Partners

Archive for December, 2011

Gold Censored by US TV Networks

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

Watch the Ads they didn’t want you to see here – read on

There are many theories surrounding the manipulation of the Gold Market and the Gold Spot price but few doubt that it takes place, orchestrated by some greater beings that seek to control the money supply.

In a recent cynical twist, gold has been effectively censored off the air of a host of major US TV Networks working in collusion with the Obama administration and the Fed.
An established gold investment company recently made two TV ads to be aired across the networks. The ads feature caricatures of Obama, Bernanke and Pat Boone who narrates the story. The latter works for the company Swiss America and has long been an advocate of the virtues of gold versus dollars.
The first of the ads takes a humorous jibe at Bernanke’s Wall Street reputation for being “helicopter Ben” , ready to dump money on a crisis.

“made-up” reasons for ban?

The reasons given for rejecting the ads vary from ;
• Comcast who explained that it “doesn’t meet our standards on public symbol. The Comcast Public Symbol Policy apparently specifies that the “use of the name or likeness of the President of the United States and/or the Presidential Seal for endorsing commercial purposes must be authorized by the White House.”
• Fox News said the “representation of public figures is something we try to avoid.”
• CNN/HLN told Swiss America the commercials were “not appropriate for the current political landscape.”

Swiss America CEO Craig Smith said “The networks’ reaction shocked me,” Smith said. “It’s a threat to First Amendment rights when a commercial message is rejected not because it is inaccurate or misleading, but because it makes what is perceived to be a political statement the networks want to avoid.”

Smith told WND he was concerned that the networks were protecting Obama and Bernanke.
“All we are saying in these two commercials is what dozens of responsible professional economists are saying every day,” Smith said;

“Gold investment as a responsible diversification strategy when governments printing of fiat currencies with abandon risk unleashing inflationary principles.”

Inflationary pressures are building globally and no-one has an answer to them rising and the consequent economic impact.
It is a common known fact that storing gold through a crisis and inflation is the BEST way to protect your wealth value and its purchasing power. This has been the case for 6000 years.

Gold can never be worth zero – it has intrinsic value.
Fiat currency can become worthless – its only value is that of a piece of paper

The Ban backfires

However, the censorship has backfired as Google TV accepted the ads which will eventually be shown throughout the networks via Google TV!
These humorous videos tell a very straight and simple story and the only possible reason for banning them is because of how close to the TRUTH they really are – and that hurts the Politocrats who believe they are all supreme and mighty to judge over us, control us and bankrupt us.



They are so desperate to cling on to power they will do anything – except we are not the fools they take us for – are we?

No Euro, No Union – No Surprise!

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

Is the Europen Union real?

The crisis of the Euro is demonstrating a fundamental lack of credibility in the institutions of the European Union. Throughout, the European Commission has consistently taken a back seat, as if it really had no idea what was going on, let alone what to do about it.

All parties to the state of the single currency share this lack of credibility and not least because the euro was never credible anyway. Its launch was deferred for a year because the poorer member nations were nowhere near the narrow margin either side of parity with the Deutsche Mark which was the fundamental condition for entry into the new currency.

That fact alone shows what a queer creature the Euro is. The Maastricht Treaty created the European Union to give Europe a single market, a single currency – to become a single State. That there are rules as to who was in the single currency already beggars the question as to what forms a cohesive state.

The rules were for a time adhered to; a year on from the original date of the launch, though nothing had changed, political ambition got the upper hand and the Euro was born: the claim was made that delaying any longer would only call the project’s credibility into doubt.

What was done, however, was incredible: this attempt to unite anyway widely disparate economies by breaking the first rule of admission generated an educated scepticism on the part of several British economists, who outlined the demise of the Euro, down to the detail that Greece would collapse first.

A week after the summit which agreed new fiscal rules (the problem with the old ones, apart from the whole air of unreality investing the project, was that they were never adhered to, a fault it is hard to see the new ones mending), a leader in The Times of London (16 December 2011) pointed out that “Mr Sarkozy secured his goal of framing the new fiscal rules as an inter-governmental agreement rather than a treaty backed by the European Union’s institutions.”

Eurozone Union?

This is even more incredible: in order to commit to more binding state-like ties, in order to chase that ever-elusive credibility, the Euro currency nations are going their own way outside the boundaries of the European Union’s institutions – yet still blithely calling it “The European Union”. What, in this light, is one to make of the European Central Bank’s position? What is the status of the Commission? What does the old cry “further and deeper union” mean now?

The other side of this coin is that there can now be no question that what is driving all this is the national interests of the two most powerful states, which are determined to pull the poorer nations, whether or not it is in their interests, after them, and in doing so divide the Union.

