Before we leave the energy topic, there was an op-ed in the paper today about what we have been talking about here all week. Interesting that we are a little ahead of the curve and dealing with a pertinent issue.
Paul Roberts:
...all the urgent talk about higher few economy standards or programs to brew gasoline from farm crops is misguided and unnecessary. For all though $60 oil may mean the end of cheap energy, it doesnt mean the end of our current energy paradigm...
There are three big reasons oil prices have more than doubled since 2000, none offering any reason to have confidence in the market:
...First, demand for oil in the U.S. but also in China and India, is rising faster than anyone expected.
...Second, supply is strained.
...Third, in a market this tight, there is no spare capacity.
Would $100 oil be such a bad thing? After all, it's only when prices get that high that consumers will be likely to start the move to a post-oil economy, wich is where a lot of experts think we'll need to be eventually.
...Oil isn't just a commodity, like coffee: When oil prices triple, it isn't simply a matter of skipping your morning cup and enduring a little headache. Oil is fundamental to our economy.
...The next energy economy will be built by the market, at a profit, or it won't happen at all...yes, some kind of tax on carbon emissions.
I thought that last statement about tax was particularly interesting because if carbon emission producers were taxed on emissions then two things...the taxes could fund research on clean/alt. energy and at the same time it would be worth money for the producers to pay less tax so they are likely to have a high level of interest in alt. energy.
Goldsaint, I would like to help clarify some of the points in the nuclear article that you posted. First, I'll mention that I have had connections with nuclear energy power plants for over 20 years; I have also worked in coal fired power plants. I will not hesitate to say.... nuclear power is the only way to go!
"In 2004, total global uranium consumption was estimated at 180 million pounds. Of that 180 million pounds only 104 million pounds, or 58%, was supplied directly from mining. Since mining couldn’t keep up with demand, commercial, private and government stockpiles, along with recyclables from dismantled nuclear weapons were tapped and accounted for the difference. These stockpiles are swiftly dwindling."
---I think the logic in this statement is reversed. One thing that has been happening in the industry has been a purposeful recycling of nuclear materials and stockpiles that have been left over from the Cold War, etc. So when you recycle.... there is less need to mine the uranium.
"The supply and demand anomaly we are seeing today will only get worse down the road. With China and India leading the way, demand is going to dwarf supply in the next 10, 20 and 30 years. "
-----Not entirely true. There will certainly be more demand. But actually, uranium is a very plentiful element in the earth's crust--- it is found nearly everywhere. The few companies that do mine it of course are mining the concentrated deposits. Another factor is that nuclear power was nearly killed out not too many years ago... so there was no further development of mines and processing. That will certainly change as demand moves up again, as nations such as our slowly realize what fools we have been by not using such an obvious resource. Likewise, the quote on the price..... when there was not as much demand, items are cheap. The rising price does not necessarily reflect scarcity.
"In 2004, total global uranium consumption was estimated at 180 million pounds. Of that 180 million pounds only 104 million pounds, or 58%, was supplied directly from mining. Since mining couldn’t keep up with demand, commercial, private and government stockpiles, along with recyclables from dismantled nuclear weapons were tapped and accounted for the difference. These stockpiles are swiftly dwindling."
-----I haven't verified these numbers, but I will assume they are correct. The 180 million pounds consumption just means spent fuel..... which needs to be reprocessed. There is a HUGH amount of uranium still present in this, as well as plutonium, which also makes and excellent power plant fuel. Unfortunately, our country has not invested in the reprocessing infrastructure that is needed to make use of this.... some other countries have. The statement of "stockpiles swiftly dwindling" ..... well, that is usually expected when recycling is taking place, and there is an effort to reduce stockpiles.....
Bottom line.... I suspect the authors' objective was to portray nuclear power in a somewhat negative light. While nuclear power does have some negative sides.... as ANY technology does..... I will repeat my opening statement that nuclear power is the only way to go.
The biggest problem with nuclear is that it can't fuel our car crazy society. I think nuclear and solar can solve the power plant problem, but the only solution to keep our cars running is a massive coal-to-gas program. If this replaces oil, we'll be a very powerful country indeed considering we own 25% of the world's coal supply. The United States has far more proven coal reserves than any other country in the world. By the way, I'll continue to argue that hydrogen is a dead end.
Proven coal reserves for top 5 countries
USA 250,000 million tons Russia 157,000 China 114,500 India 84,400 Australia 82,600
Okay now for the punchline. In the entire middle east, there is (drum roll please.......)
1,710 million tons. For all intents and purposes, 0% of the world's coal supply.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I used to write software to help maintain nuclear power plants. The newer designs are so much simpler I would support the develpment of some new plants. The existing plants are very old. It took a lot of smarts to shut down an old plant. There are new designs where you just hit the stop button the the plant shuts down. When it is so simple to shut down it is so much safer.
Any new Nuke plants should not displace coal plants. That is because the US has hundreds of years of coal supply. Nuke plants should replace oil and/or gas plants.
I like wind power. I also like small (micro) power plants. These are especially efficient when a company needs heat as well as electricity. It should be easier to own and operate a <50 megawatt power plant.
As far as global economic predictions go my personal conclusion has led me to take action. I have hedged slightly by buying a small amount of gold (looks like I may have bought the top at $440). Now I am selling rental real estate. I am putting the proceeds into stocks and bonds and leaving some as cash.
<< The biggest problem with nuclear is that it can't fuel our car crazy society. I think nuclear and solar can solve the power plant problem, but the only solution to keep our cars running is a massive coal-to-gas program. If this replaces oil, we'll be a very powerful country indeed considering we own 25% of the world's coal supply. The United States has far more proven coal reserves than any other country in the world. By the way, I'll continue to argue that hydrogen is a dead end. >>
Why do you think hydrogen is a dead end? If you have plenty of nuke power, run some of that electricity through water, make hydrogen, then deliver that via pipeline to hydrogen gas stations. Of course, gas stations would have to spend a fair amount of money converting from gas to hydrogen, but I think they would if that's what their customers' cars were using.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
To give a hydrogen car the same range as a gasoline car, you must liquify the hydrogen and carry it in a 15,000 PSI tank. The technology to transfer liquid hydrogen at the gas station is considerable and so is the danger. The energy capacity of hydrogen by volume is about 1/20th that of gasoline. This means that you will need 20 hydrogen trucks on the road for every 1 gasoline truck. Each hydrogen tanker truck is a rolling bomb that has a huge destructive power. While gasoline has a very narrow combustion range, (air/gas vapor ratio) Hydrogen can explode at anything between 4-74% gas to air ratio. Most car accidents will therefore involve a fire or explosion. Hydrogen must be produced by a primary energy source. This will have to be nuclear, hydro-electric, or solar. We don't have the capacity and people will always fight nuclear. A hydrogen powered car is possible, it's simply not practical. The danger and cost would be unacceptable when compared to coal oil.
