Apologies for my extreme busy-ness this week, but it’s Derby Week, and things get kind of nutty around here. I wanted to point out, however that Thompson Creek Metals (AMEX: TC) (PPT: Buy) is taking off again, here ($6.72, +0.45, +7.10% @10:32 am), and given it’s relative valuation (less than 5x LTM P/E), I think it has some room to run. I’d wait for little pull back for entry at this point, perhaps to the $6.50-ish range.
What’s more, the recent X bad news didn’t even put a crimp in TC’s stride, which goes to my overall Jacksonian Thesis that the Chinese Government and other large Positive Current Account holders are going to begin moving from the under-fire $USD to a more suitable harder form of assets, with a focus on those assets that concentrate on steel making and ancillary construction materials. You see, I believe the Chinese will be looking to take the FDR-route out of this Depression by building many useless things and a few useful ones in their own countries, both to keep people employed and to build out their First-World infrastructure and transition from the Third World net exporter status to a more balanced (and less U.S. dependent) economy.
Look for more infrastructure and hard asset plays to come. Be well — literally in the case of you besieged Swine-flu City people (remember to check with the Caveman for market updates on that sitch).
____________
UPDATE: QSII (PPT: Strong Buy) BTFO @ $53.95, +2.34, 4.53%)
__________
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Nicely done.
The question I have is this: Do you think the central planning committee is taking the appropriate route for their economy via the “bridges to nowhere” ?
Ours or the Chinerese?
Because its two different dynamics when you are talking about a free country vs. an autocratic state.
For example, the Chinese need to keep people employed or there will be blood on the streets — and some of it Red Army blood.
This is the risk you take when you assume “command” of the economy.
Dem Carbon Cappers, take heed.
____________
Well spoken, and I concur with your thesis.
So when is NEM going to stop dragging down the rest of the gold stocks?
I’d be careful getting jabs in on j0sh as you may upset his biggest fan, schwettyballz (aka j0sh?)…
If you get back in his good graces, maybe you too could go out with them and ‘nail hot chicks’ rofl
“Josh dont let these assholes get in your head. They are just pissed becasue they are long and WRONG. How pissed would you be if you were dumb enough to be buying Friday ( counting on this thing to continue to go up even after seven week rally. Yeah, that was a smart move. Now they are kicking themselfs and you are sitting pretty. SHORT BABY!!!!!!!!!!
You nailed this one. And Im sure you have nailed a bunch of hot chicks too. If your making calls like this, I can tell you are a real player that is pulling some serious tail. All these other fags on this blog are trolls that wouldnt know a chart to get short if you punched one into their face. They trade off what guys like FLY or Ragin say and cant do anything without a blog to help em pull the trigger.
Ill give them something to pull alright. How about when they are sitting at home by themselfs on Saturday night and we are out tearing up the town with big stacks of cash, they can pull their little dicks.
Your blog is the shit too.
I know a major hedge fund that is looking for talent. You should throw your hat in the ring.”
Market down, gold down.
Market up, gold up.
Does not compute!
So when is NEM going to stop dragging down the rest of the gold stocks.
I have literally NEVER owned NEM or that other hedging shitbox, ABX.
May they roast in hell, for all I care.
I’m buying RGLD, ANV, EGO, and some GG, and of course GDX and GLD for the golds.
Have not yet pulled the trigger on SSRI as far as silver, but I’m warming to it.
Love SLW and PAAS, as you know.
______________
Dpeez — it does if you take into account the behavior of the dollar. This is why gold is a Jacksonian play. Stocks will benefit from inflation for a bit too, until they do not.
__________
________
DMG — that is why I thought Schwetty was putting the kid on.
Too silly.
_______
RE:”Because its two different dynamics when you are talking about a free country vs. an autocratic state.” …and a whole different ballgame altogether when a corporate polyarchy is running the show.
Dpeezy:” Market down, gold down.
Market up, gold up.”
Market up, gold up, long bonds down, starting to add up?
Goin —
Chiner is not a corporate polyarchy unless you account for the fact that the Red Army Generals own all the corporations.
Still more of autocratic state, however, like free speech banning Canaduh.
