<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different. >>
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know...
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different. >>
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know... >>
the tightening of physical supply of fabricated/finished products does not indicate, in this case, a shortage of the raw material. The fabricators are dropping the ball keeping up with demand, not the providers of the raw silver. As usual, they will catch up only to fall behind again.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different. >>
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know... >>
Of course he should. He's in the business of collecting your dollar bills for his silver.
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different. >>
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know... >>
the tightening of physical supply of fabricated/finished products does not indicate, in this case, a shortage of the raw material. The fabricators are dropping the ball keeping up with demand, not the providers of the raw silver. As usual, they will catch up only to fall behind again. >>
Maybe thats their business model. Create the illusion of scarcity to charge more for their product.
After a 4 1/2 year 70% crushing bear market, don't you think it's about time for a little bounce? Or will we just proclaim, "see I told you demand was increasing"?
<< <i>Maybe thats their business model. Create the illusion of scarcity to charge more for their product. >>
I don't believe that is the case with the government mints (where shortages seem to be the current problem). I would even go as far as say the US Mint would be a lot "happier" if it wasn't required by law to meet consumer bullion demand with the American Eagle program. They've got a massive number of "real" coins they need to focus on.
<< <i>After a 4 1/2 year 70% crushing bear market, don't you think it's about time for a little bounce? Or will we just proclaim, "see I told you demand was increasing"? >>
Demand is increasing because prices are down and buyers are aware that precious metals proved their worth with the last big loss of confidence in the financial system. It could also be a result of an increasing loss of faith with the future of the system. As you know, I hold PMs as insurance. I don't like paying for any kind of insurance - until I'm glad I did. You also know that I believe the need for this insurance is as great as it has ever been.
Funny thing about insurance - the "odds makers" that price it create cheaper products where the odds of paying off a claim appear to be lower. I'm taking the bet against the PM odds makers.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>the tightening of physical supply of fabricated/finished products does not indicate, in this case, a shortage of the raw material. The fabricators are dropping the ball keeping up with demand, not the providers of the raw silver. As usual, they will catch up only to fall behind again. >>
No, but that's not the only indicator. If you want to wait for definitive indicators, fine, but the ship might be leaving. I'm not saying it is just yet, but it's good to notice that they deck hand is firing up the winch to raise the anchor.
<< <i>Maybe thats their business model. Create the illusion of scarcity to charge more for their product. >>
I don't believe that is the case with the government mints (where shortages seem to be the current problem). I would even go as far as say the US Mint would be a lot "happier" if it wasn't required by law to meet consumer bullion demand with the American Eagle program. They've got a massive number of "real" coins they need to focus on.
<< <i>After a 4 1/2 year 70% crushing bear market, don't you think it's about time for a little bounce? Or will we just proclaim, "see I told you demand was increasing"? >>
Demand is increasing because prices are down and buyers are aware that precious metals proved their worth with the last big loss of confidence in the financial system. It could also be a result of an increasing loss of faith with the future of the system. As you know, I hold PMs as insurance. I don't like paying for any kind of insurance - until I'm glad I did. You also know that I believe the need for this insurance is as great as it has ever been.
Funny thing about insurance - the "odds makers" that price it create cheaper products where the odds of paying off a claim appear to be lower. I'm taking the bet against the PM odds makers. >>
Pm's didn't prove any worth during financial crisis they performed worse( see price movement June 2008-March 2009)... They then moved up on storytelling... I have pretty much gauged the market by the major coin shows, 2 weeks or week ago in long beach the floor was awash in gold and silver, more, I mean way more, like significant multiples more than I have seen in over 5 years...
Edit to add - that reference is to silvers fall from $21 to $8, during crisis...
Oh look. What's this? Gold volatility up with an upward spike in POG? Who was it who said that volatility only spiked with downward movements? Monthly chart of gold:
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different. >>
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know... >>
the tightening of physical supply of fabricated/finished products does not indicate, in this case, a shortage of the raw material. The fabricators are dropping the ball keeping up with demand, not the providers of the raw silver. As usual, they will catch up only to fall behind again. >>
He did say in that video that you linked earlier that it would have been more profitable to simply resell the 1,000 ounce bars than to fabricate them into blanks or finished goods. Also that they have been running at capacity for a number of years. It's at least 6 months lead time to add more capacity which may or may not sit idle some time down the road.
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different. >>
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know... >>
the tightening of physical supply of fabricated/finished products does not indicate, in this case, a shortage of the raw material. The fabricators are dropping the ball keeping up with demand, not the providers of the raw silver. As usual, they will catch up only to fall behind again. >>
He did say in that video that you linked earlier that it would have been more profitable to simply resell the 1,000 ounce bars than to fabricate them into blanks or finished goods. Also that they have been running at capacity for a number of years. It's at least 6 months lead time to add more capacity which may or may not sit idle some time down the road. >>
He also said that the large bars they have been receiving lately have been older bars and speculated that Comex (or someone) was "scraping the bottom of the barrel."
<< <i>Pm's didn't prove any worth during financial crisis they performed worse( see price movement June 2008-March 2009)... They then moved up on storytelling... I have pretty much gauged the market by the major coin shows, 2 weeks or week ago in long beach the floor was awash in gold and silver, more, I mean way more, like significant multiples more than I have seen in over 5 years...
