A unique and safe way to buy gold and silver 2013 Passport To Freedom Residency Kit
Buy Gold & Silver With Bitcoins!

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

saveyourassetsfirst3

saveyourassetsfirst3

Eldorado Gold sees higher output in 2013

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 02:46 PM PST

The company plans to produce 705,000 to 760,000 ounces in 2013, on cash costs of $510-$503 per ounce.

Gold could be quietly "showing its hand" before its next big move

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 01:17 PM PST

From Peter L. Brandt:
 
On November 20, I posted a chart history of the gold market...
 
Two points I made in the report were:
 
•   Gold is purest technical market in the world
•   Significant trends in gold are nearly always announced in advance based on the chart structure -- gold nearly always shows its hand in advance for those who are watchful and unbiased
 
Well, gold may be showing its hand.
 
The monthly closing price chart below speaks for itself. Gold has been in a powerful bull trend since the 2001 low and no clear top has been formed. Absent a clear chart top, the default assumption must be that the period since the August 2011 high will serve as a continuation pattern. However, a decisive close below the 2012 low would be an indication of a top in gold.
 
The weekly chart shows that gold has formed a very clear 15-month rectangle pattern. This pattern is the key to the long-term trend in gold...
 
 
More on gold:
 
 
 

A new "must see" interview with Jim Rogers

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 01:17 PM PST

From Bearish News:
 
Another brilliant series of raw cuts, this time featuring legendary investor Jim Rogers, from the upcoming film The Bubble.
 
Of the hundreds of interviews I've seen with Mr. Rogers, this is possibly the best. Why? Probably due to the fact that the film's writer, Thomas Woods, is an Austrian/free-market economist like Rogers. 
 
"American finance is going to be in a (relative) decline for the next 2 or 3 decades… 10 years ago, most IPOs were done in NY…"
 
"It will be good for us all when..."
 
 
More from Jim Rogers:
 
 
 

Twenty facts about the euro collapse you might not know

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 01:17 PM PST

From The Economic Collapse:
 
The economic implosion of Europe is accelerating. Even while the mainstream media continues to proclaim that the financial crisis in Europe has been "averted," the economic statistics that are coming out of Europe just continue to get worse.
 
Manufacturing activity in Europe has been contracting month after month, the unemployment rate in the eurozone has hit yet another brand new record high, and the official unemployment rates in both Greece and Spain are now much higher than the peak unemployment rate in the United States during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
 
The economic situation in Europe is far worse than it was a year ago, and it is going to continue to get worse as austerity continues to take a huge toll on the economies of the eurozone. It would be hard to understate how bad things have gotten – particularly in southern Europe.
 
The truth is that most of southern Europe is experiencing a full-blown economic depression right now. Sadly, most Americans are paying very little attention to what is going on across the Atlantic. But they should be watching, because this is what happens when nations accumulate too much debt...
 
 
More on Europe:
 
 
 

"Dr. Doom" Marc Faber: The No. 1 reason to own gold now

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 01:17 PM PST

From Newsmax:
 
Although gold prices might continue to drop, as the collapse of the U.S. dollar is not imminent, Marc Faber is not giving up on the precious metal.
 
"I just think that government will print money and that there will be competitive devaluation, and so I want to have gold as an insurance policy," he told CNBC.
 
Gold prices probably won't increase soon and there may be a correction of "10 percent or so on the downside," said Faber, managing editor and publisher of the Gloom, Boom, and Doom Report.
 
He noted that he feels "deeply uncomfortable" about the future of the global economy, the geopolitical situation, and social unrest in different countries.
 
"I don't particularly like any assets at this stage. I mean, I have a diversified portfolio, I'm not liquidating anything, but I have a lot of cash."
 
In his January Market Commentary, Faber predicted that gold would fall to $1,550 to $1,600 an ounce, according to CNBC. Still, he wrote that he planned to increase his gold position on any further weakness, despite his concerns that strength of the U.S. dollar could be a headwind for a strong gold rally.
 
A growing number of banks have cut their outlook for gold... 
 
 
More from Marc Faber:
 

3 potential flashpoints for gold in 2013

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 12:32 PM PST

While moderate gains are likely to be the name of the game for gold in 2013, there are number of events investors are going to be keeping an eye on.

Natural Resources Investor Sprott Resource Corp. Is Now A Big-Time Dividend Play

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 12:10 PM PST

By Alex B. Gray:

In a press release last month, Sprott Resource Corp. (SCPZF.PK) announced that it would initiate a monthly dividend with the first payout of C$0.038 coming on January 15, 2013 to shareholders of record on December 31, 2012. This announcement obviously had the mouth of every income investor watering at the prospect of a yield in excess of 12% at the time of the announcement. However, it may have also attracted value investors who realized the existence of a large discount to book value and resource-minded investors who discovered the stock after the news. All of this immediate interest drove the stock price up nearly 24% as of the close on January 7, 2013, since the announcement on December 12, 2012.

So is there any value left in Sprott Resource? The simple answer is yes if you are a believer in the long-term prospects of gold, energy and agriculture. Sprott


Complete Story »

Gold rises towards $1,665 as equity markets firm

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 11:59 AM PST

The gold price firmed on Wednesday as a rise in equity markets after a positive start to earnings season benefited assets seen as higher risk.

Banks continue Turkey gold trade despite Iran link

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 11:44 AM PST

While the shipments are not in breach of existing Western sanctions, they have helped Iran to manage its finances despite being largely frozen out of the global banking system.

Euro Edges Lower Ahead Of ECB Announcement

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 11:38 AM PST

By FXstreet:

The euro weakened on Wednesday versus the dollar, although trading remains relatively subdued as investors remain sidelined ahead of the European Central Bank monetary policy decision tomorrow. Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar trades overall firmer as the FX market is still in consolidation mode, while stocks are up after a 2-day slide.

"Without much to fundamentally drive the FX space, and since most majors are firmly in consolidation mode, watching key levels and playing the ranges looks to be the best tactical strategy at the moment," says the TD Securities team. "For the EUR, yesterday's high of 1.3140 appears to be the short term cap, but the much more important pivot point is clearly on the downside, at 1.3000/10."

Looking At The ECB decision

The European Central Bank will decide on monetary policy on Thursday and although no changes are expected just yet, investors will be paying special attention to


Complete Story »

Biden: Obama Considering ‘Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 11:25 AM PST

Moments ago on MSNBC, VP Biden announced that President Obama is considering going after the 2nd amendment via executive order.  Biden, who is scheduled to meet with execs from the NRA Thursday, stated that President Obama is going to act, and that executive orders and executive action can be taken. If team Obama/Biden are not [...]
Check out these similar articles:
  1. Obama Signs Executive Order for Fed Control of Domestic Natural Gas Production
  2. Gold & Silver Pop As No Fiscal Cliff Deal Yet, Obama To Speak at 1:30
  3. Executive Order Promises To Give Total Control Of The Internet To The DHS

Technical Analysis

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 11:00 AM PST

Technical analysis.  Everyone knows what this is today. 20-30 years ago it was considered some sort of magic or even "black magic."  It was revered as "the secret tool" and a way to gain an edge and make money.  In some respects this was very true, technical analysis could be used to size up whatever market you were trading and get a picture as to oversold or overbought.  Regular patterns would occur over and over again which gave you better "odds" while trading.  This still holds true today but… to a much lesser extent and now nowhere near as good a predictive tool.

