Tuesday, 12/10, Market WrapUp (Managed Markets And a Managed Economy)

Financial Sense Online ^ | 12/10/2002 | James J. Puplava

[billybudd]

Go back to writing poetry. :o)

[billybudd]

Interesting theory. Do you have a link for the South Africa/Al Qaeda article (I couldn't find one)?

[steveegg]

Very interesting. While the one-time spike in gold prices may well sink the likes of JPM, unless that "Muslim gold" keeps on getting traded to support that spike, it's survivable.

[steveegg]

Would you be refering to Indonesia's imminent switch to using the gold dinar for inter-Islamic trade? This speech by the Prime Minister of Malaysia suggests that's exactly the intent of the Islmaic gold dinar.

[Huck]

The results of selling after buying are indicative of how intelligent the stock trader is.

Or how connected he is. (See Martha Stewart, Hillary Clinton, et al)

[steveegg]

It might have been poorly-received, but you pretty much nailed it. However, I must take issue with the "Buying stocks really doesn't take much brains at all" line. Knowing the difference between a bargain and something that's in a terminal dive does take the same skill at interpreting external factors as knowing when a stock is about to plunge off a cliff.

[steveegg]

Actually, Hitlery's cash cow was cattle futures, but point noted.

[arete]

While the one-time spike in gold prices may well sink the likes of JPM

Since not all muslims could afford to just go out and buy 1oz of gold, it wouldn't be a one time spike. Many of them would be buying it in 1/10's, 1/20's, grams or whatever until they all had their 1oz requirement. The only question is, why haven't they actually done it? Sure would be much less messy than blowing things up and hiding in caves.

Can you imagine the WH trying to explain why it was necessary to attack Iraq cause they were buying too much gold. What a hoot.

Richard W.

[dalereed]

"Sure would be much less messy than blowing things up and hiding in caves."

But they wouldn't get their 72 virgins!

[Soren]

I do not have a link. I read it in the Wall Street Journal, not online. It appeared in the lefthand column on page 1 of the 12/10/02 issue.

[razorback-bert]

I keep a roll of foil right here on my desk.

Ah, I see your problem, the foil goes on your head, not the desk.

[wideawake]

Services don't create wealth. They merely transfer, redistribute and eventually dissipate wealth.

Then why did your earlier post claim that wealth was the result of added value and that services added value? Your post is completely self-contradictory.

And your assertion about services - that they merely "transfer, redistribute and eventually dissipate wealth" is so foolish I know that you're not even thinking anything through, just regurgitating Marxist dogma.

Let's try a real world example - my father-in-law runs a restaurant. He essentially provides a service that people could do without. People could prepare food in their own homes and not go out to dinner - they're paying him and his employees for services like cooking, refilling water glasses and folding napkins.

The money he made from a few years' restauranteuring enabled him to buy some nearby land. The fact that he and other service entrepreneurs in his seaside community provided such pleasant services in such a pleasant setting inspired more and more people to visit his community and this increased stream of visitors create more jobs. He was able to sell that land later for a better price because the economic growth of the community had made land there more valuable.

He sold that land to a Rite-Aid pharmacy, which was a real convenience to the surrounding community since people didn't need to drive 10 miles anymore to the nearest pharmacy. They saved time and gas money, and Rite-Aid made a decent profit providing pharmaceutical services to local residents.

My father-in-law is wealthier, his community is more prosperous and better-served, there is a new business (Rite-Aid) that employs 20+ locals.

His service, rather than merely redistributing preexisting wealth, allocated capital to new enterprises that created new employment and profit opportunities.

Essentially what you're doing, in classic Communist style, is accusing service providers like my father-in-law of being parasites because they provide services that people want and are willing to pay for. He twists the arm of no one who enters his restaurant. Each customer has made the decision that they would rather pay $13.95 to have someone else prepare and serve beef bourgignon to them than spend their time preparing it at home. This services provides more value to them than preparing it at home would have.

Teachers are also paid to provide a service - and I don't think teaching is a service that "dissipates wealth" - if anything, good teaching prepares others to go out and create wealth.

There is no distinction between production and service and there is no distinction between goods and services. It's specious.

There may be a distinction between raw goods - which require no human action to make them serviceable - and finished goods, or goods which require human labor to make them serviceable.

But all services are, whether it's a factory work providing the service of assembly or a teacher providing the service of instruction, value-producing goods.

If they weren't, then no one would pay for them.

[Willie Green]

The definitions I posted all contain links to the academic website where they were obtained. They reflect fundamental principles of economics upon which all rational and valid analysis is made.

I could care less about your convoluted, politically motivated demagoguery on the topic. Similar to Louis Farakhan's rants in numerology and Million Man math, it is pure hogwash.