Edit to add - that reference is to silvers fall from $21 to $8, during crisis... >>
Why did you just pick silver? There are other more important precious metals. During a stock market crash the base metals, and often silver follow it. You'd almost expect silver to get crushed. If you're looking for PM safety in a nearly all market crash, then you go to gold, not silver, Pall, or Platinum which all have strong industrial demand components. They really aren't so precious in such a crash scenario. And then you picked the $21 to $8 silver dump which was from March to October...and not March 2009 as your initial premise suggested.
If we look at the June 2008 to March 2009 window as you suggested above, then silver went from $17 to $14. Some crash, huh? (<20%). How did the stock market do in that same period? The S&P dropped over 50% in that period! So after the dollar and treasuries, I'd say silver did pretty darn good in that SM crash. How did gold do in your time window? It gained 5%. Sounds like a safe haven to me. Gold proved it's worth. And gold's follow on 3 year move from 2008-2011 from $681 to $1923 was all "storytelling?" Same for silver going up 6X in that period? Funny, no one has called the tripling of the US stock market from 2003-2015 as "story telling." Or how about the massive parabolic rise in the biotechs? That's not "storytelling" but silver was/is?
And as far as silver's crash from $21 to $8 in 2008? Take a look at the combined silver derivatives that JPM was carrying by JULY 2008....$200 BILL worth...that was 13 yrs of world annual silver production! Yeah, some hedge....lol. At that time it was 2X greater than when Bear Stearns failed and JPM assumed their silver derivatives. And that's the reason shot right back from $8 to $14 in only 5 months. The move to $8 was based on imaginary paper derivative trades held by JPM. It wasn't gonna last. Hey, those same guys (JPM) now have a $4 TRILL in commodity derivatives - 4X the previous all time world record for all US banks combined. You see a trend here? When they go all in - like in July 2008 (silver) or in 1st QTR 2015 (commods)....they don't fool around.
<< <i>Pm's didn't prove any worth during financial crisis they performed worse( see price movement June 2008-March 2009)... They then moved up on storytelling... I have pretty much gauged the market by the major coin shows, 2 weeks or week ago in long beach the floor was awash in gold and silver, more, I mean way more, like significant multiples more than I have seen in over 5 years...
Edit to add - that reference is to silvers fall from $21 to $8, during crisis... >>
Yet when the FED provided their "cure" to the crisis gold doubled and silver tripled. They moved up on loss of confidence in alternative investments.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Pm's didn't prove any worth during financial crisis they performed worse( see price movement June 2008-March 2009)... They then moved up on storytelling... I have pretty much gauged the market by the major coin shows, 2 weeks or week ago in long beach the floor was awash in gold and silver, more, I mean way more, like significant multiples more than I have seen in over 5 years...
Edit to add - that reference is to silvers fall from $21 to $8, during crisis... >>
Yet when the FED provided their "cure" to the crisis gold doubled and silver tripled. They moved up on loss of confidence in alternative investments. >>
No...wrong again, I recommend armstrongs new blog post on gold today (did gold survive the depression), he explains it much better...
<< <i>Pm's didn't prove any worth during financial crisis they performed worse( see price movement June 2008-March 2009)... They then moved up on storytelling... I have pretty much gauged the market by the major coin shows, 2 weeks or week ago in long beach the floor was awash in gold and silver, more, I mean way more, like significant multiples more than I have seen in over 5 years...
Edit to add - that reference is to silvers fall from $21 to $8, during crisis... >>
Yet when the FED provided their "cure" to the crisis gold doubled and silver tripled. They moved up on loss of confidence in alternative investments. >>
No...wrong again, I recommend armstrongs new blog post on gold today (did gold survive the depression), he explains it much better... >>
Gold and silver DID double and triple following the crisis of 08-09. Any time PMs move up it involves a loss of confidence in alternative investments. This is why gold is known as the "alternative." As far as the depression goes, gold survived. Not only is it still around, it's worth a lot more.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
"Taking a quick look at YTD performances, there is also very little to cheer about as most assets are still lower than where they were at the start of the year."
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
"Taking a quick look at YTD performances, there is also very little to cheer about as most assets are still lower than where they were at the start of the year." >>
"Taking a quick look at YTD performances, there is also very little to cheer about as most assets are still lower than where they were at the start of the year." >>
Stupid US Treasuries beat gold again??!! Sheesh. >>
some days peanuts, some days shells.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>....No...wrong again, I recommend armstrongs new blog post on gold today (did gold survive the depression), he explains it much better... >>
Yes, gold did survive the depression. Most Americans were allowed to own up to 5 oz of gold following the 1933 gold Executive Order. Gold went up 69% overnight in early 1934. For collectors of "rare and unusual gold coins" (ie most everything the US mint ever made up to 1933) you could collect as much gold as you wanted. Eliasberg, Bass, Pittman and others took advantage of that during the 1930's through the 1960's when standards were relaxed even more for foreign coins. As far as "gold" not surviving the depression, the common man could own gold mining stocks. That was the alternative investment to physical gold. It just so happened that from 1930-1936 gold mining stocks were about the best performer out there. They increased 4X to 6X from 1932-1936. And they rallied all the way from 1926-1936, approx 10X as I recall. Gold did indeed survive the depression.
