by someone who had them on deposit at a COMEX depository.
Just 11 days later, the stocks of registered silver have fallen to 47.4 Moz while the eligible stocks rose to 65 Moz. As of the 15th, over 128,000 silver contracts were open, amounting to a trade of more than 640 Moz with just 47 Moz available to cover demands for delivery. That's right, there is only physical silver to cover slightly more than 7% of the open silver contracts on the COMEX. Do the math -- 93% of the COMEX contracts can only be covered if the short side can find someone to sell them silver or the long is willing to settle in paper money for a paper silver contract.
Basically, nearly 15% of what was the available COMEX silver is now owned by someone. It only took 11 days for that much silver to disappear into personal hands. Only 47 Moz remains, at which point the shorts develope a new term for "naked short selling", because the only way they can then satisfiy the counterparties is to settle 1) Buy Silver on the open market to settle the demand for delivery or 2) force a settlement in cash, which is the same thing as a default.
I would expect the registered stocks to rise slightly in the near term, as the drop in prices allows some recovery, IF there is silver to be purchased on the open market at levels needed by COMEX. Otherwise, the race to own silver is heating up. Joe Sixpack may not yet be waking up to the facts of silver, but it would appear that savvy traders have laid definative claim on 7 million ounces in just 11 days, you might want to consider your position before the checkered flag waves.
Disclosure: Long GLD, SLV, Physical Metal, retirement accounts
Ed Zimmer is a graduate of The School of the Ozarks (now known as College of the Ozarks) in Southwest Missouri. He spent 14 years in broadcast news in the Midwest covering, among other things, commodities. He is currently manager of a healthcare support facility doing over two million dollars a year in sales.
The biggest danger to silver right now is a market crash. If that happens it's anyone's guess what silver will do. I predict the COMEX prices will crash and you will again see physical shortages of silver with big premiums.
Therefore, waiting for the prices to drop to buy silver will be a moot point because where will you buy it? I started buying silver at $18 just off of $21 and I promise you there was difficulty in even finding the stuff. Most places were sold out. The US Mint even suspended the production of certain coins and ELIMINATED the production of others...
Read on....
Silver: The Race Is On
Ed Zimmer
What do the following items tell you? Price of silver falls by nearly 5% in one day. In less than 11 days the available stock of silver to cover paper shorts falls by nearly 15%. In the first few minutes of oveseas trade, silver begins to recover it's losses.
The answer is that the race to own silver is on. From the US Government saying that it can't get enough blanks to make the silver eagle to the fact that silver stocks are continuing to decline rapidly since the first of the year, the signs are all pointing to an increase in the future. Allow me to point out what I am seeing and you can make up your own mind.
On Wednesday, January 20th, prices in New York for silver plummeted 4.7%, down 89 cents on the day. Yet the World Spot price not only stops the crash, but turns slightly positive in the first few minutes of trade. It would appear that traders outside the US have a different view of the value of the silver metal.
Tuesday, January 19th. the COMEX totals of silver on deposit shows 113 Moz of silver combined on deposit. While that is up slightly from the 112.6Moz in December, the numbers are seriously misleading. On the 8th of January, total stocks were at 111.5 Moz of which 54 Moz were registered to cover contract positions, 57 Moz was eligible to cover contracts, but were actually owned by someone who had them on deposit at a COMEX depository.
Just 11 days later, the stocks of registered silver have fallen to 47.4 Moz while the eligible stocks rose to 65 Moz. As of the 15th, over 128,000 silver contracts were open, amounting to a trade of more than 640 Moz with just 47 Moz available to cover demands for delivery. That's right, there is only physical silver to cover slightly more than 7% of the open silver contracts on the COMEX. Do the math -- 93% of the COMEX contracts can only be covered if the short side can find someone to sell them silver or the long is willing to settle in paper money for a paper silver contract.
Basically, nearly 15% of what was the available COMEX silver is now owned by someone. It only took 11 days for that much silver to disappear into personal hands. Only 47 Moz remains, at which point the shorts develope a new term for "naked short selling", because the only way they can then satisfiy the counterparties is to settle 1) Buy Silver on the open market to settle the demand for delivery or 2) force a settlement in cash, which is the same thing as a default.
I would expect the registered stocks to rise slightly in the near term, as the drop in prices allows some recovery, IF there is silver to be purchased on the open market at levels needed by COMEX. Otherwise, the race to own silver is heating up. Joe Sixpack may not yet be waking up to the facts of silver, but it would appear that savvy traders have laid definative claim on 7 million ounces in just 11 days, you might want to consider your position before the checkered flag waves.