Coal oil would produce a fuel very similar to gasoline. We have tons of coal, and when given a choice between destroying the environment or giving up their cars, Americans will choose their cars guaranteed.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
What if an engine of some sort was invented which produced its own hydrogen power...only time it has a reserve was when it was idol, with only a small reserve tank...only enough reserve to get it started...and it produced its fuel as it was running! Out of the question, I do not think so.
What if an engine of some sort was invented which produced its own hydrogen power...only time it has a reserve was when it was idol, with only a small reserve tank...only enough reserve to get it started...and it produced its fuel as it was running! Out of the question, I do not think so.
This isn't possible. To understand why you need to understand what I was trying to explain to you earlier; that hydrogen is an ENERGY CARRIER not an ENERGY SOURCE.
To make hydrogen, you need to put in more energy than you can get back from the hydrogen you produced. In a car this is pointless. Lets say for example that you used natural gas to produce the hydrogen in your vehicle. You could simply burn the natural gas and get far MORE energy than if you converted it to hydrogen first. Any energy SOURCE that you decide to use to produce hydrogen in a car could simply power the car directly and avoid the converstion loss.
The only reason fuel cell hydrogen vehicles are being discussed is because you can use an external energy source like nuclear or hydro-electric to produce the hydrogen, then carry it in a tank to make your car go. On a small scale, this works although the technology is very expensive. On a large scale with 500 million vehicles on American roads it's simply impossible. It's very expensive and extremely dangerous.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
A small hydroelectric engine to keep the water cherning and somekind of a device that could suck the hydrogen up and use it to run the car...you would need a nice size holding chamber for the water and a turbine of some sort to keep it aggitated...a device for pulling off the hydrogen and sending it to a carberator or fuel injected system.
Churning water doesn't produce hydrogen. You need a chemical reaction or electric current to separate the oxygen and hydrogen atoms. This always takes more energy then you get back when you burn the hydrogen. You may not like the laws of thermodynamics, but they apply anyway.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>What were the best assets to hold during the depression? >>
In the 30's cash was king! Today we have too much cash worth less everyday, so results may vary since the good ole goverment just cranks out more with no gold/silver standard.
Of course back then cash = gold/silver in a paper format
Cash was the best investment to hold. More specifically safe interest bearing cash vehicles such as government bonds were the only way to get consistant returns. Commodities fell in price drastically, real estate values dropped, and there was general deflation in prices. (which also helped those who held cash) This of course assumes that you wern't willing to hold short positions. By far the best investment in a new depression would be a huge short position in a major index.
Cash isn't going to be safe this time for all the reasons already discussed. Gold and silver would be a rough estimation of cash in the 1930's, but you will not be able to earn a safe 3-4% like you could with a cash position. The advantage of course is that by holding gold and silver, Uncle Sam can't screw you when all our debt gets called.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
cohodk, from what I hear...many who had fixed annuities survived when other people lost everything...but like ttown says today's money is nothing but a printing press...so assets I guess to hold today would be gold and silver and those who are drownding in debt, I feel sorry for them...good assets to hold is a payed for house and some property to grow food...If I could buy a lake I would do that too...without water nothing is worth a damn.
<< What were the best assets to hold during the depression? >>
Cash was good as long as it wasn't in a bank that failed.
My grandparents were fortunate enough to have work during the depression. My father's parents bought a neat house with 7 acres of land in Ridgefield, Conn. My Mom's parents bought a summer house in N.H. Each property increased in value 100 times after 50 years. I guess that is a really loooong term investment.
Fifty-four percent of the 50 traders, strategists and investors surveyed by Bloomberg News on July 15 from Sydney to New York advised buying the dollar against the euro, up from 47 percent a week ago. Twenty percent said to sell.
As most of you know, this is a very strong indication that the dollar is TOAST. Greenspan seems to be continuing a policy of attracting foreign capital and most overseas governments have said they will not raise interest rates making U.S. yields seem even more attractive. Why is he doing this?
1. Greenspan actually believes that we're in the early stages of a boom economy and wants to control inflation. (which would also mean he's on drugs) 2. Inflation is already out of control and Greenspan now understands that the government has been lying. 3. Someone has convinced him that a strong dollar must be supported at any cost. (the real question is why) 4. Greenspan has taken the flattening of the yield curve personally and wants to force the market to obey him. 5. The fed is in crisis mode and wants to deliver as much pain as possible to the rest of the world therefore softening the blow to domestic interests. (perhaps related to #3)
Personally I'm betting on #3 and a tiny bit of #4. The dollar took a hit last week against the Euro so the timing of Greenspan's comments seems to be entirely based on external factors. I'm pretty much convinced that the real unreported inflation numbers will be ignored by everyone until the bitter end.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Apparently it takes about 27% more energy to produce a bio-fuel than the fuel returns in energy once you take into account fertilizer, harvesting, distilling, and everything else involved. Producing ethanol for automobile use will actually make the energy crisis worse instead of better, and only exists in the first place due to huge government subsidies.
Food production, another form of bio-fuel, also has a huge energy cost that can only be maintained with cheap oil. This is one reason that some of the peak oil predictions are so dismal.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>Mom's parents bought a summer house in N.H. Each property increased in value 100 times after 50 years. I guess that is a really loooong term investment. >>
That's not actually that good of an investment. Had they invested in something and made 7% per year they would have made more than 128 times their money in the same period...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Every little bit of energy helps. I agree that crops grown for Ethanol is not productive and would never happen without subsidies. However there is a place for Ethanol. There are waste crops, bad apples, frozen oranges and so forth, that can be used for Ethanol.
There is also gas generated by huge garbage dumps. There are other alternative sources of energy. They will all be needed.
I agree we still are very dependent on oil and will remain so for the forseeable future. The biggest new source of oil remains conservation in my opinion. If gasoline stays well over $2 many people will buy cars that consume less. Personally I think we should slap a $1 a barrel tax on imported oil and $0.01 a gal on gas be increased by $0.01/gal per year. Naturally I would never get elected because very, very few people would support a tax increase on gas.
July 19, 2005 The Great Debt by Joshua Fritsch As of July 7, 2005 the public debt as reported by the government is $7,838,410,800,630.51.
- - therefore, if the government needs to pay a debt, it will raise your taxes. But hey, they'll only raise taxes for the rich, right? - - the combined net worth of the 25 richest Americans as of September 24, 2004 was roughly $358 billion. This means that if the 25 richest people in the richest country in the world cashed in everything they own and donated it towards the federal debt, it would pay off 4.57% of what we owe.
We have more than $2.13 trillion in outstanding consumer credit, such as car loans and credit card accounts.
We have another $2.29 trillion in mortgage debt.
If we take a wild guess that the combined state debt comes to a mere third of the federal debt, we have an additional $2.65 trillion to account for.