You are doomed if you cling to the idea that gold will rise simply because stocks decline. Gold was DEVALUED in 1934 since gold was MONEY. What it could purchase for $20.67 then cost $35. The government confiscated gold and moved to a TWO-TIER monetary system with gold used exclusively for international settlements, not domestic.
Armstrong clearly has it wrong on what was devalued in 1934. Maybe it's a typo. Gold's value was raised from 20.67 to 35/oz. The US dollar was DEVALUED....especially with all the money printing that soon followed. You could certainly buy more for your ounce of gold in 1934 than you could have in 1932. Though I'd admit that people might have been reluctant to accept it knowing they weren't supposed to own more than 5 oz or so. The solution was to become a "coin collector." It was that simple....lol.
Armstrong uses the word "confiscate" incorrectly with respect to gold. Gold coin collectors in the 1930's could have stock piled up to 5 examples of every date/mint mark ever coined by the US mint...including all the common dates. 99% of collectors would have run out of money before they ran out of coins to buy. I don't believe for a minute that what one "could purchase for $20.67 then cost $35." That would be inflation. So Armstrong is saying that the entire US economy of goods and services increase by 69% in early 1934....preposterous. The people would have been up in arms. Armstrong also conveniently ignores the performance of gold mining stocks during 1926-1936....the most convenient way that J6P could invest all he wanted in gold. I read the Armstrong article on gold concerning the great depression and find it lacking. Speaking of depressions and recessions, gold and/or miners have often done quite well during those times (1932-1936, 1970-1974, 1990-1993, 2000-2003, late 2008-2011). If gold didn't survive the great depression why do central banks keep over $1 TRILL worth of a just a commodity in their vaults? Why are Central/TBTF bank gold leases, swaps, inventories, audits, and sales more tightly controlled than nuclear weapons technology?
There will be no meaningful rate hikes because there really has been no recovery.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>There will be no meaningful rate hikes because there really has been no recovery.
>>
As Mark Twain once said: "There are three kinds of lies; Lies, Da** Lies, and Statistics!"
According to that chart, the number of people on food stamps is declining as the nation continues to recover from the Bush Recession. Good for us! However, please note that that figure is given in NUMBERS of people.
As to the percent of the population working, it is only natural that this will fall as more and more of us baby boomers pass retirement age and STOP working, while increasing life spans keep them in the gross population total. My mother just turned 96, and her sister is about to turn 99. They are included in this magical mystical chart of people not working. This drives the PERCENTAGE of the population working down, while the NUMBER of people working is as a record high.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Make all the excuse you care to, but anyone with their eyes open can easily see from the chart that millions more Americans are on food stamps and a lower percentage have jobs than during the last recession. That's what I call one heck of a "recovery."
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Make all the excuse you care to, but anyone with their eyes open can easily see from the chart that millions more Americans are on food stamps and a lower percentage have jobs than during the last recession. That's what I call one heck of a "recovery."
<< <i>Make all the excuse you care to, but anyone with their eyes open can easily see from the chart that millions more Americans are on food stamps and a lower percentage have jobs than during the last recession. That's what I call one heck of a "recovery."
Problems arise when those who think they know what the chart demonstrates when they do not.
Some folk are always students, while others are professors. >>
some charts speak, some seek interpretation. Chart posted is yelling out load.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Not if one has little understanding of demographics. This topic has been discussed extensively on this board for several years. The result desired by the doom and gloomers has yet to be experienced. They should revisit their assumptions to discover why they are consistently wrong.
The pop of the USA in 2007 was 301 million. In 2015 it is 321 million, increase of 6.6%.
According to the graph, the number receiving food stamps increased from 66 million to 69.5 million, an increase of 5.3%.
Demand for food stamps is growing more slowly than the general population. That's a good thing.
Also, we should expect as the population ages that more people will receive food stamps as they exhaust savings. This is not a sign of a weak economy, but rather of poor demographics.
<< <i>The pop of the USA in 2007 was 301 million. In 2015 it is 321 million, increase of 6.6%.
According to the graph, the number receiving food stamps increased from 66 million to 69.5 million, an increase of 5.3%.
Demand for food stamps is growing more slowly than the general population. That's a good thing.
Also, we should expect as the population ages that more people will receive food stamps as they exhaust savings. This is not a sign of a weak economy, but rather of poor demographics. >>
any growth in food stamps is not a good thing - it is a growing burden on revenues.
Demographics may be one of many causes for poorer economic performance but it remains an unexceptable excuse. A growing financial burden is not a sign of an improving economy nor is it a sign of a properly managed economy. A properly managed economy would factor in demographic planning so that it did not become a growing burden.
Maybe an aging population would be less dependent on food stamps had they not been robbed of the interest that their vanishing savings should earn. This robbery is but one of many economic policy missteps that got us where are and where we are headed.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Rather than use words like robbed and vanishing, how about use eliminate. As in eliminate food stamps. Then no one will be on them.
Typical liberal rhetoric derryb...blame the other guy. Gone is the notion of personal responsibility, which includes family helping family.
Why not blame the drug companies and all sorts of govt regulation for enabling people to live longer...doesn't that fit your mantra better? >>
Better yet, let's eliminate using demographics as an excuse.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>The pop of the USA in 2007 was 301 million. In 2015 it is 321 million, increase of 6.6%.
According to the graph, the number receiving food stamps increased from 66 million to 69.5 million, an increase of 5.3%.
