• Sprott Money
    04/29/2016 - 05:58
    There is unfortunately no basis for renewed optimism that this current litigation will have any meaningful impact on precious metals manipulation – with respect to either silver or gold.

Here Is Why Those Who See In IEA's SPR Release A "Shadow QE" Are Dead Wrong

Tyler Durden's picture




 
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 07/04/2011 - 17:37 | 1425133 macholatte
macholatte's picture

'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
Lewis Carroll

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 03:45 | 1425983 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 I'll start from the top "Gentlemen" EGO's Abound!   LET's

  { work together } good minds I see.  Thank you.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 17:39 | 1425138 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

So wait, let me get this straight; GS would say things that are the *opposite* of true?

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:18 | 1425273 knukles
knukles's picture

Goldman is absolutely spot on Truthful, Right and Honest about the Goodness of Petrodollar Recycling.

Petrodollar recycling is fabulous for Goldman Sachs for it generates additional transactional commissions and principal positioning opportunities via the petrodollars sucked from the middle class who never ever see their moneys again, channeling such from Tehran, Bahrain, Dubai, Saudi, etc., through brokers and banks into capital assets, which Goldman underwrites, trades, repackages, swaps, collateralizes, lists, deals in, prices and profits from.

After the QE business' free monies, this is the next best game in town....

                  ....for Goldman.

The Street needs somebody to Skullfuck.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 09:34 | 1426282 fallout11
fallout11's picture

Bring out the bagmen....oops, I mean, counterparties!....for this one.

Just another steaming pile of propaganda from the vampire squid.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 17:41 | 1425140 Franken_Stein
Franken_Stein's picture

 

Can we please switch to Thorium and wind power already ?

It's so ridiculous that grown up adults are shooting each other dead over some brown viscous liquid made up of dead animals' long-chain carbohydrates.

Truly idiotic !

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:04 | 1425174 Motorhead
Motorhead's picture

I think dead animals' carbs are delicious...add a little mittelscharfen Senf to a Schweinshaxe....umm, lecker!

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:04 | 1425176 ctb89
ctb89's picture

Carbohydrates?  I think you mean hydrocarbons.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:12 | 1425184 Franken_Stein
Franken_Stein's picture

 

There is no difference between the two.

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:17 | 1425195 phungus_mungus
phungus_mungus's picture

Really? This outta be a good one!

 

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:32 | 1425221 Franken_Stein
Franken_Stein's picture

 

Yeah really.

Both consist of hydrogen and carbon and have energy stored in their bonds that gets released when oxidized aka burnt, into water and carbondioxide.

 

In your cells, the same process happens when you metabolize carbohydrates as when you burn hydrocarbons in a motor.

 

It gets oxidized in an exothermic reaction.

That's why you exhale carbondioxide through your lungs, as well as water vapor.

 

From an energy and reaction path standpoint there is no difference.

 

Ok, I know, they have different geometrical structures and may differ in length and you can't eat the one, but you can set afire both.

That's probably what you mean.

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:16 | 1425279 knukles
knukles's picture

Fossil fuel?
Try abiogenic.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:31 | 1425296 Urban Roman
Urban Roman's picture

The creamy nougat center ...

Oh noes! Peak oxygen!

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 22:11 | 1425511 knukles
knukles's picture

Or abiotic...
But thar weren't 'nuff them dinosaurs and dead plants ta make all thet thar oearl...

"fossil" fuel
Tripe, rubbish, pablum, twaddle, twif, illogical and just plain silly.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 00:18 | 1425797 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

God made cotten candy, and then he made oil.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 09:37 | 1426283 fallout11
fallout11's picture

To be fair to Franken, both are thermal energy sources whose content can be expressed in calories and joules.  Energy IS energy.  Burning food in your gastank via ethanol isn't fundamentally (thermodynamically) much different than burning it in your body.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:25 | 1425209 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

Wind? Not from what I've read...

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:48 | 1425241 cpnscarlet
cpnscarlet's picture

We can't switch to Thorium because it is "atomic" and that word makes the common lumpen prol shit his pants.

We need a Technocracy.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:50 | 1425243 cpnscarlet
cpnscarlet's picture

We can't switch to Thorium because it is "atomic" and that word makes the common lumpen prol shit his pants.

