US Election 2012...the aftermath

[Tsuga C]

I never understood the reliance on precious metals/commodities as being the stable investments in down times.  Their value is as arbitrarily decided as the value for anything else.

But unlike fiat currency, precious metals have never been worth nothing. As we print more "funny money" and thus devalue it, the value of precious metals relative to the unbacked currency becomes stronger.

[Zoraptor]

I never understood the reliance on precious metals/commodities as being the stable investments in down times.  Their value is as arbitrarily decided as the value for anything else.

Probably the best way to think of it is that they have intrinsic value, rather than just face value. Currency, shares and the like are, in practice, dependent entirely on people having confidence in them and if the confidence drops their value drops, and if it drops too much their value is zero. The value of commodities is at least partly independent as, for example, people may not need Apple, but they do need to eat. Precious metals are a little different from that as their intrinsic value is based upon them being valuable since time immemoriable even prior to real currency, not on their need to be used.

 

They tend to go up in price in low confidence times because people are hedging against problems getting worse, eg at present the US stock market is inflated because money is very cheap to borrow, but that money is cheap due to (effectively) running money off the presses and it is quite likely that the current boom is a bubble rather than sustainable growth. If the company you have bought shares in goes bye bye so has your money, if you've bought corn or milk or iron ingots or gold those are not going to disappear- or at least the circumstances under which they would are ones where investments are likely to be the least of your worries.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Shutting down the White House tours is the ultimate expression of Obama's arrogance and narcissism. White House belongs to the citizens, not to him, he has no right to lock the people out. Why doesn't he cut down on some of his golf vacations if they're so short of money?

if you've bought corn or milk or iron ingots or gold those are not going to disappear- or at least the circumstances under which they would are ones where investments are likely to be the least of your worries.

The risk of investing in gold is also huge, considering it was only about $300 in 2000. Sure, you'll never lose all of your money, but you could lose most of it. Edited March 7, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Zoraptor]

True, every investment is a fundamentally a risk else everybody would be rich, but end of the day if you put a million into gold you'll still have x ounces of gold even if the market crashes, if you put a mill into Enron or the Zimbabwe dollar you'll have best part of nothing at all left.

[BruceVC]

 

I never understood the reliance on precious metals/commodities as being the stable investments in down times.  Their value is as arbitrarily decided as the value for anything else.

Probably the best way to think of it is that they have intrinsic value, rather than just face value. Currency, shares and the like are, in practice, dependent entirely on people having confidence in them and if the confidence drops their value drops, and if it drops too much their value is zero. The value of commodities is at least partly independent as, for example, people may not need Apple, but they do need to eat. Precious metals are a little different from that as their intrinsic value is based upon them being valuable since time immemoriable even prior to real currency, not on their need to be used.

 

They tend to go up in price in low confidence times because people are hedging against problems getting worse, eg at present the US stock market is inflated because money is very cheap to borrow, but that money is cheap due to (effectively) running money off the presses and it is quite likely that the current boom is a bubble rather than sustainable growth. If the company you have bought shares in goes bye bye so has your money, if you've bought corn or milk or iron ingots or gold those are not going to disappear- or at least the circumstances under which they would are ones where investments are likely to be the least of your worries.

 

 

For a hick New Zealander(   )you seem to really have a good grasp and general knowledge around economics

What do you do for living if you don't mind me asking?

[alanschu]

 

Probably the best way to think of it is that they have intrinsic value, rather than just face value. Currency, shares and the like are, in practice, dependent entirely on people having confidence in them and if the confidence drops their value drops, and if it drops too much their value is zero. The value of commodities is at least partly independent as, for example, people may not need Apple, but they do need to eat. Precious metals are a little different from that as their intrinsic value is based upon them being valuable since time immemoriable even prior to real currency, not on their need to be used.

 

I do  understand that since it's a physical good, there's some intrinsic value to it.

 

I suppose I shouldn't have added "commodities" as it's really more towards precious metals.  As you say, precious metals are deemed valuable at this point for really no other reason than because they always have been.  I can see food (if it wasn't perishable) and things like land being "more valuable" if the economy completely utterly tanks.

 

Although since the value of precious metals is basically just a reflection of supply and demand, I'm curious if the economy outright tanking will ultimately result in precious metals tanking shortly thereafter.  Is it worth continuing to own that piece of gold if the alternative is getting some actual food?

[Luridis]

I don't know what the aftermath will be. What I truly do not understand is the continued grab for executive power. Democrats universally decried the grab for executive power that Bush was making when he was in office. Obama seemed to disagree with it. Now, he's sailing that ship in the exact same direction. This is not a good scenario... It isn't the Obamas and Bushes I'm worried about. It's the D-ick Chaney on steroids who's writing a book called "My Plan" and is coming three presidential elections down the road. I'm glad peoples are buying guns.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Luridis

[Guard Dog]

It is a sad truism that Americans are willing to look the other way on the most horrifying malfesance when it is "their guy" doing it. The Republicans did nothing to stop Bush seizing power the US Government should never have had and the Democrats wailed. Now Obama had doubled down and they are fine with it.

