NA - Gold nearing $3,000!

FastEddieB said:
Excellent book. As is this one - highly recommended:

48204238927_904b0f7f17_c.jpg
Click to expand...
And Antifragile.
 
Jim K said:
This is what I'm struggling with. I bought a bunch of silver back when I WAS a survivalist for exactly this purpose. Ironically even though civilization is in worse shape than back then, I'm less convinced that the S is about to HTF. I guess as I get older I'm less interested in defending my stash of ammo and MRE's while society collapses. Anyway, my little silver stash has more than tripled in value to the point it could buy a pretty decent car. I'm inclined to dump it, but it seems like such a pain to go collect it all together from its various storage locations, drag it all to a coin shop, and then they are probably only going to pay like 85% of spot in this environment (and who could blame them?). I'm hoping it stabilizes enough that I can convert it this year into my new favorite investments: Garmin and Lycoming.
Click to expand...
Hold it if you can.
 
FastEddieB said:
I guess I figured the dealers would always be willing to buy and sell, since they make money on the “spread” regardless. But there are a handful of other videos getting pushed to me now confirming the squeeze they’re finding themselves in.

I guess this could make a case for holding “junk silver”. If things got really out of hand, bartering a silver dime - which Gemini tells me is today worth $7.22 - for products or services rendered could be easier than a $5,000 gold coin or a precious metal bar. If the past is prologue, that’s roughly how it worked in 1920’s Germany when a loaf of bread could be millions of paper Deutschmarks or a single silver one mark coin.

This looks like an interesting read:

55068995075_e4ff138dea_c.jpg


I’m not a survivalist, but any time one assumes “things are different now”, it’s healthy to remember that things are virtually never different this time. As we’re finding out, many of the safeguards and guardrails we thought we had in place have turned out to be largely illusory.
Click to expand...
Excellent post.

I too believe that the notion of guardrails equates to fantasy.

Can markets be controlled and manipulated for even extended periods of time?

Sure.

However, those chickens always come home to roost and all fiat has historically declined to basically zero or zero.

The limits have been tested once again.

What we do know is, the dollar will continue to get worth less and less. They will continue to print as political leaders engage in pointless and unprofitable distractions, making promises and chasing rainbows. We pay the price.

Again, excellent post dude.
 
Gold down 10%, Silver down 25% today.

What interesting times we live in.
 
murphey said:
Gold down 10%, Silver down 25% today.

What interesting times we live in.
Click to expand...
Ya, silver absolutely crashed today… All the way back to January 12th or so prices…. Coincidentally on a day that China froze trading of it….
 
Flatiowa said:
I will even go one step further and double down, “shoot the moon” as my father would have said and say I strongly think the price spread between gold and silver will open up this coming week, most likely in the first few days of trading. But I am over due for being completely wrong.
Click to expand...
I’m starting to think I work in the wrong industry..;)
 
Flatiowa said:
Ya, silver absolutely crashed today… All the way back to January 12th or so prices…. Coincidentally on a day that China froze trading of it….
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go as far as calling it a crash. It is still a multiple of the price just 12mos ago. Profit harvesting was inevitable at these crazy prices but the fundamentals are still present.
 
robin ardoin said:
I wouldn’t go as far as calling it a crash. It is still a multiple of the price just 12mos ago. Profit harvesting was inevitable at these crazy prices but the fundamentals are still present.
Click to expand...
What profit? Nobody is buying. The traders got ahead of their skis. It's gonna be at least a few weeks before actual demand catches back up to where the market makers believe it to be.
 
wilkersk said:
What profit? Nobody is buying. The traders got ahead of their skis. It's gonna be at least a few weeks before actual demand catches back up to where the market makers believe it to be.
Click to expand...
I put in a sale, and made a buy. Many of my advisors clients did the same. Those that have been vested for several years have made a tidy profit selling in the past week. Count me as one.
 
Looks like after the peak speculating spike, silver stabilized around mid $70’s and is beginning another stage of organic (supply and demand, not speculating) climb…. Right on projection…
 
Flatiowa said:
Looks like after the peak speculating spike, silver stabilized around mid $70’s and is beginning another stage of organic (supply and demand, not speculating) climb…. Right on projection…
Click to expand...

Well, right on one particular projection. Lord knows there were many others!
 
