| A compilation of this board's financial/economic posts From 42011 to 42050 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Post 42011 by tinljhtkh OT: As this first anniversary week of September 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Post 42012 by srudek ot:ferociousD- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post 42013 by spirare Reply |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legislation Introduced To Abolish The Federal Reserve
|
By Rep. Ron Paul, MD 9-13-2 In the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people. From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation. Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government. Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy. In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve. WHY GOLD? By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. As with all matters of investment, everything is clear in hindsight. Had you bought gold mutual funds earlier this year, they might have appreciated more than 100 percent. Gold has risen $60 since March 2001 to the latest spot price of $326. Why wasn't it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves. These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive. Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It's been three decades since the dollar's tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It's just another asset the government keeps to itself. The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it. You can exchange it for other currency at a fixed rate and for any good or service at a flexible rate. But there is no established exchange rate between the dollar and gold, either at home or internationally. The supply of money is not limited by the amount of gold. Gold is just another good for which the dollar can be exchanged, and in that sense is legally no different from a gallon of milk, a tank of gas, or an hour of babysitting services. Why, then, do people turn to gold in times like these? What is gold used for? Yes, there are industrial uses and there are consumer uses in jewelry and the like. But recessions and inflations don't cause people to want to wear more jewelry or stock up on industrial metal. The investor demand ultimately reflects consumer demand for gold. But that still leaves us with the question of why the consumer demand exists in the first place. Why gold and not sugar or wheat or something else? There is no getting away from it: investor markets have memories of the days when gold was money. In fact, in the whole history of civilization, gold has served as the basic money of all people wherever it's been available. Other precious metals have been valued and coined, but gold always emerged on top in the great competition for what constitutes the most valuable commodity of all. There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it money. It has certain properties that lend itself to monetary use, like portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity. But these are just descriptors of certain qualities of the metal, not explanations as to why it became money. Gold became money for only one reason: because that's what the markets chose. Why isn't gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can't rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed. A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases. In 1967, Alan Greenspan once wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom. He wrote that: "An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense ñ perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire ñ that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government's ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order. Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we've seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery. Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don't have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation. In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession. Greenspan now finds himself on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If he continues to pull back on money, the economy could tip into a serious recession. This is especially a danger given rising protectionism, which mirrors the events of the early 1930s. On the other hand, a continuation of the loose policy he has pursued for a year endangers the value of the dollar overseas. How much easier matters were when we didn't have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity. We don't have that system now for the country or the world, but individuals are showing their preferences once again. By driving up the price of gold, prompting gold producers to become profitable again, the people are expressing their lack of confidence in their leaders. They have decided to protect themselves and not trust the state. That is the hidden message behind the new luster of gold. Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it. What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. Email This Article MainPage http://www.rense.com This Site Served by TheHostPros @ @ @ Gold Spot (FOREX:XAUUSDO) TA LT higher highs and higher lows 4 Strong Bull waves to go*^*^*^*^ TA ST the last 5th small correction bearwave soon complete. Bull Wave Breakout to follow*^*^*^*^*^ http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=FOREX_XAUUSDO&v=dmax Dollar Index Cash (NYBOT:DXY0) TA LT lower highs and lower lows... 3 bear waves left... TA ST small 5th bull wave correction soon complete, followed by continuation of the LT bear waves... http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DXY0&v=dmax Current Price of Gold http://www.caledoniamining.com Imo. (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)
|
Post 42014 by clo Reply
|
Tyco Planning to Disclose Making Loans to Employees
|
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN and JONATHAN D. GLATER NY Times Tyco International is planning to report as early as today that millions of dollars of previously undisclosed loans were made to dozens of employees and later forgiven on the instructions of the former chief executive, L. Dennis Kozlowski, said people who were briefed on the company's planned filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The filing is the result of an investigation into the company's corporate governance and accounting practices by the lawyer David Boies and the staff of his firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner. There was some confusion yesterday whether Tyco would make the filing today or wait until tomorrow because of the observance of Yom Kippur. In the filing, Tyco plans to describe, in detail, many of the activities of Mr. Kozlowski that led to his indictment last week on charges of fraud, larceny and corruption and Tyco's lawsuit against him. The filing includes details of the activities of Tyco's former chief financial officer, Mark Swartz, who was charged with similar crimes, and its corporate counsel, Mark Belnick, who was charged with falsifying records to conceal loans he obtained from the company totaling more than $14 million. Perhaps most revealing, the filing includes a never-before disclosed list of lower-level employees who received millions of dollars in loans from Tyco that were forgiven, these people said. A spokesman for Tyco refused to comment yesterday on the contents of the planned filing. The undisclosed loans came from two programs Tyco created to help employees pay taxes on stock and to help employees relocate to homes near Tyco's offices in Manhattan. A person close to the company said yesterday that none of the newly disclosed forgiven loans would have a material impact on earnings and that many of the expenses had already been charged off in previous quarters. It is unclear whether any executives included on the list could face charges or may be working with government in its case against Mr. Kozlowski, Mr. Swartz and Mr. Belnick. For those three, the indictments from last week were the beginning of a legal process that could drag on for years. With suits by the Manhattan district attorney, the S.E.C., Tyco and scores of shareholders, Mr. Kozlowski will probably face the most trouble, even if he is never convicted. As a practical matter, all other cases will probably await the outcome of the criminal case, lawyers said, in part because other lawyers will want to take advantage of evidence presented by prosecutors in proving their own civil cases. If Mr. Kozlowski and the other executives are found guilty of the criminal charges, lawyers for all the parties are likely to negotiate over where any seized assets will go — a part to a restitution fund for the company and shareholders, a part to the State of New York, for example. Daniel J. Horwitz, a former prosecutor in Manhattan who now works for Carter Ledyard & Milburn in New York, said: "The prosecution, the court, the S.E.C., they're all going to be pretty sensitive to the victims here, even though criminally the major focus of the sentence will probably be in this case prison time." The district attorney has already sought to freeze more than $600 million in assets of Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz. Indeed, the ability to compel a defendant to forfeit "ill-gotten gains" is one of the most powerful weapons a prosecutor can bring to bear, lawyers say. Forfeiture restricts what a defendant can do with money and possessions alike, reducing the amount of money available to pay for food, rent or other basic necessities. "It is huge leverage over people," Mr. Horwitz said. "You can essentially stop their lives by seizing their property. It is very broad." For that reason, prosecutors will probably negotiate with lawyers for the Tyco executives over how much money they need to live on, said Michael J. Shepard, a former federal prosecutor who now works at Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe in San Francisco. "There's some assessment of hardship to the defendant," Mr. Shepard said. "It's one thing to take the guy's boat, it's another thing to say, `I'm taking your house, and now you have no place to live.' " Of course, Mr. Shepard said, prosecutors and lawyers for the defendant usually have a different idea of how big an allowance is appropriate. Judges are often unsympathetic to $50,000-a-month expenses for food, cars and multiple homes, he added. The procedure that allows the government to seize property bought with money from fraud, lawyers said, is more complicated than that for a criminal driving a car stuffed with drugs and cash, for example. The police can simply impound the car in that case and lock up any money and drugs, Mr. Shepard said. Even before a trial, prosecutors usually ask the court to freeze assets of an accused, especially if the assets can easily be transferred outside the country. Because of the array of charges against former Tyco executives, prosecutors has different options, Mr. Horwitz said. First, prosecutors can bring a separate civil lawsuit against the particular property they want to seize, whether it is a car, a house, or a yacht. The court will usually then issue a temporary order freezing the assets, unless the defendant's lawyers are able to persuade the judge not to. At that point, prosecutors could filed alien against a house, have a car impounded, even have the yacht locked up, Mr. Horwitz said. Alternatively, prosecutors could skip the civil proceeding. which would continue normally after the criminal case was resolved, and ask the grand jury that indicted Mr. Kozlowski to approve freezing any assets, Mr. Horwitz said.
