Silver price discussion and analysis

[Mr Z]

Re: SILVER

Yeah Ted sounds like a loon. Free market means 'voluntary trading', i.e. no force involved. If JPMorgan wants to loose billions of dollars by holding large short positions on a precious metal in a likely inflationary environment, that's their prerogative, and in a free market they are free to do that. To claim 'criminal enterprise is a measured description' is like referring to an 'orange is a deadly weapon' as a measured description.

No actually it is not their prerogative, commodity law recognizes that futures offer the ability to manipulate a market and sets in place limits to trading depending on the type of participant and the market. Bulter's claim is that A. the limits in silver are inappropriately large and B. that they are exceeded. Futures are not a free market in the traditional sense, it is not all about supply and demand when it comes to derivative markets and inappropriate speculative activity can distort price. That is not a problem in a well balanced market but if you get massive concentration of contracts in one controlling entity (or a small number of them) it can produce a very unfair and unfree market.

You really need to get an education, Butler is actually a very experienced commodity trader. You may not agree with him but he is not a loon and has been on the money since $3.xx silver.

 

[explod]

Re: SILVER

Agree, have been following his daily free newsletter for 6 years now and he knows his trade very well and explains things in easy terms for clear understanding. Has a good mix of humour too

http://www.dailypfennig.com/

 

[tothemax6]

Re: SILVER

No actually it is not their prerogative, commodity law recognizes that futures offer the ability to manipulate a market and sets in place limits to trading depending on the type of participant and the market. Bulter's claim is that A. the limits in silver are inappropriately large and B. that they are exceeded. Futures are not a free market in the traditional sense, it is not all about supply and demand when it comes to derivative markets and inappropriate speculative activity can distort price. That is not a problem in a well balanced market but if you get massive concentration of contracts in one controlling entity (or a small number of them) it can produce a very unfair and unfree market.

You really need to get an education, Butler is actually a very experienced commodity trader. You may not agree with him but he is not a loon and has been on the money since $3.xx silver.

Sir, it is you who must educate yourself. Here is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

If there are commodity laws which 'sets in place limits to trading depending on the type of participant', then there is not a free market. There is government intervention, regulation, and state control.
What the fluff is "inappropriate speculative activity"? By what logical perversion would it be a 'free market' if large buyers and sellers could have their trading declared 'inappropriate', and then barred and limited in their trades? Of course large sales and large buys push prices down and up - that's how a market works!

Free market means just what it says - all are free to participate in the market in whatever manner they choose, and no-one's trading is controlled by force or threat of force.

 

[explod]

Re: SILVER

Free market means just what it says - all are free to participate in the market in whatever manner they choose, and no-one's trading is controlled by force or threat of force.

It is not a free market when it is obvious that the big players are taking big positions prior to the announcement of events and news. And such information is created to do just that. The instrument of Moodies within the circle of Wall Street is just one of the many tools to used rob ordinary traders and investors.

When Fannie Mai and Fredie Mack were going under, large postions short were made by the big side of town before the general community were aware that there was was even trouble. And there are now many examples since.

It has reached the point of fraud and criminality and you tothemax, as suggested, need remove your rose coloured glasses and look deeper into what is really going on in the financial world.

 

[Joe Blow]

Good evening all "SILVER" thread participants.

As many of you have probably noticed, I have decided to rename this thread to clarify its subject matter and purpose.

When this thread was originally started around six and a half years ago, there were not many threads on the topic of silver here at ASF and a thread title such as "SILVER" would not be so unusual. These days, things are a little different and the decision to rename the thread was so it could be more easily found, not just via the ASF search function, but by those using Google.

So, it's the same old thread, it just has a new title now.

Please carry on!

 

[disarray]

These days, things are a little different and the decision to rename the thread was so it could be more easily found, not just via the ASF search function, but by those using Google

claiming this as a bullish sign

 

[Mr Z]

Re: SILVER

Sir, it is you who must educate yourself. Here is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

If there are commodity laws which 'sets in place limits to trading depending on the type of participant', then there is not a free market. There is government intervention, regulation, and state control.
What the fluff is "inappropriate speculative activity"? By what logical perversion would it be a 'free market' if large buyers and sellers could have their trading declared 'inappropriate', and then barred and limited in their trades? Of course large sales and large buys push prices down and up - that's how a market works!

Free market means just what it says - all are free to participate in the market in whatever manner they choose, and no-one's trading is controlled by force or threat of force.