[dalereed]

"The definitions I posted all contain links to the academic website where they were obtained."

From academia is where your argument falls apart, those idiots couldn't run a business if they had to.

At least 90% of what was taught in business in college was pure hogwash.

[Willie Green]

It's always easy to spot an advocate of Enron accounting practices.

[Soren]

A Technical Review & Heads Up
By
James Sinclair


I need to keep tightly focused because the points that gold is hitting inter-day are simply too perfect to be perfect. The first break out above $324.50 took it almost to $332 inter-day. Now the ESF right from this morning's cash New York market sold the metal targeting a close below $324.50 as their goal. Are they reading these postings? Did I touch the rawest of all nerves by having the guts to publish who in fact stands at the top of the feeding chain in the management of world market for political purposes. Yes, political. Certainly not economic.

Was today's not too hidden death threat I received on my email, supposedly over the gold Dinar, truly a product of having simply revealed the facts of a gold development in Malaysia or something else. What a price to pay for service to my fellow man. Did I touch a raw nerve in my discussion of the Exchange Stabilization Fund and their activities in market quoting exact times of entry and exit, especially the market for the dollar & gold. Well they were at it again today in a manner only some one quite afraid of the market would adopt.

Well, if they are reading this material then take note. Your actions most certainly in gold today are so obvious that they reveal that you are scared stiff over the Asian and Islamic interest that continually buys everything you throw at them. You know this interest is not going to be scared out of the market so whose time and money are you wasting? Gold is not only going now to a new recover high but also above the old time high recorded in March 1980. In time your activities will be revealed as totally manipulative for more than political or society's economic purposes. You will not be able to lay off responsibility on a sitting Secretary of the Treasury, but rather you and others know that the ESF has taken on a life of its own for its own purposes.

Call it the "Gold Cartel" or "Central Banks" or large hedge fund interest but the most common presence in the gold and dollar market is the Exchange Stabilization Fund. The ESF is identified by many different names by observers but it is primarily and only the ESF. It all comes back to the ESF in the sense that they do the dirty work of the central banks from the perspective of one that favors golds. By using the commercial metals dealers as their stealth agents, the ESF has given impetus to the short side trading by these entities for the gold cartel's own accounts, now caught in a to the death financial fight with the price of gold over their short side spreads.

Today right at the US opening of the Comex, the Calvary having ridden into New York cash trading pounced on the Comex longs. Can't have the gold market saying bad things about the new appointment for Secretary of the Treasury certainly on the same day of the month that the Federal Reserve meets to discuss economic factors.

Note what occurred in the dollar at 9:12 this morning US time and three guess who SAVED THE DAY for the buck?

Please also note at 9:13 what started to happen in the cash market for gold and continued into the opening of the Comex with a goal of pushing gold under our $324.50 number. That presence was in the market both in the dollar and gold until 10.14 AM. Yet for all that muscle from that point on gold rose and the dollar fell.

We are very close to resolving this war into a new battleground of $348-$353. Yes, $324.50 is now the key number, not $330. The ESF will fight gold and the dollar all the way losing the daily battles and the war entirely. Certainly for those that only see the high, low and close of gold, it looks like an anti gold/pro dollar interest won but they did not. They didn't as they made their effect but instantly after their manipulative presence ended gold strengthen and the dollar weakened.

I still firmly feel that we are very close (tomorrow, as few days maybe) to a breakout of the handle of the three/four year teacup and a technical explosion to high gold prices.

[arete]

Interesting. Thanks for the post and the ping.

Richard W.

[rohry]

Good post. I read this earlier today and found it interesting. Here's the chart that Sinclair was refering to.

 

 

[Billy_bob_bob]

"Well they were at it again today in a manner only some one quite afraid of the market would adopt."

Who is this guy? Yoda? "Hmmm. Problem in gold markets is. Yes. Troublesome indeed."

[rohry]

Here is another very interesting editorial by Sinclair describing the mechanics of manipulation:

http://www.financialsense.com/metals/sinclair/editorials/2002/1206.htm

Here is a sample from the article:

...So that you can really understand markets, I am teaching you the real secrets of Wall Street that no book has ever offered to a community. Like the martial artist that gives away the secret of his discipline, I will have to be somewhat careful.

I have taught you, if you follow the archived editorials, how derivatives are the major means of money laundering and now I am teaching you how to run any market in the world.

Yes, the government is involved in all markets from equities to currencies to precious metals to industrial metals.

Yes, there is a limit to what they can accomplish. Yes, the markets were stabilized today. Call it manipulation or stabilization, but it is a reality that is as undeniable as the fact that the earth is round, not flat...