Gold Breakout Refuses To Stop As Imminent Fed QE 2 Expected To Confirm Double Dip Deteriorating

Tyler Durden's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:10 | 580846 TheGreatPonzi
TheGreatPonzi's picture

I'm actually surprised that the gold cartel seems to be permanently defeated. If there is no big correction in a 48-hours scale, they are.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:15 | 580872 Turd Ferguson
Turd Ferguson's picture

No, no, no. They are not, and will not, be permanently defeated until and unless the Crimex is broken. That day may be coming (and soon) but, until it does, the EE will continue to paint the tape with tops and resistance any chance they get. The next attempt will come in the 1285-90 area.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:38 | 580951 silvertrain
silvertrain's picture

 Exactly right sir..Tptb WILL BORROW more Gold from Kentucky to cover if need be..I would be very cautious until the Lbma and or the comex defaults..

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:32 | 581147 Treeplanter
Treeplanter's picture

I don't think the cartel is through yet.  Better not be.  I took profits last week and got caught out of position in over half my miners.  Counting on JPM and GS to slam the metals enough to get back in at a decent price.  The miners are still sluggish in comparison with the big spot price moves today.  Besides profit taking, I think the volatility has spooked a few people.  Many are waiting for dips that may be pretty shallow.  Should have listened to Jim Sinclair who has warned forever not  to be caught out of position.  

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:51 | 581208 thesapein
thesapein's picture

James Turk commented last week that the dips are no longer a daily thing but now hourly. Sometimes, you blink and you miss them, though he was mostly referring to silver.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 15:00 | 581392 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Going along with Jim's theme, how can you time something you can only observe in the rear-view mirror? Especially when this will likely be a once-in-a-lifetime move (according to Another, FOA, and FOFOA)?

What Jim states over and over again, is that the opportunity cost of being out of the market (due to trading) is not only ever increasing, but accelerating, making timing nearly impossible as it your opportunities get ever shorter. Eventually the timing window becomes so small, you miss it, and your opportunity costs go to infinity (along with everybody else in the herd who failed to hold).

This situation is even worse if you play the leveraged paper game at the Crimex. There you are acting as the fuel used for your own destruction.

As for the idea of "taking profits," I'd say it is time to reevaluate what your measure of profit is, and compare it to what you sell to obtain it. This is another theme of Sinclair. You went and traded the premier currency on the planet for some IOUs of dubious value. You may think you are ahead for your efforts, but I think it is an act of insanity, like picking up pennies off of the train tracks that you just watched Bernanke lay down in front of the daily express train.

The only time one should ever sell gold/silver is when you need to consume/invest (as in a productive business, not a casino called a market) your saved wealth that it represents. Anything less is playing with fire.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 15:36 | 581465 Treeplanter
Treeplanter's picture

Right you are, NA.  My gold and silver are stashed away for the very long term, my inheritance showed up just after the '08 crash.  Same dynamic.  I thought gold was too high and waited a bit, but it had momentum and I got in before I missed the train.  I got some silver Maples in Feb. when it was near 14.  I figured that was the last time we'll see that price, and now I kick myself cause I had the cash to buy twice as much.  Se la vie.  Now I'm convinced I'll have to treat miners the same way as the metal.  I'm going back to OTR truck driving so I won't have time to make a fool of myself in the market.  We're lucky we have these PM old timers blogging daily.  Makes us a little less clueless.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:47 | 581197 apberusdisvet
apberusdisvet's picture

What gold in Kentucky?  The vaults may be as empty as those at GLD and SLV.

The game plan for PMs:

At USD 84, open your trunk.

At USD 82, buy a P/U.

At USD 80, get a moving van

Below USD 78, retreat into bunker, fully armed.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:31 | 581143 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

@ Turd,

Absolutely right.  The cartel is not broken, and they will fight on for some time.

They will lose in the end though.

Not much time to buy physical gold for (relatively ) cheap.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:56 | 581223 AnonymousAnarchist
AnonymousAnarchist's picture

Is this thread is missing something?

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 14:02 | 581230 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

Johnny Bravo?  Master Bates?

Anyhow, I was thinking that since so many who trade silver trade via SLV, the $20 might be a strong point of resistance.  SLV is sitting at $20 now.  I'm not sure of the precise correlation but selling of SLV would then lead to some selling of actual silver, no?

