lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)
-
Posts
2,493 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)
-
-
I recall a post on HPC ages ago where some chap was arguing that investing in gold was a mugs game as eventually scientists will be able to make gold out of other elements. Wish I could find the post now it was hilarious. I remember the chap getting quite indignant saying "and yes the technology does exist" then going on to say gold atoms are produced as a by-product of reactions in large hadron colliders! Not exactly a very cost efficient approach
From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djVDd0IATug
From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzG-AvlKBAA
-
If the cider works out well, tempted to call it "Incyder trading" or maybe the "Sussex Incyder" any other suggestions are welcome of course.
sounds interesting - have planted three apple trees but growth has been stunted this year and last year due to ants farming aphids - just discovered fruit tree greese to stop them
-
How are you going to get round it?
If you sell it at Chards for example, then Chards will have records of the sale in their books. This will allow HMRC to know who sold (if they chose to look).
I doubt you will get round this by selling at CID as they are also a British Company.
GoldMoney and BullionVault both say they will co-operate with the British authorities.
And ebay monitor sellers on behalf of HMRC.
It’s not worth getting caught in my opinion. I know people who have been investigated by HMRC and it is horrific by all accounts. You are presumed to be guilty until you prove otherwise. HMRC will never agree that you are ‘not guilty’ they will instead go quite. You won’t know if/when the investigation has finished.
be careful
people will think you are money laundering
dont claim for too many paperclips in your expenses
The Proceeds of Crime Act requires that a disclosure is made if there is:* knowledge or suspicion of money laundering, or
* reasonable grounds for knowledge or suspicion.
In practice this means that the accountant must be careful to consider not only if he or she is suspicious, but also if another person in a similar scenario would be suspicious.
Remember that what constitutes money laundering is set out in the Proceeds of Crime Act (Part 7). It is widely defined and includes:
* concealing the proceeds of crime
* facilitating an arrangement to conceal or retain the proceeds of crime, and
* acquiring or having possession of the proceeds of crime.
Anybody who has proceeds of crime will therefore end up laundering money, whether it's small scale tax evasion or a drugs cartel!
Deciding whether a situation causes suspicion, however, is necessarily a judgemental process. Two quotes from judges in court cases help to explain the level at which suspicion arises:
* 'A degree of satisfaction not necessarily amounting to belief but at least extending beyond speculation as to whether an event has occurred or not'
* 'Although the creation of a suspicion requires a lesser factual basis than the creation of a belief, it nonetheless must be built upon some foundation'.
Another factor that must be taken into account in deciding if we are suspicious is whether the transaction or activity that we have seen is connected to a person or entity in a non-cooperative country or territory (NCCT). A list of such countries is published by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and is available on their website at www.fatf-gafi.org.uk.
Whenever one of these jurisdictions is involved we must become suspicious much sooner. The reason for this is that NCCTs have weak or no anti-money laundering legislation, or do not assist in international investigations. As such they are havens for money launderers and so very risky from our point of view.
-
Spain built about 29 percent of new homes in the European Union from 2001 to 2007, even as it represented just 9 percent of the population. The resulting glut of 1.5 million unsold houses and apartments sparked the end of a decade-long real estate and construction boom that accounted for about 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2007. ...
perfect example of the malinvest caused by central bankers setting the price of credit too low
central planning and price fixing always causes problems
Ireland still singing praises for the Euro
-
http://www.endfinancialfraud.org/index.php
Welcome to The Worldwide Initiative to Permanently End Financial Fraud.
thanks for the link
the message spreads
maybe most will get it eventually
http://www.endfinancialfraud.org/gold-and-...mic-freedom.php
French philosopher Voltaire once said that as long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities. Belief that freedom and an unsound fiat monetary system can coexist is one such absurdity. As result of this absurd belief, atrocities, such as the major media’s continual refusal to provide adequate coverage to the current global catastrophe of more than one billion hungry people, can materialize.Under our current fiat monetary system, the financial oligarchs that control the world’s central banks will continue to feed speculative bubbles because there is no way for the people to call their bluff other than exchanging one form of fraudulent money for another form of fraudulent money. People that tried to protect themselves from dollar devaluation through the use of currency hedges discovered the futility of doing so at the end of last year and the beginning of this year when Euros, British Pounds, and Australian all plummeted by 25% to 30% in a matter of weeks. If the World Series of Poker operated under the same rules as our current monetary system, the richest man or woman to enter the tournament would win every single tournament. No matter his hand, if there was no way to call his bluff, he could raise the pot every round to such rich levels that he could force all other players to fold even under the occasions when he held the weakest hand. Even a poker game is more honest than our monetary system for it allows other players to expose bluffs and walk away victorious.