As with all advanced democracies, and this is something the euro crisis has exposed mercilessly, there is a further division within the nations between the political class and the ordinary public: the politicians persist in their unreal aspirations, risking jobs and investments.

The People decide while Politics prevaricates?

A little item of Christmas realism? Vendors at a Christmas market in at least one German town are advertising their willingness to accept – Deutsche Marks! (Exchange rate €1 = 2 DM)

by Mark Rogers

Austerity for you – privileges for Politicians

Friday, December 16th, 2011

Austerity = Rising x (Inflation + Taxation + Unemployment)
=Misey + Poverty + Social unrest

“In the long run we are all dead”

There is about Keynes’s famous maxim just a smack of the superior viewpoint (I will not call it wisdom) of the Bloomsbury Group, but this is because it was he who said it. It is indeed a singularly commonplace remark, and surely had no place in the thoughts of an economist. After all, the economist’s stock in trade is getting and spending, the provisioning, manufacturing, storing, and distributing of the very stuff of Life!

While a truism, taken as the premise of moral counsel the remark is pernicious. There is also a sense in which it isn’t even true. You and I may be soon for the grave, but that isn’t yet true of our children, or of those generations unborn. No human being is conceived in isolation: we are born into webs of family connections, which expand into webs of friendship, business and social ties. Behind all those webs, lies the vast concourse of mankind…. There is much to be said for Burke’s idea of an unbroken chain of inheritance and responsibility, encompassing all life, past, present and to come: it reminds us that in the long run the end of life is – living.

And to live in the sense in which Burke meant it, is to live and raise one’s children on the classical virtues, which Keynes abominated: “When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years.” This was his considered verdict on the virtues of industry: hard-work, thrift, independence, and saving.

Self-interest is assumed to be coterminous with selfishness. This simply is not true: it is not selfish to wish to care for your family and friends. It is not selfish to wish not to be a burden on others. An economy driven by Keynesian mechanisms, however, destroys these virtues. A recent polemical example: the London Evening Standard columnist Simon Jenkins called upon the government to give those on benefits a Christmas bonus so that they could spend, spend, spend….

Keynes is often defended against the charge of being a short-termist, but that is what his policies amount to in the long run. Government intervention to cure this or that economic ill is inevitably driven by short-term considerations: expediency is the politician’s stock in trade and the longest run is the next election. The statesman on the other hand is the politician who takes the long view and asks whether what appears to be the expedient measure is likely to cure an ill, or would not rather worsen it.

Take unemployment. Workers pricing themselves out of the market by demanding ever higher wages (not solely motivated by greed: this is one of those spiraling problems of an inflationary fiat money economy) leads to demands for government intervention to legislate wages and benefits, which through higher taxation leads to further inflation and to yet more taxation….

Perhaps, given Keynes’s approval of death duties, he really meant: in the long run we are all taxed. The 1970s showed us where that leads, and the current Eurozone crisis suggests the lessons must be learned all over again.

Good things are still possible in the future, as long as you have tangible, physical assets that are still worth something – your survival depends on their value when the economic crisis deepens and money as we know it reverts to its true value – bits of printed paper.

Euro RIP

By Mark Rogers

WHEN DEBT’S CALLED CREDIT (2)

Thursday, December 15th, 2011

Here we continue our conversation from the previous article “When Debt’s called Credit”.

So, you mortgaged your salary and have been fortunate enough with your earnings to stay the course of a twenty-five year mortgage repayment plan. However, the asset which you now possess has cost you something like three times its original price. You are inclined to think that this, plus the profit on any potential sale, is what your house is now “worth”. However, your house will only be worth its inflated price (a price entirely created by debt) relative to a booming economy which puts a premium on home ownership. That is, it is worth this potential only if there is sufficient activity in the economy to fuel someone else’s borrowing to purchase your house to further inflate the value of that property.

One point to clarify, at the risk of stating the obvious (though there is little that is obvious about the modern mortgage): where does the borrowing come in – you have paid for your house out of your earnings on a monthly payment plan. The bank/building society has lent you the money by buying the house, and the repayment plan reflects the cost of, and length of time that, the money is out on loan in the form of bricks and mortar.

Thus house prices become grossly inflated. If the cycle continues, the house at the end of each twenty-five year period will keep tripling its nominal value – but this is unsustainable in the long run, and, despite Keynes’s dictum that “the long run is a misleading guide to current affairs”, that is exactly the view that should be taken: in the long run, the mortgage inflates the value of the asset, and it is entirely foreseeable that it should do so. In fact, that it does so renders the word “asset” in this context potentially meaningless. What happens if you cannot sell the house, and no-one wishes to rent it at a price that reflects anything like your “investment” in it?