Mate... LOL, go learn about commodity and why it limits position size. If it did not the player with the largest bank account would almost always win. We are talking about a market in a derivate product not a market in a commodity. You don't have to have any skin in the game to play in futures, in a traditional spot market you either have to produce or want the commodity in question in a futures market you need no such capacity or intent. Futures markets limit players position size for very good reasons, if they didn't the market would not function as designed and would cease to service the need it was designed to fill. We are not talking about a market in the traditional sense, derivatives are different and need differing considerations because of the potential leverage they can offer those with the money over those with the production of or need for the commodity.

Please don't try and bash me over the head with simplistic free market ideology, artificial financial constructs such as futures really do need differing considerations based on the nature of the contract. They are not a natural market, supply and demand can be endless if you have deep enough pockets. There is little about these instruments that conform to the natural laws of supply and demand that drive free markets. In small markets like silver and gold this can become a major issue. In larger markets such as oil it is less of a problem but it can still create market dislocation that has little to do with the real state of supply and demand.

In a proper free market you have little or no leverage and you need to own it or want it. The laws of supply and demand play out in an unfettered fashion. Competition, efficiency, innovation etc all the positives of capitalism, thrive and are encouraged under this arrangement. In a badly constructed derivative contract that has no limitations all you do is create tool for those with the financial wherewithal to dominate those that really produce and consume. The producers and the consumers are the real market.

You sir are spouting simplistic idealogical clap trap, go and learn why commodities laws is what it is. Go and learn what the dangers are and why they where recognized and regulated from very early in the piece. In the process you should come to understand why the position size and contract concentration that Butler is alleging is a bad thing for the market and impedes true price discovery.

 

[Mr Z]

PS --> IMO all derivatives (well almost all, those that can impact the real market on which they are based) need to be traded on regulated clearing house based exchanges that set in place clear rules, limitations and performance guarantees all based on the nature of the contract. If mortgage backed CDO's where traded in such a fashion we would not have had the debacle that the "free market" created in 2008. (it wasn't really free but for that is for other reasons).

As far as silver goes, to have a situation where a single bullion bank, dubiously classified as a commercial, as they certainly don't produce and can't really be said to consume, can sell more 'paper' silver than the worlds leading mines can produce in a year with no intent or real need to supply 1 oz of it, is untenable. Especially when the same rules prohibit a bona fide consumer of the metal from taking physical delivery of a similar amount of metal.

This is not a question of 'should there be rules', there are rules and they are correct in their structure. This is a question of the quantities prescribed by those rules and the enforcement of those rules, both these things have been rightly called in question by Mr Butler.

 

[tothemax6]

Post 1:
It's either a free market or it is not. It is a free market, you failed to explain how it was not.
Regulation - government control of the actions of private citizens. You cannot have both regulation and a free market, anymore than you can have both a flood and a drought.
Contract - a firm agreement between men. A derivative is just a contract. It has been common practice since as far back as the Dojima Rice Exchange to sell commodity contracts. There is nothing wrong with this practice whatsoever, and there is nothing involved that is inconsistent with a free market.

Post 2:
The location of the trading of the CDOs did not cause the GFC. The GFC was caused by the combination of central planning of the money supply (the Fed put interest rates in 2003 to 1%), and government intervention in the housing market (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac permitting people to buy houses with mortgages they couldn't afford). The combination of the two blew up a huge bubble in the housing market.
The situation you are referring to with the silver bullion bank is not abnormal. Indeed this is how all banks work (wikipedia: fractional reserve banking). The actual quantity of cash that banks own is a small fraction of that which it owes to depositors.

The only rules we need is law based on individual rights.

 

[Mr Z]

1: What are you on about? You claimed JPM should be able to open as many futures as they want unhindered... I said NO thay cannot it is against the regulations and rightly so, then you blow off in some odd 'free market' rant without really understanding how and why futures are structured they way they are. The fact that futures need limitation is not in question, that was settled a long time ago and they have been regulated for a long time. Butlers concern is over the actual existing futures limits in relation to the size of the market.

