Financial Crisis

[SheungWan]

Unlike anything else, golds bottoms are always higher then the previous credit cycle highs. Gold started its previous credit cycle back in the 60's when interest rates were 1% ish. Gold was $35. Gold went from $35 to $850 as interest rates went up and that credit cycle ended.

This credit cycle hasn't even ended yet. Look interest rates. Have they gone up ? Nope. So $1000 is the new $35.

Bash the "gold bugs" all you want. This is just taking longer then anyone expected. Doesn't mean they are wrong.

Nonsense. More gold bug website fictions. Look at the gold price in 1980 and 2005. Same dollar value. The value in real terms over that 25 period collapsed.

[ronz28]

Your unsubstantiated distortions and assertions are total baloney S.Wan, go troll elsewhere.

[55Jay]

[NeverSure]

Wind works only when the wind is blowing and solar only when the sun is shining which at the least means not at night. In addition they put out very little electricity compared to what's mainstream.

They aren't profitable. The only ones I know of get some kind of government subsidy in the way of land, tax relief, or even credits. Even then they aren't profitable because each unit operates on too small of a scale.

I know of no place on earth that has dependable electricity from only wind and solar.

The only application which is practical for wind that I know of is pumping water. It can pump into a large holding tank when the wind is blowing, and water can then be used continuously (assuming reasonable amounts of wind and water.) This is still practical even in a developed country such as the USA where it is miles to electricity but cattle need water. The best solution is to drill a well, install a very large drinking tank, and install a wind pump to fill it. Even then if there's a prolonged period of no or low wind you might have to drive out there with a water truck and fill the tank using of course diesel for the truck and electricity for the pump that filled it.

[SheungWan]

Your unsubstantiated distortions and assertions are total baloney S.Wan, go troll elsewhere.

Average gold price March/April 1980 was $553 and $513 respectively.

Average gold price March/April 2005 was $434 and $428 respectively.

Inflation between 1980 and 2005 (based on CPI) sees $100 in 2005 having the same buying power as $42 in 1980.

End result, the holders of gold lost well over half their value during this time frame.

So much for the bogus gold 'always higher' claims.

Refs: KITCO.com for the historical gold prices and inflationdata.com for the 'er inflation figures.

Those who copy and paste should do a little of their own homework first before blindly repeating nonsense claims.

[55Jay]

Your unsubstantiated distortions and assertions are total baloney S.Wan, go troll elsewhere.

Average gold price March/April 1980 was $553 and $513 respectively.

Average gold price March/April 2005 was $434 and $428 respectively.

Inflation between 1980 and 2005 (based on CPI) sees $100 in 2005 having the same buying power as $42 in 1980.

End result, the holders of gold lost well over half their value during this time frame.

So much for the bogus gold 'always higher' claims.

Refs: KITCO.com for the historical gold prices and inflationdata.com for the 'er inflation figures.

Those who copy and paste should do a little of their own homework first before blindly repeating nonsense claims.

Guess that doesn't count for the bar I bought for $383 that my ex-wife has, if she hasn't sold it long ago.

I'm sure you can figure out when that was by price, but curious to see if you can. Or not.

[Naam]

what happened to the "peak oil" and "crude $200/barrel" gloom&doomers?

Don't confuse ppl who understand that recessions are necessary with peak oilers.

The one thing the peak oilers have right is that if the price of oil falls enough , the central banks will bail the companies out. Which will flooed the forex markets with more dollars. And $200 oil won't be out of the question nominally.

please enlighten us which central banks will bail out what "companies" based on the well known fact that central banks of oil producing countries and the countries themselves are carried financially on the back of their oil producing companies and not the other way round.

the latter applies not only to OPEC but to all major oil producing and oil exporting countries.

The Fed had trillions of dollars worth of liquidity swap lines with commercial banks and trading houses all over the world that was finding its way into the oil market and the oil companies when the price of oil cratered down to $30 in 2008. The price didn't magically jump back up to $90 in less then a year from real demand driven price discovery.

you are clearly distorting and/or mixing up facts dear Sir!

early 2007 the price of WTI was $52/barrel which went up to $146/barrel in july 2008 even before "Lehman" in september 2008, i.e. during a period when there was not a single copper penny of additional liquidity added by the FED.

after the FED started adding liquidity WTI crude fell to $45/barrel in december 2008 and only started recovering in 2009.

now, after six years of crazy near unlimited liquidity provided by central banks globally, WTI as well as Brent are trading at the same levels as they traded 8 years ago in 2006.

