Friday, December 05, 2008

is gold still a safe haven?

is gold still a safe haven?
ngots are just another commodity

It would be hard to imagine a worse run of events for paper money. Investment banks such as Lehman Brothers have drowned in a sea of subprime debt. Building societies such as Bradford & Bingley, once so dull and safe they made fun of it in their ads, have had to be nationalised. In the case of Iceland, a whole country suddenly went pop. So you might think it would have been a great year for the world’s oldest form of money: gold. Fleeing a bankrupt monetary system, investors would seek the security of ingots and krugerrands.

Except, as it happens, they didn’t. Among the many fascinating sub-plots to the credit crunch has been the way the ‘gold bugs’ — as die-hard enthusiasts for the metal are known in the City — have finally been nailed. Gold turns out not to be the ultimate store of value after all. Nor is it a safe haven in times of turmoil. It’s just another commodity, useful for making jewellery and not much else.

Take a look at the way the metal has performed through these turbulent months. When the crunch started in August last year an ounce of gold would have cost you $667. For a few months, admittedly, the gold bugs had something to get excited about. With the financial system starting to creak, gold steadily climbed all the way up to $1,033 an ounce in mid-March. The bugs started working overtime. Two, maybe three thousand dollars seemed possible. Who knows, perhaps the gold standard would be reimposed. All it would take was a nervous breakdown in the money markets.

It didn’t quite work out. On 15 September Lehman went bust, triggering a wave of bank failures around the world. Then countries started to collapse. And gold? Over the course of that tumultuous week, it pushed up from $770 to $928. Since then, however, it has fallen back to $800 again.

In truth, gold has been a poor investment for a long time. As far back as January 1980 it was trading at $850, but by 1985 it had slumped to $284. It didn’t do much during the 1990s, starting the decade at $399 and finishing at $289. Indeed, so poor was its performance that Gordon Brown famously ordered the Bank of England to sell off 395 tonnes of the stuff, for which it got only an average of $275, close to a three-decade low. This decade was a bit better, with a steady climb back towards the $700-800 range (which means the Brown sale lost the taxpayer a notional £4 billion, by the way). Still, the fact remains that gold today isn’t worth any more than it was 30 years ago. Bear in mind also that your ingot has never paid any dividends or interest, and you’ve had to pay someone to look after it. Compared to just about any alternative, it’s been a rotten investment.

Okay, say the bugs. Thirty years is nothing. Over thousands of years gold has been the world’s most reliable store of value. At some point (as Jonathan Ruffer argues opposite) the conjuring trick of paper money will collapse — and gold may be the only thing worth owning. Larry Edelson, an American financial pundit and über gold bull, predicts, for example, that a return to the gold standard would push the price to $53,000 an ounce.

Which would be nice for small investors who’ve piled into the metal. BullionVault, a website that allows private investors to buy and sell physical gold, has trebled the number of accounts it holds in the last year. The World Gold Council reports that demand from retail investors buying gold bars or gold funds rose 56 per cent in the latest quarter. The trouble is, as they so often do, private investors have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. In fact, gold is steadily losing safe-haven status. After Richard Nixon ended the last formal link between the dollar and gold in 1971, the metal still had some support. In the global recession from November 1973 to March 1975, gold rose by 78 per cent; it spiked again in 1979-80; but in the downturns of the early 1990s and early 2000s it hardly moved at all.

Other safe havens have done much better. Government bonds have gone up — foreigners have been pumping $1.5 trillion a week into US Treasury bills since the start of the crunch. So has the Swiss franc, a traditional financial port in monetary storms. Some new safe havens may be emerging: intriguingly, the Israeli shekel has risen strongly, and Merrill Lynch now describes it as among the world’s safest assets. But not gold. It went up in price during this decade in line with the commodity boom. When that burst, it headed down again. What’s happening on the money markets no longer makes much difference. Gold rises and falls with oil, copper and wheat, and all the other things that get turned into stuff in factories. It is still a useful metal. But it is not money — and after its failure to rally in this crisis, even the most dogmatic gold bug may well have to admit that.

BizzyBlog

BizzyBlog

Unemployment!

Nancy, Barry, and Harry must be so proud. It’s simply amazing what promising to choke off a country’s energy supplies (all three of them did so in June), promising to radically raise taxes (Obama did, and the others have been on board, for at least 18 months before the presidential election), and having a decades-in-the-making wreck of the housing and mortgage-lending industries come to a head (a Democratic Party group effort going back to the late 1970s) can do.

