Batten down the hatches... The waters are about to get rough

@desertgem, the problem is that politics is in the eye of the beholder, and your beholding is what I find ridiculous. Chris sees politics all over any discussion of the future of the euro, and why not? You and I would probably not see a politics angle in that. Similarly, I believe YOU regularly and repeatedly see politics where a reasonable person would not. I believe @MrOrange1970 's protestations, as I also don't recall any political discussion on HIS part.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The reality is moderators are volunteers and it is much appreciated. This is not a department store and I do not expect that "the customer is always" right approach to posting removal.

I will say however, it comes across a bit harsh when one gets the email and message combo like below. The silly thing is I'm certain that no one could even tell whom I would vote for if they read my post!

The email I got (made me feel like I did something horrible)
"MrOrange1970,

Your message (MrOrange1970) contains inappropriate content. Please do not discuss content of this nature on our site. This does not follow our rules. Your message may have been removed or altered.

Your account's access may be limited based on these actions. Please keep this in mind when posting or using our site."

Anyway, I'm done again. Just felt embarrassed by the interaction considering the post I put up.

 

And he's spot on correct on all counts, too.

WAAAAAAY too much "that's just the way it is" attitude going on around here. You need to interact with people like adults, and it often doesn't happen here. I see it every working day of my life. It's called unaccountable power-hunger.

Meanwhile, over in another section, we're talking and showing unambiguous politics and it stays up. Difference? Doug's moderating. That's all the difference that anything ever needs.

Is a little consistency and accountability too much to ask?

 

Thanks. No longer a thankless job.

 

I believe if you look at total return volatility, (if you buy into the notion that volatility equates to risk, which I do not totally but another discussion), you would find including a small amount of unrelated assets to your portfolio has the tendency to either reduce volatility for the same expected returns, or increase returns for the same expected volatility. Basic portfolio building stuff. Like I said, not a huge fan of CAPM theory, but its the dominant theory.

 

I would agree. Its been a long while since I have gotten one, I forgot how they are pretty heavy handed.

 

L, but not OL. As long as it's the dominant theory, my inclination is to poke holes in it. To me, there's 'conventional' and there's 'wisdom', but darned little of either that's the other. When 90% of people agree, I'm redoubling my redoubting.

 

I agree, but if one looks at historical correlations you do see a trend that PM does not have the same return path as stocks, bonds, or some other investments. It tracks closer to land, but only over longer time spans.

Like you I bought a lot when it was $4 a ounce, but unfortunately I did not have a high income then. I bought 6 months ago in the $14's, but haven't bought much lately. So I buy when I think its a decent price, and buy what I find pretty or interesting. If it is only worth the price of dirt when I am gone no biggie, I have lots of other types of investments.

 

Kurt, I know you have carefully read the rules for obvious reasons, but may I quote

And you can see from the underlined portion of Doug's rules that the forum mods and administrators have to make their own decisions, and some may have different limits. Anyone can plead their case to the administrators, so do so. I can't remember how many threads you have been in and I have had to say go to Partisanlines.com, Peter's own forum he spun off for such discussions. I suspect the members are too much like you for you to have fun with them? I am not on that forum, so you might do well. Jim

 

I have declared a complete and total moratorium on discussing politics, including with family members,

Don't want to see it, hear it or speak it. I'm done and have had a stomach full of it.

 

No, because although what I do is closely related to politics, it's actually POLICY, which is fundamentally different, but I guess I shouldn't expect you to have that much of a trained eye, the partisan garbage on partisanlines bores the **** out of me. If I were to engage in partisan activity, I could be fired or even criminally tried, in my job. Several predecessors have been.

But again, that's too fine a distinction for someone who believes monetary policy is politics, too, I guess. Thing is, Jim, that NOTHING I say about monetary policy is politics, because I believe, correctly, that both our Fed, AND every other central bank, is properly designed to have partisan politics VERBOTEN from their deliberations.

I can't help it if one wing of modern-day American politics refuses to play by that long-established rule.

