2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 425258]Is the toilet where I sit and read the papers w coffee every morning!

I agree with you on smaller governments, but small governments does not always translate into good governments. More crucial is the quality of the people in government and the culture of the eras. You are harking back to eras where populations were smaller and urbanization is not as dense as it is now. Let's just say, things were more simple then. Is the wild, wild West more to your liking?

So America is not the America of yesterday anymore. Can we go back? Really? What defines American culture today will give a better picture of why we are where we are. Not so difficult, just turn on your mainstream tv for a few hours and you will get the picture. Reality comes to your living room, but what is amazing, it sells! Are you surprised government can be dysfunctional, too? Also, just see where the college football landscape is heading and perhaps, you will know what I mean.

We need to look in the mirror and ask of ourselves,"what do you see?"[/QUOTE]All I have to say about your opening line is what happens in the bathroom stays in the bathroom!

Urbanization would have happened with the technological improvements in agriculture. However, the size of the federal government should not be dependent upon population size. Remove social security, medicare, medicaid, the majority of the DOD, Dept of Education, HUD, etc, etc, etc. And look at how small the federal government is. Those programs were not intended by our founders nor are they necessary for the functioning of our country. Those agencies are the product of a socialist agenda that may have originally had good intent, but they have been perverted by irresponsible government officials pandering to the masses. With a much smaller federal government, there would be far less they could screw up and the screw ups would have a much smaller impact on our economy. Although I suspect that world economics will force a change to smaller government within the next 3 years, the change should happen this decade. The younger taxpayers are not going to pay for the massive tax increases that will be required for current funding levels of social security, government pensions, etc.

Reality TV involves non professional actors, but it is far from reality.

In general I find the following subject doesn't have interest to people, so I will only post about it if there is interest on this board. But within the next few years, most of the people reading this board will wish they put a decent amount of their net worth into real assets, specifically including gold.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;425272]In general I find the following subject doesn't have interest to people, so I will only post about it if there is interest on this board. But within the next few years, most of the people reading this board will wish they put a decent amount of their net worth into real assets, specifically including gold.[/QUOTE]O. K, Why? Gold doesn't produce an income stream. Why wouldn't you rather own a business, dividend-paying common stocks, or real property that throws off good cash flow? Why is gold a better store of value than any other nonpersishable commodity? "Because it has always been" isn't a good answer. After adjusting for inflation the price fell 80% from 1980 to 2001, and 36% from 1950 to 1970. There were spikes from 1973 to 1981 from 2005 to present coinciding with commodity price booms. Right now could be the worst time to buy gold since the early 1980's.

No offense Dccpa, your thoughts are the same as several business acquaintances that I respect highly. I've never been been one to argue with people I do business with though, and would be interested in your response to the points above. If you respond you might want to create a new thread, as I guess this is off topic.

Obama is sticking with Biden. Obama either has some loyalty to biden or Obama cannot tolerate Hilary or, most likely, Obama is demonstrating again that he has the IQ of an idiot. What would an Obama / Clinton ticket have done? We will never know. All we know is that we are left with Obama / biden and Obama / Biden looks like yesterdays news. 4 years of tired, failed policies. Obama and Biden have lowered themselves to campaigning on a platform of anger and hatred. The new studs in town are running circles arround the Obama/Biden couch potatoes.

[QUOTE=Dccpa; 425272]All I have to say about your opening line is what happens in the bathroom stays in the bathroom!

Urbanization would have happened with the technological improvements in agriculture. However, the size of the federal government should not be dependent upon population size. Remove social security, medicare, medicaid, the majority of the DOD, Dept of Education, HUD, etc, etc, etc. And look at how small the federal government is. Those programs were not intended by our founders nor are they necessary for the functioning of our country. Those agencies are the product of a socialist agenda that may have originally had good intent, but they have been perverted by irresponsible government officials pandering to the masses. With a much smaller federal government, there would be far less they could screw up and the screw ups would have a much smaller impact on our economy. Although I suspect that world economics will force a change to smaller government within the next 3 years, the change should happen this decade. The younger taxpayers are not going to pay for the massive tax increases that will be required for current funding levels of social security, government pensions, etc.

