Business
See other Business Articles
Title: Gold Futures Jumps by Most Since March 2009; Silver Rises to 30-Year High
Source:
Bloomberg
URL Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010- ... fed-boosts-debt-purchases.html
Published: Nov 4, 2010
Author: By Pham-Duy Nguyen
Post Date: 2010-11-04 15:30:02 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 67369
Comments: 102
Gold surged the most since March 2009 and silver rose to a 30-year high after the Federal Reserve said it will buy more debt, driving the dollar lower and boosting demand for precious metals as alternative investments. The dollar fell to the lowest level in almost nine months against a basket of major currencies. The Fed yesterday said it will buy an additional $600 billion of Treasuries through June to spur growth. Before today, gold futures gained 22 percent this year, reaching a record $1,388.10 an ounce on Oct. 14. “The Fed aims to weaken the dollar and create inflation,” said Peter Schiff, the president of Euro Pacific Capital in Westport, Connecticut. “Gold and non-dollar investments should benefit from their efforts.” Gold futures for December delivery rose $40.30, or 3 percent, to $1,377.90 an ounce at 12:02 p.m. on the Comex in New York. A close at that price would mark the biggest gain for a most-active contract since March 19, 2009. The Federal Open Market Committee said yesterday that it was compelled to act because “progress” toward objectives of full employment and stable prices “has been disappointingly slow.” The U.S. and other governments kept interest rates low and spent trillions of dollars to revive the global economy. ‘Inflationary Threat’ “Investors are starting to think about the long-term inflationary threat,” said Adam Klopfenstein, a senior market strategist at Lind-Waldock in Chicago. “The $600 billion in bond purchases looks very friendly for buying anything tangible like gold. Commodities are going to look undervalued.” The Thomson Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index of 19 raw materials rose to a two-year high. “Commodity prices are far more likely to rise than to fall,” said Dennis Gartman, an economist and the editor of the Suffolk, Virginia-based Gartman Letter. The Fed has signaled that “it will do what it must to assure that deflationary pressures are dealt a death blow, that inflation is the better choice.” Inflation expectations, based on the 10-year U.S. Treasury breakeven rate, have fallen to 2.17 percent from 2.4 percent at the beginning of the year. Gold is traditionally a hedge against accelerating consumer prices. Silver futures for December delivery jumped $1.154, or 4.7 percent, to $25.59 an ounce. Earlier, the price reached $25.72, the highest level since March 1980. Palladium futures for December delivery climbed $26.50, or 4.1 percent, to $669.20 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier, the price touched $676.85, the highest level since May 2001. Platinum futures for January delivery rose $52.10, or 3.1 percent, to $1,749.30 an ounce.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: lucysmom (#15)
Welcome to the Bottom 99% Revolution 8D: We have Neo-liberals to the left and Neo-cons to the right, leaving 99% of us without representation. And the saddest part of all, the system is now so rigged via campaign finance, lobbying and the revolving door that it is almost impossible for people who represent us to even get into office, let alone stay in office and enact policies that will bring change. Two politicians in Congress who actually fought for us against the Economic Elite just lost their reelection bids. Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold lost because record amounts of cash went to funding the candidates who ran against them. http://ampedstatus.com/midterm-election-further-demonstrates-need-for-revolution Olbermann just got pulled by MSNBC. Notice a trend? ;}
Thanks. I was wondering what happened to those two.
The instant Grayson attacked the Fed. Feingold tried to take credit for the ObamaCare Law. And showed why Dems are NOT talking about it: "But the new Feingold ad touts Feingold’s support for aspects of the new law that have already taken effect and attacks GOP opponent Ron Johnson on the issue (Johnson wants to repeal the law). It's possible to watch the ad without knowing that it refers to the new health care law, which may be politically wise. Still, Feingold is banking on the notion that elements of the new law are popular -- and repealing them would be unpopular -- despite the poor to middling ratings the law receives overall in surveys."
They lost because they are assholes. They should be tarred and feathered.
