You’ll be Fortunate if You Can Keep Your Moustache Clean
______________________________
Just get in the manhole and try not to mind the company of the rats. That is, unless you get hungry over the next couple of days.
I think we are going to hit that dollar high in the next few days, probably by Wednesday, as this Greek PIIG drama doesn’t seem to want to go away. That means we will probably see one final washout in the market as well, before a recovery.
The good news is that the precious metals — gold, silver, and even more so platinum and palladium, are hanging in there and remaining rather unfazed by this most recent 50+cent appreciation in the DXY. This is encouraging and may signal that the metals themselves will be turning before even the market.
That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised to see one final reach down as the dollar heads to our target in the $80.20 range. For gold, that might mean a test of the $1,030-40 area after all, and for silver, likely a break of the $16.00 mark. I will be poised for that event — and on any rapid shakedown to these levels I will be adding egregiously to my [[AGQ]] and Royal Gold, Inc. [[RGLD]] for certain, and quite possibly I may add a touch more Allied Nevada Gold Corp. [[ANV]] , Eldorado Gold Corporation (USA) [[EGO]] and [[EXK]] as well. I am holding out for one last purchase on the June $11 Silver Wheaton Corp. (USA) [[SLW]] calls too — hopefully in the low $3.00 range this time.
We had quite a beard-curling day on Friday and I wouldn’t be surprised if we opened strong on Monday, only to give it all back in a nervous, feckless cowardly bout of trading that meanders thoughtlessly even unto Wednesday.
I say to you, now, do this: Grab some cigars and some cheap bourbon and call five of your favourite (sic) comrades for a poker game below the city streets, under the comforting aegis of a two inch thick Neenah Wisconsin-forged steel manhole cover. There, among the hollow echoes of the moist, steam-filled tunnels and amidst the occassional squabble with the rats over the Cheez-it bowl, you will remain relatively unscathed — and perhaps more important, distracted — in the days ahead.
Later, this week, we will comb out our moustaches and re-take our rightul places on the street-side of the manholes, where we shall kick various bears and their entourages down aforesaid (still) open cataracts, where they shall each reside again in bitterness, without the aid of kerosene lantern, cozy parka, or thrilling paperback romance novel.
Off to price expensive cigars and cheap, but bracing bourbon. Bless you, my friends.
___________________________________________
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
AGREED!!
You and I are on the same page, which means the end of the world waits in the balance.
Thank Raj for me, for sending the pic of Uncle Pindar.
____________
This all sounds rather alarming. On the plus side, my ESL friend has invited me over to watch 108″ hockey.
His overture, however?
“Please to come and enter my man cave.”
Don’t wear the tight jeans.
_______
The extreme nacho and ranch flavored golfish crackers are pretty good rivals to the Cheese -its.
My youngest loves the ones with “extra Zolt!” — but I think that’s a euphemism for “even more MSG!”
_________
Comment from my iphone
It sure looks like that’s how it will play out. Futures being up this morning is not what I wanted to see. I guess I’m waiting for “washout Wednesday”.
MCD is break the fuck out on strength
God willing the robots will be oiled pronto
From your mouth to God’s ear’s, but I’m not making any “air deposits” just yet.
Still down here in the manhole, dealing aces.
___________
I’ve recently begun using “egregious” at every turn. All thanks to you Jake! You’re an egregious kinda guy.
Lol. Well thanks, but that’s really Fly’s favourite (sic) term, though I use it liberally (in the old sense of the word).
____________
job security – lol
Ye gods, I am up mightily. Even here, down at the bottom of the open manhole, starlight courses down.
__________
Grabbed some RGLD today. 650 shares. Could see a few more days of up and down, but I like this entry point.
Your grand-chirrens (sic) will thank you for it,.
Just checking the tabs for today… even with the hedges still in place (100 SPY puts, 14k BGZ, 10k QID) the port was up 3.0%.