This brings the grand total of all debt to a staggering 15 trillion dollars. That's $50 thousand owed by each and every American, man, woman and child.
Chances are you owe money on your house, or your car, or a student loan, or perhaps on a revolving account at Sears. It doesn't matter - - if you have more debt than savings, then you don't truly have any savings. If you have $100,000 in your 401k, and you owe $250,000 on your house, what will you do if the real estate market takes a tumble? If your house is worth less on the market than what you owe on it, you have two options - - stay where you are and hope you can keep up with the payments, or declare bankruptcy. With the latest round of bankruptcy laws, you may still be on the hook for that mortgage. After they've seized your 401k you would be left houseless, penniless, and carrying $150,000 in debt for a home you no longer live in.
Will you 'pass the buck' and wait for someone else to clean up the mess? Or will you step up and demand a stop to all of this madness by getting out of debt? ..stop carrying debt. You don't need to convince the rest of the world to condemn the system, just stop participating in it yourself. Eliminate your debts to the credit card companies and the car financing corporations. Eliminate your debts to the mortgagor. Don't buy a new TV just because you can get it on credit with "no payments or interest for one full year!"
Of course, given the highly leveraged position of most Americans, total elimination of debt is not a realistic option. People need their cars and their homes, and chances are they do not have the cash lying around to "just pay them off". However, this problem took generations to develop, and it will take generations to remedy. The initial required action is to stop taking on more debt. When you're stuck in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging!
Unfortunately, the elimination of debt from private life will do nothing to stop the government from overspending in your name. As far as our elected officials are concerned, the federal debt will never be paid off and that is "A-OK". Perpetual inflation allows debts to be paid back with "cheaper dollars", but this is dishonest. Do we really want to be written into history as the sleazy, cheating Americans?
Greenspan is helbent on raising interest rates, as a Gold dealer myself in the short term i see Gold dipping more as the dollar rallies, and other commodity prices coming down as well, to much interest in paper right now
Joshua Fritsch has been actively involved with the market since 1999. He made his initial foray into the world of stocks just in time to get fleeced by the Nasdaq crash – setting the stage for his low risk-tolerance methodology and his inclination towards hard assets. Joshua is from the old school, the school of hard knocks. He is self-taught in several different disciplines including UNIX system administration, programming, computer & network security, and music. He has applied this successful self-tutoring method to trading and investing. Joshua’s computing and programming background coupled with his lifelong enjoyment of pattern searching has assisted him in becoming an expert in analyzing technical aspects of the financial markets. The post-bubble beating he took on speculative technology stocks has ingrained in him a desire to find value first and “pretty charts” second. A voracious reader of some of the best market timers and analysts out there, Joshua’s studies have led him from Elliot Wave analysis to Richard Russell theory and fundamentals to even writing a custom program from scratch designed to mimic Jeff Kern’s SKI timing system! Because he is a technician at heart but a fundamentalist first, companies with strong cash positions and low debt top his list. Gold, silver, copper, oil, molybdenum, land – if it’s backed with more than a promise, Joshua is interested.
you guys should really do some background on the people who write these articles
“you guys should really do some background on the people who write these articles”
CSCOIN I guess you did not like my post huh?
Tell you the truth I have never heard of this guy but the numbers looked real to me since these are generally the numbers put out by Bloomberg and others.
From my personal stand point, I never pay to much attention to where these guys want you to put your money. Most of this I read and post to avoid, and perhaps help others avoid, some of the lies and pitfalls lying in wait for the unsuspecting.
I think you are right, this guy may not b the best investor out there, but it does seem that he has a great background for chasing down numbers.
Are there any of his numbers you dispute?
“Greenspan is hellbent on raising interest rates, as a Gold dealer myself in the short term i see Gold dipping more as the dollar rallies, and other commodity prices coming down as well, to much interest in paper right now.”
Goldude,
I am sure you are right rates are going up, but then they must in order for us to pay higher interest rates than any other country, or no one will buy our debt, and we have one trillion to sell this year. The old days of rates around the World being pretty close are GONE. WE NEED ALL THE MONEY NOW!
As far as gold dropping that is a good thing! Who out there has bought all they want? The more time we all have to pay down debt, and buy hard assets the better.
If Satan himself made an intelligent argument based on verified facts and logical conclusions, I'd have to listen. The economy doesn't care if you're from a good neighborhood or if you've been screwed by the dot com bubble. An analyst might be intelligent, stupid, or just lucky, but if you focus on the fundamentals instead of the person you'll find the right answers.
At the top of the Nasdaq bubble everyone on television and print was screaming buy buy buy. Anyone remember a book called "Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market"? It was written in 1999 and helped trap millions of Americans at the top of the market EVEN when all the numbers were saying a huge crash was imminent.
Now all the numbers are saying that silver supplies are drying up, debt is reaching levels this planet has NEVER experienced before, and we may be in the first year of an energy crisis that will never end. Meanwhile the financial media keeps talking about a new bull market and when oil will return to $20 a barrel. It's the 1999 twilight zone all over again.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
if the gent is so numbers oriented, he would have realized the numbers are flawed, extremely flawed. i agree that no matter how much the citizens of the united states pay off their own debt, the government still needs to handle their own.
the article left me with the opinion that fact+fact+fact does not always equate to the end result being fact.
<< <i> At the top of the Nasdaq bubble everyone on television and print was screaming buy buy buy. Anyone remember a book called "Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market"? It was written in 1999 and helped trap millions of Americans at the top of the market EVEN when all the numbers were saying a huge crash was imminent. >>
i remember abby joseph cohn announcing she was moving out of stock prior to the bubble as well as various major analysts. when you listen to "joe nobody" who puts out those stock newsletters, you have to expect that you may have some success but your bound for failure.
but let's face it, the same "joe nobody" who was saying buy, buy, buy stock is the same "joe nobody" who is saying buy, buy, buy gold.
but let's face it, the same "joe nobody" who was saying buy, buy, buy stock is the same "joe nobody" who is saying buy, buy, buy gold.
Who's saying buy gold? Gold is the most underhyped and invisible investment in the entire market. You're lucky if CNBC will even give you a quote let alone allow an analyst to push it as an investment. The Wall Street journal (and most of the written press) either ignores metals entirely, or writes articles against investing in gold. The HUGE MASSIVE MAJORITY of advice on the subject of metals is that they do not earn dividends or interest, and are a poor place to put your money.
Now this is a coin board with a lot of interest in precious metal as an investment. If you examine this small little universe out of context, you might form the opinion that metals are overhyped and they are a poor investment. Don't make that mistake. The financial world is currently AGAINST gold and silver and anyone advocating a buy position (right or wrong) is a VERY tiny voice indeed.
