Gold and the economy

[CHABSENTIA]

So if you're worried about a decline in the US dollar and want to own gold for that reason, I'd go with American Eagles.

 

Hi Mark! Why AGEs? Can't you buy bullion for closer to spot via a number of foreign bullions coins? My impression was that the AGEs carried more of a premium to spot on the buy side, and therefore are (slightly) worse than some alternatives as an investment. Just wondering what your rationale was....Mike

Paulson wants a guarantee by Congress that no Court of Law or any other Government Agency will be able to overturn any of his decisions.

But he can't get that with anything short of a constitutional amendment. Any law, resolution, or executive order giving him that power can be overturned on constitutional grounds by the courts. And once the law giving him those powers is overturned then his decisions can be overturned as well.

 

I didn't say he would get it. I don't know the particulars. We are talking about a set sum here. Paulson wants the guarantee on the just the 700 Billion. If Congress should grant this wish then go on Recess as they are scheduled to on Friday then it will take time for any challenges.I am not a Constitutional Legal Scholar . I realize that Congress can't turn over the keys to the Treasury without a Constitutional admendent but how about a set sum of Money for a particular use of it. I would think that the Federal Reserve would be technically Unconstitutional in that they are setting Monetary Policy. I beleive that Congress granted the Federal Reserve this Act in 1933. Did it take a Constitutional admendment?

[CHABSENTIA]

Sorry Chabsentia, it seems that we misunderstood each other. I was not trying to put words in your mouth either. I have an MBA, not a PhD. Condor stated the limits of Paulson's power succinctly and well.

 

I merely stated what Paulson wanted as well as "no limits on Executive Compensation. Technically Condor is correct, The problem is that Congress is due to go on Recess Friday and any challenges would be later and while it is true that his decisions could be overturned it would be too late and the results would already have occured. If the Congress is solely responsible for the Purse strings then was the Federal Reserve which was created in 1933 the result of a Constitutional admendment or some Technical Reason such as the Defintion of "to coin" etc?I am familar with the Policies of the Fed but not its creation.I do question putting this sum of Money in the hands of a person who has been consistently wrong and believing the words of Bernanke who raised rates 15 consecutive times.I would actually lean a little toward Charles Schumer who advocates giving 150 billion with oversight and coming back in January to assess the situation. I am not from New York and am not familar with his other thoughts but I have found Schumer to be one of the more realistic people in Congress except for some postions on Oil.

[CHABSENTIA]

Sorry Chabsentia, it seems that we misunderstood each other. I was not trying to put words in your mouth either. I have an MBA, not a PhD. Condor stated the limits of Paulson's power succinctly and well.

 

I was referring to the Phd of Bernanke in Economics. I have always had trouble with a Phd in Economics not aware of the fact that Historically when the Federal Funds rate is raised a minimum of 6 times that there has always been some level of a Recession that follows depending on the State of the Economy and the number of times it is raised. Bernanke raised it 15 consecutive tomes without waiting to see how each raise was absorbed by the Economy.I can only guess that Bernanke was obsessed with Inflation and and did not realize the State of the Sub Primes.He still should have paused at Intervals. Paulson mentioned that "he was in daily phone contact with Bernanke". early in the process, During this time Paulson was upset with China for not devaluing their Currency. I think but can't prove that Paulson wanted to Demonitize the Debt to China etc and make our goods cheaper via the decline of the Dollar etc, They both severely misjudged the situation of the Sub Prime mess where Ignorant People were buying more House then they could afford by Greedy Lenders in an Unregulated Environment.THe raising of the Rate effectively cut off Credit and aggavated the situation much sooner and much deeper'Now we should turn over 700 Billion dollars to these two people with little or no Restrictions?

[Oldtrader3]

With the economy sinking further into the mire daily, what would you suggest? People can always shoot holes in other people's solutions but what would you have them do before the depression sets in? Chabsentia, you always have plenty to say in criticism of other ideas. How would you rescue the ship of state before the end of this week, when Congress goes home to run for office?

 

Fannie/Freddie and AIG can not be allowed to bankrupt their debt obligations and bonds which are held by the United States, Trade Balance deficit and National Debt owners. The cost of that and a few others (i.e. WaMu) is $700 billion. Where does this invalidate or violate the Constitution? Cite me verse, book and chapter, not rhetoric. This is a spending issue not a Constitutional crisis.

 

I am going to shut up now, before I get in trouble with the site Moderators.

[just-john]

After congress or whoever do this bail out with the taxpayers money and they find out that most of it or almost all of it will go not to home owners or banks but to foreign note holders/

governments.Think of it this way your behind in your mortgages they can't pick up you house and move it to Japan/China/ these places want their money Back that they GAMBLED

AND WHEN YOU GAMBLE SOME TIMES YOU LOSS / suck it up don't ask me to pay

it's against my religion

 

start putting away that rice and beans and powder milk some ammo

 

because when this doesn't work and they come back for more there isn't any

 

Between 1982 and 2003, Countrywide delivered investors a 23,000% return, exceeding the returns of Washington Mutual, Wal-Mart, and Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway.Thats 23 Grand on a $100.00 INVESTMENT all these places want to be saved and get compensated not on their investment but on the last statement so if you put in $100 and now its worth x they want the x amount not the original investment. When you have executives walking out with 45 million for 3 month work it's BS

 

Where did all the profits go ? they have been given to the share holders.