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 14:09 | 581249 thesapein
thesapein's picture

Funny, I was already feeling like 20 is the new support level for silver. 

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 14:51 | 581368 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

It may be, just like when $1,000 became support for gold.  My point specifically relates to SLV and how the trading in SLV impacts the price of silver.  If iShares buys and sells silver for SLV based on the supply/demand of SLV shares, then selling of SLV could mean selling of silver.  So a $20 price on SLV might bring on some selling which could impact the silver price.  Just a theory that could very well be totally stupid...LOL

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 15:17 | 581427 oddjob
oddjob's picture

It might lead to the selling of paper silver.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 15:41 | 581476 Treeplanter
Treeplanter's picture

I quit SLV last year when I saw miners like SLW did twice as well.  And I got worried I'd be caught holding worthless paper.  

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 14:19 | 581277 kujo
kujo's picture

Something Bitchez!

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 14:03 | 581233 thesapein
thesapein's picture

Organized retreat.

It requires finesse that is impossible for the very reasons finesse is required.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 15:16 | 581412 bigdumbnugly
bigdumbnugly's picture

yeah but you've gotta be celebrating the mining stock explosion today as i am turd.  have one on me!  (but i may not be stopping at one... in fact i now officially haven't!)

spellchek on

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 15:54 | 581514 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

miners having a great day today.  holding.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 17:18 | 581737 omi
omi's picture

No freaking way crimex will be broken.

Have you not seen sufficient precedence that any 'useful' entity that's going bankrupt will be given free money at someone else's expense?

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 17:46 | 581783 Quintus
Quintus's picture

Free 'Money' yes.  Free Metal?  Impossible.  If you want (or need) metal, Ben's Funbux are not a viable substitute.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 20:06 | 582048 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

On Thursday, Sept. 9, the Treasury’s auction of 30-year bonds failed.

...a buyer of a COMEX gold contract for delivery in September 2009 just received confirmation that the physical gold has finally been posted to his account. It is now stored in a bonded COMEX warehouse as “eligible” inventory, meaning that it could be easily transferred to a broker to become registered inventory to be available for delivery of a COMEX contract. The buyer noted that the broker’s rules for owning this particular bar have changed from past practice. The only options open to the owner are to take delivery, to leave it in storage, or to sell the bar to a broker. In the past, owners of eligible COMEX inventories could leverage it, put it out on lease, or engage in other activities which might generate a bit of income. The new limitations on how the bar may be treated I interpret as a further sign of growing physical shortage in the COMEX gold and silver inventories.

If you don’t mind having to wait a year for delivery of your COMEX inventory, then you can consider owning a COMEX contract. If you want to make sure that you have the physical metal, though, get it in your own custody immediately.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:17 | 580883 umop episdn
umop episdn's picture

I doubt that the Crimex is out of business just yet. It's more like a managed retreat. When things really get out of hand, I expect a bank 'holiday,' but I'm here to learn, so my opinion is not so valuable.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:18 | 581100 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Howdy y'all,

Quick thought on PMs. As a PM investor for all of my short adult life, I've been following the investigations by GATA, Dan Murphy, lemetropolecafe for over a decade. It's hard to deny bullion bank intervention to supress the price of PMs.

Now, assuming it's jp morgan running the majority of silver shorts, and assuming the large ownership interest jp morgan has in the FED, and knowing that the COMEX has approved settlement of PM contracts in FRNs: There is no limit to the size of short positions jp morgan can take on to squash price discovery in the futures markets. They have a blank check from the FED & they don't have to deliver physical.

Stay away from longs in the PM futures markets. I suspect the manipulators are waiting to get PM bulls all lathered up and in the chute at these multi-year highs, then..

BAM! pneumatic hammer right in the head.

If I were a predatory corporate machine, programmed to take as much money from as many people as I could, this is exactly what I would be doing. So I assume jp morgan has thought of this too.

I say buy physical only. The PM futures can be manipulated for as long as people take FRNs. What y'all think?


Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:42 | 581148 Quintus
Quintus's picture

Precisely right.  You can't beat them at their own game, on their own turf, when they make the rules and keep the score.

