Search the Community

Here is an excerpt from my latest post analyzing what the market's reaction to Trump's victory tells us about investor expectations: So in summary, it looks like investor expectations of inflation remain low, while their expectations of corporate profits have jumped significantly, prompting them to sell gold and long bonds, while adding to their stock positions. You can read more on the components contributing to aggregate corporate profits in this post about the Kalecki equation, which basically reveals that mathematically corporate profits can only be derived via the following spending/saving decisions made by different entities: Corporate Profit = Investment + Dividends – Household Saving - Government Surplus + Export Surplus There are several reasons why investors expect boosts to corporate profits, just to name a few: Donald Trump has promised a significant corporate tax cut, which, all else being equal, will boost corporate profits noticeably. (In the equation above it would manifest itself in the form of a smaller budget surplus or a larger deficit). Furthermore, the elimination of arbitrary and scientifically unwarranted CO2 emission restrictions will likely boost domestic investment in oil, coal, and natural gas, which again, all else being equal, constitutes a net positive for corporate profits. (In the equation above this would affect the "Investment" component.) It remains to be seen where household saving is headed, and also what happens to the trade balance, and other government spending programs which, if unmatched by tax hikes, could provide a further boost to corporate profits.

Hi everyone, Thanks for your feedback on my last video, this is my new one on the coming economic collapse. The main purpose of this video was to share some of the resources I used to learn and prepare for whats coming. Check it out an let me know if you have any constructive feedback. Please subscribe too! Thanks Joe

Hello, folks! I'm dedicating the entirety of 2016 and beyond putting my full force and creativity into a project I believe many of you will appreciate. On Jan 5, 2016 I launched TTcoins, a website where I advocate for precious metals ownership, liberty, and anarcho-capitalism. www.TTcoins.com I use this platform to continuously upload educational and entertaining content on subjects which I am passionate about, namely Precious Metals and Preserving Freedom! I will be keeping a running update of content I produce in this thread, and encourage you to check out the site and tell me your thoughts! All comments, critiques, criticisms, rebuttals, and compliments are welcome and appreciated. Latest Articles: How to Buy Silver For Spot! (melt value) Paper and Sound Money | 1776 vs 2016 Are Silver Dollars Considered "Junk Silver"? NO! Here's Why: Fiat Currency: The Gold Standard of Insanity Should You Clean Your Coins? NO, NO, NO! Here's Why: Which Type of Silver Should You Buy? Here's where I have a presence on social media: http://www.minds.com/coins http://www.Facebook.com/TTcoins http://www.Instagram.com/nick_TTcoins http://tsu.co/TTcoins Here's a link to my YouTube channel (with deviously hidden subscribe tag) https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=NickRundlettSpeaks

Hello, folks! I have recently started a YouTube channel wherein I help educate and entertain others on the best practices of precious metals investment with a focus on silver! I've uploaded tons of free resources to consider on my website, www.TTcoins.com/resources , and will be uploading 1-2 videos per week with regards to precious metals and preserving freedom. My latest and greatest presentation is titled "What's the BEST kind of Silver to Buy?" - I'd love to hear your honest thoughts, feedback and critique of the presentation. I sincerely hope you find the information valuable; if so, please subscribe and support a fellow Liberty-lover! You can click THIS LINK to subscribe to my channel instantly. I'm looking forward to your feedback

The following is a very relevant interview for those who are thinking of buying or have already bought precious metals, but have only listened to one-sided pro-gold, pro-precious metals fear-trade "advice" - been there, done that and not going back. 'Financial Sense' interview of Martin Armstrong by James J. Puplava - interview starts at the 2 minute mark: http://www.financialsensenewshour.com/broadcast/fsn2015-0829-1.mp3 [if you have issues with the audio link (mp3), just go to the source below and select from one of the four audio options.] Source: http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/martin-armstrong/expect-dow-hit-13000 (This interview was done on 08/29/2015.)

