Posts by Robert Vaughn10

darksurfer37 said:Just for the record... an asset loses 15% in a matter of days, yet people are still talking about "savings."
I certainly hope nobody is foolish enough to consider saving in PMs.

And a vital note: any saver should view a 15% swing in a few days as an equal red flag whether it's up or down. Direction is irrelevant.

Trading is an entirely different beast... those fluctuations are actually quite welcome for us.🙂

The central banks are likely thinking the same thing. They'll drop about 20 tons over the next few days. Let them continue this mindless shorting...

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldne...n_Selling.html

And absolutely, one should save in precious metals—provided it’s long-term saving and you're buying at these deep dips. These kinds of heavy corrections, where the market doesn't fundamentally break its long-term price level, are signs of a healthy bull market that actually needs the pressure. On the other hand, those shorting it are slowly sawing off the branch they're sitting on. Right now, the gold-to-silver ratio is at 55, which looks like a decent entry point for silver to me. If it climbs above 60—where I bought most of my silver—I'll be very tempted to beef up my position. The only thing holding me back is the thought of hoarding for a potential deflationary spike. Especially given the whole fiscal cliff situation.

I wouldn't dream of saving in this, at least not with my core liquid assets. We're seeing acrobatic volatility here, which gold and silver are just starting to reflect:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...AspcvpouinZEtw

The European Central Bank has doubled its balance sheet in five years, while the Fed has nearly quadrupled its monetary base:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...EBSQXL-jEswXQA

One also has to wonder if the owners of the bullion dealers are truly that incompetent, or if regular people are smart enough to have sold their gold and silver at the absolute peak. I don't think so...

Patrick Moore3 said: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.

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.

Patrick Moore3 said: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.

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 just stumbled upon some data suggesting that if we hadn't reached an agreement on fiscal policy, the deficit would be about $700 billion lower. That would effectively wipe out two-thirds of the current deficit. In theory, of course... because cutting spending naturally drags down tax revenue. That could easily tip the country into a recession since consumer spending is what drives our GDP. So, basically, Moody's is likely implying that if you don't cut enough—and instead raise the debt ceiling—you keep your rating. But if you slash the deficit too aggressively, you trigger a recession and lose the rating anyway.
Meanwhile, looking at the first two months of the 2013 fiscal year—October and November 2012—the deficit is already higher, or at least roughly equal, to the same period last year. Our reliance on consumption is only increasing, leading to a wider deficit regardless of any rise in tax revenue.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-budget-defi...XBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

If the deficit stays stuck around a trillion dollars a year, the Federal Reserve is going to have to step in and bail us out.

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.

There is absolutely no reason to be anxious. These kinds of corrections simply flush out the weak hands, which is actually healthy for a bull market. The goal is to hit the highest possible peak; what happens to the price in the interim is irrelevant. Looking at a 6 to 12-year horizon, gold and silver will have to move significantly higher. My own assessment remains that we might struggle to see massive gains over the next year or perhaps two. I notice quite a few skeptics here. That’s fine. Let them exist. When I add the amateur "miners" to the mix, my only conclusion is that this bull market hasn't even truly kicked into gear yet. But, once inflation climbs toward 8%, 10%, or even 15%, people might finally grasp the logic behind precious metals. Of course, we still have years before that happens.

And what’s your take on those "miners" mentioned in my previous link regarding the gold coin sale?😂

quiettrucker12 said:The debt ceiling is a non-issue. It’s all theater; the market has already priced it in.

I’m not convinced the market has fully digested the possibility of lifting the debt ceiling. In a scenario where they lift it combined with practically infinite QE, any hope of austerity becomes a fantasy. Theoretically, that might send gold higher. If they only raise the limit by $2 or $3 trillion, it just creates an illusion of stability while they continue to pump the system. When I say "pump," I don't just mean increasing debt—I mean delaying the moment they finally show their hand. We still don't know that part of the equation. To me, it's crucial...
Have you ever heard of "Mad John"? Actually, "Mad John" is a very real possibility. Someone made a great comparison on this forum a few years back: "Sometimes I feel like I'm locked in the bilge of a ship full of lunatics, and you have no idea what they're going to do next."

A gold bubble?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndshb...4h7-jA&index=9

We'll have to wait and see how the market reacts once they finally resolve this fiscal cliff situation. I should probably add a disclaimer to my own outlook: if they actually decide to scrap the debt ceiling, gold might catch a bit of an upward trend. That said, I don't expect a massive spike in the short term—within the next few months to year, it's unlikely we'll see gold absolutely moon.

