Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 7341 reads
Recent Activity on BTM
- morpheus just updated their profile
- Hatrica Derbis just joined BreakTheMatrix!
- Sader Kol just joined BreakTheMatrix!
- Dimaok Olod just joined BreakTheMatrix!
- morpheus Revolution
- morpheus in revolution
- Dertok Polk just joined BreakTheMatrix!
- charleydan updated the blog entry How does Government Plan to meet its debt?
© 2008 - BreakTheMatrix.com
****
Hello Friends of Freedom,
http://www.freedomballotaccess.org - This site finances early ballot access for the Libertarian and Constitution Parties (and any other "third party" to contact me) for 2010 and 2012, so that they know they are on the ballot years before the election, and can spend their time campaigning and not jumping through hoops to get on the ballot.
Let's get the hoop jumping done early this time, so a new version of Ron Paul can emerge.
Sincerely,
Jake Witmer
907-250-5503
"I'm voting for Wayne Root, the Libertarian Candidate for President of the United States, on November 6, 2012."
http://www.rootforamerica.com
Have you guys seen The Money Masters DVD? http://www.themoneymasters.com/synopsis.htm
From the website:
"THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers.
The success of the central banking scheme developed into a far-reaching plan described by President Clinton's mentor, Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley, "to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank....sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the levels of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Several short-lived attempts to impose the central banking scheme on the United States were defeated by the patriotic efforts of Presidents Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren and Lincoln. But with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, America was firmly lashed to the same yoke, so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses a yoke little better than slavery itself. That yoke inevitably grows heavier with ever-compounding interest, and totals over $20 trillion of debt owed by the American people today ($80,000 per American) ultimately to these bankers.
This vast accumulation of wealth concentrates immense power and despotic economic domination in the hands of the few central bankers "who are able to govern credit and its allotment, for this reason supplying, so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of the economy so that no one dare breathe against their will.""
Even though it was made prior to the 1996 election, it's relevance to what is happening today is astounding. If you haven't seen it, I'd highly recommend watching it and then continuing your debate as to whether there is intentional market manipulation or just unintended consequences from government and Federal Reserve intervention. Regardless, I think you all agree that a truly free market would be best. Right?
If the central banking system is that old... then it belongs in a Rest Home, where it can blabber and burp, and face its inevitable death.
________________
Freedom is an inside job
& video section of BTM..
Look up Fiat Currency for another good one.. Also in BTM & Youtube...
for free....
and many movies like it. They offer evidence, motive, and plenty of witnesses to the ongoing manipulations of the market and the currencies that take place under the guise of the fed.
blloyd has not seen it, but he doesn't need to because he already knows everything about it
By the way, Cramer makes for an excellent contra-indicator: historically, you're better off doing the opposite of what he recommends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cramer
Unfortunately of course he's wildly popular and thus deluding a great number of people.
If ever a time should come when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin. (Samuel Adams)
I think it's very entertaining to watch him flip out, which is really the original intent of this post
Here he is flipping out on Fox while openly yelling about insider trading and stock manipulations. I think there's something wonderfully ironic about this since he is on record as being open to using every available avenue to deceive investors and inflate stock values when it's in his interest. I think it takes one to know one, and being of the opinion that the markets are heavily manipulated, I find it especially humorous to watch him proclaim how unfair it is. It sounds like he bet the wrong way again.
doesn't negate being an experienced and informed investor
he's both, anyhow, people have been rigging markets since their have been markets... I don't find anything wild about that
However, if you want to be the policeman of unfounded accusations, perhaps you should interrogate your statement:
"you seem to get a lot of your opinions from people like Cramer"
just for kicks: what opinions are you referring to and what people (like Cramer) are you referring to?
I don't think you've done your homework on me for starters, but if you were interested there's about dozens of pages of forums, blogs, comments, etc. going back several months
I'm not sure what your general point is. You seem to enjoy being the voice of doubt and disbelief, and there's really no shortage of people who enjoy taking this position. Its a very easy position to assume because it requires no research, no original ideas and no creative thinking. You just have to wait for other people to talk and then you cross your arms and say, "Oh Yeah. Prove it!"
Of course, when your ideas and assumptions are challenged you fall into kind of an amateur impersonation of Bill O'Reilly. By that I'm referring to your name calling, accusations, and stubborn attacks.