Greetings folks. I am contemplating on buying gold. Not ETFs but actual physical gold bars. A quick google search yields many websites, and within each website there are many options available. It seems there are many sources in which they are produced from, Credit Sussie, Panda Coins... And there are many retailers that distributes these. Navigating them are kind of intimidating. What are your experiences in gold purchase and ownership? Is there like an "official" grade gold, or an "Official" channel? In my mind, this is what I assume the process is like: mining -> minting -> distribution/retail/packaging/marketing and that each process could be done by a same business entity, or different ones. Of course this extends to silver and other precious metal as well.

About year ago I stumbled across a story that was so incredible that it was almost impossible to believe. When I asked myself the question "would the government really do that?", the answer was a clear and resounding "yes". It's a long story, but the introduction for newcomers must begin by reading the book "Gold Warriors - America's secret recovery of Yamashita's Gold". It's available here at the author's website http://www.bowstring.net, where you can also buy 1.5GB of additional material and evidence on 3 CDs. You can also buy it from Amazon and for the Kindle. [Full Disclosure: I have no association with Sterling or Peggy Seagrave, their website, nor any of the material they're written or produced. I'm simply a guy who read the story and was totally stunned how much real evidence of this conspiracy is readily available today, but basically no one knows about it.] In an effort to keep this post short I'll summarise as follows: If there was ever enough public awareness of the information revealed in this book, it would unmake the world. If all it took to destroy the world as we know it, was for the truth to see the light of day, then it is right that it should be destroyed. If this topic is of interest to people, I have a lot more information that I will post about. As I said, I've been researching this story for over a year now.

