Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/17/12 10:52 AM, Ericho wrote: I've looked through all the precious medals I own and I've brought them all to stores and I've never gotten lucky at all. I'd still say gold's a better investment, provided you can get any.

Any actual reason, or are you just rambling?

Tie, leaning Obama. Romney pummeled him on oil and on his pension fund also investing overseas, but Benghazi gave the momentum back. So yeah. Not a blowout.

At 10/16/12 09:16 PM, JoS wrote:

At 10/16/12 08:47 PM, JMHX wrote: Oh, you know me, friend.

I thought you moved, or died, or something like that.

Nope!

At 10/16/12 06:38 PM, JoS wrote:

At 10/16/12 06:26 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 10/16/12 06:21 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 10/16/12 05:43 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/16/12 03:26 PM, JMHX wrote: Hello.

Welcome back!

This.

It's been a while.

WTF

Oh, you know me, friend.

It's been a fun time to be heavily invested in the market. Looking back to 2006 and the collapse that soon followed, the market has never traded at such a value in my lifetime, and may not again. In some places, such as the big financial firms, mortgage REITs and insurers, companies were trading at a nearly 90% discount. In short, what I'm saying is that if you had the temerity to get into the market in 2007 and ride it through, adding positions from 2008-2012 and adjusting accordingly, you made a pretty good profit.

This was thanks in large part to the Federal Reserve's policy of Quantitative Easing (QE), which I've opened discussion on in a thread here. In that thread, I point out that while QE has been a boon to the stock market, it's essentially ruining our ability to save in non-stock assets like Treasury Bonds, Money Market accounts, Certificates of Deposit and other low-risk venues.

Of course, there has been one class of assets where the boom has outstripped even the fire of the stock market. Commodities. Wheat, corn, copper, palladium. Those kinds of commodities. And one in particular: gold. As morefngdbs points out, Gold has jumped from just about $250 an ounce in 2000 to $1750 an ounce today. That's a handy 600% increase.

But there's also a rift here. All metals are essentially speculations against economic uncertainty, and there are two options for how to trade in them: paper (stocks, ETFs and other vehicles that hold gold and let you invest in their holdings), and specie (buying gold bullion and bullion coins directly). I think the former is a fair enough hedge as part of a diversified portfolio. The second, buying coins, borders on the silly.

Why? Premiums and discounts. Gold coinage is tough to turn into cash, and the grocery store doesn't exactly take your bullion coins at face value. You're going to pay between 3-10% premium on the spot price of gold to buy the coins. At the same time, most reputable gold dealers, especially in metro urban areas, offer between 70-85% of spot value in their gold purchases. You're taking a hit either way.

Metals are also prone to shocks. Look at the 20%+ decline in the price of silver over the past year or so, during which time dealers were paying only 70% of spot. Assuming you bought an ounce of silver at $31.50 (spot + 5%) in 2010, watched it rise to $45 in 2011, and now to $32 in 2012, if you sold today you'd receive $25.60 (80% of spot, the going rate in Washington, D.C.). If you sold through an online auction, you'd likely net 90% of spot, but you'd also pay auction fees.

I'd love your thoughts. I'm not saying metals aren't sometimes a good investment. But assuming they're a panacea, a never-go-down investment that will get you away from the risk of the world markets? That's silly.

You could easily have skipped all the Ron Paul goldbug nonsense at the beginning there and just said, "Commodities in general are a good investment right now, because the slow economy has created a bubble." I was going to say 'Fed pumping has created a bubble,' but if you overlay a chart of QE1, 2 and 3 over Gold's historic spot it doesn't really correlate to anything.

It's a matter of buy-and-hold, definitely, but to assume it'll just keep going up is silly. But I'm not here to debate gold policy. This is about how the Fed and government policy from the post-2001 recession onward (and especially 2007-2012) has substantially disincentivized saving vs. investing in a volatile stock market.

At 10/16/12 06:21 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 10/16/12 05:43 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/16/12 03:26 PM, JMHX wrote: Hello.

Welcome back!

This.

It's been a while.

The problem as I see it now is that we've come so far on this QE path that markets have become totally dependent on it. Look at the share value of banks and REITs, especially. If we pull that out now and start raising interest rates, we risk choking off what little economic growth we've had over the past year or two. It really is a solution without an easy answer.

I'd fire my serfs if they voted for Obama, too. We can't afford a president who starts unfunded wars and advocates for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Hello.