We need a Technocracy.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 08:49 | 1426211 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Closed cycle? Generates lots of actinides that'll sit around for years and years.

Open cycle? I find it amusing that the U232 contamination is sold as a "benefit" because it would "discourage proliferation".

A "technocracy" that would....last at most 1000 years (could you make it the TechReich for complete irony?).

This is why people who think they're smart can be the most dangerous of all.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:02 | 1426272 malikai
malikai's picture

I think you got some wires crossed here.

Closed cycles burn U235 and actinides, leaving (in theory) only fission product wastes.

Open cycles burn only U235 and P239, leaving both actinides and fission product wastes.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:05 | 1425260 css1971
css1971's picture

They're not. They're shooting each other over women.

 

Our entire civilisation, the skyscrapers, the space race, war, you name it., everything. It is all peacock feathers. It is all so one set of males can say I am superior to these other males. And thereby get laid.

 

Also, thorium based nuclear industry is 2 decades away at least.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:16 | 1425280 ibjamming
ibjamming's picture

It's funy but true...the house, the car, the boat...ALL just to get laid!

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 13:20 | 1426961 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

I hope you do not intend that bitches in burkas count here, my great uncle Joe is prettier than they are, why do you think they make'm wear those black tents in the first place? 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 20:33 | 1425373 HellFish
HellFish's picture

Wind power?  Really? 

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 03:21 | 1425968 BlackVoid
BlackVoid's picture

We cannot switch to Thorium, because after decades of experiments, we have only a few experimental Thorium reactors.

If it worked, we would already have commercial applications. But we don't.

And the EROEI rate of a Thorium reactor (energy produced / energy invested) is much lower than that of conventional oil.

The problem with alternative energy is that it is lower quality and less dense than fossil fuels. EROEI is lower.

The result of this, is that  we are switching to an energy source that reduces the net energy available for society. It won't work.

Switching to wind, solar, sun, nuclear: won't work. Switching to oil shale, oil sand, deepwater (also low EROEI): won't work either.

Deal with reality or reality will deal with you.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 08:34 | 1426188 snowball777
snowball777's picture

a) Thorium still creates plenty of actinides

b) Wind power will require some REMagnets and a low-loss distribution system to get the power anywhere but the coast

c) The biomass compressed into said liquid was made up of more dead plants than animals

Why not just go for space-based solar with u-wave transmitters to ground as long as we're in pie-in-the-sky mode?

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 17:46 | 1425149 surfersd
surfersd's picture

I guess the Arab countries know how to spend our money better then we do. Gee, they just like Congress. I think I am going to give the money doesn't tax away and wire it over to Saudi Arabia that way I can sleep at night, knowing our economy is still going to be booming.

At to think I was worried.

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 23:44 | 1425747 tiger7905
tiger7905's picture

Don Coxe Update, he notes the SPR announcement sent a ‘we aren’t helpless here’ message. He would have done the same thing. I can't say I'd agree to each their own I guess.

http://goldandsilverlinings.com/?p=1382

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 17:53 | 1425157 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The average American spends more of his disposible income at the pump, but interest rates stay low so when he runs out of cash he can get a loan on better terms and then go buy gas on credit while driving to Walmart to buy stuff made in China.    What could possibly go wrong? 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 17:59 | 1425161 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 That "thesis" is right up there with the 'rare' earth post yesterday.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:00 | 1425166 ffart
ffart's picture

The old money is capital fallacy. Why does this industry pay so well again? oh, i guess it must be all the fraud.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:02 | 1425169 alexdg
alexdg's picture

Seems like it has already started...

"Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, who has suggested engaging in an oil war with Iran."

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/06/30/Saudi-princ...

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 13:27 | 1426984 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

From that story...

"Underlining the escalating cold war between Saudi Arabia and its rival Iran, former intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal proposes the kingdom use its oil power to drive down prices to batter the Islamic Republic's sanctions-hit economy.

That would ratchet up tensions in the Persian Gulf and the wider Middle East at a time of unprecedented political upheaval."

And it would allow unprecedented emergency powers to the existing governments so threatened by the Arab Spring.  They see Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and now Assad's Syria and start wetting themselves. 