From the Financial Times, Feb. 8th, 2002 (Gold was below $300 an ounce)
“Gold has lost much of its appeal. The recent surge in gold prices has delighted ‘gold bugs.’ But it may be too soon to celebrate…there are strong reasons to doubt gold will ever return to the heady levels last seen in the 1980s, and recent gains in gold-mining stocks, as well as the underlying metal, could prove fleeting…gold has lost much of its appeal to private investors. Even gold jewelry may be losing its allure. Without new and sustained demand, it seems unlikely that gold will regain its former price levels—or its status—and may be confirmed as simply another commodity metal such as copper or aluminum. John Maynard Keynes, who branded gold as a ‘barbarous relic’ in the 1930s, may yet be proved right.”
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
“Who's saying buy gold? Gold is the most underhyped and invisible investment in the entire market.”
I completely agree with this, and for one I have tried very hard in this thread not to push the metals.
There are very good reasons for the establishment not to want folks to buy the metals,
First there is no way to collect continuous trading commissions on gold or silver as most folks buy hard metal assets for long term insurance.
Second the government hates the stuff as it is hard to track and nearly impossible to tax. Why do you think all those folks in China town want those safety deposit boxes?
Third the establishment players want to play the paper metals market so they can gamble, and use leverage, trying to out wit one another.
For the most part most of us, and ALL of the other gold buyers I know, do not just BUY GOLD they buy coins. In fact I know no one that buys bars or straight bullion.
CSC, personal the real problem I have with most established paper investments is that there is so much BS to go through you never know what you are buying. In fact it would take months just to do good homework on any ONE S&P 500 stock you could name i.e. what are the real liabilities? What are the stock options out to employees and officers? What are the pension and medical liabilities? What type of competitors are developing now in foreign lands? Are the financials hyped? Can you buy stock in the company close to the REAL book value? Sir the list goes on and on. In the last 5 years there have been hundreds of publicly traded companies that have gone to 0. Gold, Silver, and your coins CANNOT GO TO 0.
Yes, metal seems to be a good thing to have now. Price is relatively low for the year and it is very available right now...and as goldsaint stated all those reasons. I still don't understand why everybody waits for metals to get relatively high in price and profile before they start buying as opposed to buying metal when it is low and quiet, but they do...every time.
What will China do now as it finds out it will not be able to buy U.S. corporations?
Will it continue to acquire billions of dollars each year knowing that it can never get ride of all of this?
Do you think the Whirlpool guys were told not to worry about antitrust laws?
"Chevron Increases Offer for Unocal to $17.1 Billion (Update6) July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Chevron Corp., the second-largest U.S. oil company, raised its offer for Unocal Corp. to $17.1 billion in cash and stock to counter a bid from China's Cnooc Ltd.
Haier Drops Out of Contest for Maytag, Leaving Whirlpool, Ripplewood Group China's Haier Group dropped out of the contest for Maytag Corp. to avoid the costs of international expansion, leaving Whirlpool Corp. and Ripplewood Holdings LLC to contend for the No. 3 U.S. appliance maker.
A Whirlpool purchase of Maytag would give the combined company almost 50 percent of the U.S. market and help it fend off overseas rivals."
<< <i>“Who's saying buy gold? Gold is the most underhyped and invisible investment in the entire market.” >>
you can find many "joe nobody's" on the kitco commentaries. >>
It seems you resemble that remark, I’ve seen a few sentences of your opinion with no facts but someone presenting facts; as distorted as they may be are “Joe Nobodies”. Look everyone has to have money somewhere and most of us have it in many places including Gold coins. Ten percent of your assets isn’t betting the farm IMO.
So Mr. CSC where’s your pleasure? I hear you making noise on what’s not good, so what’s good in your world?
I for one have to balance my 30 years saving in my 401k that must remain in the stock/bond markets.
Gold is a good place to park your money as a reliable "store of value". One of the problems is that gold is a very thin market when compared to the economic activity going on in the world. What if everyone decided to change their liquid assets into gold? Obviously a ridiculous concept, but do the numbers. There really isnt all that much gold compared with the amount of "money" in the world.
Yes, I agree that thin markets can be manipulated as some would suggest gold and silver are. A good point was made in that collectors have a different reason and perspective with regard to precious metals than does the rest of the world. I personally plan to acquire some gold for my type set, but that is an extension of my collecting as opposed to portfolio management where I am very diversified.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
1. Greenspan says energy costs to put pressure on consumer prices and the Fed must 'continue' to raise interest rates 2.Greenspan sees unsustainable home price 'froth' in some places and some borrowers my be vulnerable to rate rise 3.Greenspan says Fed sees Q4 to Q4 growth of 3.25% to 3.50% in 2006 and sees core PCE inflation rising 1.75% to 2.0% in 2005 and 2006 4. Greenspan says that low interest rates have created 'speculative fervor' in some local housing markets and might lead to 'excesses' in markets 5. Greenspan cites inflation, energy prices and the behavior of long-term interest rates as 'significant uncertainties' that could alter Fed's outlook 6. Greenspan believes that terrorism, protectionism and deficits are additional risks 7. Greenspan says global demand will remain strong
you can find many "joe nobody's" on the kitco commentaries.
Kitco is microscopic compared to CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, and other investment media. I don't know a single person outside of the coin community that has heard of Kitco or that has even considered silver and gold as an investment. I've been bothering my brother for years to put some money in metals and so far he has resisted because he can't find anyone else in the media or otherwise who agrees with me. When mentioned at all, the current mainstream view is that metals are up sharply as the result of a falling dollar and for no other reason. While partially correct, this view also excuses the current bull market as a simple technicality that will disappear as soon as the dollar stops falling.
Big news today: (MSN Money) GM can't control costs, Is it becoming impossible to make money selling automobiles? GM, which posted a $1 billion loss in the first quarter, managed to boost sales in the second quarter with incentives. But it lost a carload of money doing it. GM reported a second-quarter loss of $318 million, or 56 cents per share, excluding items. In doing so it missed the Reuters Estimates consensus for a profit of 3 cents per share by a mile. Revenues sank 2.5% from the same quarter a year ago to $40.18 billion, ahead of the consensus of $38.62 billion.
I guess I don't need to remind most of you that the Great Depression started with the auto makers.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I'm beginning to think that Greenspan knows he's on a sinking ship and is trying to hold it together long enough to get out intact.
Fed chairman tells House panel 'significant uncertainties' could alter positive economic outlook.
Translated: He's never seen a market like this, he has no historical precedent to guide him, and he has NO IDEA what's going to happen in the next few years. He suspects that we're in big trouble but knows he cannot tell anyone because it would cause massive panic. Saying there are "significant uncertainties" lets him off the hook since although they were "significant" economic factors, they were also "uncertain" and therefore nothing he could do about it.