Post
42015
by
clo
OT: Culmus, PLEASE do NOT get sucked into this due
|
|
Post 42016 by clo Reply
|
According to the discussion on CNBC this morning, Larry Lindsey is now saying the war with Iraq will cost anywhere from 100 to 200 BILLION dollars!
|
Of course this is a rough estimate... Gee I hope the "dollar" doesn't get much weaker ... or the war might cost us some "real money"! He also said this won't boost our economy, since he thinks the war will be short lived. Apparently this was in the Wall Street Journal, I don't subscribe so I can't confirm. clo
|
Post 42017 by Culmus Reply
|
pmcw
|
I don't recall having had any private email exchange with you in April, to my knowledge we haven't had any private exchange at all since the end of last year. All I got in between occasionally was some marketing material concerning your newsletter. Thanks for that, you can now take me off your mailing list. I cleaned up my mailbox a couple of times this year, so I can't say for sure, but if, I do not tend to print and frame your emails. Please re-sent me my answer to your email if you still have it, I'm curious. Even if we agreed in April about better getting out if a spring rally didn't materialize (by the way that expectation on my part was based on the expectation of an interim economic rebound. GDP grew 5% in the first quarter, but it didn't show in company performance and hence I got out as I expected renewed economic weakness after that), I pinned that top on May 15th all on my own, you didn't tell me to get out. You on the other hand preferred to sit out a loss of 47.8% in the SOX since that high at 538 on May 15th. And so had everyone else listening to you as you are heavily weighted in semis. Investing is a marathon as long as it is viewed as a long term pursuit of building wealth in a systematic manner. So don't continiously refer to your latest little gain in order to make up for previous pitfalls, which were much larger in size. ....IMO, HLIT is worth easily $500M+. However, it is only one of many companies selling well below what I feel they are worth. ....The above post certainly didn't indicate I went to cash on July 2nd as you indicated - only that I saw danger along with opportunity. I think I've made it abundantly clear that I've seen that combination for over a year and a half. Through the turmoil I've made some very good and some very bad decisions. As I said then, I'm buying HLIT, ISIL and XICO very heavily through this current dip. I'm confident at least two of the three will soon surpass their old highs and that in the longer term, all three will be huge winners. If you repeatedly saw danger during the last one and half years you certainly have done nothing to protect your followers from that danger, as I can't recall one single sell recommendation of yours. You have constantly been on the buy side, always referring to your three to six+n buying strategy. Have you ever completed a position explicitely? You always left the door open for ever more buys. You challenge me to put my performance up when the most public figure here is you and not even your performance can be measured as you never complete a position and say so. Your are neither putting up the average cost of your multiple buy positions. I'll try to post one of the links that didn't work yesterday (RB has real problems once a post gets somewhat longer): http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/viewreplies.cgi?board=HLIT&reply=871 That post's full text (February 10, 2000): HLIT buyout????????? IMO, it would take between $8B and $10B to buy this rocket. For the right player, that would be a bargain. Note: As I type, the market cap is just under $4B. The DiviCom deal will prove to be a great strategic move for HLIT. In five years you'll hear someone say, "ya know, if you had bought 1,000 shares of HLIT back in early 2000, you would be worth $XXXXXXXXX today." Won't it be fun to say you did? Regards, pmcw Heck, you were calling HLIT a bargain when it was trading at $ 133 !!! And then you claimed an investment of 133K dollars would turn into a nine figure amount (that is triple digit millions and implies at least a 750-bagger!) Give me a break. Also your referring to the long term didn't help people who followed your advice in February 2000. People don't get old enough to hold for the time horizon you call long-term. This stock has cut through all sorts of soft and hard support on its way from $ 133 to $ 1.1 while you did nothing but recommend to buy more. And you have called it a bargain for every price between $ 133 and $ 1.10, can't you make up your mind what the value is? Even though this is an argument between you and me, the way it has been going requires a word about maniati. I'm absolutely sure that I speak for every poster and every lurker when saying that the person on this board that deserves perhaps most, the utmost, respect is indeed maniati. Never in my life did I meet a person capable of dissecting problems and statements in such a precise manner in the quest of finding the truth. I said it before in private and I will do it now in public, IMO maniati is smarter than Table squared pmcw! Table includes me and I am grateful for the privilege of having had the opportunity for a few conversations with him. For lack of sufficient arguments you have repeatedly hidden in the shadow of this intellectual giant that everybody is rightly looking up to. That doesn't strengthen your position but is an admittance of weakness. Since you know that maniati has bought a ton of HLIT at $ 1.10 I assume that the two of you do have ongoing correspondance. Your continued mention of maniati does make it appear that this is a fight between the three of us. It isn't, so please stop trying to raise an issue between maniati and me. In addition to that I wonder how long maniati is willing to let his name be misused by you to further your arguments. A great deal of the respect I have for maniati is through his unfettered adherence to the truth, it is up to him to chose contributing once again to finding the truth in our argument or not. Finally take that one: you are underlining your case with the fact that maniati bought a ton of HLIT at $ 1.10, that means that he ignored all your buy recommendations at much higher prices, hardly a compliment to you. I'm glad he made a killing with that choice but it surely had less to do with your recommendations before rather than his ability to pick the bottom. Have a nice day. Culmus ps. with regard to you challenging me again about proving performance, it has reasons if I say that my time is very limited, serious reasons. I am already multi-multi-multi tasking and I will not allow the quality of my work to deteriorate simply because you want to play games. Be careful, I might take you by your word once I have some projects concluded.