2: Please work on your comprehension, in no way did I blame the events of 2008 on the way the instruments where traded. As you point out the cause of 2008 was in fact government HOWEVER the way the CDO's where traded contributed to the eventual size of the debacle and IF they where traded on a clearing house based exchange, with all the checks and balances that are typically put in place, and with the transparency of such a market, then you would have had a market that would have had a much better chance of curtailing the excesses rather than contributing to them. A liquid, transparent market always behaves much better that an opaque, over the counter, boutique market. BTW you never mentioned the carry trade... if you are giving out eggs to suck please do the complete job. BTW kid, thanks for the eggs to suck but I'm not I need of an education on the way this system works or how 2008 happened.... I was well ahead of that curve in real time.

The situation you are referring to with the silver bullion bank is not abnormal. Indeed this is how all banks work (wikipedia: fractional reserve banking). The actual quantity of cash that banks own is a small fraction of that which it owes to depositors.

Who is discussing bullion banking? Butler is about the Comex futures market NOT the OTC market in London which is the primary domain of the big bullion banks. That is a different kettle of fish altogether! Butler, "the loon" as you would have it, is focused on the Silver (and to a degree Gold) contracts traded on the Comex when he alleges manipulation. Bullion Banking and unallocated bullion accounts are a separate subject that the real 'loons' like Bix get uppity about. That is another story altogether and has nothing to do with Butler and his allegations. JPM can run as fine as they want on there unallocated silver accounts, LOL, in fact they have already lost one case against them where they sold 'silver' unallocated, charged storage for it AND didn't hold 1 oz of it. Yes they are free, at the moment because bullion banking is unregulated, to sell as much silver as they don't have to whom ever they can suck into opening a bullion account. However that is not the subject, silver futures is.

Butler is alleging criminality because of breeches of existing commodity law NOT because JPM et al are selling lots of unbacked silver in bullion accounts. He is alleging a breech of their actual legal obligations as a participant in the silver futures market. It is actually quite cut an dry to prove IF you can get the records WHICH is the sticking point.... funnily enough... eh?

You are not really sure what part of this you are on about are you? You seem to have it all mixed up

 

[tothemax6]

Please stick to the original debate (me attacking butlers idea of 'free market').

You claimed JPM should be able to open as many futures as they want unhindered... I said NO thay cannot it is against the regulations and rightly so, then you blow off in some odd 'free market' rant without really understanding how and why futures are structured they way they are. The fact that futures need limitation is not in question, that was settled a long time ago and they have been regulated for a long time. Butlers concern is over the actual existing futures limits in relation to the size of the market.

You seem to treat the concepts of 'regulations' and 'commodity law' as hard and fast rules which were always there, and which are there for our own good. They are not. Regulatory laws are limits upon individual rights. Any statutes related to commodity trading which one could call 'commodity law' is merely a restriction on individuals rights to trade commodities. These are not good things, and they are the opposite of a free market.
Now, you can claim that a free market is bad, or that regulations are good, sure. But you cannot claim, that you can both have both regulation and a free market.

No violations of anyone's rights occur because JPMorgan takes very large positions. So long as JPMorgan doesn't inform its stockholders and creditors 'we don't take very large positions', no one is defrauded. If JPMorgan takes a ridiculous position which goes against it, and it is forced to default on its obligations, it gets dissolved by a bankruptcy court (or at least in a functioning legal system without 'too big too fail, bailout' nonsense).

 

[Mr Z]

Please stick to the original debate (me attacking butlers idea of 'free market').

You seem to treat the concepts of 'regulations' and 'commodity law' as hard and fast rules which were always there, and which are there for our own good. They are not. Regulatory laws are limits upon individual rights. Any statutes related to commodity trading which one could call 'commodity law' is merely a restriction on individuals rights to trade commodities. These are not good things, and they are the opposite of a free market.

No that is patently WRONG, you obviously have no understanding of the dynamics at play in futures trading and the potential it offers to manipulate price in the smaller markets. As far as futures trading regulations go, well I guess they have always been there in one form or another, they certainly have evolved over the years and yes they are there for the general well being of the futures market. Hmmmm... again you misunderstand --> No they are not a restriction on anyones rights to trade commodities, they are limits to trading futures contracts. You can buy and sell limitless amounts spot, whatever you have and whatever you need. You have a marked tendency to mash the bullion banks, OTC markets/spot markets and the futures market into the the same mold and yell about freedom. They are markedly different ways to trade commodities, with different rules and regulations. To be very, very clear Mr Butler is talking about trading futures contracts in silver, not silver bullion, 99% of these contracts result in no real silver ever changing hands yet they can have a marked impact on the real commodities price. Enabling a large financial entity that never intends to supply or take delivery of real silver the ability to hold sway over more metal than the market can produce, just because they have the financial where withal to do it, is a recipe for chaos. That would give the big financial players all the power they need to bash the market around at will over the short to mid term. Not a situation that would benefit either side of the real market of producers and consumers. This is why limits are in place, the possibility of abusing futures has long been recognized and long been restricted... and rightly so.

