If The CME Hiked Gold And Silver Margins By 50% And Nobody Cared, Did A Tree Fall In The Precious Metal Price Suppression Scheme?

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
quasimodo's picture

This is funny-to see them pissing into the wind.

Drachma's picture

Blythe fetish: golden shower

Hulk's picture

Actually, her fetish is Cleveland steamers...

Turd Ferguson's picture

As mentioned on the other thread, I wrote this on Wednesday evening. If you haven't already read it, I strongly suggest you do it now:


Hulk's picture

Excellent article Turd. Thanks...

Confused's picture

As usual sir, excellent article. Thanks. 

camoes's picture

We love the Turd!

That sounded nasty lolz

sunnydays's picture

GREAT Article!  Thanks for linking that.

StychoKiller's picture

Operating a toilet brush -- a small price to pay for domestic bliss! :>D

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Fetish or not, did you guys notice the following:

Look for the USD to take a big step lower shortly as nominal values of everything do the inverse.

ZH has come dangerously close to admitting the previously unthinkable: that the real (global) value of commodities is decoupled from the USD's FX rate of the day.

So the weakening the dollar has little effect on global inflation, it has little effect on how much India, Russia or Europe pays for Oil, Sugar or Wheat when prices are exchanged to their currencies. Time to hide those "Bernanke kills babies!" posters and change it something more subtle and more factual, like "Global warming deniers are killing babies!".

It's a Captain Obvious moment for most, sure - but a big step for ZH towards sanity! :-)


tmosley's picture

Your problem is that you think the USDX is the best way to measure the strength of the dollar.  Might as well have an altimeter that only measures the height of the instrument above the floor of the plane its mounted on for all the good that does.

But hey, you say we can print forever with no consequence, and I TRUST you.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Your problem is that you think the USDX is the best way to measure the strength of the dollar.

LOL, funniest comment of the week: the dollar index is cited by Tyler all the time (whenever it drops), as proof of the weakness of the dollar, so it cannot be that bad :-)

But there's other metrics as well, such as trade weighted indices:


It is showing a very similar picture as the dollar index.

So you are wrong and you are in denial.


Pool Shark's picture

The US$ is the best looking horse...

At the glue factory.

HoofHearted's picture

I'm going to keep calling you out as the lousy, dirty Fedophile that you are.

When the USD loses buying power, of fucking course everything else goes up in nominal terms. What kind of an idiot are you?

So does that change the price in rubles or RMB or...? Yes, it does. The USD is still the "reserve" currency. When the reserve is useless, everyone is going to pile out of that trade and leave BennyBoy holding those green (non-biodegradable because of the lead-based ink) coupons. And what do they get into? Rice, sugar, corn, silver, gold, anything that cannot be printed. Because if they can't trust the reserve, what the hell else fiat will they trust? (To be sure, global crop problems only exacerbate the problem, but this isn't a "pick only one" type of question.)

Will you please try to use some of the critical thinking (that you claim) to work? Stop believing that you can think with what you sit on, asshat.

EscapeKey's picture

His "lee0326", er, "Lack of Critical Thinking" nickname is doublespeak.

He's a 100% approved tosser, who will manipulate figures as he sees fit, attempt to bury you in stats if you call him out on his figures, move goalposts as he realise he's losing an argument, and will never EVER let you have the last word - probably because he won't get paid if he does.

He's either a government disinformation agent, or a really, really sad case. Good thing no-one is buying his bullshit.

Flakmeister's picture

  I don't agree with MCT on everything, and he does enjoy in getting certain peoples face; but I will say that as far a poster here goes, it is very clear that he has given serious thought to most of what he writes. Moreover, unlike a lot of his detractors, he does make an attempt to back up what he says given the limits of our posting abilities. So flail away at each other, but realize that on some matters he is slowly but surely eating your lunch, at least from the view of this outside observer.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

he is slowly but surely eating your lunch,

Ah, the Fed's true mandate is finally revealed!

EscapeKey's picture

Right, so EXCEPT for misrepresentation of information, cherry picking of data, obfuscation of the discussion, and moving goalposts, he most certainly has given serious thought to his argument, absolutely. The problem is that it's intellectually dishonest, and he knows it, but yet he still attempts to make it pass.

Flakmeister's picture

  No different than other side....his side just happens to be outnumbered on this blog...

BTW, I've never seen you make an argument backed with credible links. If the shoe fits wear it....

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

BTW, I've never seen you make an argument backed with credible links. If the shoe fits wear it....

I've never seen her (him?) do it either, there's only insults and innuendo.


Flakmeister's picture

For shits and giggles, let's assume that he is on a payroll... You are a fool if you believe that and not believe that the other side doesn't have its paid minions too...FWIW, I have a few theories about who the "other side" is.

Now with AGW, the IPCC don't have the cash to finance blog level trolls whereas the coal and oil companies have plenty to throw around...follow the money.  