Here's a conversation from facebook I had about the conceivable value of bitcoin vs. gold with a fellow FDR member. I wonder what sort of general thoughts or criticism yous udder guise might have for either Christoph or me. Excuse me for the poor formatting. Facebook does not copy/paste over very well. Below is a direct link to the conversation if you find it to difficult to follow on this page. . https://www.facebook.com/ChristophDollis/posts/10151994643083548?comment_id=27932048&offset=0&total_comments=19¬if_t=share_reply ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Christoph Dollis [*] Per Bitcoin's recent plunge: some wise people (or at least astute sharks) took profits*. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-01/bitcoin-plunges-bear-market (*As in cashed the hell out of Bitcoin and moved their money to dollars or another government currency like yen or Canadian dollars.) [*] Claire Haus I was quite fortunate and lucky to sell at 990$. If I didn't need it dearly in cash, I would probably kept it intact. [*] Joshua Stebell It's back up to 1090 now. [*] Christoph Dollis It's highly volatile. [*] Joshua Stebell We must keep in mind it is such a very small market relative to the usd and gold. Extreme fluctuations can be expected in btc's infancy before it becomes more widely adopted (if it does). [*] Christoph Dollis There is no reason to believe this is true. As Peter Schiff pointed out during the debate with Stefan Molyneux over Bitcoin, and as I remember at the time, market cap rose with a highly volatile series of minibubbles, punctured during the dot com tech bubble - then the whole thing crashed with a resounding thud. This is what I expect to happen with Bitcoin. [*] Joshua Stebell I do see the faint correlation here, because these are both instances of new technologies influencing the economy, but I don't believe it's a proper comparison. This is just my amateur idea of how these markets both function, and I may very well be mistaken, but let me make my case. Dot com's are essentially businesses that must return a profit from their website in order to pay their shareholders. That where their value as an investment comes from. But btc is in part alternative currency that's market value is based upon the value of utility that offers as a medium for exchange to those who wish to deal in it. I can buy btc to trade for something and then that other person I traded with can cash that btc back out for usd to buy whatever else they wish. This is a form of utility in that the btc is being recognized by both parties as a unit of value. I believe as more businesses begin to accept bitcoins as a form of payment in exchange for goods and services it will hold even more utility (be more valuable), because the second party will not require as often to trade their btc back out for usd to buy whatever it is they wish. [*] Christoph Dollis Did you watch this? If not, do. http://youtu.be/0L7SOPDOvvI [*] Pilar Cooke Isn't that how everything works in the malets? The numbers rise and fall at will and there is no hold in which one person can tell it otherwise. I feel your argument has no volume at this moment. I can careless about Bitcoin...I never had anything to do with it to begin with. I once said that it may be a "building block" to independent currency...yet it isn't Bitcoin [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. I'll check it out. [*] Joshua Stebell Oh yeah. I had seen this. I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective. So when he says that gold has an "intrinsic value" I however don't believe anything does. I haven't had to write out my argument for this before, so I may make a mistake, but again, I'll give it go. If something, an item or action, is intrinsic to any form of status of market or moral value, that item or action must universally, under all circumstances, retain that status. If you can imagine any type of situation that could make that item or action not equal to that status then that status must not be objective or intrinsic to that thing, but is instead subjective. This is where the aesthetic market value, price, of gold fails to this requirement of having intrinsic value. Imagine I'm lost in the desert and find a bar of gold and a loaf of bread. I pick them up. Later I am getting dehydrated and need water soon or I'll die. I then cross paths with a man who owns access to an oasis. He just so happens to be starving. When I approach him, he'd more than likely be willing to trade my temporary access to his oasis for the loaf a bread for an entire brick of gold. Now, we both know that in the middle of a city a bar of gold is worth much more than a loaf of bread. More than thousands even. Now if the value of the gold was intrinsic to it's nature a bar of gold would always, under every conceivable circumstance, be worth the same in relation x-number loafs of bread. So, we both see that the value of gold can vary from 0 to whatever the circumstances call for. This does not coincide with the definition of something that retains some sort of intrinsic value, like how the moral value of the threat of or initiation of the use of force or fraud, by definition, is always in the negative as I know we both already agree to as the rational type folk we are who accept the non-aggression principle. Unfortunately though for Peter's case there's no irrefutable principle for the intrinsic value of gold as any type of commodity or medium of exchange, so as he makes his case that gold has a definite intrinsic value while bitcoin does not is incorrect. Neither of them retains the objective quality of price. They are both subjectively valuable in their own respects. [*] Christoph Dollis "I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective." No it isn't objective. It's actually subjective second and third-order value, but I explain, including using a colourful analogy, how certain libertarians and anarchists go way wrong here (and cause people to roll their eyes) in this conversation, starting with this comment: "I think a gold-backed digital currency could be a good idea, or backed by another commodity. Other than that, barring government order, I don't see how you give a currency any kind of stable value. It will always depend on psychological popularity in a free market unless it has some kind of "intrinsic value" in the financial sense. Now you don't believe in it, but I think those arguments are silly. Of course gold doesn't have value itself, nor does a man floating in space alone with no one else ever to be reached, but it has second-order value. So if you don't use it to buy something, it still has other uses. It can be bartered away if nothing else. Good luck doing that with a blockchain, but I digress." You'd need to read from there. I won't retype it all. https://www.facebook.com/stefa.../posts/10152379827421679... Stefan Molyneux The Sunday Freedomain Radio Call In Show is now live! Listen live at fdrurl.com/stream or fdrurl.com/chat [*] Joshua Stebell Alright, I will. Thanks. [*] Christoph Dollis You're welcome. [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. So, I'm still failing to see how Peter's and your argument makes sense. He says bitcoin is an attempt to replicate a digital version of gold, but fails, because it's missing a property that gold is. "Intrinsic value." If we both agree that nothing has an objective market value than how does Peter's argument back you in opposition to my case that BTC, a tool for the measure and exchange of subjective value (money), is not analogous to what happened to DOT COM's, businesses that failed to profit and reimburse their stockholders. [*] Christoph Dollis It doesn't have to have an objective market value, whatever that could mean. It has other uses. This creates, as I've said, second and third order value. Basically, you can use it to barter with. Somehow anarchist libertarians get themselves trapped in really black and white literal definitions of things in a statistical world. [*] Joshua Stebell Is that not also a function of bitcoins though? Also, I don't think that by implying my being trapped in a psychological world of using definitions as evidence in order to reason towards a conclusion being a negative thing is all that of a clinching argument against the one's I've put forward. [*] Christoph Dollis "Is that not also a function of bitcoins though?" No, it's all tied to its use as a currency/speculative investment. [*] Joshua Stebell Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not? I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment. Bitcoin is digital, and gold is physical. Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value. Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value. If we both agree these qualities of both gold and bitcoin are subject to the unpredictable nature of aggregating individuals in a market, then I do not see your case. [*] Christoph Dollis "Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not?" Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth? "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two...." Indeed. [*] Christoph Dollis "Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value." All of which are completely and utterly worthless except as regards to the specific transaction. Whereas gold can be traded to others who value it. A piece of paper works as a contract. [*] Joshua Stebell I don't believe you read my last comment thoroughly. "Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value." -Me. "Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth?" -You. I clearly pointed that out. Also, I do not appreciate you using a quote of mine out of context as well. I said, "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two... for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment." I already pointed out that there is a distinction between the two in that one is digital and the other is physical, and we've already agreed these distinctions that have the potential to add to the subjective value of each of these commodities. If you do not believe bitcoin is a good investment for the lone reason that it is not physical than make that claim outright, but remember we've already established the physical quality of gold and everything that entails is in the same category of value as the bitcoin's quality being digital an everything that also entails in that their values are both purely subjective. This means that your argument for bitcoin being a bad investment on the ground that it is conceivably worthless applies equally to gold. If you think that gold's physical properties of utility are more subjectively valuable than bitcoins' digital properties of utility which also retain a subjective value know that this is purely your opinion. If the properties of each these things only retain a subjective value than any case made in reference to their properties is just your opinion, an argument you're perfectly free to make. Please acknowledge you're only advocating your opinion, and not making any universal claim about the value of a commodity.