[SheungWan]

Your unsubstantiated distortions and assertions are total baloney S.Wan, go troll elsewhere.

Average gold price March/April 1980 was $553 and $513 respectively.

Average gold price March/April 2005 was $434 and $428 respectively.

Inflation between 1980 and 2005 (based on CPI) sees $100 in 2005 having the same buying power as $42 in 1980.

End result, the holders of gold lost well over half their value during this time frame.

So much for the bogus gold 'always higher' claims.

Refs: KITCO.com for the historical gold prices and inflationdata.com for the 'er inflation figures.

Those who copy and paste should do a little of their own homework first before blindly repeating nonsense claims.

Guess that doesn't count for the bar I bought for $383 that my ex-wife has, if she hasn't sold it long ago.

I'm sure you can figure out when that was by price, but curious to see if you can. Or not.

Congratulations to you for buying a bar? for $383 and your ex-wife for getting it from you.

And commiserations to those who bought any amount of ounces in 1980 and sold for a whopping loss in 2005, assuming they hadn't gone mad during those 25 years listening to silly gold bugs telling them silly stories.

Edited November 30, 2014 by SheungWan

[Harsh Jones]

Unlike anything else, golds bottoms are always higher then the previous credit cycle highs. Gold started its previous credit cycle back in the 60's when interest rates were 1% ish. Gold was $35. Gold went from $35 to $850 as interest rates went up and that credit cycle ended.

This credit cycle hasn't even ended yet. Look interest rates. Have they gone up ? Nope. So $1000 is the new $35.

Bash the "gold bugs" all you want. This is just taking longer then anyone expected. Doesn't mean they are wrong.

Nonsense. More gold bug website fictions. Look at the gold price in 1980 and 2005. Same dollar value. The value in real terms over that 25 period collapsed.

What about the 25 years before the 2000% revaluation ? Did you really expect it to go up another 2000% ? And the new bear market bottom was $260. So anyone who bought at 35. 55 , 75, 120 or 150 still made money after the next bear market bottom. The Nasdq stock index still hasn't reached its year 2000 top now.

[Harsh Jones]

The Fed had trillions of dollars worth of liquidity swap lines with commercial banks and trading houses all over the world that was finding its way into the oil market and the oil companies when the price of oil cratered down to $30 in 2008. The price didn't magically jump back up to $90 in less then a year from real demand driven price discovery.

you are clearly distorting and/or mixing up facts dear Sir!

early 2007 the price of WTI was $52/barrel which went up to $146/barrel in july 2008 even before "Lehman" in september 2008, i.e. during a period when there was not a single copper penny of additional liquidity added by the FED.

after the FED started adding liquidity WTI crude fell to $45/barrel in december 2008 and only started recovering in 2009.

now, after six years of crazy near unlimited liquidity provided by central banks globally, WTI as well as Brent are trading at the same levels as they traded 8 years ago in 2006.

This happened in the 70's too. Gold went from $35 to $200. Then back down to $100. And everyone except the goldbugs thought that there was some black magic in easy money. Until the bond bull market turned into a bond bear market. That's where the most wealth was destroyed.

[hhgz]

"This is just taking longer then anyone expected. Doesn't mean they are wrong."

​Excellent point: "they're not wrong - their timing is."

[Harsh Jones]

Your unsubstantiated distortions and assertions are total baloney S.Wan, go troll elsewhere.

Average gold price March/April 1980 was $553 and $513 respectively.

Average gold price March/April 2005 was $434 and $428 respectively.

Inflation between 1980 and 2005 (based on CPI) sees $100 in 2005 having the same buying power as $42 in 1980.

End result, the holders of gold lost well over half their value during this time frame.

So much for the bogus gold 'always higher' claims.

Refs: KITCO.com for the historical gold prices and inflationdata.com for the 'er inflation figures.

Those who copy and paste should do a little of their own homework first before blindly repeating nonsense claims.

Gold started its last bull market at $35 in the 60's. Then it topped out at $850. Then it ended the next bear market at $260.

I don't have a degree in mathematics but I do know that 260 is a higher number then 35.

[mccw]

On the subject of renewables:

The UZk has over 10 giga watts of wind and a massive expansion planned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

Germany is big on solar.

Cost wise; the dirty fuels are subsidised even more so by the constant military duckings needing to be metered out. Not to mention environmental and human costs.

[mccw]

Potential is there.

