Actually palladium posted a nice solid weekly close under the uptrendline for its lowest "weekly" close in over a year. Could very well be on the cusp of an "oilesque" type of move.
To add---im gonna call my buddies and make sure they push Palladium right to the limit orders everyone has set. My media sources should start talking about this in a week or so to help it get moving. A little Russia conspiracy and manipulation talk and we should me able to make this go where we want. I pity the fools...
Someone said they wanted charts with price projections and timeframes..
If the blue uptrend line breaks the chart will progress very similarly to that of oil. Target $400 by end of summer.
Currently at $643. Making good progress. Stupid charts.
Palladium hit 451 last week. The VW diesel scandal put a wrinkle in the timing. I sure roadrunner will call exception to my prognostication. Oh well, when we please all we have pleased no one.
Unlike other PMs, 90% of palladium demand is industrial. Palladium shows no real promise in the current economic environment. It takes productivity to drive palladium. For the near future, it will behave more like a rare industrial metal than it will a "store of value" precious metal.
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
Interesting reading. It appears, for the most part, that the same group of posters, that's been wrong over the last 7+ years with their forecasts, missed the "nail" once again. Time to replace those "crystal balls."
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
Well no $hit......you certainly have been able to sell for a profit.
Actually, I have, I did and I intend to again and again. In fact, the metals have been very good to me for more years than you've been out of school. And for the most part, so have stocks (which are a totally different animal, incidentally). I just not in the unenviable position of having to sell in a panic because of a few little bouts of manipulation in the metals markets from time to time or - well, almost continuously - but after awhile you get acclimated to it.
Unless you're an insider selling on inside information or an investment banker front-running your own clients, the best approach is to call it like you see it. Most of us don't have that built-in advantage. Investing has always been long term for me - I don't know about you. Seems not. Seems to me that the need to sell for a profit when you don't need the money qualifies as psychological masturbation more than anything else does.
I didn't buy Chrysler when it was bailed out, I didn't buy stocks in 2009 when the Fed started QE and I'm not selling Emerging Market bonds now - not because I think they wouldn't have been or won't be winners, but because I'm not willing to bet on decisions obviously made to influence markets by people I simply don't trust.
Let's do a brief review. When you hold your own metals, you know who has them and exactly where they are. When you own stocks, you have no idea who has control or how to get your money if there's a real problem. It's always been a confidence game with paper assets, and it's no different now. Simple fact.
Banking & finance have had so many scandals that they haven't earned anyone's trust for years, in my estimation.
That, and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at Mickey D's.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Jmski, your views are so jaded. I'm sorry your life experiences have manipulated you so. You view everything is stacked against you, yet you benefit from those very things.
You've written the words "I don't understand" so many times in this forum. That has become obvious. With metals again at generational lows vs other assets I'm sure you will be bailed out again. But think about that, "generational lows", dang!!
You're pretty full of it, cohodk. Show me where I said "I don't understand" other than in reference to market opacity.
I'll give you this much, the republic looks to be in better shape on this very day, than it's been in a long time. For investing, it will still take some more positive changes, and there's a chance that some of those changes are being made.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I'll give you this much, the republic looks to be in better shape on this very day, than it's been in a long time. For investing, it will still take some more positive changes, and there's a chance that some of those changes are being made.
So for 10 years you complained and poo-pooed the economy while being rebuffed continuously by improving economic data, and NOW you say it looks good? Lol
Did you just top-tick the stock market?
Given your record of understanding markets and economics, perhaps it's time for me to cash in some chips.
So for 10 years you complained and poo-pooed the economy while being rebuffed continuously by improving economic data, and NOW you say it looks good? Lol
It's been a long time since I've dealt with a person who keeps twisting a conversation as much as you. You aren't quite as good at it as some of my past acquaintances, but you do try.
I've poo-pooed the economic & (social engineering) tax policies, and the generally bogus economic data in the past - but not always the economy. Sometimes, but not always. I'll admit that the economy has worked out better than I've expected, but the data is still skewed so don't be surprised when Trump gets blamed when the debt bubble gets popped if it happens on his shift.