___________
America’s most prominent left-wing community group, ACORN
is in the news again…
So happy they got a piece of that stimulus money ; )
No Senator McArthy’s in Canada. Remind me, in the land of free is it advisable to run for office as a communist, or even (shudder) a mere socialist?
I haven’t noticed Canadians holding back (except mb to be polite) when they are pissed-off either, what is it exactly that they are not allowed by law to discuss? Maybe they can’t disparage their gov’ts foreign policy without fear of Hooverites ruining their lives? Or express dissent about (aboot) their gov’ts fiscal responsibilities? Only one nation I can think of in NA that has the ‘love it or leave it’ aka. ‘my country, right or wrong’ epithets attached to its idiom (whew!).
China a corporate polyarchy?
No sire, but I believe there are a couple of governments in NA that fit that moniker to a ‘T’. Though, one is more of an ‘oligarchy of lawyers’ than a polyarchy (not the US btw). Dictionarys are amazing resources, and therefore good investments, you should check it out!
What’s more, is in a dictionary you will find that the plural of ‘dictionary’ is ‘dictionaries’…the trouble and strife rushed me on my last post. Appy polly logies to thee and thine.
Look up the Mark Steyn case, you goofy iceberg peddler.
Shit, if you don’t even know what’s going on in your own country, why would you even attempt to try to illustrate mine, even as clumsily as you have?
You begin to weary me. Take your Marxist coloring books with their ninety year old cliches and go home.
____________
DMG — Those ACORN fuckers must think Sacramento is France or something….
Hey! Wait a minute….
😉
___________
HA – Sacramento is only 90 miles from San France-isco
; )
.
RE: Oh, the Mark Steyn case. Yah, that was hardly a ‘suppresion of free speech’ Jake. The article got published, Muslim’s complained, the commission said, “Bad Mark, bad Macleans, you should provide space for a rebuttal”. No books were banned or burned, nobody was incarcerated. Compared to the slander/libel/microscope-up-their-ass detractors in the US faced for opposing the invasion of Iraq, I’d say that official Canadian response is pretty mild. If that’s what you consider the ‘squelching’ of free speech, you really need to take some blinders off, Mr. Babbit. If the US has such unlimited freedom of the press, I dare you post a disparaging image of Mohammed here for no other reason than to demonstrate it. If you have the balls…
“Shit, if you don’t even know what’s going on in your own country, why would you even attempt to try to illustrate mine, even as clumsily as you have?”
Hehe, if that isn’t the banana calling the raincoat yellow! And your rote is so old it makes McArthy’s corpse look like a zygote. Go spin your hater clap trap and outright lies elsewhere.
Eg. “The CHRC’s ruling said of the article that, “the writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.” However, the Commission ruled that overall, “the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature, as defined by the Supreme Court.” And that’s what Jake defines as ‘free speech banning’, lol!
Sactown, baby!
I told you that’s how we roll! A bunch of (wannabe) thugs, eses, vatos, and gangstas.
A terrible move on this ACORN branch’s part, but that’s nothing new. It would be nice if they actually would do something constructive for once, such as fulfill their original mission, rather than make jackasses of themselves in the local and national media.
I’m embarrassed for them.
Jake – get some new material.
Goin’ – see below
Hey Goin’ – this is Jake spinning like a broken record the lame arsed information that he pulled from nutjob rightwing articles to smear Canadians with impunity.
You see – he’s throwing the same ish at you that he threw at me several months ago: http://www.ibankcoin.com/flyblog/index.php/2009/01/04/midnight-wisdom/#comment-78218
Go on and read the rest of his anti-Canadian haterade, especially his derisive jibe of “Canuckistan” and I quote
Since Canuckistan went “full Trudeau,” anti-Americanism has been the mother’s milk of the socialist excuse makers.
Make no mistake Goin’ – Jake has no respect for the CHRC because it allows citizens to file complaints and the manner in which the government investigates and resolves the complaint is what he calls “fascist”.
Apparently, in his American myopia he would prefer legislative battles as they have in the States – case in point where a lawsuit would have happened:
Again with the US vs. Canada thing!
How about this: Kris and Jessica Kringle (Americans) are separating because Yukon Cornelius (CANADIAN, Jake) likes to taste a little more than just the end of his rock hammer.
You know?
“Taste taste taste…ahhhhhh nothin’!”
