Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

  1. that audit should be easy

    how long does it take to count to zero


    Fox News takes Kitco's Ron Paul gold audit story national

    Submitted by cpowell on Thu, 2010-09-02 01:29. Section: Daily Dispatches

    9:40p ET Wednesday, September 1, 2010

    Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

    Congratulations to Kitco News and its reporter Daniela Cambone for having broken last week what this week Fox News made into a national story, the call by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, for a serious audit of U.S. gold reserves. The Fox News story, broadcast and posted today and appended here, is notable for two reasons apart from calling attention to the audit issue.

    First, the Fox News story quotes Paul as remarking that the audit should determine not only the simple presence of gold in the U.S. government's vaults at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and elsewhere but also "whether any of it has been obligated."

  2. I'm just sick of teenage scribbler sheep worriers. Most of these commentators make a little knowledge go an awful long way. Yes we are in the crap, yes there will be econmic turmoil for a good few years, and yes, house prices are going to fall substantially. But this end of the world stuff - especially the above article which is full of falsehoods, ridiculous suppositions and unlikely synchronicity, really has little cred.

    Like a most here, I read the last 3 years pretty well in the face of aggressive bull mongerers, and am still extremely cautious. But listen, the money system as you and I currently know it is not going anywhere, and the banking system, which will see more casualties, will pretty much stay the same as it is.


    whats the average lifespan of paper money again

  3. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article22354.html

    FED Shell game will end then.



    noone knows when the moment will arrive - even if they think they do and even if they think they are in charge


    One day—when nothing much is going on in the markets, but general nervousness is running like a low-grade fever (as has been the case for a while now)—there will be a commodities burp: A slight but sudden rise in the price of a necessary commodity, such as oil.

    This will jiggle Treasury yields, as asset managers will reduce their Treasury allocations, and go into the pressured commodity, in order to catch a profit. (Actually it won’t even be the asset managers—it will be their programmed trades.) These asset managers will sell Treasuries because, effectively, it’s become the principal asset they have to sell.

    It won’t be the volume of the sell-off that will pique Bernanke and the drones at the Fed—it will be the timing. It’ll happen right before a largish Treasury auction. So Bernanke and the Fed will buy Treasuries, in an effort to counteract the sell-off and maintain low yields—they want to maintain low yields in order to discourage deflation. But they’ll also want to keep the Treasury cheaply funded. QE-lite has already set the stage for direct Fed buys of Treasuries. The world didn’t end. So the Fed will feel confident as it moves forward and nips this Treasury yield jiggle in the bud.

    The Fed’s buying of Treasuries will occur in such a way that it will encourage asset managers to dump even more Treasuries into the Fed’s waiting arms. This dumping of Treasuries won’t be out of fear, at least not initially. Most likely, in the first 15 minutes or so of this event, the sell-off in Treasuries will be orderly, and carried out with the idea (at the time) of picking up those selfsame Treasuries a bit cheaper down the line.

    However, the Fed will interpret this sell-off as a run on Treasuries. The Fed is already attuned to the bond markets’ fear that there’s a “Treasury bubble”. So the Fed will open its liquidity windows, and buy up every Treasury in sight, precisely so as to maintain “asset price stability” and “calm the markets”.

    The Too Big To Fail banks will play a crucial part in this game. See, the problem with the American Zombies is, they weren’t nationalized. They got the best bits of nationalization—total liquidity, suspension of accounting and regulatory rules—but they still get to act under their own volition, and in their own best interest. Hence their obscene bonuses, paid out in the teeth of their practical bankruptcy. Hence their lack of lending into the weakened economy. Hence their hoarding of bailout monies, and predatory business practices. They’ve understood that, to get that sweet bail-out money (and those yummy bonuses), they have had to play the Fed’s game and buy up Treasuries, and thereby help disguise the monetization of the fiscal debt that has been going on since the Fed began purchasing the toxic assets from their balance sheets in 2008.

    But they don’t have to do what the Fed tells them, much less what the Treasury tells them. Since they weren’t really nationalized, they’re not under anyone’s thumb. They can do as they please—and they have boatloads of Treasuries on their balance sheets.

    So the TBTF banks, on seeing this run on Treasuries, will add to the panic by acting in their own best interests: They will be among the first to step off Treasuries. They will be the bleeding edge of the wave.