What better cover than the two theocratic polarities in the region, Sunni and Shia? 

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:03 | 1425173 oldmanagain
oldmanagain's picture

'What would be further ironic is if the administration realizes this paradox, and in order to save the market (which it will have to very soon in the absence of ongoing flow monetization by the Fed), it send the price of WTI well over $100 to generate bond buying interest in the short-term."

???????

Are you saying Obama lowered the price in order to raise it? 

Are you saying raising oil prices will replace QE?

Or are you saying you trying to pin the tail on the donkey but can't find the tail?

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:10 | 1425183 baby_BLYTHE
baby_BLYTHE's picture

How can higher oil prices replace QE?

Rising oil prices = demand destruction

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 20:04 | 1425332 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Oil has an inverse relationship with the dollar.  The dollar has an inverse relationship with foreign currencie.  Oil demand will stay high. 

Oil supply is dropping. 

Price is set to skyrocket. 

As for replacing QE, you are correct, it doesn't.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 21:51 | 1425480 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 In todays world yes. Good post.   

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:14 | 1425185 statlawyer
statlawyer's picture

"We have to abandon free market principles, in order to save it."

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:22 | 1425286 cosmictrainwreck
cosmictrainwreck's picture

Dat's right! Dat's a direct quote from one of our most heaviest - a man veritibly brimming with patriautism - and not that long ago, even.........

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:14 | 1425187 ffart
ffart's picture

The old money is capital fallacy. Why does this industry pay so well again? oh, i guess it must be all the fraud.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:15 | 1425191 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

So the Sauds et al will buy NFLX and the facebook ipo? The market is saved! Sweet!

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:17 | 1425192 Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

It was dumb because it won't work.  As far as being good or bad for the economy, it will have no lasting effect, so who cares.  It was political move.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:17 | 1425193 Franken_Stein
Franken_Stein's picture

 

Nice concept of a 2 GW wind turbine.

 

If you have billions for fucking wothless New York banks ruled by motherfuckers like Blankfein, Dimon and other redundant vermin, why not spend it on something meaningful that serves everyone ?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7Qs2gFlt-o&NR=1

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:27 | 1425211 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

I have always liked that design.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:08 | 1425263 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

Because, Frank, John Deere agricultural tractors that plow 10s of thousands of acres before planting season ends, and harvests the crops when ready to harvest, before they rot in the fields . . . . USE OIL.

They don't use electricity.  Electricity doesn't have what it takes.  There are 740 watts in 1 lousy horsepower and a John Deere combine is 450 horsepower.  You drain any battery imaginable in 10 minutes, and you still have 40,000 acres to do.

Just put this wind stuff to bed.  It Doesn't Work.  Oil is oil for a reason.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:11 | 1425267 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

that's nothing my laptop is 500 hp ijit

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 21:03 | 1425409 malikai
malikai's picture

I think the Maglev doesn't look too feasible, especially considering the cost of permanent magnets of the required size and the enormity of the structure proposed.

But a few of them in Saudi might free up a few barrels of oil. A few of them in various highlands near population centers might also free up a few feet of gas or a few lumps of coal as well. Either could then be FT'd into diesel for your tractor.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 09:47 | 1426303 fallout11
fallout11's picture

Well said!  Lets also say something for energy density, which is important in an agricultural implement smaller than the size of Connecticut.

Diesel: 44,800 kJ/kg

Latest Lipoly battery design: 505 kJ/kg (degrades measurably with each discharge/recharge cycle).

There's two orders of magnitude difference there, and you'll melt the battery trying to recharge it in a meaningful timeframe..

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:19 | 1425197 russwinter
russwinter's picture

 Since May 11, FCBs have reduced holdings by $15.8 billion, and that is really unprecedented. This lethal combination is the big reason I am so bearish on Treasuries.  FCBs still hold $3.445 trillion, but China and Russia in particular are highly critical of phony  US Ponzi finance, and Japan is busy with concerns of their own. I don't see how this bullet can be dodged.

Truth be known about the only thing keeping Treasury prices levitated is the Fed, and they are now gone. Banks would take on huge disintermediation risk buying Treasuries at these puny yields.  A  5 year at 1.8%,  a year's yield would get wiped out in one bad day. 

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