Employment looks to have improved since Trump was inaugurated, but not for the 10 years prior to that. The kicker is that ALL TYPES of debt keep increasing out of control. Do you consider debt levels as a significant piece of economic data? Simple question for you. Focus, and think about it.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@OPA said:
So far is appears, that the winner is Rhodium.
Indeed, we all should have bought Rhodium... um, except its hard to find and very hard to sell physical, with enormous spreads.
Five years later, another oldie but goodie thread with interesting comments.
I don't know. I think the people that were buying $10,000 an ounce Rhodium might disagree.
Suggest you look at the date of this thread....2013. We all knew what the all time high was, but the discussion was based on 2013 and forward possibilities.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
@OPA said:
So far is appears, that the winner is Rhodium.
Indeed, we all should have bought Rhodium... um, except its hard to find and very hard to sell physical, with enormous spreads.
Five years later, another oldie but goodie thread with interesting comments.
I don't know. I think the people that were buying $10,000 an ounce Rhodium might disagree.
Suggest you look at the date of this thread....2013. We all knew what the all time high was, but the discussion was based on 2013 and forward possibilities.
I saw it, but someone brought it back from the dead, so it is listed as a new post. And the insert at the beginning is showing the current PM pricing. But thanks for watching out for me and correcting me BB.
BL, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the majority of this chart influenced by large increases in part-time employment which were then magnified even more when the unaffordable ACA was enacted?
It was common knowledge that employers were cutting off the hours worked of part timers to keep under the 30 hour minimum requirement for full time benefits of ACA, which then necessitated that workers get a 2nd job which was then counted as another "employed" in the data. I'd love to see the chart if it only reflected full-time employment.
I'm inclined to think that the effects of fewer regulations and changes in tax law have had a more real effect. Your interpretation would be interesting.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
BL, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the majority of this chart influenced by large increases in part-time employment which were then magnified even more when the unaffordable ACA was enacted?
It was common knowledge that employers were cutting off the hours worked of part timers to keep under the 30 hour minimum requirement for full time benefits of ACA, which then necessitated that workers get a 2nd job which was then counted as another "employed" in the data. I'd love to see the chart if it only reflected full-time employment.
I'm inclined to think that the effects of fewer regulations and changes in tax law have had a more real effect. Your interpretation would be interesting.
I think the data show pretty much the same thing as in Coh's chart above, which tells me above anything the cycle is cyclical. I try to avoid applying personal political bias to economic numbers, it never seems to work very well for me, but people love to do it anyway.
Jmski, does this "correct you if your wrong'? You can plainly see that part-time employment has held steady while full-time employment has increased. In fact, the number of full-time workers has increased since the trough in 2010 by 28 million people. Thats the equivalent to the entire populations of the fly-over states of Missouri, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, Iowa, Arkansas, Nebraska and North Dakota.
Thank-you for the data. It does appear that all the QE to save the banking system since the recession has supported employment as well. I didn't put much stock in Trump's claims of instantaneous economic success when he started making them so soon after he took office, however I do agree with him that the Fed's rate hikes will hurt the recovery now.
I'm not the only one who thinks so, per John William's interview with Greg Hunter on USAWatchdog.com. It's a good interview and worth watching. John Williams points out that the Fed's tightening (along with Trump's tax cuts and over-budget spending) makes for a situation that's ever more un-manageable.
Blue Lobster, bias or not - I don't think that you can separate out politics from economics. Voters have always voted with their pocketbooks and politicians on either end of the spectrum always use economics to target their constituents. The question is always who has the "best" interpretation of "what's going on". Data and standards get changed to fit the narrative. That's why I think that John Williams' work is valuable.
Economist John Williams says the recent rate hikes mean the “Fed is killing off the economy.”
