Ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure etc.

I think the mexican swine flu is probably being a bit overdramatized but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be well prepared IN CASE we don't want to go out much for a long time span.


In other news, BOA printing more money, only seems to be accelerating...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=atBCPJLgcr7Y

http://www.businessday.co.za/article...?ID=BD4A984837

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a1REWwf8EPxI

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090420/pl_nm/us_usa_imf

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...SGI&refer=home

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6145785.ece

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090420/pl_nm/us_usa_imf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8005456.stm

Gold...$9,000 / oz... GOGOGOGOGOGGogogogog
of course the author later follows up with why this is not going to happen...reasoning that it would be "politically unfeasible". So at least he's honest. Do you really think the US government will EVER go back to a non-fiat currency? One that would prevent welfare/warfare?

"Sheeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit"

Gold prevents warfare? Why do we want to prevent welfare

yea lol.

welfare good.

war bad.

and clearly, there was never war when gold was the monetary unit of exchange...

Barron

right ok.

re: war
I should have said...a non fiat currency would prevent HUGE wars and keep the US from continuing to police the world.

re: welfare
Apparently we disagree on welfare.

I believe...

This thread should be locked already.

I agree with Polvo-- it's a lot harder to start wars when you can't just print up all the money you need... and someone actually has to pay for it... the american sheeple are paying for these wars through inflation and gov't corruption, but since they don't actually see it coming out of their pocket, they just can't make the connection to confiscation through inflation yet... they haven't seen it happen in their lifetimes... or on TV...

Also, welfare is bad... it gives people a dangerous mentality that gov't will always be there to help them... when these unsustainable benefits simply cannot last forever... I hope nobody here is counting on social security for much longer... Soon everyone will be dependent on government... and all of the real wealth producers will be exported or taxed to death. With the exxcpetion of a few gigantic corps that pay 1% of their income in taxes because they have special immunity from taxes status aka they write all of the laws in this country to their benefit through vast lobbying arms... fascism... corporatism...

Dcifr- care to answer any of my questions i asked you about peter schiff? I know I could probably find them myself but if you wouldn't mind i'd appreciate it, feeling lazy

Yes, because wars never happened from 1100-1945! Its definitely fiat currency thats causing all these insane wars, I mean the Iraq War must be in the top 5 worst of all time, right?

Also yeah welfare sucks, we should just teleport back to the 18th Century when people just died, because **** the poor, they were lazy am i rite. A good kick in the ass is an awesome and proven solution to the problem.

Are you serious? There were like at least 14 wars between 1100-1945.

lol

The only good thing about it is that it consumes the attention of a couple annoying posters, freeing up other threads from their presence.

In this way, the thread is acting as designed.

so this is ALL from private investors who share the schiff newsletter (annual/quarterly report type thing) with members of the press. the results are from schiffs mouth and are applied to the fund as a whole. it is a private fund, i'm sure you can get a prospectus (i may be wrong but it could be called europac on europac.net but i may be confusing that with another fund name). his funds do not trade on exchanges and i'm about 50% sure he runs his funds at 2/20.

umm, wat?

1. clients read his work and believed in his investment thesis. since they believed in his investment thesis, what is wrong (from their perspective) of letting the guy who developed that thesis trade on it? are you saying THEY could have done better THEMSELVES by following the same philosophy (US going down, emerging markets going up, gold going to 2k soon etc. etc. etc.)? or are you saying that they shoudl be the ones making active trading decisions if their due diligence led them to schiff??

2. "funds wont go to zero since it has gold in it..." ummm, ok... funds should also not go to zero because it has claims on assets all of which are just as unlikely to go to zero as gold. in fact, as longa s you're not investing in companies with a more than remote chance of going bankrupt and that have strong balance sheets, then i'd think those have just as smalla chance of going to zero as gold (those = a portfolio fo those companies)

3. he fared worse than the dow AND HE PREDICTED THIS S**T lol

i don't have that info. i can imagine that he owned physical and futures (not likely ETF) based assets. if iyou look, physical gold *FELL* as much as ETF gold (and possibly more b/c the premium fell as well from the highs...i'll bet the premium on hard assets rises as a percentage of their price as price rises. i haven't researched it but i'd bet you on it) so why would that matter? holding physical oil is even more expensive than futures though, especially in backwardated markets (and may be even in contango too depending on the storage costs / convenience yields etc.)

gold ETFs are quite different than guns and ammo...you can spend the profits of a gold ETF b/c it MOVES WITH THE PRICE OF GOLD (i personally don't buy that for a claim on gold myself that i can cash in for gold). you can't spend the profits on guns and ammo (but you can shoot that waskaly wabbit if he comes a-looking for your gold...)

Barron

So basically to clarify :

-You don't know the name of the fund Peter Schiff is running.
-You have never seen a prospectus of the fund Peter Schiff is running and you don't know where I can find one.
-You don't know what assets that this nameless Peter Schiff fund holds
-You obviously have no clue what Peter Schiff's fund ( if it exists ) has returned in the last 5- 10 year period
-Peter Schiff is running a TRADING FUND and not a long term investment fund

http://www.rogersrawmaterials.com/page1.html

I know this isn't Peter Schiff's fund, but here is another fund that probably isn't exactly comparable but it was linked to on Europac.net... this fund appears to be publicly traded... it has done relatively well compared to the stock market since inception... i would never ever buy this fund for a variety of reasons, but I believe it could do well in the future. There's simply too much oil in the fund imo... and I would much rather just hold the commodities myself.... sure there will be storage fees... but at least it won't disappear in a ponzi scheme... and that is the kind of peace of mind that I like to have.