Flatiowa said:
It is possible that large short sellers expected a crash, it very well may result in another speculative flush out boom closer to the end of march…
Click to expand...
I suspect what happens or does not happen next in Iran will dictate the immediate price action in gold.
 
Half Fast said:
So no matter what, you’re right?
Click to expand...
If you are looking for an uptick in gold or better, I would suspect that an attack on Iran would stooge pump the price, perhaps significantly--depending on the severity. If that does not happen, I would expect it to simply continue to cover familiar ground. Iran's situation is the primary near term catalyst I would reckon.
 
The other 133 billion dollar question is what happens now after the Supreme Court decision last week. If for example I was a company that imported $100,000,000 worth of goods and payed $15,000,000 in tariffs that were declared to have been illegal and thus invalid I’d be expecting a refund and fighting tooth and nail to get it… I do NOT want to take this thread into a political discussion, I do Not want this thread locked, but that is a large variable with potential of affecting treasury bond rates, exchange rates, and with it precious metal values.
 
Yep, there were no provisions for the repayment, so now 1000's of possible court cases and potential for massive fraud. Might put some of those IRS agents back to work.
 
Mikey52 said:
Yep, there were no provisions for the repayment, so now 1000's of possible court cases and potential for massive fraud. Might put some of those IRS agents back to work.
Click to expand...

Lawsuits? Well, maybe, but.....

1 - There are other laws under which tarrifs can be imposed.
2 - Embargos are still allowed under the emergency powers act.
3 - Refund orders from courts would likely require companies to refund some money to their customers, if tarrif charges were passed on. I doubt the companies will be allowed to reap windfalls.

I'm not sure very many countries or companies will be willing to toss stones at the dragon just because he was denied one recipe for roasting them. But we shall see.

IBTL
 
Half Fast said:
1 - There are other laws under which tarrifs can be imposed.
2 - Embargos are still allowed under the emergency powers act.
Click to expand...
True, and they can be applied going forward, however the statutes and conditions under which the prior tariffs were applied were deemed invalid so the future going forward changes not the past. Ts going to get a bit bumpy all around. Midterm elections coming soon is not a stabilizing factor for the markets either by any means, Their outcome one way or the other could have a large effect, precious metals are a safe haven in times of uncertainty.. I do not see them going down significantly in the near future.
 
Flatiowa said:
The other 133 billion dollar question is what happens now after the Supreme Court decision last week. If for example I was a company that imported $100,000,000 worth of goods and payed $15,000,000 in tariffs that were declared to have been illegal and thus invalid I’d be expecting a refund and fighting tooth and nail to get it… I do NOT want to take this thread into a political discussion, I do Not want this thread locked, but that is a large variable with potential of affecting treasury bond rates, exchange rates, and with it precious metal values.
Click to expand...
Well, if you paid taxes that were illegal, then a refund would be clearly due as a matter of due process. Economics cannot be truly discussed without taking into account the political actions that lead to the economic consequences. In these managed economy-the two are tied at the hip.
 
Flatiowa said:
True, and they can be applied going forward, however the statutes and conditions under which the prior tariffs were applied were deemed invalid so the future going forward changes not the past. Ts going to get a bit bumpy all around. Midterm elections coming soon is not a stabilizing factor for the markets either by any means, Their outcome one way or the other could have a large effect, precious metals are a safe haven in times of uncertainty.. I do not see them going down significantly in the near future.
Click to expand...
Agreed. All signs point to additional upward pressure on account of the chaos that seems pre-programmed in.
 
Flatiowa said:
The other 133 billion dollar question is what happens now after the Supreme Court decision last week. If for example I was a company that imported $100,000,000 worth of goods and payed $15,000,000 in tariffs that were declared to have been illegal and thus invalid I’d be expecting a refund and fighting tooth and nail to get it… I do NOT want to take this thread into a political discussion, I do Not want this thread locked, but that is a large variable with potential of affecting treasury bond rates, exchange rates, and with it precious metal values.
Click to expand...
If those companies were to be refunded for the tariffs they paid, would they then be required to pay back their customers for the extra amount they charged them due to the tariffs they paid?
 
JOhnH said:
If those companies were to be refunded for the tariffs they paid, would they then be required to pay back their customers for the extra amount they charged them due to the tariffs they paid?
Click to expand...
FedEx, at least, is saying they will give refunds if they can get reimbursed themselves.
 
