Magox

I invest in both. Are you familiar with Monex? The sort of trading I do with my clients are in that sort of platform, its a physical purchase, with a placed deposit allowing you to invest with some leverage. So it is a margin account, but not nearly the sort of leverage you see in a typical futures and options contract. Im not crazy about taking physical delivery of any of the metals, I dont really see the need, unless you are one of those folks that believe one day you will need it to barter for other goods. Nothing wrong with that, I have plenty of clients who fall in that category, I just dont happen to be one of those folks. In regards to premiums, it is quite normal when the price of silver drops the way it has to have those premiums rise in that fashion. I remember when the price of silver back in 08 dropped from 21 to $9 an oz. If you wanted to buy an oz of silver, you couldnt buy the physical for less than $14, the premiums were through the roof, physical demand skyrocketed yet the price of silver continued to drop. The explanation was simple, everyone was liquidating everything in site, specially paper (futures contracts), there was an extreme need for liquidity and cash, so even though the demand for physical silver was at an all time high, the futures sell off dictated the price action more so than the actual real physical demand for the market. It definitely was a trying time in my field and business. I just had to tell my clients that the demand is there, and that eventually the prices would head back higher after all the fear and panic passed along. I had a few clients that tripled and quadrupled their holdings below $10 an oz. today those clients, have done really well for themselves. Oh and I wouldnt expect silver or gold to make another move not until about september or so. Usually that is the time of the year where it kicks off the season for higher price movement, right now metals are moving into what we call the summer doldrums. Not much price action, probably in my estimations see prices move sideways to down over the next 2 to 3 months. If you see prices remain at these levels or even head a bit lower, I would look to be a buyer sometime in the beginning of September. That has been my purhasing practice for my clients and it has been wildy successful. I also wouldnt expect a sort of a breakout like we saw this past year. Usually in years where we see breakouts, the following year is a year of consolidation. I would be suprised to see the price of silver break out above the $50 level within the next 12 months. Probably will take at least 18 months in my view for that to happen.

Nope, that is only part of the problem, business uncertainty, improving technology a deleveraging process that hasnt filtered its way completely through on the private and public sector and crimping regulation are largely to blame as well.

It is, but we wont be seeing anything close to a 5% GDP growth on a sustained basis no matter who is in there. 2.5% is the new normal. And Adam, the only way our future SS problem will be solved is if we end up raising the age of when recipients can begin to start collecting benefits. They dont have to raise the age of people are close to retiring now, but more like people below the age of 45 or 50.

actually its not one day, its two days..but point taken. BUt I will stake my position based on this. If we get good economic news, the oil market will head higher, if we get bad economic news, oil will continue to head lower and if the economic news is in line with projects, I believe oil wont move much from here. If I am right with what I said over the next month, then that will pretty much prove my point that I made, that the release of the Oil reserves would have a negligible effect on the oil markets. Agreed?

One, because I didnt read the editorial that you are referring to. But you cant possibly compare the state of the economy from the mid Bush era to today. The economy is so impaired, so structurally !@#$ed up that we wont be seeing anything near the sort of tax revenues or growth relative to todays GDP/inflation than what we had seen before. I also happen to believe that we are much closer to a debt crisis than the Bush era, Im not making the argument that its Obamas fault, because it isnt, doesnt matter what president that would of stepped in, our National debt wouldnt be much lower with or without the trillion dollar stimulus. Like it or not, it did bump up the economy some, just not nearly as much as they had hoped for. Even old Greenspan happens to believe that our biggest threat that we face in the future is a possible debt catastrophe, and we all know Greenspan is a low taxes kind of guy, and the fact that he is calling for everyones taxes to be raised speaks volumes. NOw, obviously I am not staking this position because he thinks its a good idea, I formed this opinion because I believe this is what needs to be done. You just cant cut your way out of this debt crisis. Added revenues has to be a part of the solution. I understand what you are saying in regards to higher taxes causing more uncertainty. I believe that whole heartedly, but hey, no matter how you slice it or dice it, the US is in for some very slow to mild growth with risks of severe downturns over the next decade. At least! There are no good options GG. There are only bad to worse ones.