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=14808 "It is ironic, of course, that the requirement to purchase insurance has become the centerpiece of Republicans’ condemnation of the new law and their court challenge of its constitutionality. Insurers have no reason to worry, however, because they fare very well when the Republicans are in charge. Their profits soared—as did the number of Americans who are uninsured and underinsured—during the Bush years and Republican control of Congress." A Poll on this one issue would be 85:15 against.
I can understand a leftwingnut supporting Feingold. But Grayson? He's a assholes asshole. Which is why Freddie likes him, of course.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
A Poll on this one issue would be 85:15 against. The Above was the CenterPiece quote of that article and I had to go thru more than 1/2 of same to find that quote. They all know it. Call it the STAMP Mandate. King George should've had such councilors. ;}
And of course, 'healthcare' is always a consequence of FOOD: The FDA rejects constitutionalism even according to the diminished principles of “representative democracy”. When I first read about Farm-to-Consumer’s lawsuit and saw these headings in the article: a. There is No Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food b. There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health c. There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract I thought they were interpretative summaries. But nope – they’re verbatim from the brief’s outline. When reading claims by the FDA, and wherever we see it claiming powers and even obligations the way it does in this brief, we should keep in mind that it has consistently refused to exercise such powers where it comes to large producers." http://attempter.wordpress.com/ Cotton above $1.40 the lb. Unheard of. Soy closing in on $13 the bu. Corn attacking $6. Wheat going for $8 the bu. Those are starving American prices. ;}
Those are starving American prices. ;} The problem, however, is that for the lowest 20% of Americans, as per the BLS, food and energy purchases represent over 50% of their after-tax income (a number which drops to 10% for the wealthiest twenty percentile). In other words should rampant liquidity end up pushing food and energy prices to double (something that is a distinct possibility currently), Ben Bernanke may have very well sentenced about 60 million Americans to a hungry and very cold winter, let alone having any resources to buy trinkets with the imaginary wealth effect which for over 80% of the US population will never come." -zerohedge
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
You, an expert in that category, would know.
Yes I can spot you guys a mile away.
The 'All' to those who don't want to be 'pinged'...sometimes 8D: "But also note that the world in which the Fed wants to sell the bonds is also a world of rising inflation and therefore rising interest rates. This is the world of huge mark to market losses on the bonds themselves. The Fed is saying don’t worry about mark to market losses because we will hold the bonds. The Fed is saying don’t worry about inflation because we will sell the bonds. Both of those statements cannot be true at the same time. You can hold bonds and you can sell bonds but you can’t do both at once. You will want to sell when rates are going up but that’s when losses will be the greatest. So the time when you most want to sell is the time when you will most want to hold. The Fed may say they can finesse this by selling shorter maturities only to reduce money supply and holding onto longer maturities. But that just further degrades the quality of the Fed’s balance sheet and turns it into a one-way roach motel for highly volatile and junk assets. So, here’s the bottom line on money printing, or QE if you prefer. If nothing happens, the whole thing was a waste of time. If inflation takes off, the Fed will have to choose between holding bonds and letting inflation get worse or selling bonds and going bankrupt in the process. Since no entity goes down without a fight, the Fed will naturally hold the bonds and let inflation take off. Do not ask about the exit strategy from QE; there is no exit. Follow Jim Rickards on Twitter at twitter.com/JamesGRickards % Rates Cannot go up w/o destroying the Fed. But the $ can't show any weakness w/ ZIRP. A destroyed $ means a destroyed Empire. And Starving Americans/Tent Cities/ Bonus Armies.