Demand for food stamps is growing more slowly than the general population. That's a good thing.
Also, we should expect as the population ages that more people will receive food stamps as they exhaust savings. This is not a sign of a weak economy, but rather of poor demographics. >>
First of all, your read of the numbers is wrong. The blue numbers are the food stamp numbers, but that's not important. Using your numbers for population and eyeballing the chart numbers, in 2007 there was approx 9.1% on food stamps in 2007. Today, there is 14.0%, and at the peak there was about 15.0%.
Is that one percent reduction what all of the excitement is about? Do anyone really consider a 1% improvement a recovery? We're still 5% above where we were in 2007. The 1% improvement is noise and normal ebb and flow. You can call it what you want, but in the real world this indicator does not say recovery.
<< <i>As to the percent of the population working, it is only natural that this will fall as more and more of us baby boomers pass retirement age and STOP working, while increasing life spans keep them in the gross population total. My mother just turned 96, and her sister is about to turn 99. They are included in this magical mystical chart of people not working. This drives the PERCENTAGE of the population working down, while the NUMBER of people working is as a record high. >>
The problem with this logic is that the retirement of an old person does not mean the job they did went away. The retirement of one person should theoretically create an additional opportunity which would ultimately result in a person who is unemployed becoming employed, and thus a wash.
Yup, my bad PC. Do you forced me to get to the reason since it obviously isn't a bad economy. So here it is....
Income eligibility for SNAP has increased 21% since 2007. $2167 per month would have gotten a family of 4 SNAP in 2007, now if that same family makes $2628 they are entitled. Has your income risen 20%. Blame politicians for making SNAP easier to get, not a bad economy for more people being on it
<< <i>Yup, my bad PC. Do you forced me to get to the reason since it obviously isn't a bad economy. So here it is....
Income eligibility for SNAP has increased 21% since 2007. $2167 per month would have gotten a family of 4 SNAP in 2007, now if that same family makes $2628 they are entitled. Has your income risen 20%. Blame politicians for making SNAP easier to get, not a bad economy for more people being on it >>
Let's blame the real culprit - a reduction of real annual income from $56,436 in 2007 to $51,939 in 2013 (according to the FED Reserve Bank of St. Louis). This means, that on average, Americans saw an 8% reduction in their pay. Of course that only applies to those that still have a full time job.
I call that a pretty good sign the economy has not improved. But then again I'm just looking at it objectively.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Yup, my bad PC. Do you forced me to get to the reason since it obviously isn't a bad economy. So here it is....
Income eligibility for SNAP has increased 21% since 2007. $2167 per month would have gotten a family of 4 SNAP in 2007, now if that same family makes $2628 they are entitled. Has your income risen 20%. Blame politicians for making SNAP easier to get, not a bad economy for more people being on it >>
Why would you blame politicians (and I do like to blame politicians when I can)? In this case all they did is maintain inflation. SNAP isn't easier to get. Although shadow stats puts inflation at around 5%/year on average over that time frame, a rate of 2.5% accounts for the 21% increase: 2007 1 2008 1.025 2009 1.050 2010 1.077 2011 1.104 2012 1.131 2013 1.160 2014 1.189 2015 1.218
We know 50%+ of America now lives in a low income household. That percentage has been rising for years and has surged in recent years. The Fed's "recovery" will soon be exposed for what it really is. Very soon.
<< <i>Nothing to try. You already explained it. A "bad economy" is not to fault. >>
What? You said SNAP was easier to get. I proved that it wasn't. In fact, anyone making minimum wage got a 23% wage increase. More people are making less today than they were in 2007 in equivalent dollars. If it's not a bad economy, why are more people making less?
THe minimum to be eligible for SNAP has increased considerable thus allowing more on the roles. And many states did away with asset provisions that allowed even more to be eligible for SNAP.
Youve been talking this lousy economy crap for 5 years now and have always been wrong. The economy is not lousy or built upon a house of cards. Shortly you will see strong wage pressures. You gonna say the economy sucks then also?
The economy sucks, yet PC walks away with a bigger paycheck every year.
<< <i>THe minimum to be eligible for SNAP has increased conside table thus allowING more on the roles. And many states did away with asset provisions that allowed more to be eligible for SNAP. >>
SNAP eligibility is being handed out like public pension promises - it's brings votes for the giver.
<< <i>Youve been talking this lousy economy crap for 5 years now and have always been wrong. The economy is not lousy or built upon a house of cards. Shortly you will see strong wage pressures. You gonna say the economy sucks then also? >>
Lousy economy for past 7 years, gov's own data shows it. Strong wage pressures will be either an organized labor push, a political promise fulfilled, or a result of strong inflation. Economy will continue to suck until the facts say otherwise. We live in a 'boom bust' economy thanks to our wonderful planners. It's bust time. Give up, even the FED is failing at talking "improved economy."
<< <i>The economy sucks, yet PC walks away with a bigger paycheck every year. >>
For every bigger paycheck there are many, many, many smaller ones. It's known as wealth inequality - another result of poor economic planning (or maybe just intentional greed).
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Comments
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different.
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know...
<< <i>
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different.
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know... >>
the tightening of physical supply of fabricated/finished products does not indicate, in this case, a shortage of the raw material. The fabricators are dropping the ball keeping up with demand, not the providers of the raw silver. As usual, they will catch up only to fall behind again.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different.