I agree with most of your conclusions, though not all. My take is that it’s unlikely gold will see significant growth over the next year or two, regardless of how much the money supply expands. We are currently stuck in stagflation; wages are stagnant, and there is actually a serious deflationary threat looming. That doesn't change the fact that we have massive monetary inflation, and eventually, it will catch up. I suspect gold is being manipulated; otherwise, I can't make sense of Greenspan's statement. How do you interpret it? He was the head of the Federal Reserve; he knew exactly what he was saying.
My view is that fiat currencies are constantly being misrepresented to look stronger than they are, which is how wealth is being drained. Once that reaches its limit, a new cycle begins.
As long as annual inflation rates remain low, gold won't react, just as my 1982–2000 example demonstrated. You can successfully suppress prices like this for quite some time.
However, the current expansion of the money supply is enormous, and it will eventually hit gold, and silver even harder. As for silver, supplies are thinning out, and without it, we can't run robots or computers—we'd be back in the Stone Age 😉 So, anyone who can set funds aside and wait at least five, maybe ten to fifteen years, should be saving in silver. Given the heavy corrections, it's unlikely the price will go much lower than it is now. In my opinion, it can only go up.
Just because someone is manipulating gold to drive down the price doesn't mean they aren't long on it. They know where gold is headed in the long run. Besides, it's worth asking who their customers actually are, at least in part...
Ultimately, they can buy it through various channels using currency printed out of thin air, as long as the price remains relatively low.
That simply means they are siphoning off profits through paper assets because margins are higher and it makes gold temporarily less attractive. Gold still doesn't interest many people right now.
On the other hand, look at the bond market; despite everything, people are still pouring money into it. A bubble like that has to burst, whether anyone likes it or not.
By the way, did you notice how the new CRB Index is "structured" in the link I sent? It isn't just gold and silver; they are trying to make all Commodities look worse than they actually are. It's obvious how much they favor fiat and paper assets in general. It's hard to imagine them going any further than this. Who knows how many more years they can keep this up.
Despite all this squeezing, we are in a bull market. I agree that all these moves will ultimately serve as extra fuel for Commodities, gold, and silver.
But again, looking at a one-to-two-year horizon, I don't see much room for growth. I would argue we are still in an accumulation phase within the second stage of a gold bull market, which explains the stagnation. Just look at how few precious metal dealers are operational here, and it’s been similar elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, in India, they are promoting "immaterial gold." Things are starting to creak...
Still, I expect this situation and these buybacks to persist for a while. If our local situation is any indication, it reflects the broader reality. As long as fiat currencies can keep going, this will continue, with the side goal of buying as much as possible from ordinary people.
As for a sharper deflation, I highly doubt it. That would cause tax revenues to drop, widening the deficit and increasing the need to print even more. But you never know; we'll see.

quiettrucker12 As requested:
Of course it was undervalued, just as stocks will be considered undervalued a few years from now. When an asset crashes from $850 down to $300, people don't forget that kind of parabolic drop easily; they develop a permanent grudge against the asset. My point wasn't merely that gold has increased 6.8 times against the USD. My point was that relative to Commodities—even with gold and silver making up about 15% of the CRB Index—it has grown more than fivefold. Commodities aren't fiat currency; they are physical assets, just like gold. Gold has been in a massive bull market this entire time. From a trader's perspective regarding the USD, I don't see how it could significantly outpace its current growth rate without the bull market ending prematurely. For the economy to actually function and for those holding paper to not complain too loudly, this pace is necessary.

Essentially, the CRB was flat from 1982 through 2000. I don't have the exact figures on hand, but consider how much an index like this can shift just by changing the weight of a single component. I’m not sure which specific index you’re looking at, but the discrepancy could be significant.



It’s questionable whether a $2,000 spread on gold commodities is actually that significant. On the other hand, if you look back at the 1970–1980 period, the CRB Index didn't see nearly as much volatility as gold did.



Gold prices climbed from under $100 USD back in 1970 to roughly $850 USD by 1980—a more than tenfold increase. In that same window, the CRB Index only moved about 2.5 times.
That might just be the nature of gold as a currency. In my view, it tends to adjust to monetary base expansion regardless of whether there's actual manipulation involved. That’s exactly how gold behaved during the last commodities bull run, too. Still, that doesn't change the reality of the policies the Federal Reserve has pursued since 1998. You might want to take another look at Greenspan's statements regarding my claim about market manipulation.