I wish I sold my GM yesterday tho. <sigh>
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Nope, I currently have about 40% of my assets in stocks and bonds and 40% in metals. (20% in cash for buying more silver when the price dips) Although I'm convinced the economy is toast, I'm not going to put myself in the position of being ruined if I'm wrong.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>So Mr. CSC where’s your pleasure? I hear you making noise on what’s not good, so what’s good in your world? I for one have to balance my 30 years saving in my 401k that must remain in the stock/bond markets. >>
depressed real estate, foreign investments, stocks, bonds and various hard assets. it's not about the market but the types of investments you choose. the right choices are obviously the best investments. i see no need for a get rich scheme - i just build my money up a little here and a little there.
<< <i>Kitco is microscopic compared to CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, and other investment media. I don't know a single person outside of the coin community that has heard of Kitco or that has even considered silver and gold as an investment. >>
i'm not speaking about the actual Kitco web site but all the commentaries you will find on the site. many experts
<< <i> I've been bothering my brother for years to put some money in metals and so far he has resisted because he can't find anyone else in the media or otherwise who agrees with me. When mentioned at all, the current mainstream view is that metals are up sharply as the result of a falling dollar and for no other reason. While partially correct, this view also excuses the current bull market as a simple technicality that will disappear as soon as the dollar stops falling. >>
thank you for the information, i can only comment that perhaps you should stop bothering your brother? let him make his own investment decisions.
<< <i>Big news today: (MSN Money) GM can't control costs, Is it becoming impossible to make money selling automobiles? GM, which posted a $1 billion loss in the first quarter, managed to boost sales in the second quarter with incentives. But it lost a carload of money doing it. GM reported a second-quarter loss of $318 million, or 56 cents per share, excluding items. In doing so it missed the Reuters Estimates consensus for a profit of 3 cents per share by a mile. Revenues sank 2.5% from the same quarter a year ago to $40.18 billion, ahead of the consensus of $38.62 billion. >>
the gm employee price incentives went into effect in june, that would not have shown up in their q2 financials. gm makes a smaller profit but will sell more cars utilizing this incentive program. the end of 3q may reflect this but i would wait until the 4th quarter numbers to see the difference.
<< <i>I guess I don't need to remind most of you that the Great Depression started with the auto makers. >>
auto exports declined 40% prior to the depression. due to the decline of those exports, some auto workers lost their job. i do not find your parallel accurate.
Comments
Paul Roberts:
...all the urgent talk about higher few economy standards or programs to brew gasoline from farm crops is misguided and unnecessary. For all though $60 oil may mean the end of cheap energy, it doesnt mean the end of our current energy paradigm...
There are three big reasons oil prices have more than doubled since 2000, none offering any reason to have confidence in the market:
...First, demand for oil in the U.S. but also in China and India, is rising faster than anyone expected.
...Second, supply is strained.
...Third, in a market this tight, there is no spare capacity.
Would $100 oil be such a bad thing? After all, it's only when prices get that high that consumers will be likely to start the move to a post-oil economy, wich is where a lot of experts think we'll need to be eventually.
...Oil isn't just a commodity, like coffee: When oil prices triple, it isn't simply a matter of skipping your morning cup and enduring a little headache. Oil is fundamental to our economy.
...The next energy economy will be built by the market, at a profit, or it won't happen at all...yes, some kind of tax on carbon emissions.
I thought that last statement about tax was particularly interesting because if carbon emission producers were taxed on emissions then two things...the taxes could fund research on clean/alt. energy and at the same time it would be worth money for the producers to pay less tax so they are likely to have a high level of interest in alt. energy.
"In 2004, total global uranium consumption was estimated at 180 million pounds. Of that 180 million pounds only 104 million pounds, or 58%, was supplied directly from mining. Since mining couldn’t keep up with demand, commercial, private and government stockpiles, along with recyclables from dismantled nuclear weapons were tapped and accounted for the difference. These stockpiles are swiftly dwindling."
---I think the logic in this statement is reversed. One thing that has been happening in the industry has been a purposeful recycling of nuclear materials and stockpiles that have been left over from the Cold War, etc. So when you recycle.... there is less need to mine the uranium.
"The supply and demand anomaly we are seeing today will only get worse down the road. With China and India leading the way, demand is going to dwarf supply in the next 10, 20 and 30 years. "
-----Not entirely true. There will certainly be more demand. But actually, uranium is a very plentiful element in the earth's crust--- it is found nearly everywhere. The few companies that do mine it of course are mining the concentrated deposits. Another factor is that nuclear power was nearly killed out not too many years ago... so there was no further development of mines and processing. That will certainly change as demand moves up again, as nations such as our slowly realize what fools we have been by not using such an obvious resource. Likewise, the quote on the price..... when there was not as much demand, items are cheap. The rising price does not necessarily reflect scarcity.
"In 2004, total global uranium consumption was estimated at 180 million pounds. Of that 180 million pounds only 104 million pounds, or 58%, was supplied directly from mining. Since mining couldn’t keep up with demand, commercial, private and government stockpiles, along with recyclables from dismantled nuclear weapons were tapped and accounted for the difference. These stockpiles are swiftly dwindling."
-----I haven't verified these numbers, but I will assume they are correct. The 180 million pounds consumption just means spent fuel..... which needs to be reprocessed. There is a HUGH amount of uranium still present in this, as well as plutonium, which also makes and excellent power plant fuel. Unfortunately, our country has not invested in the reprocessing infrastructure that is needed to make use of this.... some other countries have. The statement of "stockpiles swiftly dwindling" ..... well, that is usually expected when recycling is taking place, and there is an effort to reduce stockpiles.....
Bottom line.... I suspect the authors' objective was to portray nuclear power in a somewhat negative light. While nuclear power does have some negative sides.... as ANY technology does..... I will repeat my opening statement that nuclear power is the only way to go.
Proven coal reserves for top 5 countries
USA 250,000 million tons
Russia 157,000
China 114,500
India 84,400
Australia 82,600
Okay now for the punchline. In the entire middle east, there is (drum roll please.......)
1,710 million tons. For all intents and purposes, 0% of the world's coal supply.
There are new designs where you just hit the stop button the the plant shuts down. When it is so simple to shut down it is so much safer.
Any new Nuke plants should not displace coal plants. That is because the US has hundreds of years of coal supply. Nuke plants should replace oil and/or gas plants.
I like wind power. I also like small (micro) power plants. These are especially efficient when a company needs heat as well as electricity. It should be easier to own and operate a <50 megawatt power plant.
As far as global economic predictions go my personal conclusion has led me to take action. I have hedged slightly by buying a small amount of gold (looks like I may have bought the top at $440). Now I am selling rental real estate. I am putting the proceeds into stocks and bonds and leaving some as cash.
The biggest problem with nuclear is that it can't fuel our car crazy society. I think nuclear and solar can solve the power plant problem, but the only solution to keep our cars running is a massive coal-to-gas program. If this replaces oil, we'll be a very powerful country indeed considering we own 25% of the world's coal supply. The United States has far more proven coal reserves than any other country in the world. By the way, I'll continue to argue that hydrogen is a dead end.