It's whether the will exists.

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Of course there are on going operation and maintenance costs for wind power systems, but they are far less than those of dirty coal, oil, gas and nuclear that also permanently pollute/contaminate the environment and kill far more birds, fish, animals, humans, etc. than happens when a dumb bird flys into a windmill. I have heard of abandoned wind mills in California so I get your point, I just think these maintenance issues are easier to overcome than global warming and disposal of spent nuclear fuel like that leaking out of Fukushima daily that may end up killing our grand children.

The suggestion that the cost of running wind power systems is lower than the alternatives and can/should comprehensively replace them is pure pie in the sky.

SW, You are correct sir, oil would have to approach $200/bbl for wind and solar to be cost competitive without massive government subsidies While I am open to any new ideas for producing clean energy, wind, solar and geothermal will only account for a very small single digit percentage of the worlds energy needs for decades to come

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

On the subject of renewables:

The UZk has over 10 giga watts of wind and a massive expansion planned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

Germany is big on solar.

Cost wise; the dirty fuels are subsidised even more so by the constant military duckings needing to be metered out. Not to mention environmental and human costs.

"Germany is big on solar" for a very good reason-SELF PRESERVATION The Germans know that they do not have the petroleum resources within its borders to be anywhere near self sufficient and they do not want to be in the situation (a situation that is currently happening BTW) to be too reliant on Russia What is the old saying "necessity is the mother of invention", well Germany and Japan are definitely in that same boat and so if there are any major breakthroughs on a form of cost effective clean energy it will likely come from one of those two countries

[jpinx]

On the subject of renewables:

The UZk has over 10 giga watts of wind and a massive expansion planned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

Germany is big on solar.

Cost wise; the dirty fuels are subsidised even more so by the constant military duckings needing to be metered out. Not to mention environmental and human costs.

Costs are hard to compare, and environmental impact is still unfolding, so no-one has the absolute truth on this question

[SheungWan]

Your unsubstantiated distortions and assertions are total baloney S.Wan, go troll elsewhere.

Average gold price March/April 1980 was $553 and $513 respectively.

Average gold price March/April 2005 was $434 and $428 respectively.

Inflation between 1980 and 2005 (based on CPI) sees $100 in 2005 having the same buying power as $42 in 1980.

End result, the holders of gold lost well over half their value during this time frame.

So much for the bogus gold 'always higher' claims.

Refs: KITCO.com for the historical gold prices and inflationdata.com for the 'er inflation figures.

Those who copy and paste should do a little of their own homework first before blindly repeating nonsense claims.

Gold started its last bull market at $35 in the 60's. Then it topped out at $850. Then it ended the next bear market at $260.

I don't have a degree in mathematics but I do know that 260 is a higher number then 35.

No you may not, but you might still be expected to follow the argument which is that gold over a substantial period of time within recent memory (1980-2005) has shown itself not to be a safe haven over all periods. Once that is accepted then it becomes an asset of risk which the gold bugs are reluctant to accept. How reluctant? Well not one of them has said gold is too expensive to buy at any price point since its momentous drop from $1930 per oz. Talking about other periods, other gains doesn't cut the mustard. Gold took a serious bath over a 25 year period. All the gold bugs have to answer is to cherry-pick their start/stop dates and studiously ignore the nail that is sticking out. Gold traders at least know that PMs are volatile.

[mccw]

On the subject of renewables:

The UZk has over 10 giga watts of wind and a massive expansion planned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

Germany is big on solar.

Cost wise; the dirty fuels are subsidised even more so by the constant military duckings needing to be metered out. Not to mention environmental and human costs.

Costs are hard to compare, and environmental impact is still unfolding, so no-one has the absolute truth on this question

Hundreds of thousands dead across the world from oil purpose wars is evidence enough of the real world costs for me. Be damned with the manipulated market prices.

(((Certainly more costly than a few birds flying in to wind turbines that's for sure.))))

[jpinx]

If you know more -- please share the knowledge and it's source

Knocking down a posting with vague and unsubstantiated commentary doesn't add to the debate

You mean the rubbish assertions (and that is all they are) from goldseek.com. Vague and unsubstantiated is the middle name for these hysterical websites whose main pupose in life is to sell gold ads and encourage the troops in their hour of need. Exhibit number one would be the bogus claim that Germany can't access their gold. An old piece of junk endlessly recycled by every new gold bug recruit. And that is what the copy and pasters do. Endlessly recycle.

