The imposed distortion's just moved a few views up on the process. As we noted before define the new normal.
The warm reboot IS here.
The IPCC will seek to explain the current pause in a report to be released in three parts from late 2013 as the main scientific roadmap for governments in shifting from fossil fuels towards renewable energies such as solar or wind power, the panel's chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.
According to Pachauri, temperature records since 1850 "show there are fluctuations. They are 10, 15 years in duration. But the trend is unmistakable." http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 300#p19031
Data inputs from circa 1520 ran in the 1980's for composite overlays confirms the pattern. They are being lazy. Northern Europe froze and Central America
simply ran out water since all the water has to be stored there.
The following commercial from Interactive Brokers seems to
run a zillion times a day:
> Central banks are flooding the world with cheap money.
> Interactive Brokers will lend USD 1 million at 1.3% for every USD
> 200,000 in a portfolio margin account.
> See our high dividend scanner for the many hundreds of stocks that
> yield over 5%.
> Trading on margin is only for sophisticated investors with high
> risk tolerance. Dividend yields can change and stocks may lose
> value. You may lose more than your initial investment.
And so, if you're in the 99%, then you can't borrow any money
at all. That's why there's no inflation.
But if you're in the 1%, then you can borrow millions of dollars at
1.3% and use the money to buy stocks (and, presumably, gold) at only
20% margin. The stocks are supposed to yield over 5%. Sounds like a
good deal.
John wrote:
And so, if you're in the 99%, then you can't borrow any money
at all. That's why there's no inflation.
But if you're in the 1%, then you can borrow millions of dollars at
1.3% and use the money to buy stocks (and, presumably, gold) at only
20% margin. The stocks are supposed to yield over 5%. Sounds like a
good deal.
Is this any different from 1929? I assume not.
If I buy an option there is a good chance that a computer sold me a new call. This computer borrowed money at 1% and bought the SLV and also a put to protect itself if the SLV goes down. The end result is almost as if I had been able to borrow money at 1% and buy SLV and a put to protect myself. There are lots of computers competing to sell me options, so their cut is not really that much. So while I am in the 99%, I am making use of the cheap loans, indirectly.
The big difference from 1929 is that now the FRNs are 0% backed instead of 40% backed by gold. This will make a difference, eventually.
shoots up again will you post saying "gold going up this much is really bad news, since it means the hyperinflationists might be right"!?!? Did you think that when gold went from $800 to $1900?
Vin ask the liberal with a conscience why sticky wages matter to leverage fiat to the centrally planned inhibited consumer treadmill to net asset worth in a capitalist system based on surety of exeters pyramid. This is inclusive to and was introduced by the Beveridge Report of the welfare program based on exploitation of the Third World on exponential growth in debt and population. This also means the United States captivated taxpayer. Full engagement to the supply side ruse later of ruffians was never a reality and not ever considered to garner fiscal control and the liberal with the conscience is lacking conveyances to the people also on the skillset to Enron's advisory board. I will forward the current liberal statist mindset paper they convey to a orderly society. The crux of the matter when you drilldown on the Beveridge Report is just him citing Alfred Marshall who trained Keynes on the Fabian LSE model to Welfare Statist shamanism. In a generational dynamic context the one in out is not the most efficient thought map to the means of production but other parameters meet the crisis and non crisis induced varable. Also the street still missed your context John on margin of the theft of the five pillars to induced malinvestments in the energy market sell off noted from the paper metal bubble that was pricked. John is correct and the woolin gal smelled like lighter fluid as forwarded for some time. The Iron Lady is being laid to rest and She understood who should work and why also. She never had ill regard for the true needs of the people there in a actual twist.
http://classonline.org.uk/docs/2013_Exp ... elfare.pdf
It is clear that the government is manufacturing a crisis, reducing the level of services and their quality, and shaking public confidence in the NHS. But claims that we can no longer afford the NHS are untrue. The NHS is not over budget. Last year the NHS budget was under spent and £2 billion was returned to the Treasury.
We will not have to do the math since we already know the model.
Attachments
1937.jpg (45.11 KiB) Viewed 4654 times
Last edited by aedens on Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exch ... 28078.html
XXVI. THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ECONOMIC CALCULATION UNDER SOCIALISM
“It is the two fundamental errors of mathematical economics that must be indicted. The mathematical economists are almost exclusively intent upon the study of what they call economic equilibrium and the static state. Recourse to the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy is, as has been pointed out, an indispensable mental tool of economic reasoning. But it is a grave mistake to consider this auxiliary tool as anything else than an imaginary construction”
He no longer deals with human action but with a soulless mechanism mysteriously actuated by forces not open to further analysis. In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy there is, of course, no room for the entrepreneurial function. Thus the mathematical economist eliminates the entrepreneur from his thought. He has no need for this mover and shaker whose never ceasing intervention prevents the imaginary system from reaching the state of perfect equilibrium and static conditions. He hates the entrepreneur as a disturbing element. The prices of the factors of production, as the mathematical economist sees it, are determined by the intersection of two curves, not by human action. The problem of socialist economic calculation is precisely this: that in the absence of market prices for the factors of production, a computation of profit or loss is not feasible. Who should be master, the consumers or the director? With whom should the ultimate decision rest whether a concrete supply of factors of production should be employed for the production of the consumers good or the consumers good be? Such a question does not allow of any evasive answer. It must be answered in a straightforward and unambiguous way. http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... rvor#p2720
The CBOE Volatility Index (.VIX), Wall Street's fear index, gained 6.4 percent to 17.56. The VIX is up roughly 46 percent for the week so far. It still remains well below its recent highs, but the gains could signal a change in the market trend.
Last edited by aedens on Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
With all the BS coming off the newswires...nice capture news anchor aedens. Otherwise...thanks for keeping me informed with all the "other" reporting you and et, al...do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ-5lO-yaOg
John wrote:The following commercial from Interactive Brokers seems to
run a zillion times a day:
<video snip>
> Central banks are flooding the world with cheap money.
> Interactive Brokers will lend USD 1 million at 1.3% for every USD
> 200,000 in a portfolio margin account.
> See our high dividend scanner for the many hundreds of stocks that
> yield over 5%.
> Trading on margin is only for sophisticated investors with high
> risk tolerance. Dividend yields can change and stocks may lose
> value. You may lose more than your initial investment.
And so, if you're in the 99%, then you can't borrow any money
at all. That's why there's no inflation.
But if you're in the 1%, then you can borrow millions of dollars at
1.3% and use the money to buy stocks (and, presumably, gold) at only
20% margin. The stocks are supposed to yield over 5%. Sounds like a
good deal.
Is this any different from 1929? I assume not.
Or, John and all, have you seen this one from Interactive Brokers, which uses an "Occupy Wall Street" motif parody in regards to "joining the One Percent"?
Now, I know what John as well as Strauss and Howe have said regarding the forward progression of Turnings, but are you sure that, through the magic of Quantitative Easing, that you can't revert from a Fourth Turning to a Third Turning? (Maybe if we can quintuple the QE, we can even get back Hippies, Free Love, and the Grateful Dead.......Ooooh, this could be exciting!! ) —Regards/Cheers, Marc
(Maybe if we can quintuple the QE, we can even get back Hippies, Free Love, and the Grateful Dead.......Ooooh, this could be exciting!! 
) —Regards/Cheers, Marc