So what happened?  First, technical analysis became "popular" and once everyone knows something… it becomes no longer valid or less so.  Secondly and more important in my mind, fiat or fake currency as it is causes bad decision making because the values themselves become skewed or altered.  Investors make bad decisions because they cannot correctly judge risk.  This is illustrated today by interest rates being forced lower by the Fed when market forces would have them much higher to compensate for "risk."  A couple of examples are housing prices being as high as they still are (even after crashing) because the prices are made "affordable" by unjustifiably low interest rates.  Another example is that PE ratios in the equity markets are higher than they should be because they are calculated against Treasury (supposedly risk free) interest rates.  These are both "fundamental' investment decisions made by investors that technical analysis cannot take into account.

Thirdly, when a government can create any amount of "money" that it wishes, it can use this money to "push" markets around.  They cannot turn it completely upside down but they can surely "paint" and create false pictures.  These false pictures are seen every single day as markets react 100% opposite to what common sense would tell you should occur.  This can (and is every day) be done in the short term but cannot change the basic direction that Mother Nature would deem to be correct.  These manipulations however can alter time frames by either postponing or speeding up moves in markets depending on what the manipulators deem to be for the "greater good."

When I hear for example "Elliot wave this or Gann that"  I just cringe.  I cringe because two separate "experts" can read the same charts and come up with two diametrically opposed conclusions.  They will talk all sorts of mumbo jumbo with long and detailed explanations to support their case.  Both cases can sound logical at the same time which brings us back to "flipping a coin."  I ask you, what's the difference between flipping a coin as to market direction or flipping a coin as to which "expert" is correct?  There is no difference.  You can of course follow the track records of analysts which can be helpful because some are more right than others or "recently" more right and have a hot hand.  The problem with this is that their hand may all of a sudden go cold… for years to come.  A couple of examples would be Elaine Garzarelli and Robert Prechter making great calls before the 1987 crash only to never be correct again.  Prechter for example would have not only had you out of Gold since 1999, he would have suggested that you be short which would have caused your financial death long ago.

I thought about coupling this piece with one on "fundamentals" tomorrow but I see no need as the topic would be quite short.  Yes, I believe that you absolutely MUST use the fundamentals to create your big picture and then position yourself.  BUT it is very important as to how you create your big picture.  You can watch the cheerleaders on CNBC and Bloomberg, take the government economic reports at face value and listen to your stockbroker who is compensated to blow smoke up your butt, make you feel good and move your money "often."  OR, you can use some common sense and believe "your own eyes!"  For example, when you hear "numbers" released by the government that don't "sound" right… they almost surely are not.  Just use the common sense that you were born with and be skeptical of what you hear and read.  Investigate for yourself.  Dig for the truth… and THEN formulate the big picture.  If you want to use technical analysis using trend lines or go contrary to an overly bullish or bearish public, great, but don't go against the trend of your big picture.  …Which is why for the last 13 years I have NEVER tried to call a "top" in Gold.  My "big picture" tells me that Gold should be now and will be multiples higher than where it is today so why would I worry or try to profit from a 10% or even 20% drop.  THAT is a mugs game and one that technical analysts will assure you they have mastered!

Similar Posts:

The Middle Class Ain’t What It Used To Be

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 10:30 AM PST

READ THE FULL NEWSLETTER

I was talking to a friend today and he happened to mention that he wished he could buy more gold now, but added he didn't have any extra money to spare.  He makes a nice living at a Minneapolis manufacturing firm and his wife also works and brings in an additional $40,000.  Together, they earn north of $100,000 a year.  They only have one junior high school child to support.  They are quite conservative and do not spend to an excess. They are doing very well, by middle class standards, yet they have NO extra money left at the end of the month to invest in precious metals.  Now if these folks are having a hard time, what about most Americans who earn far less and have a larger family or have to deal with college tuition and weddings?

Things are worse than I thought.  Inflation and rising taxes are taking their toll.  The result will be a form of class warfare.  Anger and envy will emerge out of a now silent background.  We are living in the final days of the American Empire.  Corruption, fading morality, lies, deception and greed are visible to an extreme, if you focus on Wall Street, the TBTF banks and our politicians.  Sorry, I forgot to add the Fed to this illustrious list, but they should be there, standing in the front of the line.  Hey, enjoy it, do the best you can.  You are living in the most interesting of times – a time of great change is afoot.  We'll make it through this mess, but we will emerge to a very different world than the one most of us grew up in.  It will be a two-class system, those who are very wealthy and the rest of us.  Set aside enough gold and silver and you may make it into the upper class.

To all of our friends who voted for Obama – well, you got him.  Be careful what you wish for.  Your wish may (did) come true.  This administration may "help" the needy, but the food stamps, extended unemployment and tax breaks will not begin to cover the loss of purchasing power that the Fed and increased Liberal Government borrowing will create which further dilutes the dollar.  Few new good paying jobs and rising commodity costs will drag down all but the affluent.  The middle class is no longer immune from being short of cash.  Obama did nothing in his first term to warrant a second term, but the Republicans came up way short of offering a solid alternative.  Both parties are fighting for the "Best of the Worst" Award.  Looks to me like it's a draw.  The worst wins – they ain't no best!

Now, back to the everyday world, here is a T.A. chart that looks encouraging for you gold bulls out there… Gold held support above $1,626.  Gold is $1,663.50 as I write this.  Overhead resistance sits around $1,800.  I say, let's go for it!

The following chart is from King World News and is by Tom Fitzpatrick.  He believes gold could go lower from here, but his chart is still bullish and he expects gold to rise.

"(Gold) held the medium term channel base at $1,626 (now at $1,627).  We also posted a weekly doji pattern reflecting indecision.  Additional supports and pivots are in and around $1,520.  Only a weekly close below there would suggest a more aggressive down move.  For now the uptrend is still in place and higher levels are expected."

 Similar Posts:

    None Found

Gold Stymied at the 200 Day Moving Average

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 10:21 AM PST

Yesterday gold bounced off its support level; today it bounced off its resistance level, which is the 200 day moving average. As you can clearly see on the chart, that line is holding the market quite firmly for the time being.

Hedge funds are using this level against which to sell rallies while large physical offtake is providing the base of support from $1640 on down.

The market is stuck in a range for the time being with neither the bull nor the bear camp gaining a decided short term advantage for now, although the chart suggests that the bears have the intermediate term advantage.

