Negative interests should push gold higher.
Posted by Adask on February 10, 2016 in Gold & Silver Coin, Negative interest rates, Video
Tags: Gold, Jim Cramer, negative interest rates, Wall Street
February 11, 2016 at 10:41 AM
When you’re buying and selling certificates, yes, you can make money, but buying physical metal at $200.00 -plus frikin taxes- above market trading price and later to sell to a buyer at $200.00 below market trading price is a bad deal. To make anything, buying gold at $1200 would have to rise to about $1700 to make some change. Not worth it.
February 11, 2016 at 5:24 PM
I’m comfortable speculating that gold will be above $1700 very soon…..and willing to wait.
February 11, 2016 at 7:41 PM
Reason to hold gold: It is required to engage in contractual behavior with the power of Law.
Without gold you can only engage in quasi-contract and have access to Equity.
In Equity you better hope the judicial actor doesn’t have PMS on the day she decides your case.
February 11, 2016 at 9:29 PM
On our common law land, our highest remedy is equity. And equity only comes in if no solution in law can be found. If we have an expressed contract with another party, that is the law. We could use gold as collateral to obtain credit with an obligee, but it is not required to operate under the power of law. Why do you state this? What is your source of authotity?
February 12, 2016 at 7:58 AM
@ Lyndon “On our common law land, our highest remedy is equity”
Law and Equity are in opposition to each other. Law is masculine (patriarchy) and Equity is feminine (matriarchy). By Law I mean common law. Under Law women engage in coverture while under Equity women engage in Equal Rights (or even Superior Rights). Under common law women cannot be judges. I see women judges all the time. They all practice Equity and wouldn’t know Law if they were blindsided by it.
When authority is requested I usually state that I am the only Authority that I know.
Kindly don’t shoot the messenger. Personally I like women. My mother was one.
February 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM
I agree with your claim, but I know of no express authority to support it. I believe that the use of Federal Reserve Notes (and, perhaps, all fiat currency) provide the purchaser with only equitable title to whatever was purchased and thereby compels adjudication in courts of equity. But I know of no express authority that links gold to contracts and standing at law. Can you provide such a supporting authority?
February 12, 2016 at 8:08 AM
@ Alfred “I know of no express authority that links gold to contracts and standing at law. Can you provide such a supporting authority?”
Substance is an element of contract under common law. Substance is something you own with no strings attached. A FRN has strings attached and a FRN has no capacity to be owned by anyone other than the issuer. Substance is therefore missing from all contracts unless the phrase “one dollar and other valuable considerations” is included and the dollar is either silver or gold. Without the element of substance the arrangement comes under quasi-contract (aka “false” contract) and becomes a topic for Equity.
Along similar lines the recent arrangement with Iran over freeing their assets and restricting their use of nuclear materials has the name DEAL attached to it. It is not a TREATY because congress wouldn’t pass the DEAL. It is not a contract because nothing changed hands of anything substantial. It has arrived at the status of a QUASI-TREATY and congress does not need to do anything. They weaseled out of a decision as they generally do simply by pretending that Quasi- anything is bona fide.
February 11, 2016 at 10:44 PM
I disagree with the claims that: 1) “equity” is our highest form of “remedy”; and 2) “equity only comes in if no solution in law can be found.”
Law is our highest form of remedy and equity only comes in when no STANDING at law can be found for the plaintiff–and then, the equity only comes in only IF the judge exercises his “discretion” to perceive an express or implied trust relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. If the judge “finds” the existence of a trust relationship, the defendant is usually found guilty without knowing why. If the judge does not “find” an implied trust relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff’s case is usually dropped–perhaps for “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted”.
At law, everyone is bound by the law–including the judge.
In equity, the judge is not bound by the law and can do whatever his alleged “conscience” directs him to do.
Law can be harsh, but it is set. Equity can be anything the judge decrees.
February 12, 2016 at 4:43 PM
When I write “equity is highest form of remedy” that is “in” U.S. courts, also Federal Court. It’s in their rules.
Standing is contractual, applies to statutory courts.
As i wrote to Palani, we know law and equity were merged… IN THOSE COURTS.
BUT, we sill have our courts and our courts move under common law: if you know how to hold and move your own court -which almost nobody knows how to do anymore.
February 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM
I always stand to be corrected. However, I understand it, Law and Equity have never been merged.
Instead what’s been “merged” are the FORMS and PROCEDURES of law and equity.
There was a time when the FORMS and PROCEDURES used in law and equity were so different that all litigants instantly knew if the case was being heard at law or in equity. The differences in forms and procedures between law and equity were so obvious, it was almost as if all cases at law had to be filed on bright green paper and all cases in equity had to be filed on bright red paper. The differences between the forms and procedures of law and equity were so great and so obvious, that it was virtually impossible for any semi-knowledgeable litigant to fail to understand which jurisdiction (law or equity) was hearing a particular case.
However, once they merged the two sets of forms and two sets of procedures (one of Law, one of Equity) into a single set of forms and procedures, only the most sophisticated litigants can tell if a particular court case is being heard at LAW or in EQUITY.