|
Post 42018 by Culmus Reply
|
pmcw, ss promised:
|
Following your post # 18408 from January 2nd, 2001. Ideas for the new year (2001, that is): The popular mantra of investment advisors over the last few years has been to invest in tech companies that are leaders and have great management. However, they seldom if ever discuss a proper method for valuing these companies. As a result, many who blindly followed their advise are swimming in red ink today. If you listened to the popular pundits of today (Murphy, Gilder and others) and ignored reasonable valuation, you you are probably holding stock in several great companies at a substantial loss. As maniati likes to rightfully remind us, using the phrasing of Mr. Buffett, a poorly timed purchase can wipe out the positive effects of ten years of good news. This is why I like to spend at least as much time discussing "how" as I do discussing "what." Successful investing takes much more than simply following popular visionaries or hot newsletters (emphasis added). It takes discipline. Discipline to learn enough about the companies and markets to realistically estimate their true growth potential. Discipline to establish proper buy target prices and discipline to execute a proper strategy when establishing a position. It takes discipline to hold during volatile markets and discipline to thin positions you feel have become frothy or command too much of your total equity allocation. Some, not all, stocks from that list with added comments:
Post
42019
by
pacemakernj
OT: Tin, well said. Pace.
|
|
Post 42020 by pmcw Reply
|
Culmus, Again, you take the comment out of context. The question, as you so often miss, was rhetorical. It was a response to an Internet rumor that I didn't believe.
|
By: pmcw $$$$$ 07 Feb 2000, 10:26 AM EST Msg. 849 of 6995 (This msg. is a reply to 847 by PowerTraderX.) AMCC buying HLIT? I rank that rumor as very unlikely. Sure, AMCC makes (actually they are fabless) chips for HDTV and fiber channel, but for more reasons than I care to type, it looks more like another "Yahoo" than a real deal. It would be easier to believe HLIT buying AMCC, but I don't see that either. Regards, pmcw Did I get sucked into the hype of 2000 - sure to a degree. However, the 2000 boards are littered with my sells too. The reason HLIT crashed was the FCC ruling on T that was overturned. I sold the HLIT I got (all came from the CUBE buy-out) shortly after the merger. It was at a nice profit. Now, let's see some guts. I should be easy to beat and it's clear you have plenty of time to post.
|
Post 42021 by pmcw Reply
|
Culmus, Again you like to print your opinions long after the fact. You don't have the guts to play in real time. Where was your post back then.
|
Oh, and thanks for printing that list. EVERY SINGLE STOCK ON THE LIST WENT UP AFTER THAT DATE - this includes GX. I sold it into calls on 1/22 at $22.50. Come on Culmus, you clearly have way too much time on your hands - just pick a few stocks; if for no other reason to share your brilliance.
|
Post 42022 by pmcw Reply
|
More Culmus out of Context - That might turn into a nick name - it sure fits.
|
When you printed my comments about stocks on the first trading day of January 2001 you forgot to look at the follow-up. Here's my comment to one poster's question. And, guess what, it worked out exactly as stated a 30% profit in less than three weeks! Where's your real time posts in 2001 that cover both the buy and the sell? Oh, no guts - just like today. Come on Culmus, let's play real time. Here's one of many parts to that picture you forgot to include: "http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=TABLE&read=18895 14 Jan 2001, 11:40 PM EST Msg. 18895 of 42021 (This msg. is a reply to 18892 by Job.) Job, I saw ONNN as more of a short term play. I bought the stock and sold Jan covered calls the next day. As a result, I'll probably lose the shares but nail a quick profit of nearly 30% for less than a month's hold. I'm not totally comfortable with the market today so I'm playing things pretty close to the belt. I intend to maintain a strategic pile of dry powder I can use if things get rough. On the other hand, if things take off, I've got enough in the market to enjoy the ride. No fear / no greed. Regards, pmcw "
Post
42023
by
pmcw
OT: clo, That's an interesting comment. It seems
|
Post
42024
by
clo
OT:The Best of the Bull
|
|
Post 42025 by uponroof Reply
|
clo...Lindsay, you're right
|
Lindsay saying 100-200 billion.... which is small potatos when comparing with 3.6 trillion in debt... in other words what's another measley 200 billion? Here's the key paragraph: "...Mr. Lindsey, who didn't provide a detailed analysis of the costs, drew an analogy between the potential war expenditures with an investment in the removal of a threat to the economy. "It's hard for me to see how we have sustained economic growth in a world where terrorists with weapons of mass destruction are running around," he said. If you weigh the cost of the war against the removal of a "huge drag on global economic growth for a foreseeable time in the future, there's no comparison."..." ******** uponroof- You know we are getting close to war when the economic advisors are shamelessly touting the party line. Lindsay is implying the terrorist threat will be erradicated once Iraq is cleaned up....that's a bunch of BS, as well as the part about sustained economic growth. The global economy has far bigger issues to address, before any 'sustained growth' might ocurr. This is a thin disguise for a calculated 'solve all' economic boost. They are hoping the war effort, patriotic-good vs evil-rally round the flag boys, etc. etc. will improve the stagnant US economy, and in turn the global economy. Videos of smart bombs hitting crosshair targets will emphasize the superiority of the US dollar visavi the military. They are also gambling they can realign oil interets in their favor while invading an arab nation. he key word being 'invading'. This is a plan loaded with pitfalls which could cause serious harm to the economy. If the war is going to cost 100-200 billion...I'd like to see Bush lobby for an international 'dead or alive' reward on Sadaam. If they are prepared to invade they should have no trouble justifying charges and reward in the international community. A nice 100 million (not billion) bucks US would probably incite enough interest to see that Sadaam quickly assumes 'room temperature'....no longer sucking air as they say, and look at the savings that would be. The risks with this plan is instigating careless attacks, by mercenaries, on Bagdad which might cause more international turmoil in the end. If the reward could be somehow offered to those closest to Iraq, in a discreet manner, this could be minimized. Under the assaination plan an 'invasion' would be limited to a post removal 'security force' with the auspice of assisting in the establishment of a new regieme. This sort of 'invasion' would be much more paletable to the arab brothers in the neighborhood. I get the feeling something is going to go very wrong during an all out military invasion. Hope I'm very wrong.