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know... >>
Of course he should. He's in the business of collecting your dollar bills for his silver.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different.
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know... >>
the tightening of physical supply of fabricated/finished products does not indicate, in this case, a shortage of the raw material. The fabricators are dropping the ball keeping up with demand, not the providers of the raw silver. As usual, they will catch up only to fall behind again. >>
Maybe thats their business model. Create the illusion of scarcity to charge more for their product.
After a 4 1/2 year 70% crushing bear market, don't you think it's about time for a little bounce? Or will we just proclaim, "see I told you demand was increasing"?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Maybe thats their business model. Create the illusion of scarcity to charge more for their product. >>
I don't believe that is the case with the government mints (where shortages seem to be the current problem). I would even go as far as say the US Mint would be a lot "happier" if it wasn't required by law to meet consumer bullion demand with the American Eagle program. They've got a massive number of "real" coins they need to focus on.
<< <i>After a 4 1/2 year 70% crushing bear market, don't you think it's about time for a little bounce? Or will we just proclaim, "see I told you demand was increasing"? >>
Demand is increasing because prices are down and buyers are aware that precious metals proved their worth with the last big loss of confidence in the financial system. It could also be a result of an increasing loss of faith with the future of the system. As you know, I hold PMs as insurance. I don't like paying for any kind of insurance - until I'm glad I did. You also know that I believe the need for this insurance is as great as it has ever been.
Funny thing about insurance - the "odds makers" that price it create cheaper products where the odds of paying off a claim appear to be lower. I'm taking the bet against the PM odds makers.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>the tightening of physical supply of fabricated/finished products does not indicate, in this case, a shortage of the raw material. The fabricators are dropping the ball keeping up with demand, not the providers of the raw silver. As usual, they will catch up only to fall behind again. >>
No, but that's not the only indicator.
If you want to wait for definitive indicators, fine, but the ship might be leaving. I'm not saying it is just yet, but it's good to notice that they deck hand is firing up the winch to raise the anchor.
Is it Friday yet?
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe thats their business model. Create the illusion of scarcity to charge more for their product. >>
I don't believe that is the case with the government mints (where shortages seem to be the current problem). I would even go as far as say the US Mint would be a lot "happier" if it wasn't required by law to meet consumer bullion demand with the American Eagle program. They've got a massive number of "real" coins they need to focus on.
<< <i>After a 4 1/2 year 70% crushing bear market, don't you think it's about time for a little bounce? Or will we just proclaim, "see I told you demand was increasing"? >>
Demand is increasing because prices are down and buyers are aware that precious metals proved their worth with the last big loss of confidence in the financial system. It could also be a result of an increasing loss of faith with the future of the system. As you know, I hold PMs as insurance. I don't like paying for any kind of insurance - until I'm glad I did. You also know that I believe the need for this insurance is as great as it has ever been.
Funny thing about insurance - the "odds makers" that price it create cheaper products where the odds of paying off a claim appear to be lower. I'm taking the bet against the PM odds makers. >>
Pm's didn't prove any worth during financial crisis they performed worse( see price movement June 2008-March 2009)...
They then moved up on storytelling...
I have pretty much gauged the market by the major coin shows, 2 weeks or week ago in long beach the floor was awash in gold and silver, more, I mean way more, like significant multiples more than I have seen in over 5 years...
Edit to add - that reference is to silvers fall from $21 to $8, during crisis...
Who was it who said that volatility only spiked with downward movements?
Monthly chart of gold:
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different.
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know... >>
the tightening of physical supply of fabricated/finished products does not indicate, in this case, a shortage of the raw material. The fabricators are dropping the ball keeping up with demand, not the providers of the raw silver. As usual, they will catch up only to fall behind again. >>
He did say in that video that you linked earlier that it would have been more profitable to simply resell the 1,000 ounce bars than to fabricate them into blanks or finished goods. Also that they have been running at capacity for a number of years. It's at least 6 months lead time to add more capacity which may or may not sit idle some time down the road.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There is no silver shortage. Only a shortage of some finished product producers being able to keep up with product demand.
Usually this indicates there is increased demand. In Baleyville, over across the cohodk state line, I'm sure this indicates something entirely different.
No, not yet... but if you want to get in early on a trend you want to identify when supplies are tightening... or when they are getting overstocked. There are a lot of indications that physical supplies are tightening. The CEO of Sunshine Mint should know... >>
the tightening of physical supply of fabricated/finished products does not indicate, in this case, a shortage of the raw material. The fabricators are dropping the ball keeping up with demand, not the providers of the raw silver. As usual, they will catch up only to fall behind again. >>
He did say in that video that you linked earlier that it would have been more profitable to simply resell the 1,000 ounce bars than to fabricate them into blanks or finished goods. Also that they have been running at capacity for a number of years. It's at least 6 months lead time to add more capacity which may or may not sit idle some time down the road. >>
He also said that the large bars they have been receiving lately have been older bars and speculated that Comex (or someone) was "scraping the bottom of the barrel."
<< <i>Pm's didn't prove any worth during financial crisis they performed worse( see price movement June 2008-March 2009)...
They then moved up on storytelling...
I have pretty much gauged the market by the major coin shows, 2 weeks or week ago in long beach the floor was awash in gold and silver, more, I mean way more, like significant multiples more than I have seen in over 5 years...