Ilargi: " Yeah, the markets had a knee-jerk upward reaction. And that, or so it seems, is all anybody needs. Hyperinflation is sure to follow, or so they say. Then again, they said the same when QE1 occurred. Didn't happen, though. Will it this time? Will gold rise to the stratosphere? If so, who will buy? Bank of America? With your QE2 billions? Not very likely, they need that free cash to cover up increasing losses. Is it that hard to understand, simple calculus? That every dollar spent ostensibly "on your behalf" will have to be paid back by you, even if not a penny of this, your own, money, went towards making your life better? DEFLATION. An acre of Farmland for an OZ of Gold. ;}
I was truly shocked when he wasn't re-elected.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
See Japan for details on all the above. 8D
I was truly shocked when he wasn't re-elected. I think Wisconsin just got tired. They'll put up someone from the DemocraticFarmerLabor Party next. After all, LaFollette came from Wisconsin. ;}
I was truly shocked when he wasn't re-elected. I was happy. I hate enemies of free speech and the constitution. He was a pompous ass.
I'm sorry you don't know the difference between a human being and a corporation; the founding fathers wouldn't make that mistake.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
DELETED
LOL
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
So since a corporation isn't a person you can't tax them right? Be consistent.
Russ Feingold I was truly shocked when he wasn't re-elected. It was only obvious for the past year he was going to lose....(eyes rolling)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
The Founding Fathers would be leading a rebellion against this regime.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Are taxes collected on humans?
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
The founding fathers didn't confuse freedom for people with freedom for money. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That would seem to apply to what God has created, not to what human beings created by law.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Be consistent. If corporations are persons, they can run for political office - right? Opinion of Stevens, J.: The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case. In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html Be consistent.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
The Founding Fathers would be leading a rebellion against this regime. The founding fathers didn't confuse freedom for people with freedom for money. True, only modern day liberals like yourself do.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Sure. Corporations DON'T PAY TAXES We pay them for them, via higher PRICES ON GOODS AND SERVICES. Please make a note of this.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Note who's attacking you. Ignoring me. 8D 'Fisher described the soft and hard coral they found seven miles southwest of the well as an underwater graveyard. He said oil probably passed over the coral and killed it. The coral has "been dying for months," he said. "What we are looking at is a combination of dead gooey tissues and sediment. Gunk is a good word for what it is." … ' Why 'Muricans' can't have nice things. 8D
We pay them for them, via higher PRICES ON GOODS AND SERVICES. What is the percent of the price of a good or service that is tax?
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
It is correct. Tell me mama how would the govt stop corporations from having spokesmen? How would they do that? War was to much of a pussy to answer the question then he ran up under Robins skirt under her left knee for protection. Can you answer the question?
If a corporation is a person, why doesn't it open its mouth and speak for itself? "corporation 1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members." The Constitution begins with these words We the People of the United States... and Thomas Jefferson wrote We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... it seems clear to me that the founding fathers understood people to be natural born persons, not an entity created by law. War was to much of a pussy to answer the question then he ran up under Robins skirt under her left knee for protection. Can you answer the question? Sonny, war isn't here anymore to answer for himself; for that reason Mama says the above is in poor taste and unbecoming a Christian.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
So you admit that it is actually people exercising their right to speak. About time.
I see a rhetoric question. There is no admission that such an entity is a person in her quote. You are just guilty of wishful thinking, nothing more.
It's : rhetorical ( adj )
-----------------------------------------------------------
No. I'm not.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Then do tell by what authority does the government limit any person from speaking at any time for any reason you can come up with.
We're not talking about limiting the speech of any person. Any person who has invested in, or works for a corporation is free to speak (except for Keith Olbermann, of course, who may not speak by order of the corporation).
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
In a statement, FAIR pointed to Center for Responsive Politics data, showing that GE made over $2 million in political contributions during the 2010 election cycle alone. In addition, GE spent over $30 million on lobbyists during the same election cycle and gave over $400,000 to Democratic and Republican governors since last year. When comparing Olbermann's donations to other NBC employee violations that went unpunished, there is a major contradiction in policy enforcement. In 2004, it was revealed that NBC chief executive Robert Wright donated thousands in campaign contributions. Later, in 2007, it was uncovered that fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough made a $4,200 donation to a Republican candidate. However, both Wright and Scarborough actions resulted in no suspensions or firings. http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-washington-dc/msnbc-s-owners-give-millions-political-contributions Interesting how that worked out to a 'do as I say, not as I do.'
