Who owns the U.S Debt

Originally posted by FreiMaurer

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
What type of market are we in right now - do you think?

Gold?

*Sigh* hardly.

Yeah tell us about the M3 report mr investor.

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Kaos, your thread clearly denies observation - if there's not a better example of the OPPOSITE of Scientific Method what is?

How about reading the article posted by msnbc? Is that not observation? Just because I choose to challenge the media it makes me an idiot?

I do think you are knowledgeable on this topic and I am actually glad you posted but why people feel they need to gloat I dont know. Your right the oppsite of scientific method is probably idiocy but if you are unwilling to withdraw your comment I think you have a long way to come.

You assumed I knew nothing and was denying observation. I think not.


Back on topic - you write about Isreal having sum sort of power over the United States. Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by FreiMaurer

The MSNBC article gave a reasonable and concise explanation of who owns US treasury bonds - that should be enough for this discussion....but somehow someone denied it?

You actually believe MSNBC news? To me all main stream major news sources have been discreated since the CNN fisaco.

Originally posted by sweftl337
FreiMaurer, you ever heard of Bob Chapman? If you know where I'm coming from, and if your under 50 years old on Wall Street - You're still dumb unless you're one of them - no offense.

May be you should go and calculate something called M3? Do you know what that is, mr investor?

So throw away all your charts, waves and graphs, cause in a manipulated bull market you go long and you stay long in gold and silver.

...and you can take that to the bank or stick it in your pipe and smoke it, or whichever you may prefer. Do you not see where I'm coming from kiddo?

Btw, good luck on your other Fremasonry thread.

Why would I want to go long in gold when gold is already at a high price? You hope it'll go to $1,200 USD just so you can make an 80% gain? Fat chance. Mines are closing, operations are becomming to expensive, and exploration is winding down, Gold is heading for a decline here in a few years because the mining industry is burning out. Analysts won't tell you that, exploration geologists will.

It still has a good market but not for much longer.

So no I don't really see where you're coming from but then I work with a Gold Exploration Company so - maybe that has something to do with it. Dunno.

I give gold maybe 3 years of continued mediocre gain and I doubt it'll push $1,000 USD. London's Boullion Market Association's Market Makers' analysts seem to agree that Gold won't really breach anything like the "buy gold" buffoons are claiming.

I think the high non conservative estimate was about $900...

JP Morgan puts it at less than that for the following year. I tend to like what those guys think.

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Why would I want to go long in gold when gold is already at a high price? You hope it'll go to $1,200 USD just so you can make an 80% gain?

My understanding is that you don't buy gold to make money, you buy gold, to buy food, cloths and shelter when everything falls apart.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by In nothing we trust]

You misunderstand taxation mystery lady, they don't take your house if you don't pay your taxes because they "own it". They take it as punishment for not following an obligation by law. Usually the house just ends up on a lien and is practically given away to someone else for just paying back taxes.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Why would I want to go long in gold when gold is already at a high price? You hope it'll go to $1,200 USD just so you can make an 80% gain?

My understanding is that you don't buy gold to make money, you buy gold to buy food, cloths and shelter when everything falls apart.

Well then that's probably why I'm wealthier than you.

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Well then that's probably why I'm wealthier than you.

Perhaps you can take it to the grave with you?

And M3 shows transactions of US currency (not ownership of stock really) so moving capital is not fully expressed within it, more or less it includes some superfilous information and I personally see no use in it nor how it provides evidence of "secret transfers of capital out of the nation by the top 1% GASP".

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Well then that's probably why I'm wealthier than you.

Perhaps you can take it to the grave with you?

Ahh yes the whole "you can't die rich" argument failures love to use to reason why they need to love dirt and all it's worth.

That's ok, I'll prefer to return to sailing when my wrist is fully healed and I make the time, and see amazing places and do amazing things.

Enjoy your life working at Walmart or whatever dead-end job because you programmed yourself to be a fatalist.