>>
Why do you think hydrogen is a dead end? If you have plenty of nuke power, run some of that electricity through water, make hydrogen, then deliver that via pipeline to hydrogen gas stations. Of course, gas stations would have to spend a fair amount of money converting from gas to hydrogen, but I think they would if that's what their customers' cars were using.
To give a hydrogen car the same range as a gasoline car, you must liquify the hydrogen and carry it in a 15,000 PSI tank. The technology to transfer liquid hydrogen at the gas station is considerable and so is the danger. The energy capacity of hydrogen by volume is about 1/20th that of gasoline. This means that you will need 20 hydrogen trucks on the road for every 1 gasoline truck. Each hydrogen tanker truck is a rolling bomb that has a huge destructive power. While gasoline has a very narrow combustion range, (air/gas vapor ratio) Hydrogen can explode at anything between 4-74% gas to air ratio. Most car accidents will therefore involve a fire or explosion. Hydrogen must be produced by a primary energy source. This will have to be nuclear, hydro-electric, or solar. We don't have the capacity and people will always fight nuclear. A hydrogen powered car is possible, it's simply not practical. The danger and cost would be unacceptable when compared to coal oil.
Coal oil would produce a fuel very similar to gasoline. We have tons of coal, and when given a choice between destroying the environment or giving up their cars, Americans will choose their cars guaranteed.
Who ever figures that one out is gonna be a wealthy hero and the neat thing about that concept is that it on the surface, it seems quite doable.
Rails have been the evil stepsister to interstates/highway systems and air travel. That needs to change.
Obviously the densly populated areas are a better fit than the sparsly populated states.
This isn't possible. To understand why you need to understand what I was trying to explain to you earlier; that hydrogen is an ENERGY CARRIER not an ENERGY SOURCE.
To make hydrogen, you need to put in more energy than you can get back from the hydrogen you produced. In a car this is pointless. Lets say for example that you used natural gas to produce the hydrogen in your vehicle. You could simply burn the natural gas and get far MORE energy than if you converted it to hydrogen first. Any energy SOURCE that you decide to use to produce hydrogen in a car could simply power the car directly and avoid the converstion loss.
The only reason fuel cell hydrogen vehicles are being discussed is because you can use an external energy source like nuclear or hydro-electric to produce the hydrogen, then carry it in a tank to make your car go. On a small scale, this works although the technology is very expensive. On a large scale with 500 million vehicles on American roads it's simply impossible. It's very expensive and extremely dangerous.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>What were the best assets to hold during the depression? >>
In the 30's cash was king! Today we have too much cash worth less everyday, so results may vary since the good ole goverment just cranks out more with no gold/silver standard.
Of course back then cash = gold/silver in a paper format
Cash isn't going to be safe this time for all the reasons already discussed. Gold and silver would be a rough estimation of cash in the 1930's, but you will not be able to earn a safe 3-4% like you could with a cash position. The advantage of course is that by holding gold and silver, Uncle Sam can't screw you when all our debt gets called.
Cash was good as long as it wasn't in a bank that failed.
My grandparents were fortunate enough to have work during the depression. My father's parents bought a neat house with 7 acres of land in Ridgefield, Conn. My Mom's parents bought a summer house in N.H. Each property increased in value 100 times after 50 years. I guess that is a really loooong term investment.
Interesting stuff. Just one highlight:
Fifty-four percent of the 50 traders, strategists and investors surveyed by Bloomberg News on July 15 from Sydney to New York advised buying the dollar against the euro, up from 47 percent a week ago. Twenty percent said to sell.
As most of you know, this is a very strong indication that the dollar is TOAST. Greenspan seems to be continuing a policy of attracting foreign capital and most overseas governments have said they will not raise interest rates making U.S. yields seem even more attractive. Why is he doing this?
1. Greenspan actually believes that we're in the early stages of a boom economy and wants to control inflation. (which would also mean he's on drugs)
2. Inflation is already out of control and Greenspan now understands that the government has been lying.
3. Someone has convinced him that a strong dollar must be supported at any cost. (the real question is why)
4. Greenspan has taken the flattening of the yield curve personally and wants to force the market to obey him.
5. The fed is in crisis mode and wants to deliver as much pain as possible to the rest of the world therefore softening the blow to domestic interests. (perhaps related to #3)
Personally I'm betting on #3 and a tiny bit of #4. The dollar took a hit last week against the Euro so the timing of Greenspan's comments seems to be entirely based on external factors. I'm pretty much convinced that the real unreported inflation numbers will be ignored by everyone until the bitter end.
Study Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy
Apparently it takes about 27% more energy to produce a bio-fuel than the fuel returns in energy once you take into account fertilizer, harvesting, distilling, and everything else involved. Producing ethanol for automobile use will actually make the energy crisis worse instead of better, and only exists in the first place due to huge government subsidies.
Food production, another form of bio-fuel, also has a huge energy cost that can only be maintained with cheap oil. This is one reason that some of the peak oil predictions are so dismal.
<< <i>Mom's parents bought a summer house in N.H. Each property increased in value 100 times after 50 years. I guess that is a really loooong term investment.
That's not actually that good of an investment. Had they invested in something and made 7% per year they would have made more than 128 times their money in the same period...Mike
There is also gas generated by huge garbage dumps. There are other alternative sources of energy. They will all be needed.
I agree we still are very dependent on oil and will remain so for the forseeable future. The biggest new source of oil remains conservation in my opinion. If gasoline stays well over $2 many people will buy cars that consume less. Personally I think we should slap a $1 a barrel tax on imported oil and $0.01 a gal on gas be increased by $0.01/gal per year. Naturally I would never get elected because very, very few people would support a tax increase on gas.
July 19, 2005
The Great Debt
by Joshua Fritsch
As of July 7, 2005 the public debt as reported by the government is $7,838,410,800,630.51.
- - therefore, if the government needs to pay a debt, it will raise your taxes. But hey, they'll only raise taxes for the rich, right? - - the combined net worth of the 25 richest Americans as of September 24, 2004 was roughly $358 billion. This means that if the 25 richest people in the richest country in the world cashed in everything they own and donated it towards the federal debt, it would pay off 4.57% of what we owe.
We have more than $2.13 trillion in outstanding consumer credit, such as car loans and credit card accounts.
We have another $2.29 trillion in mortgage debt.
If we take a wild guess that the combined state debt comes to a mere third of the federal debt, we have an additional $2.65 trillion to account for.
This brings the grand total of all debt to a staggering 15 trillion dollars. That's $50 thousand owed by each and every American, man, woman and child.