Gotta love the way those schizo miners trade.
__________
For E8/Teahouse —
From the Great Antonin, himself (in an earlier, dissenting ruling):
There is wondrous irony to be found in both the genesis and the consequences of BCRA [Bipartisan Campaign-Finance Reform Act]. In the fact that the institutions it was designed to muzzle–unions and nearly all manner of corporations–for all the “corrosive and distorting effects” of their “immense aggregations of wealth,” were utterly impotent to prevent the passage of this legislation that forbids them to criticize candidates (including incumbents). In the fact that the effect of BCRA has been to concentrate more political power in the hands of the country’s wealthiest individuals and their so-called 527 organizations, unregulated by §203. (In the 2004 election cycle, a mere 24 individuals contributed an astounding total of $142 million to 527s. S. Weissman & R. Hassan, BCRA and the 527 Groups, in The Election After Reform 79, 92–96 (M. Malbin ed. 2006).) And in the fact that while these wealthy individuals dominate political discourse, it is this small, grass-roots organization of Wisconsin Right to Life that is muzzled.
______________
So why this response by the 5 conservative justices … as soon as the little guy gets a voice via the internet helping Obama raise more $ than ever before the Supreme Court feels a need to re-examine a prior courts’ ruling on corporate giving? Timing is impeccable with more seats at risk soon … and nobody asked this court to review this issue, they took it upon themselves!
Why do the American people need more interference from institutions and foreigners in deciding our own elections? We’d all be better off, as I said before, with term limitations (to put an end to career politicians) and less not more money from institutions trying to muddy the waters. I have no problem with PAC or personal restrictions on giving … and as an aside, if these corps or wealthy individuals are willing to use such largess to sway politics with no guarantee of the outcome then they should have no problem with a roll back to pre-Clinton tax rates as their “donations” will at least fund the general obligations of our government rather than some black hole lobbyist.
When it comes to local elections or referendums I think it makes a difference when a local Christian non-profit is supporting an ideology/candidate verses a for profit like Pfizer … that’s a horse of a different color and another poor reference by you to justify your concern for free speech.
Nice conspiracy theory. I’ve another for you — Obama’s on-line money gathering was rife with illegal foreign donations and “phantom” givers with bizarre names and non-traceable addresses. The little guy financed Obama like he financed the Trump Plaza… or perhaps more appropriately — the Quantum Fund.
The foreigners “interference” is a red herring. The Supremes left the ban in place for foreign giving. It’s the height of disingenuity for Obama — whose own PAC admitted to foreign funding, and who campaigned in Berlin — to compain about foreign influence. If it were not for foreign influence and approbation, he would not be POTUS today.
What “muddies the waters” is under the table lobbying and special interest financing that the public never gets to see through various submarine organizations (fake “grass roots” astroturfing was HUGE in 2008) and 527’s.
Let’s let MORE people speak, in full disclosure DIRECTLY to the American people. Let every dollar of campaign advertising money be disclosed and let every message be parsed not only for its content, but for the background, business and aims (possible or otherwise) of those who are paying for it.
I trust the American people and their ability to judge bullshit FAR more than I trust the slimy politicians staying on the right side of honesty whilst making back room deals (NOT on C-Span!) with special interest groups so they can be re-elected.
More speech, not less. Listen to Justice Antonin!
____________
There is an argument to be made that unions and corps usurp the free speech of union members and stockholders when they take their money and spend it on political ends that the individual worker/stockholder does not support. I’d like to see our pols debate legislation to stop this – this coerced spending is not what the founders were protecting.
Not only that but the right to terminate an employee because he doesn’t espose the same political view as his employer … no protection of free speech there, the corp has more rights than the individual in that case … next thing ya know the corp will be given a number of votes based on the size (assets, employees, revenue, etc) of the enitity to put it on par with the individual to protect its’ freedom of speech while stifling its’ own employees at the workplace.
