Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud Deplorable who wrote (83912)	8/28/2008 12:49:41 PM
From: ajtj99	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Botox, you exemplify why many people view gold bugs as fanatics and their devotion to shiny stuff borderline cult-like. Mish has presented two very well reasoned arguments for his non-conspiracy opinion. It is actually quite disgusting that anyone needs to spend time debunking a conspiracy to balance the tone of the discussion, as by nature a conspiracy is an extremely low odds probability. Odds and probabilities usually mean nothing to conspiracy theorists. Belief is paramount for the conspiracy adherant, and rational thought is suspended in exchange.

To: Proud Deplorable who wrote (83912)	8/28/2008 1:35:37 PM
From: ItsAllCyclical	Respond to of 116555

(eom)

To: Proud Deplorable who wrote (83912)	8/28/2008 5:10:30 PM
From: RonMerks	Respond to of 116555

Re- 'Now that you've played your hand on PM's I have no time for you.' Mish, You just blew the most important rule in the world for gold bugs. Rule #1. Never let your arms stop waving, and never let your pom poms drop below waist high, or the gold bugs will go manic depressive on you. Botox4U2- look on the bright side- no time for Mish- means more time for the Aden Sisters! Ron

To: Proud Deplorable who wrote (83912)	8/28/2008 7:02:46 PM
From: The Vet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Silver price manipulation or just normal market making? The differences in the Nadler, Butler positions is a chicken and egg argument. It can be easily proven if, and only if we had accurate data and such data is withheld from us. It can be argued that the banks and market makers started selling paper silver in volume on the futures market to force the price down which in turn caused panic selling of the long speculators which the banks then snapped up. The alternative argument is that the longs panicked for no obvious reason, the banks bought the offered positions and then hedged by selling on the futures market. In both cases the result is the same in that the long speculators unload their long positions which are taken up by the banks who in turn hedge by selling equivalent short positions. But who is taking the other side to the banks short sales? It can't be the long speculators - they are the panic sellers. And then look at the profits. If the banks were simply reacting to panic sales from long speculators and then offsetting their positions they would be making continuously losing trades as it would be impossible to hedge fully in a rapidly dropping market. However if they where "hedging in advance" and then using the market weakness so created to force the long speculators out of their positions then the banks would be profiting all the way down at virtually no risk. I'm going to follow the money....