Williams says, “I heard President Trump make some comments to that effect, and he’s right. The Fed is trying to raise rates. The idea is if you get higher rates, the banks will be able to make more profits on their lending. It will also encourage bank lending. Unfortunately, on the consumer end, it raises the consumers’ cost of borrowing as interest rates go up. It makes mortgages more expensive. It makes borrowing more expensive. Mortgages go up, people don’t buy as many houses. What you are seeing right now is effectively a recession in the housing market, in the construction area. Existing home sales have been down for six or seven months in a row, and it’s down year over year.”
Williams says, “The Fed is trying to get the system back to normal.” In doing so, the Fed could kill the system. Williams says, “Well, that’s what they are doing. In many ways, it would have been easier if the banking system would have collapsed and had a banking holiday, and restructured it and reopened it back in 2007 and 2008. That would have been a very difficult time for the people who owned the banks, and again, the Fed owns the banking system.”
So, they are trying to fix the banks, and to do that, they will simply screw the consumer? Williams says, “Well, they have an escape clause. Former Fed Head Janet Yellen said that if the economy falls back into recession, ‘we will just go back into quantitative easing’ (QE/money printing). I think that could easily happen here. When the economy goes down, it increases the liquidity stresses on the banking system. There is default on debt, and companies tend to go out of business. That will stress the bank earnings. QE was aimed at propping up the banks in tough times. The Fed is very open to QE, and from the Fed’s standpoint, I think we are going to end up in a perpetual state of quantitative easing, unless they let the banking system reorganize and get a new functioning system. It’s still not functioning.”
John Williams has long said that this money printing orgy by the Fed will end in a hyperinflationary event. Williams says, “Unfortunately, it is unavoidable. It is only a matter of when. It can only be avoided if the U.S. can get its long term financial house in order.”
We all know that is not going to happen. Williams says, “As they keep going here, there is going to be hyperinflation. The dollar will weaken. Gold and silver will rally, and that will be part of a self-feeding cycle, which will get you into very high inflation. . . . If the Fed can’t get this banking crisis worked out, I would not be surprised to see a complete overhaul of the system."
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Comments
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Someone said they wanted charts with price projections and timeframes..
If the blue uptrend line breaks the chart will progress very similarly to that of oil. Target $400 by end of summer.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The new "equilibrium" numbers appear to be gold 1200 silver 17 for now.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
To add---im gonna call my buddies and make sure they push Palladium right to the limit orders everyone has set. My media sources should start talking about this in a week or so to help it get moving. A little Russia conspiracy and manipulation talk and we should me able to make this go where we want. I pity the fools...
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
If they can move past those marks on any kind of volume, this rally might have legs.. still quite a ways from 1330 and 22 though, aren't we?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>I still think its going to drop 50%
Someone said they wanted charts with price projections and timeframes..
If the blue uptrend line breaks the chart will progress very similarly to that of oil. Target $400 by end of summer. >>
Currently at $643. Making good progress. Stupid charts.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Hope we get back there someday.
Metals investing is a lot more fun when the prices go up
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Someone said they wanted charts with price projections and timeframes..
If the blue uptrend line breaks the chart will progress very similarly to that of oil. Target $400 by end of summer.
Currently at $643. Making good progress. Stupid charts.
Palladium hit 451 last week. The VW diesel scandal put a wrinkle in the timing. I sure roadrunner will call exception to my prognostication. Oh well, when we please all we have pleased no one.
Almost forgot. ...stupid charts. Lol
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I knew it would happen.
for now. Looks like we might finally get a little excitement with metals, what, does it look like the world as we know it might end, again?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I knew it would happen.
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
Indeed, we all should have bought Rhodium... um, except its hard to find and very hard to sell physical, with enormous spreads.
Five years later, another oldie but goodie thread with interesting comments.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Lots of consistency.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Interesting reading. It appears, for the most part, that the same group of posters, that's been wrong over the last 7+ years with their forecasts, missed the "nail" once again. Time to replace those "crystal balls."
I am committed to wait forever to buy platinum.
I'm committed to averaging in with silver, gold and platinum. That's been the case for me for the past 20 years.
I knew it would happen.
Sucks to be me in a coin shop. But , I just suck it up.