Reality TV involves non professional actors, but it is far from reality.

In general I find the following subject doesn't have interest to people, so I will only post about it if there is interest on this board. But within the next few years, most of the people reading this board will wish they put a decent amount of their net worth into real assets, specifically including gold.[/QUOTE]Are you voting Libertarian this time DCCPA? What you are calling for is basically what Libertarians want. Government will basically have the same intrusive and bloated size and scope no matter which major party wins.

[QUOTE=Esten; 425261]It's not all "free money".

And when that money is part of a safety net that people depend on, people like Donnie Box who've been left in the dust by free market capitalism, you bet it's a sacrifice.[/QUOTE]Esten, bless your lost soul, won't you ever get it. We only need a safety net when we have someone like Obama who who is great at destroying jobs but not so good at creating jobs. What we need is someone like romney who can create jobs.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 425273]O. K, Why? Gold doesn't produce an income stream. Why wouldn't you rather own a business, dividend-paying common stocks, or real property that throws off good cash flow? Why is gold a better store of value than any other nonpersishable commodity?"Because it has always been" isn't a good answer. After adjusting for inflation the price fell 80% from 1980 to 2001, and 36% from 1950 to 1970. There were spikes from 1973 to 1981 from 2005 to present coinciding with commodity price booms. Right now could be the worst time to buy gold since the early 1980's.

No offense Dccpa, your thoughts are the same as several business acquaintances that I respect highly. I've never been been one to argue with people I do business with though, and would be interested in your response to the points above. If you respond you might want to create a new thread, as I guess this is off topic.[/QUOTE]Hmmm. So you'd rather hold a fiat currency that costs nothing to print in infinite quantities from an entity with 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities and no plan to correct the inbalance. I might not get a dividend from my gold and silver, but I'll still be able to buy groceries and medicine when the shit hits the fan.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 425273]O. K, Why? Gold doesn't produce an income stream. Why wouldn't you rather own a business, dividend-paying common stocks, or real property that throws off good cash flow? Why is gold a better store of value than any other nonpersishable commodity?"Because it has always been" isn't a good answer. After adjusting for inflation the price fell 80% from 1980 to 2001, and 36% from 1950 to 1970. There were spikes from 1973 to 1981 from 2005 to present coinciding with commodity price booms. Right now could be the worst time to buy gold since the early 1980's.

No offense Dccpa, your thoughts are the same as several business acquaintances that I respect highly. I've never been been one to argue with people I do business with though, and would be interested in your response to the points above. If you respond you might want to create a new thread, as I guess this is off topic.[/QUOTE]I disagree completely with Tiny. I would say that now is as good a time as any to buy gold. Look at how far the US Dollar has fallen against the two standard-bearer commodities since January 2001 (when Bush came into office, and the deficits began) ; gold was $266 USD per ounce and oil was $28 USD per barrel. The continual relative strength of the USD is the result of smoke and mirrors and lack of a better alternative for facilitating international commerce.

[QUOTE=Tequila Tim;425278]Hmmm. So you'd rather hold a fiat currency that costs nothing to print in infinite quantities from an entity with 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities and no plan to correct the inbalance. I might not get a dividend from my gold and silver, but I'll still be able to buy groceries and medicine when the shit hits the fan.[/QUOTE]When the "S*t hits the fan you may want to have some lead too! It will happen if we keep on electing the same parties that got us in this mess they created together in the 1st place.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;425251]At least Ryan put something on paper that attempts to address the problems rather than the pie in the sky budget Obama put forward which even his OWN PARTY did not support.[/QUOTE]It is very odd that "Obama's budget" failed 414-0 in the House, and 99-0 in the Senate. Not a single vote! A Fox News watcher would probably go no further and immediately conclude it was an awful budget. But a critical thinker would immediately suspect something was fishy.

Turns out, both the House and Senate bills of "Obama's budget" were introduced by Republicans. And when you look at the bills, neither of them was actually Obama's budget. Turns out it was all a gimmick for headlines.

As I keep saying, the Republican party relies on mass deception, and will say and do anything to win an election.