Like most things done in Washington these days, the Federal Reserve's announcement of its commitment to unending quantitative easing sparked a firestorm among Beltway pundits and policy wonks. For most Americans, though, Ben Bernanke's decision to open the floodgates of capital passed unnoticed. Why should the average twentysomething care at all that the Fed wants to purchase $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities and government bonds indefinitely?

Haven't we been doing this since at least the beginning of the Obama Administration? This is "QE 3" after all. Two other rounds passed without the sky falling. The stock market is scraping pre-Great Recession levels. Public company profits are high, unemployment is ostensibly on the decline, consumer confidence is up.

And yet, if you're a responsible saver (which most of America struggles with, average household annual savings being only around 3%, which implies most Americans fail to save anything during the year and some even end the year further behind than when they started), Quantitative Easing is destroying you. The average return from a CD or Money Market Account, where most Americans save, has in some places hit an effective APY of 0.00%. If you happen to have $4 million on hand, you can get a princely yield of 0.03% per year from Wells Fargo.

If Treasury Bonds, CDs and Money Market Accounts are already at or rapidly approaching negative yield, where can one put their money to find a return? The stock market. But isn't this the same stock market being radically inflated by Fed pumping and bond buying? The same market that, if Fed pumping were taken away would be significantly lower? The same market that stands potentially ready to shed value if a Romney Administration takes office in January?

Yeah. That stock market.

This is the end result of loose Fed policy. Consumers are punished for saving by negative returns, and pressured into investing in the only viable short-term return vehicle left - a stock market that is so divorced from economic reality as to be little better than a gamble. This is your new economy.

If every pudding pop were a dinosaur, there'd be no sleeping on the weekends.

lapis --

Thanks. I've always found speaking some of the language helps lower your noticeability. As I try and decide on a new language to pick up, it's definitely going to be something that is classified as in demand by the State Department. Arabic may be something I should consider.

At 8/12/10 10:48 AM, tmiller2 wrote: Does it matter...?

Saying this in a debate and discussion thread is like...aw, whatever, not going to waste time on it.

So does anyone see a general trend towards more personal freedom in the realm of Internet as a result of the recession? I find it to be quite the opposite - as a revenue generator, companies are now embracing tiered Internet. It's the opposite of the recession-backed moves towards personal liberty we see elsewhere in the economy.

From here on I have changed my name to Thaddeus Ghostal.

At 8/3/10 01:14 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/2/10 01:51 PM, JMHX wrote:

Anyway,
That's my theory for the expansion of government, and why the typical check against the institution becoming stale (constitutional amendments) is ineffective.

Keep in mind, Imperator, that the Constitutional amendment process was always meant to be a slow one, as a natural limit on changing the Constitution every time someone had what they thought was a better idea.

I do believe that government is too willing to wade into areas where our Senators and Congressmen admit ignorance (regulating the Internet, for example). Nothing good can come from trying to put the large, clumsy hand of government onto a very agile technology that requires a close understanding to really effectively monitor and regulate.

At 8/8/10 05:15 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I doubt he will do anything for Haiti I can tell you from experience (I have been to Haiti) he won't do CRAP, I have been there twice a few years before the earthquake and I can probably tell you this is a improvement. and knowing rappers which don't know anything about politics I doubt it would matter, for god sake hes a drop out.

Having been there twice, you're practically a native in the subtleties of Haitian culture and politics.

At 8/9/10 10:11 AM, lapis wrote:

At 8/5/10 01:19 PM, JMHX wrote: Your profession or course of academic study

M.Sc in econometrics and operations research, 1.5 years of Arabic language and culture. Currently working on a Ph.D. in computer science / mathematics, 1 year completed, 3 to go.

Would love to hear about your experiences learning Arabic. I'm considering either that or Kiswahili for my third language, using Rosetta Stone. Have you found it difficult to pick up the writing aspect?

At 8/9/10 12:43 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/9/10 09:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Thanks Seven, You say that Proteas missed me....hmmm he better get out with his gun & practice somemore, he'll be able to hit me in no time ~;)

If I can't hit you with a shotgun, I might as well by some Wayfarer sunglasses and start playing piano.

Depends, has it been sawed all the way to the f'cking trigger?

Graduate school starts in about three weeks. Should I stock up on bowties since I'll be doing some TA'ing?

Reading this book on the life of Caesar Augustus, and I'm struck by one thing:

Even the wealthiest people had pretty garbage lives by modern standards. I mean, no iTunes.

Sometimes I think if I were illiterate I'd have a lot more money. Must've blown about $200 this week just on books in an effort to learn about the Julio-Claudian line of emperors. It's an expensive hobby, reading. You never think about it at the time.

Those cookies look yummy.