|
Post 42026 by clo Reply
|
roof! GWB states Congress needs to remember who's money they are spending!
|
Then he states they have plenty of money up there! Then he wants to make the tax cut permanent! He wants a defense budget! He wants an energy bill! and let's not forget what is lurking... humm, keep printing that money! Scares me too roof! clo Iraq attack could cost $200 billion Bush economic czar’s estimate much higher than Pentagon’s By Bob Davis THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 — President Bush’s chief economic adviser estimates that the U.S. may have to spend between $100 billion and $200 billion to wage a war in Iraq, but doubts that the hostilities would push the nation into recession or a sustained period of inflation. LAWRENCE LINDSEY, head of the White House’s National Economic Council, projected the “upper bound” of war costs at between 1% and 2% of U.S. gross domestic product. With the U.S. GDP at about $10 trillion per year, that translates into a one-time cost of $100 billion to $200 billion. That is considerably higher than a preliminary, private Pentagon estimate of about $50 billion. In an interview in his White House office, Mr. Lindsey dismissed the economic consequences of such spending, saying it wouldn’t have an appreciable effect on interest rates or add much to the federal debt, which is already about $3.6 trillion. “One year” of additional spending? he said. “That’s nothing.” At the same time, he doubted that the additional spending would give the economy much of a lift. “Government spending tends not to be that stimulative,” he said. “Building weapons and expending them isn’t the basis of sustained economic growth.” Administration officials have been unwilling to talk about the specific costs of a war, preferring to discuss the removal of Mr. Hussein in foreign-policy or even moral terms. Discussing the economics of the war could make it seem as if the U.S. were going to war over oil. That could sap support domestically and abroad, especially in the Mideast where critics suspect the U.S. of wanting to seize Arab oil fields. Mr. Lindsey, who didn’t provide a detailed analysis of the costs, drew an analogy between the potential war expenditures with an investment in the removal of a threat to the economy. “It’s hard for me to see how we have sustained economic growth in a world where terrorists with weapons of mass destruction are running around,” he said. If you weigh the cost of the war against the removal of a “huge drag on global economic growth for a foreseeable time in the future, there’s no comparison.” Other administration economists say that their main fear is that an Iraq war could lead to a sustained spike in prices. The past four recessions have been preceded by the price of oil jumping to higher than $30 a barrel, according to BCA Research.com in Montreal. But the White House believes that removing Iraqi oil from production during a war — which would likely lead to a short-term rise in prices — would be insufficient to tip the economy into recession. What is worrisome, economists say, is if the war widens and another large Middle East supplier stops selling to the U.S., either because of an Iraqi attack or out of solidarity with Saddam Hussein’s regime. Mr. Lindsey said that Mr. Hussein’s ouster could actually ease the oil problem by increasing supplies. Iraqi production has been constrained somewhat because of its limited investment and political factors. “When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels of production to world supply” each day, Mr. Lindsey estimated. “The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.” Currently, Iraq produces 1.7 million barrels of oil daily, according to OPEC figures. Before the Gulf War, Iraq produced around 3.5 million barrels a day. Mr. Lindsey’s cost estimate is higher than the $50 billion number offered privately by the Pentagon in its conversations with Congress. The difference shows the pitfalls of predicting the cost of a military conflict when nobody is sure how difficult or long it will be. Whatever the bottom line, the war’s costs would be significant enough to make it harder for the Bush administration to climb out of the budget-deficit hole it faces because of the economic slowdown and expense of the war on terrorism. Mr. Lindsey didn’t spell out the specifics of the spending and didn’t make clear whether he was including in his estimate the cost of rebuilding Iraq or installing a new regime. His estimate is roughly in line with the $58 billion cost of the Gulf War, which equaled about 1% of GDP in 1991. During that war, U.S. allies paid $48 billion of the cost, says William Hoagland, chief Republican staffer of the Senate Budget Committee. This time it is far from clear how much of the cost — if any — America’s allies would be willing to bear. Most European allies, apart from Britain, have been trying to dissuade Mr. Bush from launching an attack, at least without a United Nations resolution of approval. But if the U.S. decides to invade, it may be able to get the allies to pick up some of the tab if only to help their companies cash in on the bounty from a post-Saddam Iraq. Toppling Mr. Hussein could be more expensive than the Persian Gulf War if the U.S. has to keep a large number of troops in the country to stabilize it once Mr. Hussein is removed from power. Despite the Bush administration’s aversion to nation-building, Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, recently said that the U.S. troops in Afghanistan likely would remain for years to come. The same is almost certain to be true in Iraq. Keeping the peace among Iraq’s fractious ethnic groups almost certainly will require a long-term commitment of U.S. troops. During the Gulf War, the U.S. fielded 500,000 troops. A far smaller force is anticipated in a new attack on Iraq. But the GOP’s Mr. Hoagland said the costs could be higher because of the expense of a new generation of smart missiles and bombs. In addition, the nature of the assault this time is expected to be different. During the Gulf War, U.S. troops bombed from above and sent tank-led troops in for a lightning sweep through the Iraqi desert. A new Iraq war could involve prolonged fighting in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities — even including house-to-house combat. The Gulf War started with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, which prompted a brief recession. The U.S. started bombing Iraq on Jan. 16, 1991, and called a halt to the ground offensive at the end of February. With Iraq’s invasion, oil prices spiked and consumer confidence in the U.S. plunged. But Mr. Lindsey said the chance of that happening again is “small.” U.S. diplomats have been trying to get assurances from Saudi Arabia, Russia and other oil-producing states that they would make up for any lost Iraqi oil production. In addition, Mr. Lindsey said that the pumping equipment at the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been improved so oil is easier to tap, if necessary. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations, he said, wanted to “make sure you can pump oil out quickly.” On Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he doubted a war would lead to recession because of the reduced dependence of the U.S. economy on oil. “I don’t think that ... the effect of oil as it stands at this particular stage, is large enough to impact the economy unless the hostilities are prolonged,” Mr. Greenspan told the House Budget Committee. “If we go through a time frame such as the Gulf War, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on us.” The U.S. economy also has become less dependent on oil than it was in 1990, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, an economic consulting group in West Chester, Pa. A larger percentage of economic activity comes from services, as compared with energy-intensive manufacturers, he said. Many of those manufacturers also use more energy-efficient machinery.