I thought this was a very good discussion, even though I think Peter (Schiff) and Stefan were talking past each other a little bit. It seems clear to me that Peter doesn't have a very good understanding of Bitcoin, but I think he has a very good understanding of economics and is right on the money (no pun intended) when he claims that Bitcoins are currently inflated and will likely see a sort of implosion. However, this does not preclude Bitcoins from becoming a real good functional currency. I think Stefan is right on that point. People just shouldn't get in on the hopes of getting rich quick. In fact, maybe they shouldn't get in right now at all, or for small amounts based on an ideological commitment to Bitcoin.

I came across this video on money.com regarding India's gold influx. I wanted some freedom-oriented analysis so I come to you guys. http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2013/07/24/n-india-gold-imports.cnnmoney/index.html?iid=V_Taboola I can't work through the steps of what she's saying. This leads me to think through them and verify them mentally myself. But I cannot do it. It also feels very wrong. This is one of those things where I know it's wrong, but cannot pinpoint or show it exactly. So I ask you for help., 0:20 "The rupee is hovering at an all time low vs the dollar." 0:25 "Since India pays for gold in dollars, it puts a massive strain on its account deficit." 0:41 "To reduce gold imports, the finance minister doubled the tax on gold imports." 1:04 "If the people stop buying gold for ~1 year, the account deficit will improve and the stock markets would improve. 1) Milton Friedman explains the negative feedback on the value of currencies when you send them abroad. I'm not quite sure I understand Milton Friedman's scenario and dynamics fully, but maybe you guys can explain. Also note, Friedman's scenario is with both native currencis... whereas this Indian scenario is India buying gold (let's assume from America) with dollars... so we have to adjust our knowledge and approach a little bit, relative to Friendman's scenario with domestic currencies. So here is an inconsistency I'm wondering about: Mainstream economists normally talk about currency wars, where each country prints more and depreciates the value of their nation's currency as if it were a good thing. So if the Rupee is low, aren't they winning the currency war naturally.... all the while getting ACTUAL PHYSICAL GOLD? sounds like a double win. So what is the reasoning behind this contradictory perspective? is it simply that the rupee is TOO low? if so, what is the criteria to to determine that? 2) So Friedman, as well as Bastiat, in his books, explains the fallacy of export-import = net foreign trade balance. I get this. The imported goods have an inherent value, so important doesn't necessarily mean a loss. so that equation is misleading. k. 3) So ofc raising import duties will reduce import volume. But is this good for the economy? The goal, supposedly is to raise the rupeand stock markets, assuming that importing gold with dollars is not good. 4) ok, if ppl stop buying gold... we hvae to work through all the mess of #1-3... but why would the stock markets improve???? and after we work through that one, why is that necessarily good, or better than getting gold?