Hey Fred,

Not! Houses that are foreclosed upon through the Federal Government are auctioned off to the highest bidder. Buying properties via back taxes is only if someone or a third party intervened before the property was foreclosed on and that third party paid the taxes, then by the laws of some states that third party may be entitled to the property at a fair market value and or have the tax money returned with interest. But most of the property is auctioned off to the highest bidder and is publish in a public paper prior to the auction.

I have purchase many house's this way laws very from state to state, but in general they are very similar.

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
You misunderstand taxation mystery lady, they don't take your house if you don't pay your taxes because they "own it". They take it as punishment for not following an obligation by law. Usually the house just ends up on a lien and is practically given away to someone else for just paying back taxes.

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
You misunderstand taxation mystery lady, they don't take your house if you don't pay your taxes because they "own it". They take it as punishment for not following an obligation by law. Usually the house just ends up on a lien and is practically given away to someone else for just paying back taxes.

It doesn't matter what you call it. If they can take it away from you, you do not 100% fully own it. Just as you don't fully own 100% of your income, because part of that is taxed through various imposed taxes that is taken out before you can even see the check.


Either way it is practically (more like down right) stealing from the person after the entire mortgage was paid off. Just try to tell that person they fully owned the house, and it was theirs for keeps after the mortgage was paid off. Reality was they didn't fully own the house, because they counldn't pay the landlords a few hundred/thousand (depending on where you live) in property tax.


[edit on 5-3-2007 by Mystery_Lady]

Originally posted by Realtruth
Hey Fred,

Not! Houses that are foreclosed upon through the Federal Government are auctioned off to the highest bidder. Buying properties via back taxes is only if someone or a third party intervened before the property was foreclosed on and that third party paid the taxes, then by the laws of some states that third party may be entitled to the property at a fair market value and or have the tax money returned with interest. But most of the property is auctioned off to the highest bidder and is publish in a public paper prior to the auction.

I have purchase many house's this way laws very from state to state, but in general they are very similar.

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
You misunderstand taxation mystery lady, they don't take your house if you don't pay your taxes because they "own it". They take it as punishment for not following an obligation by law. Usually the house just ends up on a lien and is practically given away to someone else for just paying back taxes.

That wasn't my point, I'm not sitting here giving lectures, I'm actually writing some reports on some paleontological matters at hand - mainly dealing with ontogenetic changes due to various possible modes mainly heterotopy and heterotypy and how reduction of their multitudinous dimensions can lead to misunderstandings of the processes effecting the change in ontogeny...very boring crap.

My point was that it isn't ownership by the goverment expressed through taxation, and I used a limited example to show a case in point because it is not always a 3rd party intervening it is often also just the government putting the lien publically (I could also be using some wrong verbage I am German so not sure off-hand).

But yes...actually you did just correct what I was trying to point out (the mechanics) I'm thankful but yeah the point still stands and that's what matters to me

Originally posted by FreiMaurer

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Well then that's probably why I'm wealthier than you.

Perhaps you can take it to the grave with you?

Ahh yes the whole "you can't die rich" argument failures love to use to reason why they need to love dirt and all it's worth.

Hey don't believe me, believe these guys.

Nice lyrics, huh?
www.youtube.com...





[edit on 5-3-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Remarkable similarity, huh.

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
You misunderstand taxation mystery lady, they don't take your house if you don't pay your taxes because they "own it". They take it as punishment for not following an obligation by law. Usually the house just ends up on a lien and is practically given away to someone else for just paying back taxes.

It doesn't matter what you call it. If they can take it away from you, you do not 100% fully own it. Just as you don't fully own 100% of your income, because part of that is taxed through various imposed taxes that is taken out before you can even see the check.


Either way it is practically (more like down right) stealing from the person after the entire mortgage was paid off. Just try to tell that person they fully owned the house, and it was theirs for keeps after the mortgage was paid off. Reality was they didn't fully own the house, because they counldn't pay the landlords a few hundred/thousand (depending on where you live) in property tax.


[edit on 5-3-2007 by Mystery_Lady]

Well I can take from you anything I want because I can probably lift you with one arm and break your back over my head - not to mention I undoubtedly got some of my old skills left from my previous job before my injury.

So - by that argument, everything you own really belongs to me...because if you don't get out of your house, you're dead...by me.