    Here the panic phase of the event begins: Asset managers—on seeing this massive Fed buy of Treasuries, and the American Zombies selling Treasuries, all of this happening within days of a largish Treasury auction—will dump their own Treasuries en masse. They will be aware how precarious the U.S. economy is, how over-indebted the government is, how U.S. Treasuries look a lot like Greek debt. They’re not stupid: Everyone is aware of the idea of a “Treasury bubble” making the rounds. A lot of people—myself included—think that the Fed, the Treasury and the American Zombies are colluding in a triangular trade in Treasury bonds, carrying out a de facto Stealth Monetization: The Treasury issues the debt to finance fiscal spending, the TBTF banks buy them, with money provided to them by the Fed.

    Whether it’s true or not is actually beside the point—there is the widespread perception that that is what’s going on. In a panic, widespread perception is your trading strategy.

    So when the Fed begins buying Treasuries full-blast to prop up their prices, these asset managers will all decide, “Time to get out of Dodge—now.”

    Note how it will not be China or Japan who all of a sudden decide to get out of Treasuries—those two countries will actually be left holding the bag. Rather, it will be American and (depending on the time of day when the event happens) European asset managers who get out of Treasuries first. It will be a flash panic—much like the flash-crash of last May. The events I describe above will happen in a very short span of time—less than an hour, probably. But unlike the event in May, there will be no rebound.

  4. Manchester United chief executive David Gill has defended the club's failure to reach their season ticket sales target.

    The club has sold 51,800 season tickets, compared to its target of 54,000, Mr Gill sai


    It follows a campaign by Manchester United Supporters' Trust (MUST) urging a boycott, to try to persuade the Glazer family to sell the club


    tis about time that bubble burst

    hope it takes sky and murdoch down at the same time

  5. It does, 1989 and 1990 the USSR did not fall, instead they rebranded it to the EU and the USSA. Same command economy methods, same fraudulent tractor production statistics, same state backed enterprises. Same murdering of their own citizens etc. Same inner party and outer party and proles. Same pointless wars patrotism cards played and workers turned to mere cogs...

    Rebranding and painting it a different colour does not make it any different, which is why I find it amusing people go labour/tory when both are just opposite sides of the same coin.

    So really other than a fake election every few years what's the difference?

    No one is more of a slave than the one, who considers himself to be free, without being it.

  6. everybody get it yet


    Okay Ms. Fitts: in your highly impressive e-book “Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits” you mention as a prime factor that governs our lives on planet earth for roughly the last 500 years “the central banking-warfare investment model.” Can you describe to us at the beginning of this interview some of the essential characteristics, rationales and goals of that “model”?

    “The central banking-warfare investment model” is really a control model, through which a small group of people can control the most resources on the most profitable basis. Essentially what happens is: Central banks print money and then the military makes sure that other parties accept it and that the financial system continues to have liquidity. The question many people ask with regards to a fiat currency, which is a paper currency, is: Why would anybody take paper, which has no value? They take the paper, because it’s part of the enforcement and military supervision, if you will, of the network that is printing the money. The system has created a fantastically profitable way of controlling large populations and access to resources very cheaply.

    Let’s say for a second that Mr. Global is in charge of “the central banking-warfare investment model”: Mr. Global prints money and then people take that paper and give him in essence what he needs to buy up and control the national resources. The population is dependent on his paper and then he controls all the real things. Also through the military, he can steal whatever he wants. And organized crime is a very important component as well, because it can be expansive to drop an army and to occupy a place. If he can take over a place and buy that place with the place’s own money, it’s much more efficient, and that’s where the drug business traditionally comes in. It’s basically part of a model for controlling a territory with huge resources in the cheapest way possible.

    One aspect of the model, that you have just described, is to attract and launder a lot of “liquid cash flow” through the American financial system that is generated by drug trafficking. The UN-chief on drugs, Antonio Maria Costa, stated something interesting in that respect last year. He said:

    “In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor … Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade and other illegal activities ... There were signs that some banks were rescued that way.”[3]

    He said moreover, that drug money is by “now a part of the official system” as if this was something new. What do you think about these “revelations”?