Now, you can claim that a free market is bad, or that regulations are good, sure. But you cannot claim, that you can both have both regulation and a free market.

I'm sorry but that is not correct, free market capitalism can only exist because of the right regulation. You need strong contract law etc to make it work, you need the right regulatory framework to level the playing field and engender competition. No where will you find a successful economy where there is no regulation, it is a matter of having the right and relatively limited regulation. Total freedom is total chaos! All of stock related investments you make happen through regulated exchanges with limits to behavior e.g. rules for acquiring stock for short selling, your obligations when you do so, the penalties for not locating stock you have sold etc etc. The limits that are set in place across all futures are there for similar reasons i.e. to protect the market from abuse. Free markets and regulation go hand in hand, over regulation is bad but no regulation is just as bad. To believe that no regulation offers some sort of free trade nirvana is naive in the extreme.

No violations of anyone's rights occur because JPMorgan takes very large positions. So long as JPMorgan doesn't inform its stockholders and creditors 'we don't take very large positions', no one is defrauded. If JPMorgan takes a ridiculous position which goes against it, and it is forced to default on its obligations, it gets dissolved by a bankruptcy court (or at least in a functioning legal system without 'too big too fail, bailout' nonsense).

Again that is not correct... they are required to abide by the rules set in place by the exchange. Those rules dictate position limits and they are respected by the majority of market participants. By exceeding those limits they are violating the rights of every market participant that is operating within the exchanges rules. You seem to ignore the fact that there is LAW governing the behavior of commodity futures market participants. You also seem to think Mr Butler is a loon for point out that the COT numbers are close to impossible to achieve without some breach of the exchange limits having occurred.

 

[sinner]

No violations of anyone's rights occur because JPMorgan takes very large positions. So long as JPMorgan doesn't inform its stockholders and creditors 'we don't take very large positions', no one is defrauded. If JPMorgan takes a ridiculous position which goes against it, and it is forced to default on its obligations, it gets dissolved by a bankruptcy court (or at least in a functioning legal system without 'too big too fail, bailout' nonsense).

Isn't that exactly the whole point tothemax?

In a market where all the participants are accountable for their losses, there are no issues. You can speculate if you like, if you are wrong then expect a transfer of wealth against you. That is the essence of a free market.

But what if the marketplace is setup such that most players have to abide by those rules, but the biggest participants (who aren't even producers or consumers in any sense of the word) don't? i.e. some players don't get penalised by the market for being wrong? Or can play in such a way that the natural free market penalty is impossible to enforce? Not only does this break the correct transfer of wealth mechanism, it has the effect of building systemic imbalances into price discovery which are often impossible to remove without serious market upheavals.

Personally, I wish JPM all the best in their endeavour, I enjoy buying physical gold and silver from dealers who quote live prices at spot plus premium on the dips they tend to provide during London and NY hours. But the question is now loud and clear: is it still a free market that is setting the price of the underlying assets? Is price discovery during London and NY hours a "free market" price discovery mechanism? I think it's pretty clear (from technical, fundamental and legal perspectives) that it's not.

Have you read the current lawsuit against JP Morgan re silver prices, which they are charged under the RICO act, a statute normally reserved for the US Government to prosecute Yakuza, Triads and originally designed by the same to indict Italian mafioso?

Have you read the series of emails from Andrew Macguire to the CFTC, highlighting the manipulation in real time?

I don't think you are grasping this crucial point about what a free market is and therefore assigning to JPM free market participant status that they do not really deserve.

Mr Z is to be commended for his patience with the rest of us nutters, imho.


Regardless of what any of us say or think, the market tends to have a way of working itself out. You can push price discovery, but it will usually end up pushing back.

 

[tothemax6]

To be very, very clear Mr Butler is talking about trading futures contracts in silver, not silver bullion, 99% of these contracts result in no real silver ever changing hands yet they can have a marked impact on the real commodities price.