HE>I
Well no $hit......you certainly haven't been able to sell for a profit.
"Averaging in" is a just another term for psychological masterbation.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Well no $hit......you certainly have been able to sell for a profit.
Actually, I have, I did and I intend to again and again. In fact, the metals have been very good to me for more years than you've been out of school. And for the most part, so have stocks (which are a totally different animal, incidentally). I just not in the unenviable position of having to sell in a panic because of a few little bouts of manipulation in the metals markets from time to time or - well, almost continuously - but after awhile you get acclimated to it.
Unless you're an insider selling on inside information or an investment banker front-running your own clients, the best approach is to call it like you see it. Most of us don't have that built-in advantage. Investing has always been long term for me - I don't know about you. Seems not. Seems to me that the need to sell for a profit when you don't need the money qualifies as psychological masturbation more than anything else does.
I didn't buy Chrysler when it was bailed out, I didn't buy stocks in 2009 when the Fed started QE and I'm not selling Emerging Market bonds now - not because I think they wouldn't have been or won't be winners, but because I'm not willing to bet on decisions obviously made to influence markets by people I simply don't trust.
Let's do a brief review. When you hold your own metals, you know who has them and exactly where they are. When you own stocks, you have no idea who has control or how to get your money if there's a real problem. It's always been a confidence game with paper assets, and it's no different now. Simple fact.
Banking & finance have had so many scandals that they haven't earned anyone's trust for years, in my estimation.
That, and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at Mickey D's.
I knew it would happen.
Jmski, your views are so jaded. I'm sorry your life experiences have manipulated you so. You view everything is stacked against you, yet you benefit from those very things.
You've written the words "I don't understand" so many times in this forum. That has become obvious. With metals again at generational lows vs other assets I'm sure you will be bailed out again. But think about that, "generational lows", dang!!
Reversion to mean is your best friend.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
You're pretty full of it, cohodk. Show me where I said "I don't understand" other than in reference to market opacity.
I'll give you this much, the republic looks to be in better shape on this very day, than it's been in a long time. For investing, it will still take some more positive changes, and there's a chance that some of those changes are being made.
I knew it would happen.
So for 10 years you complained and poo-pooed the economy while being rebuffed continuously by improving economic data, and NOW you say it looks good? Lol
Did you just top-tick the stock market?
Given your record of understanding markets and economics, perhaps it's time for me to cash in some chips.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
So for 10 years you complained and poo-pooed the economy while being rebuffed continuously by improving economic data, and NOW you say it looks good? Lol
It's been a long time since I've dealt with a person who keeps twisting a conversation as much as you. You aren't quite as good at it as some of my past acquaintances, but you do try.
I've poo-pooed the economic & (social engineering) tax policies, and the generally bogus economic data in the past - but not always the economy. Sometimes, but not always. I'll admit that the economy has worked out better than I've expected, but the data is still skewed so don't be surprised when Trump gets blamed when the debt bubble gets popped if it happens on his shift.
Employment looks to have improved since Trump was inaugurated, but not for the 10 years prior to that. The kicker is that ALL TYPES of debt keep increasing out of control. Do you consider debt levels as a significant piece of economic data? Simple question for you. Focus, and think about it.
I knew it would happen.
I don't know. I think the people that were buying $10,000 an ounce Rhodium might disagree.
Suggest you look at the date of this thread....2013. We all knew what the all time high was, but the discussion was based on 2013 and forward possibilities.
I saw it, but someone brought it back from the dead, so it is listed as a new post. And the insert at the beginning is showing the current PM pricing. But thanks for watching out for me and correcting me BB.
BL, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the majority of this chart influenced by large increases in part-time employment which were then magnified even more when the unaffordable ACA was enacted?
It was common knowledge that employers were cutting off the hours worked of part timers to keep under the 30 hour minimum requirement for full time benefits of ACA, which then necessitated that workers get a 2nd job which was then counted as another "employed" in the data. I'd love to see the chart if it only reflected full-time employment.