Of course, there are many who buy their houses as homes and a long-run inheritance for their children. But the trouble with the modern mortgage is that it is sold largely on the basis that the asset is a tradable good. This is not a natural assumption for most people to make, especially families, and was not something that our forefathers generally assumed – unless they were builders, property developers and speculators.

There is a serious and somewhat sneaky consequence of the inflation of house prices: the government under New Labour changed an important measures of inflation, the Retail Price Index which included mortgage interest repayments, that is house prices, (and was used, amongst other things, to adjust selected benefits, including state pensions) by switching to the Consumer Price Index, which does not (interestingly, the latter also omits Council Tax, which is a concern for pensioners, who may well own their homes, but are not free of this major property cost). The measure of inflation used by those who make public policy does not include a major source of inflation.

Has the desire to own one’s own home become a mania of the Tulip or the Railway kind?

It is also worth remembering that inflation rates currently higher than interest rates, thus all monies stored/saved in this type of way are effectively losing value daily and their purchasing power rapidly eroded.

There are few “inflation-proof” savings or savings plans on offer but one to consider is the purchase (and ownership) of the only safe haven tangible asset – Gold in physical form. Historically gold has always protected wealth against periods of inflation and crisis. One important aspect is to ensure that you own your gold as this gives you complete control over its eventual resale which is the most important moment for your investment.
We strongly advise against the purchase of “paper” gold such as ETFs as these are so oversold that only 5% could be redeemed against physical stocks. These types of investments are extremely vulnerable in an economic crisis and the risk of significant losses is increased.

True value is an asset that maintains its worth at all times – during prosperity and austerity.

Choose yours wisely!

By Mark Rogers

Numismatics and rare Gold coins: a market without faith or law?

Monday, December 12th, 2011
Numismatic Gold coins

Numismatic Gold coins

The profession of numismatists has changed in the past 30 years. Lovers of beautiful and rare gold coins have been gradually replaced by amateur investors.

Pierre-Yves Lathoumetie in “Avers et revers de la numismatique (1973)” makes a distinction between the humanist collector and the speculator.
The former may make some honest investments guided by his passion for rare or unusual Gold, silver or bronze coins. The latter, instead, will fail unless he is able to appreciate the true historical value of the coins.

Why consult a numismatist?

Both need to consult an expert: the numismatist, who will be able to advice them on price and history of a Gold, silver or bronze coin. Consultation with a numismatist and trust in him does not prevent the collector or speculator from comparing prices or obtaining information from other sources.

Roughly speaking, this is basically what awaits those who want to get involved in the numismatic world. Experts and novices run the risk of finding themselves lost in a market that has changed considerably in 30 years and which is subject to fluctuations and uncertainties.

A market without rules

It is important to know that there are no rules governing the rare coin market. The price on a piece may differ greatly within the same category, from one country to another, depending on demand. There is no fixed price. Two identical coins may have two different prices with the same exhibitor. What this tells us is that the market of extremely rare pieces has no uniformity, in contrast to the market of gold bars or investment coins which is structured and organized. These changes, obviously, have an impact on the profession of numismatist.

Numismatic influences of the Art market

After 30 years, we are witnessing a type of negotiation between vendors and purchasers where any price is possible, within the higher band. We are also witnessing an extremely sensitive market where the most insignificant event may shoot up the price of some particular coin: public sale, archaeological discovery.

From collector, the numismatist has become speculator, ignoring in most cases the past of the coins, the art and archaeology.

Varied consequences

-Perfect coins are being sought after due to their premium, and because those that are damaged or deteriorated lose their charm. There have been cases when extremely rare pieces have been sold for very little money and others less unusual have been sold at gold price because they are intact.

-Investors grab Gold coins which are easily recognizable (newer pieces from the 19th and 20th centuries) the prices of which increase rapidly, in detriment of rarer pieces which are not so popular among the public.

– The price of a coin may differ from one country to another as the demand is not the same (usually national pieces are more valued in their own country).

To summarize, the rare coins market has nothing in common with the common coins market reserved for investment. But as is the case with works of art and fine wines, the truly rare coins are the ones that in the long term are a good investment, because a rare piece has a “long life” and never depreciates. Its value is based on its rarity and not the gold price.

The Corruption of the British Political Elite

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Edmund Burke, the 18th Century Irish Member of Parliament, friend and champion of Adam Smith, champion of American Liberty, scourge of the French Revolutionaries, warned against paid MPs. Expenses were a recurring scandal since medieval times: whenever a Parliament was summoned, MPs travelled to London to attend; there were frequent attempts to claim more for journeys and hostelry bills than propriety countenanced. Schemes and machinations abounded. Familiar? Yet at least these MPs were not salaried: they had their own incomes – expenses, being extra, were considered (except by the King) as fair game. Burke’s concern was that salaries for MPs would turn the members of the House of Commons into a professional caste.