|
Post 42027 by Warstud Reply
|
Another ugly day in Semis : Semiconductor names again dominating the new 52-week low as group breaks down to its worst levels in almost 4 years. Among the names on the new low list today are MU, BRCM, CY, CHRT, NSM, BRCM, AMD, ATML, AMCC, STM, LLTC, MXIM, MCRL, VSEA, PWAV, IFX, TQNT, UMC, MCHP... Micron (MU 15.98 -0.52) is one of the few names on the list making a new low for the first time this month. Stock falls to its lowest level since June 26.
|
|
Post 42028 by uponroof Reply
|
Call the PPT...
|
JPMC down again today. Down 9+% over a week Down 13+% over a month Down 42+% over a year... Even Mr Liu, in his excellent piece posted by srudek, refers to JPMC and the derivative exposure at risk. How low will it go before 'free market intervention' saves the day? http://finance.lycos.com/home/stocks/charts.asp?symbols=NYSE:JPM
|
Post 42029 by uponroof Reply
|
Economist:Home prices will follow stocks lower
|
What's that old saying?....trends and conditions move west to east. Will CA lead the charge to lower RE values? ******** Home prices nationwide -- particularly in the Bay Area -- are a bubble ready to burst, warns Ian Morris, chief economist of HSBC Securities USA. And, he says his pessimistic prediction has ample support in the recent history of Japan and the United States. Morris says that when a stock market implodes -- as it has here in the past 2 1/2 years -- home prices are likely to follow, but with a delayed reaction. He cites several examples, focusing on two: the United States in 1987 and Japan in 1989. Morris, 34, works out of the New York office of HSBC Securities, which is part of the London-based financial conglomerate HSBC Holdings. He spoke recently with Mercury News Staff Writer Mark Rosenberg. Q You compare the current rise in U.S. home prices with events here and in Japan more than a decade ago. What happened then? A U.S. stock prices were rising in 1987 and then crashed in October, falling 23 percent in one day. Home prices in the U.S. had been rising along with stock prices, and they continued rising for nearly two years after stocks crashed, peaking in August 1989, then they fell or stagnated for the next five years. In December 1989, Japan's Nikkei stock average hit a peak of 39,000 and then began a long decline, leading the Nikkei to its current level below 10,000. Property prices in Japan continued to inflate for more than a year after stocks peaked, then began a long and steep decline. Q Stock prices fell, then home prices fell some time later. But does that mean one caused the other? A Stock market collapses are a signal of serious economic problems and erase enormous amounts of wealth. With less money available to purchase homes, one would expect home prices to fall or stagnate, but instead they rise -- temporarily -- for three reasons: • After a stock crash, fearful investors divert their money into real estate, which they regard as safe. • Those same fearful investors also move money into savings accounts and money market funds, increasing the supply of money available for lending. At the same time the central bank is cutting interest rates to stimulate the weaker economy that follows the stock market drop. These concerted reactions cause mortgage rates to fall. • In the weaker economy, lenders prefer making home loans rather than business loans, increasing the availability of mortgage money. These three reactions cause home prices to rise before they follow the stock market lower. Q You say the delayed reaction in home prices took about two years after the U.S. crash of 1987 and about one year after the Nikkei's peak in 1989. Now, 2 1/2 years have passed since the U.S. stock market peaked in 2000. Is the delayed reaction overdue this time? A One to three years is the usual situation. We have a longer time frame now because the Federal Reserve has been very aggressive in cutting rates, and mortgage rates have fallen to the lowest level in a generation. The delay has been elongated partly because inflation wasn't a problem during the run-up in stock prices. Over the long term, housing prices can only rise about 2 percentage points above the rate of inflation. We've been rising faster than that for five or six years now. Q Are there regions of the nation where the housing bubble is especially inflated? A The most bubblish situation is occurring on the West Coast and smack dab where you are. San Jose and San Francisco are among the most inflated real estate markets. A collection of states clustered in the Pacific, Mountain and North-Central regions can now probably be considered bubbles. Q The Silicon Valley area has had a housing shortage for more than 10 years. It seems unlikely that prices here could drop significantly. What are the chances that your theory is wrong -- that home prices aren't going to follow stocks? A One indicator I look at is the ratio of home prices to disposable income, which is like the price-earnings ratio for houses. U.S. homes are worth about 1.6 times Americans' disposable personal income -- a ratio virtually identical to levels when U.S. home prices peaked in 1989. That ratio is even more stretched in your area. It is possible that prices could continue to rise for a while longer if mortgage rates stay low. But this would only make housing values even richer. So when mortgage rates finally do rise by an amount sufficient to tip the housing market over, another post-bubble deflationary headache will emerge, this time in residential real estate instead of the stock market. (with thanks to RBA daily observations) http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/4079612.htm
|
Post 42030 by spirare Reply
|
Caledonia Mining Corporation-Potentilla Kimberlite Returns Commercial-Sized Diamonds
|
