He didn't quite dump GoldytterbiusAugust 9 2011, 18:14:08 UTC
He Dumped Gold ETFs, which, although the article claims they are paper "backed by bullion," they're heavily shorted and couldn't necessarily deliver on all of that gold if they ever needed to.
On the other hand, he BOUGHT portions of Gold Mining companies, which would make a TON of money if gold spiked (like, either a US dollar collapse, or if investors lost faith in Gold-backed-paper assets, and started demanding actual delivery of shiny wonderful gold).
"Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/00903bb2-c19c-11e0-acb3-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1UYZLiual
"Standard & Poor’s, the rating agency at the centre of a storm of debate over its downgrade of the US, on Monday cut its ratings for the big securities clearing houses that underpin most stock, option and bond trading in the US."
This is a downgrade of, essentially, the basic system that allows trading of paper stocks, bonds, etfs, etc to even happen. The soundness of our basic markets is now in question. Any wonder that big money took a big piece out of stocks and put them in treasuries. They know that even if the US Government has no ability to pay for any social programs, then debt of the Government to the lender is Constitutionally protected.
Re: He didn't quite dump Goldil_mio_gufoAugust 10 2011, 03:19:21 UTC
They know that even if the US Government has no ability to pay for any social programs, then debt of the Government to the lender is Constitutionally protected.
Re: He didn't quite dump GoldytterbiusAugust 10 2011, 04:57:26 UTC
What I mean there is this.
The 14th amendment says "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
It's the argument that they were talking about how the President could just potentially unilaterally raise the debt ceiling if Congress didn't play ball.
However, the righthand lawyers have prepared for this and would suggest that, no, that's not what the Constitution says. The Government spends money on all sorts of things, not just debt. The Government CAN'T Constitutionally default on its debt, but it can certainly Constitutionally cut Welfare, or the EPA, or the Department of Education. They'd LOVE that!
See what I mean? If Obama had called on the 14th Amendment, Republicans would have him under impeachment hearings in a moment, saying (correctly) that he had unilaterally broken a law that had previously been set forth by Congress and Signed by a President (the debt ceiling).
Republicans would argue that he had no right to break the debt ceiling law, all he had to do was to cut spending in order to stay within budget.
Who knows the politics that really went on, but there was definitely talk of using the 14th Amendment, but the Administration wouldn't go there.
On the other hand, he BOUGHT portions of Gold Mining companies, which would make a TON of money if gold spiked (like, either a US dollar collapse, or if investors lost faith in Gold-backed-paper assets, and started demanding actual delivery of shiny wonderful gold).
Also, here's another REALLY important downgrade from S&P yesterday, that you might have missed: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/00903bb2-c19c-11e0-acb3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1UYZ1nUsR : S&P downgrades DTCC and Chicago options clearer
"Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/00903bb2-c19c-11e0-acb3-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1UYZLiual
"Standard & Poor’s, the rating agency at the centre of a storm of debate over its downgrade of the US, on Monday cut its ratings for the big securities clearing houses that underpin most stock, option and bond trading in the US."
This is a downgrade of, essentially, the basic system that allows trading of paper stocks, bonds, etfs, etc to even happen. The soundness of our basic markets is now in question. Any wonder that big money took a big piece out of stocks and put them in treasuries. They know that even if the US Government has no ability to pay for any social programs, then debt of the Government to the lender is Constitutionally protected.
Reply
wtf? i'm confused :/
Reply
The 14th amendment says "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
It's the argument that they were talking about how the President could just potentially unilaterally raise the debt ceiling if Congress didn't play ball.
However, the righthand lawyers have prepared for this and would suggest that, no, that's not what the Constitution says. The Government spends money on all sorts of things, not just debt. The Government CAN'T Constitutionally default on its debt, but it can certainly Constitutionally cut Welfare, or the EPA, or the Department of Education. They'd LOVE that!
See what I mean? If Obama had called on the 14th Amendment, Republicans would have him under impeachment hearings in a moment, saying (correctly) that he had unilaterally broken a law that had previously been set forth by Congress and Signed by a President (the debt ceiling).
Republicans would argue that he had no right to break the debt ceiling law, all he had to do was to cut spending in order to stay within budget.
Who knows the politics that really went on, but there was definitely talk of using the 14th Amendment, but the Administration wouldn't go there.
Reply
Leave a comment