Unless or until the bulls can take out the 200 day moving average and then get the price back above last week's high, the support level is going to be in danger if physical demand slacks off one iota. Once again it will be up to that side of the gold equation to try to put a firm bottom in this thing especially with speculators in a selling mood.





One of the things that is happening is that the recent price action has gotten the large investment banks, which issue regular analysis for their clients as to future price direction for many markets, have definitely changed their tune in regards to gold. Many of them are now lowering their previous price forecasts for this year.  That in turn has led to money outflows from gold and from the gold ETF. As a matter of fact, bearish option bets in the gold ETF are now outnumbering bullish bets based on the put to call ratio.

That goes to prove that price action makes market commentary.


Incidentally, this is one of the main proofs, let's call it exhibit A, that all traders/investors should make their investment decisions based on their own analysis of the technical price charts. These guys are always their most bullish when prices are soaring and their most bearish when prices are falling. In other words, they prophesy AFTER THE FACT. By learning how to properly read a price chart, you can be out well BEFORE they come out with their prognostications or IN before they switch to the other side and begin raising projections once again.


If you want to have another reason why gold is struggling some right now, as is silver, take a look at the following chart of the overall commodity sector. Notice that it too has failed to take out and remain above its 200 day moving average and is now sitting precariously right above a major support level.

While we wait for the inevitable inflationary consequences for all this Central Bank liquidity injection, for the time being, inflation scares are non-existent. Whether the monetary base is falling or the velocity of money still remains low, it is difficult to make a CURRENT CASE for inflation as long as this key index is so weak on the chart.

While interest rates on the Ten Year had recently risen to over 1.95%, they have now fallen back towards 1.85%. We will have to keep an eye on that key indicator or potential inflation concerns, as well as the long bond which has popped lately and recovered somewhat from its beginning-of-the-year selling avalanche. I mentioned previously and want to reiterate - the monetary masters will not tolerate rising interest rates and will do what it takes to prevent that.

Can Banks Really Just Create Money?

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 09:32 AM PST

It's the banks, not their customers, who actually wind up owing each other money…

OBSERVERS of Fractional Reserve Banking have noticed that your deposit into a bank can cause the bank to offer new loans well above and beyond the size of your deposit.

Those watchers often object on the grounds that this is new money which shouldn't have been created.

But every one of us can easily create spending power in the same way. Do a favour for a friend today and your work created an unreturned favour. So I'm going to call a unit of credit an 'Uf', and wherever possible I'll use the word Uf instead of credit. Somehow it makes it much easier to understand what the hell is going on.

Even if you didn't write it down you made a mental note of a social debt, and if your friend returns the favour tomorrow you then mentally release the favour he owed you. A sort of payment occurred.

If your friend were to pay you through the bank for the original favour you did then you could spend your Uf anywhere. Banking is useful, like Uf tokens are, because an Uf you earn from your friend, then record at your bank, becomes available for you to pay anyone who's got a bank account.

Let's suppose Godfrey has opened a bank account and deposited a few Uf tokens. He can do payment transactions both ways through his account with other people in his city who are account holders at his bank. He could go and do a favour for Fred next door – maybe build him a garden shed. Fred can tell the bank to pay Godfrey, and the bank puts some negative Ufs into Fred's account and some positive Ufs in Godfrey's. If Fred started with a zero (or negative) balance of Ufs then with the bank's help they have created money, because Godfrey now has general purpose spending power where none previously existed.

Is that necessarily a problem? Maybe not, so long as the bank looks warily at Fred. Can he be trusted to return an Uf? The bank wouldn't have let his account go negative without good reason.

They probably only allowed it because either:-

a) They are holding collateral, i.e. control over some of Fred's non-monetary wealth (property) like the deeds to his house, or his share portfolio; or

b) They have information – maybe that Fred's wealthy mother is not long for this world, or that he has just got a job at Goldman Sachs.

Scenarios like these give Fred access to Ufs in the future, and credibility at the bank, which responds – occasionally – by letting him run a negative balance of Ufs now. Meanwhile it is the bank's own reserve of Uf tokens which can be given to Godfrey, if he asks to withdraw.

Something unrelated has happened in the meantime to expand this proto-banking system to make it much more useful. Godfrey's bank and the next door city's bank have opened bank accounts with each other. This is a simple response to an economic fact: the citizens of the two cities have started doing transactions between each other, and there is a demand for payment services between them.

Brad lives in the neighbouring city. Having built a first-class shed Godfrey starts advertising in yellow pages, and soon enough he finds himself building Brad's shed. When the job is finished Brad gives Godfrey a cheque (or nowadays some sort of modern electronic equivalent, but it's easier to understand the process if you analyse it with cheques).

The cheque is an authorised instruction from Brad to Brad's bank to post negative Ufs to Brad's account, and to post positive Ufs to whoever presented the cheque. The positive side could be to Godfrey's own account (if he banks at the same bank) or to the bank account of Godfrey's bank.

The cheque starts its journey at Godfrey's bank, by being paid in. When Godfrey deposits his cheque, his bank only accepts it because it sees that it's drawn on a bank (Brad's) which they now regularly deal with and which has an account with them. So the bank now adds positive Ufs to Godfrey's individual account, and takes them away from Brad's bank's account. It uses the routing information (Bank Address) printed on the cheque to send it to Brad's bank as an explanation. So it is Godfrey's bank, not Godfrey himself, which deposits the cheque which Brad signed at Brad's bank.

Brad's bank therefore adds positive Ufs to the bank account it holds for Godfrey's bank, and takes them away from Brad's personal account (which he authorised by his signature on the cheque).  Brad's bank now owes Godfrey's bank some Ufs. They agree (reconcile) on this point. One bank has a positive, and the other a negative; one bank is owed an Uf, and the other owes it; one bank has an asset on its books, and the other has a liability. It is a balance of Ufs to be set off in future against some Ufs flowing the other way when Brad finally gets up off his ass to do something useful.

Godfrey's bank has become a depositor at Brad's bank (or a lender to it, which is the same thing). It is a sort of aggregate depositor for all the people in Godfrey's city who don't have an account in Brad's bank, but who have done things for people who do. What everyone hopes and expects will happen is that Brad will do some work for someone in Godfrey's city, then the process will reverse, and the Ufs will switch back. That's what will happen if trade between the cities is broadly in balance.

But what happens if Brad's city is lazy? Then slowly, Godfrey's bank's books will build a large positive Uf balance on their account for Brad's bank. Godfrey's bank is owed Ufs because there are no favours being returned. Brad's bank's books will show large negative Ufs; that is Ufs owed to Godfrey's bank. That means Godfrey's bank manager could amble into Brad's bank and draw its balance down in cash, or write a cheque to move it somewhere else.