Never forget this: They broke it.

Now let’s see if they can fix it.

Econbrowser: The Employment Situation in Pictures

Econbrowser: The Employment Situation in Pictures: "he Employment Situation in Pictures"

You, too, can arbitrage the premium-midgrade-regular gasoline price spread - Knowledge Problem

You, too, can arbitrage the premium-midgrade-regular gasoline price spread - Knowledge Problem

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Mega-Bear Comparisons

Mega-Bear Comparisons

http://dshort.com/charts/mega-bear-comparisons.html?mega-bear-quartet-extended

Comparison of curves of crashes of stock market
.



Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Moonbattery: Bailed Out Banks Paid Slick Willie $Millions for Speeches

Moonbattery: Bailed Out Banks Paid Slick Willie $Millions for Speeches
Four major banks, including one that collapsed, two that received federal bailout money and one that filed for bankruptcy this past September, paid former President Clinton $2.1 million for 13 speeches he delivered on their behalf between 2004-2007, according to Senate financial disclosure statements filed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Citigroup paid Bill Clinton $700,000; Goldman Sachs paid $950,000; Lehman Brothers paid $300,000 and Merrill Lynch paid $175,000 to the former president for speeches during that time period. Sen. Clinton's 2008 financial disclosure reports are not yet available.

200811222725 | The Great Birth Certificate Scandal-Cover-Up of the 2008 Election | / | Editorial

200811222725 | The Great Birth Certificate Scandal-Cover-Up of the 2008 Election | / | Editorial

An Institution Dies [Updated] � td blog

An Institution Dies [Updated] � td blog

John Quincy Adams, the Sixth President of the United States and one of the founding fathers, states “But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT, but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it !) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bonds of political association - will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies ; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.”

Samuel Adams, one of the founding fathers of the United States Constitution, states “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

American Thinker: Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

American Thinker: Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

An Institution Dies [Updated] � td blog

An Institution Dies [Updated] � td blog

“Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: ‘In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.’”

Website referenced: Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

This site lists the eligibility requirements to apply for a Hawaiian home lands homestead lease. They do not accept a computer generated printout as proof.

American Thinker article posted on FR:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2138710/posts

Monday, November 17, 2008

Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate � td blog

Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate � td blog
renee

TD, Judah, Another note on info. above. IDN Menteng 1 is a public, primary school. Elite, secular, elementary school. Public, but very competative and has exceptionally high standards. Located in one of the most affluent parts of Jakarta, Indonesia. Attracts mostly mid to upper class students, among them, several of the former Dictator Suharto’s grandchildren. Barack Obama was known there as Barry Obama. Very privledged. Classmates were the President Suharto’s grandchildren. Bet you had to have connections to go there.

Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate � td blog

Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate � td blog
Sources for comment

Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate � td blog

FourGrail Guardian : On another post I noted info on the Indonesian President Suharto. Article says more often then not in Indonesia, it was spelled Soeharto.The fact is that family was like a monarchy, and he was the biggest kleptocrat. I also noted the same pronounciation as Lolo Soerto. Lolo worked as a liason to this families’ oil interests and other countries. The names sound the same to me, so I got curious. Could Lolo be part of this Presidential family in Jakarta, Indonesia ? Isnt that where they lived also ? Look at the atmosphere of the photos of them in Indo.Very formal settings. Also,he died with a fortune up to 35 billion. He had 6 children, and over 100 family businesses the grown children still run. Several live in LA, one, 2 doors down from Rod Stewart. He took over Indo in 1965 I think. He then had a post coup massacre of 1/2 million Indonesians. He had little money then. He then spent many years cleaning out Indonesia, and setting up monopolies and questionable businesses there for his children. It is said at leat 73 billion passed through his hands from 1966-1999. This family still owns most luxury resorts in Bali. Isn’t that where Obama went for 3 months to write a book ? Lolo Soerto was a key liason between Mobil Stanvac and this family. I find it too coincidental. Grail guardian, you must be speaking of a different person then this. There was also alot of genocide in this country ( see Papua) story here on Td on an earlier thread. This guy even taxed workers and military for his foundations, which were rip off slush funds. The dynasty got taken down, but his children still own alot of Indonesia. There was alot of Western trade also. The new Indonesian government siezed 134 million from this family August 29.2008. They have been tracing stolen Indonesian money and this family many years, but most long ago hidden all over the world. See past stories online at : Time-Suharto Inc. as well as CNN- Indonesian Elections. There is tons more on this family. I think Lolo was probably a close relative, and the name has been spelled differently. I think this Presidential relationship has been covered up. If this is another “coincidence ” I will be really surprised. Alot of bad things happened in Indonesia while Suharto was the President. Judah and TD, will you see if you think there is some connection here that has been overlooked please ? Questions For The Trojan Candidate � td blog