The statement you quoted refers to the fact that congress and fed are openly discussing injecting billions into fannie and fred and are actively considering a gov't takeover of the companies. This, in and of itself, is a form of manipulation.
Beyond that, I find Cramer both entertaining and insightful, and as you already know, and as Donald Trump stated (another brash entertainer who happens to preside over a fairly large real estate empire) I'm of the belief that all trading at the higher levels is insider training of one form or another.
But there's nothing assumed about that observation. It's based on years of observation, research, and participation in the market. Many successful and educated people and even some famous investors share that view. They are not all even that wild.
As far as "evidence" is concerned., I think you should consider that the testimony of expert witnesses is taken as evidence in courts of law. You may not like Cramer (who cares about Cramer really) but you'd be wasting your time if you tried to say he isn't an acknowledged financial expert.
"just for kicks: what opinions are you referring to and what people (like Cramer) are you referring to?"
Let's take Dr. Dorn for instance, who you agreed with on market manipulation and Fannie/Freddie. Those who make sensationalist statements for which there is little/no evidence. People who link two events and claim that some association is obvious.
"Its a very easy position to assume because it requires no research, no original ideas and no creative thinking."
Look at one of my posts on Claire's religion thread. I offered a solution for allowing multiple beliefs to be displayed without government suppression or support of any belief. Feel free to criticize all you want; I will try to defend my idea. I won't take it personally, and I won't throw a fit. If you are going to post comments, you shouldn't be surprised to have your ideas challenged. That is the spirit of forums such as these. As for proof of my assertions, give me an example, and I will provide evidence. I have no problem with that.
Here's another. I feel the ones to blame for this crisis is government and the Fed; the free market would not have put us where we are now. The creation of Fannie and Freddie set these events into motion, and the Fed kept rates too low for too long, which planted the seeds of irrational risk taking. I don't think it was part of any collusion or plot to screw people over. Rather, I think government and the Fed intervened in the free market and (as usual) unintended consequences resulted.
"name calling, accusations, and stubborn attacks"
You need thicker skin. This isn't a church social. And by the way, I am pretty sure you started with the name calling instead of debating the facts.
"This, in and of itself, is a form of manipulation."
Yes it is, BUT IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET! You have been saying that manipulation is happening now with Fannie and Freddie.
"It's based on years of observation, research, and participation in the market. Many successful and educated people and even some famous investors share that view. "
I don't disagree; I have seen it too. There have been instances where suspicious trading activity has taken place before something is announced (example: Bear Stearns options on the Friday before the announcement), as if someone knew something. But you need evidence. Sometimes insiders trade on information, sometimes market volatility is all it is. But if you are going to assert that a particular event involves manipulation or insider trading, you should have some specific evidence to back it up. Why do you have such a problem with this?
have an opinion, just like everyone else
apparently though, you know a great deal more than "Dr" Dorn and other investment professionals. Why don't you write your own book on the market and put it out there for sale. The free market is calling.
Like I said, I think expert testimony is evidence (so do courts), I think my own observations are evidence, I even think my own intuition is evidence. If that's not enough for you, fine, I'm not trying to convince you.
But your tactics are classic ametuer O'Reilly. Calling claims you disagree with "wild" and "sensationalistic" when there's nothing remotely wild about any of them.
Since you're the master of proof, why don't you prove that Fannie and Freddie are not being manipulated . . .
"apparently though, you know a great deal more than "Dr" Dorn and other investment professionals."
No offense to the good Doctor, but she is not an investment professional. And by the way, investing and trading and writing about it does not make you an investment professional.
Expert testimony is important, as long as your experts are more than self-proclaimed experts. Cramer has some clout with some people, but why use him as an example if you are going to disparage him in other posts in the same thread!
"I think my own observations are evidence, I even think my own intuition is evidence."
Great! Let's here it! I have been asking for your so-called evidence, yet you continue to stall.
"Calling claims you disagree with "wild" and "sensationalistic" when there's nothing remotely wild about any of them."
Ok, then show me your evidence. Show me why I am wrong that your claims are wild and sensationalistic. Without evidence, anyone's assertion doesn't hold water.
"Since you're the master of proof, why don't you prove that Fannie and Freddie are not being manipulated . . ."
