Well, first, you seem to be unaware that pretty much the whole world agreed that the US would remain on a gold standard, & the dollar would become the reserve currency of the world. Then Nixon severed the gold standard, but mumbled something about it being 'temporary'. Finally, govts realized its a pretty good deal if they can just print money when they need a few extra bucks, or as a favor to those who will launder it right back into their campaign coffers. The gold standard has to be something people demand, not something that govt is going to re-institute out of the goodness of its heart.
If the govt wasn't simultaneously taxing 'capital gains', while inflating the prices of everything so that the 'apparent' capital gains in my gold holdings is taxed at 15%, maybe I could just 'save' in gold. And maybe if legal tender laws permitted us to demand payment in gold, then I wouldn't have to worry about the fact that a multi-month contract is losing 6% over the course of a year. But then, supposing all that, gold would essentially be in free competition with paper money, and what do you think most people would demand? Wouldn't we end up with sound money and a literal gold-standard?
I think Euro Pacific has started offering to manage accounts greater than $100K since this post was written, unless they were actually doing that all along.
I've had Skyworth for 10 months and was north of 200%. sold 50% a month ago, and it's been wobbly since.
SnoopyJC, how did you learn technical analysis/charts? Books, web, etc? Which/where? I've done well over last 10 months with Schiff's recommendations, but I don't know how to do what you do.
Thanks
to continue,
I see the damage drugs and alcohol have done to society. I'm a foster parent. But banning them always seems to bring in more destruction without actually reducing the damage the ban was meant to stop in the first place. For me there's probably a line. I can't see full drug-legalization. But it's pretty stupid to permit alcohol & tobacco, but criminalize marijuana (though I don't really see much to admire about pot-use outside of pain or nausea management).
People may be blaming Obama for the changes in the political leanings of America, but for me, it was the Republican Establishment. They morphed into the Democrat party they replaced, so I stopped donating to the party, and started only donating to individuals. I stopped thinking of myself as a libertarian-leaning Republican, and now consider myself a Republican-leaning libertarian. I believe in and support a libertarian-takover of the Republican Party by supporting libertarian-leaning Republican candidates nation-wide. To me, that is what the Tea Party IS. Supporting a third party, such as the Libertarian party, is simply surrender to the Progressive Democrats.
I am a religious 'fundamentalist', but I agree fully with this article.
I don't like prostitution, or related stuff, but Prudery always rings of Progressivism to me. Progressives banned alchohol, and now they're going for tobacco, firearms, and fatty foods. There are plenty of Progressives in the Republican party.
Gee, experts are never ignored by congress are they? The truth is that congress wants certain projects based on size for their district. The truth is that fighter jock Admirals now in control want only human-piloted fighter jets. Even now, ONLY the CIA has armed UAVs. All other UAVs are unarmed recon platforms. It should be the other way around. How cheap and effective could a carrier be that only carried the lighter armed UAVs piloted by individuals that didn't have to be perfect physical specimens. How effective could aircraft be that could be smaller, yet faster and far, far more nimble than hulking F-15 fighters? Lighter and faster UAVs mean a far, far shorter runway for takeoff and recovery, and a smaller carrier. With a more flexible fleet of UAVs, smaller than human crewed fighter-bombers, a carrier could carry more of them in less space. Repair & non-routine maintenance could simply be deferred until return to port, reducing crew-size. All this could be tried out in parallel with conventional systems. It's the future, whether we piddle around and let someone else do it or not.
If the Tea Parties are attracting people from both the ranks of conservatives and independents, and you start to see ratios of 10 out of 100 Tea Partiers are blacks, then my gut is that you're seeing around half of the black population interested in the Tea Party. That kind of number should scare the daylights out of democrats. Not that we will see that ratio. I'm just trying to establish exactly what is the black to white ratio you should see at a Tea Party given the demographics and voting patterns of the US population. 1 to 2 out 100 would be essentially no-change. 4 out of a 100 should start to alarm democrats that they are in serious trouble. At the same time, a video of a crowd with only 4 out of 100 being black could still be used by Chris Matthews and his ilk to claim the Tea Parties are 'lily white', especially since they have zero problem doing a little creative editing to excise the blacks from the crowd in any video they do show.
Good point. Blacks are ~12% of the US pop, & ~8 to 10% of blacks voted for 'Not Obama'. So the baseline ratio you could expect to see at a Tea Party rally, assuming the rally draws only from those self-identified conservatives, would be 2 out of 100. No guess what the ratio should be if you assume a more recent rally draws to some degree from both conservatives & independents. My gut says it moves toward 1:100, since the % of blacks who self-identify as liberal (& % of blacks who are politically active) are different from the rest of the US pop. So I'm thinking 1 to 2 out of 100 black to white ratio in a Tea Party crowd is completely normal. Sounds pretty low, but that's just the demographics! It's really cheap & easy to claim Tea Parties are 'racist' because they 'look too white'. If you start to see higher than 2:100 blacks at a Tea Party, then the democrats better start to be alarmed, since that means the Tea Parties are probably starting to draw more than the 8-10% black republican vote.
Most people and companies have to compete on price (the cost of their labor or goods). But business cartels and unions tell you what you have to pay to buy their labor or product, with the power of government (and union thugs) backing them up.
I don't care if people are 'forced' into unions. This union crap has got to stop. I'm fully on board with cutting out as much over-priced, union-made crap as possible. It's actually pretty easy to do. Just purchase the highest-quality, lowest-priced items, and you're almost certainly NOT buying union-made!
You know, who would mind if people had the option to keep their 26-year-old, perennial grad-student 'child' on their health-insurance, as long as they themselves paid for the option, and also had the option to NOT add their adult 'child' to their insurance in return for a LOWER premium, while at the same time, the student would be allowed to buy a high-deductible customized plan that didn't cover everything from sniffles to heart-bypass operations.
Instead, individuals and companies are ordered to comply with this unfunded mandate. Apparently, regardless of whether the 26-year-old is a student or not, whether they are full-time employees with their own insurance or not, they must be covered under plans that are mandated to cover, more often than not, almost everything conceivable, including plastic surgery in some cases. It seems this bill is simply designed to outright destroy the insurance system inside of three years, just in time for Obama to sign a single-payer nationalized health-care bill before he gets booted from the White House.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Company