[QUOTE=Esten;425284]As I keep saying, the Republican party relies on mass deception, and will say and do anything to win an election.[/QUOTE]Hahahahahaha! And the Democrat Party doesn't do the same thing, only worse? But I forget, it's okay because the ends justify the means.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;425280]I disagree completely with Tiny. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tequila Tim;425278]Hmmm. So you'd rather hold a fiat currency that costs nothing to print in infinite quantities from an entity with 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities and no plan to correct the inbalance.[/QUOTE]

Snake and Tim, I don't like the dollar either, and probably have much less exposure to it than you do. I don't subscribe to the "inevitable collapse of fiat currency" thing though. IMHO, with gold north of $1600 per ounce, you'd be wise to view precious metals as just another asset class, and diversify. If you like to think in terms of how many loaves of bread or gallons of milk that an ounce of gold will buy, gold looks historically expensive. I could only get about 3 pokes at Newport for an ounce of gold back in 2001. Now from what I read here I could get 20. Buy hookers, not gold.

[QUOTE=Esten; 425284]It is very odd that "Obama's budget" failed 414-0 in the House, and 99-0 in the Senate. Not a single vote! A Fox News watcher would probably go no further and immediately conclude it was an awful budget. But a critical thinker would immediately suspect something was fishy.

Turns out, both the House and Senate bills of "Obama's budget" were introduced by Republicans. And when you look at the bills, neither of them was actually Obama's budget. Turns out it was all a gimmick for headlines.

As I keep saying, the Republican party relies on mass deception, and will say and do anything to win an election.[/QUOTE]Was the Obama budget that was submitted balanced? I haven't had time to check, been busy balancing my own budget. My understanding is that neither the Obama budget nor the Ryan budget is balanced, but Gary Johnson (Libertarian) will submit a balanced budget in year one of his administration.

[QUOTE=Esten; 425284]It is very odd that "Obama's budget" failed 414-0 in the House, and 99-0 in the Senate. Not a single vote! A Fox News watcher would probably go no further and immediately conclude it was an awful budget. But a critical thinker would immediately suspect something was fishy.

Turns out, both the House and Senate bills of "Obama's budget" were introduced by Republicans. And when you look at the bills, neither of them was actually Obama's budget. Turns out it was all a gimmick for headlines.

As I keep saying, the Republican party relies on mass deception, and will say and do anything to win an election.[/QUOTE]Esten you seem to have left out this one critical fact:

"The White House faced harsh criticism from conservatives and liberals after the vote on the budget, which was put forth by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and used spending targets from Obama's budget proposal offered earlier this year. A similar bill by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) failed 414-0 in the House."

[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/senate-republicans-barack-obama-budget-jeff-sessions-mick-mulvaney.php[/url]

For a vote like this to happen, each political party must believe they can gain from it. If BO didn't want this vote to happen, Harry Reid would not have allowed the budget up for a vote. Either that or BO has lost control of his party.

Tiny, I deleted your quote as my post is way too long and I was trying to shorten the post. There isn't an investment or world economic forum on this web site, so Jackson can move or delete this post.

Unless someone can accept that our economic environment for the next several years is either going to be one of deflation (1930s US) , stagflation (1970s US) or hyperinflation (1930s Germany) , then reading this post is a waste of time.

During the deflationary period of the 1930s, Homestake Mining (the largest gold miner) was the top investment returning several hundred percent, plus dividends. Even if you only held gold, Roosevelt devalued the USD against gold by about 65-70. Most other investments classes were crushed.

During the stagflation of the 1970s, gold and all other commodities increased. Stocks and bonds were crushed.

During the Weimer hyperinflation of the 1930s, farmers got rich, most everyone else got poor. Gold held its value and stocks eventually recovered, but still lost value on an inflation adjusted basis.

So, gold is the one asset that has held or increased its value under all the likely economic scenarios.

Why gold vs. Other investments? Gold is money which technically is an investment, but is usually considered an asset class. A gold mining stock is an investment and in the future, many gold and silver miners will likely pay significant dividends. Gold is also very portable. Many Jews smuggled their wealth out of Germany by hiding gold coins in the linings of their coats. Try putting an apartment complex in your backpack.