Edit to add - that reference is to silvers fall from $21 to $8, during crisis... >>
Why did you just pick silver? There are other more important precious metals. During a stock market crash the base metals, and often silver follow it. You'd almost expect silver to get crushed. If you're looking for PM safety in a nearly all market crash, then you go to gold, not silver, Pall, or Platinum which all have strong industrial demand components. They really aren't so precious in such a crash scenario. And then you picked the $21 to $8 silver dump which was from March to October...and not March 2009 as your initial premise suggested.
If we look at the June 2008 to March 2009 window as you suggested above, then silver went from $17 to $14. Some crash, huh? (<20%). How did the stock market do in that same period? The S&P dropped over 50% in that period! So after the dollar and treasuries, I'd say silver did pretty darn good in that SM crash. How did gold do in your time window? It gained 5%. Sounds like a safe haven to me. Gold proved it's worth. And gold's follow on 3 year move from 2008-2011 from $681 to $1923 was all "storytelling?" Same for silver going up 6X in that period? Funny, no one has called the tripling of the US stock market from 2003-2015 as "story telling." Or how about the massive parabolic rise in the biotechs? That's not "storytelling" but silver was/is?
And as far as silver's crash from $21 to $8 in 2008? Take a look at the combined silver derivatives that JPM was carrying by JULY 2008....$200 BILL worth...that was 13 yrs of world annual silver production! Yeah, some hedge....lol. At that time it was 2X greater than when Bear Stearns failed and JPM assumed their silver derivatives. And that's the reason shot right back from $8 to $14 in only 5 months. The move to $8 was based on imaginary paper derivative trades held by JPM. It wasn't gonna last. Hey, those same guys (JPM) now have a $4 TRILL in commodity derivatives - 4X the previous all time world record for all US banks combined. You see a trend here? When they go all in - like in July 2008 (silver) or in 1st QTR 2015 (commods)....they don't fool around.
<< <i>Pm's didn't prove any worth during financial crisis they performed worse( see price movement June 2008-March 2009)...
They then moved up on storytelling...
I have pretty much gauged the market by the major coin shows, 2 weeks or week ago in long beach the floor was awash in gold and silver, more, I mean way more, like significant multiples more than I have seen in over 5 years...
Edit to add - that reference is to silvers fall from $21 to $8, during crisis... >>
Yet when the FED provided their "cure" to the crisis gold doubled and silver tripled. They moved up on loss of confidence in alternative investments.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>
<< <i>Pm's didn't prove any worth during financial crisis they performed worse( see price movement June 2008-March 2009)...
They then moved up on storytelling...
I have pretty much gauged the market by the major coin shows, 2 weeks or week ago in long beach the floor was awash in gold and silver, more, I mean way more, like significant multiples more than I have seen in over 5 years...
Edit to add - that reference is to silvers fall from $21 to $8, during crisis... >>
Yet when the FED provided their "cure" to the crisis gold doubled and silver tripled. They moved up on loss of confidence in alternative investments. >>
No...wrong again, I recommend armstrongs new blog post on gold today (did gold survive the depression), he explains it much better...
Metals and bank collusion
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Pm's didn't prove any worth during financial crisis they performed worse( see price movement June 2008-March 2009)...
They then moved up on storytelling...
I have pretty much gauged the market by the major coin shows, 2 weeks or week ago in long beach the floor was awash in gold and silver, more, I mean way more, like significant multiples more than I have seen in over 5 years...
Edit to add - that reference is to silvers fall from $21 to $8, during crisis... >>
Yet when the FED provided their "cure" to the crisis gold doubled and silver tripled. They moved up on loss of confidence in alternative investments. >>
No...wrong again, I recommend armstrongs new blog post on gold today (did gold survive the depression), he explains it much better... >>
Gold and silver DID double and triple following the crisis of 08-09.
Any time PMs move up it involves a loss of confidence in alternative investments. This is why gold is known as the "alternative."
As far as the depression goes, gold survived. Not only is it still around, it's worth a lot more.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
"Taking a quick look at YTD performances, there is also very little to cheer about as most assets are still lower than where they were at the start of the year."
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Best/Worst performing assets in Sept, Q3 and year to date
"Taking a quick look at YTD performances, there is also very little to cheer about as most assets are still lower than where they were at the start of the year." >>
Stupid US Treasuries beat gold again??!! Sheesh.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>Best/Worst performing assets in Sept, Q3 and year to date
"Taking a quick look at YTD performances, there is also very little to cheer about as most assets are still lower than where they were at the start of the year." >>
Stupid US Treasuries beat gold again??!! Sheesh. >>
some days peanuts, some days shells.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>....No...wrong again, I recommend armstrongs new blog post on gold today (did gold survive the depression), he explains it much better... >>
Yes, gold did survive the depression. Most Americans were allowed to own up to 5 oz of gold following the 1933 gold Executive Order. Gold went up 69% overnight in early 1934. For collectors of "rare and unusual gold coins" (ie most everything the US mint ever made up to 1933) you could collect as much gold as you wanted. Eliasberg, Bass, Pittman and others took advantage of that during the 1930's through the 1960's when standards were relaxed even more for foreign coins. As far as "gold" not surviving the depression, the common man could own gold mining stocks. That was the alternative investment to physical gold. It just so happened that from 1930-1936 gold mining stocks were about the best performer out there. They increased 4X to 6X from 1932-1936. And they rallied all the way from 1926-1936, approx 10X as I recall. Gold did indeed survive the depression.