Give me a break. I am sure you have heard the axioms about how you cannot prove a negative and how the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either, so should I just believe in him?
As for a book, I doubt it would sell. It would be far too boring, since I have this aversion to sensationalism without evidence, and books without sensationalism usually don't do well.
not interested,
If you want to prove that Fannie and Freddie are not being manipulated feel free...........
We cannot have a substantive debate if you refuse to back up your assertions. I have called you out and you continue to hide. Weak.
calling me weak still fails to arouse my interest in debating you on this topic, you haven't offered anything on it, just insisted that I prove my points to you
I'm as interested in trying to convince you of this as I am in mowing a stranger's lawn
I have nothing to gain from it except frustration -- and I'm not interested in converting you, go on with your generations old plan of a diversified portfolio and not timing the market, perhaps you will make some money..
----------------------------
Here are some links I think you should consider concerning the history of market tribulations and manipulations:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/ptufano/einfo/manipulations.pdf
this article discusses the techniques of market manipulation as they've been used over the past 300 years, they include the methods of spreading false rumors, and fake news (i.e. todays media strategy) along with inter company manipulations like false accounting. It also points out some fun examples of stock manipulations through internet techniques.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials/market_manipulation.html
Here's an article about a technique referred to as ramping, where enormously deep pocketed investors buy up shares as quickly as they are dumped to maintain a certain price point, ongoing in our current market, and I believe this is one of the publicly stated purposes of the "plunge protection team"
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/puplava/2003/0408.htm Heres another article providing a broad overview of manipulations
------------------------------------------
But here's a glaring observation: The stated purpose of the FED is to intervene into markets to control the credit, dollar supply and alter the value of currencies. How anyone could deny this textbook example of manipulation is beyond me.....
The Fed, as many know, is a private organization beholden to is shareholders --- so there you have it, market manipulation by a powerful few
At the end of the day, this is a "chicken or egg" debate similar to a creationist debate which is why a debate on it is fruitless. Just like every proof of God's existence is considered a non-proof by an atheist, every piece of evidence I provide for market manipulation can be called names by you like : circumstantial, weak, etc.
However, I doubt, even a doubter like yourself, can refute the Fed's role in manipulating the market
Now BE GONE!
"...just insisted that I prove my points to you"
It's called debating. If you can't handle getting called out, then maybe you should stick to something safer.
"go on with your generations old plan of a diversified portfolio and not timing the market, perhaps you will make some money..."
I have and I will, and so have countless other investors. Maybe you should consider it!
Your links show examples of how individual securities can be manipulated over the short term. Did I not state this myself in several posts? I mentioned the Bear Stearns example. But you cannot make the big assumption that it is happening now with Fannie, Freddie, or anything else UNTIL YOU HAVE EVIDENCE! And these are individual securities, not the entire market. If the markets are rigged, why have so many ordinary small investors made a lot of money just by maintaining a diversified portfolio over the long term? You are missing this boat.
"The Fed, as many know, is a private organization beholden to is shareholders..."
Wow, this shows how wrong you are!. The Fed is a quasi-government organization, neither completely public nor private. It was created by government and an independent agency. It does not have any shareholders! Who are these shareholders? What is the Fed's stock symbol? Where do you come up with this stuff???
in research...... I didn't say it was a publicly traded co.
Are you aware of Ron Paul's position on the Fed, and the history that he basis his position on, doesn't sound like it
you're not the only one who's made money in the market, (assuming you've made money) and you have absolutely nothing original or insightful to offer as of yet,
the safe bet- of a diversified portfolio and buy to hold strategy has been around for generations, it works for long term investments when the overall market grows ---- Personally I don't think it's that great a strategy right now, certainly not in our current market because the economy is not growing right now, the way to make money in the market currently is by trading not investing --- my opinion, you're entitled to yours obviously
If you ever have something original or insightful to offer I'm all ears..
ps- fannie and freddie are rigged!
I am well aware of Ron Paul's opinions on the Fed, and I agree with them. But you clearly don't understand the basics of what the Fed is. You think it has shareholders. You think it is a private company. Instead of reading blogs and rants by people with little credibility, try cracking a finance or banking textbook for some facts for a change.
