93 posts shown.
This whole "tax the rich" thing... We all know it's just pure demagoguery. Total nonsense.
Like what? Rich people just stash cash under their mattresses!? That capital is always being invested somewhere, and society always gets a slice of the action... They spend it on dinner, and suddenly restaurants and their suppliers get a boost, and that cash flows right back into the economy... They put it in funds, those funds invest it... they park it in a bank, and the bank lends it out through loans!
The people running today's welfare states really think they can manage money better than the people who actually earned it... Given the current deficit levels, anyone can see how they're handling things.
By hiking taxes even more, money velocity is just going to tank (M2 is at an all-time low, M1 is looking like it's stuck in the late 70s or mid-90s)... There'll be less liquid cash available, and the people who do have it will just keep lending it to the government... We're looking at another deflationary year... and regardless of the fiscal cliff situation, the world is heading for another recession. Whether basic prices spike in that scenario depends entirely on oil, taxes, and the dollar!
The Federal Reserve printing presses slowed down a bit after four weeks of work, and the Fed decided to shed some assets... All in all, despite all the hype about Quantitative Easing's impact, the balance sheet is still lower than it was in February...
In 2013, the S&P 500 won't see any massive rallies unless there's a tectonic shift in Federal Reserve policy (and considering Ben's term is winding down, I'm not holding my breath)... I don't see a major crash happening either, because there just isn't much reason for one... Most likely, everything stays within the 2012 ranges, maybe +/- 10%... Not bad, considering the uncertainty...
Interesting take on things from Robert Vaughn10... looking at the big picture with plenty of data points, staying cautious, keeping emotions out of it, and leaving enough room for doubt no matter what happens! 👍
quiettrucker12 said:We'll see. Breaking below the 75 WMA isn't great news—it complicates the whole picture. It means that on May 5th, we either hit rock bottom or the price tanked instead of rallying (which is the worst-case scenario, though maybe unlikely). There’s a chance this is more than just some quick manipulation or hunting for stops. Right now, it looks like we won't even hold the 200 DMA. By dropping below that 75 WMA, a ton of new scenarios have opened up. If the 200 DMA gives way, we might see buyers stepping in at the stops set just below it, around $1655. Honestly, that feels like one of the more optimistic paths right now. Sentiment is incredibly low, so strictly speaking, it shouldn't go much lower; our final line of defense remains the 100 WMA at $1631.
Hey zvrk... 200-day is busted and we're staring down that 100-day.
What are the actual scenarios here? And how likely are they?
Robert Vaughn10 said:I honestly don't follow your logic. If the deficit is only cut by a fifth—leaving it at roughly a trillion dollars—debt won't drop to 65% of GDP unless you assume they won't borrow another cent. That is impossible. How else would they fund the deficit? As for GDP...
There is a distinction between real GDP and nominal GDP. Nominal GDP, or even the figure adjusted for US CPI, can be whatever they want it to be, but that doesn't change the reality of a contraction once you account for true inflation. The actual inflation rate—factoring in food and energy—is closer to 6%. To find the real GDP, you have to deflate the nominal figures by that number. Since the US CPI sits around 2%, similar to the growth rate, the math implies we are already in a recession; the real inflation isn't 2%, it's 6%. Money has lost 4% more value than the reported growth rate accounts for. We are shrinking.
They certainly aren't looking for the calculation I described regarding Obama's proposal. While higher inflation might help manage the debt, it does absolutely nothing for real GDP or the actual standard of living.
Not to mention that over four years, debt jumped from 75% of GDP to 100%. That kind of trajectory is unsustainable. If they persist with stimulus and massive deficits, the debt-to-GDP ratio continues to climb. If they stop borrowing, the economy collapses, causing the ratio to spike even further. Living standards will plummet, and they'll face a default because there simply won't be the revenue to cover it.
I won't even get started on interest rates in this scenario.
In short...
All these maneuvers and political theater will eventually act as high-octane fuel for gold prices. Physical gold—not the paper stuff—remains reliable money. You can't just print it into existence. In an environment where paper loses 5% or even 10% of its value annually, calling paper a "safe store of value" is a stretch.