The achilles heel of the PM manipulation scam is, and always has been, physical supply.  The only way to stop this scam is to take delivery.  They can print paper FRNs up the wazoo, but with Central Banks becoming net buyers and perhaps less willing to lease their bullion to Da Boyz, real metal will not magically appear at the press of a button if JPM runs into delivery issues.  

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:33 | 581149 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

I think if there really became a significant divergence between physical and paper, there would be a run on physical and paper would have to default (resulting in a domino falling in my bank run/hyper-inflation story). I get your cash settlement argument, as they can print to cash settle, and printing is "free". But confidence in the currency would be dented, and some of the manipulations would come to light - and not just to the tin foil crowd. 

I agree that physical possession is the only way to own PM's. 

Oh, and wouldn't gold/silver up 2%, S&P down 1% or so represent a win/win for the ZH crowd?

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:53 | 581215 zaknick
zaknick's picture



Print baby print!!!

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:35 | 581159 Treeplanter
Treeplanter's picture

Good advice.  Futures are risky even without the heavy manipulation of the PMs.  I have a cash account for my miners.  Keeps me out of trouble.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 14:05 | 581235 Hulk
Hulk's picture

My bet is that there are limits as to what JPM can do and that we are approaching those limit points...Within the past month, lots of folks around me buying silver for the first time ever...

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 15:43 | 581481 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

It's taken me a few years of preaching, but I'm finally seeing people getting over their inertia and started buying (just silver though so far). Here's a typical time-line, where the mental illness known as cognitive dissonance has to be overcome.

Initial discussion
1. Friend complains of savings/retirement evaporating.
2. I explain the coup of 1913, and how there is no "market."
3. Friend asks what do I do?
4. I tell them about silver and gold, along with bankster price suppression.
5. Friend notes the following: First, I missed the easy money (Look how high it is!), but worse, my retirement is structured so I'll have to pay insane taxes to the government to get at my money.
6. I note that 70-80% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Oh, and the clock is ticking.
7. Friend now feels trapped between proverbial rock and hard place, unsure as to which hurts more, while doubting my forecast enough to not feel the future pain as much as the current pain.

Over time, as I see my friends, the initial discussion repeats, but with enough time, some things change.

Their retirement accts are smaller still. Gold and silver, while displaying some scary looking drops, have remained in a long-term upward trend. Interestingly enough, rising PMs reinforce both sides of the argument (the "Is it rising, or topping?" question). At the end of subsequent discussions, my friends are one step closer to letting go of the political economy they've built their trust in (after how I explain that no, the bailout, bailed out nothing, it's all still broken), and moving towards hard-money as the best form of savings.

Eventually, as it becomes obvious to them that their new beliefs match their perceived reality far better than the old ones did, the cognitive dissonance fades away, and they "bite the bullet," and start converting their paper wealth into physical bullion.

But just silver, so far. They all still see gold as too expensive, having missed the easy money.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 16:08 | 581559 Treeplanter
Treeplanter's picture

Over a year ago I had convinced my brother to get into PMs.  The next day he was going to call my dealer during a nice dip, on his way to a RR tunnel survey job in the Sierra.  I was looking forward to my 10 oz silver bar as a reward for the referral.  Never happened.  I think his wife talked him out of it.  No one else I know has even come that close.  One old friend bought a couple gold oz. at $250 way back when and can't bear to pay current prices.   I warned my kids last month they better move on the PMs before the short squeeze.   Now they're calling me Goldie.    

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 17:48 | 581788 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

Welcome to the gold/tin/silver foil hat club. They've been warned and advised to do some thorough research in my family too. I,m the "crazy uncle" in mine and friends hold back warily in anticipation of a diatribe from me. Not one of them have remotely considered the possibility of gold and silver as stores of value. Bubble? What bubble?

Live and learn.

I now shut my mouth before I alienate them all.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 17:51 | 581792 Hulk
Hulk's picture

I have a friend who also bought Au early and then stopped when it started rising above $400.Interesting. I have found that folks are more comfortable averaging down than up!

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 15:47 | 581489 ArrestBobRubin
ArrestBobRubin's picture

Kobe I think you're right about futures: stay away.

But in addition to metal, miners will be doing very well. If you think The Precious will do nicely (as do I), what about those companies who actually own the stuff?