TORONTO, ONTARIO, Sep 16, 2002 (CCNMatthews via COMTEX) -- Caledonia Mining Corporation ("Caledonia") of Toronto (TSX: CAL and NASDAQ-OTCBB: CALVF) is pleased to report diamond results for a 5.83 tonne mini-bulk sample collected from the Potentilla kimberlite in May 2002 by Ashton Mining of Canada Inc ("Ashton"). Discovered in September 2001, Potentilla is located on the Kikerk Lake property in the Coronation Gulf region of Nunavut. Mini-bulk Sample Results The Potentilla kimberlite contains two phases: an upper kimberlite breccia underlain by hypabyssal kimberlite. The 5.83 tonne mini-bulk sample consisted of 4.48 tonnes of kimberlite breccia and 1.35 tonnes of hypabyssal kimberlite. The drilling data indicate that Potentilla has maximum surface dimensions of 110 m x 50 m. After processing through the dense media separation (DMS) plant at Ashton's North Vancouver laboratory the sample returned a total of 1.02 carats of diamonds larger than 1.0 mm using a square aperture screen. These results gave the sample an estimated diamond content of 17.50 carats per hundred tonnes ("cpht"). When a 0.8 mm square aperture screen was used, a total of 1.28 carats of diamonds was recovered giving the sample an estimated diamond content of 22.00 cpht. Summary of Diamond Results -------------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberlite Sample Diamonds Diamonds Estimated Type Weight Recovered Recovered Diamond (tonnes) (greater than (greater than Content (cpht) 0.8 mm) 1.0 mm) (Diamonds greater (carats) (carats) than 1.0 mm) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Breccia 4.48 1.07 0.86 19.20 Hypabyssal 1.35 0.21 0.16 11.85 Total 5.83 1.28 1.02 17.50 -------------------------------------------------------------------- The largest diamond recovered, a 0.34 carat colourless composite crystal with small inclusions, came from the breccia. The second largest diamond, a 0.09 carat stone, was recovered from the hypabyssal phase. No further work is planned on Potentilla at this time. The recovery of a 0.34 carat diamond in Potentilla confirms the presence of kimberlites with larger stones in the Coronation Gulf region of Nunavut and provides encouragement for continued aggressive exploration on the Kikerk Lake property and elsewhere in the region. Kikerk Lake Property Summer Exploration Program In addition to the collection of the Potentilla mini-bulk sample, the 2002 summer drilling program focused on the Stellaria kimberlite. Situated approximately 700 m east of the Potentilla kimberlite, Stellaria was discovered in May 2002 by drilling a vertical hole into a geophysical anomaly having approximate surface dimensions of 160 m x 50 m. The anomaly is oriented along a geophysically defined linear feature having an approximate strike length of two km. The 2002 program was designed to better understand the Stellaria kimberlite and the associated linear feature. Initial microdiamond results from Stellaria were reported on July 17, 2002. In August 2002, a hole was drilled from 40 m northwest of the Stellaria discovery hole at an inclination of 60 degrees from horizontal. After passing through 16 m of glacial overburden and 52 m of dolomitic limestone, the drill intersected 21 m of hypabyssal kimberlite. The drill data suggest that Stellaria may be a 13 metre wide dyke dipping at an angle of 72 degrees to the northwest. Based on indicator mineral and geophysical data, Stellaria has a strike length of less than 400 m. Approximately 100 kg of core was recovered from the Stellaria drill hole and it will be processed for microdiamonds by caustic dissolution at Ashton's North Vancouver laboratory. Three additional holes were drilled into geophysical anomalies along the linear feature without intersecting kimberlite. The summer program also included the collection of more than 250 indicator mineral samples in the vicinity of the Stellaria and Potentilla kimberlites to investigate unexplained geophysical and indicator mineral anomalies. The indicator mineral data will assist in identifying priority targets for drilling in early 2003. Caledonia currently holds a 17.5 percent interest in the Kikerk Lake property. Ashton and Northern Empire Minerals Ltd. ("Northern Empire") hold interests of 52.5 percent and 30 percent respectively. Ashton is the operator of the programs on the Kikerk Lake property. Further information regarding Caledonia's exploration activities and operations along with its latest financials may be found on the Corporation's website http://www.caledoniamining.com. CONTACT: S. E. Hayden Chairman, President and CEO South Africa (011-27-11) 447-2499 (011-27-11) 447-2554 (FAX) or James Johnstone V-P Operations and COO Canada (905) 607-7543 (905) 607-9806 (FAX) or Chris Harvey Technical Director Canada (905) 607-7543 (905) 607-9806 (FAX) NEWS RELEASE TRANSMITTED BY CCNMatthews INDUSTRY KEYWORD: MNG - Mining SUBJECT CODE: MEX - MINING EXPLORATION UPDATE (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)
|
Post 42031 by jcl22192 Reply
|
A War We Can Afford
|
Newsweek.com A possible war with Iraq raises many unknowns, but “can we afford it?” is not one of them. People inevitably ask that question, forgetting that the United States has become so wealthy it can wage war almost with pocket change. Although I prefer the 'price on Hussein's head' suggestion.
|
Post 42032 by Warstud Reply
|
Culmus..
|
Where the heck have you been? I wrote about this same thing about a year ago? Do you remember me posting these last year? http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=TABLE&read=27087 http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=TABLE&read=28098
Post
42033
by
Tampathom
OT: Price on Saddam's head
|
|
Post 42034 by srudek Reply
|
Roach's Prescription:
|
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20020916-mon.html#anchor0 I see one possible way out -- a sharp depreciation of the US dollar. A realignment of foreign exchange rates is central to the "global rebalancing" that I have long believed is necessary to put the world economy on a more sustainable growth path. A significant depreciation of the dollar -- at least another 15-20% on a trade-weighted basis, in my view -- would go along way in cracking the mold of US-centric global growth. Importantly, such an outcome would enable the US to vent some of the tensions that have built up in this post-bubble era. It would allow America to shift the mix of economic growth shift from domestic to external demand. That would give US authorities more leeway to run policies that would slow the excesses of consumer demand, thereby tempering the excessive debt and lack of saving that has remains an enduring feature of this climate. A weaker dollar would also be important in countering deflationary pressures. It would spark an increase in import prices -- transforming the external contribution to domestic pricing from deflation back into inflation.