Bank managers don't often turn up to each other's main branch demanding a few tens of millions in cash to balance out a long period of one-way traffic. They could, but they don't need to, because in a modern banking system they are both account holders at the Central Bank, which is basically another bank, but one with a monopoly power to create Uf tokens, and the right to make up new rules for bankers to obey.

Nowadays when Godfrey's bank gets edgy about the amount it is owed by Brad's bank, it simply draws a cheque on its account at Brad's bank, and deposits the cheque in its own account at the Central Bank, thereby converting all its accumulated Ufs held at Brad's bank to Ufs held at the Central Bank.

This takes Godfrey's bank off-risk with regard to the failure of Brad's bank. Central is acting as – well – a centralised clearer of risk. Indeed any bank which accepts a deposit drawn on another bank and credits the depositor's account is clearing the risk. Once Godfrey's account at his own bank is credited he doesn't have to worry if Brad's bank goes bust. Godfrey is now exposed to his own bank's failure, because it cleared his risk.  When his bank deposits its balance at Brad's bank to Central, then it clears away its risk of Brad's bank's failure.  It is Central which will now be exposed to the failure of Brad's bank.

I expect you are now saying to yourself "Is this what the cheque clearing system is all about?" Alright, maybe you're not, but I'm going to explain it anyway, in one paragraph.

You could set up a cheque clearing system simply by starting a bank called 'The Cheque Clearing Bank'.  You would then open accounts with all the real banks on the high street. Then tell all the members of the system that they can accept deposits to their private account holders with any cheque drawn on one of the members of your cheque clearing system. On the high street bank's books the negative Uf goes to the depositor's private account, the positive Uf gets posted to the Cheque Clearing Bank's account, and the cheque is sent to your new 'Cheque Clearing Bank' in explanation, to be routed to the drawing bank, and thence the individual who wrote the cheque.

At each stage of the journey there's a negative Uf and a positive Uf put on the books of the bank which receives the cheque, and the boundary between each bank is composed of one bank's negative balance matching another bank's positive balance, which they validate by reconciling each other's bank statement. Banks have entire reconciliations departments doing this all the time.

Okay, I lied – it was two paragraphs. But I have illustrated that however many layers of banks, clearers and transfers you set up, and whichever way you look at it, the net failure of Brad and his neighbours to do anything valuable for anyone else will ultimately lead to a big balance of Ufs at an account somewhere. It's the accounting inevitability which follows from Brad going shopping with the money created by his bank. It also explains that the last bank in the chain is accepting the risk that Brad's bank can't return the Ufs, and because banks can get off that risk by drawing a cheque on Brad's bank and depositing it into Central, the Ufs created by Brad's bank usually end up owed by Brad's bank directly to the central bank.

These days Central is feeble, and frightened of the political consequences of any bank failure, so it lets Brad's bank run up an ever growing balance on ever weaker collateral. Other banks can deposit any of Brad's bank's junk at Central. Central's bluff (that it might close down a dodgy bank like Brad's) has been well and truly called. If you are a sound bank you can now do stupid business with a bad bank which you know can never pay you properly, and it won't hurt you. Because Central's Governor has made it known he won't let banks fail he's set himself up as the patsy. Just deposit the large Uf balance which Brad's bank owes you onto Central. The Governor can't stop you doing this while he is determined to turn a blind eye to Brad's bank's insolvency. After all you could – instead – go down to Brad's bank and demand your balance in cash, which comes from Central anyway. It comes to the same thing, which is to force the Ufs issued by Brad onto Central, until such time as Central recognises that enough is enough.

You can now see – I hope – that when the economic imperative of shutting a bad bank gets corrupted by politics it positively invites reckless bankers to create money (and to pay themselves absurdly well) and it encourages the good banks to do silly deals with the bad ones, quickly passing the risk of failure to Central, which becomes a sort of magnet for banking rottenness. This has been happening all around us in a big way.

The resulting huge Uf balances at Central can be made grand and confusing by saying "The Bank of England's Balance Sheet is expanding" which I'm sure makes everyone think it's doing a remarkably important job.  What it really means is that the Governor won't demand that a busted bank pays up or shuts down, so Central just runs up an ever bigger deposit balance at an ever weaker bank. While Central permits this Brad's bank really is being allowed to 'create money out of thin air'.

So, to go back to our original question about Fractional Reserve Banking, Brad's bank can create money and spending power by allowing Brad a negative balance of Ufs. But the intuitive idea that electronic money is easily created simply by adding positive numbers to accounts is wrong. It cannot be done without being found out by other banks, as Brad's spending transmits the negative Ufs through the relationships between banks, and ends up leaving Brad's bank owing Central all the money it created.

It is only Central's wimpish ambivalence about its giant Uf balance with Brad's bank which allows this to happen.

This excerpt is taken from Paul Tustain's new report, Money Printing for Beginners (and Experts). To read the full PDF for free today, simply register your email address at BullionVault now.

Settlement-systems specialist Paul Tustain launched BullionVault in 2005 to make the security and cost-efficiencies of the professional wholesale gold market available to private investors. Designed specifically to meet his own needs as a risk-averse investor, BullionVault now cares for 32 tonnes of client gold property – more than most of the world's central banks own – and all of it privately owned in the user's choice of low-cost, market-accredited facilities in London, New York or Zurich.

(c) BullionVault 2013

Please Note: This article is to inform your thinking, not lead it. Only you can decide the best place for your money, and any decision you make will put your money at risk. Information or data included here may have already been overtaken by events – and must be verified elsewhere – should you choose to act on it.

Bill Gross: ‘Schemes Such as QE End Badly’

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 09:18 AM PST

rom Gold Money

Money printing Precious metal prices have rallied over the last 24 hours, encouraged perhaps by talk of trillion-dollar platinum coins and various other ways of circumventing the US federal government's laughably named "debt ceiling" (a strange type of ceiling that keeps moving higher and higher).

As we've said many times before on this site, confidence in a currency – or demand for it – is just as important a function as supply of the currency in determining its value. The US Treasury will in all likelihood not follow this mad platinum scheme, but this colourful idea has illustrated to many more people around the world just what bad shape the US government is in fiscally speaking – something that followers of the gold market take for granted, but which has not yet permeated into most people's common knowledge (if it had, gold would cost a lot more than $1,660).

Continue Reading at GoldMoney.com…

Gold Report Sign Up Below

Outlook 2013, Gold and Gold Stocks

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 09:16 AM PST

acting-man.com / By Pater Tenebrarum / January 9, 2013

Still Not Really Loved

The so-called 'gold bugs' in the wider sense are usually a quite vocal bunch. This may at times give the erroneous impression that gold is a 'crowded trade', as in, widely participated in. However, that is not really the case if one considers the totality of investment assets and even less so if one compares the total amount of gold available for investment to the total amount of fiat money issued in the world.