Yes, naturally. Trading leveraged positions on anything creates bigger price moves. Indeed far from this being a bad thing, it helps with the supply and demand process since they are functions of the price.
Hypothetical instance: fund X wishes to speculate on bananas. The price is currently $1/kg. Fund X has insight (from weather modeling, surveying of farm yields, whatever) that there is going to be a shortfall of bananas this year. Fund X then buys epic quantity of banana futures contracts (not physical bananas, who needs a tonne of physical bananas?). This contract purchase is so big it forces price to $2/kg. Higher price then triggers farmers to overweight their efforts on bananas, shortfall is reduced. Beautiful isn't it?
Now suppose Fund Y is malicious and evil, with a lust for a good market bash-around. Sure he tries to smash down the price, but this just creates a great buying opportunity for Fund X, who knows the value.

I'm sorry but that is not correct, free market capitalism can only exist because of the right regulation. You need strong contract law etc to make it work, you need the right regulatory framework to level the playing field and engender competition.

This is just more doublethink. Competition exists naturally. Those who claim that the 'playing field isn't level' are more often than not losers, seeking to tilt a flat field in their favour. 'Regulatory framework' is the condescending invention of politicians who believe they know best and should control peoples lives.
You are determined to believe that 2+2=5 and that regulation and a free market can simultaneously occur, so we will use an example:

Bob wants to sell Jane 10,000 fish, and she wants to buy them.
Free market: he does so, she does so.
Now introduce example regulation: 'You cannot sell more than 1000 fish per year, to protect the business of small family fishermen who cannot compete with big fishing magnates.
Bob now attempts to sell the fish to Jane. Bob is prevented from doing so by a man with a gun stood between him and Jane. The man says 'that is more than 1000 fish, you are not permitted to make this trade'.
In the former case, the freedom is obvious - the trade simply happens. In the later case, the lack of freedom is obvious - some arbitrary organization has declared that it has the right to control certain aspects Bob's and Jane's actions by force.

Cognitive dissonance (doublethink) would be required to claim that in the latter case Bob and Jane were operating in a free market.

 

[Mr Z]

Yes, naturally. Trading leveraged positions on anything creates bigger price moves. Indeed far from this being a bad thing, it helps with the supply and demand process since they are functions of the price.
Hypothetical instance: fund X wishes to speculate on bananas. The price is currently $1/kg. Fund X has insight (from weather modeling, surveying of farm yields, whatever) that there is going to be a shortfall of bananas this year. Fund X then buys epic quantity of banana futures contracts (not physical bananas, who needs a tonne of physical bananas?). This contract purchase is so big it forces price to $2/kg. Higher price then triggers farmers to overweight their efforts on bananas, shortfall is reduced. Beautiful isn't it?

Now suppose Fund Y is malicious and evil, with a lust for a good market bash-around. Sure he tries to smash down the price, but this just creates a great buying opportunity for Fund X, who knows the value.
This is just more doublethink. Competition exists naturally. Those who claim that the 'playing field isn't level' are more often than not losers, seeking to tilt a flat field in their favour. 'Regulatory framework' is the condescending invention of politicians who believe they know best and should control peoples lives.
You are determined to believe that 2+2=5 and that regulation and a free market can simultaneously occur, so we will use an example:

Bob wants to sell Jane 10,000 fish, and she wants to buy them.
Free market: he does so, she does so.
Now introduce example regulation: 'You cannot sell more than 1000 fish per year, to protect the business of small family fishermen who cannot compete with big fishing magnates.
Bob now attempts to sell the fish to Jane. Bob is prevented from doing so by a man with a gun stood between him and Jane. The man says 'that is more than 1000 fish, you are not permitted to make this trade'.
In the former case, the freedom is obvious - the trade simply happens. In the later case, the lack of freedom is obvious - some arbitrary organization has declared that it has the right to control certain aspects Bob's and Jane's actions by force.

Cognitive dissonance (doublethink) would be required to claim that in the latter case Bob and Jane were operating in a free market.

If it actually worked that way in all markets, yes it would be beautiful, but alas it doesn't! That is a grossly simplistic, and might I say very condescending analogy. When you have a large player in the futures market, acting with no limit and playing in a small market you then get a situation where it is very easy to suppress price constantly and make a profit doing it. The fact that these markets sell down very quickly and regain ground more slowly makes it a very simple operation to apply downward price pressure until the market breaks and then cover the sales at a profit. One of the things that makes this more possible in the silver is the unique nature of silver production, it is supply and demand inelastic because most of it comes out of the ground as a byproduct. Supply, by and large doesn't respond very well to price movement, it is certainly nothing like your grossly simplistic example.