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Knowledge Is Power

Knowledge Is Power

Barack Hussein in Arabic means “the blessing of Hussein.” In Persian, Obama translates as “He [is] with us.” Thus does the name of the presumptive American president-elect, when combined with his physical attributes and geography, suggest that the End of Times is nigh – precisely what Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been predicting..

Boudicca's Voice: Living the Creed

Boudicca's Voice: Living the Creed

“I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

-William Tyler Page, 1917

–Accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918.

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Hog on Ice � � Obummer

Hog on Ice � � Obummer
on the election

What happened last night is a reminder that human beings are less powerful and capable than they think. Civilization is very complicated. There are millions of very slippery and unpredictable factors that influence its function. Although we try, no one–especially not voters–really understands how it works. Voters are incompetent; they always have been. They vote based on things like looks and charm, or because of crazy, discredited ideas they refuse to let go of, or because they make conscious choices to believe proven lies uttered by dishonest candidates. We often talk about the common sense of the American voter and how it will save us, but the truth is, that’s pride talking. We are just as clueless as people in hellholes like India and Haiti, when it comes to choosing leaders. Think about it. SOMEBODY elected Cynthia McKinney and David Duke. If people like that can be elected, Americans are capable of electing the next Hitler or Castro.

We are not prosperous and safe because we’re smarter than Europeans and Africans and Asians. It’s not because we’re a mongrel master race, although we tell ourselves that all the time. We do well because God guides us and watches over us. Last night, we saw how stupid we can be when he withdraws his influence. We elected a nobody with very poor qualifications. A man who was largely sponsored (and openly supported) by our enemies. It was one of the dumbest things ever done by voters in a democratic nation.

Why did this happen? It’s obvious. We begged for it. We are proud and venal and rebellious. We have killed millions of our children in their mother’s wombs. We think sexual morality is obsolete. We are greedy and cruel. We like to go to church, but many of us only feel that way as long as pastors tell us Jesus is more or less like Oprah; a warm, maternal, fawning, obsequious presence who wants us to have tons of self-esteem regardless of our immorality. We are exhausting God’s patience.

Obama’s election is a bad sign. If God can permit us to choose a flashy liar over John McCain, he can also permit us to have an economic depression. He can permit us to be conquered militarily. He can allow Al Qaeda to explode nuclear weapons here. He can take his blessings elsewhere; maybe to Africa and South Korea. We could end up like Greece or Italy. Or Cuba. This may be the beginning of our decline into true socialism and the misery it always brings.

I feel pretty good today, but it has nothing to do with the election. I am not optimistic about America. We may have jumped the shark. This may be our Samson moment. Our divine protection may be gone, and we may be entering into a new age of mediocrity and humiliation.

Obama will get to appoint a large number of federal judges, and they will reinterpret our laws, including the Constitution, to advance Obama’s Marxist notions. Maybe he won’t get to appoint Supreme Court justices. So what? Non-lawyers never seem to realize that the district and appellate judges are much more powerful in the daily lives of Americans. What if he does appoint a couple of justices? Kiss the second amendment goodbye. Forget property rights. And the first amendment will be gutted.

Obama’s underlings will work to bring back the LBJ era. Look forward to higher taxes, more handouts, more damage to our national work ethic, and soaring deficits.

I’m not depressed, because I know my welfare is not directly dependent on the welfare of the nation. I know where the good things in my life come from. But I hate to see America get a spanking like this.

My advice for the next four years is to be astute and zealous in your dissent, but to keep it respectful. Don’t permit the existence of Obama Derangement Syndrome. We have to try to win people over; we’re not going to do it by mimicking Ann Coulter. Pray that God will guide Obama and his administration. Pray for America. Try to be good. Be a witness for God, to increase the number of his people here. And look out for yourself and your family, because very hard times may be right around the corner.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The Winter of Our Discontent

The Winter of Our Discontent

Read all, but:

The Bush administration used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse for the biggest increase in military spending and police power since WWII.