Oh but then the government comes in and prevents me from owning your things by denying me freedom or life depending on the severity of punishment I level upon you for denying me my right by might.

So consider taxation a just payment to protect yourself from barbarians like me who in a different time would have been the gentleman beating down your door with a sword, raping you, then leaving your dead carcass as a reminder to the next lot not to mess with my band of warriors and I their King.

Originally posted by FreiMaurer

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
You misunderstand taxation mystery lady, they don't take your house if you don't pay your taxes because they "own it". They take it as punishment for not following an obligation by law. Usually the house just ends up on a lien and is practically given away to someone else for just paying back taxes.

It doesn't matter what you call it. If they can take it away from you, you do not 100% fully own it. Just as you don't fully own 100% of your income, because part of that is taxed through various imposed taxes that is taken out before you can even see the check.


Either way it is practically (more like down right) stealing from the person after the entire mortgage was paid off. Just try to tell that person they fully owned the house, and it was theirs for keeps after the mortgage was paid off. Reality was they didn't fully own the house, because they counldn't pay the landlords a few hundred/thousand (depending on where you live) in property tax.


[edit on 5-3-2007 by Mystery_Lady]

Well I can take from you anything I want because I can probably lift you with one arm and break your back over my head - not to mention I undoubtedly got some of my old skills left from my previous job before my injury.

So - by that argument, everything you own really belongs to me...because if you don't get out of your house, you're dead...by me.

Oh but then the government comes in and prevents me from owning your things by denying me freedom or life depending on the severity of punishment I level upon you for denying me my right by might.

So consider taxation a just payment to protect yourself from barbarians like me who in a different time would have been the gentleman beating down your door with a sword, raping you, then leaving your dead carcass as a reminder to the next lot not to mess with my band of warriors and I their King.

Hahahahahahahaha! That actually made me laugh quite hard.

Good to see you have a sense of humour.

Although I agree with both of you as you both make excellent points. However it's your interpretation of "own" that is causing the debate. To own something is to have sole possesion of an Item or these days even Ideas. To live in a certain country there are laws. The country is not urs.. but u can purchase land to own provided you abide by the laws of the country and these laws are the prerequisites of your citezenship.

So unless you can afford your to buy an entire country, property will never fully be yours. You have just leased it off the country for the period of time you and your trustees decide to abide by the governments law. And that is determined by you. And whoever you elect to run your mess of a country.

Essentially, I think the debate of "ownership" could fill volumes of political theory texts, it's not worth bringing into here.

Suffice to say a Government is deemed good when it "protects" life and property, the US government and "liberal" regimes do this.

If you think you don't own property now - go to somewhere like Russia or China, or even more extreme, the Congo...where there they still have armies of raving lunatics on drugs that cook your arm for their breakfast (literally, in the last 3 years the Congo civil war has killed more than a million and the rebels have a common practice of taking arms from victims and cooking them and eating them).

Ownership may seem 'trivial' when taxed, but it's far more in your possession than in anothers - in other countries you'd be so fortunate.

Friemaurer,

Take a look at what I found: This taken from the International Forecaster Jan 24, 2007 edition:

“ We were shocked but it is true. A leading banker of Canada’s financial establishment, Anthony S. Fell, Chairman of RBC Capital markets and former President of the Royal Bank of Canada delivered an endorsement of gold and the excesses of the fiat money system and came to the conclusion that gold is real money and the wave of the future.