    I think that the drug business is a very old model. For the North-American continent I would take it all the way back to the Opium Wars with China, though I think it certainly goes back longer than that. But when the British Empire almost went broke trading with the Chinese, the way the Britons fought back was by smuggling opium into China that they were growing in India.

    Finally, in any legal or financial system ultimately the question is: Who enforces? Now, if I create a government to enforce, ultimately that government can be corrupted or being bought, particularly given the nature of our invisible weaponry and surveillance systems. We have to go to a system where culture enforces. Essentially what this means is: I am morally responsible for my actions, and my actions in a world where I can see my actions and the implications of my actions across the board. So if I am an American and I use a lot of plastic bottles and that’s creating all sorts of environmental damage in places where I don’t live, the transparency needs to help me to understand this.

    I need to be morally responsible not just for my actions, but more importantly and this is a very big change: I need to be responsible for my financial actions. I need to understand where my money is going and what it is doing in my name, because I need to enforce against bad behaviour and reinforce the good behaviour. So if I’m own stock in a corporation and that corporation is trying to control the global seed supply, then I need to sell that stock or I need to go to the shareholders meeting and insist that they stop. I need to view my moral responsibility not just with my own personal actions, but also with the actions that I support with my bank deposits, my purchases and my investments.

    We are going to have to go to a world where all of us enforce and where all of us are responsible for enforcement. What we have to leave is the multiple-personality disorder world, which says: I am responsible morally for my actions, but I’m not responsible for what I finance with my money. That way I can finance the most evil, destructive practices on the planet, make a lot of money from it, get my piece of profits of crime, but pretend I don’t know and still think of myself as a good person. That’s the tricky one: the enforcement has to come down to people everywhere. And the reality is, that most people have remarkably good intentions for the rest of the human race, and I think we’ll do it. It’s will be quite a learning journey. The price of freedom, whether free people or free markets, is responsibility.

    We have to have an intention that says: Just working harder in the current model or just hiding and running away, isn’t going to work. We need a new model, and then the conversation begins, which is why you’re doing this interview. We need to connect up globally, because this will be a global model. We need to connect up and we need a conversation, that says: It’s time to give up the central banking-warfare model, and ask ourselves: What’s the model? We will invent it together.

  7. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7973955/America-faces-crisis-of-leadership-leading-Wall-St-investor-warns.html

    Clearly what's needed is redistribution that favours the bankers and the rich because they understand how to create wealth, and the way to do that is with leverage and debt. That way we can have guaranteed growth.

    hmm references to adolf

    try Palestine instead

  8. The "Global society" has been set up by Elites to 'pass-over', in increasingly spiralling amounts, Land, Commodities, Financials, Foodstuffs, Energy, Water, Housing into increasingly fewer hands!

    Each boom/bust 'they' create, leads to fewer competion against 'their' shill (front/illusion of competition) companies!

    Neo chose a path where he was minimally distracted by the everyday mundane and trivial, which helped him overcome the illusory 'TRIX' they layed out before/to ensnare people!

    Think of GOLF/FLOG (yerself) - the path would be the "FAIR-WAY" laden with labyrinths of trivial 'distractions'!

    Thats why you will not get a "FAIR society" from the present Elite ruling classes!

    and the solution is?

  9. We are trying to achieve a realistic solution to a number of problems, not utopia.

    One thing at a time, there's no reason further reforms can't be enacted at a later date, contrary to what some of you here believe, this isn't the Enabling Act of 1933.

    if competing currencies are allowed - Greshams Law still stands - which is why no-one is ever going to get that through parliament - it will happen from the ground up and already is happening

  10. A Free market in money has been tried before, it doesn't work and would lead to massive inefficiency in the economy. In our reform we allow alternative currencies, but unless the government expressly permits otherwise, your taxes will still need to be paid in sterling.

    yep the controllers dont like free markets - when didnt it work and when was it tried

    inefficiency dont think so - thefts and violence would reduce though

    you appear to want to replace one set of controllers with another - that may well be an improvement but it isnt the best solution

    I'm not interested in any debates about whether taxation or fiat money is right or wrong. If you don't like it, don't vote for our reform - or avoid living in a society where taxation is necessary.

    why is forced taxation necessary

  11. Why would you do that?

    Interestingly, as I'm sure you are aware from your wide reading, Karl Marx assumed that, once the oppressive forces were removed from the workers, people would act in a rational and honest manner to self-organise and distribute resources, for the mutual benefit of all, with the state withering away (read the Communist Manifesto if you don't believe me).