Bottom line: we are nowhere near a peak in gold or Commodities, especially since the monetary base will likely continue to expand. Real peaks are defined by sharp upward parabolas followed by steep corrections. We have the exact opposite here; gold has been sitting practically flat for over a year.

quiettrucker12 said:And then you realize a bull market will always hunt for an excuse. It’ll find any reason to do what it was going to do anyway. There's no debate here: Federal Reserve "liquidity" will eventually flow into stocks, Commodities, and even gold, but gold isn't really an (anti)inflation tool anymore.

We're looking at a commodity bull run, which includes a gold bull within it.

Since 2001, Commodities (CRB) have grown by a factor of 1.5.

Gold, meanwhile, has shot up 6.8 times since 2000.

Sure, we'll see commodity inflation again in the next period, and it's tied to the gold bull, but gold is singing its own tune.

gold/crb:

the ratio of gold to the commodity index

The ratio of the gold price to the CRB commodity index went from 1.1 back in 2000/2001 to today's 5.8 (we even touched over 6 recently).

If what the Federal Reserve is doing right now isn't the perfect excuse for the gold bull to keep climbing, I don't know what is.

Liquidity finds a way into everything. Their biggest headache is oil prices; they couldn't care less about gold. There isn't any massive manipulation happening, just the usual occasional trader activity you see everywhere else.

If gold were being manipulated, the ratio between Commodities and gold wouldn't have swung over 5x in favor of gold over the last 12 years.

If you want to look for manipulation, look at other Commodities—specifically oil—in the coming period.

People use those tired old theories about gold being manipulated downward as a convenient excuse for when their predictions fail miserably. Watch out for those folks.

This warrants a discussion...
In my view, the fact that the price grew over 5-6 times since 2000 isn't proof that there's no manipulation; rather, it suggests gold was severely undervalued. It's a logical conclusion because from the early 80s through 2000—say, 1982 to 2000—gold was practically flat. In both 1982 and 2000, the price sat around $300. During that same window, cumulative inflation was roughly 80%, which this calculator demonstrates clearly:

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/I...alculator.aspx

During that same stretch, the Federal Reserve's monetary base expanded from $200 billion to approximately $600 billion...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...EBSQXL-jEswXQA

So, gold essentially stood still while the Dollar lost massive amounts of purchasing power. In other words, gold became incredibly cheap...
By the way, I think you make an excellent point regarding Commodities. The fact that they’ve lost so much ground against gold suggests that, given the expansion of the monetary base—which will likely trigger a true bull run in Commodities—we’ve barely scratched the surface. We are nowhere near the peak.
It is also worth noting the following statement made not by just anyone, but by Alan Greenspan Federal Reserve back in 1998:
"Central Banks should lend increasing amounts of gold if its price rises."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...nOaxq3iBtgj9VA

The very same Greenspan who stated the following in 1966:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...x34N_ToweZ_wkA

One has to wonder why anyone would bother lending gold if prices rise, effectively driving the price down in the process. Why? To me, it looks like a blatant attempt to suppress the price. It is worth reading the full text on gold leasing.
Look, I don't have hard evidence of manipulation, but plenty of indicators point toward it.
Who knows how many times the price of gold, or even other Commodities, would have surged further if capital wasn't constantly being diverted into paper assets, as described in that link about gold leasing.
The fact that gold outpaced other Commodities suggests, in my view, that gold was significantly undervalued until 2000, and even compared to Commodities. That is worth further investigation, but it doesn't change the fundamental reality regarding the price of gold.

vividgull10 said:Let’s keep it simple: take a hypothetical scenario where the Federal Reserve's Balance sheet hits $10^{100} today.
Can you actually prove a correlation between that event and the resulting inflation? (Measure it however you want)

PS.
Disclaimer: I don't have a bias toward anything—from dollars to gold. I think like a trader; I just want to see things move. To me, this is all just about picking the best entry and exit points.
I'm saying this just so there's no misunderstanding—I'm not rooting for a rally or a crash.