Not gonna work... totally botched the math. Forgot about the deficit. 😬
Robert Vaughn10 said:I honestly don't follow your logic. If the deficit is only cut by a fifth—leaving it at roughly a trillion dollars—debt won't drop to 65% of GDP unless you assume they won't borrow another cent. That is impossible. How else would they fund the deficit? As for GDP...
There is a distinction between real GDP and nominal GDP. Nominal GDP, or even the figure adjusted for US CPI, can be whatever they want it to be, but that doesn't change the reality of a contraction once you account for true inflation. The actual inflation rate—factoring in food and energy—is closer to 6%. To find the real GDP, you have to deflate the nominal figures by that number. Since the US CPI sits around 2%, similar to the growth rate, the math implies we are already in a recession; the real inflation isn't 2%, it's 6%. Money has lost 4% more value than the reported growth rate accounts for. We are shrinking.
They certainly aren't looking for the calculation I described regarding Obama's proposal. While higher inflation might help manage the debt, it does absolutely nothing for real GDP or the actual standard of living.
Not to mention that over four years, debt jumped from 75% of GDP to 100%. That kind of trajectory is unsustainable. If they persist with stimulus and massive deficits, the debt-to-GDP ratio continues to climb. If they stop borrowing, the economy collapses, causing the ratio to spike even further. Living standards will plummet, and they'll face a default because there simply won't be the revenue to cover it.
I won't even get started on interest rates in this scenario.
In short...
All these maneuvers and political theater will eventually act as high-octane fuel for gold prices. Physical gold—not the paper stuff—remains reliable money. You can't just print it into existence. In an environment where paper loses 5% or even 10% of its value annually, calling paper a "safe store of value" is a stretch.
I mean, I guess I partially agree... but the real question is: how far off are we from a total meltdown?
Robert Vaughn10 said:Which plan are you talking about?
Debt is growing faster than GDP (at least for now), so I don't see how you expect it to shrink to 65% of GDP. Not to mention that actual inflation is hovering around 6% based on Fedov's 1980 measurement method. By the way, Obama is suggesting that inflation be calculated even more "liberally" moving forward. For instance, if pork prices spike, they could adjust the consumer basket for retirees by assuming people will just switch to cheaper options like chicken. It’s just another way to mask inflation. That’s a fast track to impoverishing the population—that much is obvious. Summa cum laude: their economy is essentially just consumption. If they stopped or reduced borrowing, everything would just stall. And the idea that GDP will significantly grow while consumption remains the dominant driver is highly unlikely. Especially considering they've gained mostly government jobs over the last few years while losing manufacturing ones.
I'm referring to that plan you mentioned above about cutting debt by $200 billion annually... On the other hand, in this current setup, inflation would actually serve them well. I bet they'd much rather use that 1980s method anyway, especially since both GDP and debt are calculated in dollars...
Gold market reactions tell me they've already reached an agreement on this, unless some sudden changes pop up out of nowhere... I'd say this whole thing is settled.
Robert Vaughn10 said:It’ll be interesting to see if Moody's considers reducing the deficit by $2 trillion over the next decade—roughly $200 billion annually, or about twenty percent—to be enough.
We all remember what happened last time the USA lost its rating. Maybe this massive downgrade is just a tactical move to set a lower baseline, ensuring any future increases don't look quite so dramatic.
Sounds like a minor cut... but you always have to look at debt relative to GDP. Since their debt is sitting at 100% of GDP right now, if they follow through on this plan with an average GDP growth rate of 1.64% (looking back at those 2002-2011 numbers), the debt would drop to 65% of GDP in ten years.
...obviously, they’re banking on growth higher than 1.64%. Whether they pull it off? We'll see.
Jim Rogers is getting cautious:
Even Gold Bull Jim Rogers is Turning Cautious
Basically saying the same thing as Robert Vaughn10... But he’s guessing a correction could hit 30%, which puts us around $1,460.
dustyheron5 said:My prediction came in 100% accurate: QE, just as Ben announced😍.......As for the daily price fluctuations of gold and silver, I don't owe anyone an explanation—least of all you.🤣
In fact, I am entirely indifferent to what the price of gold will be on December 14, 2012, at 11:43 AM or even fifteen seconds from now😂.......truly, completely indifferent.......
