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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (58222)	11/23/2009 6:58:42 PM
From: Secret_Agent_Man	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218068

Could it be that next months expiration leads to a physical default? I think it's very possible and I believe we are being "warmed up" for this possibility by CNBC. The outspoken Rick Santelli and another guest were asked their take on Gold's rise. To my surprise, the guest and Santelli started talking about Larry Summer's past writing's about artificially suppressing Gold's price to keep interest rates down and support the Dollar! (They used the word SUPPRESSION!) They went on to say that a strong Gold price is a negative "vote" on the Dollar. The guest (I believe it was commodity trader Philip Gottshelf) then went on to say that a study was done says that if you divide out the money supply by the 270 million "alleged" (my term) ounces of Treasury Gold you get $11,000 per ounce. He went on to say he actually did the math and came up with $50,000 per ounce and Rick Santelli agreed! CNBC is now allowing this sort of "tin foil conspiratorial" talk on the air? Say it isn't so! The next segment was an interview with Ron Paul regarding his recent "audit the Fed" bill that passed the House on Friday. If you recall, 2 years ago Becky Quick and Joe Kernan were "caught" on the air by mistake saying something like "oh my God, this guy Ron Paul is a lunatic" and Mr. Paul was routinely edited by CNBC whenever he was questioning Greenspan or Treasury officials. Apparently something has changed in the Orewellian game plan because Mr. Paul has gotten some traction and "us lunatics" are not so "far out there" anymore! The next segment had another guest on regarding the Fed buying 90% of federal debt so far this year, I had to scoot out and don't remember who it was but the caption below was "the Fed buys 90% of federal debt this year". What the heck is CNBC trying to do? CAUSE a crash? This is truly a change of tone and I guess they are posturing for the "we told you so moment" in the courtroom. It will be very interesting to see if or how many of the numerous $1,200 strike price call options that are outstanding get exercised with Gold some $25-$30 below the strike. In the past I only know of 2 instances where metals options were exercised when they were out of the money. Warren Buffet back in 1997 exercised some $5 Silver options when it was .30 cents or so out of the money because he wanted the metal. If the current move in the price of Gold is truly a scramble for physical and an assault on the COMEX inventory, then either this month or next we will witness options being exercised for metal. If this is the case, the moves we have seen recently in Silver and Gold will pale in comparison to what is ahead. A default on the COMEX or elsewhere will be in fact a "run on the bank". A physical default will lead to the loss of confidence in anything and everything paper. I believe you will see runs on banks, insurance companies, brokers, pension plans and many sovereign debt and currency markets including and especially aimed at the U.S.. The pieces to this puzzle were on the table some 12-15 years ago, some of us looked at it and felt we knew the "big picture". Over time we became more and more sure as the pieces fell into place. NOW even CNBC is putting pieces together because if they don't they will look like idiots to the sheeple. The problem for the establishment banksters is, the majority of "sheeple" are all reading newspapers, watching their TV's and surfing the internet. The commoners are all beginning to see the "picture" of this puzzle at the same time. The mental picture I have is a bag full of Krugerrands, Maple Leafs, Eagles, and Bars (not tungsten) piled on the back of an exhausted and sprawled out Uncle Sam. I am sure others have a different but similar picture that is coming into focus more and more every day! "Truth" is becoming a very BIG problem. Regards, Bill H.

To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (58222)	11/23/2009 11:56:07 PM
From: TobagoJack	6 Recommendations Respond to of 218068

just in, re pig farming THIS WAS INDEED SENT to David Miliband from........... NIGEL JOHNSON-HILL, PARK FARM, MILLAND, LIPHOOK GU30 7JT Rt Hon David Miliband MP Secretary of State. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR 16 July 2009 Dear Secretary of State, My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business. In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy. I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these? As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this? My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any. If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases? Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear? I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)? In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election. Yours faithfully, Nigel Johnson-Hill