Lately there has been quite a bit of negative sentiment expressed on an anecdotal basis, this is to say, it has been easier than usual to come across negative opinions in the press and mainstream banks and investment banks many of which began to love gold near its 2011 high have begun to cut back their target prices. Credit Suisse for instance calls it a "wounded bull" now.

Of course we must also stress again that gold isn't the bargain anymore it once  was. And yet, the fundamental backdrop has as of yet not become gold-unfriendly – we suspect rather on the contrary that it could become evenmore supportive for gold, although getting to that point may involve a few speed bumps. Since its 2011 high amid what has thus far been the peak of the euro area debt crisis, coinciding with a debt ceiling wrangle in the US, gold has been in a triangular consolidation. So far there has been neither a decisive breakout, nor a decisive breakdown, so from a technical perspective it remains in no-man's land for now. It is interesting though that while the consolidation has dragged on, sentiment has mostly turned more cautious, especially as triangles are usually continuation formations.

Gold in dollar terms, weekly. The triangle continues to put everyone to sleep

In non-dollar currencies we note that gold in euro terms has failed with its breakout attempt in the fall of 2012, but if anything now looks short term oversold. In fact, on the daily chart the RSI has fallen to its lowest level in many years, but even the weekly chart reflects that now.

READ MORE

Gold Report Sign Up Below

Silver Coin Sales Record-Paced As Precious Metals Sag Alongside USD

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 09:15 AM PST

silvervigilante.com / By SV / January 8, 2013

The US Mint began sales to its Authorized Purchasers starting on Monday, Jan. 7, and first day sales totaled 3,937,000 coins, outdoing by quite-a-margin last year's first sales day total of 3,197,000 coins. Already, just one week into January 2013, only four other months have had stronger sales.  The obviously intense demand will not necessarily lead to an uptick in the price of silver, for silver's price has divorced utterly from supply-and-demand to exist in the world of artificial electronically traded mediums.

READ MORE

Gold Report Sign Up Below

“The last time we saw such a strong surge in demand for physical precious metals was in late 2008.”

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 09:00 AM PST

Bullion Delays Get Longer Since the last time I reported the occurrence of slower deliveries of some bullion-priced gold and silver coins and ingots, supplies have gotten even tighter. As a result, even more premiums are inching upward. "Hipsters like … Continue reading →

1st Rule Of Negotiating For Sellers – Start High

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 08:55 AM PST

It looks like the trillion dollar platinum coin seigniorage meme may only be a million dollar meme after all.  In that case, what seemed ludicrous is suddenly nothing more than a "Nothingburger."  Throw in the convenience of international travel and the … Continue reading →

Greg Mannarino: If the Fed Stops Printing, the Collapse Would be So Incredible That People Would Eat Each Other in the Street!

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 08:45 AM PST

In his latest update, Greg Mannarino addresses the Fed's minutes released last week, in which several Federal Reserve members supposedly stated QE will end by the end of 2013.   Mannarino states that the Fed ending QE at the end of the year is impossible, and that the Federal Reserve has absolutely no intention of stopping [...]
Check out these similar articles:
  1. Greg Mannarino: Forget QE3 Because QE4 is COMING SOON!
  2. Greg Mannarino: Gold and Silver Are Going Up, Cash is Going Out of Style
  3. Greg Mannarino: Ben Bernanke Is A Liar

SBV extends tight grip to jewelry Gold trade

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 08:29 AM PST

The State Bank of Vietnam said it would put jewelry gold trade under the strict control and as a first step all jewelry gold shops in the country must make re-registration to continue their operation.

Hedge Funds Are Killing Gold

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 08:26 AM PST

The price of gold has been kept down by hedge fund redemptions. These redemptions will end in a week and after that a nasty hand that has been holding the price of gold down will be lifted.

Radio Broadcast with the National Intel Report

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 07:46 AM PST

Andy Hoffman joined John Stadtmiller of the National Intel Report for a discussion of the fiscal cliff, trillion dollar coin, unemployment and more:

Radio Broadcast with John Stadtmiller of the National Intel Report

Similar Posts:

Taking Advantage of Recent Lows in the Volatility Index

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 07:03 AM PST

One of the newest option products to appear in our universe as an options trader is the option series designed to trade the volatility index (VIX). The VIX is a measurement of the implied volatility of the S&P 500 index.

To review quickly, the implied volatility of an options series is reflective of the aggregate market opinion of the future volatility of a given underlying asset. In terms of the Volatility Index, the price is the current market opinion of the future volatility in the S&P 500 Index over the next 12 months.

As are all attempts to predict the future, this value does not always reflect accurately the actual volatility as it plays out prospectively, but at a practical level it is the best we can do. As sage philosophers have long noted, "the future isn't what it used to be."

The importance for traders is the well established and generally known inverse correlation between prices for the given underlying and the measure of implied volatility, in this case our VIX value. What is typically less known is the fact that levels of implied volatility correlate even more closely to the velocity of the price move of the underlying asset in question.

Because rapid price moves occur far more frequently to the downside, it follows that the general correlation between price and implied volatility is inverse. A fundamental characteristic that underscores the logic of this trade is the strong tendency of the VIX to revert to its recent mean. While this is not a certainty, it is unquestionably a high probability outcome.

For professional traders, much of the focus of hedging activity has recently moved to establishing protective positions in this index rather than such older techniques as buying out-of-the-money protective index puts. However there are some well recognized pitfalls in this approach that lay in wait for the retail trader not aware of some of the nuances inherent to this approach.

One of the major risks in trading this product derives from the fact that both options and ETFs are based on the value of VIX futures. Because there is no mandatory mathematical linking of the value of these futures in the several available expiration months as is routinely present in the options series with which most traders are familiar, a huge and not generally recognized risk exists.

The founders of one of the major retail options brokers have repeatedly cautioned that the single major cause of irreparable account 'blow ups" they witnessed were the result of time spreads, aka calendar spreads, in this VIX product.  This is the result of the ability of the various expiration months to move without mutual correlation in response to significant market events.

The result of this observation is the practical consideration that time spreads in the VIX must never be traded. No calendar spreads must ever be considered when trading the VIX. Failure to follow this admonition will subject your account to risk far beyond what you consider to be remotely possible. Simply put, "Don't do it."

So what trades in the VIX carry reasonable and definable risk? A wide variety of trades including those with both defined and undefined risk is feasible. Such trades include verticals, butterflies, condors, and simple long and short options.

Long time readers know that I strongly prefer to structure positions to include at least a component of positive theta within my trades. Positive theta simply means that the spread has a component that will benefit from the passage of time. Let us consider a modified butterfly position; this position is commonly termed a broken wing butterfly.

First, let us review the current chart pattern of the VIX:

Chart1

As can clearly be seen in the chart above, the VIX is at multi-month lows, and perusal of even longer term charts confirm this value is at multi-year lows. Given this situation, the probability of a move upwards toward its recent mean is overwhelmingly high.