As others have said, the miners are breaking out. Grab the gains with both hands. Stay away from the big guys, pick up sub-one dollar explorers who'll be releasing drill core test results soon. I plow miner share gains into physical metal and all I can say is I own more metal than I would had I not made informed bets on excellent PM explorers.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 15:54 | 581502 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

IMO the evidence of a Crimex collapse will be a declaration of force majeure, but here's the thing: they'll try first to delay deliveries, hand out phoney receipts with "errors" on them, pay off in cash, etc, but the sharks will smell that immediately for what it is, and then panic will begin.  I am personally hoping that force in Silver results in force in gold, and vice-versa.  I think it will.

The question really is, what happens next?  Does USD collapse when force is declared in the Precious Metals on Crimex?  Or does all fiat collapse?  Martial law?

Maybe government employees paychecks will start bouncing.  Maybe they'll stay home then and stop fucking hassling me.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:18 | 580888 umop episdn
umop episdn's picture



Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:19 | 580890 umop episdn
umop episdn's picture


Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:44 | 580966 Popo
Popo's picture

They seem to be relying on the Fed to do their work for them, because they're out of ammo themselves.

Too bad Bernanke is now officially our version of Baghdad Bob, and anyone who quotes him, pays attention to him or trusts him is worthy of extreme ridicule. The farce is now so grotesquely apparent that those who ignore it (or fail so see it) become obvious farces themselves.

I almost feel sorry for the folks at CNBC, who think they're being taken seriously.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:09 | 580851 VFR
VFR's picture


gold/silver ratio is long term 16:1 If suppression is over expect a massive up swing in silver.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:15 | 580873 PaperWillBurn
PaperWillBurn's picture

Central Banks don't hold Silver on their balance sheets. They hold GOLD. Have a debt problem that needs to be fixed?? Let gold do the job for you

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:45 | 580974 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

I agee, i got a 100 oz brick of silver the other day. It feels cheap compared to gold.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:04 | 581037 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

But ordinary people hold silver, you can't honestly believe that gold is worth 62 times per ounce than silver. 

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:19 | 581103 PaperWillBurn
PaperWillBurn's picture

I believe it's worth a lot more than that.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 14:40 | 581327 VFR
VFR's picture

US Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st St, NW

Washington, DC  20581

Dear Chairman Gensler and Fellow Commissioners,

The new Financial Regulatory Reform law mandates that the Commission institute hard position limits in the derivatives trading of all commodities of finite supply; energies, metals and agricultural products. The Commission has sought input to help guide it in determining the proper levels of speculative position limits in these commodities. It is important that the formula for determining such levels be consistent, economically sound, fair, and readily understood by all market participants. These same principles must also be applied to the granting of exemptions to any limits for bona fide hedging purposes.

The economic legitimacy behind commodity futures and derivatives trading is to permit the producers and consumers of commodities the opportunity to offset price risk. Hedgers transfer unwanted price risk to those speculators willing to assume it. The purpose of position limits is to guard against concentration and manipulation, without unduly restricting the liquidity provided by speculators to our derivatives markets. The key to ensuring economic legitimacy and guarding against manipulation without unnecessarily crimping liquidity is setting position limits at appropriate levels; not too high and facilitate manipulation, not too low and choke off liquidity.

All commodities of finite supply are physically produced and consumed. That’s what makes them finite. Therefore, any formula for determining the proper level of position limits should be based upon world production and consumption. The simplest formula would be one based upon a uniform percentage of the world production of all commodities of finite supply. Position limits should be established based upon a set percentage level of world production that must not be exceeded in any commodity. By insisting that the same percentage figure be applied across all commodities of finite supply, the Commission will assure consistency and fairness in the process.

The One Percent Solution

I propose that the Commission adopt a hard position limit in the contract equivalent amount of no more than one percent of the world annual production of any commodity of finite supply. This 1% speculative position limit would apply to all related derivatives on an aggregate (across all markets) and on an all-months-combined basis. No single speculative trading entity could control on a net basis, long or short, a total derivatives position greater than one percent of the annual world production of any commodity. Such a limit would be large enough to accommodate all but a handful of traders in every market. Importantly, such a level, evenly enforced, would make concentration and manipulation impossible. This is the primary mission of the Commission.

