Spot market for GOLD

We have been in such a bizarre period since 2006. Nothing makes any sense in terms of economics or finance globally. It didn't make sense for people to be able to get a 30-year mortgage with no income, no job and no equity in the home. We haven't yet recovered from all of that and other nonsense that's been going on, and it continues. It doesn't make sense for American's largest and most important conglomerate to be levered 30 times tangible equity. It doesn't make sense for a country like Italy, which has a horrible record of paying creditors, to be able to borrow 110% of GDP. So we have all these things that just don't make any sense going on. And then people ask, "What should I do with my money?" The thing to do, my friends, is be very, very careful because there are tremendous panics and volatility to come. We are a long way from the lifeguards declaring the "all clear." So be very, very cautious, don't be upset about having a large cash position. I told my readers earlier this year that if they weren't prepared to put half their portfolio in short stocks, if they weren't prepared to truly hedge themselves this year, that they should be 50% in short-term Treasuries and 50% in gold. That's the only way to have a totally safe cash position, because you're hedged with the gold versus the dollar. I am happy to sit in that position for a long time until I see some terrific values. We're still very, very early in the bull market in precious metals, and despite some public awareness of gold, you don't yet see signs of the kind of market top coming over the next five to 10 years. Last year was the first time since the end of Bretton Woods in 1972 that central banks were net buyers of gold. That is not a trend that will end after one year, not at all. People who think that we must be at the top of the market because gold has gone from $300 to $1,200 really don't understand the gold demand that has yet to manifest in the world's markets. Gold will become the basis of th

What is significant about this or these transactions is that gold is being used in international settlements after so many decades of being sidelined in the monetary system!   The transaction itself confirms that gold is being used in international settlements, which is a dynamic confirmation of gold's return to the monetary system.   A "Swap" might be the first desperate step in such a transaction with the swapping bank hoping to repay the foreign exchange, but should it fail, the B.I.S . would have to decide either to keep the gold on its books or to sell it.   Again, keeping it on its books is part confirmation that gold is active again on the monetary system, a big boost by itself! Gold is back and alive in the monetary system!   What appears to have really happened is that one nation or more needed foreign exchange to counter some shortfall in its accounts and raised these funds as a short-term liquidity measure, believing that it would be able to return the currency and receive its gold back.   The gold would then be returned at the conclusion of the swap period in return for the currencies swapped.   If it fails to return these funds to the BIS, then the BIS could discreetly place the gold with another central bank, should it not want to keep the gold.   If it did so, the BIS would simply report its disposal of the gold, the originating central bank would report the drop in its gold reserves and the gold buying bank would report its increase in the reserves.     This puts the transaction into an entirely different category.   It seems that one or more of the developed world's central bank's credit is not good enough for other governmental institutions.   If word got out as to which this country is, then the financial markets would go into quite a spin, shaking the global financial system to its core.   No wonder the B.I.S. is keeping such a low profile!

Since late 2007 the federal government has spent somewhere around $3.6 trillion to stimulate the economy. That is a lot of money. My suggestion would have been to take all $3.6 trillion and declare a federal tax holiday for 18 months. No income tax, no corporate profits tax, no capital gains tax, no estate tax, no payroll tax (FICA) either employee or employer, no Medicare or Medicaid taxes, no federal excise taxes, no tariffs, no federal taxes at all, which would have reduced federal revenues by $2.4 trillion annually. Can you imagine where employment would be today? How does a 2.5% unemployment rate sound?

Excellent break down of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill.  Core argument is that the bill is far more than a mere threat to future economic growth.  It puts tax payers on the hook for a future of never ending bailouts with the added specter of massive government bureaucratic bungling.  Obama and his band of merry statist will have their boot on the neck of economic activities for years to come.

THE OBAMA WATCH Newt Gingrich begins his new book, To Save America: To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, rightly describing the grave, mortal threat America faces today due to the left-wing extremism of the Democrats and the vast failures of the Republicans. He writes: This is a book I never expected to write. After the victory of freedom over Communist tyranny, of religious liberty over secular police states, and of American pride over the malaise and cynicism of the 1970s, I fully expected America to follow an upward curve of consistent improvement. I did not expect the Left to ignore the lessons of history and move further into ideological extremism. I did not expect them to react to their meager popular support by seeking to impose a corrupt, Chicago-style political machine on the entire country. After leaving Congress in 1999, I certainly did not foresee Republican failure so vast that it allowed left-wing radicals to take over the House, Senate and Presidency. America as we know it is now facing a mortal threat. This danger to America is greater than anything I dreamed possible after we won the Cold War and the Soviet Union disappeared in December 1991. We stand at a crossroads: either we will save our country or we will lose it.