By Anthony S. Fell, Chairman
RBC Capital Markets
Vancouver Client Appreciation Dinner
Four Seasons Hotel, Vancouver
Thursday, January 18, 2007
.... I would not want to close off the evening without tabling one opportunity for all of us to make money, safeguard our wealth, and protect ourselves from the ravages of inflation over the next many years -- and that is gold bullion.
Gold bullion is a secretive, opaque market with little transparency. Gold can be volatile, is almost impossible to forecast on a short-term basis, and requires great patience, and, accordingly, it's not for short-term traders but rather for serious long-term investors.
Is gold a currency, a commodity, or a store of value?
The answer is all three, but gold bullion is primarily a currency and a store of value and is a hedge against fiat paper money and inflation.
As an economic consultant in 1966 Alan Greenspan wrote: "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process."
At Royal Bank we trade gold bullion off our foreign exchange desks rather than our commodity desks because that's what it's is -- a global currency.
As J.P. Morgan said in 1913: "Gold is money and nothing more."
It was Alan Greenspan again who said in a 1999 testimony before the U.S. House Banking Committee that "gold represents the ultimate form of payment in the world."
Gold bullion is the only currency worldwide which is freely tradable and which is unencumbered by vast quantities of sovereign debt and prior obligations.
Gold bullion is the one investment and long-term store of value, which cannot be adversely impacted by corrupt corporate management or incompetent politicians -- each of which are in ample supply on a global basis.
As a currency and a store of value gold has stood the test of many centuries.
At the current level of about $625 per ounce, gold has risen about 250 percent over the last five years.
Nevertheless, I believe gold bullion is now in the very early stages of a long-term secular bull market, which will carry it to much higher levels over the coming decade.
I don't think there's any point in speculating how high the price of gold might go in the course of this cycle because no one can be that precise.
Suffice to say I anticipate a material increase.
History doesn't repeat but it's well to remember that from 1970 to 1980 gold rose 2,300 percent so it shows what can happen.
Reflecting on the long-term outlook for gold, it is important to fully appreciate that we now live in a world of fiat paper money.
Just as a reminder, fiat paper money, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is inconvertible paper money made legal tender by government decree.
The real question over the long term is: How much confidence do you have in politicians and central bankers to maintain the purchasing power of their currencies?
Since the U.S. moved to fiat paper money in 1971, the dollar has lost 80 percent of its purchasing power.
Since the Federal Reserve was established 93 years ago, the dollar has lost 98 percent of its purchasing power.
The new fiat U.S. dollar system has been in place for only 35 years -- not long when you consider the sad and sorry record of fiat paper money around the globe throughout the past century or two.
I would say the jury is very much out on this new system.
What will the record of the U.S. dollar be in another 20 or 30 years?
Recent history does not augur well and it could be much worse.
The U.S. annual trade deficit, now running at a rate of more than three-quarters of a trillion annually, or 6.3 percent of GDP, is a huge concern.
It's not prudent for the U.S. to depend on foreign bond buyers to finance domestic consumption.
Asian countries produce low-cost goods, which are shipped to the United States, the U.S. ships dollars back to Asia, and then the Asians purchase U.S. treasuries.
One could say this is a giant international Ponzi scheme. I don't think this model is viable or sustainable. Asian central banks will not want to accumulate U.S. dollars at the current rate forever.
There is no free lunch. Virtuous circles like this, where everyone appears a winner, always come to an unhappy ending.
We have never before experienced imbalances in global trade and foreign exchange of the current magnitude -- not even close.
Major currency realignment is coming, and the longer it is delayed, the more the risk of the crisis. You can't hold back the tide.
The ingredients are here for major trouble in global financial and foreign exchange markets.
For all these reasons, I believe the stature and reputation of the U.S. dollar as a store of value have been greatly diminished and undermined over the past decade.
In light of all this, I believe gold bullion will gradually re-emerge as an accepted alternative asset and investment.
Over the past few years the price of gold has been in a clear uptrend against the U.S. dollar, the euro, the yen, the Indian rupee, and the renminbi.
I think this trend will continue and accelerate as events unfold.
Another factor is that I believe over the past decade there has been a substantial increase in systemic risk in the global financial system, which has benefited greatly from an extended period of incredibly low interest rates, easy credit, and what can only be described as massive liquidity.
History shows that such an environment can, and usually does, foster a degree of complacency.
In the financial and investment business memories are short and every generation has to learn the hard way.