Result? It seems to me that most people ASSUME they’re going into a court of LAW when they are actually, but unwittingly, going into a court of EQUITY.
Result? Defendants who think they’re being charged at LAW (often a function of contractual relationships) fail to recognize that they’re actually being charged in EQUITY (usually a function of trust relationships).
Result? Defendants USUALLY LOSE based on their false assumption that they’re being charged at LAW when they’re actually being charged in EQUITY. Defendants prepare for litigation as if they were going to play a baseball game, while the court is actually judging the case by the rules of football.
Result? Defendants not only lose disproportionately, their losses seem incomprehensible since they don’t understand that the case/game is being decided under the rules of equity/football rather than according to the rules of law/baseball. Such defendants, after diligently studying the rules of law and then losing badly in court, walk out of court in a state of shock.
February 12, 2016 at 9:39 AM
The move up in gold going foward will be due to supply shortage. The allocated account pilferage may be at the crux of the current move up–60000 tons missing, that’s alot of gold. Money is and will leave dollars. No one in my world of social contact– work, family, friends that I am in contact with see any thing wrong with their paper investments or the current order of events. These people will be smashed very soon. What we have seen to date with silver and gold is just musical chairs positioning. The bull move beginning will move with such speed it will be frightening to those without established positions. To those with substantial exposure to this asset class the move will be humbling and may cause one to fall to one’s knees in praise and thanksgiving that the Good Lord revealed the place of safety to those with faith.
Stocks have been rising since A.D. 1982 for posative fundamental reasons. Stocks may drop for the next 30 years due the developement negative fundamental reasons. Cycles are cycles…
The Good Lord will provide a way for his People to come out of Her. Keep the faith.
The disheartening aspect of this video is Cramer, I never want to be were he is! Maybe he’s right for once.
Exploration silver and gold stocks lost upwards to 99% of their values in this 3 year bear in silver and gold. This is the kind of stuff bear market bottoms are made of. Remember the events that took place to establish this bottom.
Remember the events that took place to put in the massive top in stock markets the world over at present. These turning points only happen in 20 and 30 year time frames.
February 12, 2016 at 10:02 AM
If you practice female law (Equity) then gold is nothing but a commodity. If you practice male law (Common Law) then gold is a symbol and you don’t need massive quantities. You just need one tiny piece (per contract).
February 12, 2016 at 3:48 PM
I appreciate the reply; no, i don’t shoot the messenger.
When you write: ” …When authority is requested I usually state that I am the only Authority that I know…” I say the same sometimes and I agree with you.
When you write:
“Law and Equity are in opposition to each other. Law is masculine (patriarchy) and Equity is feminine (matriarchy). By Law I mean common law. Under Law women engage in coverture while under Equity women engage in Equal Rights (or even Superior Rights). Under common law women cannot be judges. I see women judges all the time. They all practice Equity and wouldn’t know Law if they were blindsided by it.”
I disagree with much. We are all equal under our common law; no matter woman or man. If you move a court in U.S,, CAN, U.K. or in any common law land that derives its law from English Common Law, you’re ultimately moving the court in law first and equity second as both were merged after Chancery was dissolved. That is what THOSE courts do. You may move your own court strictly in common law. If you look carefully, you will find these concepts written in their Judicature Acts. Its a bit technical, but when you come into those courts as a plaintiff you are surrendering the decision of the matter to a judge who first looks for a solution in law (contract), and if none may be found, then the decision is done by equity. Hence the maxim “Equity follows the law”. But decisions are still decided on the facts.
February 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM
@ Lyndon “We are all equal under our common law; no matter woman or man.”
In the classical languages much is made of the masculine or feminine nature of a thing. In German ‘der’ is used to designate a male object and ‘die’ a female object. So it is in French and Italian as well. English does not have this same concept in their language. But make no mistake. Common Law has been set up for male dominance. Under Common Law a woman under coverture could not engage in contract. While I believe this was for her own protection I doubt if many women today would agree. Instead now they are thrown into society engaging in contractual behavior and not having a lick of sense. This behavior seems to have worn off on males as well. It is part of the dumbing down of society. Unisex. Trans-sexual. Gays marrying gays. If you think this is all part of Common Law you will have provide some cites to support your position.
February 12, 2016 at 4:00 PM
It seems you assert that a contract is not made unless one party has something tangible to exchange and that gold is required as it is the only thing of true value?
We have infinite right to contract with whom we wish in exchange for what we wish provided we cause no harm to another.
February 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM
@ Lyndon “We have infinite right to contract with whom we wish in exchange for what we wish provided we cause no harm to another”
Law in general is specific. Contract in one form of law falls short of contract in another form of law. Equity has particularly low standards. It is, after all, EQUITY. Equity is not seeking to enforce a contract so much as it is to seek justice for all. This concept of justice for all is nothing but socialism. You didn’t engage in contractual behavior to seek justice. You wanted to exchange one thing for another.