This is the article that has set the Web on fire.  Thomas Sowell takes the recent Obama shakedown of BP and cast these unconstitutional actions against the historical background of how tyrants go about the business of crushing constitutional liberty.  The first to go is the "rule of Law", as the crisis of the moment is used as an excuse to suspend the rule of Law for the good of the people. excerpt: "In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it. The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies. Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere. But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men." If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion - or $50 billion or $100 billion - then so be it. But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law." With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution. If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government. And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" - which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's p

The ultimate Stranger in a Strange Land is, of course, Obama. It's no wonder; given his bizarro family, there was no one with whom to bond. Pitifully, the focal point in Obama's life story -- the brave, oppressed Obama Sr. -- is a chimera, all smoke-and-mirrors.  Obama has surrounded himself with other Strangers. His friends are society's misfits: Van Jones, the self-proclaimed Communist; John Holdren, enthralled with devolution and eugenics. Chicago pals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn tried to destroy their own nation with terrorism.  Obama has been called a Citizen of the World.  While liberals find this appealing, what it actually means is that Obama has come from nowhere and belongs nowhere.   Someone with no country or roots has nothing. Bob Dylan described the predicament and the danger: "When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose."  

Can Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan take the oath of office required to serve on the Supreme Court?  Not if it means upholding the Constitution!  Come to think of it; no one in the Obama-Democratic regime can take that oath.  Including Professor Obama himself! One thing we can all agree on is that the Constitution is the foundation for our country, the main unifying element, what distinguishes us as America. It provides defined roles for the government, based on the profound recognition of the sinful tendency of mankind to abuse power. So why do liberal politicians have a problem when people bring it up? When Obama submitted his nominee to the Supreme Court, he didn't state the main qualification for any person who serves in government, the absence of which has lit a brushfire of discontent, fidelity to the Constitution. The bottom line of America's discontent and anger at Obama and the Democrats is their utter disregard for the Constitution. The concept of a limited government, restrained in what it can and should do, is foreign to them, while for most Americans it's in our DNA. This is what puts Obama at odds with so many Americans.

Chris Horner was in the room when BP, Enron, Al Gore and Clinton met to discuss by-passing the Constitutional advise and consent role role of the Senate and signing the Kyoto Treaty with "Cap and Trade" mandates.  Enron and BP invented "Cap and Trade".  And now Obama promises to punish BP by passing a USA "Cap and Trade" energy tax on US citizens.  Right.  Figure that one out!  Excellent article. Tim Carney has a column at the Washington Examiner detailing BP's lobbying influence, which begs the following history lesson and first-hand account for voters, generally unaccustomed to such sleaze, to fully appreciate the game presently being played out in Washington. President Obama announced in Pittsburgh last week that BP's Gulf oil spill demands his wrath in the form of the Kerry-Lieberman "cap-and-trade" energy tax. Hearing this, your reaction may have been to wonder just how making energy more expensive for everyone-seniors, the poor, it's all good-is a proper response. And the truth is that our young ideological president's effort to make sure this crisis doesn't go to waste is actually much worse than it seems on its face. BP, joined by Enron, invented carbon cap-and-trade in the mid-1990s. Yeah. That cap-and-trade. I know, because I was in the room. And BP has been lobbying for it aggressively and at great expense ever since, some eight figures of which has gone to green pressure groups. Specifically, in May 1997 I met with senior officials from BP, Niagara Mohawk Power, and others… "others" like the Union of Concerned Scientists and their ilk… in the Washington offices of a white-shoe New York law firm, putting our collective heads together strategizing on how to get the U.S. roped into a global warming treaty, and get "cap-and-trade" imposed domestically, too.

Wow.  Maybe the best analysis of the growing awareness of the vast differential between the patriot citizens of America and the Obammunist now in charge of our country. excerpt:  The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill. There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president-single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival-was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice-and for good reason. Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July. A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

Despite constant urging by Washington for banks to increase their lending, credit conditions remain tight. Small-business lending continues to lag, and credit card issuers have slashed credit lines and canceled thousands of accounts. Just before Memorial Day, the Obama administration unveiled its latest effort to jump-start lending, a new Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), which will make available $30 billion to community banks to promote small-business lending. The proposal already has cleared the House Financial Services Committee. But is there any reason to believe that this modest investment will do what the hundreds of billions of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) dollars failed to do - namely, encourage banks to start lending? Not likely. As with previous efforts, the new fund fails to address the most important reason banks aren't lending: Washington bureaucrats and politicians are making it impossible for them do so. Every loan bears some risk that it will not be repaid. In making a loan, a lender has two considerations: First, it must be able to price the risk of the loan accurately or, second, it must reduce its risk exposure by reducing the number of loans it makes, the amount it lends or the risk profile of those to whom it lends. Regulations that interfere with the ability to price risk accurately thus inevitably produce efforts to reduce risk exposure by curtailing lending.

They fought the correction; the correction won. We refer to Bernanke, Summers, Obama, Geithner, Krugman - the whole lot of them. They added three trillion dollars to US debt in the last two years. In two more years the debt will be at 100% of GDP. Add in the debts they've guaranteed - from Fannie Mae, for example, and state and local debt implicitly backed by the feds - and you're already at 150% of GDP. Worse than Greece, in other words.