In order to give sufficient duration to our trade, I would like to look at a butterfly structure approximately 3 months into the future in order to allow for mean reversion of the VIX.

The P&L chart for our broken wing April put butterfly is displayed below:

Chart2

As can be clearly seen, the trade structure has no upper bound of profitability and the risk to the lower side is the total amount paid to establish the butterfly. As such, this is a defined risk trade that will profit from a reversion of the VIX to its mean.

We welcome you to try our service to see more high probability trades that capitalize on current market conditions. Over the past two years, the service's performance track record has steadily beaten the S&P 500 Index while taking significantly less risk.

Simple ONE Trade Per Week Trading Strategy?
Join www.OptionsTradingSignals.com today with our 14 Day Trial

JW Jones

Gold Report Sign Up Below

2013 Silver Maples As Low As $2.19 Over Spot!!

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 07:00 AM PST

Doc's Deal Of The Day 1oz 2013 Canadian Silver Maple Leaf As Low As $2.19 Over Spot!! Click Here Or Call 614-300-1094 To Order!! 500+ ounces Only $2.19 Over Spot 100-499 ounces Only $2.39 Over Spot 50-99 ounces Only $2.59 Over Spot 1-49 ounces Only $2.79 Over Spot ANY SILVER PURCHASE OF 100 OUNCES OR [...]
Check out these similar articles:
  1. 2013 Antelopes Only $2.99 Over Spot!!
  2. NEW 2013 Canadian Wildlife Series Pronghorn Antelopes As Low As $2.99 Over Spot!!
  3. 2012 Silver Maples As Low As $1.99 Over Spot!!

“Gold Correction Awaited” in India, US Monetary Policy “Gives No Reason to Change Bullish View on Gold”

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 06:45 AM PST

THE SPOT gold price hovered above $1660 per ounce Wednesday morning in London, slightly up on the week so far, before dropping through that level ahead of US trading. "Monetary policy accommodation continues to paint a supportive backdrop for higher gold prices up ahead," adds a note from UBS. "We do not think that there [...]
Check out these similar articles:
  1. Scope for Gold at $2400 as US Monetary Policy Designed to Weaken the Dollar
  2. Gold Slips in Tight Range But Monetary Outlook "Rarely More Bullish"
  3. Dollar Gold "Decidedly Bullish", Targets $2400 by Mid-2013 as Indian Demand Turns Higher

Kyle Bass on Why and How to Own Gold

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 06:36 AM PST

Iacono Research

I think I'm turning Japanese

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 06:34 AM PST

Gold Lures Japan's Pension Funds as Abe Targets Inflation "I don't own any Gold or Silver."

“Pension Money Invested In Bullion Is ‘Peanuts' … At The Moment”

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 06:09 AM PST

New Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's pledge to spur inflation to 2 percent at the end of the yen's appreciation means Japanese pension funds now have to hedge against rising prices and a currency decline after two decades of stagnation. Japanese pension funds are set to diversify some of their massive holdings, worth nearly $3.4 trillion [...]
Check out these similar articles:
  1. Japanese Pension Funds With $3.4 Trillion In Assets Seek Safety in Gold
  2. Public Pension Funds Named to Lead 'London Whale' Class Action Lawsuit Against JPM
  3. US Pension Insurer Runs Record $34B Deficit

“The most perfect monetary system humans have yet created was the world gold standard system of the late 19th century.”

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 05:59 AM PST

The 1870-1914 Gold Standard: The Most Perfect One Ever Created "Max got me into Silver at $7.50."

Burma Gold dealers start brisk selling as Kyat gains

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 05:51 AM PST

An ounce of gold is priced at 1,425,646.96 kyat in early trade Wednesday while kyat exchange rate for the day is at 857 to the dollar, down from nearly 900 a couple of months ago.

Pension Money Invested In Bullion Is Now 'Peanuts'

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 05:39 AM PST

Gold is hovering near $1,660/oz Wednesday as investors await policy decisions by the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank tomorrow, as physical buying picks up in Asia.

'Gold Correction Awaited' in India

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 05:20 AM PST

The spot gold price hovered above $1,660 per ounce Wednesday morning in London, slightly up on the week so far, before dropping through that level ahead of US trading. Gold buying in India meantime slowed Wednesday, dealers report.

New Asian Investors in Bullion

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 05:02 AM PST

As Japan's new Prime Minister Abe is determined to fight deflation and spur economic growth in Japan, he has renewed interests in gold as an asset class among the pension funds.

Gold price back above its 200 daily moving average as six channel remains intact

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 04:26 AM PST

It would seem at least some in the gold market have done the rudimentary maths about Japanese pension funds switching some assets into gold, it can only mean a dramatically higher gold price. Gold...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

China buys another Gold asset in Australia

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 04:11 AM PST

Major Gold companies such as Shandong Gold, Zijing Mining and Zhaojin Mining are already in the fray for overseas takeovers, analysts said.

Turkish banks deny links in Iran Gold trade

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 03:58 AM PST

According to bankers they are always careful in transactions and about the source of the money or the identity of the customer; however, have not faced any extra ban with regard to gold transactions.

Eric Zuesse: Obama Administration Lies, Then Covers Up, to Minimize BP Liabilities for Deepwater Horizon Disaster

Posted: 09 Jan 2013 03:30 AM PST

By Eric Zuesse, an investigative historian and the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Federal Government has refused to investigate why it vastly underestimated the amount of oil spilled in BP's Deepwater Horizon huge blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, and thus refused to understand why the actual liability of BP will never be able to be estimated accurately, for calculating BP's penalties and compensation-payments.

Several efforts, by the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), to get NOAA to investigate this acknowledged underestimate, have now been rejected by the Obama Administration; and, so, as PEER's Executive Director Jeff Ruch said in a final news release on this matter January 3rd, "The only investigation into the estimates of the oil leak rate will be by BP's lawyers," who are the very same people who are negotiating against the Government, in order to determine the amount of BP's liability.

As PEER noted, "The actual oil leak rate from the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe is the main factor in setting the fines BP will pay," but a scientific evaluation, of precisely how large that oil-leak rate was, seems impossible now.

This willful absence of information sets a precedent for future environmental disasters. The precedent is: the responsible polluters can lie about the extent of their pollution, and the Federal Government can refuse to investigate the matter; and this combination of business and government means that if politicians (and the governmental agents, such as NOAA, that are under politicians' control) are paid enough, in order to induce them to accept a polluter's numbers on its pollution, then there may be no reliable correlation at all between the firm's actual harms, and the amount of money that the company will be legally obliged to pay, for its cleanup, damages, and penalties.