Post
42035
by
clo
OT: Power Poll: War and the U.S. budget
|
|
Post 42036 by kantbleveit Reply
|
W'Stud-- ISIL not on that list, interesting. eom.
|
i kantbleveit
|
Post 42037 by abveldeh Reply
|
srudek as you can see iin my info I live in the Netherlands.
|
Your rectification is of course correct (mainly) The ECB has been a lot more hesitant in lowering interestrates. So moneysupply fortunately is not as exuberant as in the US However banks inflated the techbubble by selling stockmortgages. In case of some Japanese scenario these people will be in real trouble. Since people get older and need more pensionfunds there wont be another bubble for decades to come. I expected this to happen but thought it would come around 2005-6. Companies like AEgon are in trouble now in such a way that they are selling their crownjewels.
|
Post 42038 by spirare Reply
|
Good Listen; Gold & Dollar...
|
http://www.netcastdaily.com/1complete/fsn091402-2.ram GOLD Market Comment: The price of gold weakened right at the end of the trading session on sudden bank and fund selling and was also pressured by a stronger U.S. dollar. Economic indicators were a mixed bag as retail sales moved higher largely on zero percent financing and the housing market bubble. Consumer sentiment continues to weaken and the equities markets continue to remain sluggish. The ?fear factor? has given way to ?wait and see? as any expectation for war in the Middle East has eased since President George W. Bush gave his speech at the U.N. It now appears that war is at least several months off. There are still jitters in the markets about possible terrorist activity as events this morning in Florida show. The capture of the so-called ?terrorists?, vehicle search, and freeway closure appears to have been nothing more than an overreaction. It does show that the public is still nervous a year after the September 11 terrorist attacks and the realization is that life will never be the same again as America has ?lost its innocence? as it were. Holding a portion of ones investments in precious metals has proven to be a good strategy in these tumultuous times. Gold is ?portfolio insurance? that provides some ?balance? to a well diversified investment portfolio against all the uncertainties that can pummel the global markets. ***Yet precious metals prices are still a bargain considering the fear of the unknown as far as world events and extremely volatile equities markets are concerned.*** Gold Spot (FOREX:XAUUSDO) TA LT higher highs and higher lows 4 Strong Bull waves to go*^*^*^*^ TA ST the last 5th small correction bearwave soon complete. Bull Wave Breakout to follow*^*^*^*^*^ http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=FOREX_XAUUSDO&v=dmax Dollar Index Cash (NYBOT:DXY0) TA LT lower highs and lower lows... 3 bear waves left... TA ST small 5th bull wave correction soon complete, followed by continuation of the LT bear waves... http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DXY0&v=dmax Current Price of Gold http://www.caledoniamining.com Imo. (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)
|
Post 42039 by Warstud Reply
|
Kant..
|
Maybe I ought to ask you the same thing. Where the heck have you been? If your who I think you are then we go back a bit to the good old days. I guess make yourself feel at home again. Later!
Post
42040
by
ferociousD
OT: Nuclear Succor for North Korea
|
|
Post 42041 by kantbleveit Reply
|
stud, ISIL near 52 week low;
|
I've been away from the market for awhile; got kikked hard because of stupidity and lack of stops with my port; Just recently been nibbling on some ISIL, and perusing the TABLE postings etc. What areas have you been focusing on during the TECH WRECK fiasco? It's nice to read the postings and see our little Table family operating, well, like a family! To borrow a blurb from CLO (i think~!?) L'chaim! Too life! Treat each day as if its your last; one day you'll be right! kant
|
Post 42042 by pmcw Reply
|
ws, Name one semi company that is selling for at least 300% more than it sold for during the first half of 1999.
|
|
Post 42043 by pmcw Reply
|
ws, Even though you said:
|
"By: Warstud $$$$$ 22 Aug 2002, 10:39 AM EDT Msg. 40823 of 42042 (This msg. is a reply to 40808 by Briguy.) NOT the Time to Sell.. Let's see some panick Buying first! Alot of shorts have yet to cover " right at the peak of the last little rally and the market immediately initiated a 10% decline, I do have to applaud you for issuing a portfolio challenge to me on the CY board and then having the guts to follow through. Now, if we can just get the one guy on the planet (Culmus) to play who has, according to him, hit all the highs and lows, we'll have a real contest.
Post
42044
by
tinljhtkh
OT: Pace and Table!
|
|
Post 42045 by clo Reply
|
Iraq cries "Uncle Sam" come on back in! clo
|
Iraq gives U.N. letter on weapons inspectors September 16, 2002 Posted: 6:20 PM EDT (2220 GMT) From Andrea Koppel CNN Washington Bureau NEW YORK (CNN) -- Iraq Monday delivered a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said. He said the letter did touch on weapons inspectors, although he did not elaborate. Eckhard said Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri delivered the letter in a meeting with Annan and the Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Moussa. Annan is to pass it on to the president of the 15-member U.N. Security Council this evening, and top diplomats are to study it overnight. The timing of the Iraqi letter coincides with a major push by the Bush administration to draft tougher U.N. resolutions ordering weapons inspectors back into Iraq on a tight deadline and threatening the use of military force if Iraq does not comply. Secretary of State Colin Powell has been meeting with U.N. Security Council members in the hopes of building a consensus to support one or more resolutions "with teeth." (Full story) However the actual drafting has yet to begin -- some diplomats tell CNN they don't expect pens to be put to paper until later this week -- with a final draft ready by month's end. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/
Post
42046
by
ttalknet2
OT: Gold bloodied when Australian trading began.