Chances are you owe money on your house, or your car, or a student loan, or perhaps on a revolving account at Sears. It doesn't matter - - if you have more debt than savings, then you don't truly have any savings. If you have $100,000 in your 401k, and you owe $250,000 on your house, what will you do if the real estate market takes a tumble? If your house is worth less on the market than what you owe on it, you have two options - - stay where you are and hope you can keep up with the payments, or declare bankruptcy. With the latest round of bankruptcy laws, you may still be on the hook for that mortgage. After they've seized your 401k you would be left houseless, penniless, and carrying $150,000 in debt for a home you no longer live in.
Will you 'pass the buck' and wait for someone else to clean up the mess? Or will you step up and demand a stop to all of this madness by getting out of debt?
..stop carrying debt. You don't need to convince the rest of the world to condemn the system, just stop participating in it yourself. Eliminate your debts to the credit card companies and the car financing corporations. Eliminate your debts to the mortgagor. Don't buy a new TV just because you can get it on credit with "no payments or interest for one full year!"
Of course, given the highly leveraged position of most Americans, total elimination of debt is not a realistic option. People need their cars and their homes, and chances are they do not have the cash lying around to "just pay them off". However, this problem took generations to develop, and it will take generations to remedy. The initial required action is to stop taking on more debt. When you're stuck in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging!
Unfortunately, the elimination of debt from private life will do nothing to stop the government from overspending in your name. As far as our elected officials are concerned, the federal debt will never be paid off and that is "A-OK". Perpetual inflation allows debts to be paid back with "cheaper dollars", but this is dishonest. Do we really want to be written into history as the sleazy, cheating Americans?
Ah, the refreshing voice of reason.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
you guys should really do some background on the people who write these articles
CSCOIN
I guess you did not like my post huh?
Tell you the truth I have never heard of this guy but the numbers looked real to me since these are generally the numbers put out by Bloomberg and others.
From my personal stand point, I never pay to much attention to where these guys want you to put your money. Most of this I read and post to avoid, and perhaps help others avoid, some of the lies and pitfalls lying in wait for the unsuspecting.
I think you are right, this guy may not b the best investor out there, but it does seem that he has a great background for chasing down numbers.
Are there any of his numbers you dispute?
“Greenspan is hellbent on raising interest rates, as a Gold dealer myself in the short term i see Gold dipping more as the dollar rallies, and other commodity prices coming down as well, to much interest in paper right now.”
Goldude,
I am sure you are right rates are going up, but then they must in order for us to pay higher interest rates than any other country, or no one will buy our debt, and we have one trillion to sell this year. The old days of rates around the World being pretty close are GONE. WE NEED ALL THE MONEY NOW!
As far as gold dropping that is a good thing! Who out there has bought all they want?
The more time we all have to pay down debt, and buy hard assets the better.
Terry
If Satan himself made an intelligent argument based on verified facts and logical conclusions, I'd have to listen. The economy doesn't care if you're from a good neighborhood or if you've been screwed by the dot com bubble. An analyst might be intelligent, stupid, or just lucky, but if you focus on the fundamentals instead of the person you'll find the right answers.
At the top of the Nasdaq bubble everyone on television and print was screaming buy buy buy. Anyone remember a book called "Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market"? It was written in 1999 and helped trap millions of Americans at the top of the market EVEN when all the numbers were saying a huge crash was imminent.
Now all the numbers are saying that silver supplies are drying up, debt is reaching levels this planet has NEVER experienced before, and we may be in the first year of an energy crisis that will never end. Meanwhile the financial media keeps talking about a new bull market and when oil will return to $20 a barrel. It's the 1999 twilight zone all over again.
the article left me with the opinion that fact+fact+fact does not always equate to the end result being fact.
<< <i>
At the top of the Nasdaq bubble everyone on television and print was screaming buy buy buy. Anyone remember a book called "Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market"? It was written in 1999 and helped trap millions of Americans at the top of the market EVEN when all the numbers were saying a huge crash was imminent.
>>
i remember abby joseph cohn announcing she was moving out of stock prior to the bubble as well as various major analysts. when you listen to "joe nobody" who puts out those stock newsletters, you have to expect that you may have some success but your bound for failure.
but let's face it, the same "joe nobody" who was saying buy, buy, buy stock is the same "joe nobody" who is saying buy, buy, buy gold.
Who's saying buy gold? Gold is the most underhyped and invisible investment in the entire market. You're lucky if CNBC will even give you a quote let alone allow an analyst to push it as an investment. The Wall Street journal (and most of the written press) either ignores metals entirely, or writes articles against investing in gold. The HUGE MASSIVE MAJORITY of advice on the subject of metals is that they do not earn dividends or interest, and are a poor place to put your money.
Now this is a coin board with a lot of interest in precious metal as an investment. If you examine this small little universe out of context, you might form the opinion that metals are overhyped and they are a poor investment. Don't make that mistake. The financial world is currently AGAINST gold and silver and anyone advocating a buy position (right or wrong) is a VERY tiny voice indeed.
From the Financial Times, Feb. 8th, 2002 (Gold was below $300 an ounce)
“Gold has lost much of its appeal. The recent surge in gold prices has delighted ‘gold bugs.’ But it may be too soon to celebrate…there are strong reasons to doubt gold will ever return to the heady levels last seen in the 1980s, and recent gains in gold-mining stocks, as well as the underlying metal, could prove fleeting…gold has lost much of its appeal to private investors. Even gold jewelry may be losing its allure. Without new and sustained demand, it seems unlikely that gold will regain its former price levels—or its status—and may be confirmed as simply another commodity metal such as copper or aluminum. John Maynard Keynes, who branded gold as a ‘barbarous relic’ in the 1930s, may yet be proved right.”
I completely agree with this, and for one I have tried very hard in this thread not to push the metals.
There are very good reasons for the establishment not to want folks to buy the metals,
First there is no way to collect continuous trading commissions on gold or silver as most folks buy hard metal assets for long term insurance.
Second the government hates the stuff as it is hard to track and nearly impossible to tax. Why do you think all those folks in China town want those safety deposit boxes?
Third the establishment players want to play the paper metals market so they can gamble, and use leverage, trying to out wit one another.
For the most part most of us, and ALL of the other gold buyers I know, do not just BUY GOLD they buy coins. In fact I know no one that buys bars or straight bullion.
CSC, personal the real problem I have with most established paper investments is that there is so much BS to go through you never know what you are buying. In fact it would take months just to do good homework on any ONE S&P 500 stock you could name i.e. what are the real liabilities? What are the stock options out to employees and officers? What are the pension and medical liabilities? What type of competitors are developing now in foreign lands? Are the financials hyped? Can you buy stock in the company close to the REAL book value?
Sir the list goes on and on. In the last 5 years there have been hundreds of publicly traded companies that have gone to 0. Gold, Silver, and your coins CANNOT GO TO 0.
What will China do now as it finds out it will not be able to buy U.S. corporations?