Of course, intentional opportunities for governmental corruption are nothing new; they're established methods of career-advancement in societies that tolerate them, including, recently, in the United States. For example, on 25 May 2006, the Wall Street Journal headlined "EPA Scientists Cite Pressure In Pesticide Study," and John J. Fialka reported that, "Union leaders representing Environmental Protection Agency scientists and other specialists assert that agency managers and pesticide-industry officials are exerting 'political pressure' to allow continued use of a family of pesticides that might be harmful to children, infants and fetuses. … The protest from unions representing some 9,000 EPA scientists and other employees about a pending agency determination is unprecedented." Pesticide-makers happened to be substantial contributors to Republican campaigns, and contributed very little to Democrats. The "invisible hand" of private industry was corrupting the visible and publicly accountable hand of a regulatory agency within an allegedly democratic government. On 18 November 2008, The New York Times headlined "F.D.A. Scientists Accuse Agency Officials of Misconduct," and Gardiner Harris reported that, "Top federal health officials engaged in 'serious misconduct' by ignoring concerns of scientists at the Food and Drug Administration and approving for sale unsafe or ineffective medical devices, the scientists have written in a letter to Congress." Makers of medical devices happened to be lopsidedly pro-Republican major political contributors, and so were able to get away with this sort of business practice during a Republican-controlled government.

Then, the very following day, on 19 November 2008, the Wall Street Journal bannered "Ex-EPA Official Faults Probe of BP Alaska Oil Spill: Head of Investigation Claims Justice Department Ended Inquiry Into 2006 Incidents Early, Forgoing Possible Felony Charges." Jim Carlton reported that the EPA's criminal investigator, Scott West, had been considering to recommend to the Justice Department "penalties of as much as $672 million and possible felony charges against BP." But, "The former head of an EPA criminal probe into pipeline spills at a BP PLS oil field in Alaska claims the Justice Department," which was headed by Bush's consigliere Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, "prematurely shut down the investigation and settled with the company for less than the case may have warranted." BP typically contributed almost twice as much money to Republican candidates as compared to Democratic ones, and they were now getting this investment returned to them in spades, as a very profitable investment in the Republican Party. BP received only a $20 million misdemeanor fine.

On 15 November 2008, the Corporate Crime Reporter had already provided a background story about this WSJ BP story: highlighting "Wall Street Journal Editors Put Brakes on BP Story." Russell Mokhiber wrote that, "The editors of the Wall Street Journal" had "slammed the brakes on a story detailing how the Justice Department shut down a major environmental crimes investigation of BP Alaska. That's according to Scott West, the now retired lead criminal investigator on the case. West was leading [a] 15-month investigation into the March 2006 oil spill on the North Slope when in August 2007 he was told that BP would be allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. … West says that on October 30, he had a detailed interview with the Journal's Jim Carlton about how the BP investigation was abruptly shut down. 'The agreement I had with Jim Carlton was that the Wall Street Journal was going to publish an article about the case on Monday, November 3, the day before the election,' West told Corporate Crime Reporter last week." Asked "Why did Wall Street Journal not run the story?" West was quoted there as saying, "I understand that the Justice Department was putting a lot of pressure on the Journal." This is why Americans didn't learn, until too late, about the Republicans' terminating that BP investigation. "'I was screaming bloody murder,' West said. 'I said — I have at least a year to go — give me one more year. No, Scott, we are done. Give me six more months. No we are done. Give me three more months, to at least chip away at some of this stuff. No, Scott, BP wants to wrap up this case.'" BP wanted to settle the case while a friend was still in the White House, rather than be prosecuted by a possibly honest stranger after 2008. And the Republican WSJ wanted to please the Republican President.

But then that possibly honest stranger entered the White House to serve as the nation's new President. And then the BP spill occurred. Now it was Barack Obama's turn at bat. Would he throw the game, as his predecessor had done? He didn't come into the White House as a client of large oil companies. But this didn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't try to become one. (After all, a U.S. President really "cleans up" after his term is over – even honest ones do, or at least can.) So: what would he now do?

Obama's actions (not his rhetoric, but his actions) backed BP as soon as the blowout occurred. The explosion happened on 20 April 2010, and two days later was the collapse, of BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig, the deepest oil well in history (the wellhead being a mile under water, standing atop a drill-hole going down yet another 7 miles to the top of the oil basin), which resulted in the worst environmental catastrophe in history (other than global warming itself), an enormous uncontrolled oil gusher a mile down in the Gulf of Mexico. From the very start, Obama let BP control the crucial estimates of the spill-rates. Independent scientists quickly found out that BP's spill-rate estimates were fraudulent. On 1 May 2010, the Los Angeles Times headlined "Tiny Group Has Big Impact on Spill Estimates: Sky Truth, with one paid staffer and a one-room office, has caused officials to backtrack and revise what they say about the size of the gulf disaster." Julie Cart reported that this tiny nonprofit analyzed satellite photos and made mincemeat of the gross underestimation from BP and from the Obama Administration (parroting BP) on the amount of oil which had already spilled from this gusher at the bottom of the Gulf. On May 13th, The New York Times published "Size of Oil Spill Underestimated, Scientists Say," and Justin Gillis reported that scientists were saying BP and the Obama Administration were using the wrong technique to estimate the volume of oil which was gushing, and were being blocked by the Obama Administration from using the correct technique. Five days later, Karl Burkhart at Mother Nature Network released "Coast Guard and BP Threaten Journalists With Arrest for Documenting Oil Spill," and he reluctantly concluded that, "The Obama administration, it appears, has higher priorities … namely helping BP in its frantic efforts to keep the public in the dark about what is almost surely the worst environmental catastrophe in U.S. history."

Then, on May 19th, Randy Rieland at grist.org headlined "Big Oil's Friends on Capitol Hill Block Spill Liability Increase," and he reported that Senate Republicans were fighting to retain the existing $75 million cap on an oil company's liability when a blowout occurs, while some Senate Democrats were trying to raise that cap to $10 billion of liability, and while the Democratic leader of the Senate (Harry Reid) "said the cap should be eliminated altogether" (which would have meant full liability for BP). Meanwhile, conflicting statements were coming out of the Obama Administration regarding the issue of this liability cap. Republicans — and maybe also Obama — wanted U.S. taxpayers to bail out oil companies, whenever those firms would have accidents like the present one, which cost tens of billions of dollars.

Only one thing was clear about Obama's energy policy: By his not immediately joining and leading the charge (from Harry Reid and others) to eliminate those liability-caps, he proved that he wanted to continue the enormous subisidization of carbon fuels by U.S. taxpayers; he proved that controlling global warming was definitely not his highest priority. On May 20th, McClatchy Newspapers bannered "Low Estimate of Oil Spill's Size Could Save BP Billions in Court," and reported that underestimating the daily volume of oil gushing from the spill would reduce the damages BP would ultimately be legally obligated to pay for the spill. However, the propaganda coming out of the Administration and BP offered a different explanation for this: "BP and the Obama administration have said they don't want to take the measurements for fear of interfering with efforts to stop the leaks." in other words: Obama was struggling to minimize BP's liability, and his latest excuse for that was "to stop the leaks." It made no real sense.