A Nanny Moose's picture

..AGW, the IPCC don't have the cash to finance blog level trolls..


I wouldn't be so sure about that. There is always enough money to throw around the opportunity for a new tax arises.



EscapeKey's picture

LOL! "It's OK because the other side does it too."

You should be a politician.

Flakmeister's picture

Where did I say it was ok? It just is, and whatever I think is right, I can't change it. I just factor it in to the big picture.

I couldn't be a politician, I don't lie well enough. An advisor, perhaps.

The Fonz's picture

If it is true that intelligence work is starting to be part and parcel of what a blog reader has to sort through all that the intelligence agencys will end up with is very cynical very clever readers that now understand how to sort out intelligence ops. In the long term I cannot help but think this will hurt the ability of those organizations to fool enough people to manipulate outcomes.

I am not so sure what I think of the average person having an intelligence operatives understanding of the world though. That might not be so fun lol.

Flakmeister's picture

  I'm no fedophile...

Do we agree that the situation is complex, i.e. the coupling of the dollar with commodity prices? I think that thinking of things in purely black and white terms is somewhat naive.

 I would strongly argue that what is occuring is the constructive interference between two underlying trends. The dollar is dying a slow lingering death while simultaneously the underlying world demand function is increasing. Throw in the wild card of agricultural production being affected by the weather, you have a perfect storm (pun intended).

Now I admit to being on the side that the recent weather extremities are related to AGW at some level. Again, to say that no AGW exists is faith-based denial, similarly, to blame everything on it is equally foolish.

I manage OPM people for my livelihood. My job is to best play the odds. My track record is such that it is clear that I "get" the underlying trend. Going forward you are more likely to succeed if you process all information and assign probabilities; e.g. if you think that AGW is part of the equation, you can only come to the conclusion that Ag. products will become more dear. The other factors only reinforce the conclusion...

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Again, to say that no AGW exists is faith-based denial,


The IPCC and friends have been caught fudging data multiple times. And yet you have an unfounded faith that their lies reveal truth. What kind of nut does that make you, scientifically speaking?

Flakmeister's picture

   No need to be insulting...

I have a Ph.D. in physics with 20 yrs experience in academia along with 3 yrs experience on Wall Street in modeling CDO's, MBS, ABS etc... I also have been managing 8 figures for over 5 years... I get the numbers, read both sides and then decide what is correct. Just like a scientist.  

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I get the numbers, read both sides and then decide what is correct.

How much weight do you give to the data coming from the confirmed liars at the IPCC?

Flakmeister's picture

About the same weight I give to the lies from the coal and oil company shills. Sort of a wash, eh? Also, I completely understand the concept of systematic errors and the difficulty of measuring them. I also know that statistical signifigant signals for new effects tend to be obscured by systematic effects until, with better data, you control those systematics.

Btw, care to comment on the article in Nature yesterday?

That is it...I have no desire to continue this discussion, as it is clear that you are now wasting my time. But it was fun to bitch slap you for a while.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

That is it...I have no desire to continue this discussion, as it is clear that you are now wasting my time. But it was fun to bitch slap you for a while.


You're not only bad at science but you're a misogynist too?

Flakmeister's picture

Since I knew you would reply, I had to peek...

To an outside observer, you have no idea how lame you come across...Hell, my 14 yo son laughed at your comments....

asdasmos's picture

Does 'More Critical Thinking Needed' have two accounts?

Flakmeister's picture

Check the registrations.... I have been posting as Flakmeister at various blogs for close to 5 years...Then again, I could understand your confusion, as we do tend to stick to rational arguments (again, I do not always agree) and not to blog thuggery as a number of the miscreants here do...

chopper read's picture

I sure hope it warms up more quickly because the past 1,000 years have been freezing compared to the 10,000 year average.


Much debate regarding 'climate change' legislation is driven by a paticular chart demonstrating a 'hockey stick' ramping in recent global temperatures.  However, prior to this we were known to have been in a 'mini ice age' during the time of the Napoleonic Wars and American Revolution (with temperatures having dropped from previously much higher levels).

In fact, it is important to note that the 'estimates' for much of the 'hocky stick' graph were never even remotely realized.  Global temperatures leveled and have actually fallen sharply by comparison in the most recent two years. 

The fact is, if the measurements can be trusted, we are currently near the higher end of our temperature range as it relates to the past 1000 years. Yes, the rise appears to be somewhat rapid and maybe even driven by human activity.  However, the more logical explaination to me right now is that this has possibly come about either naturally or as a result of more widespread advances in agriculture - with subsequent domestication and feeding of animals, as well as global population growth from increased food production, in general.

Considering the potential effects of assumed 'greehouse gases', it is then Methane (particularly from cows), not CO2, which could be considered the primary culprit.