Think of Iran and their nuclear ‘deal’ again. Not a contract. Not a treaty. A ‘deal’. Congress can ignore it because they haven’t been asked to do one thing or another. Things congress ignores are not legislative. It would be a stretch to think the judicial has anything to do with the ‘deal’ so we are left with an executive decision.
You are free to engage in whatever behavior suits you but don’t come crying to law because you ignore the elements of contract. Your attempt to enforce a contract then falls through a crack and gets decided by equitable principles. Law requires two or more judges, one being of the quorum. Equity requires a chancellor, singular.
I sat in the gallery observing a court of quasi-law a few months ago. The judicial actor was female. She was also singular and had all the power and authority of a singular judge (aka … very little). She also seemed to think I really ought to stand when the jury entered or left. The outcome was undecided as to who was going to prove superior because I chose an opportune time to depart her domain before she had a chance to assign a contempt. A few days later the same defendant was before the same chancellor. He noticed an observer in the gallery with his hat on and he asked the lady why she didn’t tell him to take off his hat (she had made a point of doing so to another observer at the same event I had attended). She told him “I can’t do that. He is my husband.”
Make of this short tale what you will. I make a great deal of it.
February 12, 2016 at 10:09 AM
Gold as a symbol:
The story of one of the tribes of armed men roaming Germany after Alexander the Great died. They were permitted to settle in one area as transients. After several months or so a young ex-Captain approaches a native and offers him his gold shield and helmet in exchange for as much dirt as he could carry. The native laughed and agreed. The captain scraped up a bushel or so and hauled it away. His men on hearing of the deal were not happy. Then the captain proceeded to spread dirt far and wide and wherever his dirt landed he claimed the land. This placed a different light on the transaction. He told his men they now had a homeland and they proceeded to establish their claims by force of arms when presented with resistance to this logic. They won of course.
Point is these ex-soldiers did not go in and claim a bird sanctuary. They claimed what was theirs by right. When you claim a bird sanctuary you had best understand the purpose is to shelter birds. Gold was used in this transaction as a symbol, a bargain struck and the deal (quasi-treaty?) was complete upon possession. Q.E.D.
February 12, 2016 at 10:29 AM
What ever is planted on the soil, or connected to it, is part of the soil. Was the transaction in gold that which put these men back upon the soil? Is gold part of the soil?
February 12, 2016 at 2:06 PM
Gold has been termed ‘portable soil’. Gold itself is what is sovereign. Land. The soil. Gentlemen use silver, peasants use copper and slaves use fiat.
Declaring ownership of land requires several ceremonies. One ceremony is perambulation. You got to make the circuit so that it is known what you are claiming. A second ceremony is livery of seisin. You have to pull a clod from the earth as a token. And when you do it is best you exchange it for something. I like to use wild rose seeds. A marker should be used to identify various parts of the boundary. I use a short metal rod attached to a chain which is attached to a sandwich of plexiglas bolted together and sealed with a notice inside. This is all then placed below grade with a few rocks piled on top.
February 12, 2016 at 8:43 PM
You made some good, valid points above. But the rule of Equity as last resort still applies. Small claims and Federal Court are Claims courts that move under common law. No contract found between parties? Court goes to Equity to decide. This can be very beneficial if you had an exchange, some kind of intercourse, but did not have a contract (all elements have to be there).
You wrote: “It seems to me that most people ASSUME they’re going into a court of LAW when they are actually, but unwittingly, going into a court of EQUITY”. When a Person goes in a statutory court You are presumed to be the Trustee because the State is the Grantor of that Person You represent (Person is just another name for a company). You can’t win with law because You didn’t make rules You agreed to follow them only; you are correct, You plead in equity to not get clobbered (plea bargains). Man is the Grantor of government but You can’t get that standing just going in as a Person trying to tell them You are the Grantor. A man has to claim or the court won’t hear it -even saying it under oath on the stand some times is not enough: the jurist still rules you came in as Trustee. You’re right, people walk away and simply don’t know what happened and the court will never tell them why.
You and Palani, and I actually all agree that law is superior because it is certain because it is specific.. But how to move it? The only way I know of and only way i have been able to move common law is by making a claim as: “man, without [enter name of STATE]”. This way man can OUTLAW equity by only agreeing to rules of common law.
February 12, 2016 at 11:28 PM
The key for a defendant is to establish that you are 1) a man or woman entitled to standing at law; and 2) that there is no equitable relationship between yourself and the other litigant. I.e., you have never voluntarily consented to act in a trust relationship with the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff is the beneficiary and you are the voluntary fiduciary.
The rules, forms and procedures are the same in both law and equity. The difference between law and equity is not found the forms and procedures–it’s found in the standing of the two parties and the nature of their relationship.
As a defendant, you will be silently presumed by the court to have acted in an express or implied fiduciary relationship to the plaintiff–UNLESS you expressly and effectively refute that presumption on the record and perhaps under oath.
February 14, 2016 at 4:31 PM
To “express and refute effectively” we not only put in exhibits, we read our exhibits under oath, and make a claim against the plaintiff that is heard at the same time as the original complaint. It takes alot to stop the Govco in statutory courts…
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)