Rofl. Just like a bunch of fish brought up in the ses who know not the concept of water.
Yes! Yes! How much better this country would be had we government board to monitor speech in case someone’s feelings got hurt. Cause gosh knows, the government is your friend.
Lol, I think I shall call this episode ” Little Brother embraces Big Brother.”
__
Again you miss the process even though I sent you a link to the procedure back in Jan – Jake.
The complaint is filed – then investigated.
Overseer nada.
Pon attencion.
CG — the seagull sails above the ocean waters, unnoticed.
The point is not that Mark Steyn wrote a piece critical of certain Canadian Muslims, for which he was prosecuted by your government’s speech-police tribunals.
The point was not even that the great hue and cry from this bastion of liberty to your south embarrassed those bureaucrats who would dictate thought in Canada — or more likely, their superiors — to the extent that they were forced to dismiss the case and look seriously at the monster they had wrought in the above mentioned speech police tribunal.
No, the point, my poor piscene friend, is that it is obscene that “free” Canada supports such a governmental body in the first place.
Note the Steyn example was not directed at you, as you were not the lazy-minded individual rattling off rote but silly Marxist cliches for want of a proper reasoned argument. That said, as a Canadian, you really have absolutely no excuse for putting up with speech overseers in a purportedly free country.
So please, don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. There are intelligent people that read this blog.
_________
“So please, don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. There are intelligent people that read this blog.”, and they disagree with your inanities as a result.
I’m still waiting for you to grow a pair and show us (by posting suggested image) all just how much freedom of the press you can pull. But I won’t hold my breath because even you aren’t so thick to think the site ‘overseers’, and others, won’t call you on it, and you would go down like a dutch cartoonist.
BTW, Jake, look up for a second…is that a rain cloud coming? *ziiiiiiip*
Cuervos: Impressive, you did a much better job attempting to educate our narrow minded friend than I have, but now I see how this all just becomes redundant. It’s pretty plain that our Babbit here adheres desperately to his self centering anodynes, and , flogging the same old fallacies ad infinitum, will continue to ineffectively defend them, no matter how voluminous the slough of facts placed before him in an effort to deluge him out of his delusional torpor. Noted.
I think it’s “them” thar hills.
or these “here” hills
carry on.
I’m still waiting for you to grow a pair and show us (by posting suggested image) all just how much freedom of the press you can pull. But I won’t hold my breath because even you aren’t so thick to think the site ‘overseers’, and others, won’t call you on it, and you would go down like a dutch cartoonist.
^^^^^^^^^^
A good example of Canadian “reason?”
What has this got to do with our discussion… besides, obfuscation, I mean?
Help me out here, Cuervo… can I get a translator on this guy?
😉
__________
Goin’ — a rhetorical lesson: attempting to throw tired cliche upon cliche will not obfuscate your original dodge.
I notice that although you broke out the Halifax Library thesaurus, you did not — again — address my point, that allegedly “free” Canada is now prosecuting journalists (journalists!) and other thinkers for their thoughts.
Your capitulation is noted.
And please, if you have no response save ninety year old Marxist cliches learned at your pappy’s knee, leave off, or go haunt some other blog.
______
I seriously am baffled. Does this fool really think my government will prosecute me for posting pictures of Mumhammed?
Is he perhaps insane and I’ve been wasting my time trying to converse reasonably with him.
Cuervo? A little help here with your island-bound brother-in-arms.
_________
The band Rush is Canadian. How bad can the place be?
RE:”I notice that although you broke out the Halifax Library thesaurus, you did not — again — address my point, that allegedly “free” Canada is now prosecuting journalists (journalists!) and other thinkers for their thoughts.”
Yawn. Like any libel(eg a magazine article)/slander case in any free society complaints must be investigated, regardless of origin.
And my suggestion wasn’t designed to obfuscate, but illustrate the irony inherent in your insipid and incessant hate-mongering. If you are honestly so arrogant as to believe there will be no consequences, prove it. Hardly circumlocution, I would say.
RE:’marxist cliches’ Please quote one I have propagated. And I mean ‘quote’, not take a rounded phrase and try and stick it into a square hole, as is your wont.
You are either simple or twelve, Goin’, if you think it’s common or normal for journalists — or any free citizen– to be prosecuted by their government for speech disagreeable to anyone in an allegedly free anglo-American democracy.