Under our current monetary system, there is no means to call the bluff of Central Bankers by using other forms of fiat money. The only way to call the Central Bank’s bluff is to buy gold and silver. Understanding this, it is easy to deduce why Central Banks, despite holding loads of gold in their own private reserves, continually attack gold, discredit its role in our monetary system, and seek to drive its price down. If masses of people were to discover and understand the true value of gold in a sound monetary system, then calling the bluff of our current fiat monetary system and causing it to collapse would be possible. Stay tuned, as currently, I’m working on another essay about how awareness around the world can be raised in this matter. Currently, this essay has a working title of “Can Networking Science Help Reinstate a Sound Global Monetary System?”.
-
What i see in you is lack of consistancy in your thinking. You want free markets but you have not thought it thru.
utter tripe
i will no longer respond to any other rubbish you spout
-
Obviously if you have a free and fair system of government you dont want the public to know the intimate details of your market plans and actions so they can speculate against the position you intend to keep to provide stability in difficult times.
no we have people deciding monetary policy so that those in the know can benefit from their knowledge under the illusion that they operate in secret to provide for stability
lets save AIG but not Lehmen Brothers - and why would that be
a fair system
- i dont think so
-
So from my point of view it is not governments and bankers who love these things. The fact there has just been an enormous housing bubble shows that people love the idea too.
who benefits the most from the country being indebted
So in your alternate system it seems to me that you need to have a group of people who say what you can and cant do and that is not a free market.you mean like fannie mae and freddie mac - affordable housing disaster
In a free market i am entitled to say what you are or are not saying or are you going to regulate that out of existance too?i dont want to regulate nothing - its you who is the fan of regulation
i think you have a history of putting words into peoples mouths to help your argument
-
strong men
Finally, we wish to leave you with a couple of brief historical points about the BoE’s history for nothing more than general education and to gain some small insight into some of the players. After being founded in 1694 by Scotsman William Paterson, it remained a private lender to the government for more than 250 years. As the bank size grew, it also became the banker’s banker. It was given the sole right to issue banknotes in 1844. It was fully nationalized in 1944. In 1977, it was set up as a private limited company in order for it “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them....” Weird, if you ask us. The BoE was also granted an exemption from the disclosure requirements and is also protect by its Royal Charter status and the Official Secrets Act. We abhor this veil of secrecy thrown in front of central bankers, especially those charged with handling the stability of the global reserve currencies. All these special exemptions are nothing more than a facility to permit them to avoid telling the truth. After all, the public does not have access to their same information, so central bankers can delay releasing information at their will, similarly to Uncle Benny’s tempo with subprime. -
Todays reality has aspects of my kind of anarchy already as you point out. I am then wondering why you think that this thing you are considering called 'free markets' (which to me seems like a never to be achieved theoretical consideration simply because reality and history tells us strongmen are always going to be present) is going to be better?
Because i dont see it as being better, the kind of free for all that i think would follow on from a removal of current systems will lead to a deflationary collapse. To my way of thinking by promoting free markets you are promoting a deflationary collapse.
i am promoting a more honest and more stable monetary system whereby the power of bankers to profit from expanding and contracting the currency is vastly reduced and the hidden tax of inflation, so loved by governments, is no more.
free markets may never be achieved
limited government and freeer markets can be
and stop saying what i am or am not saying
-
Free markets are anarchic. In anarchy people dont need to borrow to get what they want they just take it. And if they cant take it they hope to destroy what the other person possesses.
I think also that in anarchy the worlds population would fall back. But is the nature of anarchy that strongmen emerge who become the local war lords. They then administer and police their areas.
