Bill,

Current spin on gold is that a slowing economy means lower gold prices. Maybe the sheeple need to look at the environment in the 1970's to figure this one out.

You're obviously correct on gold - it's in the USD. As you know, timing will be easier if we get a dramatic drop in the next few weeks. Frankly, I'll be surprised if we don't have increased volatility shaking out weak hands in the near future.

I'm sure you will be watching.

g034

ALOHA !!

Yes Bill ... "Now let the spin begin."

I constantly read about how gold and silver are up because of the Middle East conflicts or oil or how the price is down because of strong US dollar news or oil or less Middle East conflicts, yet I never hear anything about the enormous short positions that are sitting on gold and silver and how these traders move the price and volatility. We are seeing what happens to a futures market when more paper is written against actual existing metal supply via the LME and the nickel futures dilema. Yet this practice continues unregulated and always favoring those who are short ... essentially the big investment banks like Goldman Sachs agent for the US Federal Reserve(a cartel of private banks that controls the US money supply). What a great gig controlling money is ...

Isn't it ironic how during the years the American GOP(Grand Old Party) wandered through the valley of no political power, they effectively use the fiscal irresponsibility and spend, spend, spend, battle axes against the gutless American Democratic Party.

However, once in power, that same GOP (AKA fiscal conservatives) promptly produced the largest budget deficit in U.S. history. And, adding salt to this gaping wound, they are still blaming it all on those gutless, now powerless, Democrats - with some degree of success. Talk about spin, I'm dizzy.

Changing subject, Costco's RSIs at 20/24/39. How low can it go?

oratier,

I have not heard accusations of the budget being the democrats fault. In terms of Bush and spending, he has had more external circumstances that had a severe drain on the budget than any president of the past 50 years. 9/11 led to the creation of a whole new government department (Homeland Security) along with unforseen security and border enforcement costs. Add Katrina to the mix and you have two of the biggest external crisis to effect the US in our lifetimes.

Following questionable inteligence into a very expensive and poorly planned Iraq conflict is all on him, although it was supported by many democrats as it passed 77-23.

I am not a fan or defender of Bush, but I think your statement does not factor significant variables. I agree that having the republicans in control of both the executive and legislative branch is bad, but I would also be against the democrats having the same power. It seems things go best econmically and with foreign policy when there is a divide between the two branches, ex. (Clinton 94-2000, Reagan ALL). Gridlock is good.

Rick -

I think long-term, Bush'es tax cuts, medicare drug benefit and use of veto just against stem cells (never against spending) will have greater impact on the economy than either Katrina or Iraq.

Thus, we have to teach our kids to be good traders! -- G.W.B: W.P.E !

Re: "I have not heard accusations of the budget being the democrats fault."

"The U.S. presidential election of 1980 featured a contest between incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter and his Republican opponent, Ronald Reagan."

"Reagan was an adherent to a policy known as "supply side economics." Supply-side economists led the assault on high taxes and high spending that typified the welfare state built up by the New Deal and Great Society. The solution, they argued, was to take economic decisions away from the government and place them in the hands of individuals."

"Reagan promised an economic revival that would affect all sectors of the population. But since cutting taxes would reduce government revenues, it would also be necessary to target "big government." Otherwise, large federal deficits might negate the effects of the tax cut by requiring the government to borrow in the marketplace, thus raising interest rates and drying up capital for investment once again. Thus, Reagan promised a drastic cut in "big government," which he pledged would produce a balanced budget for the first time since 1969. In the primaries Bush famously called Reagan's economic policy "voodoo economics.""

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980

PS: Economic debate; no politics here

Interesting developing story...
Dialogue is painless...
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004702685

Bill,
I have been in this business long enough to know someone that has a clear edge and you have that edge and you choose to share that edge with the public, very rare indeed. Thank you very much for what you do. To your health.. ronK

Anyone think the following could be a good fit?

"Is Schmidt Set-Up Man For Apple-Sun Deal?
As soon as Google Inc. (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt was
named to the board of directors at Apple Computer Inc.
(AAPL), some mild speculation ensued suggesting that he'd
eventually become CEO of Apple. After all, Schmidt, unlike
many other high-profile CEOs, is not one to join every board
that has an opening.
In fact, Schmidt may have been brought in as the set-up
pitcher for what may finally be the often rumored merger
between Apple and Sun Microsystems Inc.(SUNW). Schmidt
would quietly be Sun's inside man on the negotiations,
although technically he'd be a neutral party since he doesn't
actually work for Sun.
His executive training began at Sun and he is still close to
the company and its founders. Being the CEO at Google, a
somewhat goofy high-energy creative company, should enable
him to handle the Apple side of things. Nothing could be harder
to manage than Google.
Of course, speculation about a Sun-Apple deal has gone on
for the last 20 years. On any given Sunday one of the companies
was on the verge of buying the other depending on how
the stock prices skewed. As of this writing the two stock prices
have never been more skewed, making the deal attractive to
Apple.
In the past the deals have always fallen apart before they
began because (among other reasons) the combined companies
would not have an acceptable CEO. Neither Scott
McNealy nor Steve Jobs nor John Sculley nor Mike Spindler
(not to mention Gil Amelio) seemed capable of handling a
combined operation.
With today's two CEOs, Steve Jobs at Apple and Jonathan
Schwartz at Sun, this continues to be true. But with Eric
Schmidt in the game as a middleman it's quite possible that he
could take the reins of such a combined operation and make it
work. In fact Schmidt is a more natural fit in such an arrangement
than he is at Google.
Apple is looking to make a splash in the server market to
solidify its position there, but it does not have the credibility of
a Dell, HP, IBM or a Sun despite the quality of its offerings,
and it would love to grow that very profitable side of the business.
Sun is positioned to make another run at server dominance
as this is written, thanks to its superstar engineer and cofounder
Andreas von Bechtolsheim."