I didn't write put all your wealth into gold, but I would definitely put some of my wealth into gold. The other investments you mentioned are good choices too. Let's look at each asset class.

1. A business. Most of my clients started their own businesses. But unless the business is capital intensive, it is not an either or choice between the business and gold. If the business is capital intensive, then it is likely tied to a specific location and is therefore subject to the whims of government (taxation and seizure). If you are comparing buying a business to owning gold, buying a business is way too complex to discuss on a forum.

2. Same governmental risk for real estate.

3. Dividend paying stocks. Unless you have directly registered your shares, you don't own them. The brokerages keep the stocks in street name. If cases of MF Global, PFG Best and Sentinal have taught us anything, it is that the bankers feel free to steal from their customers. Of course SIPC or FDIC insurance will likely cover your losses? But if theft on that scale occurs, the USD has likely suffered a large decrease in value and you will lose. In addition, there is a significant amount of naked shorting that has been occurring in our markets which you see on the failure to deliver list. In this current environment you don't know if the shares you purchased ever existed.

When governments return to spending within their means, gold will no longer be a preferred asset class. So what would cause the price of gold to drop? Higher interest rates. Gold prospers during periods of negative real interest rates (nominal interest rates are below the true inflation rate). So if 10 year bonds are yielding 2% and real inflation is 5, real interest rates are a negative 3. When Volcker raised nominal interest rates above the rate of inflation gold was no longer a preferred asset class. The US currently has as. 0% interest rate policy and Rubin moved most of our debt to short term from long term. Does anyone believe that our current group of politicians will willingly raise interest rates and add more trillions to the deficit?

I agree that no asset class is always a good place to put your wealth. Commodities and stocks run in long cyclical waves that often last for around 36 years. Normally commodities will be up for 18 years and stocks down. Then things reverse for the next 18 years.

In the previous cycle (1966-2000) , stocks peaked in 1966 and made a price low in 1974 (8 years). Stocks then made a value low in 1982. During this time period commodities increased in value and peaked about the same time stocks bottomed in value.

Current cycle (2000?) stocks peaked in 2000 and made a price low in 2008 (8 years). My guess is that stocks make a value low around 2015-2016. At that point commodities would normally be fully valued. Due to the increasing consumption of meat in Asian societies, agricultural commodities may extend their cycle.

The charts that I am linking below tell me a lot about the future of the Dow and Gold and our economy.

[url]http://www.sharelynx.com/chartstemp/DowGoldRatio.php[/url]

Look at the first 100 years. Notice that stocks were slowly gaining against gold. The most likely reason for the increase is the higher standards of living from technological improvements. Now look at the second 100 years.

Notice the increased volatility of the Dow gold ratio. This volatility is due to governmental interference in the markets. But the most important aspect of this chart is the wolf wave or megaphone pattern. A 100 chart pattern is a very strong one. My guestimation is that around 2015 it will take less than one ounce of gold to buy a mythical share of the Dow Jones Industrial. Of course both the Dow and gold could be at $1000 and the ratio would be 1:1. However, Helicopter Bernanke has made it clear that he fears deflation and will do whatever it takes to prevent this scenario. So, I am left with the conclusion that gold is going much, much higher in nominal price.

Gold has been the second best performing asset of the last decade (ammunition is #1) , but it has a long way to go in terms of USD pricing. Just to reach the inflation adjusted equivalent of $850 in 1980 would take about $9000 in today's USD. The original inflation numbers are still kept by john williams at shadowstats. Com.

That is enough rambling from someone who woke up at 4:30 the last two mornings.

Thanks for another good post Dccpa, that had me checking my stockbroker's balance sheet and private (non SIPC) insurance today. On that topic BTW, if you have a cash securities account (not a margin or commodity account) with a large reputable broker and keep your cash under the SIPC limit, the chances of losing money are slim. As you say, you can get the securities registered in your name.

I'd come to the opposite conclusion looking at your graph. It makes gold look expensive compared to shares. It also shows that shares have far outperformed gold in the long term, although admittedly that's largely because the USA stock market has had an extraordinary run, unlikely to be duplicated over the next 200 years.