Let me try to put this in another way. The elimination of these oil subsidies and this private jet thingy are so miniscule in tangible terms relative to our debt problems, they absolutely make virtually no difference whatsoever. Notice how I said in tangible terms, meaning real actual value in reducing the debt. Yet, the argument to the American public is much more powerful than what it really is. Fact: More than 60% of the US public has a negative view of the oil companies. Why wouldnt you eliminate these oil subsidies, and eliminate this strawman attack from the left at the same time? Its not like its gonna cost the US economy jobs. There is so much global interest in oil, eliminating these subsidies would virtually have no effect on the US job sector, or for that matter prices. Again, if you close these loopholes, then what could the libs say? You just now took away their strawman, and now you can claim compromise and push for even more cuts. This is what I am trying to say

Btw, that article was horrible. I use to try to teach some of the brokers that in order to get information, make sure that the source isnt one sided in its view. This article overemphasizes speculation, and doesnt even place any counterpoints. No mention of continued global growth, or the fact that China has been increasing auto sales by an average of 30% year over year. I mean, does he really believe that this wont play a role in future oil prices? WHat about Indias growth, or brazils or any of the other developing nations growth. Or does he believe that global growth will come to a halt? If so, why didnt he mention it? Also, I didnt see any mention of our aging oil infrastructure. No mention of shortages of rigs. No mention of aging pipelines. No mention of declining oil field production in Mexico or Alaska. ALso, does he happen to believe that Middle eastern oil fields will be a secure place where oil will flow to WESTERN customers. Notice how I emphasize Western. What about the value of the U.S dollar. No where did I see his view of which direction the value of the US dollar is going to be heading. YOu cant possibly make a good bullish or bearish case without going in depth in which direction you believe the value of the dollar is headed. THis article blows balls. I could go on and on in how crappy this article was written.

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts for everyone should be the #1 goal coupled with reforming Medicare and S.S for the next US president. This President doesnt have what it takes to reform Medicare and S.S. ANd if we were to elect some far right dingbat, they wouldnt have what it takes to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. We need a rational, less partisan President to solve our growing debt problems.

Of course I am, but I also realize that when a market is trending lower and even more bearish news is piled on top of the trend, that the market will usually head lower unless the market deems to have found a bottom. I think its pretty clear that the NEWS of the US opening up the reserves have already passed. Thats the the point that I am making, the only thing that will make the market head lower is bad economic news, NOT the release of the strategic reserves. Sorry TPS, when I said that this would have a neglible effect on prices, I was right, the market already proved that. If the market would of continued to have gone lower with good to average economic news, then you would of have been right. This is what I did for a living, and as I told you many times, the oil market isnt that concerned with US oil supplies, and speculation doesnt play nearly as big of a role in prices as you believe.

I just wanted to point out a fact. But in regards to your latest comment, hey, its beyond me why they wouldnt want to close some of those tax loopholes for the oil industry. This is one argument that the GOP wont win the American public.

I didnt find the press conference to be that partisan. Sure he threw in his usual class warfare style arguments to sell to the American public his points, but not anymore than usual, as a matter of fact I would say ever since the Nov 2010 elections he has become much less partisan than he use to be. In regards to eliminating the oil subsidies, Can anyone give me a GOOD answer in to why we shouldnt eliminate the oil subsidies? And before anyone answers, remember, I know more about this than you do. So again, can anyone give me a GOOD answer in to why we shouldnt? Its a losing proposition, if the GOP were smart, they would get rid of these subsidies and whatever the hell these corporate jet taxes thingy is. Its not that much to give up at all. If they were to go through with the elimination of these subsidies, then what could the liberals say? Do it! Get rid of these loopholes!! Oh, and I remember when compromise use to be a good word. Now the hard right is so brain washed by the likes of Hannity, Rush and crew that they cant get it through thick !@#$ing skulls, that compromise is necessary sometimes. Idiots

Fun little facts: Michelle Bachmann requested 3.3M worth of earmarks for that year, the rest of Congress requested 7.7B worth of earmarks. So lets do the math shall we: There are 435 US congressman 7.7B worth of earmarks which means the average congressman requested 17.7M worth of earmarks. Bachmann requested 3.3M worth of earmarks. You are right Lybob. OUTRAGE!!! She isnt doing 20% of the job that the rest of her colleagues are doing, I mean what in the hell is she doing? And who can forget the classy ¨Magot¨ I mean that is some real wit right there.