What a load of horseshit this is. And completely off topic, I might add.
Teahouse — read your Constitution. The restrainst are against GOVERNMENT, not citizens. People who own a business can decide what to do with their property, as this is what sovereign individuality means. The Constitution prevents an autocratic government from telling its citizens what they can say against it — to prevent the gov’t from taking your freedom. That necessary restraint is so much more important than disputes between free citizens that it’s not even in the same category.
______________
BTW– SuperBowl LII is on NFL Channel right now.
Can’t believe the amount of chances Brady & Co. blew. Of course, Stray, Osi an Tuck were living in his helmet all night long.
_____
> I trust the American people and their ability to judge bullshit FAR more than I trust the slimy politicians staying on the right side of honesty whilst making back room deals (NOT on C-Span!) with special interest groups so they can be re-elected.
I don’t!
Off topic? The point is, if the court can deny an employee his political right under the at-will employment doctrine [an employee may be fired from their occupation for speaking out against a politician that the employer likes] or civil employees the same freedom of speech why must it protect an institution when it comes to the amount of spending allowed. The court is not restricted in using common sense.
> People who own a business can decide what to do with their property, as this is what sovereign individuality means. <
Yeah as long as Mom & Pops Soda Shoppe post political agenda in their store under their own names rather than the entity itself. Quite a distinction between giving the people political rights on their own property from giving the business the right to post I’d say.
Why would you say that?
What’s the difference between Ross Perot, majority owner of Perot Industries, running an ad paid out of his own pocket, and running one paid out of his company’s pocket? Money’s largely the same, no?
Are you really saying, you’d rather just have really really rich guys be the only ones who can buy ads in the NY Times? Oh, and the NY Times (a big corp, last time I looked) too, I guess?
________________
Possibly but the law forbids it as the corporation has different restrictions from the individual as it should since it is not entitled to the same rights as people such as voting ….
“Like all other natural persons, every shareholder of every corporation remains entirely free under Austin and McConnell to do however much electioneering she pleases outside of the corporate form. The owners of a “mom & pop” store can simply place ads in their own names, rather than the store’s. If ideologically aligned individuals wish to make unlimited expenditures through the corporate form, they may utilize an MCFL organization
that has policies in place to avoid becoming a conduit for business or union interests. See MCFL, 479 U. S., at 263–264.”
You forgot the rest of the 1st amendment …. free press and right to assembly. Sure the press/media may be owned by corporations but they come under rigorous restrictions and reporting rules unlike Ross Perot.
Bringing these comments to the next thread —————>>>>
(You can do this too, in future).
___________
Unions and corps are voluntary organizations as far as joining and/or buying the shares. If you feel the corporation or union is going against your interests, you should drop out via sale or quitting the union.
I have no sympathy for workers that join a union in a right to work state and then complain about the union’s political stance. I do have sympathy for non-right to work state employees. Those states are oppressive and authoritarian (cough! cough! Taxachussets! Cough!)
________________
Correct, unions are not voluntary here. Also, more than half of union members in the US are gov’t employees – another conflict IMO. If one feels the calling to teach in your beloved public schools – no choice.
As to corps – saying that people can sell shares AFTER they learn what was already done with their money, and in their name, doesn’t prevent their speech rights from being stolen. Surely you aren’t against more easily assessed disclosure ….including full disclosure of a corp’s past political spending, what is intended in the future, mgmt’s rationale for such spending, and their assessment of what they have gotten in return for past spending.
Gimme a break Purdy. The restriction in the Constitution is against the government taking it’s rifles and holding them to your forehead.
Aside from that, you make your own decisions as to organizations with whom you to choose to associate. If you want to lie down with the devil and teach at a public school that makes you join a union, then that’s your sovereign choice.
Sack up, and change the unions, or fight against the unconstitutional laws that allow unions to be mandated. Or sell your stock. If you don’t know what your companies are doing, that’s your fault.