Adjusting for inflation using government numbers, the $850/oz. Price spike in 1980 would be $2300/oz. today, not $9000. And if prices were to go down to the level of March. 2001, adjusted for inflation gold would only be selling for $330/oz. I doubt it will go that low though, as production costs must be much higher. And I do admit that long term, as the metal becomes scarcer and there are more people, it's logical to expect the price to go up from the long term, inflation-adjusted trend. But $1600 seems like an awful lot to pay.

"Thanks for another good post Dccpa, that had me checking my stockbroker's balance sheet and private (non SIPC) insurance today. On that topic BTW, if you have a cash securities account (not a margin or commodity account) with a large reputable broker and keep your cash under the SIPC limit, the chances of losing money are slim. As you say, you can get the securities registered in your name."

The investors in MF Global, PFG Best and Sentinel are losing money that was in customer segregated accounts. That money was supposed to be sacred. But if the theft happens at places like Charles Schwab & TD Ameritrade, you can also figure the USD is toast and your stolen worthless funds will be replaced by other worthless USD funds. Either way you lose. Other than keeping a broker from loaning out your shares, I don't see any added protection in having a cash account. BTW. Schwab is raising the fees on September 1 for direct registration from $50 to $500. That should tell you how afraid the brokerages are of having shares taken out of street name. Looking at the balance sheet of the broker is worthless. PFG Best submitted fraudulent bank statements for 20 years and never got caught. Early in my career, I was an auditor. Audits are put out for bids by companies and the auditors are under pressure to get the reports done quickly. Also, if you give a company a bad report, you will likely be terminated as their auditor. Both the auditors and the company want an unqualified opinion.

"I'd come to the opposite conclusion looking at your graph. It makes gold look expensive compared to shares. It also shows that shares have far outperformed gold in the long term, although admittedly that's largely because the USA stock market has had an extraordinary run, unlikely to be duplicated over the next 200 years."

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that gold is expensive compared to stocks. The chart pattern shows a trend that gold is going to increase in value vs. The Dow. If you look at the second chart, you will notice that once the ratio crosses 10 (in either direction) , it never crosses the 10 again, until after it reaches the edge of the megaphone pattern. Right now, the ratio has crossed 10 to the downside and the bottom of the megaphone pattern would be a ratio of about. 8 / oz of gold = the Dow. Currently, that would put gold at about $16, 500oz. If gold goes to $16, 500oz, a loaf of bread will cost more than $2-3. Will gold have gained against food? Who knows? Either way, the USD will have definitely lost ground vs. Other asset classes and that will be the continuation of a trend that started with the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

"Adjusting for inflation using government numbers, the $850 / oz. Price spike in 1980 would be $2300 / oz. Today, not $9000. And if prices were to go down to the level of March. 2001, adjusted for inflation gold would only be selling for $330 / oz. I doubt it will go that low though, as production costs must be much higher. And I do admit that long term, as the metal becomes scarcer and there are more people, it's logical to expect the price to go up from the long term, inflation-adjusted trend. But $1600 seems like an awful lot to pay."

You are using the government provided inflation numbers which are garbage. Almost every single President since Kennedy has changed the way inflation is calculated and each time the calculation lowered the rate of inflation. John Williams at shadowstats. Com uses the original government inflation measurement numbers. Per the original government inflation formula, gold needs to be about $9000 / oz to equal $850 in 1980. Also, see my link to the crash course videos in the next paragraph.

The government has also manipulated the unemployment calculation. What used to be reported as unemployment is now called U6 and is around 16-17. But the government now reports U3 which is only 8. What is the difference? A lot of unemployed people that are in the U6 rate are excluded from the U3 rate. Can't have those pesky unemployed people making a President look bad. If you want to understand what has happened go to peakprosperity. Com and watch Chris Martenson's crash course videos. For example, when steak went up in price, they took steak out of the calculation and added hamburger. When hamburger went up in price, they added hamburger helper. I will let you watch the course and you can see how the rent you don't pay yourself for your own house is added to the US GDP number. Starting with July, they are now manipulating the retail sales number. This stuff is like a fairly tale.