People can change the volume, the location and the composition of their income, and they can do so in response to changes in government policies. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.

"Our examination of the future of public debt leads us to several important conclusions. First, fiscal problems confronting industrial economies are bigger than suggested by official debt figures that show the implications of the financial crisis and recession for fiscal balances. As frightening as it is to consider public debt increasing to more than 100% of GDP, an even greater danger arises from a rapidly ageing population. The related unfunded liabilities are large and growing, and should be a central part of today's long-term fiscal planning. "It is essential that governments not be lulled into complacency by the ease with which they have financed their deficits thus far. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the path of future output is likely to be permanently below where we thought it would be just several years ago. As a result, government revenues will be lower and expenditures higher, making consolidation even more difficult. But, unless action is taken to place fiscal policy on a sustainable footing, these costs could easily rise sharply and suddenly. "Second, large public debts have significant financial and real consequences. The recent sharp rise in risk premia on long-term bonds issued by several industrial countries suggests that markets no longer consider sovereign debt low-risk. The limited evidence we have suggests default risk premia move up with debt levels and down with the revenue share of GDP as well as the availability of private saving. Countries with a relatively weak fiscal system and a high degree of dependence on foreign investors to finance their deficits generally face larger spreads on their debts. This market differentiation is a positive feature of the financial system, but it could force governments with weak fiscal systems to return to fiscal rectitude sooner than they might like or hope. "Third, we note the risk that persistently high levels of public debt will drive down capital accumulation, productivity growth and lon

Funny but a year ago we were hearing quite a bit of noise about the "End of Capitalism".  Today, the world is looking at the "End of Socialism".  How quickly things change. Six Impossible Things I have written several letters over the years about the basic economic equation GDP = C + I + G + (Net Exports) Which is to say, that Gross Domestic Product in a country is equal to total Consumption (personal and business) plus Investments plus Government Spending plus next exports. This equation is known as an identity equation. It is true for all countries and times. Now, gentle reader, I am going to spare you a few pages of algebra and cut to the chase. Let's divide a country's economy into three sections, private, government and exports. If you play with the variables a little bit you find that you get the following equation. Domestic Private Sector Financial Balance + Governmental Fiscal Balance - the Current Account Balance (or Trade Deficit/Surplus) = 0 This equation was introduced to you a few months ago in an Outside the Box written by Rob Parenteau. We are going to review this briefly, as it is VERY important. Paragraphs in quotes will be from that letter. As Rob noted, "...keep in mind this is an accounting identity, not a theory. If it is wrong, then five centuries of double entry book keeping must also be wrong." By Domestic Private Sector Financial Balance we mean the net balance of business and consumers. Are they borrowing money or paying down debt? Government Fiscal Balance is the same: is the government borrowing or paying down debt? And the Current Account Balance is the trade deficit or surplus. The implications are simple. The three items have to add up to zero. That means you cannot have both surpluses in the private and government sectors and run a trade deficit. You have to have a trade surplus.

"Pieces of Eight." It is a two-volume treatise on the monetary powers of the Constitution. Now out of print, it has become a kind of cult classic, selling on the Internet for hundreds of dollars a set. It addresses questions that, with the value of the dollar having collapsed to 1,200th of an ounce of gold, are suddenly timely. What is a dollar? How did it become our money of account? What powers in respect of money were given to the federal government in 1787? What disabilities, or prohibitions, are in the Constitution? How have we managed to get so far from the law as the Founders wrote it? And what can be done to bring us back from the brink? The title of the book comes from the nickname for the coin the Founding Fathers were referring to when, in the Constitution, they twice used the word "dollars." Its definition was codified in the Coinage Act of 1792, which provided for minting gold and silver coins and defined a dollar as having "the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver." Mr. Vieira speaks for a school of thought-it goes back to James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and comes together today in, among other places, the Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education-that reckons such dollars, and their free-market equivalent in gold, are the only constitutional money in America. Lately he has been arguing for the establishment by the states of separate monetary systems. The authority to do so is in Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution, which prohibits the states from making "any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

The end of democratic socialism is at hand. The welfare states of the U.S. and Europe are financially out of control, spent and unsustainable. They have reached the point that Margaret Thatcher defined as the end of socialism: They have run out of other people's money. These areas of the world are about to change dramatically.

YouCut - a first-of-its-kind project - is designed to defeat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress. It allows you to vote, both online and on your cell phone, on spending cuts that you want to see the House enact. Vote on this page today for your priorities and together we can begin to change Washington's culture of spending into a culture of savings.

America deserves a Congress that respects the priorities of the people. Unfortunately, Washington hasn't been listening. Let's change that. America Speaking Out is your opportunity to change the way Congress works by proposing ideas for a new policy agenda. Republicans have offered solutions, and we have our principles, but this is a new venue for us to listen to you. So Speak Out.