why is gold and silver going down right now?

<--opinion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

...

 

Just like you've nade an enemy of every standing member of the forum...

good work!!

Say hello to Detroit for me.


Ruben

 

Who are the bankers Fatima? Why do you pretend to be a girl?

Ruben

 

Hello

Crackpot might not be appropriate. That would imply that your not aware of your mistakes and can't control yourself. There is something more deep seatedly wrong at work here.


Amanda

 

Hello

That was likely understood and the inflation rate would still be annualized, just as deposit interest and mortgage rates are.

Amanda

 

[video=youtube;ixsd4lN4BDk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixsd4lN4BDk[/video]

 

Your quoting Milton Friedman? That is a joke

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Monetarist
Crowd at New York's American Union Bank during a bank run early in the Great Depression.

Monetarists, including Milton Friedman and current Federal Reserve System chairman Ben Bernanke, argue that the Great Depression was mainly caused by monetary contraction, the consequence of poor policy-making by the American Federal Reserve System and continued crisis in the banking system.[23][24] In this view, the Federal Reserve, by not acting, allowed the money supply as measured by the M2 to shrink by one-third from 1929–1933, thereby transforming a normal recession into the Great Depression. Friedman argued that the downward turn in the economy, starting with the stock market crash, would have been just another recession.[25]

The Federal Reserve allowed some large public bank failures – particularly that of the New York Bank of the United States – which produced panic and widespread runs on local banks, and the Federal Reserve sat idly by while banks collapsed. He claimed that, if the Fed had provided emergency lending to these key banks, or simply bought government bonds on the open market to provide liquidity and increase the quantity of money after the key banks fell, all the rest of the banks would not have fallen after the large ones did, and the money supply would not have fallen as far and as fast as it did.[26]

With significantly less money to go around, businessmen could not get new loans and could not even get their old loans renewed, forcing many to stop investing. This interpretation blames the Federal Reserve for inaction, especially the New York branch.[27]

One reason why the Federal Reserve did not act to limit the decline of the money supply was regulation. At that time, the amount of credit the Federal Reserve could issue was limited by the Federal Reserve Act, which required 40% gold backing of Federal Reserve Notes issued. By the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit that could be backed by the gold in its possession. This credit was in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes.[28]

A "promise of gold" is not as good as "gold in the hand", particularly when they only had enough gold to cover 40% of the Federal Reserve Notes outstanding. During the bank panics a portion of those demand notes were redeemed for Federal Reserve gold. Since the Federal Reserve had hit its limit on allowable credit, any reduction in gold in its vaults had to be accompanied by a greater reduction in credit. On April 5, 1933, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 making the private ownership of gold certificates, coins and bullion illegal, reducing the pressure on Federal Reserve gold.[28]

 

Of course you have to say that even though I gave you the links to the proof. If Albert Einstein was here to give you his personal explanation of the Theory of Relativity, you would tell him he is wrong. It's a personality disorder of the first magnitude. So be it. Live in ignorance.

 

There is no doubt. There is something seriously wrong with this guy. Aside from posing like a women and being male, he'll run you into the ground with circular logic, hoping you eventually give up, and he harbors deep emotional hatred which he manifests with using terms like "banksters" and "speak holes". The nature of his posts makes him seem like a potential risk to some specific bank executives or government officials. You'd like to pass this stuff off as just harmless internet trolling, but after this has gone on for months, you seriously need to wonder who it is that your dealing with here.

It might be just safer for everyone to stop answering this gentleman and let him fade into obscurity and hope he calms. We are feeding him.

Ruben

 

I'm saddened and disappointed that all the information some of you are posting is only from the side that is in power, or has the power to write textbooks and share only the information which is advantageous to them. The reason I'm saddened is that if you believe only the information written by them and don't question it and its legitimacy, will you ever think for yourself, or only regurgitate their teachings. Ask yourself one question, what is the other side of the story?

 

Many on the "other side of the story" are wearing aluminum foil hats.

 

Look past their attire and listen to their message, or you could listen to the government statisticians and what they're offering as the "official" inflation rate.

 

Debates like this are not he said/she said, where there are two equally valid points of view. Its more like talking about the circumference and shape of the earth. Most will describe how many miles from which measurement point, some will argue just how round is it, etc. About 99% of the people will be discussing these ideas. Then you have a few claiming "its not round, its flat, and I had aliens come down to prove that to me. In fact, the earth sits on the back of a great space turtle slowly heading towards his home in Persi Omnicron 8."

Now, is that REALLY the "other side of the story?" Or is the other side of the story one that has more to do with the differences between measurement points and mileage calcs on a round planet? That is the conundrum when saying "the other side of the story" should be heard.