Anywhoooo.... fish smish! You are giving a spot market example while arguing that futures should not be limited! Nobody expects limitations in the spot market nor do they exist!!!!!! JPM are selling paper contracts NOT silver, the paper contracts (futures) are limit in quantity (rightly so) while direct silver sales, per se, are not! (rightly so) Again I repeat that the futures are limited because they offer the ability to swamp a market utilizing the leverage offered even if you have no ability or intention to supply or take the material being traded. It is very much like being able to short sell a stock, naked, without limit. I can't imagine anyone would be silly enough to claim that is their right in a free market.

A case could be made that if you don't own it or can't borrow to sell then you have no natural right to sell it, in any market!!! However futures markets are not even that stringent, they simply say that you can only sell so much (quite a generous limit BTW) and if you need to sell more you have to justify it with the exchange, hell it is not even a hard limit, big producers etc can exceed it as required if their real world hedging needs are larger than the rules cater for.

I'm amazed that you ignore the fact that most all market participants have willingly engaged in a futures market that have limits without complaint. Don't you think that if this where not advantageous these people would complain?

Anyway, your little "according to max" free market ideas are quaint and all but they have no bearing on the fact that JPM stand accused of abusing market power and exceeding position limits,a real criminal offense. Which is actually what you call Mr Butler a loon for pointing out. There is a class action against JPM right now over their decades of dubious activity in the silver market. Now I doubt that JPM will suffer much for it and I am sure it will be tied up in the "best legal system that money can buy" for so long that it will die a natural death of old age, but none the less there must be a prima facie case for the class action to get up in the first place.... seems that many don't agree with your idea of not criminal.

Hmmmm... double think... yeah LOL... more like NO THINK! Again you keep mashing together the various market types with your very confused ideas of how this silver market actually works. What can I say other that this is getting boring so ---> so long and thanks for all the fish, I'm leaving your fictitious and strange little "free market" planet that has no regulation and where all behave in a benign fashion in fear of 'market discipline' ! I look forward to skinning you in the market..... using the rules Come trade Silver against me... I need to cut this months pay cheque.

CYA

 

[Mr Z]

Just one more shot...

This is just more doublethink. Competition exists naturally.

No it is not "just more doublethink" and while competition exists naturally, healthy competition doesn't, might has right where there are no laws. Good contract law and associated regulation are necessary precursors of capitalism. Go and study the history of Hong Kong and look to the reasons for its success. You will find good contract law and minimal but appropriate regulation set up the playing field for the beneficial aspects of free market competition to play out. Remove that structure and might has right, abuses will occur and small players will be marginalized and even eliminated. If you believe anything else you live in fluffy fairyland. You are, very naively I might add, arguing for anarchy! Now call me silly, but I can't recall any major civilization that was built on a base of anarchy! Can you?

 

[adamim1]

I don't consider a market to be free when a few big players can control price movements whenever they want. Laws are there to control this unfair manipulation.

 

[adamim1]

I posted the gold version in the "gold" thread.

Here is the silver version.

 

[tothemax6]

Anywhoooo.... fish smish! You are giving a spot market example while arguing that futures should not be limited!

OK insert 'for december delivery' after the word fish.

A case could be made that if you don't own it or can't borrow to sell then you have no natural right to sell it, in any market!!!

Yes but that case follows the same idea as limiting futures sizes. It is the idea that because someone doesn't have the commodity now then they have no possibility of guaranteeing having it in the future. However, every bank in the world works on this principle (with the 'commodity' in question being money). The force that keeps people in check and not over-issuing is risk of default.

Good contract law and associated regulation are necessary precursors of capitalism. Go and study the history of Hong Kong and look to the reasons for its success.

Good contract law is sufficient, regulation is not capitalist. Hong kong follows the economic policy of 'positive non-interventionism'. It is so (relatively) capitalist and non-regulated that banks can still issue their own banknotes. Indeed it is the closest thing to a free market that the world has.

I look forward to skinning you in the market..... using the rules Come trade Silver against me... I need to cut this months pay cheque.

Hope you weren't in at 49 . PS. I am not bearish silver for now, but it will be exposed to the coming Chinese construction bubble crash as it is an industrial commodity as well as 'money-like'. I would be more inclined to take a position on gold.

 

[adamim1]

huge drop in silver!!