21 Sept 2013
The Truth About Ritual Male Genital Mutilation
The Case for Investing in Gold - Ludwig von Mises Institute
: The last two years have been disappointing for gold
investors and what happened this week to the yellow metal epitomized the
frustrating price movement. After the Fed startled the markets by
announcing that it was going to continue with its current rate of bond
purchases, gold shot up from just under $1300 an ounce to $1370. But
late Thursday, it started to back off somewhat from those gains before
falling sharply on Friday. It ended the week at $1325, virtually
unchanged from the prior week.
How can that possibly be? It has, after all, become more evident
that the Fed is politically hindered from turning off the money spigot.
If gold can’t stay elevated on that development, what hope is there
going forward that it will resume its decade-long uptrend and eventually
overtake the 2011 high of $1900 per ounce? And so why bother investing
in gold?
Yet the case for investing in gold does not depend on the market’s reaction to the Fed’s latest doings. For a trader in gold — someone looking to profit from taking a position over a period of days or weeks — it certainly would. An investor, by contrast, has a longer time horizon — years, if not decades. For the investor, whether or not to buy gold necessarily entails forming a judgement about the larger and more enduring forces that impinge on its price. Is our politico-economic system, in other words, congenitally disposed to the cheapening of the currency?
Yet the case for investing in gold does not depend on the market’s reaction to the Fed’s latest doings. For a trader in gold — someone looking to profit from taking a position over a period of days or weeks — it certainly would. An investor, by contrast, has a longer time horizon — years, if not decades. For the investor, whether or not to buy gold necessarily entails forming a judgement about the larger and more enduring forces that impinge on its price. Is our politico-economic system, in other words, congenitally disposed to the cheapening of the currency?
Crimes & Cracks of Capitalism - Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert with Professor Steve Keen
Libertarianism: An Introduction
zomgitscriss video on feminism and patriarchy debunked
Angry, Disgusted, Frustrated - The US Economy Devastated
Lethal Vaccines, SSRI Dangers and the $1,000,000 dare!
Elites’ strange plot to take over the world
A few decades ago, politicians hatched a Tom Friedman-esque idea to
unite U.S. and Western Europe. Did it succeed?
The idea of a country seems pretty simple. I live in America, and I’m
an American. She lives in France, and she is French. The Americans have
a president who is their leader, the British have a prime minister, the
French have their own president, and so forth.
But the way
political decision-making around security issues ricochets around the
world, from Western capital to Western capital, is making a mockery of
commonly held conceptions of national sovereignty. In recent weeks, a
British parliament vote on Syria forced the U.S. president to seek
authorization from Congress, while leaked documents detailed extensive
cooperation between the intelligence services of the U.S. and other
nations. The president of Bolivia was forced to down his plane by Italy
and France, just because he joked about having Edwards Snowden on board.
And so on, and so forth.
This all demands the question: Why do we
hold the conception that we live in separate nation-states? Well, it
turns out that this question was actually asked after World War II, and
the answer American leaders came up with was … we shouldn’t.
This is not a recession its a Robbery "THE MOVIE" out October 4th
the artist taxi driver
Funded by SGW et alii ;)
Barack 'Baby Bomber' Obama: "We're A Banana Republic, This Is A Deadbeat Nation"
From "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Department:
"This is the United States of America, we’re
Barack H. 'Death List' Obama