 

What's unbelievable is your inability to address the core issue, something you love to complain about when others do the same. I would liken your blaming of Andrew Jackson for the depression for getting rid of a corrupt banking institution like blaming a doctor for leaving the head of a tick in your arm when trying to remove it.

 

I guess my point is there are countless examples throughout history that have proven those "tinfoil hat wearers" correct and the mainstream of thought wrong. My entire point was and will always be that if you don't look past the teachings and teacher, what do you learn that they haven't? Outside the box is very uncomfortable, at first.

 

To ignore the breakdown in a national banking organization as NOT causing a depression does not make sense. I don't know your background Inflexion, but I simply do not believe you understand the lifeblood of commercial credit markets. You say "only those with the money already should be allowed to go into business" basically destroys the private business model. Every single major company that has started in the last century has done so with borrowed money. 99% of all private jobs simply would not exist today if this were true. The only form of government that can survive in such an atmosphere is a type of totalitarianism, like Communism or Faschism, where the state is the only employer.

IDK what else to say man. Believing a modern society can function to the standard of living we have without available credit is not believable. Think about this, credit is the great equalizer of classes in this country. You can have someone without a rich family grow up, create a great idea, found and grow a company, and become a billionaire. If there is no credit, this physically is impossible. You might say there would be credit if someone would loan you the physical gold, but effectively such an arrangement takes away 90% of the available credit and makes it unavailable to poorer people.

Do people abuse credit? Yeah. Do some financial firms loan it out too easily? Yeah. But, without a credit market almost all companies in this nations freeze up, and cannot meet payroll. Yes, we could eventually do away with how we do credit, but in response we will have anemic growth forever, and you will effectively be creating a permanent rich class in this country, and basically forbidding anyone born poor from "rising above their station". This is what our nation was founded against, the reason our ancestors came here to begin with.

As for anyone who wished to always call a banker names, and blame them for all ills, well that is drivel on the face of it, and I refuse to ever follow someone's lead in such slander. Financial firms provide true value most of the time to this country. Yes, they probably make too much, but to take them away truly is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

Well my only point sir was that by its nature such a conversation is not two sided, its 100 sided. To infer its a strict two sided conversation like a he said/she said situation is to give too much credence to those who may only make up .1% of intelligent thought on an idea. There may be 10 such .1% ideas, which of them are "the other side"? If you say all of them are equally valid, then 91% of the conversation will only deal with ideas believed by 1% of intelligent thinkers. Is that really fairer?

Like I said, its the conundrum. Either extreme is bad, but how do you balance it? Why is not half of the traditional view considered "the other side"? Why does it have to be extremists views?

 

What you need to know is that there is a mini industry built around selling newsletters and writing interenet articles [for pay] and hosting websites to gather viewers for whom advertisers will pay -- using as their subject matter gold standard, bankster, fiat fraud, market manipulation stories to drive their business model. They have been around as long as I've been investing [1970s], but didn't really come into their own until the spread of internet access. They are good writers and can be very pursuasive. Few have advanced degrees in economics or history. Some are outright frauds. A few are sincere. The "good" ones will take some event in history and spin it in a different manner or research it more deeply than others have, and I have a lot of admiration for that approach because things are not always what they seem. Some express data in chart form, but neglect to use log charts to intentionally mislead [or perhaps they aren't mathematically proficient]. Others just outright steal from other authors to make a buck, and don't care one way or another if the information is true. Are you sure you can tell them apart? Before ignoring the teachers and textbooks, you really need to look deeply at the supporting information before throwing their work away. Do you like Austrian economics? Look more closely into the background of some of these guys and you might not like what you find. The same standard that you use for conventional thinkers should also be applied to them.

I know it is great fun to believe that after reading a few interenet articles about the Fed, fiat, fractional reserve banking and gold that you have a grasp of something that 99% of people have overlooked, and it sounds so profound when you say it. Wouldn't it be nice if life was that easy? There are some remarkable people out there who have been mostly overlooked, but it's the old needle in a haystack routine. So just be careful. Conventional ideas became conventional largely because they work most of the time.

 

To believe that I'm not looking at both sides and weighing the information against each other would make me a larger fool than those that can't see both. Please don't insult me. There is very good information that comes from MSM and the "lunatic fringe", weighing that information against each other and digging to the basis of both will generally get you to the truth.

The thing that sets me off is the ridiculous idea of inflation that was posted on here. How hard is it to figure out how "cooked" those stats are? To post it on here as gospel is a disservice to somebody that is not more learned. Figures don't lie, but liars figure all the time.