Leverage in virtually every area of the financial markets has increased.
Financial products are now infinitely more complex.
There is, at present, an unwarranted optimism that the business cycle is a thing of the past, that central banks with infinite wisdom are in firm control and will be able to thread the needle between inflation and deflation, and that we will never again have a major foreign-exchange or financial crisis.
Well, I don't believe it, and the record shows that gold bullion represents a solid store of value in times of economic and financial distress.
Over the coming decade, global gold production will be static to declining while governments around the world continue to increase the money supply at a rapid rate.
If there is an "event" and a crisis develops, they will print money even faster.
The arithmetic is compelling.
Total gold production since the beginning of time is estimated at 5 billion ounces valued at about $3.2 trillion at current prices now scattered around the world in jewellery, artifacts. and gold bars in safety deposit boxes.
Annual gold production is now running at about 76 million ounces, which means that the above-ground stock of gold is increasing at about 1.5 percent per year.
In contrast, central banks around the world are probably printing money and creating credit at the annual rate of 5 to 10 percent per annum.
Recently in China the money supply has been increasing at a rate of 18 percent.
These numbers dictate that gold prices are destined to go much higher.
In short, the global supply of fiat paper money is increasing perhaps four times faster than the physical supply of gold bullion, and sooner or later this will be reflected in the market.
It's like a coiled spring.
Major gold companies are not replacing reserves and major discoveries are incredibly rare.
Investors forget that at most gold mines you have to move 35 to 40 tons of dirt and rock just to get one ounce.
On the other hand, fiat paper money can be printed by pressing a button on a computer.
It's quite interesting if you've noticed what's happening to paper money.
Not so many years ago millions of dollars seemed like a lot of money. Then we started talking about hundreds of millions and then we were thinking in terms of billions.
Then a billion became petty change and we started to talk in terms of hundreds of billions and now you hear the word "trillion" more and more.
The next stage will be hundreds of trillions.
Recently an "old master" painting was auctioned in New York for $94 million.
Just based on common sense, we have to ask ourselves: Is that painting really worth $94 million, or has the U.S. dollar become just like so much confetti?
I think we know the answer.
When Mr. Nardelli was recently fired as CEO of Home Depot he received a settlement of $210 million. The CEO of Pfizer received a settlement of $240 million when he was let go.
A condo in New York trades for $80 million.
What does all this say about the value of money?
Finally, there is a great deal of skepticism about the future of gold, which is a very positive factor.
Investors forget that bear markets start when the skies are blue and bull markets start when despair and apathy are in the air.
At present most major investors now regard gold and gold shares with apathy and even distain and are vastly underweight the sector.
The vast majority of investors are so short-term oriented they just don't see the big picture unfolding.
When the price of crude oil bottomed out at $10.70 a barrel on Christmas Day in 1998 and the front cover of the Economist magazine was forecasting a glut of oil and a price of $5 a barrel, you couldn't give oil or gas stocks away.
Now just seven years later, even after the recent decline, the price of oil is up five times.
What a difference a few years can make.
Similarly, with the price of uranium at $7 a pound at the end of December 2000 you couldn't give away either uranium or uranium stocks. Now that uranium has increased by 1,000 percent to $70 a pound, investors are driving uranium stocks to all-time highs.
The market just didn't see it coming -- it happens all the time.
So it is my view that, after a 20-year bear market from 1980 to 2000, the past few years represent a major positive turning point in the fundamental long-term outlook for gold bullion.
Gold is a hedge against inflation and, as a result of the excesses of the past 15 years, I believe there is more inflation in the pipeline than is generally anticipated -- perhaps quite a bit more -- just like the 1970s.
I believe any surprises on the inflation front will be on the upside.
To some extent, I regret to say, all paper currencies are becoming somewhat suspect, and accordingly it is my view that gold bullion, rather than being the barbarous relic described by John Maynard Keynes, may well become the asset of choice for many investors over the coming decade.
I have always been told to buy quality assets that are vastly undervalued and that have been ignored by the marketplace for a prolonged period.
Notwithstanding the modest rise in gold prices over the past few years, that is where gold bullion is today, and it represents a great opportunity.”

I have a better article (by my standards) from the London Boullion Market Association entitled something like "Why not the Gold Bricked Road?" and it argues against the Gold Standard because it holds back growing economies etc...good article.

I'll have to find it for you later I hear blackhawks thumping around so I better check this out.