So from my point of view you are promoting a catastrophic deflationary collapse where you might believe you can profit from that chaos. On the other hand another person might think they can just take whatever you accumulate so i dont see it as much of an investment strategy so far. But maybe i dont understand what you have in mind?
why are free markets anarchic
if i go to a market and want to buy someones bananas for a price both I and the seller are both prepared to accept without the rules of how straight they are, what colour they are, whether they are priced in lb's or kg, whether he/she has complied with health and safety legislation, paid his business protection money (business rates) and his government protection money (taxes). Anarchy?
who are the strong men now
governments and the bankers
when did i say i was promoting a catastrophic deflationary collapse - tis not me who created currency out of thin air and caused the debt bubble (Greenspan and Bernanke are more to blame than I)
-
Seems unlikely to me:
1. The people want to have access to finance
2. People like me cannot see that fractional reserve is some kind of evil force to enslave the masses.
3. The issue to my way of thinking about it has been lack of regulation. Why has there been lack of regulation? Partly it is because of anarchic type ideas that laizzez faire capitalism is the best way of organising a market. Prior to 1984 for example it was very very difficult to borrow money for certain property projects in the UK. Then came deregulation and American banks willing to lend on a valuation only - regardless of the condition of the property and the ability to sell it.
As i see it what we need is less government and simple effective regulation. China for example regularly alters their required reserve ratios to force banks to lend less money, whereas the inflation targeting model enables people to chase assets higher because they benefit from inflation and nobody regulates their ability to lend other than via price. That model has been well and truelly shown to be broken but i still think inflation targeting with regulated lending could be a workable system.
as i have said before let the free market take care of the banks who want to speculate with FRB (without the central banks support)
regulation doesn't work - never has and never will - although i do admit you can have different levels of competence by regulators
-
You are now agreeing with me that my paper money seems fine.
My point was that it seems unreasonable to theorise about a world without paper money because by what method will you prevent paper money from circulating?
if more people understood the issue then the poeple would regulate it
-
I was not impressed enough to listen to more than about half of it. There were too many canards. The one suggesting that the US invaded Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein selling oil in Euros.... why do people keep repeating that? If SH did that it would be his loss because buyers would demand a discount to cover the cost of converting dollars to Euros. Iraq never sold enough oil to call the shots.
Then the assertion about the gold standard preventing wars. Well, it did not prevent the Napoleonic Wars. Britain came off the gold standard to pay for the war and then struggled for years afterwards to get back on, eventually managing it for the rest of the century and on to 1914, when she came off to finance WW1. This time the Brits just could not get onto the gold standard again afterwards, and abandoned it I think in the early 1930s after defaulting on US debt repayments. Nuclear power stopped major wars, at least so far. Europe was at war repeatedly in the C19th.
i think a good case can be argued that wars are less likely
also if people understood who benefits from wars and who pays for them they could refuse to accept the removal of the gold standard and therefore reduce the chance and cost of wars
who financed both sides of the napoleonic wars
-
Both excellent - do you have dates for either?"I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people." Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924.
and book published in 1935?
http://silverstockreport.com/email/Godly_Prosperity.html
Robert Hemphill was the Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta. In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money, Hemphill said this:If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible -- but there it is.
That was an interestingly terrifying description of the problem of paper money; but no solution is presented; in fact, he fears that no solution is possible. The solution must have eluded Robert Hemphill, who did, in fact, help to inspire me to search for a solution when I read another of his famous quotes on money: (and I quote this at my homepage).
"Money is the most important subject intellectual persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and its defects remedied very soon."
--Robert H. Hemphill, former credit manager, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
-
Hi Lowrent,
I meant to say thank you. I used the GBShaw quote from your signature in my essay. I found it thanks to your sig. I would have used the Stamp one too, but there is some doubt as to whether he actually said it or whether it was attributed.
It's a bit like like that great quote that Napoleon is said to have said, 'Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained as incompetence'. But did he actually say it? If so when and where?
Anyway - good sig
CC
no probs
did he say it when speaking at the University of Texas in 1927
http://moneymyths.org.uk/episode2.html
some more quotes by bankers
Reginald McKenna, Chairman of the Board of the Midland Bank, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: “I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that banks can and do create money...And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people”.As Robert Hemphill, one-time Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta said: “If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible -- but there it is.” -
-
Meanwhile i dont see how it is written that it must fail so i dont see myself as a pessimist. I see you as the pessimist.