Now it is using the market correction (caused largely by its own interventions in the credit industry) to expand state power in the financial area. Half of all Americans pay their mortgages, directly or indirectly, to the federal government. Most older Americans depend, in whole or in part, on money from the government to live. Now, Americans depend on the government to keep house prices up - by subsidizing demand for mortgage backed securities - and to keep up stock and bond prices too - by buying up Wall Street's mistakes. Homeowners want protection from their own bad judgment. Investors want protection from Mr. Market. The old want free medicine. The young want free schooling. The unemployed want jobs and money. The rich want politicians in their pockets. The poor want the rich's money. Investors, homeowners, pensioners - is there anyone left in America who isn't trying to pick someone else's pocket?

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

One world? Obama's on a different planet - Los Angeles Times

One world? Obama's on a different planet - Los Angeles Times

One world? Obama's on a different planet

The senator's Berlin speech was radical and naive.
By John R. Bolton
July 26, 2008
SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was

substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama's thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign's carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.

Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.

The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.

John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

R-Squared Energy Blog

R-Squared Energy Blog

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/07/lets-talk-about-personal-finance.html


My 9th grade algebra teacher, Mr. Moore, taught us about compound interest. This was one of the most amazing discoveries of my life up to that point, and a definite life-changing event. If I only saved $2 a day, and averaged a paltry 5% of interest, I could accumulate $130,000 by the time I turned 60.

Not a fortune, but then again I am only saving $2 a day and only getting 5%. If somehow I could manage a 10% return, then my $2 a day ended up being $600,000 by the time I turned 60. And if I could manage some real savings - say $100 a month, or $3.33 a day (at the time I was making about $200 a month) - then I would have a million dollars when I turned 60. For the first time in my life, I could see a path to my goal that didn't involve winning the lottery, or otherwise striking it lucky on some long shot.

The power of compound interest has been at the core of my financial planning since that school day in 1981. I knew the ingredients to wealth: 1). Live below your means, so you can save some money. 2). Save the money in a "do not touch" account; 3). Maximize your long-term returns.


Second, I decided that I would never again invest in things that I didn't understand. I still can't tell you exactly what JDS Uniphase does. Something with the Internet. But I don't understand the field well enough to distinguish the pretenders from the contenders.

Third, I vowed that I would always understand the risks. I shun investments that I deem as high-risk, even though I may be giving up substantial rewards. Moderate returns for moderate risk have been better for me than high returns that go along with extreme volatility and an occasional disastrous year.

Finally, I decided to invest only for the long-term. No more market-timing for me. I would evaluate a company based on the fundamentals and my expectations of where trends were heading (e.g., the health care sector looks good as the Baby Boomers age) and invest accordingly.
Those principles have guided my financial planning since then. I have not had a down year since 2000. In hindsight, as a result of my strategic error with the tech stocks, I developed a sound financial plan that has been very good to me. I am probably better off now than had I not taken such big losses in 1999-2000 because of the way it caused me to change the way I invested.

Financial Rules That I Live By

Here are some of the rules I live by:

1. Live within my means. That means that I don't typically make purchases on credit that would take time to pay off. If that means I drive a crappy car - and I have driven crappy cars before - then that's what I do.

2. No credit card debt. While in some cases it may make sense to carry credit card debt (e.g., you got 0% interest for six months), you have to be disciplined. You never want to carry a balance with a > 10% interest rate. You will have a tough time keeping your head above water.

3. Save a minimum of 10% of my income. Over the years, that has probably been closer to 30% for me. I have always maxed out my 401K every year that I worked. I maxed out IRAs, Health Savings Accounts, and Education Savings accounts. Saving that money pre-tax has the added advantage that money that would have gone toward taxes is now accumulating returns.

4. Do my own taxes. Doing your own taxes can give you a lot of insight into how to manage your finances in a way to minimize the take of the tax man. Study all of those deductions, and make sure you are taking the ones you are entitled to take. For most people, doing your own taxes should not be that difficult. Take last year's tax return and start from there. If you get stuck, the IRS has various hotlines to help you out. Even if you can't complete it by yourself, you will learn something by going through the process.

5. Invest in things I understand. For me, that's primarily energy-related, but I also invest in sectors (like health care) that I think are well-positioned for the future.