And please stop embarrassing yourself and have the local barrister explain to you the basic tenets of libel. For one thing, a libel suit is a civil action brought between citizens for actual damages. It is not a bludgeon wielded to prevent “insult” to some particular protected group- and in fact must be extremely specific in order to prevent abuses of its use.
Most important, libel is not “investigated” by a government prosecutor– unless one lives in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Red China… or, as it now seems– Canada.
___
“You are either simple or twelve, Goin’, if you think it’s common or normal for journalists — or any free citizen– to be prosecuted by their government for speech disagreeable to anyone in an allegedly free anglo-American democracy.”
Ok then, my ‘free and unfettered citizen’ (dupe?), for a third time I challenge you to post the image I suggested. Quit trying to skirt around it with your irrelevant deflections and get on with the evidence. Back it up with some action Jake, if you feel so strongly about it…All this blather and bluster prove nothing, except that you know you have painted yourself in a corner. Which, I’m sorry, is something even a fairly simple twelve year old has the wits to avoid.
You seem to have no qualms about viciously insulting, or denigrating using outright lies writing (libel?), when bloggers or nations (other than your beloved polyarchy or its ilk) get the better of you, so show us how free you really are, and take a shot at insulting a religious group, just to prove you can. It WILL work, they will in all likelihood be gravely offended. So someone like you should find that in itself immensely satisfying.
Regarding libel: “It is not a bludgeon wielded to prevent “insult” to some particular protected group- and in fact must be extremely specific in order to prevent abuses of its use” Once again (and again and again and on and on…): The article in question wasn’t ‘prevented’. Steyn has not been ‘prevented’ from writing any more books. None of the books he had formerly written are being ‘prevented’ from reaching book stores’ shelves. Mark is not being ‘prevented’ from travelling, he has not been ‘prevented’ from doing anything he likes. He or Macleans have not been coerced into printing/voicing any retractions. Hell, I’d even bet Steyn sells more books than ever as a result of the publicity.
Jaek, you need to actually read Cuervo’s outline of the commission’s mission instead of preemptively disregarding it, because your ignorance is as plain as the nose on your face, pinochhio.
So pony up big boy, let’s see you demonstrate your so called absolute freedom.
GF –
I don’t get the bit about posting the disparaging image. We all know Jake is free to do so and nothing will happen when he does so. Can we skip the image and go straight to whatever punchline you are eager to post?
Please accept this token in return for your cooperation: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/Chuck_Norris_is_Muhammed.jpg
Cueervo showed you how to defend Canada’s laws and institutions.
If you want to criticize US action against free expression, I’d recommend you cite such things as the fenced-in “free speech zones” that became common at political events or Presidential appearances. Or you might cite the arrests of people singled out from crowds and arrested for “trespassing” on public property or entering “restricted zones”, because they held up signs opposing the administration or its policies. Or you might point to the actions of the police in Crawford, Texas, who set up a roadblock to stop and turn back a caravan of cars that were trying to drive through that town to hold a protest outside the town.
But, the silly part of all this is that both countries rank very, very high on the freedom of expression scale.
This argument is as stupid as two people arguing over which one of them has the ugliest mustache.
Hehe, ottnott, you’re absolutely right: “This argument is as stupid as two people arguing over which one of them has the ugliest mustache.” I must learn to take our Babbitt’s ethnocentric sweeping generalisations (like, “free speech banning Canada”)for the monad of salt they are not even worth. I just happen to think its important to keep the irony as low as possible in an idiom, whereas Jake likes to wallow in his oxymoronic suppositions.
And when some self-righteous knob attempts to propagate obtuse nationalism at the expense of some other country of which they are obviously wholly ignorant, it pisses me off.
My whole argument is really only aimed at pointing out the irony inherent in Jake’s blather. Which, I have to admit, your examples are much more successful at doing. Thanks.
“But, the silly part of all this is that both countries rank very, very high on the freedom of expression scale.” Definitely agree.
For the record: a link to an image stored on an internet domain on some insignificant remote pacific island nation isn’t exactly the same as an image deliberately posted by a US citizen on a US run .com, and so doesn’t meet the criteria of my challenge. Nice research though!