OK -- I'll ask the obvious question Where's your source for the information that Germany was allowed to inspect their gold and what was the result? Please feel free to copy/paste but make sure you include the link to your source

You miss the point. Germany hasn't been forbidden anything and the big lie that the Fed is blocking anything is pure speculation and fantasy driven. Try and copy/paste something else or better still don't.

Please point out the reference to the inspection by the Germans of their own gold. This is a matter of trust - not value.

[jpinx]

On the subject of renewables:

The UZk has over 10 giga watts of wind and a massive expansion planned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

Germany is big on solar.

Cost wise; the dirty fuels are subsidised even more so by the constant military duckings needing to be metered out. Not to mention environmental and human costs.

Costs are hard to compare, and environmental impact is still unfolding, so no-one has the absolute truth on this question

Hundreds of thousands dead across the world from oil purpose wars is evidence enough of the real world costs for me. Be damned with the manipulated market prices.

(((Certainly more costly than a few birds flying in to wind turbines that's for sure.))))

Environmentally friendly energy is a myth. Even the sweetest bird has to poop Diversification is probably the answer, so there is no single control --- Ooops I forgot about the oil industries strangle-hold on large numbers of patents....

[Orac]

On the subject of renewables:

The UZk has over 10 giga watts of wind and a massive expansion planned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

Germany is big on solar.

Cost wise; the dirty fuels are subsidised even more so by the constant military duckings needing to be metered out. Not to mention environmental and human costs.

Costs are hard to compare, and environmental impact is still unfolding, so no-one has the absolute truth on this question

Hundreds of thousands dead across the world from oil purpose wars is evidence enough of the real world costs for me. Be damned with the manipulated market prices.

(((Certainly more costly than a few birds flying in to wind turbines that's for sure.))))

Environmentally friendly energy is a myth. Even the sweetest bird has to poop Diversification is probably the answer, so there is no single control --- Ooops I forgot about the oil industries strangle-hold on large numbers of patents....

Technology will get us there eventually as it has always done in the past

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Bus-powered-food-waste-human-poo-arrives-Bath/story-24560751-detail/story.html

[jpinx]

Technology will get us there eventually as it has always done in the past

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Bus-powered-food-waste-human-poo-arrives-Bath/story-24560751-detail/story.html

===================================

It's a very narrow view that sees the fuel as the main contributor to environmental issues. The acquisition of the raw materials for the steel, tyres, batteries, etc and the associated machinery involved with the manufacture of the components are huge factors in the environmental equation, as it the disposal of the machinery at the end of it's life.

[Harsh Jones]

Your unsubstantiated distortions and assertions are total baloney S.Wan, go troll elsewhere.

Average gold price March/April 1980 was $553 and $513 respectively.

Average gold price March/April 2005 was $434 and $428 respectively.

Inflation between 1980 and 2005 (based on CPI) sees $100 in 2005 having the same buying power as $42 in 1980.

End result, the holders of gold lost well over half their value during this time frame.

So much for the bogus gold 'always higher' claims.

Refs: KITCO.com for the historical gold prices and inflationdata.com for the 'er inflation figures.

Those who copy and paste should do a little of their own homework first before blindly repeating nonsense claims.

Gold started its last bull market at $35 in the 60's. Then it topped out at $850. Then it ended the next bear market at $260.

I don't have a degree in mathematics but I do know that 260 is a higher number then 35.

No you may not, but you might still be expected to follow the argument which is that gold over a substantial period of time within recent memory (1980-2005) has shown itself not to be a safe haven over all periods. Once that is accepted then it becomes an asset of risk which the gold bugs are reluctant to accept. How reluctant? Well not one of them has said gold is too expensive to buy at any price point since its momentous drop from $1930 per oz. Talking about other periods, other gains doesn't cut the mustard. Gold took a serious bath over a 25 year period. All the gold bugs have to answer is to cherry-pick their start/stop dates and studiously ignore the nail that is sticking out. Gold traders at least know that PMs are volatile.

Where do you get this 1980 to 2005 time frame ?

If you bought gold in year 2000 at $260, you would have almost doubled your money by 2005.