To be sure, so sensible is the one percent solution that it is largely in force already across most commodities of finite supply. This is as it should be. Currently, only a very few commodities have speculative position limits greater than one percent of world production.  Therefore, no radical revision in overall position limits is required. This should mute concerns about market disruptions, loss of liquidity, or trading migrations to foreign bourses. Truth be told, the levels of position limits in most commodities are where they should be. That’s because most commodities have current or proposed position limits much less than one percent of annual production.

For example, the largest and most important commodity of finite supply, crude oil, has a current de facto position limit of close to one-tenth of one percent of annual world production. With an annual world crude oil production of 30 billion barrels, a position limit of one percent would result in any one trader being allowed to hold 300 million barrels, or 300,000 contracts of the standard 1000 barrel-sized contract. Clearly, that’s way too high and the exchanges have established accountability limits closer to one-tenth of one percent, or 30,000 contracts or less instead. Recently proposed energy position limits by the Commission (withdrawn as a result of the new law) appear to adhere to the one tenth of one percent threshold in crude oil.

In those commodities where the Commission has set federally-mandated position limits, such as the grains and oilseeds, those limits are all well under one percent of world production. For example, corn has a position limit of 0.35% of world production, wheat is at 0.15%, cotton at 0.5% and soybeans are at 0.62% of world annual production. I’m not suggesting that those limits be raised to one full percent; I’m just demonstrating that the Commission has seen fit to traditionally set hard position limits at less than one percent across a broad range of commodities.

Since most commodities already fall well under the one percent of world production threshold, it is only necessary to bring the few commodities which have position or accountability levels greater than one percent into line. There are only four commodities of finite supply which currently have position limits or accountability levels greater than one percent of world production. Three of them trade on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) and one on the COMEX, owned by the CME Group, Inc.

The three ICE commodities include cocoa, coffee and frozen orange juice. Cocoa currently has an accountability limit of 6000 contracts, or 2% of current world cocoa production, coffee 5000 contracts, or 1.5% of world production and FCOJ, with a 3200 contract limit is at 1.25% of world production. It should be a relatively simple matter to bring their respective position limits down to the one percent level.

However, the current accountability level of COMEX silver is more problematic. The current silver accountability level is 6000 contracts, or 30 million ounces. This is 4.3% of world annual silver mine production of roughly 700 million ounces, head and shoulders above any other commodity of finite supply. Based upon the one percent formula, the position limit in silver should be no greater than 7 million ounces or the equivalent of 1400 contracts (each silver contract is 5000 troy ounces).

It is perplexing why the CME does not bring silver position limits into line with the other major metals contracts traded on the COMEX. In copper, the current accountability level is equal to 0.4% of world copper production. Why should silver’s level be more than ten times greater than copper’s? The COMEX gold contract has an accountability level of 6000 contracts, or 600,000 ounces, based upon the 100 troy ounce contract size. This represents 0.75% of world production of 80 million ounces. Why does silver have an accountability limit more than 5 times greater than gold in terms of world production? As I previously informed the Commission, silver’s accountability level compared to gold’s is also four to five times larger than it should be in terms of volume, open interest and exchange inventories. On each and every measure, silver’s accountability level is out of line.

The Commission recently received almost 3000 public comments on position limits in metals, with more than 90% of the comments asking the Commission to enact a position limit of 1500 contracts in COMEX silver. Based upon a fair and consistent cap of one percent of world production for all commodities, those writing to the Commission were justified in their collective opinion. It is a matter of public record that I have urged the Commission and the exchange to adopt a position limit of 1500 contracts in COMEX silver, for more than 20 years. There has never been, in all that time, any logical explanation for not adopting such a level. In light of the mandate given to you by congress and the President, isn’t it time to institute this limit?

As far as the matter of bona fide hedging exemptions to legitimate position limits, the granting of exemptions should be as fair and consistent as the setting of the amount of limits.  Any legitimate producer or consumer of any commodity of finite supply should be able to hedge its risk up to the amount of its own annual production or consumption. If a farmer grows, or a miner produces, more than 1% of world production, that entity can hedge up to the actual annual amount produced. If an entity owns the physical commodity and is at price risk with that holding, that entity should be allowed to hedge that actual inventory, even if it is more than 1% of world annual production. But close attention must be paid by regulators to ensure that such an entity is not gaming the market. Any thought that financial middlemen, such as large banks, should be included in the legitimate producer or consumer category must be resisted. Our futures markets were not created so that big financial institutions could manipulate them. The whole thrust of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law was to get the big banks to stop interfering in our markets.