You didn't answer, but fine. I'm in a rush, so I'll be brief.
We are talking about money entering the system to fund Government spending.
The balance sheet can grow as much as it wants, but if that new money doesn't actually hit the system, there won't be inflation. But here, it does. I don't have the exact figure for how much of that 800 billion is currently in circulation or held by private hands outside the US, but the data suggests most of it is. It's clearly a dominant amount...
So, we are dealing with newly printed money...
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York itself admitted the S&P 500 would be at 600 if they hadn't been printing. Ultimately, what the CPI looks like will depend on deflationary forces. That said, the dollar remains the official currency of settlement, and many obligations must be covered in dollars. However, it is undeniable that when $300 billion in US Treasuries was purchased back in 2010, inflation rose by several percentage points. I saw the chart once; I can't recall where. The correlation exists.

vividgull10 said:Schiff claims Ben admitted it was monetization.
But wait—are we actually talking about what Schiff *claims* Bernanke said, or what he actually said?
Because Bernanke's take was different. He argued that while constantly buying and holding bonds would constitute monetization, they aren't actually doing that.

At the same time, he set clear boundaries based on inflation and unemployment thresholds.

Look, we can definitely debate what happens when the Federal Reserve eventually has to offload everything they've bought so far. That's a valid discussion.

But saying "Ben admitted it's monetization" is a total misquote. It might be an accurate reflection of what Schiff said, but it isn't what Ben said. It makes me think you haven't actually watched Bernanke's statements and are just watching Schiff's YouTube videos.

That's incorrect. I watched Ben. Ben was perfectly clear: if they hold onto that paper instead of selling it, then yes, it becomes monetization.
So, it is monetization until they sell. And it's unlimited because the criteria for stopping purchases are incredibly shaky. We'll see the reality reflected in the CPI in a year or two. It couldn't be clearer.
And who exactly is going to buy that much paper?
The claim that they aren't doing it isn't true either. He explicitly stated they are expanding the Balance sheet; he said it plainly. They aren't going to walk out and tell everyone, "Listen, we're destroying your currency," and then hide behind the word "somewhat." What does "somewhat" even mean? Is that supposed to be an argument to calm the masses?
Anyway, go ahead and explain which money is actually entering the system... We are looking at $500 billion + $500 billion, whereas the Federal Reserve's Balance sheet back in 2008 was only about $800 billion. So, it's either the money printed since 2008 or the money they are about to print.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Chinese people and Japanese people continuing to buy US Treasuries... if they actually could. I remember about two years ago, running the numbers on various parameters to see if Chinese people and other Asian people could realistically purchase up to a trillion dollars annually, and I concluded it was impossible. But you can never say never. Money and power don't care about race or skin color. Or as quiettrucker12 suggests, the Federal Reserve wouldn't allow Chinese people to buy gold cheaply. Not anytime soon... As if the Federal Reserve actually cares about the fiscal or monetary well-being of American citizens. To the Federal Reserve, which functions primarily as a private organization, the goal is to generate profit and expand its own influence; if that happens to align with the interests of the USA, well, my God, then fine. It's the same with the ruling Chinese leadership and ordinary Chinese people. You can think what you want... Their priority is maintaining order and keeping everyone under control; gold is just a side dish on the menu for the Chinese Communist Party. That’s why they print money and dilute paper—to maintain the status quo and gradually shift toward a new reality, preventing a sudden collapse of the Western Hemisphere.

vividgull10 said:Exactly. That’s the whole issue. If the world was certain the money printer was running, gold would have been way higher yesterday than it is now. And I doubt any manipulation could hold it back.

It’s starting to feel like everyone uses the term 'printing' really loosely; everybody just has their own little definition of what that actually means. IMHO, the only part of 'printing' that matters for this discussion is the kind that drives up inflation. We're talking about the type of printing found on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet that actually reaches the average Joe, who then spends it on something. I haven't seen that specific kind of printing yet.

Also, when discussing 'printing,' people always focus on the Federal Reserve and the ECB... but does anyone consider how much more aggressive the printing is elsewhere? Compared to them, Ben and Mario are basically toddlers. What happens when their version of 'printing'—which didn't fuel a housing bubble, but rather a bubble of ghost towns—finally pops? You can't hold the line forever. What's the endgame? The dollar becoming a double-strength reserve currency?

A lot of this is just hanging in the air and remains totally unclear... despite the massive scale of the printing and the endless flood of YouTube gurus. Lately, the charts reflect that uncertainty perfectly.