I couldn't care less if metallurgical prices hit a decent level within a few days or not—that’s it. For instance, I cashed out my positions in SLW, TLH, AVL, and a few others earlier this year...... I haven't moved on AGQ yet, but with an entry point at $41, I can move whenever I feel like it.
I have yet to see you or anyone else like you post about making anything substantial, intelligent, or profitable on the market... 🤣
🙂
It'll all work out fine. Cheers to you! ☕
quiettrucker12 said:Why on earth would you think I’d doubt it? What gave you that idea? Come on, you're a rational guy. I called the bottom at 75 WMA and the floor at 1686 in real time—fine, we hit 1685 the next day, whatever. It was a gutsy call considering the FOMC meeting was only a couple of days away. Of course I left a tiny bit of room for error in case Ben Bernanke decided to shake things up.
1870–1800... if we actually hit those numbers, we aren't just talking about short-term fluctuations anymore. With all due respect, after today's FOMC meeting, there’s zero room left for this "maybe" nonsense. 😉.
That logic just doesn't hold up. Markets aren't rational—they never have been. I can't believe that with news like this, you're still seeing this much skepticism on the forum, and now I'm seeing it from you too. It takes time for the moving averages to actually trend upward. We need to see at least the 10-day moving average shift before we talk.
----------------------------
I’m not even going to bother writing a whole new post. Honestly, I couldn't care less where gold heads over the next few days. If it dips a bit, it’s going to hit some serious resistance at the 100 DMA—it's sitting at 1705 right now, but the trend is up. There's a huge chance we'll see it testing that level pretty soon.
The 100-day moving average.
And now we’re looking at 75 bps. I really hope we don't have to put that theory to the test before February or March, but hey, anything can happen.
75-week price average.
It broke the 100-day MA. We were down at 1694 early this morning! If we crack the 75-week WMA, how low can this thing actually go?
@Mizuzul,
@quiettrucker12 not even gonna quote them...
👍
if you want a real look at what's actually happening
dustyheron5 said:You’ve got it wrong, Francis—completely off base.......Bernanke made the call to ramp up intervention by purchasing $45 billion in US Treasury securities every month.......😉
Everything is heading up now, just as I predicted.......😍
http://www.businessinsider.com/fomc-...eeting-2012-12
Totally wrong, man... once again, your predictions are way off. Didn't learn a thing after QE3, huh?
dustyheron5 said:I think he’s mostly just trolling—honestly, there's very little substance to what he's saying. 😂
Reading your forecasts, it's pretty obvious who's trolling here...
dustyheron5 said:At 8:15 PM, Bernanke (that little devil) said 😁...given how desperate the global economy looks right now, I’m expecting them to announce a legitimate QE3—since the last one was basically a fake—along with an expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. Once that happens, everything goes up, except for the dollar.😉
Even if he just sticks to OMOs—basically just flooding the market—which, to be fair, he’s been pretty good at doing so far.😂
Just more endless jaw-jabbing without any actual expansion of the balance sheet. Maybe he'll throw out some fake "Operation Twist 2.0" nonsense just to make Barack Obama feel like something is actually happening. Look, the guy is a brilliant scientist. He knows exactly what he's doing—just look at Quantitative Easing. He isn't about to let the dollar tank during these final years of his term. Why would he? He doesn't want to run again, and he definitely doesn't want to be remembered as the guy who broke the greenback.
Some mistake on their end... they fixed it.
Then you've got another $28 billion in ripe, unpaid loans just waiting to turn into bad debt... Great. First comes the wave of moratoriums and refinancing deals, right? That’ll drag on for maybe one to three years. And then? Then comes the recapitalization phase.
quiettrucker12 said:We’ve all placed our bets, and I guess we'll just wait for the dust to settle to see who called it. One thing working in my colleagues' favor is that, if you ask me, the stock market is bottoming out right now. Naturally, this whole debate is getting a bit emotional—which is exactly what happens whenever things hit rock bottom.