 

This newest and most horrifiying that has come out is the US Attorney General stating that is is perfectly fine for the President to order the summary excecution of US Citizens on US soil by drone strike without warrant or judicial review.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html. The President stated he would use them only to kill "terrorists" but his admin has refused to name Hamas, Al Queda, etc as terrorists. His DHS however released this little memo stating that rturn veterans, tea party memebers, anti-abortion people, and anyone who does not vote like they think we should are likely terrorists:http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-report-lists-liberty-lovers-as-terrorists/ .

 

I guess now I should be looking over my shoulder. Small wonder they are trying to ban "assault rifles". It has nothing to do with Sandy Hook. Do you think that man lost one minute of sleep over that? It's allbout eliminating possible resistance. Every day the news gets worse and worse on Washington's attempts to restrict freedom. How does this not come to a head at some point?

Edited March 7, 2013 by Guard Dog

[Zoraptor]

What do you do for living if you don't mind me asking?

Currently I'm unemployed, at least in theory, and looking after/ fixing up my parents place hence why I've been posting a lot more over the past month or so. Formerly I've been an Ivory Tower Intellectual/ professional smartass (ie worked for a university) and general computer type person (programming, modelling, data input and analysis) amongst other stuff (managing a petrol station...)

Although since the value of precious metals is basically just a reflection of supply and demand, I'm curious if the economy outright tanking will ultimately result in precious metals tanking shortly thereafter.  Is it worth continuing to own that piece of gold if the alternative is getting some actual food?

In direct monetary terms the value of gold would tank if the economy got really bad, but at that level of bad it would be probable that 'monetary terms' would have lost most meaning, and pretty much everything else would have tanked worse. If things were that bad at least you could use your gold to buy food, because you almost certainly could no longer use paper or electronic money to do so. That isn't the primary reason why most people buy gold at the moment, but it is the primary reason why gold has intrinsic worth in the first place, it's a historic underpinning of the trade system.

[Hurlshort]

Shutting down the White House tours is the ultimate expression of Obama's arrogance and narcissism. White House belongs to the citizens, not to him, he has no right to lock the people out. Why doesn't he cut down on some of his golf vacations if they're so short of money?

 

This may be a touch over reactionary.  I agree with you on the vacations though.  Obviously the President should be allowed to take a time out here and there, it is an incredibly demanding job.  But the cost to taxpayers should be minimized as much as possible. 

[Luridis]

 

Shutting down the White House tours is the ultimate expression of Obama's arrogance and narcissism. White House belongs to the citizens, not to him, he has no right to lock the people out. Why doesn't he cut down on some of his golf vacations if they're so short of money?

 

This may be a touch over reactionary.  I agree with you on the vacations though.  Obviously the President should be allowed to take a time out here and there, it is an incredibly demanding job.  But the cost to taxpayers should be minimized as much as possible. 

 

White house tours are usually done by volunteers as I understand it. Taking a vacation is fine, taking a $900,000 vacation when you've just used money as a justification for closing the white house tours is over the top.

[Hurlshort]

I'm guessing it is all the security costs that got the tours axed, as those are probably significant.  That's the same problem with the President going on vacation, he foots the bill for his own stuff, but not the security detail or Air Force One.  

 

So getting up in arms over vacations = Good and reasonable

 

Getting up in arms over white house tours being cancelled = silly

 

The White House belongs to the citizens as much as a military base belongs to the citizens.  You aren't entitled to a tour of either one.

[Tsuga C]

How does this not come to a head at some point?

Depending on the results of the 2014 elections, it just might do so within 2 years. If the Demosocialists take the House, then Prezbident Obongo will be unopposed and free to do as he pleases legislatively (think massive borrowing/spending increases + Lefty social agenda) and in the regulatory arena (think EPA and ruinous carbon taxes). We've had it quite good for a very long time and Obongo would likely use this opportunity to "get even" with successful, productive Americans and demolish much of traditional America in the process. Edited March 7, 2013 by Tsuga C

[Hurlshort]

You do realize you undermine any legitimate points you might be making by resorting to childish name calling?

 

It is very possible to be critical of the President's policies without disrespecting the office itself.  

[Tsuga C]

You do realize you undermine any legitimate points you might be making by resorting to childish name calling?

You do realize that scorn is a favorite tactic of the Alinskyites and that they employ it relentlessly to real effect?

 

It is very possible to be critical of the President's policies without disrespecting the office itself.

I respect the office, but I have none for the current occupant or any of his ilk. Edited March 7, 2013 by Tsuga C

[Hurlshort]

Is it really your intention to mimic a subversive leftist group?

 

 

Do you listen to a lot of Rush Limbaugh?

[Tsuga C]

Is it really your intention to mimic a subversive leftist group?

Truth be told, I've seen plenty of such behavior on these and other forums. I'm no longer above throwing it back as refraining from doing so doesn't stop it coming.

Do you listen to a lot of Rush Limbaugh?

Not as much as I'd like, but I can usually tune in twice or thrice a week. The DailyRushbo website helps me keep abreast of what he's been saying about current events.

[alanschu]

 

Not as much as I'd like, but I can usually tune in twice or thrice a week.

