114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 09:57 am
@Cycloptichorn,
$1,048.40 8 minutes ago.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 10:11 am
@Cycloptichorn,
you have mail
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 10:14 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

And there's more than one way to invest in gold. My mining shares are up 68% since July. They're easily exchangeable on the open market and will be in great shape when Bernanke lifts the lid on inflation.


I agree, and think that stocks is the best way to invest in gold. What stocks do you recommend?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 10:20 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

$1,048.40 8 minutes ago.


http://blogs.nbcuni.com/lastcall/borat.jpg
Niiiiiice

Triple what I bought it for.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 10:22 am
@Advocate,
I don't want to recommend specific stocks on the forum.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 12:30 pm
@Philis,
The FDIC is funded by the banks. The problem is they're out of money. If they tap into the emergency line of credit they have with the Treasury then, yes, it will be the government footing the bill for the next 100 or so banks expected to fold over the next year.

Quote:
The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations " it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities. With an insurance fund totaling more than $17.3 billion, the FDIC insures more than $4 trillion of deposits in U.S. banks and thrifts - deposits in virtually every bank and thrift in the country. FDIC
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 06:50 pm
For all of you who are investing in gold; When the value of any metal outperforms any economic output, it's too good to be of real value.

It's the goods and services that are produced that produces value. Gold doesn't produce anything; why do you think diamond has "value?"

maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 08:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I somewhat agree. You should buy guns instead. My AR-15 has doubled in value just since 11/2. And when the world goes to **** I can just shoot you and take your gold. All you could hope to do is throw your ounces at me (or your mining stocks). LOL LOL
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 08:46 pm
@JPB,
I was in general agreement with TARP I. I did not like the provision allowing government purchase of stocks, and was very shocked to learn all the things included in the definition of banks. I noticed that American Express and several other financial types quickly got themselves defined as bank holding companies to take advantage of the cheap money.

Everything went downhill from there, in my opinion. I am willing to buy into the idea that AIG needed a bailout to stabilize the industry. I do not buy the idea that they deserved it in any way.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2009 05:35 am
@maporsche,
maporsche, Do you know that the big banks have a great deal of gold bullion? If they flood the market with that gold, what do you think will happen to prices? Will they begin selling at a certain price level to flood the market? What do you think will happen to people with gold? Do you think people will buy their gold?

How much knowledge do small investors have in gold investments?

Who's playing the price value of gold? It certainly isn't the small investor.

Finally, there are gold spikes that cannot be predicted like stocks, but gold doesn't produce value; it's in place of currency. Stocks have value through its productive capacity to increase value through its economic activity.

JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2009 09:09 am
@cicerone imposter,
I agree with your concerns about small investors not understanding metals trading. Small investors shouldn't put all of their eggs in any one basket and only a fraction of any portfolio (large or small) should be in metals. There are a number of ways to invest in metals. You can hold hard metal, own mining shares, or purchase options. I wouldn't touch options trading with a 10-ft pole but those who understand both metals trading and options trading do very well (or very poorly). My preference is mining shares because they're easily traded on the open market.

Gold prices and mining shares aren't following the traditional path of the market. The market is going up and so is gold. That's primarily, I believe, because the rest of the world is quietly buying up gold in response to fear of the stability of the USD and a push by some countries to get away from USD as the world monetary standard. The IMF recently announced a sale of 403.3 metric tons of bouillon. The didn't announce who bought it, but there is a large demand for gold right now. IMF
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 03:49 pm
Until the consumer gains confidence in the future they will continue to save, preventing an upswing in the economy. I don't see that confidence coming so long as the public debt continues to increase to record numbers.

Bill Bonner on the status of the "recovery"... makes sense to me.