The Commission has a unique opportunity to finally set position limits on all commodities of finite supply in a manner that is fair, simple and economically sound. A formula based upon a straight one percent or less of world production would accomplish just that.

Ted Butler

Butler Research LLC

September 14, 2010   Chairman   Commissioner   Commissioner   Commissioner   Commissioner  

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 14:48 | 581351 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

You go get 'em!

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 20:15 | 582067 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

He posted that so YOU could help go get 'em -- as I have.

Get on the ball.

Wed, 09/15/2010 - 03:40 | 582701 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

It's not as if they are or were unaware of their responsibilities from the get go. There have been untold submissions to the commission, from reputable interests, only to have the commission state: "Move along, nothing to see here!"

This current "investigation" is nothing other than a continuation of their farcical and contemptuous treatment of the complainants.

Its a farce and the refusal of the commission to include input from Ted Butler and Andrew MacGuire (of whistle blower fame) at the public hearing, exposes the commission's mendacity.

They denied evidence from two of the most aware members of the public, with information critical to the outcome and resultant proposed recommendations.

They shut off the video link of Bill Murphy's evidence, and it was more than coincidental that it was restored (magically) at the end of his alloted time.

Andrew MacGuire exposed in the hearing, via Bill Murphy, that the Chief of Enforcement at the CFTC, ignored his exhortations of JP Morgan traders collusively manipulating the price of silver to the down side, by naked shorting the trade and pulling their bids, in real time, as it happened, his reply being; "Thank you for your input. Nothing to see here"!

The latest members of the CFTC club include Gary Gensler and Bart Chilton. They may be relatively new to the job and as outspoken as Chilton may be, he is still outnumbered by the members of the "Old Guard", who are fully coversant in the process of manipulating the price of a commodity through the force of position size, either up or down. That's why they are called regulators.

Chilton has stated that he is outvoted by the other members when it comes down to doing their job. He claims that the new laws will give them the power to regulate. That's an admission of deceit. Why?:

They have never admitted that the laws were ineffective. They have never admitted that there was a reason to change them. They have been dragged kicking and screaming into a public hearing and did everything in their powers to deny openness and accountability.

They are paid by the powerful to turn a blind eye, the very people they are charged with protecting the public from.

They are now dragging their feet in implementing the new regulations, the evidence of this being the fact that Ted Butler is still having to ask for help from the public in forcing these bastards to do their job, expeditiously.

They have chosen a water boy as their public face but behind the scenes continue on their merry way, protecting their crony pals who pay them.

Ted, don't hold your breath waiting for your glorious outcome. It's going to take a revolution. That will only come through collapse.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:29 | 581134 DosZap
DosZap's picture


Correctomundo.......should be at around 30-40-1 now.

It's not,by the time J6P figures out they need to buy ANY kind of PM's........

Silver will be at $30.00 an oz., and Gold will hit $1,500.00 by end of this year.

Unless........the GOP takes both the Senate/House, if they do, look for them to defund most if not all Obammmys programs, and then we will see a MAJOR correction in PM's.

Not because of any technical/real change in our situation, but the Physcology of the people will turn immediately, they will start buying, and small business will start hiring.

The  GOP taking over, will be the best thing Obama has seen since sliced bread.

It may just get him re-elected.............the economy turns, he get's credit, if it stay's the same the GOP get's the blame, it's a win-win for him.

Lord forbid.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 13:36 | 581163 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

DosZap, I agree re your price projections for Au and Ag.

Re the Rs taking control of the House and Senate, my hunch is that the American people have caught on as to what SOCIALISM is.  If we have gridlock in Washington, so what.  If a conservative Congress really pushes for lower taxes, less regulation, booting Obamacare, etc., and then Obama vetoes everything, well then, who is now the party of no?

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 20:20 | 582074 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Do you really think that another party in power will give up their gravy train?

The same one which showed no restraint when they were in the saddle before?

I thought you were better than that.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!