 

As a right-wing conservative myself, I'd actually encourage you to listen to him less.

[Tsuga C]

As a right-wing conservative myself, I'd actually encourage you to listen to him less.

Thanks, but no. I enjoy his program thoroughly, save for all the damned commercials. And calling yourself a "right-wing conservative" makes you sound like a LibProg trying to pass yourself off as a conservative. Is there such a beast as a left-wing conservative? No, there isn't, so just call yourself a stalwart conservative or rock-ribbed conservative if you want to emphasize your conservatism.

[Hurlshort]

You seem to be a bit wrapped up in labels.  There are actually only a couple liberals on these forums, and probably more conservatives.  I am more of a moderate.  

 

The reason alan offered you that advice is because Rush Limbaugh, who is an entertaining listen, is a shock jock.  His entire persona is about ratings, he wouldn't be popular as mild mannered and reasonable.  He isn't actually a journalist, and that is fine, because there are plenty of toxic windbags doing the same thing on the liberal side of the radio dial.  So really take what he says with a grain of salt, because at the end of the day he is not an impartial source of information.   

[Zoraptor]

Is there such a beast as a left-wing conservative?

The Catholic church is left wing conservative.

[alanschu]

Thanks, but no. I enjoy his program thoroughly, save for all the damned commercials. And calling yourself a "right-wing conservative" makes you sound like a LibProg trying to pass yourself off as a conservative. Is there such a beast as a left-wing conservative? No, there isn't, so just call yourself a stalwart conservative or rock-ribbed conservative if you want to emphasize your conservatism.

 

My issue with Limbaugh is he undermines the entire right.  His presence and blowhardness, and general buffoonery is rivaled only by Glenn Beck.  Together, they do so much harm to politics in general by being antagonistic, fueling partisanship and outright hatred, while being complete shock jocks that only serve as examples for moderates to not vote right.

 

 

I stated my political affiliation to straight up make it clear: despite being a right-wing conservative (more specifically, from a fiscal perspective as fiscal policy is the principal grounds by which I place my vote), Limbaugh is a blight to right-wing conservatism and until the right gets ambassadors that aren't complete tools, they'll continue to fight the uphill battles simply because the left comes across as less outright insane.

 

He's a blowhard.  How anyone can enjoy that show is beyond me, but to each his/her own.

 

 

Since you also seem unaware, the term conservative is an indication towards retaining social and political institutions.  So by stating I'm a right-wing conservative, it means that I seek to preserve the political institutions (and as I further clarified clarified, the fiscal ones specifically) that are considered right wing.  It is in fact possible to be a left-wing conservative, especially if a country has a history of left-wing dominance (being conservative in the nordic countries is most definitely left-wing).  It's just that blowhards like Limbaugh are so focused on political labeling, that he seems to think that conservatism is the same as being right-wing, which technically isn't true.

 

This is, perhaps, an excellent example about how listening to a show like Limbaugh's has in fact decreased your political understanding.  That, and your innate defensive stance that since I'm criticizing Rush, I must be a Liberal in sheep's clothing!

 

If you'd like, try something like this as a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

 

Perhaps you and Rush are unaware, but the application of words is not static.  For example, liberal (a curse word to you I imagine) was most closely associated with small government and laissez-faire economics and small scale government.  But now, most people in North America equate Liberal politics with socialistic perspectives.

Edited March 8, 2013 by alanschu

[Guard Dog]

 

You do realize you undermine any legitimate points you might be making by resorting to childish name calling?

You do realize that scorn is a favorite tactic of the Alinskyites and that they employ it relentlessly to real effect?

 

>It is very possible to be critical of the President's policies without disrespecting the office itself.

I respect the office, but I have none for the current occupant or any of his ilk.

 

I have to agree with Hurlie though Tsuga, we're all adults here. I'm sure you noticed there are very few folks on this board with a libertarian/conservative viewpoint. It's difficult enough to get some of these guys to even acknowledge an opinion different from their own exists and is intellectually viable. Don't cut you own legs out by putting them off with that kind of name calling. Besides, you can go over to freerepublic.com and get that out of your system.

 

Well, you can... I can't. I was banned over there.

[Guard Dog]

Perhaps you and Rush are unaware, but the application of words is not static.  For example, liberal (a curse word to you I imagine) was most closely associated with small government and laissez-faire economics and small scale government.  But now, most people in North America equate Liberal politics with socialistic perspectives.

Great point. If you go by the classic definition of the word I'm the biggest liberal on the board!

Edited March 8, 2013 by Guard Dog

[alanschu]

 

I'm sure you noticed there are very few folks on this board with a libertarian/conservative viewpoint.

 

I've probably become more libertarian as well, although as with all "factions" the "crazies" typically make me not want to associate with them either haha.

 

 

Fiscal policy drives 90% of my voting tendencies, although some things like excessive/adamant stupidity that a candidate may say regarding other aspects is not completely ignored.

 

Having said that, I have also learned that many of my right-wing assumptions have been more fueled by propaganda than me actually carefully examining the details, especially from a pure economics perspective.  As you say, it's important to still acknowledge that different opinions can exist and be viable.