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 : The coming US dollar crisis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ayn rand who wrote (23442)	10/12/2009 12:20:44 PM
From: DebtBomb	Respond to of 71442

Jim Rogers "Quite Sure" Gold Will Hit $2000, Dollar Will Lose Reserve Status Posted Oct 12, 2009 09:00am EDT by Aaron Task in Newsmakers, Commodities Related: GLD, GDX, TIP, TBT, SLV, ^DJI, ^GSPC Famed investor Jim Rogers is "quite sure gold will go over $2000 per ounce during this bull market." Rogers' confidence gold will continue to rally stems from a view the U.S. dollar is on its way to losing status as the world's reserve currency. "Is it going to happen? Yes," Rogers says. "I don't like saying it [and] I'm extremely worried about it but we have to deal with the facts. America is not getting better [and] the dollar is going to be replaced just like pound sterling [was]." Rogers didn't offer a timetable, and it's likely gold would exceed $2000 per ounce if the dollar were to lose its reserve status. Still, "I wouldn't buy gold today," Rogers says. "I think I'll make more money in other commodities, which are cheaper," as discussed in more detail here. Among many others, Rogers is "worried about the fact the U.S. government is printing huge amounts, spending gigantic amounts of money it doesn't have," the investor and author says. "People are very worried [and] skeptical about paper money [and] looking for places to protect themselves. The best way is to buy real assets. [That] has always protected one during currency turmoil, and it will again." finance.yahoo.com

To: ayn rand who wrote (23442)	10/12/2009 1:51:53 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71442

>>The banks, AIG, they were considered 'too big to fail.' They had to be saved, there was no choice.<< that's the story, but i don't believe it. the $13 billion that sent to government sachs by way of the AIG bailout mostly went for 1Qs worth of bonuses. that's it. did those bonuses collapse government sachs? this was mostly about making the oligarchs whole on their bad bets b/c they own washington. if they truly were too big to fail, why are they so much bigger today - so much more of a systemic risk? who benefitted? who is being hurt? follow the money, not the spin.

To: ayn rand who wrote (23442)	10/13/2009 10:01:57 AM
From: Real Man	5 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71442

The BIS update on global shadow banking system is REALLY slow. So far they only have data back from December 2008. We do have US report here occ.treas.gov Unfortunately, my suspicion about the "cure" for the financial crisis was correct. The report indicates the real values for derivatives dropped sharply, while the notional values grew. In other words, the "solution" was to re-liquify derivatives, as usual. Of course, we knew that before. Oh, and Goldman is by far the most leveraged US institution. In other words, by pursuing the bailout of most leveraged players the Fed and other Central banks assumed the role of failed counterparty, such as AIG and FNM/FRE. The system is still over-leveraged, printing led to even more leverage piling on. The financial nuclear bomb is still ticking. There is no good solution, the derivative Ponzi scheme is too big. What should they do? Instead of saving "too big to fail", let the 5 top Fed overleveraged institutions fail. Let small banks, those who have been prudent, replace them. Do not feed the Ponzi with liquidity, encouraging even more money for nothing. Will the Central banks keep printing forever to prevent the big implosion or is the big one coming? So far there is no stress in derivatives, but the Big one is coming sooner rather than later. The shadow banking system outgrew the Fed. "The fix" was liquidity, not reform, which is no fix at all. It's a patch, a duct tape. It will hold for a couple of years, then we'll see the shadow system go ka-boom again, unless measures are implemented to cancel contracts between counterparties, while the real values of these have gone down.