If your due diligence leads you to blindly follow any one talking head, then I think your DD process is NOT thorough enough. Overall, it's important to think for yourself. Although many of Peter Schiff's big picture macro calls seem very reasonable to me, putting too much of your money into any one asset class seems ridiculous to me. Schiff has made some ridiculous moves. While I would TRUST europac.net more than say AMERITRADE.COM I be very hesitant to blindly throw all of my money into the Peter Schiff fund just like I would be very hesitant to throw all of my money into a mutual fund that a broker at Ameritrade was trying to sell me. I think Schiff and Rogers are both way too heavily weighted in oil, although I'm not sure if this is because they greatly increased their positions when it hit down to $30 / barrel. But in general, I think oil will likely stay below $50 for a while, and my perception is that they may have been buyers way above this level... but I have nothing to base that on.

Personally any investment that I can't hold in my hand isn't a good investment for me. I'm just not bright enough to understand the complexity of all of these paper ponzi schemes. I know some people are great traders and can make 200% per year compounded. I keep some of my money in paper FRNs in the bank, and I even gamble with a few stocks. But the only safe bet in this economy is in physical assets, and I'm skeptical that Peter Schiff realizes how important physical assets are.


I'm much more worried about the crazy gov't coming a-looking for my guns... I don't have enough gold to matter. Lost most of it in a tragic boating accident.
The deciding issue when it comes to voting locally for me is gun rights. I don't care how crazy a candidate is, I will ALWAYS vote for whichever candidate is most pro second amendment and most pro gun rights. No other issue is important to me at all compared to gun rights. Gay marriage? Who cares. Abortion? Who cares. Freedom of speech? Who cares. Want to close the border to illegals? who cares. want to open the border to illegals? who cares. Democrat/republican/ independant? who cares... Gun rights? Dangerous waters, better tread carefully.

Can't believe you don't have this troll on ignore yet... glad i'm keeping hiim out of your threads though

What do you think IS causing all of these insane wars, Art? I would guess 9 / 10 people want to get out of Iraq right now, but we're still going to be there for the rest of our lifetimes...

I'm guessing your will reply something like this : " You're not smart enough to understand, but we can't JUST LEAVE, it would hinder all of the "progress" (genocide) we have already completed- we need to spread PEACE and DEMOCRACY"

Oh and get the "terrorists" that flew a plane into a controlled demolition... Or were they in Afghanistan? Pakistan? Who knows, let's just wipe out all the brown looking people, they're probably terrorists. Got to kill the women and children too, otherwise they might bring more terrorists into the world.

Hey, maybe we can take over Africa next and rape all of their natural resources!

Does it matter what his funds did the last 10 years if he lost more money last year than an index investor would've lost all the while PREDICTING THIS ****.

ok listen i dont really care aabout peter schiff enough to defend him because he
really isn't a very bright investor. he still has too much faith in govt... and tries to pump ponzi schemes to make himself money. But he is a bright salesperson for sucking ppl into 2/30 payout structure. he has been right about some big macro stuff... but i agree thats impressive that he lost more than an index fund... he will prob outp[erform an index from here out, but i wouldn't bet on it since i sitll have no idea what his holdings are...
probably way oo many paper ponzi schemes for my taste...

------
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/02/news...ion=2009050213
-------
Anyone heard anyhing about his bank before?

www.freelakotabank.com

seems interesting but the coins are really expensive.

the cost of a war has no barring on how many people are killed.

and I've already clarified that a non-fiat currency doesn't prevent wars, it just makes it harder to afford them....as well as the military spending that takes place in the "off-season".

do you think the US would be able to have military bases in something like 120-some countries if it weren't for fiat currency and massive budget deficits?

I'm sure I'd feel the same way if I was from Europe and socialism was all I knew. Again, stop with the strawmans...just because I'm against welfare, does not mean I want people to live and die in the streets. Where did I say that?

you should stick to trolling with Thremp.

Non-fiat currency works the other way, it makes countries consider using war for a true economical gain: see Germany 1871-1918. Also, I'm pretty sure colonialism was at its peak during the peak of gold, and colonialism of the 18th Century is 1000000x as extreme as it is now. You're going to have a very difficult time proving a historic link between fiat currency and wars, and drawing gold with peace. Humans find a way to do it, so any links between currency backing are tenuous.

There is no strawman, a strawman is misrepresenting your position. If you're anti-welfare then you'll need to explain how you're going to extend medical care to lower socio-economic classes. 'Its their own fault for being poor' isn't an acceptable answer.

Also, don't throw around terms like 'strawman' and 'trolling' lightly. Just because someone calls you out and challenges your position doesn't mean you can throw around terms you don't understand.

Thoughts?

Are you saying the Wars fought from 1100 - 1945 were financed through Gold?

http://mises.org/story/1428

http://www.answers.com/topic/war-finance-1

You do realize that your first link says:

In the second link they talk about the British use of long dated bonds called consuls in the 19th century which were eventually devalued by inflation. It appears that many wars were financed by Government borrowing that was later devalued by inflation. I'm new to the subject of financing Wars but at first blush it looks like Government ability to create fiat money has a lot to do with financing Wars throughout history.

Yeah, sure. My main point is about the reflex to just post whatever is relevant from Mises: your two posted articles contradict not only each other but also the main assertion that fiat money was needed to finance wars throughout history. It's an interesting read to be sure, but perhaps the author is a little cavalier with the details of these grand assertions.