Disclosure: Long GLD, SLV, Physical Metal, retirement accounts
Ed Zimmer is a graduate of The School of the Ozarks (now known as College of the Ozarks) in Southwest Missouri. He spent 14 years in broadcast news in the Midwest covering, among other things, commodities. He is currently manager of a healthcare support facility doing over two million dollars a year in sales.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
US Ends Campaign Funding Limit. Uh-Oh!
US ends limits on campaign funding
The dissenting justices said limits on spending violated America's constitutional free-speech rights [AFP]
The US supreme court has ended limits on corporate spending for US political campaigns, which will effect this year's congressional races and the 2012 presidential contest.
The 5-4 ruling on Thursday was a defeat for the law's supporters who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system to promote or defeat candidates.
The ruling by the conservative majority transformed the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in future presidential and congressional elections, which have already broken new spending records with each political cycle.
The justices on Thursday overturned supreme court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights.
"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavoured speakers," he wrote.
Dissenting liberals
Al Jazeera's John Terrett explains how the court order will affect congressional elections
The court's conservative majority, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees, previously voted to limit or strike down parts of the law designed to regulate the role of money in politics and prevent corruption.
The court's four liberals, including its newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by Obama, dissented.
In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said: "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."
The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute film called 'Hillary: The Movie' that was very critical of Hillary Clinton, now-secretary of state, as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination.
Film controversy
Citizens United wanted to air advertisements for the film and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.
But federal courts said the film looked and sounded like a long campaign
advert, and therefore should be regulated like one.
Hillary: The Movie was advertised on the internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few
theatres.
Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theatres or the internet.
The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of
arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending.
After a special argument session in September, the conservative justices gave every indication that they were going to take the steps they did on Thursday.
Source....
The dissenting justices said limits on spending violated America's constitutional free-speech rights [AFP]
The US supreme court has ended limits on corporate spending for US political campaigns, which will effect this year's congressional races and the 2012 presidential contest.
The 5-4 ruling on Thursday was a defeat for the law's supporters who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system to promote or defeat candidates.
The ruling by the conservative majority transformed the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in future presidential and congressional elections, which have already broken new spending records with each political cycle.
The justices on Thursday overturned supreme court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights.
"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavoured speakers," he wrote.
Dissenting liberals
Al Jazeera's John Terrett explains how the court order will affect congressional elections
The court's conservative majority, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees, previously voted to limit or strike down parts of the law designed to regulate the role of money in politics and prevent corruption.
The court's four liberals, including its newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by Obama, dissented.
In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said: "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."
The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute film called 'Hillary: The Movie' that was very critical of Hillary Clinton, now-secretary of state, as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination.
Film controversy
Citizens United wanted to air advertisements for the film and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.
But federal courts said the film looked and sounded like a long campaign
advert, and therefore should be regulated like one.
Hillary: The Movie was advertised on the internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few
theatres.
Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theatres or the internet.
The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of
arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending.
After a special argument session in September, the conservative justices gave every indication that they were going to take the steps they did on Thursday.
Source....
Friday, January 15, 2010
Where Was Your $$ Last Year?
Guess where mine was???
Results for last year now in, 31 Dec 2008 to 31 December 2009: S&P500 up 23.5%, Dow up 18.8%, Gold price up 20.8%, silver price up 35.6%, platinum price up 56.9%, palladium price up 118.4%, and US $ index down 5.2%...source.
Results for last year now in, 31 Dec 2008 to 31 December 2009: S&P500 up 23.5%, Dow up 18.8%, Gold price up 20.8%, silver price up 35.6%, platinum price up 56.9%, palladium price up 118.4%, and US $ index down 5.2%...source.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Government Prepares for Revolution
If I were President and there was potential for revolution in the near future, this is one of the things I'd do.....
Link
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 11, 2010
President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors
Executive Order will Strengthen Further Partnership Between the Federal and State and Local Governments to Better Protect Our Nation
The President today signed an Executive Order (attached) establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms. In selecting the Governors to the Council, the White House will solicit input from Governors and Governors’ associations. Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole.
Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council.
The Council of Governors will provide an invaluable Senior Administration forum for exchanging views with State and local officials on strengthening our National resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our Nation today and in the future.
The formation of the Council of Governors was required by the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act which stated, “The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.” (NDAA FY2008, Sec 1822)
Link
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 11, 2010
President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors
Executive Order will Strengthen Further Partnership Between the Federal and State and Local Governments to Better Protect Our Nation
The President today signed an Executive Order (attached) establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms. In selecting the Governors to the Council, the White House will solicit input from Governors and Governors’ associations. Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole.
Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council.
The Council of Governors will provide an invaluable Senior Administration forum for exchanging views with State and local officials on strengthening our National resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our Nation today and in the future.
The formation of the Council of Governors was required by the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act which stated, “The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.” (NDAA FY2008, Sec 1822)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
