Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="kaparthy, post: 1014924, member: 57463"]If you look at this through the lens of Andrew Jackson and the Bank, or the Compromise of 1850, or some other historical drama, then you can analyze the parties and their politics without putting yourself in your estimates. I agree that the traditional view from the outside is that both parties are to blame and both are somewhat interchangeable -- as were, say, the Whigs and Democrats of the 1840s, at the sectional and local levels where coalitions were built. That said, as I review Time magazine on the Tea Party and as I listen to NPR "Morning Edition" in a blind panic for any spin that downplays the Tea Party, I see a paradigm shift.  Beltway Republicans are just as marginalized as the Democrats.  The Tea Party could make the balot in 2012 on its own: already we have in-fighting over the use of the name for elections here in Michigan.  Look at precious metals in the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years.  Cut government spending and the price will fall.  Is that bad for precious metals?  Not really.  The shallow thought is that rising prices are "good" because you can sell for more "money" -- but what can you buy with it?  Falling PM prices mean paper losses for speculators, but mean that the economy is stablizing.  And that is good. People who are longterm hardmoney will just continue to average their buying prices as they always have.  Buy at $350; buy at $1350; it's all the same.[/QUOTE]