But I understand your point. I concede that old lay dormant for quite awhile. But I just happen to think that now is not a good time to be bearish on gold. It is probably the worst time in a generation to be bearish on gold. Don't look at gold. Look at the credit cycle. The credit cycle which is the bull market in bonds is 33 years old. The fed funds rate is ZERO. It doesn't get any lower then that. This is the last days of this credit cycle. Just like the last days of the previous when interest rates were 1%. People who bought gold in the $35 to $250 range in the 60's and 70's never lost. That is a pretty big window to buy. Between $35 and $250. These are the last days of the current credit cycle and gold has been gyrating between $260 and $2000. I happen to believe that the new floor will be above $2000. The new FLOOR. Because history tells us that the new floor is always higher. And I am just talking about the floor. Who knows what the new top will be.

[SheungWan]

Where do you get this 1980 to 2005 time frame ?

If you bought gold in year 2000 at $260, you would have almost doubled your money by 2005.

But I understand your point. I concede that old lay dormant for quite awhile. But I just happen to think that now is not a good time to be bearish on gold. It is probably the worst time in a generation to be bearish on gold. Don't look at gold. Look at the credit cycle. The credit cycle which is the bull market in bonds is 33 years old. The fed funds rate is ZERO. It doesn't get any lower then that. This is the last days of this credit cycle. Just like the last days of the previous when interest rates were 1%. People who bought gold in the $35 to $250 range in the 60's and 70's never lost. That is a pretty big window to buy. Between $35 and $250. These are the last days of the current credit cycle and gold has been gyrating between $260 and $2000. I happen to believe that the new floor will be above $2000. The new FLOOR. Because history tells us that the new floor is always higher. And I am just talking about the floor. Who knows what the new top will be.

I get the 1980-2005 time frame from a calendar.

[Orac]

Technology will get us there eventually as it has always done in the past

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Bus-powered-food-waste-human-poo-arrives-Bath/story-24560751-detail/story.html

===================================

It's a very narrow view that sees the fuel as the main contributor to environmental issues. The acquisition of the raw materials for the steel, tyres, batteries, etc and the associated machinery involved with the manufacture of the components are huge factors in the environmental equation, as it the disposal of the machinery at the end of it's life.

My point is not so much the fuel source as the technological developments that will change the demand requirements for the materials, components and machinery you are talking about. They might even discover something that gold can be used for eventually to actually give it something other than an imaginary value.

[SheungWan]

Please point out the reference to the inspection by the Germans of their own gold. This is a matter of trust - not value.

The whole story about the Germans either being refused view or return of gold is completely fabricated junk made up by some gold bug website hysteric (you know the style....'blah blah ... we can only conclude that the Fed has lost the gold, hasn't got anything to show them ..... more blah.....)

[jpinx]

Please point out the reference to the inspection by the Germans of their own gold. This is a matter of trust - not value.

The whole story about the Germans either being refused view or return of gold is completely fabricated junk made up by some gold bug website hysteric (you know the style....'blah blah ... we can only conclude that the Fed has lost the gold, hasn't got anything to show them ..... more blah.....)

I'll say it again -- This is a matter of trust, and I do not trust your opinion. I want some external references to the Germans asking for their gold back and the reaction of the USA - all to support your opinion of course

Please note - i am not trying to say who is right or wrong - I am merely trying to get to the facts.

[jpinx]

My point is not so much the fuel source as the technological developments that will change the demand requirements for the materials, components and machinery you are talking about. They might even discover something that gold can be used for eventually to actually give it something other than an imaginary value.

========================

Indeed there will be improvements in technology, but the greater change will be in the minds of the consumers. There is a mentality that makes people consume food to the point of obesity, and drive cars around with 3 or 4 empty seats. That is the real problem. Fix the mindset and get away from consumerism, but that'll hurt the fat cats too much

Edited November 30, 2014 by jpinx

[midas]

Please point out the reference to the inspection by the Germans of their own gold. This is a matter of trust - not value.

The whole story about the Germans either being refused view or return of gold is completely fabricated junk made up by some gold bug website hysteric (you know the style....'blah blah ... we can only conclude that the Fed has lost the gold, hasn't got anything to show them ..... more blah.....)

" made up by some gold bug website hysteric "

William Kaye, who previously has been working for Goldman Sachs is by no means a “nobody” on the global markets in July 2013 created a stir when he picked-up the ball, stating

” Germany won´t ever see its gold again…… Central Banks, such as the FED, where most of the reserves had been deposited, had lent the gold to U.S. Banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.

The gold has been used in the market to lower the gold price and the FED has received securities in exchange…. Germany won´t ever see that gold again, because it is safely kept in my accounts and the accounts of our investors”.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/97970542-5fd2-11e2-b128-00144feab49a.html#axzz2IFLzdEw7