Will it continue to acquire billions of dollars each year knowing that it can never get ride of all of this?
Do you think the Whirlpool guys were told not to worry about antitrust laws?
"Chevron Increases Offer for Unocal to $17.1 Billion (Update6)
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Chevron Corp., the second-largest U.S. oil company, raised its offer for Unocal Corp. to $17.1 billion in cash and stock to counter a bid from China's Cnooc Ltd.
Haier Drops Out of Contest for Maytag, Leaving Whirlpool, Ripplewood Group China's Haier Group dropped out of the contest for Maytag Corp. to avoid the costs of international expansion, leaving Whirlpool Corp. and Ripplewood Holdings LLC to contend for the No. 3 U.S. appliance maker.
A Whirlpool purchase of Maytag would give the combined company almost 50 percent of the U.S. market and help it fend off overseas rivals."
<< <i>“Who's saying buy gold? Gold is the most underhyped and invisible investment in the entire market.” >>
you can find many "joe nobody's" on the kitco commentaries.
<< <i>
<< <i>“Who's saying buy gold? Gold is the most underhyped and invisible investment in the entire market.” >>
you can find many "joe nobody's" on the kitco commentaries. >>
It seems you resemble that remark, I’ve seen a few sentences of your opinion with no facts but someone presenting facts; as distorted as they may be are “Joe Nobodies”. Look everyone has to have money somewhere and most of us have it in many places including Gold coins. Ten percent of your assets isn’t betting the farm IMO.
So Mr. CSC where’s your pleasure? I hear you making noise on what’s not good, so what’s good in your world?
I for one have to balance my 30 years saving in my 401k that must remain in the stock/bond markets.
Yes, I agree that thin markets can be manipulated as some would suggest gold and silver are. A good point was made in that collectors have a different reason and perspective with regard to precious metals than does the rest of the world. I personally plan to acquire some gold for my type set, but that is an extension of my collecting as opposed to portfolio management where I am very diversified.
1. Greenspan says energy costs to put pressure on consumer prices and the Fed must 'continue' to raise interest rates
2.Greenspan sees unsustainable home price 'froth' in some places and some borrowers my be vulnerable to rate rise
3.Greenspan says Fed sees Q4 to Q4 growth of 3.25% to 3.50% in 2006 and sees core PCE inflation rising 1.75% to 2.0% in 2005 and 2006
4. Greenspan says that low interest rates have created 'speculative fervor' in some local housing markets and might lead to 'excesses' in markets
5. Greenspan cites inflation, energy prices and the behavior of long-term interest rates as 'significant uncertainties' that could alter Fed's outlook
6. Greenspan believes that terrorism, protectionism and deficits are additional risks
7. Greenspan says global demand will remain strong
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Kitco is microscopic compared to CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, and other investment media. I don't know a single person outside of the coin community that has heard of Kitco or that has even considered silver and gold as an investment. I've been bothering my brother for years to put some money in metals and so far he has resisted because he can't find anyone else in the media or otherwise who agrees with me. When mentioned at all, the current mainstream view is that metals are up sharply as the result of a falling dollar and for no other reason. While partially correct, this view also excuses the current bull market as a simple technicality that will disappear as soon as the dollar stops falling.
Big news today: (MSN Money) GM can't control costs, Is it becoming impossible to make money selling automobiles? GM, which posted a $1 billion loss in the first quarter, managed to boost sales in the second quarter with incentives. But it lost a carload of money doing it. GM reported a second-quarter loss of $318 million, or 56 cents per share, excluding items. In doing so it missed the Reuters Estimates consensus for a profit of 3 cents per share by a mile. Revenues sank 2.5% from the same quarter a year ago to $40.18 billion, ahead of the consensus of $38.62 billion.
I guess I don't need to remind most of you that the Great Depression started with the auto makers.
Fed chairman tells House panel 'significant uncertainties' could alter positive economic outlook.
Translated: He's never seen a market like this, he has no historical precedent to guide him, and he has NO IDEA what's going to happen in the next few years. He suspects that we're in big trouble but knows he cannot tell anyone because it would cause massive panic. Saying there are "significant uncertainties" lets him off the hook since although they were "significant" economic factors, they were also "uncertain" and therefore nothing he could do about it.
I wish I sold my GM yesterday tho. <sigh>
<< <i>I wish I sold my GM yesterday tho. <sigh> >>
The stock market? Iwog, I would have thought you had all your money buried in your basement waiting for the great economic collapse.
<< <i>Nope, I currently have about 40% of my assets in stocks and bonds and 40% in metals. >>
40% in metals that is quite a bit, so I'll say you are putting your money where your mouth is.
<< <i>So Mr. CSC where’s your pleasure? I hear you making noise on what’s not good, so what’s good in your world?
I for one have to balance my 30 years saving in my 401k that must remain in the stock/bond markets. >>
depressed real estate, foreign investments, stocks, bonds and various hard assets. it's not about the market but the types of investments you choose. the right choices are obviously the best investments. i see no need for a get rich scheme - i just build my money up a little here and a little there.
Its not too late. GM is only down 50c on the day and up 44% over the last 3 months.
If GM would get rid of the unions they would have no problem making money. And the quality would probably improve.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Kitco is microscopic compared to CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, and other investment media. I don't know a single person outside of the coin community that has heard of Kitco or that has even considered silver and gold as an investment. >>
i'm not speaking about the actual Kitco web site but all the commentaries you will find on the site. many experts
<< <i> I've been bothering my brother for years to put some money in metals and so far he has resisted because he can't find anyone else in the media or otherwise who agrees with me. When mentioned at all, the current mainstream view is that metals are up sharply as the result of a falling dollar and for no other reason. While partially correct, this view also excuses the current bull market as a simple technicality that will disappear as soon as the dollar stops falling. >>
thank you for the information, i can only comment that perhaps you should stop bothering your brother? let him make his own investment decisions.
<< <i>Big news today: (MSN Money) GM can't control costs, Is it becoming impossible to make money selling automobiles? GM, which posted a $1 billion loss in the first quarter, managed to boost sales in the second quarter with incentives. But it lost a carload of money doing it. GM reported a second-quarter loss of $318 million, or 56 cents per share, excluding items. In doing so it missed the Reuters Estimates consensus for a profit of 3 cents per share by a mile. Revenues sank 2.5% from the same quarter a year ago to $40.18 billion, ahead of the consensus of $38.62 billion. >>
the gm employee price incentives went into effect in june, that would not have shown up in their q2 financials. gm makes a smaller profit but will sell more cars utilizing this incentive program. the end of 3q may reflect this but i would wait until the 4th quarter numbers to see the difference.
<< <i>I guess I don't need to remind most of you that the Great Depression started with the auto makers. >>
auto exports declined 40% prior to the depression. due to the decline of those exports, some auto workers lost their job. i do not find your parallel accurate.
.