I’ll say it again: Ben Bernanke admitted this is monetization. It couldn't be any clearer. New money is being injected into the system. Honestly, whether the balance sheet expands or not is secondary. Maybe it’s just old money they printed years ago, lent to banks, and is now flowing back to the Federal Reserve—who knows what kind of alchemy they’re performing. Regardless, it’s money conjured out of thin air. It’s entering the system.So, it isn't just sitting in bank vaults. Half a trillion is being pumped directly into the system, and that is a massive amount of liquidity.
This is going to hit the CPI by at least a few percentage points. If inflation is officially sitting around 2% right now, expect it to climb to at least 5% within a year or two—assuming they don't start masking deflation. If you look at the unofficial numbers using the Federal Reserve's 1980 methodology, we’re looking at closer to 10%. All that, while the economic structure itself continues to deteriorate.

Some pretty solid breakdowns here on how we've moved straight into Quantitative Easing to infinity and beyond...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Fxn...bTGQRQ&index=1

One more thing. I see some people, especially from the "other side," questioning whether this is actually monetization. Well, Ben Bernanke already admitted it is, so you might as well lay down your arms on that front.

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.

I respect your forecasts; you clearly know how to read the charts. But honestly, all that expertise won't save you now. You're standing there without any cover. This is a once-in-a-lifetime scenario. Every major fiat currency on the planet is essentially unbacked right now, and we’re looking at a global crisis. Whatever market rules worked during previous downturns simply don't apply anymore.
Maybe you should sit with that fact for a moment and recalibrate. You asked why I’m skeptical? Perhaps I misread you, but I remember quite clearly that just a few months ago, you were bullish on a massive gold surge. You were convinced it would hit $3,000 within a year or two, with at least a 60% chance of clearing $2,000. Your target was January. Now, you've pushed it to March and lowered the forecast to $1,880—that’s a $150 drop. Correct me if I'm wrong. You also mentioned that if certain conditions aren't met, you wouldn't necessarily claim "there won't be another big wave." In short, you've softened your stance. One more thing. I noticed your take on ZeroHedge. Personally, if I have to choose between mainstream media and ZeroHedge, I’ll take the latter, flaws and all—even with their penchant for hyperbole and drama. The way the mainstream press handles the news regarding Quantitative Easing is frankly absurd. The Federal Reserve announces they are printing a trillion dollars, and CNN runs a tiny headline like "Fed is easing" buried in the business section. Yahoo barely mentions it at all.
Take USA Today, for instance. I couldn't find a single coherent word in their coverage, even though the news itself was top-tier. It’s just another prime example of how mainstream media helped fuel this entire crisis.

If we hit that 1870–1800 range, we aren't just talking about short-term fluctuations anymore. With all due respect, following today's FOMC meeting, there’s simply no room left for this "maybe" nonsense. 😉.

Right now, markets are fueled by irrationality and fear, just like you said. And that’s not even half of it.
If we miss this target, would you be open to considering the possibility of market manipulation—across various levels and methods—and factoring that into your projections for the short, medium, and long term?

In this instance, that kind of logic just creates problems. The market is inherently irrational. I can’t believe that with news like this circulating on this forum—and now seeing even your level of skepticism regarding the actual state of affairs—we're stuck here. It’s going to take time for the moving averages to trend upward, starting with at least the 10-day.

There is zero doubt regarding the long-term reality of the situation—I’ve made that clear before. The real question is how much of that will actually translate to this irrational market. I wouldn't dream of underestimating the possibility that the market remains irrational far longer than anyone dares to imagine. That's why the link I shared about the French President potentially nationalizing a steel mill is so critical. If things don't go his way, he moves. To me, that says everything about the current political mindset. And logically, it all connects; politicians, bankers, and central bankers are all part of the same conversation. Bankers, perhaps even more than politicians, are intoxicated by power and money—or at least they act like they are. It isn't exactly surprising, considering they are being handed freshly printed, essentially "imaginary" money at incredibly low interest rates, only to turn around and charge everyone else much higher rates.
They seem to believe they can fine-tune every single variable to suit their own whims, but they are fundamentally detached from reality. This disconnect will eventually become their undoing; as the standard of living for everyday Americans plummets, there will be vanishingly little room left to squeeze out new profits or rely on politicians to maintain order. To put it bluntly: you can only stretch a pot so far before it bursts.