You are doomed if you cling to the idea that gold will rise simply because stocks decline. Gold was DEVALUED in 1934 since gold was MONEY. What it could purchase for $20.67 then cost $35. The government confiscated gold and moved to a TWO-TIER monetary system with gold used exclusively for international settlements, not domestic.
Armstrong clearly has it wrong on what was devalued in 1934. Maybe it's a typo. Gold's value was raised from 20.67 to 35/oz. The US dollar was DEVALUED....especially with all the money printing that soon followed. You could certainly buy more for your ounce of gold in 1934 than you could have in 1932. Though I'd admit that people might have been reluctant to accept it knowing they weren't supposed to own more than 5 oz or so. The solution was to become a "coin collector." It was that simple....lol.
Armstrong uses the word "confiscate" incorrectly with respect to gold. Gold coin collectors in the 1930's could have stock piled up to 5 examples of every date/mint mark ever coined by the US mint...including all the common dates. 99% of collectors would have run out of money before they ran out of coins to buy. I don't believe for a minute that what one "could purchase for $20.67 then cost $35." That would be inflation. So Armstrong is saying that the entire US economy of goods and services increase by 69% in early 1934....preposterous. The people would have been up in arms. Armstrong also conveniently ignores the performance of gold mining stocks during 1926-1936....the most convenient way that J6P could invest all he wanted in gold. I read the Armstrong article on gold concerning the great depression and find it lacking. Speaking of depressions and recessions, gold and/or miners have often done quite well during those times (1932-1936, 1970-1974, 1990-1993, 2000-2003, late 2008-2011). If gold didn't survive the great depression why do central banks keep over $1 TRILL worth of a just a commodity in their vaults? Why are Central/TBTF bank gold leases, swaps, inventories, audits, and sales more tightly controlled than nuclear weapons technology?
<< <i>Stupid US Treasuries beat gold again??!! Sheesh. >>
And those same "stupid" treasuries beat the S&P 500 as well. Stupid gold beat the S&P 500 too.
Interesting jobs report today at +142K. July and August revisions down 59K total. So much for a FED rate raise this year.
<< <i>So much for a FED rate raise this year. >>
Or next...
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>There will be no meaningful rate hikes because there really has been no recovery.
As Mark Twain once said: "There are three kinds of lies; Lies, Da** Lies, and Statistics!"
According to that chart, the number of people on food stamps is declining as the nation continues to recover from the Bush Recession. Good for us! However, please note that that figure is given in NUMBERS of people.
As to the percent of the population working, it is only natural that this will fall as more and more of us baby boomers pass retirement age and STOP working, while increasing life spans keep them in the gross population total. My mother just turned 96, and her sister is about to turn 99. They are included in this magical mystical chart of people not working. This drives the PERCENTAGE of the population working down, while the NUMBER of people working is as a record high.
You want a chart? Check this one out:
Chart showing number of people in the U.S. WORKING
Mr. Twain was correct!
The chart is akin to one showing a rising sea level and shrinking ice caps and concluding that man is responsible for higher global temperatures.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
"Happy Days are Here Again. . ."
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Make all the excuse you care to, but anyone with their eyes open can easily see from the chart that millions more Americans are on food stamps and a lower percentage have jobs than during the last recession. That's what I call one heck of a "recovery."
"Happy Days are Here Again. . ."
Problems arise when those who think they know what the chart demonstrates when they do not.
Some folk are always students, while others are professors.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>Make all the excuse you care to, but anyone with their eyes open can easily see from the chart that millions more Americans are on food stamps and a lower percentage have jobs than during the last recession. That's what I call one heck of a "recovery."
"Happy Days are Here Again. . ."
Problems arise when those who think they know what the chart demonstrates when they do not.
Some folk are always students, while others are professors.
some charts speak, some seek interpretation. Chart posted is yelling out load.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
According to the graph, the number receiving food stamps increased from 66 million to 69.5 million, an increase of 5.3%.
Demand for food stamps is growing more slowly than the general population. That's a good thing.
Also, we should expect as the population ages that more people will receive food stamps as they exhaust savings. This is not a sign of a weak economy, but rather of poor demographics.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>The pop of the USA in 2007 was 301 million. In 2015 it is 321 million, increase of 6.6%.
According to the graph, the number receiving food stamps increased from 66 million to 69.5 million, an increase of 5.3%.
Demand for food stamps is growing more slowly than the general population. That's a good thing.
Also, we should expect as the population ages that more people will receive food stamps as they exhaust savings. This is not a sign of a weak economy, but rather of poor demographics. >>
any growth in food stamps is not a good thing - it is a growing burden on revenues.
Demographics may be one of many causes for poorer economic performance but it remains an unexceptable excuse. A growing financial burden is not a sign of an improving economy nor is it a sign of a properly managed economy. A properly managed economy would factor in demographic planning so that it did not become a growing burden.
Maybe an aging population would be less dependent on food stamps had they not been robbed of the interest that their vanishing savings should earn. This robbery is but one of many economic policy missteps that got us where are and where we are headed.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Typical liberal rhetoric derryb...blame the other guy. Gone is the notion of personal responsibility, which includes family helping family.