___________
And don’t even get me started about public service unions. That shit should be banned if anything should be. Fuckers need a UNION working for a state owned bureaucracy?? Whaaat?
Truly, that is the epitomy of statist corruption. Our own private East Germany.
____________
WTF? Been drinking again? Respond to my post – or don’t …but don’t respond to the voices in your head …the rest of us can’t hear them.
Purdy, attempt for me once not to be such a rude asshole with your every post here. It’s really wearying, and it makes me tend to not take you very seriously.
I responded to your posts exactly. You first brought up the problems with your own statist state forcing people into unions (no “right to work” laws), and then mentioned that most union members were public servants. Like those truisms were some kind of excuse for further statism.
My second comment was not to you particularly, but was a random observation about taxpayer funded union jobs. Why you took it personally (unless you feel somehow associated with said jobs) will remain a mystery, I guess.
Logical consistency is the preferred discipline of a practiced rhetorician. Instead of jumping to conclusions like a wet hen, try thinking for a second or two first.
____________
Sorry you had an upset. Let me be more clear for you.
I think that non-Right to Work states are in violation of our Constitution’s protection of free association. (You see Jake, the Constitution talks about more than “the government taking it’s rifles and holding them to your forehead.”) This has been tested in the courts – read-up on it ….the courts disagree with me so, until this changes, sadly, plan B is to restrict the power of forced associations. It is not a perfect world and you have to deal with the law as it is.
As to corps, I was talking about disclosure …nothing to do with your rant.
“it makes me tend to not take you very seriously” …whatever it takes to make yourself feel better – eh?
“Logical consistency is the preferred discipline of a practiced rhetorician.” Did you get beat-up a lot in high school?
I wasn’t the one upset, Purdy. Please skip up a bit and review your peeing yourself yellow in anger about “the voices in my head” and my alleged drunkeness.
Please don’t even bother yourself to school me in the Constitution, either. I’m not a sophomore at Milford CC, remember? I know all about right to work states as well. That’s a problem within a state’s purview according to the Supreme’s right now, but I hope you will bring it to the Mass Supreme Court yourself someday.
I was the captain of my high school wrestling team, to answer your last, most sophomoric question. Schooling chesty toads like yourself rhetorically was a side hobby.
Are you intimating you were a bully in high school? Quelle Suprise!.
BS! Some employees have no recourse as employment requires union membership and in some industries it’s mandatory (utilities, hospitals, etc) and refusal to join would prevent a person from making a living in a chosen/trained field.
Employees have no recourse? Cry me a river. Then always have the option of actively try to reform their “forced union” so that they follow the political course they choose. Or better, they should ditch unconstitutional laws that force people to join unions in order to get a job (discrimination, anyone?). All of these are archaic socialist policies that are killing states without right to work laws and driving union jobs out of this country completely.
Worse comes to worst, they can move to a state that does not force them to join a union (myriads are doing so as we speak).
But they way I look at it (and I am no fan of unions, believe me), the bosses at the unions feel they are doing the best for the continued existance of the union, and are therefore allowed a seat at the “political speech” table. If a union member doesn’t like what they have to say, then the answer is not to silence the union, but to promote — from within or without — MORE speech to combat those positions.
We are all adults, and no one is holding a gun to anyone’s head to believe or listen to anyone’s point of view. However, if one is willing to take a job at a union shop — presumably for the benefits of said union job — one has to live with direction that union decides to take in maintaining it’s livelihood.
The first amendment only restricts the government — the ultimate power of the state — from silencing people. It does not restrict the rights of associated groups from speaking out, even if said groups are not wholly in agreement with one another.
> Worse comes to worst, they can move to a state that does not force them to join a union (myriads are doing so as we speak). <
Haha, sure, …. Joe in CA is moving to another state cause the local utility he’s been offered a job at demands he become a union member despite Joe’s opposition to the union ties to the Dem party. Of course Joe doesn’t mind selling his home at a huge loss just to maintain his political objectivity.