"Personally I don't think it's that great a strategy right now, certainly not in our current market because the economy is not growing right now..."
You miss the point so badly. These are exactly the times when long term investing strategies pay off; you have the opportunity to buy at depressed prices which will look like a bargain a few years from now when things recover. Look at the last couple of downturns. Look at the prices that you could have bought stocks at in 2001-2002 before the big recovery, or the summer of 1998 before the market snapped back from that panic. Graph the S&P 500 over the last few decades and you will see my point.
It doesn't get any simpler than buy low, sell high. Prices are low now ... so I think you see where I am going. Inexperienced people miss these opportunities and get out of the market. By the time things look better and they feel more comfortable, they have already missed so much of the upside.
Consider yourself warned. Trading and timing the market is a risky proposition. You may see those info-mercials with rah-rah slick sales types selling their can't-miss trading schemes. You know, like the one where you buy when the green light flashes and sell when the red light flashes. If this stuff actually worked, these guys would be doing it themselves and not selling it to others. But it is easy money and they prey on people's wishes and dreams. There is no free lunch.
You ask for something original or insightful. OK, I'll give it a shot. Buy the large cap commercial banks that have diversified deposit footprints but limited exposure to third-party originated HELOC or Alt-A portfolios, which are where the problems are. Subprime delinquencies may be levelling off and most of this risk has probably been priced in. Avoid the investment banks not because of their problems with MBS, CDOs, and other mortgage-related instruments, but because I believe the drop-off in their M&A pipelines has just begun to happen and the market has not taken this into account yet. In additon, the recovery for the investment banks may not be as robust as in other cycles since new commercial bank-like regulations that they are likely to face will lower their peak-level returns on equity.
have impressed yourself
but your idea of finding a bank to invest in that isn't exposed to subprime loans is not only obvious but sensible
Here's the million dollar question --- name the bank that isn't exposed to these loans ......
I am not impressed with myself. It is just research, that's all. I may be right, I may be wrong, time will tell.
"but your idea of finding a bank to invest in that isn't exposed to subprime loans is not only obvious but sensible"
Again, you misread. I was saying that the subprime risk is probably priced in and delinquencies may be levelling off, so it may be ok to invest in banks with subprime exposure. The banks that have little or no subprime exposure right now are not as cheap as the others. They are safer investments right now, but I think that finding the diamond in the rough is potentially much more profitable over the next few years.
could be potentially more profitable! That's brilliant!
Just wondering if you'd found any yet?
"could be potentially more profitable! That's brilliant!"
I don't claim it to be brilliant, but diamonds in the rough (i.e. value investing) is what you have to look for in these markets.
"Just wondering if you'd found any yet?"
I gave you my rationale for how to go about finding them among the banks. But I won't know if I am right for a few years.
that really is great advice!
Much better than say, looking for ordinary pebbles or fools gold.
So what are your picks? Why don't you share your wisdom? If you already bought in, you'll be helping to drive up the price by talking up your pick (just like Cramer)
That's some tough talk to leave it all off at "I'll get back to you in a few years"
So what's your pick for diamond in the rough? Care to back up your boasts?
"Much better than say, looking for ordinary pebbles or fools gold."
You don't like my metaphor? You are running a little low on substance.
So you want me to do your research for you? It's not like I didn't give it away. I like JPM and USB. These are not boasts. They are just educated bets. But that is a better alternative than getting out of the market and the banking system. You can't win if you don't play.
besides the stock market
so JPM and USB............
Yes, there are other places to invest.
"Anyway, his point that Fannie and Freddie shares are being manipulated is obvious."
Obvious? Again, volatility does not imply manipulation. When the market questions whether or not a company is viable, you can have wild swings in prices. Where is your evidence for your so-called manipulation?
"Blloyd would have to be quite ignorant to think I take my viewpoints verbatim from Cramer."
You started the thread using Cramer, so if you agree that he is a loud, flipflopping, entertainer, why use his words/rants as evidence? Based on some of your comments in this thread and others, you seem to get a lot of your opinions from people like Cramer.
Combative? Yes, I can be, especially when people don't stick to the facts and make wild assumptions.
He has no evidence to back this up. Just because there is volatility does not mean the markets are rigged. Sometimes, news does leak out ahead of the public release of information, but it is a big stretch to say the market is rigged.