I see you as the pessimist because you have such a low opinion of the way the world works today. Personally I dont think it is any different to the way it always was.
history shows it
-
I have long argued that China is using the idea of an SDR reserve currency as a stalking horse. I positioning the SDR as the replacement for the $US, China can engage the support of other countries like Russia, India and Brazil, who might blanch at the prospect of the RMB as the reserve currency (e.g. see here for discussion of support for the SDR in relation to India and Russia).
The underlying reality behind the challenge for reserve supremacy is that China is increasingly the linchpin in the global financial system. Whatever China does with its massive reserves quite literally shapes the world financial system. China quite literally has the power to make or break any asset or any market, as can be seen in the attention paid to every utterance from China regarding the $US. When a country has such economic firepower, it is puzzling that anyone might suggest that it is not ready to take on the role of a reserve currency. I can only assume that many analysts are taking the SDR stalking horse seriously, and are not considering the vacuum that will be left when the $US finally collapses under the weight of quantitative easing and fiscal profligacy.
One argument I have read (sorry, I forget where) is that China would not want the RMB to become a reserve currency, as it would mean that the RMB would strengthen. There is some merit to this argument, as the fall of the $US against the RMB would make a serious dent in China's trade. However, the problem that underpins the current fragility is that China is currently subsidising US consumption at the expense of Chinese people.
At present, China is funding the US deficits and consumption in return for treasuries. Those treasuries are a promise of payment in $US, and yet the issuance of $US is massively expanding even as output is falling in the US. With each $US a representation of the output of the US economy, such issuance of $US currency and debt means that each currency unit is representing a smaller amount of output (I explain this in more detail here). As such, one way or another, China must eventually shift its reliance on a large US export market, and start to gain the full value of their economic output. They can not continue to literally give away a proportion of their output to the US, which is what the purchase of treasuries represents.
The only question marks that remains over the RMB as a reserve currency are largely to do with whether China can continue the present economic momentum, and the timing and nature of the collapse of the $US. When I first wrote about China for the blog in July 2008, I highlighted the risks for China, but concluded that on balance I favoured the view that China would emerge in the ascendant in the economic crisis. Whilst still issuing a note of caution, the developments since that time are even more favourable for China. With regards to the collapse of the $US, it is quite astounding that it has defied gravity this long.
As the current situation stands, the RMB is looking very much like the new reserve currency, and it is not going to become the reserve currency in ten or twenty years time, but in the near future. It may be that SDRs will be implemented as a reserve on a temporary basis during the transition, for long enough for China to satisfy the aspirations of the other supporters of the SDR. However, unless China's ascent is halted (e.g. through civil unrest), it is almost certainly going to succeed in the ambitions for the RMB.
Note 1: I have recently seen an article which agrees with my view that the SDR is a stalking horse, though he is using the expression 'smoke screen'.
Note 2: I have had some negative feedback on the new comments system. More feedback would be welcome, as I am starting to think that I need to revert to the old system (which might be a bit tricky to actually do, but I will work it out if necessary).
-
This is a good Kondratiev resource. Have a look at this presentation on K-Waves**
Make sure your virus scanner is up to date. There was previously a virus on this site. I think the site gets attacked regularly. They’ve changed the URL a few times in the last year
http://www.longwavegroup.com/flash_pres.html
You can download some of the charts/slides here.
http://www.longwavegroup.com/downloads.html
Hyperinflation of fiat currencies = deflation relative to gold (?)
yes i know
nature wants deflation and thats what nature will get
just cash is the joker as someone else once posted
-
More circles.
http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index....st&p=116039
Credit is central to the Austrian economists about whom you post often. Perhaps you are more a monetarist?
dont think of myself as either
but happen to think most of what the Austrians say makes sense
i like exters pyramid - i just dont think it takes into account the possibility of currency collapse
-
"This article first appeared in two parts in Investment Insights for August and September 1984."
money supply is still increasing
no deflation
other than in leveraged assets
-
yes but it doesnt work if we get hyperinflation
gold still ok though under both possibilities
john exter seemed ok for a central banker
heres an old link
-
What I don't like about D.R. Schoon and A.E. Feteke are there blown out of proportion egos (worse than Sinclair).
D.R. stands for Darryl Robert, or so, not for a Ph.D. The confusion seems to be wanted.
i dont qualify as a positive deviant - according to his test
GOLD
in Gold, FX, Stocks / Diaries & Blogs
Posted
well someones gonna be wrong
prechter is expecting a dollar rally