Btw, where is the price of oil today?

As if you didnt know... predictable classless bob doesnt answer questions, he just posts meaningless conspiracist youtube links, duhhh

Some are much more predictable than others....Virtually everything is relative Buftex

Yaaay! another youtube from classless lybob Keep up the good work bobby ps: you are so predictable

yes, you are right! Now run along classless lybob and dig up another meaningless conspiracist youtube video

Magot huh? you are truly classless

Could you of set this up on a better tee? and for good measure, just so we keep the facts straight. Now who is in who´s pocket?

I dont see the issue here with the paragraph you copied. What point are you trying to make? That their clinic accepted Medicaid money? Is that the point you are trying to make? Are you suggesting that they should deny care for people who cant pay for healthcare? Thats what it sounds like to me. I believe you are trying to paint her as a hypocrite right? That she on one hand criticizes the medicaid program but on the other receives money from Medicaid,isnt that what you are trying to do? Even though that article is written in such a slanted way, can you provide me the link to that article please? She hasnt said she wants to see Medicaid abolished, event though thats what the article suggests, she says she wants to see it reformed, major difference. In regards to the farm subsidies, the way I see it is the law permits it, then go for it. I dont see anything wrong with it what so ever. It sort of reminds me of the silly things whats her ugly face would try to do on MSNBC with all the governors accepting stimulus funds even though they denounced the stimulus. I mean for christs sakes, if the bill has already passed, then it would be absolutely stupid on the parts of the governors that were against the stimulus bill to say ¨well, we are gonna be stubborn, and even though the bill has passed, we would rather let the rest of the states receive the money,even though we will still end up paying the same taxes as the states that had received funds from the stimulus¨ This argument was always a strawman point to make. Only dipshits would say ¨Oh yeah, Maddow has a point, those conservative governors are hypocrites¨ If the money is available and you have to pay taxes for that money, then !@#$ yeah you take the money. Idiots

I will tell you his stance. He does believe that Climate change is real, he does believe that humans have contributed to its change, but doesnt know exactly how much. He does believe that we should be conscience of trying to pollute less but he is categorically against cap and trade legislation. In other words he has the stance that George Bush did. I believe you can find more info in a Politico June 9th article. I happen to believe pretty much the same, that there is a climate change occuring and that it is possible that humans are contributing some to it, but not nearly as much as the enviro fear mongers would have you believe. I also believe that taxing pollution isnt the way to go about it, much like mitt, but that we should be conscience of how much pollution we are emmitting... To me this seems like the rational reasonable approach. In regards to Obamacare, he has come out strong against it and has promised to at least try to repeal it... And you cant compare Romneycare in Massachussets to Obamacare. Remember, Mass. is very liberal, thats what the people wanted over there, if he hadnt of campaigned on some sort of universal care over there he would of never have gotten elected. What is one of the main priorities of being an elected official? Could it possibly be serving the wishes of the people he represents? That was what they wanted over there.

Dammit, now you made me feel bad.

Bachmann more capable than Christie or Mit???

Thanks, I´ll have to catch that when I get back.

This is the first financial article I have read in the past 3 weeks. I suppose you could characterize rolling over mortgage debt to Treasury bonds as QE 2.5, but honestly I never had too much doubt that they wouldnt do this. However, I should of stuck with my gut feeling back about 6 months ago, I was absolutely wrong when I believed that the economy would grow at 3.5% in the first half of this year, I figured the slowdown was gonna be in the second half of the year. Ben Bernanke, this is how he deals with things, prints more money with the hope that something will stick, he wont change course now. Also, there is gonna be some more cuts not just on the state and local level but now on the federal level and that won´t help grow this economy over the short-term either. This is the new normal.