I'm inclined to think that the effects of fewer regulations and changes in tax law have had a more real effect. Your interpretation would be interesting.
I knew it would happen.
That is a chart of full-time employment jmski.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14100000
Yeah, ummm, not much of what Trump says during his rallies is accurate.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I think the data show pretty much the same thing as in Coh's chart above, which tells me above anything the cycle is cyclical. I try to avoid applying personal political bias to economic numbers, it never seems to work very well for me, but people love to do it anyway.
Jmski, does this "correct you if your wrong'? You can plainly see that part-time employment has held steady while full-time employment has increased. In fact, the number of full-time workers has increased since the trough in 2010 by 28 million people. Thats the equivalent to the entire populations of the fly-over states of Missouri, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, Iowa, Arkansas, Nebraska and North Dakota.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Thank-you for the data. It does appear that all the QE to save the banking system since the recession has supported employment as well. I didn't put much stock in Trump's claims of instantaneous economic success when he started making them so soon after he took office, however I do agree with him that the Fed's rate hikes will hurt the recovery now.
I'm not the only one who thinks so, per John William's interview with Greg Hunter on USAWatchdog.com. It's a good interview and worth watching. John Williams points out that the Fed's tightening (along with Trump's tax cuts and over-budget spending) makes for a situation that's ever more un-manageable.
Blue Lobster, bias or not - I don't think that you can separate out politics from economics. Voters have always voted with their pocketbooks and politicians on either end of the spectrum always use economics to target their constituents. The question is always who has the "best" interpretation of "what's going on". Data and standards get changed to fit the narrative. That's why I think that John Williams' work is valuable.
Here's a link, but it's not working for me.
https://usawatchdog.com/
Economist John Williams says the recent rate hikes mean the “Fed is killing off the economy.”
Williams says, “I heard President Trump make some comments to that effect, and he’s right. The Fed is trying to raise rates. The idea is if you get higher rates, the banks will be able to make more profits on their lending. It will also encourage bank lending. Unfortunately, on the consumer end, it raises the consumers’ cost of borrowing as interest rates go up. It makes mortgages more expensive. It makes borrowing more expensive. Mortgages go up, people don’t buy as many houses. What you are seeing right now is effectively a recession in the housing market, in the construction area. Existing home sales have been down for six or seven months in a row, and it’s down year over year.”
Williams says, “The Fed is trying to get the system back to normal.” In doing so, the Fed could kill the system. Williams says, “Well, that’s what they are doing. In many ways, it would have been easier if the banking system would have collapsed and had a banking holiday, and restructured it and reopened it back in 2007 and 2008. That would have been a very difficult time for the people who owned the banks, and again, the Fed owns the banking system.”
So, they are trying to fix the banks, and to do that, they will simply screw the consumer? Williams says, “Well, they have an escape clause. Former Fed Head Janet Yellen said that if the economy falls back into recession, ‘we will just go back into quantitative easing’ (QE/money printing). I think that could easily happen here. When the economy goes down, it increases the liquidity stresses on the banking system. There is default on debt, and companies tend to go out of business. That will stress the bank earnings. QE was aimed at propping up the banks in tough times. The Fed is very open to QE, and from the Fed’s standpoint, I think we are going to end up in a perpetual state of quantitative easing, unless they let the banking system reorganize and get a new functioning system. It’s still not functioning.”
John Williams has long said that this money printing orgy by the Fed will end in a hyperinflationary event. Williams says, “Unfortunately, it is unavoidable. It is only a matter of when. It can only be avoided if the U.S. can get its long term financial house in order.”
We all know that is not going to happen. Williams says, “As they keep going here, there is going to be hyperinflation. The dollar will weaken. Gold and silver will rally, and that will be part of a self-feeding cycle, which will get you into very high inflation. . . . If the Fed can’t get this banking crisis worked out, I would not be surprised to see a complete overhaul of the system."
I knew it would happen.
So the economy slows down, so what? It will pick up again. Always has.
Hyperinflation----nope.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Stress test , my ass...ets
HE>I