<
|
|
Post 42047 by brentang Reply
|
PMCW, that sounds like Xicor! Could that mean that in 2004 it can hit triple it's 2000 high (adjusted for splits)? |
(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)
|
Post 42048 by spirare Reply
|
September 16, 2002; Spot gold in New York settled higher at $317.20 an ounce, higher by $70 cents
|
on thin trading conditions. Gold remained supported by growing U.S.-Iraqi tensions, higher energy costs, and a minor pull back in the U.S. dollar at the end of the trading session. Frederic Panizzutti of GoldAvenue, a major gold online trading company, voiced doubt that gold has much more downside potential in light of ongoing U.S.-Iraq tensions. He also believes that "the actual levels could be interpreted as an opportunity to buy." The trading session was described as very light as participants were said to be awaiting market direction and because of the Yom Kippur holidays. Japanese trading was suspended for a Japanese holiday overnight. "It's been dead. It's just drifting around with the dollar," said a bullion dealer. Even the equities markets are set adrift in lackluster trade as volume on the NYSE and Nasdaq are reporting very light trading. Some suggested that the markets are awaiting direction after the President?s economic advisor Larry Lindsey reported that the Iraqi war could cost as much as $200 billion and have some impact on the U.S. economy. London gold was fixed this afternoon at $315.35 an ounce, down from $316.55 an ounce at the morning fixing. Dealers said the market is likely to remain in a tight $314-$321 an ounce range in the near term, as ongoing concerns about the global economy and the possibility of war in the middle East are supporting the downside. Today Gold Fields Mineral Services Ltd., a London-based commodity research and consulting company, said its initial estimates point to a "significant" drop in gold mine production in the first half of 2002. GFMS' mining analyst Bruce Always said the fall was mainly due to a decline in Indonesian output. The world's current mine production levels may not be sustainable, GFMS warned, with depleting reserves "at mature operations in North America and a marked decline in new deposits timetabled to come on stream in the short term." Earlier gold closed at $316.35 an ounce on Monday in Hong Kong, down $2.20 from Friday's close of $318.55. The precious metals markets were relatively subdued on Monday as the Japanese markets were closed for a holiday. Trading in Hong Kong and Sydney was also described as quiet. "It seems to me that the market is going nowhere... I think it will remain US$316 bid for the rest of the day," said Gordon Cheung, director of Precious Metals Trading at Mitsui Bussan in Hong Kong. Trading was subdued, with buyers seeking slightly better offers and sellers holding out for a slightly higher range, Cheung said. Some interesting comments by various newsletter writers are listed by Thom Calandra in his daily market report at CBS Marketwatch: "There are an uncommon number of safe-haven factors working in gold's favor right now, including a potential stock market crash (maybe), a further plunge in the dollar (likely) and war with Iraq (almost assured)," "An Iraqi war is almost surely going to drive oil into a (higher price) spike," says Ian McAvity, editor of Deliberations on World Markets newsletter, which is in its 30th year. "Flooding the market with oil from captured Iraqi oilfields seems a pipedream that totally ignores risks of destabilizing Saudi Arabia other regional sources." "While initial action in Gulf War II may be taken by the U.S., we expect a similar price spike (in gold) as tensions heat up, but this time the fear will not be Saddam's army, but his possible early use of chemical weapons," says John C. Doody, editor of Gold Stock Analyst. "This Iraq attack would be different in that there are already festering wars in the Middle East, Kashmir and Chechnya," says James Dines at The Dines Letter, which has been reporting on financial markets since 1961. "Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, issued a chilling warning that an American assault on Iraq would 'open the gates of hell in the Middle East because you could never tell the results.? " "Gold responds to any event that affects the quality of national currencies," says James Turk, editor of Freemarket Gold & Money Report. "So it's not the war per se that gold responds to, but what a war would mean to the dollar. Given that gold is so cheap and undervalued, I don't see any war premium." Comment: There is very little news in the markets today (precious metal or equities). The price of gold appears to be tracking movements in the U.S. dollar. Over the weekend, White House economic advisor Larry Lindsey said that the U.S.-Iraq war could cost as much as $200 billion and have an affect on the U.S. economy. The Japanese markets (including the TOCOM) were closed for a holiday and the trading in New York was described as thin due to the Jewish Yom Kippur holidays. ***Meanwhile, In Davenport, Iowa President George W. Bush gave a speech this morning on an Iowa factory floor before Sears workers where he stated his case for action against Iraq, need for an economic package from congress and pleaded for passage of an energy bill.*** Good Listen to Gold & Dollar... http://www.netcastdaily.com/1complete/fsn091402-2.ram GOLD Market Comment: The price of gold weakened right at the end of the trading session on sudden bank and fund selling and was also pressured by a stronger U.S. dollar. Economic indicators were a mixed bag as retail sales moved higher largely on zero percent financing and the housing market bubble. Consumer sentiment continues to weaken and the equities markets continue to remain sluggish. The ?fear factor? has given way to ?wait and see? as any expectation for war in the Middle East has eased since President George W. Bush gave his speech at the U.N. It now appears that war is at least several months off. There are still jitters in the markets about possible terrorist activity as events this morning in Florida show. The capture of the so-called ?terrorists?, vehicle search, and freeway closure appears to have been nothing more than an overreaction. It does show that the public is still nervous a year after the September 11 terrorist attacks and the realization is that life will never be the same again as America has ?lost its innocence? as it were. Holding a portion of ones investments in precious metals has proven to be a good strategy in these tumultuous times. Gold is ?portfolio insurance? that provides some ?balance? to a well diversified investment portfolio against all the uncertainties that can pummel the global markets. ***Yet precious metals prices are still a bargain considering the fear of the unknown as far as world events and extremely volatile equities markets are concerned.*** Gold Spot (FOREX:XAUUSDO) TA LT higher highs and higher lows 4 Strong Bull waves to go*^*^*^*^ TA ST the last 5th small correction bearwave soon complete. Bull Wave Breakout to follow*^*^*^*^*^ http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=FOREX_XAUUSDO&v=dmax Dollar Index Cash (NYBOT:DXY0) TA LT lower highs and lower lows... 3 bear waves left... TA ST small 5th bull wave correction soon complete, followed by continuation of the LT bear waves... http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DXY0&v=dmax Current Price of Gold http://www.caledoniamining.com Imo. (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)
|
Post 42049 by pmcw Reply
|
Brent, You're right and if you read the post ws linked on SI and the first XICO post on RB they have executed exactly the model I projected. Due to this, I'm rather proud of those posts and appreciate ws' frequent reminders of the statements I made long before XICO announced their new strategy.
|
By the end of 2004 I predict that XICO will be serving a market potential of between $1.5B to $2B. Their SAM (served available market) will be upwards of $1B before the end of 2003. Their current served market is roughly $300M and they have over 11% share. They grew mixed signal sales by 27% last quarter and forecast double digit growth in this area for at least the next few quarters. Due to this, I'll hold my Q1 2001 projection of a price in the high $30's by the end of 2004. I think when they release their new VR technology later this year many will agree with me. Regards, pmcw
Post
42050
by
ttalknet2
OT: Why Gold is Lower Friday Noon to Present
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||