Also on the 20th, The New York Times headlined "Scientists Fault Lack of Studies Over Gulf Oil Spill," and Justin Gillis reported that, "Tensions between the Obama administration and the scientific community over the Gulf oil spill are escalating, with prominent oceanographers accusing the government of failing to conduct an adequate scientific analysis of the damage and of allowing BP to obscure the spill's true scope." The next day, in the same newspaper, Ian Urbina bannered "Conflict of Interest Worries Raised in Spill Tests," and he reported that the Obama Administration was ordering that volunteers who were collecting animal carcasses from the spill area must send them to a certain lab which BP had selected, and that another lab, which the Administration was itself using to test water from the spill area, "is part of an oil and gas services company in Texas that counts oil firms, including BP, among its biggest clients." A Florida official who was leery of sending Florida's samples to such labs said "Everywhere you look, if you look, you start seeing these conflicts of interest in how this disaster is getting handled."

Everything that Obama was doing — though nothing that he was saying — was consistent with his objective here being to reduce BP's liability, and consequently to leave the victims, and taxpayers, to bear as much of the spill's cost as possible, uncompensated by anyone. Finally, on 10 June 2010, a scientific panel, which the Administration had created (under pressure) to estimate the size of this gusher, said that it was between 25,000 to 30,000 barrels — over a million gallons — daily. Initially, the Administration had estimated that it was 1,000 barrels daily, then 5,000, then 15,000. But this wasn't really "finally," after all. Just five days later, Sam Stein of Huffington Post released "Oil Spill Estimate Increased to 35K-60K Barrels A Day," and reported that "a group of government and independent scientists" came up with this "improved estimate of how much oil is flowing," essentially doubling the immediately-prior official estimate.

Rolling Stone issued online on 8 June 2010, and June 24th in the printed edition, Tim Dickenson's scathing and very long exposé about "The Spill, The Scandal and the President: The inside story of how Obama failed to crack down on the corruption of the Bush years." Dickenson made clear that though the rhetoric from President Obama and his Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was reformist, they lied and were doing everything they possibly could to permit Bush's policies and personnel to continue essentially as before on energy policy and at the Minerals Management Service. "'Employees describe being in Interior — not just MMS, but the other agencies — as the third Bush term,' says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which represents federal whistle-blowers. 'They're working for the same managers who are implementing the same policies.'" Furthermore, "Salazar did not even ensure that MMS had a written manual — required under Interior's own rules — for complying with environmental laws." Moreover, "BP is the last oil company on Earth that Salazar and MMS should have allowed to regulate itself. The firm is implicated in each of the worst oil disasters in American history," and had "the worst safety record of any oil company," including Exxon — the company that finally had to take over the oil consortium's BP-led cleanup of Exxon's Valdez disaster after BP's incompetence as the project-manager became obvious to everyone. "Most troubling of all, the government has allowed BP to continue deep-sea production at its Atlantis rig — one of the world's largest oil platforms, … in waters nearly 2,000 feet deeper than BP drilled at Deepwater Horizon. According to congressional documents, the platform lacks required engineering certification for as much as 90 percent of its subsea components — a flaw that internal BP documents reveal could lead to 'catastrophic' errors."

And yet, still, Obama was muzzling government employees who were struggling to warn the public about the lawbreaking they observed. For example, "Scientists were stunned that NOAA, an agency widely respected for its scientific integrity, appeared to have been co-opted by the White House spin machine. 'NOAA has actively pushed back on every fact that has ever come out,' says one ocean scientist who works with the agency. 'They [the White House]'re denying until the facts are so overwhelming, they finally come out and issue an admittance.'" But, "Others are furious at the agency [NOAA] for criticizing the work of scientists studying the oil plumes rather than leading them' [said 'a former government marine biologist']. NOAA and other federal agencies were under muzzle. "Only six weeks into the disaster did [NOAA] finally deploy its own research vessel to investigate the plumes," whose existence BP was denying for as long as they could get away with doing so. Obama was determined to ignore the plumes. His EPA chief Carol Browner announced that three quarters of the oil in the Gulf was somehow "gone."

Rick Outzen at The Daily Beast then headlined on 17 August 2010, "Exclusive: BP Oil Spill Coverup," and he found that BP was simply ordering that no further reports would be issued about the plumes, nor even about any "tar balls." In this regard, Obama was acting as if he were a BP employee, if not a BP stockholder; he wasn't acting as he was: the U.S. President.

On 2 September 2010, environmentalist Jerry Cope at Huffington Post, headlined "No Safe Harbor on Gulf Coast; Human Blood Tests Show Dangerous Levels of Toxic Exposure," and he reported that, "Within two days after arriving in the region in mid-July, everyone on our team began getting sick. After our first day out on the water with Captain Lori of Dolphin Queen Cruises touring the lagoons around Orange Beach, Alabama, we all had extreme headaches. … That evening, I developed a gagging, coughing reflex that was so intense and persistent it was impossible to speak to my daughter on the phone. … Over the next several weeks these symptoms continued to worsen until I developed chemically-induced pneumonitis." He noted that, "The use of the Corexit dispersant 9500 and the highly toxic 9527 by BP, with the approval and assistance of the US Coast Guard and EPA, has been the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism. Never before has such a huge quantity of the toxic compound been used anywwhere on the planet. Most countries including NATO allies ban its use." He interviewed one of the nation's leading experts on it, who said "The annals of environmental diseases are strewn with stories about physicians who have had their careers ruined" by trying to study these sorts of cases," and who advised that only if the Federal Government would provide researchers with protection would there likely be substantial research on this in the U.S. "I don't think even the oil companies that work down there would try and bump off a guy who works with the public health service." All of this dispersant-use was being done in order to hide the visual effects from the spill, and long-term poisoning of people and of animals was evidently less important, both to BP and to Barack Obama.

Obama had his entire Administration assisting BP to hide the extent of the damage BP had caused. For example, on 22 August 2010, Washingtons' blog headlined "FDA Not Testing Gulf Seafood for Mercury, Arsenic or Other Heavy Metals," despite those contaminants being potent in crude oil, and despite fish concentrating those toxins from the environment. Needless to say, the FDA also wasn't testing for Corexit; they weren't testing this food for anything. Public safety wasn't that high a priority.

And, finally, now, on 3 January 2013, whistleblowers and environmentalists might have reached the end of the line on their collective more than two-year-long efforts to press the Obama Administration for scientific evidence on the scope of the spill. Only the spill's direct victims, and the public, will pay, and none of the executives who caused this catastrophe will go to prison, nor even be prosecuted. They can just walk off into the sunset, with their millions and perhaps billions. After all, they're "job creators," and "entrepreneurs," the new men of the cloth in our post-Reagan, "libertarian," America. But whose "liberty" is actually being protected here, and are they the people who should perhaps instead be in prison?
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)