Quote:
The authorities still do not understand what is going on. They are used to fooling most of the people most of the time. They think they can dupe them again - with bailouts and boondoggles. But real demand has vanished as households try to pay down their debt. That is not going to change anytime soon. Not while the federal government is sabotaging a genuine recovery. It's savings - capital - the US economy needs. A capitalist economy in which the capitalist have no capital won't work. Why is there no capital? Because the feds take it.

Supplying cash-for-this and cash-for-that is an expensive proposition, especially when tax receipts are falling. The money has to come from somewhere. As it turns out, the feds borrow it from the very people who are trying to rebuild their personal balance sheets. Of the $1.6 trillion the US government will borrow this year, the biggest single lender is the private sector, chipping in $700 billion. But instead of being put to use in a way that might stimulate a real recovery - providing credit for small business and consumers - it is taken up by the US government and then frittered away.

The banks are happy to play the government's game too. They can borrow overnight money from the Fed at only one quarter of 1%, annualized. But lending to small business is hard work. And it is risky. Why bother? The US Treasury will pay them 4 % for lending back to the government, long term. This is practically free money to the banks. Both the bankers and politicians end up ahead - with a bigger piece of the economy under their control.

Meanwhile, the real economy staggers. "Drought of credit hampers recovery," summarizes The Wall Street Journal. The United States needs to create a million and a half new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth. Currently there are 15 million people without jobs already...and a couple hundred thousand more unemployed every month. And if this recovery continues long enough there won't be a single person left in America who still has a job.

Even if the economy could be stabilized, it will leave millions without jobs - more or less permanently. Add the people working reduced hours, and those who have been looking for work so long they are no longer counted, and their families, and you have a quarter of the population without money to spend. That's why this slump is not going away any time soon. As in Japan in the '90s, we may have to live with this depression for the rest of our lives. more
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 05:03 pm
@JPB,
You can't fritter money away. You can redirect it.

Lending it to small business is a waste of time. It is so competitive there that hardly anybody can make a profit.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 10:28 pm
@spendius,
spendi, Lotsa people fritter money away; they have never learned money management. The fact that many seniors are living strictly on social security tells us more than we need to know about people and money.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 07:22 am
TARP funds have, in many cases, fallen into a black hole....

Quote:
The U.S. taxpayers' investments in smaller banks are increasingly at risk.

In a sign that more banks are under great pressure from the recession, 34 financial institutions did not pay their quarterly dividends in August to the Treasury on funds obtained under the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). The number almost doubled from 19 in May when payments were last made, and also raised questions about Treasury's judgment in approving these banks as "healthy," a necessary step for them to get TARP funding.

"The banks are not paying their dividends because they are worried about preserving capital," says Eric Fitzwater, associate director of research at SNL Financial.

The Treasury Department says it cannot force an institution to pay dividends. "For some banks, it may be prudent to exercise their right not to pay dividends in a particular month, and we respect their right to do so," says Meg Reilly, a Treasury spokeswoman. "To draw any broader conclusions about the state of the banking sector from one month is highly premature and speculative."

more


0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 07:24 am
@spendius,
Unfortunately, the MO is simply to print more to replace that which has been frittered. Continuously hitting the big printer icon in the sky needs to stop.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 07:37 am
@JPB,
Is the market merely doing a "dead cat bounce"?
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 07:42 am
@farmerman,
That exactly what I'm reading elsewhere.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 07:51 am
@JPB,
However, whenever we get economic news that is good, the media makes sure to always have an added segment to turn it sour. Ever notice? Many times the sour notes are really inconsequential
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2009 08:07 am
@farmerman,
I think the premise for those who think it's a dead cat bouncing is because the good news, which is generally in the tone of "not as bad as expected" doesn't warrant the market response that we're seeing. Even Alcoa's surprising profit was due to "earlier than expected cost savings" rather than income. There's only so much fat that can be cut out of the cost side. Unless people start feeling confident that they don't have to squirrel away funds for the future like never before (they really DO need to keep squirreling, imo) the profit numbers will tank from lack of revenues.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 09:00:23