    And if people actually had played nice in this manner, then communism would have worked very well indeed, since in theory there are vast amounts of waste in the capitalist system (Sales, marketing, advertising, overcapacity, etc..).

    Of course, research shows very well how once the size of a group of humans exceeds our ability to keep track of people (over 150 or so), cheating - deciding not to play by the rules - becomes a successful tactic. And if this cheating is not policed with the threat of force, it will dominate and lead to the society being extremely inefficient.

    who funded him

    who is he related to

    is it all part of the plan - more control for a select few

  12. There is an alternative, sensible, low-cost option:



    seems like a better idea to me


    Most people suppose, without having thought much about it, that money must be provided by government. That belief comes in for a sound thrashing in University of Georgia professor George Selgin’s book Good Money, which tells the story of Britain’s experience with private coinage during the Industrial Revolution. Selgin’s research shows that the government had failed to produce enough money of small denominations, how private enterprise solved the problem, and finally how the government reasserted its monopoly to put an end to the nation’s free-market money episode.

    Good Money has an intriguing origin. While reading a book by nineteenth-century British economist William Stanley Jevons, Selgin came across a passage taking issue with Herbert Spencer’s argument that the production of money could be entrusted to the free market. Jevons wrote that in his view “there is nothing less fit to be left to the action of competition than money,” adding that the nation’s experience with privately minted coins in the late eighteenth century “amply confirmed” his opinion. Selgin wanted to know just what that experience was and investigated: “What I discovered amazed me, not the least because, instead of confirming Jevons’s position, it did just the opposite.”

    Among other great changes it brought, the Industrial Revolution caused a huge increase in the demand for money. In pre-industrial England relatively few workers were paid money wages. As industrialization increased, however, more workers left feudal agriculture for manufacturing employment, and business owners had to pay them in money. But because there was a shortage of small coins, factory owners had to devote a lot of time and effort to coming up with the money necessary to meet their payrolls. Furthermore, much of the money they were able to acquire was questionable because many coins were badly worn, had been clipped (some of the metal had been sheared away), or were counterfeit.

    The Royal Mint was indifferent. Its job was to coin money—mostly gold—for the upper classes. It wasn’t averse to silver, but no silver had been coined for decades before 1775. The culprit was that favorite of economics professors, Gresham’s Law. The government’s official rate for silver was well below the market price elsewhere in Europe, so silver flowed out of the country. Selgin here performs a valuable service in explaining the true meaning of Gresham’s Law. It is not that “bad money drives out good money,” but rather that when government artificially overvalues one kind of money relative to another, people will spend the overvalued and hoard or export the undervalued.

    What about copper coins for small transactions? The Royal Mint hadn’t bothered coining copper for years. Small change was regarded as “unworthy” of the highbrow mint since copper was merely money for the common folk.

    In 1761 copper was discovered on Anglesey Island, off the coast of Wales, and within a few years over a thousand miners were employed there. Owner Thomas Williams faced the problem discussed above—how to come up with enough coins to pay his men.

    Williams approached the government with a plan to collaborate in the production of new copper coins, but it wasn’t interested. So he began producing his own coins. They were exquisite, but the key thing was that they were accepted as payment by the workers, then in trade by merchants. Soon the coins were circulating on the mainland. Williams heightened demand for his product by stamping on them that they were promises to pay and setting up redemption offices in London and Liverpool. People’s confidence in this new money rapidly grew.

    So great was his success in coinage that Williams soon opened another mint and employed experts to improve efficiency. Private enterprise brought the high technology of the day to the business of making money while the government continued using old-fashioned methods.

    Eventually other coin producers entered the market, offering quite a variety of money. It wasn’t uniform, but businesses and workers adapted without difficulty. Almost 200 years before F. A. Hayek’s advocacy of choice in currency, the British had it.

    The story, alas, has an unhappy ending. By 1812 Royal Mint officials wanted their monopoly back and Parliament obliged in 1813

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.