Die Hard Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 Hence my comment about Iran, and I did read the other link you posted and as you can see I pulled out one of the quotes. I did not watch the other video or look on the internet for a transcript for it. There's 2 hours worth of data presented in that video. If you can't find any facts in there.... well then, we're just not having a discussion. You like arguing, I get it. ---------- Post added January-4th-2011 at 03:53 PM ---------- Except $50, apparently. At first.But he has absolutely no interest in scaring me. Enlighten me. Has the price of gold risen or fallen? Precious metals? Has the government of Arizona sold off it's assets? It the US dollar devaluing? Is the price of oil increasing? Will this have an effect on commodities? Again, I'm not taking sides... just trying to make heads or tails of everything. But if you can't take away anything from these resources.... then that's your choice. I'm just a peon. I really can't do much about all of this even if it were all true. I've accepted that. I'm not buying gold/silver.. and I'm not subscribing to any financial advisor magazine. And I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. But I'm not stupid either... and if you can't take a look around you and see that things are changing... then you aren't in the same world I live in. Now, you can dismiss the source... simply because you believe they are selling a product. But try to look past that. If you can't... well then you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Has the price of gold risen or fallen? The price of gold has skyrocketed. Why that is is an open question, and at least part of it is probably that gold is now easily investible in the form of the ETF GLD, whereas before it required a lot of time money and effort to buy. I guess the question I'd pose to you is why does it bother you that gold has been on the rise? Has the government of Arizona sold off it's assets? If your point is simply that state governments are in a world of trouble, that is true. It the US dollar devaluing? A couple of years ago, when I was in Italy, a Euro was $1.50. Today, it is $1.33, so I'd have to say not really, no. Again, though, a better question is so what? As a Canadian, you get to buy American goods cheaper if you want, and as an American, why should I care? I mean, I personally travel abroad a lot, but other than that, why should I care how many Euros my Big Mac would cost? I pay in dollars. Again, I'm not taking sides... just trying to make heads or tails of everything. But if you can't take away anything from these resources.... then that's your choice. I choose not to take anything away from those resources because they are sensationalistic and in the case of Zeitgeist, come from a filmaker with a history of lies, distortion, and bad scholarship, and in the case of Stansbery Research, from a convicted fraudster trying to sell a newsletter with ridiculous promises of a "safe and easy" 100% return scheme. As your CBS article shows, there's plenty to research and discuss without flying off into the realm of fraud and fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Gold has skyrocketed b/c it is a bubble waiting to burst. Just like the bubble that was the housing market. And Oil. And dot-bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Gold has skyrocketed b/c it is a bubble waiting to burst. Well, maybe. By the way, you should probably know that the idea that The Wizard of Oz is an allegory to the fight over the Gold Standard is rather hotly contested in academia, though personally I wouldn't give much credence to a theory proposed decades after the fact by a high school teacher. The BBC has an article about it here, though I think they actually give a little too much credence to the idea. My understanding is that most historians think that it probably wasn't intentional (though the parallels seem obvious). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 There's 2 hours worth of data presented in that video.If you can't find any facts in there.... well then, we're just not having a discussion. You like arguing, I get it. "In the case of Iraq, both of those things failed. The economic hit men were not able to get through to Saddam Hussein. We tried very hard. We tried to get him to accept a deal very similar to what the House of Saud had accepted in Saudi Arabia, but he wouldn't accept it. And so the jackals went in to take him out. They couldn't do it. His security was very good. After all, he at one time had worked for the CIA. He'd been hired to assassinate the former president of Iraq, and failed, but he knew the system. So in '91 we send in the troops and we take out the Iraqi military." We never had any problems buying oil from Iraq pre-the invasion of Kuwait. Prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq always pumped oil as fast as possible, AND was a corrupt as anybody. We didn't force Saddam to invade Kuwait (there might have been misunderstanding about what the consequences of that would be, but there is no evidence that we even encouraged him to do so). "Just as the Federal Reserve keeps the American public in a position of indentured servitude, though perpetual debt, inflation and interest." There was debt an inflation before the Fed. "Solar energy derived from the sun has such abundance that one hour of light at high noon contains more energy than what the entire world consumes in a year. If we could capture one hundredth of a percent (.01%) of this energy the world would never have to use oil, gas or anything else. The question it is not availability but the technology to harness it and there are many advanced mediums today which could accomplish just that. If they were not hindered by the need to compete for market share with the established energy power structures. Then there's wind energy. Wind energy has long been denounced as weak, and due to being location driven, impractical. This is simply not true. The US department of energy admitted in 2007 that if wind was fully harvested in just three of Americas 50 states it could power the entire nation." Our ability to collect solar power is getting better, but it isn't there yet. Storage is also an issue. Wind is even harder to collect, and what about the people living in those states? "And there are the rather unknown mediums of tidal and wave power. Tidal power is derived from tidal shifts in the ocean. Installing turbines which capture this movement generates energy. In the