Secondly, I doubt most people take a job at a union shop for the benefits …. a phlebotomist here has no choice but to join at a hospital and what benes do they get for their union dues … guaranteed sick, holiday time, seniority, shift differential? No real pay benefit as new hires may get paid the same as a 20 year veteran. If there were a competitive non-union hospital down the road I’m sure some would make the move but to another state to save a few bucks and maintain political freedom? I don’t think so …
Hold on a second, your “example” has holes the size of asteroids running through it.
“Joe” wouldn’t have to move to another state if he didn’t choose to join the union or take that job in the first place. Surely he understood the consequences of his actions when he did so? Why would he have to move out of the state unless the union membership were forced upon him while he was already there? (Even the most draconian states don’t have those kind of regs in place).
Last I looked, this was a free country, and if you don’t agree with what your employer — or “employee representative organization” (haw!) — has to say about a certain political situation, you can always voice your displeasure by walking out. If you choose to take the man’s money (or union representation to improve your chances at money), you can either try to convince him otherwise (diplomatically, I hope) or you can quit.
This is not Soviet Russia, where one is assigned one’s job by the local kommisar. You don’t like the way stuff is done in a particular state, you can move, or take a job outside the reach of that particular statist paradigm.
_____________
No but it’s a country with 10% unemployment and someone in CA underwater is not gunna turn down a descent paying & secure job because of their political objectivity … Jake, it was your contention that “myriads are doing so as we speak” not mine. What utopia are you living in? A guy needs a job and he’s not gunna take it cause of the unions political affiliation? I don’t think so .. cause he may have no choice, period!
Jake,
What is your opinion of TGB? They just got 170 million for 25% of their interest in Prosperity, which will fund development of that mind.
The 50 day has been pretty strong support for 7 months now, and it also just hopped off the 13-week MA on the weekly. Might have a little more pullback here, but looking good overall.
_____________
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10671180/1/taseko-climbs-on-copper-hedge-news.html
Jake- have been spending time going over John L’s/CA’s post from earlier today re the 100 day MA and can see a case for the next drop to 200 day MA levels. What are your thoughts re his post relative to your potential timing of dollar action this week? I continue to follow your advice re PMs but also am interested in several stronger non-PMs including ones that Fly is recommending- so would sure appreciate your thoughts about potential of overall market moving to the 200 day levels. many thanks
Lindsay, I am not familiar with JC’s 100 day thing, but I don’t think we’re going to the 200 days at this juncture. Late in the cycle, and I’m not sure we’ve enought “down juice” left.
I do think we’ll sell off tomorrow, however, I just don’t know how much.
___________
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/monsantkids_dees.jpg
Corn on the COB, bitchez!
______
28 Days Later, bitchez!
wow- guess none of you guys sleep– wasn’t sure if you’d swing back after that football game–
so again, thanks!!
Excellent discourse above Sir Jake. When unions were founded I suspect that they existed for the good of the members who without doubt and beyond debate, were being taken advantage of. In their early form they served a purpose which was to bring some bargaining power and fairness to the table. Such is obviously not the case now as anyone with open eyes can see that they function to perpetuate themselves often at the expense of the very members who support them.
I don’t doubt that there are non-corrupt union officials and non-corrupt unions. For certain there are hordes of honorable union members. However, from an economic standpoint, much of what unions were created for has now been standardized either in common industry practice, government regulation, or hard law. Much of what they do today is gilding the lily and counter-productive in the long run for the employment prospects of their members.
Good article the other day (Wall Street Journal?) about this $100 mm resort the UAW had built for members, but because of the shrinking population of the membership (through automation and plant closings/movings caused in part by higher labor costs) they cannot now sustain it and it had to be sold.
It’s to their chagrin that they cannot also sell their pension liabilities.
______________________