JOhnH said:
If those companies were to be refunded for the tariffs they paid, would they then be required to pay back their customers for the extra amount they charged them due to the tariffs they paid?
Click to expand...
I didn't see companies passing them on as taxes. The cost of the goods just went up with everything bundled in. In that case, the customer doesn't seem like they would have a claim, right? If widget X was $100 one day and $125 the next, then what would be their case?

But if widget X was $100 and during the tariff period was being billed as $100 + $25 tariff, then maybe they have a case?
 
172andyou said:
I didn't see companies passing them on as taxes. The cost of the goods just went up with everything bundled in. In that case, the customer doesn't seem like they would have a claim, right? If widget X was $100 one day and $125 the next, then what would be their case?

But if widget X was $100 and during the tariff period was being billed as $100 + $25 tariff, then maybe they have a case?
Click to expand...
It depends on how you purchased the item. I was certainly charged a separate tarrif fee for some items I bought from overseas from small companies in the last year.
 
Were the world and the courts sane (Hah!), any company seeking a refund of tarrifs it paid would have to provide evidence of how it accounted for the cost. Costs passed on to consumers or importers or whatever would have to be reimbursed to them. Companies would not be allowed to reap a windfall. Companies that cannot provide that accounting evidence would not be eligible for tarrif refunds. I suspect, in many cases, the costs of researching and showing what was absorbed and what was passed on would exceed the possible refund.

Any way you look at it, it will be a mess, and I doubt most companies will seek refunds. The government can still levy tariffs through other laws, and it can impose a variety of sanctions, regulations, and embargoes. As I've mentioned before, it's unwise to poke at a dragon just because the dragon has been denied one (and only one) means of roasting you.
 
Half Fast said:
Were the world and the courts sane (Hah!), any company seeking a refund of tarrifs it paid would have to provide evidence of how it accounted for the cost. Costs passed on to consumers or importers or whatever would have to be reimbursed to them. Companies would not be allowed to reap a windfall. Companies that cannot provide that accounting evidence would not be eligible for tarrif refunds. I suspect, in many cases, the costs of researching and showing what was absorbed and what was passed on would exceed the possible refund.

Any way you look at it, it will be a mess, and I doubt most companies will seek refunds. The government can still levy tariffs through other laws, and it can impose a variety of sanctions, regulations, and embargoes. As I've mentioned before, it's unwise to poke at a dragon just because the dragon has been denied one (and only one) means of roasting you.
Click to expand...
I would think, particularly with larger companies the data would be easy to produce as they would certainly know what they paid and how the resulting prices were impacted. I believe I had read that there were some large retailers leading the pack on this--perhaps Costco, but I am not entirely sure. Hopefully, there will be a sufficient number to push the issue and make every effort correct this wrong. It was a pretty obvious overreach right out of the gate in the minds of quite a few legal scholars.
 
WJG-GMT-RootBeer said:
I would think, particularly with larger companies the data would be easy to produce as they would certainly know what they paid and how the resulting prices were impacted. I believe I had read that there were some large retailers leading the pack on this--perhaps Costco, but I am not entirely sure. Hopefully, there will be a sufficient number to push the issue and make every effort correct this wrong. It was a pretty obvious overreach right out of the gate in the minds of quite a few legal scholars.
Click to expand...

I’d be amazed if they had records down to the retail customer level. And many other legal scholars thought it was not overreach.
 
Half Fast said:
I’d be amazed if they had records down to the retail customer level. And many other legal scholars thought it was not overreach.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any economist let alone legal scholars who anticipated a different result. Constitutionally, its pretty clear who has the power to levy taxes. I am sure there is always a partisan voice on either side willing to carry the water. But even very even keeled gentlemen such as Jeffery Sachs felt it was a major reach. Anyway, the only way it would have made any personal difference to me was if I was buying an Ineos or another watch--and I am not itching for either at the moment.
 
WJG-GMT-RootBeer said:
I am not aware of any economist let alone legal scholars who anticipated a different result. Constitutionally, its pretty clear who has the power to levy taxes. I am sure there is always a partisan voice on either side willing to carry the water. But even very even keeled gentlemen such as Jeffery Sachs felt it was a major reach. Anyway, the only way it would have made any personal difference to me was if I was buying an Ineos or another watch--and I am not itching for either at the moment.
Click to expand...

Three USSC justices did not think it was overreach. I’ll leave it there, lest the thread be locked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top