Why not blame the drug companies and all sorts of govt regulation for enabling people to live longer...doesn't that fit your mantra better?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Rather than use words like robbed and vanishing, how about use eliminate. As in eliminate food stamps. Then no one will be on them.
Typical liberal rhetoric derryb...blame the other guy. Gone is the notion of personal responsibility, which includes family helping family.
Why not blame the drug companies and all sorts of govt regulation for enabling people to live longer...doesn't that fit your mantra better? >>
Better yet, let's eliminate using demographics as an excuse.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Agreed. Let's call it a Reason
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>The pop of the USA in 2007 was 301 million. In 2015 it is 321 million, increase of 6.6%.
According to the graph, the number receiving food stamps increased from 66 million to 69.5 million, an increase of 5.3%.
Demand for food stamps is growing more slowly than the general population. That's a good thing.
Also, we should expect as the population ages that more people will receive food stamps as they exhaust savings. This is not a sign of a weak economy, but rather of poor demographics. >>
First of all, your read of the numbers is wrong. The blue numbers are the food stamp numbers, but that's not important.
Using your numbers for population and eyeballing the chart numbers, in 2007 there was approx 9.1% on food stamps in 2007. Today, there is 14.0%, and at the peak there was about 15.0%.
Is that one percent reduction what all of the excitement is about? Do anyone really consider a 1% improvement a recovery? We're still 5% above where we were in 2007. The 1% improvement is noise and normal ebb and flow.
You can call it what you want, but in the real world this indicator does not say recovery.
<< <i>As to the percent of the population working, it is only natural that this will fall as more and more of us baby boomers pass retirement age and STOP working, while increasing life spans keep them in the gross population total. My mother just turned 96, and her sister is about to turn 99. They are included in this magical mystical chart of people not working. This drives the PERCENTAGE of the population working down, while the NUMBER of people working is as a record high. >>
The problem with this logic is that the retirement of an old person does not mean the job they did went away. The retirement of one person should theoretically create an additional opportunity which would ultimately result in a person who is unemployed becoming employed, and thus a wash.
Income eligibility for SNAP has increased 21% since 2007. $2167 per month would have gotten a family of 4 SNAP in 2007, now if that same family makes $2628 they are entitled. Has your income risen 20%. Blame politicians for making SNAP easier to get, not a bad economy for more people being on it
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Yup, my bad PC. Do you forced me to get to the reason since it obviously isn't a bad economy. So here it is....
Income eligibility for SNAP has increased 21% since 2007. $2167 per month would have gotten a family of 4 SNAP in 2007, now if that same family makes $2628 they are entitled. Has your income risen 20%. Blame politicians for making SNAP easier to get, not a bad economy for more people being on it >>
Let's blame the real culprit - a reduction of real annual income from $56,436 in 2007 to $51,939 in 2013 (according to the FED Reserve Bank of St. Louis). This means, that on average, Americans saw an 8% reduction in their pay. Of course that only applies to those that still have a full time job.
I call that a pretty good sign the economy has not improved. But then again I'm just looking at it objectively.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Yup, my bad PC. Do you forced me to get to the reason since it obviously isn't a bad economy. So here it is....
Income eligibility for SNAP has increased 21% since 2007. $2167 per month would have gotten a family of 4 SNAP in 2007, now if that same family makes $2628 they are entitled. Has your income risen 20%. Blame politicians for making SNAP easier to get, not a bad economy for more people being on it >>
Why would you blame politicians (and I do like to blame politicians when I can)? In this case all they did is maintain inflation. SNAP isn't easier to get. Although shadow stats puts inflation at around 5%/year on average over that time frame, a rate of 2.5% accounts for the 21% increase:
2007 1
2008 1.025
2009 1.050
2010 1.077
2011 1.104
2012 1.131
2013 1.160
2014 1.189
2015 1.218
Try again.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Nothing to try. You already explained it. A "bad economy" is not to fault. >>
What? You said SNAP was easier to get. I proved that it wasn't. In fact, anyone making minimum wage got a 23% wage increase. More people are making less today than they were in 2007 in equivalent dollars. If it's not a bad economy, why are more people making less?
Youve been talking this lousy economy crap for 5 years now and have always been wrong. The economy is not lousy or built upon a house of cards. Shortly you will see strong wage pressures. You gonna say the economy sucks then also?
The economy sucks, yet PC walks away with a bigger paycheck every year.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>THe minimum to be eligible for SNAP has increased conside table thus allowING more on the roles. And many states did away with asset provisions that allowed more to be eligible for SNAP. >>
SNAP eligibility is being handed out like public pension promises - it's brings votes for the giver.
<< <i>Youve been talking this lousy economy crap for 5 years now and have always been wrong. The economy is not lousy or built upon a house of cards. Shortly you will see strong wage pressures. You gonna say the economy sucks then also? >>
Lousy economy for past 7 years, gov's own data shows it. Strong wage pressures will be either an organized labor push, a political promise fulfilled, or a result of strong inflation. Economy will continue to suck until the facts say otherwise. We live in a 'boom bust' economy thanks to our wonderful planners. It's bust time. Give up, even the FED is failing at talking "improved economy."
<< <i>The economy sucks, yet PC walks away with a bigger paycheck every year. >>
For every bigger paycheck there are many, many, many smaller ones. It's known as wealth inequality - another result of poor economic planning (or maybe just intentional greed).
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey