Don't you love Fridays? Your Monday to Friday owner is about to release you to the weekend. You finally have a chance to catch up on the "news" of the week, tales of drone strikes, loss of civil liberties, and government thievery and lies. Oh, life in the USSA. Why are we still here?
It's Feedback Friday, your chance to get ask the TDV crew anything you like. Want to join in? Send your questions, comments, queries, and concerns to tdv@dollarvigilante.com, comment on a post, or get on the forums.
On to the feedback…
GOLD PRICE MANIPULATION
Dear TDV,
I admit I don't know a whole lot about gold, but I have been studying it for several years now, and I find it soooooooooooooo hard to believe the bloggers, pundits, and so-called experts when they say there has been NO manipulation of gold prices over the last few months, and possibly years.
It's mind boggling to me how these guys can come up with dozens of excuses for the wild swings in gold prices that happen sometimes from one day to the next, and so few question them.
My opinion is because the entire gold market is so small compared to the others, a relatively few people with tons of money behind them can get together and make prices "dance" to their tune, and keep enriching themselves with tons of money until the cows come home. And who is going to stop them?
Jerry H.
Jeff’s Response:
Hi Jerry,
You must be mistaken if you think we've ever said there is no manipulation in the gold market. In fact, there is manipulation in every single major market on Earth. When you have a market of thousands or millions of people there will always be some who are trying to manipulate the market. One of the definitions of manipulation is "to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose". We are all constantly "manipulating". When some pretty girl says something stupid, for example (like "education should be free"), you may not correct her because it will reduce your chances of invoking your human instinct to mount her and propagate the species.
In terms of the gold market we are fans of the Gold AntiTrust Action Committee (GATA) and Bill Murphy who heads it, and is a good friend of mine, if only for trying to bring to light some of the higher level manipulations. Ed Steer, another good friend from my home town of Deadmonton, Alberta, also does good work on this subject.
However, finding out all manipulations in the market is completely impossible. But, as I've recently written about ("The Paper Precious Metals Market Precariously Close to Diverging From The Physical Market"), the number of manipulations in the "paper" (futures, ETFs etc) gold market is diverging from the actual physical market. After gold recently dropped $200 in a few days it was nearly impossible to source the physical metal almost anywhere… and we surveyed people across the globe.
And even to this day premiums for physical silver, even "junk" silver (old US government silver coins when money was real) are at historical extremes. I've even stated numerous times that at some point the paper gold price will completely diverge from the physical price.
Some of the evidence of this is that gold and silver stocks at COMEX are being withdrawn at unprecedented rates. And then the disclaimer now posted on the Comex gold and silver daily warehouse stock report as of Monday, June 3, 2013 just stated, "The information in this report is taken from sources believed to be reliable; however, the Commodity Exchange, Inc. disclaims all liability whatsoever with regard to its accuracy or completeness. This report is produced for information purposes only." –
That's interesting, isn't it! The COMEX can't even vouch for the precious metals held in their vaults at this point without a major disclaimer.
We've written boldly and often for the last three years that we are in the final stages of The End Of The Monetary System As We Know It (TEOTMSAWKI) and more proof builds each day that this is true. I'd be very surprised if the COMEX even exists a few years from now.
Playing in paper gold, as in anything paper today, is dangerous. You should be looking to go mostly to physical, but diversify internationally to defend against state expropriation (see our report, free to TDV subscribers, "Getting Your Gold Out Of Dodge" for the world's best manual on how to do this). If you are going to speculate in gold and silver stocks, then also look to "BulletProof Your Shares"… another report that is free to TDV subscribers. Both Vin Maru at TDV Golden Trader and Ed Bugos of TDV Premium are now all but pounding the table that the precious metals shares have bottomed and it is time to get back into those markets.
Mark my words, you won't believe what is going to happen in the coming years as TEOTMSAWKI comes to its final chapter. Own physical bullion and store it wisely. If you can survive TEOTMSAWKI with assets in tact, you will have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy up assets at ridiculous prices. During the Weimar Republic hyperinflation it is said you could buy hotels for one or two gold coins.
Is the gold market manipulated? Sure. But if you can manage to hold on to your physical bullion through it all, you will be one of the few able to capitalize on the biggest event in human history, TEOTMSAWKI.
OWNING LAND IS UNNATURAL
TDV:
One of your responses was absolutely ridiculous. Twisting personal possessions into "property" when clearly the word property is intended to describe land. Owning land is not natural. That's a bit like fleas buying the dog they're on.
Cherry
Gary’s Response:
I spent a few days recoiling with fascination and disgust from this message. Owning land is not natural? Of course this is the semantic trick that the most blatant communists use to justify owning their personal possessions (like clothes and food) while vilifying those who gather productive capital and own it individually. For the communist the means of production must either be owned by the state (state communism), held in common by the workers (syndicalism), or owned by no one at all (anarchist communism).
So let's look at this. Land falls onto some list of things that can't be owned? Then how does one get the rights to use the land for useful and necessary things like growing food, building houses or setting up shops and factories? If you artificially (and stupidly) exclude real estate from the concept of property, then a whole lot of economic activity becomes unfeasable. We require rights of exclusive use of real estate in order to function. Somebody ultimately must claim ownership of square footage. Even state communists and syndicalists realize that someone's got to have the right to do as they wish with the land and the stuff on it while excluding others from the decision and usage. We argue it's better for this to be left to peaceful individuals and not the state which by its very nature is a violator of property rights.
Your analogy is false and misleading, much like the analogies of the state being like parents to citizens who are like its children. Sure, some people would like to think of the head of state as "dad" or want the socialist democrats to be their mommies and fascist republicans to be their daddies. But that doesn't make it right. We aren't fleas on a dog. We're human beings on a space rock. And we manipulate our environment and naturally extend the concept of ownership to patches of the earth we stake out and improve. Land, water and air are all physical things that can be owned and which are far better protected by private ownership than they are by communal or state ownership. The only physical things that are exempted from ownership are human beings, and to show why this is we have to delve into philosophy and ethics. We don't have the space for that here, but the absolute right of human self-ownership is the foundation of the individual anarchism that informs our political (anti-state) and economic (free market) stance here in these pages.
ANALOGIES: TIME/SEX
Dear TDV,
I asked my wife if price would make any difference in her classification of being a whore, $100 or $1,000,000, and of course the response was a whore is a whore regardless of the price.
So, I said, then if 100% of your income makes you a slave, what does 80% or 60% make you? Less of a slave?
I actually tend to think that we're all WHORES and the State/Pimps are just pimping us out for the owner/banks. If I want to eat, I am going to whore myself out to the man/state/pimp. My time is the sex. The Pimps want anything I get for my time/sex.
It's getting clearer each day, I'm a whore and I admit it.
Time to leave…….
David G.
Gary's Response:
David, of course I won't argue that it's time to leave. But I would like to take this chance to talk about prostitution.
Why, oh why, is it that you can give a woman an expensive ring and a house in exchange for exclusive rights to copulation and even actual reproduction…or even give her a meal in exchange for just one night of sexual pleasure after doing some legwork to get her to go out with you in the first place…but you can't give her cold, hard cash for that one night and skip the legwork or the awkward promises to call her after the sex?
Of course, people are willing to restrict such free trade and personal choice based on the "externalities" of the situation. In short, marriage and sometimes dating are considered positives while more blatant prostitution is considered negative. But prostitution's negatives have always come from two sources: a) its very illegality which drives it underground and adds a layer of violence like all prohibitions do and b) thinking of women as subhuman property which is a cultural psychological problem that traditionally also made marriage problematic for women, too.
Are you thinking in terms of "human trafficking" and abusive pimping? Then you are thinking in terms of the state which restricts women's rights to keep property and the fruits of their own labor. Or you are thinking or the prohibition that leaves women open to violence and having to contract with the mini-government of violent gangstersism.
The fact is, it's non-sex worker women who hate prostitution because just like all corporatists, women hate competition and aren't above going to the state to restrict it. Think about it. Prostitution makes a hell of a lot more sense than dating and for a good deal of men it makes more sense than marriage, too. Remember, you don't pay a prostitute for sex. You pay her not to bother you again after you've had sex. Or as the old saying goes, you pay her to leave. A woman who wants one man to stick around wants to dominate his resouces for the sake of her offspring and she realizes that the competition from prostitutes drives her own economic advantage way down. So women with long-term resource domination in mind create an artificial monopoly on sexual favors by pushing for anti-prostitution laws which are backed by threats of violence from the state. If they really cared about other women, they'd champion the right of a woman to make her living any way she chooses without making the oldest choice illegal.
I've run the numbers. Dates with a girlfriend cost about the same as dates with a more obvious prostitute. But dating a non-obvious prostitute is worse in a way because the non-obvious prostitutes get emotionally attached and immediately want to restrict your access to other women.
Now I'm not against emotional attachments. Or with making financial decisions that I personally would not. What I am against is those with a monopoly on the initiation of force mucking with personal choices and economic freedom.
You want to get married? Fine. You want to date? Fine. You want to see a sex worker? Fine. It's the difference between owning, leasing and short-term renting. There isn't a moral component to any of this. These are personal decisions based on preferance and economic considerations. There are those who consider even dating to be "immoral" and think that sex should be confined to the ancient contract of marriage which has its roots in treating women as chattel slaves for domestic upkeep and biological reproduction. But people consider all kinds of things immoral –drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, dating the same sex or the opposite sex of a different ethnic or racial background –and want the state to get involved in restricting it. Using violence, particularly of the sate, to restrict the right to act voluntarily, however, is itself the only true immorality.
The rightness of these sexual and economic arrangements depend on your point of view and your cultural brainwashing. Whatever you think about them, the state and its lobbyists need to stay out of these arrangements and leave people to make their own decisions as to what to do with their own bodies as well as let people figure out which form of sexual economy makes the most sense in their individual circumstances.
BACK IN THE USSR
Dear Gary,
Loved the column on Krugman. I [too] feel like those who stayed in the Soviet Union right up until 1991… except that most Soviets actually knew their system was terrible.
I was in the USSR when it turned. They had a 90%+ literacy rate and they all knew it was coming. The USSA is barely 50%. I'd estimate less.
Boris [Yeltsin] was the president of the Labor Union and all the guys I was a guest of had a union card with his name on it. We headed for the hills deep into the interior the day before the tanks came into Moscow as there was unity, but still some sense that those tanks could have used bullets.
I was just north of Mongolia at the time and will never forget it. Everyone in the know was aware that there would be a showdown, but it took real courage.
Oh yes, I was there by invitation. They wanted me to help them with their oil and gas. Sadly, they had not a clue as to what would happen. They heard George Bush say he was going to send the new Russia $10B and they actually believed that they had a shot at getting some of the money for their businesses they had planned. They wanted me to go see George and ask for some of the $10B. I was so taken I burst into a chuckle and then I realized they were serious. I'm certain they've since figured out the ways of the world.
Thanks again,
David G.
Gary’s Response:
Thanks for the perspective and input, David. Check out TDV's Senior Analyst Ed Bugos's take on the same column below…
TDV'S SENIOR ANALYST BRINGS CLARITY
"…by the state's monopoly on the definition and supply of money, which they then inflate thus transferring wealth to the government and the well-connected and away from the middle class and those further down the chain who are forced to borrow more and more to keep their standard of living from falling."
Hi Gary,
First of all, I love the new term: asshat.
Please take as constructive here…
One thing I want to point out is a lot of people "further down the chain" have the ability to step in front in line either by speculating correctly or by borrowing. Borrowing effectively pushes them up the line and they become one of the benefactors of the policy as do recipients of welfarism. The
groups hurt most by the policy are fixed-wage earners and savers — especially those who don't borrow – but this transcends the poor-rich scale. The cost of the policy is also born across the income spectrum. Aside from those mentioned above (wage earners and savers) it includes future offspring as well as entrepreneurs (as capital is wasted and the state grows larger).
The longest lasting benefactors of course are the politicians, warmongers, and bureaucrats. The bankers, the rich, and especially the productive will be among those hurt by the policy before those interests. But my main point is that the inflation policy benefits/costs transcend the income spectrum/scale. It seemed you were confused about that. Many apologies if I perceived that all incorrectly.
Cheers,
Ed Bugos [TDV Senior Analyst]
Gary's Response:
I wish I could take credit for "asshat", Ed, but that was Jeff's contribution to the conversation!
In any case, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't so much confused as I was just touching on the point briefly in a slightly inebriated lament that Paul Krugman and Keynesianism are still taken seriously by so many people! I wrote that blog post days ago and I'm still a bit miffed. I'm still not sleeping well and my digestion is a bit off. Reading Krugman's nonsense and the economically illiterate praise of it is an occupational hazard, however. It takes years off of my life, but it must be done!
Note to the rest of you dear vigilantes: This is the kind of knowledge and precision Ed Bugos brings to the table for paid subscribers to TDV's Newsletter. If you'd like to get access to Ed's analysis and investment advice — along with more in-depth analysis from TDV CEO Jeff Berwick — then click here to learn more.