-- Ah, but when I weary of the struggle of my spell checker, used keyboard I installed on my HP lappie and my attention span when using one to correct the other, I just remember Basil Marceaux's struggle to speak as he ran as the Republican candidate for Gov in Tennessee. And then I feel better.
Comments (57 - 102) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI'm beginning to think we can't afford the wealthy - they're costing us too much.
#17. To: mcgowanjm (#16)
Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold lost because record amounts of cash went to funding the candidates who ran against them.
#18. To: Fred Mertz (#17)
Alan Grayson
#19. To: Fred Mertz (#17)
Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold lost because record amounts of cash went to funding the candidates who ran against them.
#20. To: Fred Mertz (#17)
(Edited)
Thanks. I was wondering what happened to those two.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#19)
#22. To: All (#20)
"It is ironic, of course, that the requirement to purchase insurance has become the centerpiece of Republicans’ condemnation of the new law and their court challenge of its constitutionality. Insurers have no reason to worry, however, because they fare very well when the Republicans are in charge. Their profits soared—as did the number of Americans who are uninsured and underinsured—during the Bush years and Republican control of Congress."
#23. To: All (#22)
#24. To: All (#23)
Cotton above $1.40 the lb. Unheard of. Soy closing in on $13 the bu. Corn attacking $6. Wheat going for $8 the bu.
#25. To: Brian S (#0)
Glenn Beck was right...Weiner was wrong. NO surprise.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#19)
They lost because they are assholes.
#27. To: Fred Mertz (#26)
#28. To: Fred Mertz, A K A Stone, All (#26)
(Edited)
#29. To: All (#28)
#30. To: mcgowanjm (#16)
Russ Feingold
#31. To: All (#29)
#32. To: lucysmom (#30)
Russ Feingold
#33. To: lucysmom (#30)
Russ Feingold
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33)
I was happy. I hate enemies of free speech and the constitution.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#33)
I hate enemies of free speech and the constitution.
#36. To: Fred Mertz (#35)
#37. To: lucysmom (#34)
#38. To: lucysmom (#30)
#39. To: lucysmom (#34)
I'm sorry you don't know the difference between a human being and a corporation; the founding fathers wouldn't make that mistake.
#40. To: A K A Stone (#37)
So since a corporation isn't a person you can't tax them right?
#41. To: Badeye (#39)
The Founding Fathers would be leading a rebellion against this regime.
#42. To: A K A Stone, Badeye (#37)
So since a corporation isn't a person you can't tax them right?
#43. To: lucysmom (#41)
#44. To: lucysmom (#42)
Be consistent.
#45. To: lucysmom, All (#32)
#46. To: Badeye (#44)
Corporations DON'T PAY TAXES
#47. To: lucysmom (#42)
it is not a correct statement of the law.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#47)
Tell me mama how would the govt stop corporations from having spokesmen?
#49. To: lucysmom (#48)
If a corporation is a person, why doesn't it open its mouth and speak for itself?
#50. To: A K A Stone (#49)
"If a corporation is a person, why doesn't it open its mouth and speak for itself?"
#51. To: Smurf Bitch, A K A Stone (#50)
I see a rhetoric question.
Barrack Hussein Obama
President of the United States of America said that some Americans ; "They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
#52. To: A K A Stone (#49)
So you admit that it is actually people exercising their right to speak. About time.
#53. To: lucysmom (#52)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#53)
Then do tell by what authority does the government limit any person from speaking at any time for any reason you can come up with.
#55. To: lucysmom (#54)
WASHINGTON - After Politico's reporting that MSNBC host Keith Olbermann recently donated $7,200 to Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's company rules that restrict employees from making political contributions, MSNBC president Phil Griffin suspended Olbermann indefinitely without pay. However, as reported by media watchdog, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), it appears that MSNBC's parent company, General Electric (GE) along with potential new owner Comcast, both violated the company's "news policy and standards" by each donating millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
#56. To: WhiteSands (#51)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]