The scandals over inflated expenses could, perhaps, have once been regarded as a small price to pay to avoid professional salaries; besides, of course, in those days Parliament only convened when there was business to conduct. The MPs expenses scandal of recent years shows how right Burke was: here were professional MPs, on fairly generous salaries, with expense accounts that allowed them to employ family members as staff – and capable of being stretched to cover all sorts of things not related to their duties.

This corruption must be seen as just one element of the moral corruption of the contemporary political class, as well as a wider corruption of the parliamentary system. For the question needs to be asked: what are professional politicians? Are they persons, scholarly of mind, who are learned in the history of the Common Law Constitution? Far from it; so far indeed that they are not even versed in the legislation that they pass: for example, when Gordon Brown as Chancellor introduced his unnecessarily complex Income Tax return forms, it was found that a sizeable number of MPs did not understand them. They were not, however, thrown back at the government on the grounds that if MPs couldn’t understand them, it was fair to assume that many of their constituents wouldn’t either.

One particularly corrupting influence is the habit of delegated legislation, now so widespread that it could be said that all legislation has become delegated legislation. Delegated legislation entails framing the intentions of an Act of Parliament in obscurely wide-ranging terms and concluding that for all practical outworkings and impositions of the Act, the relevant Minister is empowered, without further consultation with Parliament, to act as he sees fit.
That is, MPs pass the supervisory function over the executive that they are supposed to exercise, straight back to the executive. Presumably so that they can spend more time with their moats, ducks, first class railway tickets and McVitie’s biscuits, while lying to their mortgage providers….

This is not only moral corruption but dereliction of duty, indeed outright subversion of the very functions of a representative parliament. Burke’s prophecy has come to pass: a salariat professing political virtue and competence has become a self-interested cabal whose interests are diametrically opposed to those who elected them. Are these the people to be entrusted with overseeing the wealth of nations?

by Mark Rogers

When Debt’s called Credit

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

Not long ago, the Halifax Building Society advertised its services under the banner “the U.K.’s largest mortgage provider”. Which being interpreted means: the British financial institution most exposed to the next collapse of the housing market.
Traditionally, a mortgage is the securing of a loan (which might be less than the value of the asset) against realty: a property with secure title was offered as collateral for debt.

With most people unable to purchase a property outright, a “mortgage loan” is arranged, which is actually the opposite of a mortgage: you choose the house you would like to rent from your bank/building society, which purchases it and rents it to you for a fixed term (typically 25 years in the U.K.). If you maintain the “rental” payments, after the term has elapsed you get to keep the house.

If you do not maintain them, the house is “repossessed” – another odd term, given that you do not possess it, your bank/building society does – and all that money paid over by you has done no more than what an ordinary rent would have achieved, somewhere to live pro tem, rather than an investment and/or a property you can pass on to your children.

At the end of the boom of the mid- to late-1980s, a wave of “repossessions” swept South-east England: young upwardly-mobile traders had bought substantial properties in the Home Counties on mortgages paid out of the commissions they were earning on City of London trading floors.

This was not all: they invested in furnishings and adornments appropriate to their new and their properties’ traditional status. All was lost! Bailiffs repossessed the properties and took possession of antiques, period furniture and antiquarian books and first editions.

A colleague of mine owned a small bookshop in the heart of a traditionally affluent part of west Surrey, a natural place for these traders to gravitate to. Bailiffs knew the value of the furniture they were appropriating: that went into auction. My colleague benefited from their lack of interest in books, and for months at the end of 1989 and well into 1990, estate cars would stop at his shop, packed with books at a tenner a box. Each box contained several valuable books.

A home is not just a house: it is how you decorate it and what you put in it, the sum creating a value you would, presumably, wish to preserve and cash in when the assets have appreciated, and/or pass through your family unto the last generation… So why would one try to do so on a modern mortgage? Especially as if anything is being “mortgaged”, it is your earnings. If your earnings are in an already precarious sector – such as the trading floors, with their complete lack of job security (one reason commissions are so high: compensation for potential instant dismissal) – this only increases the risks of property ownership. The matter is just as serious for the average earner on a wage: there is no guaranteed future in any job.

Of course there is value in realty, but the modern mortgage gets it exactly the wrong way round: your earnings dry up, you lose everything.

So why mortgage your salary?

By Mark Rogers

FRANCAIS ESPANOL ITALIANO CHINESE

Search

Error: Feed has an error or is not valid


Thoughts
"For a mountaineer, the important things are the effort, the posture and the muscles. The rope that holds him serves no purpose when everything works but it gives him a sense of security. In the same way, all gold does is ensure confidence; it's a safe haven."