👍
Now we can just sit back and wait for 🍿
(p.s. to everyone else... don't get it twisted, these are just my forecasts, not my wishes)
quiettrucker12 said:That wouldn't just be a minor shift—it would mean everything. We’re talking about a total 180-degree policy reversal, which would likely signal the death knell for our current bull market. Sure, that implies silver dropping below $28, but in the grand scheme of things, that's just noise. I think... As long as the Fed keeps pumping money into the system, market crashes aren't happening. Period.The Fed can print money until they're blue in the face. In the medium term, the only thing this is going to trigger is a controlled bear market driven by rising oil prices. We’re looking at a perfect storm: the stock market drifting lower while commodities—led by oil and gold—start heading north.
Francis is basically telling us to stop dragging our feet on ending the Fed's stimulus and just let the stock market face reality—even if that reality is a total crash. He wants gold prices to actually reflect what's happening right now. His whole point is that the Titanic should just hit the iceberg immediately, rather than continuing this policy of sailing the ship around the world for two more laps before finally crashing. If we want gold to hit that $10,000 an ounce target, we need exactly that: we need the Titanic to refuel so it can take three more unnecessary laps before the impact.
Exactly! I think it's obvious to everyone here that things are... bananas. A crash is inevitable. Only two things are still up in the air: when it happens, and how gold behaves during the chaos. If the crash doesn't happen, it probably goes your way... if it does, then it plays out exactly like you described.
dustyheron5 said:Sorry if my analysis looks silly to you—I find it quite solid.😂
As for how long you've been posting here, frankly, I couldn't care less whether you started in the Stone Age or yesterday; I focus on the content, not the format.😉
Regarding the excitement over QE3—of course I'm celebrating it, because it's one of the measures keeping everything from crashing into an MP3 player... or rather, preventing an immediate total collapse.😁
By the way, I don't recall saying you write nonsense.🤣..that isn't my style. In this market, you are either right or you are wrong—if I spent my time telling people they were being stupid, I wouldn't have a career; I'd just be someone sending angry letters to the people who send me newsletters.😂
I said someone... not you... that person knows exactly who I mean.
quiettrucker12 said:I took a look back at September 15, 2011. You definitely wrote that back then, but you also included this in the exact same post:
Gold was all over the place that day, swinging between $1,760 and $1,820.
Since we’re digging up the archives anyway, I found my old post from five days later—September 20, 2011. It was a Saturday. On Friday the 19th, gold was bouncing between $1,770 and $1,810. We hadn't hit the crash yet, and prices were basically holding steady right where they are now. This one feels more accurate:
I was a bit naive back then, thinking Ben might actually let a bear market happen. He didn't, and he isn't about to start now—unless oil prices decide to wreck his plans. It took forever for them to find the nerve to pull the trigger on more Quantitative Easing, but we're headed toward $1,900. Personally, I think we hit that mark within the next three months.
Back to business. At what price point do you actually turn bullish on gold again? $1,900? $2,000? Is there even a number?
And let’s be clear: that wasn't a bubble. It was just a standard correction after a massive rally. We've finished the correction and a long consolidation phase. Ben recently kicked off Quantitative Easing 3, so gold is primed for its next big leg up.
---------
Nov 7th.
So you're saying it *might* happen, but it's not a sure thing—that 81 is just a possibility. Right?
Nov 2nd.
I set 81.5 as the line in the sand. We're sitting at 81.085 right now. Just wait until we break 81.5 before you tell me I'm wrong. If we clear 81.5, then we'll see exactly how much further it goes and how badly you missed the mark. I don't think it can blast past 81.5 immediately—maybe a quick spike in a few weeks—but by then gold will probably already be at $1,800. Time will tell. Come on, give me a real forecast. A lot of people are low-key hinting at 84+ without saying it out loud.
------------
So, are you betting that Ben cancels or delays Quantitative Easing 3, triggering a market crash and starting a bear market? Thinking gold is headed back to $1,600?