United Kingdom 42 sites are currently noted as available. Forecasting that 34% of all the UK's energy could come from tidal power alone. Wave power, which extracts energy from the surface motions of the oceans is estimated to have a global potential of up to 80.000 terawatt-hours a year. This means 50% of the entire planets energy usage could be produced from this medium alone. Now, it is important to point out that tidal, wave, solar and wind power requires virtually no preliminary energy to harness, unlike coal, oil, gas, biomass, hydrogen and all the others in combination these four mediums alone, if efficiently harnessed through technology, could power the world forever." This is being done, but the best way to do isn't clear. "That being said, there happens to be another form of clean renewable energy, which trumps them all. Geothermal power. Geothermal energy utilizes, what is called "heat mining", which, through a simple process using water, is able to generate massive amounts of clean energy. In 2006 an MIT report on geothermal energy found that 13.000 zetajule of power are currently available in the earth with the possibility of 2.000 ZJ being easily tapable with improved technology. The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planet is about half of a zetajule a Year. This means about 4000 years of planetary power could be harnessed in this medium alone. And when we understand that the earth's heat generation is constantly renewed, this energy is really limitless." 1. There are companies that do this already (look at CPN and ORA). However it isn't really cost competitive with fossil fuels at this time and is these companies succeed largely as the result of government incentive. 2. The Earth's heat generation isn't constantly renewed. Eventually, the core of the Earth will cool. I don't doubt that we have issues with the way large corporations interact with our government. I don't think there are many people out there that do. I don't doubt that large corporations have done very bad things in other countries where governments are less strong and more corrupt, I don't think many other people do either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Do Itch Big Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Well, maybe. By the way, you should probably know that the idea that The Wizard of Oz is an allegory to the fight over the Gold Standard is rather hotly contested in academia, though personally I wouldn't give much credence to a theory proposed decades after the fact by a high school teacher. The BBC has an article about it here, though I think they actually give a little too much credence to the idea. My understanding is that most historians think that it probably wasn't intentional (though the parallels seem obvious). Thank you for that link I always personally doubted it was an allegory to the gold standard. I might have to reread the wizard of oz though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 The price of gold has skyrocketed. Why that is is an open question, and at least part of it is probably that gold is now easily investible in the form of the ETF GLD, whereas before it required a lot of time money and effort to buy. I guess the question I'd pose to you is why does it bother you that gold has been on the rise? Gold is actually lower when adjusted for inflation than its highs in the early 1980's so the better question is even compared to when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Any and every monetary entity has one goal: Suck money from the masses and control everything it can to ensure the continued growth of wealth. There's no conspiracy to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 The first one required a lot more than a grain, but your comment seems on point, especially with...I started to watch that video, and I wondered why a guy the SEC has pursued (successfully) for fraud would make it. First he says this: Yeah, right... But then, at the end, the truth comes out... "Safe and easy" 100% returns, but they might not be right for everyone? Please, tell me how! Oh. I have to subscribe to the newsletter. I see. Well, what's another way to save myself from the thing you have no interest in scaring me about? Fantastic! Please, what do I do? What do I do? Yes! Yes! Tell me! I see... I have to subscribe to a newsletter? Oh... well, at least there's no risk. Except $50, apparently. At first. But he has absolutely no interest in scaring me. Are you sure you aren't talking about the Natural Cures guy Kevin Trudeau? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 The Earth's heat generation isn't constantly renewed. Eventually, the core of the Earth will cool. It will be a long, long, long time before the core of the Earth cools. And when it does lack of energy won't be the only problem (no magnetic field around the earth comes to mind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Well, maybe. By the way, you should probably know that the idea that The Wizard of Oz is an allegory to the fight over the Gold Standard is rather hotly contested in academia, though personally I wouldn't give much credence to a theory proposed decades after the fact by a high school teacher. The BBC has an article about it here, though I think they actually give a little too much credence to the idea. My understanding is that most historians think that it probably wasn't intentional (though the parallels seem obvious). I understand that. I posted the video as more of a jab at conspiracy theories in general. I think there's truth to the parallel's drawn from the book though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 As your CBS article shows, there's plenty to research and discuss without flying off into the realm of fraud and fantasy. And *I* posted the CBS article... which shows I have no bias I'm taking information from wherever it comes from. I don't dismiss any source... I take whatever I want from any article. But I don't preoccupy myself with the source... or the tone of the message. I can take the content out of it that I wish too. And the questions such as "why do you care? etc... I don't really. I can't do anything about it, as I said, But I'm beginning to see a lot of change around me... and I'm starting to think the world as we know it is going to change drastically. Sooner than later. And not necessarily for good... for myself or for humanity. ---------- Post added January-4th-2011 at 04:51 PM ---------- Any and every monetary entity has one goal: Suck money from the masses and control everything it can to ensure the continued growth of wealth. There's no conspiracy to that. Perhaps there's no conspiracy to it. But I have no background or understanding of monetary systems. This is all new to me. And I find it apalling. And, if true, I can't believe we allow this to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 It will be a long, long, long time before the core of the Earth cools. And when it does lack of energy won't be the only problem (no magnetic field around the earth comes to mind). And 100 years ago, people thought it would be a long, long, long time before human CO2 releases would affect global temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Zeitgeist? Really? Haven't we seen enough of this moronic bull****? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 "I don't understand it, so it must be a conspiracy!" Never seen anyone say that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think people want to believe in conspiracies because they are simply more comfortable with the notion of unknown agents being at fault for everything. That way the rest of us are blameless victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 A couple of years ago, when I was in Italy, a Euro was $1.50. Today, it is $1.33, so I'd have to say not really, no. Using a single currency to measure the value of the dollar doesn't make any sense - especially when it comes to the euro. The EMU is going to face big, big problems over the next several years. There's a lot of talk in Europe of the stronger core nations kicking some of the insolvent perimeter nations out of the euro, and even of a dissolution of the currency altogether. The latter is obviously very unlikely, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the euro lost a few member nations. That kind of uncertainty causes forex traders to flee in droves. Use the dollar index instead. It measures the dollar against a basket of other currencies. Over the past few years, the general pattern has been a falling dollar, with a big spike as the financial crisis hit, followed by a resumed decline, then another rise during the first wave of the European debt crisis. I expect the dollar to rise again this year as the crisis spreads to Portugal, Belgium, Spain, and Italy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Using a single currency to measure the value of the dollar doesn't make any sense - especially when it comes to the euro. I focus on the Euro because we travel to Europe pretty much every year, but the dollar index was lower a couple of years ago too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I focus on the Euro because we travel to Europe pretty much every year, but the dollar index was lower a couple of years ago too. Yep. Commodoties took it in a shorts a couple years ago. Now they are up. I suspect they will be down again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I focus on the Euro because we travel to Europe pretty much every year, but the dollar index was lower a couple of years ago too. It's also been significantly higher over the past couple of years - twice. I'm trying to provide general information for those who may be curious. The trend has been pretty clear for the past decade, and the index's erratic moves since late 2008 have some pretty obvious correlations to major economic events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 "I don't understand it, so it must be a conspiracy!"Never seen anyone say that before. America. We're too big to fail. Never seen anyone say that before. For your sake... you better be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Noooooooooo! not you too say it ain't so DH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 And 100 years ago, people thought it would be a long, long, long time before human CO2 releases would affect global temperature. 100 years ago nobody thought anything about human CO2 releases affecting global temperature. Are you suggesting that the earth's core could cool 4000 degrees in 100 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 100 years ago nobody thought anything about human CO2 releases affecting global temperature.Are you suggesting that the earth's core could cool 4000 degrees in 100 years? I'm suggesting that if you take zJs of energy (they talk about 0.4 zJ of energy for our use, but realistically if you are going to bring the whole world up to our life style (and even beyond), which is really what most of the piece is about, you are going to need more than that per a year) out of the core for the Earth ever year for an extended period of time through man made processes, it is likely to have unattended consequences, which are then very likely to negatively affect humanity. I'd actually argue the same thing with respect to wind, tidal, wave, and ocean currents too. The only place where I'd be pretty comfortable with harnasing that much energy every year for long periods of time without unattended consequences is solar, and that's because the sun doesn't care how much energy we harness. Collecting solar energy on the Earth is not going to affect the sun (at least it is difficult to imagine processes by which it is likely to affect the sun). ---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 06:52 AM ---------- It's also been significantly higher over the past couple of years - twice. I'm trying to provide general information for those who may be curious. The trend has been pretty clear for the past decade, and the index's erratic moves since late 2008 have some pretty obvious correlations to major economic events. Actually, one of the odd things is that they talk a lot about global wealth disparity. I'd think that any process by which you are going to do anything about that is going to have to include the devaluing of the dollar with respect to other currencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 What I don't understand is.... why does the US government need the Federal Reserve? Why would it cost the US government $10 billion to create $10 billion with of bank notes? If the US government has the capacity to create "bonds"... why doesn't it just create its own currency and skip the middle men (Reserve) altogether? What many fail to do is look outside the US when talking about the FED We have our own the Bank of Canada All countries pretty much have a central bank Credit markets and currencies are how business is done on an international scale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.