At 8/6/10 05:35 PM, TheMason wrote: Welcome back JMHX. We didn't really interact too much seven years ago...but I've always enjoyed reading your posts and hoped you'd return.

Shoot me your AIM or contact info, would love to chat.

At 8/6/10 03:33 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 8/6/10 01:40 PM, JMHX wrote: So many people having children. Reminds me of my own immaturity.

Dude, I'm 27 and I'm not emotionally ready to have kids. Don't sweat it.

I think that's the major difference--I at least KNOW I can't handle them yet, as opposed to people who have them and then find out.

I don't really have any intention of having children until my late twenties, depending. Children just eat into earning power too much, and I'm not yet ready to sacrifice my career and profligate spending habits for a child.

At 8/6/10 02:10 PM, Vidaria wrote:

Your profession or course of academic study

I work for an international development NGO and am pursuing an M.A. in Media and Public Affairs.

Issues that are of special concern to you

General foreign policy questions, African affairs, personal liberties issues (drugs, gay marriage, economic choice).

Issues you know little or nothing about but want to learn about

Applied economics, still very basic knowledge here. Arguments pro/con on immigration. Latin America.

Your political leanings (and, more interestingly, how you came to develop them)

Libertarian. Was for quite some time a very liberal near-socialist from 2003 - 2006, but began moderating and moving to the moderate-realist viewpoint as I worked more in government and development, and did more reading into political philosophy and basic economics. Now I'm trying to make a bridge for Pragmatic Libertarianism that would actually be applicable to a country as comfy as the U.S.

So many people having children. Reminds me of my own immaturity.

Newgrounds Politics Forum is slow these days, a far cry from the glory days of seven years ago. Good Lord, was it really seven years ago? It seemed as if there was better structure back then, even if it was channeled into the forms of silly cliques like the Politics Crew and the Devil's Advocate Group. People were interacting with each other and, dare I say, even learning some new stuff along the way. So let me introduce a new idea that throws back to old ideals: The Newgrounds Politics Forum Issue Challenge!

Forum members are invited to post some of their (non-personal information) so that we have a good idea of just who you are and what your background is. This can include:

Your profession or course of academic study
Issues that are of special concern to you
Issues you know little or nothing about but want to learn about
Your political leanings (and, more interestingly, how you came to develop them)
etc. etc.

Now, this isn't just a survey. I'm challenging each and every one of you to do something else: Within your post, take the opportunity to inform the rest of us about something of special interest to you. If you're fascinated by foreign policy, for example, share an interesting story others might not know about why Afghanistan was carved up to look like it does, or why Nixon was a better foreign policy leader than people think.

On the opposite side of this, people who know a lot about things you want to know are invited to post worthwhile books or articles to get you started on the path of learning. Someone who knows nothing about the modern history of North and South Korea could be recommended "The Two Koreas," for example.

People who find they know about the same things can connect on a higher level, and people interested in sharing their knowledge with people who don't know but want to learn can feel like they're giving back. Working together, we can actually expand our horizons on a whole host of foreign and domestic policy issues, philosophy, and general ignorance.

At 8/5/10 12:08 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/4/10 11:07 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/4/10 10:01 AM, JMHX wrote: Well, if he's serious, I vote his Vice President should be The Rock.

I agree. I want Rock in the UN talking about laying the smacketh down on candy asses who don't give Haiti aid. Then he can give the people's elbow or something.

On a serious note, if Wyclef is serious, it might not be a bad idea as I think it would certainly motivate people and put more eyes back on Haiti and perhaps that publicity could lead to more help and turn around for the country. Or it could utterly back fire. But like others have said...hard to imagine anything can make the place much more unliveable then it is now.

No. Aid is the last thing Haiti needs, what Haiti needs is the ability to sustain itself and be able to feed its population better, if the aid is seeds, fertilizer, fishing boats, building material etc. then thats the real aid.

Here's the problem with that -- if you look at something like the Marhsall Plan, which did a lot of what you're saying (bringing in raw supply for industry, restarting destroyed business), that wouldn't much work in Haiti. The kind of aid you're supporting presupposes industry in Haiti that, by and large, wasn't there even before the natural disaster. We're not just augmenting Haitian industry with things like seeds and fishing boats, we're building an entirely new series of industries.

Sometimes I'm reminded of how much like Christ I am.

At 8/4/10 12:54 PM, animehater wrote: Let's just hope he doesn't pocket every aid dollar that country gets and moves the hell out of the country as soon as his term is done to avoid prosecution.

this is probably the worst response to a topic I've ever seen.