There isn't one. Gold is hitting $2000 for sure. It's just a matter of whether it happens in 3 months, 3 years, or 30 years. Once the fundamentals shift, my stance shifts...
quiettrucker12 said:I took a look back at September 15, 2011. You definitely wrote that back then, but you also included this in the exact same post:
Gold was all over the place that day, swinging between $1,760 and $1,820.
Since we’re digging up the archives anyway, I found my old post from five days later—September 20, 2011. It was a Saturday. On Friday the 19th, gold was bouncing between $1,770 and $1,810. We hadn't hit the crash yet, and prices were basically holding steady right where they are now. This one feels more accurate:
I was a bit naive back then, thinking Ben might actually let a bear market happen. He didn't, and he isn't about to start now—unless oil prices decide to wreck his plans. It took forever for them to find the nerve to pull the trigger on more Quantitative Easing, but we're headed toward $1,900. Personally, I think we hit that mark within the next three months.
Back to business. At what price point do you actually turn bullish on gold again? $1,900? $2,000? Is there even a number?
And let’s be clear: that wasn't a bubble. It was just a standard correction after a massive rally. We've finished the correction and a long consolidation phase. Ben recently kicked off Quantitative Easing 3, so gold is primed for its next big leg up.
---------
Nov 7th.
So you're saying it *might* happen, but it's not a sure thing—that 81 is just a possibility. Right?
Nov 2nd.
I set 81.5 as the line in the sand. We're sitting at 81.085 right now. Just wait until we break 81.5 before you tell me I'm wrong. If we clear 81.5, then we'll see exactly how much further it goes and how badly you missed the mark. I don't think it can blast past 81.5 immediately—maybe a quick spike in a few weeks—but by then gold will probably already be at $1,800. Time will tell. Come on, give me a real forecast. A lot of people are low-key hinting at 84+ without saying it out loud.
------------
So, are you betting that Ben cancels or delays Quantitative Easing 3, triggering a market crash and starting a bear market? Thinking gold is headed back to $1,600?
My bad, I wasn't quoting you verbatim, just paraphrasing what was in my head...
quiettrucker12 said:I took a look back at September 15, 2011. You definitely wrote that back then, but you also included this in the exact same post:
Gold was all over the place that day, swinging between $1,760 and $1,820.
Since we’re digging up the archives anyway, I found my old post from five days later—September 20, 2011. It was a Saturday. On Friday the 19th, gold was bouncing between $1,770 and $1,810. We hadn't hit the crash yet, and prices were basically holding steady right where they are now. This one feels more accurate:
I was a bit naive back then, thinking Ben might actually let a bear market happen. He didn't, and he isn't about to start now—unless oil prices decide to wreck his plans. It took forever for them to find the nerve to pull the trigger on more Quantitative Easing, but we're headed toward $1,900. Personally, I think we hit that mark within the next three months.
Back to business. At what price point do you actually turn bullish on gold again? $1,900? $2,000? Is there even a number?
And let’s be clear: that wasn't a bubble. It was just a standard correction after a massive rally. We've finished the correction and a long consolidation phase. Ben recently kicked off Quantitative Easing 3, so gold is primed for its next big leg up.
---------
Nov 7th.
So you're saying it *might* happen, but it's not a sure thing—that 81 is just a possibility. Right?
Nov 2nd.
I set 81.5 as the line in the sand. We're sitting at 81.085 right now. Just wait until we break 81.5 before you tell me I'm wrong. If we clear 81.5, then we'll see exactly how much further it goes and how badly you missed the mark. I don't think it can blast past 81.5 immediately—maybe a quick spike in a few weeks—but by then gold will probably already be at $1,800. Time will tell. Come on, give me a real forecast. A lot of people are low-key hinting at 84+ without saying it out loud.
------------
So, are you betting that Ben cancels or delays Quantitative Easing 3, triggering a market crash and starting a bear market? Thinking gold is headed back to $1,600?
Fine, let's put it in writing then... 83+, a Wall Street meltdown, and gold under $1630!
By when? Spring 2013 at the latest.
Now we just wait for 🙂