 "Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's 'greenhouse gases'. A significant portion of these emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming, is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide."


Assuming this is true, then why do global despots seek control of CO2 emissions rather than Methane?  Clearly, this provides for them opportunity to dismantle coal-fired power plants and other industry.  Further, it may even give them jurisdiction over our ability to exhale!

As an aside, we hear much talk about the depletion of 'non-renewable' resources.  If so, then will not these decreasing fossil fuel supplies already act as the self-corrections on human CO2 emissions that are sought by our global puppet leaders?

Further, has not life on earth already coped quite successfully with much higher temperatures in the past, anyway?  Will not receding glaciers open up more farmland in the Northern Hemisphere?

And will not more CO2 create more plant life and ultimately more oxygen in our air?  I like oxygen, don't you?

 Given all of the facts, is this worth handing over even more power to unelected bureaucrats who are clearly supported by a shadow government seeking to dismantle our Constitutional Republic?

At this point, I think not.


Flakmeister's picture

  Wow, a reasonable post, at least by the standards of the hedge...

I don't want to get in pissing match as I am out of town with the kids and cannot really followup:

1) Methane is a nasty greenhouse gas, however, it tends to be oxidized rather quickly and we really can't do much about it. The worry about Methane is that if permafrosts start to thaw, there a non-negligible chance that large amounts of methane that is known to be trapped could be released on a short time scale (compared to the known methane cycle) and cause a positive feed back.

2) Yes, the earth has coped very well in the past with higher average temperatures. We were not around at the time,  e.g. if the sea level was 18 m higher (for which there is strong evidence from  recent Antarctic ice core studies),  you would find a pretty significant number of our civilizations great cities would be underwater.

3) The studies that I have seen suggest that burning the liquid oil that remains will not tip things over. The concern is the coal that was laid down in the Permian era; that was when the earth self-sequestered a vast amount of carbon. Over a period of 200 yrs, we are releasing what was sequestered over a period of ~100 million years....

3) Receding glaciers will not free up land. Northern Canada does not have the top-soil that exists to it's south. You must also take into account those areas that are lost as well.  

Gotta go feed the kids....

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


I would also challenge this one:

Global temperatures leveled and have actually fallen sharply by comparison in the most recent two years.

It's pure denial as 2010 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record:


And that's scary, considering the solar irradiance graph:


I.e. temperatures are rising despite 2009/2010 having been a solar minimum ...

There's also record low ice in January 2011 in the Arctic:


His argument, paraphrased: 'do not believe your own damn lying eyes'.


jus_lite_reading's picture

While I agree with you on this point,

 I would strongly argue that what is occuring is the constructive interference between two underlying trends. The dollar is dying a slow lingering death while simultaneously the underlying world demand function is increasing. Throw in the wild card of agricultural production being affected by the weather, you have a perfect storm (pun intended).

I have already concluded that the scenario you so aptly present is one in which the only outcome is a global war and we are simply experiencing a prolonging of the inevitable. What we have occuring now is buying of time so someone else can take the fall which is fast approaching. As someone in physics, you can appreciate the value of accelerating mass such as a black hole- it's a mathematical impossibility to continue for 9 more months.



Flakmeister's picture

   War is a likely outcome, definately at some level. Are China and US able to come up with a sharing arrangement? Based on the US USSR experience and the spectre of MAD, I tend to think that something will be worked out that avoids returning us to the neolithic era.....

I agree, there will be blood...

Dr. Richard Head's picture

I resent that being from Cleveland.  Shit hole town that it is.

MarketTruth's picture

Cleveland is a paradise... as compared to Detroit.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

That's like saying the Dollar is more sound than the Euro. HA.

Hulk's picture

My apologies to the good folks of Cleveland...

cbaba's picture


Paper is paper,

paper silver , paper gold thats all they can offer, we will BURN their papers..

Ragnarok's picture

If your standing for delivery you have to put your cash up and you don't give a shit about margins, but maybe the speculative shorts do.

jus_lite_reading's picture

Stand for delivery, buy all the physical you can, go to flea markets, antique shows etc!

When you see these headlines: "Geithner says the global economy is in better shape than its been in last 2 to 3 years" then you KNOW something is wrong... hold tight boys.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

Something big is indeed coming.  I recall the Bernanke was squaking the loudest about sound fundamentals in the housing market at the precise moment the facade was breaking down.  When these fucks are confident that all is well is when my silver senses start tingling.

Good news is that all of the screaming I have bene doing to my fellow plebes has definitely been vindicated by the fiat value of these metals.  People that dismissed these ramblings before are now asking me questions.  Fun indeed.

I know I got bashed on here for this statement before, but I have been pretty successful in cleaning out pawn shops (aka Ghetto Mints) of their silver coins below melt value.  I feel like I am a mexican merchant negotiating with them, but it's part o' the fun.