 

THERE, right THERE! That's the key. I don't believe that ANYTHING before the 1971 exchange window close matters at all any more. The whole world changed in an instant when Bretton Woods finally died. Not a peep of the prior 5000 years is worth anything to money policy or metals investing.

When the gold exchange window closed, both gold, and soon after, silver completed shed ANY resemblance whatsoever to money, and became utterly, purely, and forever more, mere commodities, with no legitimate tie to money whatsoever.

Now watch Jim say that's political. No, it's irrefutable FACT. Only the denial of its truth is poli-spin.

 

My only gripe is the utter absurdity of yanking my post, making me feel like an a@$ in the process, yet not explaining except to make me feel stupid and threatened that I will be sent to my room (banned) for a very un political post.

So @desertgem please forward my offending post to the powers that be and have them explain what I said that was wrong so that I may not do it again.

 

Just wanted to post my last one on this thread.

@desertgem was kind enough to send me an email related to the material which was inappropriate. As I was guessing in my head, it was mentioning what I thought the respective markets (PM's, Oil, Stocks in general) would do if each respective candidate were to be elected. The killer was that I mentioned names.

Lesson learned, and I'm staying the heck out of the PM board! I like copper (cents) and believe me I don't have enough storage space to buy that as a PM.

Though I will back my comment (which wasn't an offender) that were there a zombie apocalypse lead would be the PM I would be investing in!

Goodnight to all and hopefully this will end the removal of my posts in the future...

 

Yeah, Zombies could be a problem. They are known in nature , but so far higher organisms have been too complicated for the causative organism to control. It is interesting to speculate, but I suspect lead will be replaced with high intensity lasers.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141031-zombies-parasites-animals-science-halloween/

 

Actually I will post one more summation of my removed post.

I've worked in finance for 20 years and have run the modern gamut of trends. During this time, my analogy of markets is that they follow the methodology of a flock of birds. A few lead birds (e.g. market analysts, talking heads on TV, etc.) go one direction and the flock reacts. Most times this is an overreaction that is unfounded in fact.
People who have amassed fortunes look at the fundamentals of any stock or commodity that has taken an unwarranted market hit and use this as a buying opportunity. I did it during Brexit (and have done quite well) and whomever the US presidential electorate is; I would focus on the market component most vulnerable to their espoused policy, who has good fundamentals (P/E especially) and I will buy.

Simple reality is that no matter who is elected, there will be an overreaction in a particular market.

Over and Out!

 

Well @desertgem we can both agree that were these organisms to manifest to humans, we'll all have a lot less to worry about than politics!

 

Good post! ( #96 ) I think it said the same thing very well.

On 97, I worry more about the invasion of tropical parasites from mexico north to the US. The sentry chickens that the department of health puts on the border and florida have shown increase in Aedes egypti in the US. So here comes dengue fever, yellow fever, West Nile fever, chikungunya, eastern equine encephalitis, and Zika virus. And reports are that Ebola has mutated to live in other cells in humans than reported, so current tests may become inaccurate, and early symptoms are somewhat similar to new zombies.

So insect bombs and hazmat suits may replace any pm

 

I haven't been involved in this thread but I read it and did lol at this one.

My first instinct is to disagree vehemently and get angry at the mods for ridiculous over-moderation. Then (dare I say) a bit of maturity kicks in to realize that many topics in this forum have always walked a fine line with politics and that it's difficult to keep everyone happy while keeping it under control. (Since too many people act like B-A-B-I-E-S the moment a convo becomes "uncomfortable." You run into them in real life and often on forums. NOT saying anyone was here. That fact is not the mods fault)

Can't say I've ever been a fan of moderation on forums, let alone over moderation but I can see why it's needed, know that I couldn't do it (because I'd let everything go), and that the pay isn't good. Without some rules in place, a forum will quickly decline into a garbage dump full of angry, foul mouthed, uninformed, unpleasant people. It then dies because anybody worth a dam, leaves. And you couldn't blame them.