I would like to hear your explanation on Brown's bottom. Why did he announce well before he sold the gold?
I am not sure what sort of response I can offer you.... Because Gordon Brown is an autocratic idiot that is constitutionally not capable of hearing any voice/view other than his own?
Assuming Brown acted on behalf of others, beneficially for them, in selling the gold (but not for the people's interests that he should Constitutionally answer to) Then it sounds like a conspiracy to me. But those things don't happen, right?
Well, there's no Constitution in the UK, right? And it's not like we have ever seen any evidence that this was anything more sinister than Brown just being a total misguided idiot who simply refused to listen to what informed people were telling him... We have seen no proof or even suspicion that Brown was acting on behalf of some mysterious group of "others". Furthermore, the UK public has enough faith in The Gord that it's on the brink of electing him as a PM for another lengthy term. Does that sound like a Gordon Brown conspiracy to you? Please, by all means, if you know or suspect anything concrete, do let the papers know. The Tories need all the help they can get right about now.
I borrowed the term "Constitutionally" from your post, and yes I thought that was odd you used the term. I guess you used it differently? Anyway, we'll see about the details re Brown's Bottom. If the truth ever comes out. But I have to disagree with you when you broadly ridicule people that feel there are conspiracies at the Fed. The definition of Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. US history is filled with conspiracies- Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, Whitewater coverup, etc.... These are all conspiracies, that is, several people acted together to accomplish a goal that would be otherwise not be allowed but for the opaqueness of their actions. In relation to the Fed: The entire AIG fiasco, the Lehman brothers Repo incident, the forced merger of Merril Lynch and Bank of America, and the handling of the bonuses at Merrill and BAC shareholders kept in the dark... MartinG, please don't tell me that all those incidents were above board. But one thing I do share with you is your frustration with - Gordo, the Tories, and the UK people in general. Are they all so incompetent and ignorant that they allow the status quo? Actually, of all I mentioned, if Gordo/Labor wins, I guess he's arguably the most intelligent person on your island. Cheers!
agree. i also think it is a waste of time and energy for a trader, especially a day trader such as myself, to worry about such things. as i posted in another threrad about the ppt: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2691322&highlight=ppt#post2691322 personally, i don't care whether it exists or not. to me, the "ppt" is simiar to the infamous "them" for too many traders. by that i mean many traders who lose money blame "them" (whoever "they" are). and the ppt is an all too convenient excuse for traders to latch onto when they are short and lose money. another way to look at it is this......when i have a winning ES trade i can consider myself lucky to be on the correct side of "whoever" it is that is moving the market...i don't care who it is. if you are a daytrader (especially index traders), you should, imo, not be concerned with "who" is moving the market, or even why they are doing it. the job of a daytrader is to make money, and not to prove something. i have seen other traders get locked into a "this rally is a pump job" mindset and then get stubborn with shorts. don't get me wrong here, i go short all the time, but i don't blame anyone else when i lose money, its just my own mistake and lack of luck to be on the wrong side of "them"....whoever "they" are having said that, i do believe the ppt exists, however i recc. that an index daytrader never use it as an excuse.
Indeed, Misthos, I used the term "constitutionally" to describe a quality of The Gord that is part of his nature, his basic make-up. I wasn't referring to anything political. As to conspiracies, you know I disagree... To me conspiracies are certainly possible, but improbable. Thus, while I am happy to entertain the possibility, I would make sure that I reject all of the other, more plausible, explanations first. In the specific case of the conspiracies perpetrated by the Fed, I don't disagree with you, regarding the crap that went on with the bank rescues. Most of my comments are addressed at the secret "actions" that some commentators claim the Fed has engineered in the UST and money mkts. As to UK politics, doesn't the whole sorry situation conclusively demonstrate that every nations gets exactly the leadership/govt it deserves?
Just like they say... It's all in your mind buddy, it's all in your mind... Just try to never take reality and logic for what they really are, and you are on your way to become a knowledgeable, educated and thinking individual.
Oh no, woe is me! Here I was merrily bumbling along thinking that I am already a "knowledgeable, educated and thinking individual". Ah well, I guess it's back to the drawing board for me.