Ted Butler's new article on JPM's "perfect" manipulation

Yes, that sounds like the talking points of a JPMorgan Chase PR campaign. While you and others may think it's just fine for these "intelligent traders" to dump trillions of dollars in toxic assets onto the central bank (ostensibly OUR central bank), you can bet there is a practical limit on how big the Fed balance sheet can grow. After all, if there were no limit, then every American could live like a billionaire. Despite the patience the world has shown with America's financial and fiscal mismanagement, I'd also bet other central banks and savvy investors abroad are acutely aware of the dangers of the Fed's growing balance sheet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Innately are ALL markets manipulated? It will depend on yoru definition of manipulation, but I would agree yes. However, a small investor buying more silver than he has in his pocket on margin is manipulation, and so is things sellers might do. Unless every participant is there with full cash or silver on hand, then it by definition is manipulated to an extent. However, this is AS PLANNED. All paper markets are designed to let this happen to provide liquidity. What was the problem in 2008? It was not lack of money or assets, it was lack of LIQUIDITY that caused the crash. A liquid market, (sans illegal activity), is basically the most price effective thing humans have invented.

So, I agree all markets, by design, allow some manipulation. Its ILLEGAL manipulation, market activity not specifically allowed, that you therefor have to guard against. My assertion is the PM marke tis not illegally manipulated.

 

No, its "talking points" from a person who has done research on previous US bailouts and has paid attention to this current round. Every single bailout we made to financial firms will be repaid with massive profits to the US taxpayer. The bailouts we made to GM and Chrysler were really union giveaways, and the US taxpayer will lose tens of billions as a result of.

The only bailouts of financial firms the US has made and lost money on was the S&L crisis. Even then, we jacked up the insurance costs to banks to repay it.

 

If you were a day trader and your worst losses were made whole by a generous donator, wouldn't you be profitable as well?

The point I tried to make earlier is that though some people don't believe there is a cost to the trillions of dollars in toxic derivatives created by the big banks because they have been purchased by the Fed, there is a loss to the prestige of this nation, the reputation of the dollar, and in the moral hazard that has grown exponentially within the financial system. Personally, I don't see how getting bailed out by a central bank, which in theory serves the needs of the public, is consistent with a free market economy.

 

I don't like bailouts either. I believe the moral hazard risk is too high, and I have been against every bailout the US has ever made. However, I am simply pointing out that the US will make money from all of the financial industry bailouts. Many people forget that, it wasn't charity. The taxpayers made a huge profit from this action.

 

I certainly hope nobody is basing their bullion investment decisions on one person's perspective. Butler need not provide proof of silver manipulation. Anyone with half a wit can look at the chart over the last few years and tell it's out of wack. Fair value doesn't fluctuate like that. Market by proxy with leverage, the fox guarding the hen house (JPM as the steward of the SLV and its vaults) and the CFTC completely inept at acknowledging Andrew Maguire's pre-empted manipulation e-mail calls which are in the public domain and easily verifiable. Butler need not be brought into the conversation to see things clearly. Typical bear thread. If you don't like the truth stop attacking it. It's much less of a thorn when you sweep it under the rug.

 

"Out of Wack" is absolutely no proof of manipulation period. Perhaps there was another reason. Maybe fear had a lot to do with it. Could be??????