Magox

Ok, I'm gonna with that you're not pretending, just simply that you are one. You desperately are trying to find any article to support your views and every time you think you have, you produce one that supports my argument. The term "correction" implies short-term pull back in an UPWARD trend. Look it up You keep posting short-term analysis, while I talk about the long-term. You don't need to drop this paper because of them, the problem is that the person reading it is clueless. Thanks for posting this. lol

Geez

I'm not going to comment on what "should be", but it certainly would be if we weren't printing money, yes.

Seriously. Are you a dumbass or you do you pretend to be one on this message board? Did we not just have this discussion?

In the markets, dipshit.

Again, you simply don't have a decent understanding of how the markets work. Who care's that position limits on non-commercials were ended? I'm going to make this very simple for you, if the prices get too high, people will not buy at those levels for a sustained period of time. If the prices are deemed reasonable, then they will. It's as simple as that. You just can't fathom the thought that the price of oil has continued it's upward trajectory for more than a decade now. Face it, prices will continue to go higher as long as monetary policy remains extremely loose.

Imagine that, attempting to create a contrast from one of the worst economic minded presidents in U.S history, is considered "bashing"

I don't know why I bother. I think it's just that I like to talk about economics and sometimes when I make mention of certain hot button issues for him, he engages. But seriously, for someone who is as involved in economics as he is, I have a hard time understanding how he believes that speculation doesn't cut both ways. He seems to believe that "Speculation" is responsible for the high prices that we are seeing today. That is absurd. First off, speculators are involved in every single equity on this planet. Speculators buy when conditions indicate that prices seem primed to go higher. Speculators sell when conditions change and indicate worsening fundamentals. Sometimes speculators go wild and prices get too pricey, which of course ALWAYS leads to a sell off, in which many of those speculators get hammered. Same for the inverse, speculators sometimes get too scared and prices sell off and become extremely oversold. In his mind, he somehow has this notion that Speculators in the oil markets are a different breed. That they have been buying oil irrationally for almost 10 years now. He also believes that people buying oil or commodities because of currency devaluation are some odd group of cockamamie investors, that at some point are going to be proven wrong. Well that's utterly ridiculous. Conditions are ripe for higher tangible assets, currencies are weak and as long as monetary policy remains extremely loose, prices will remain high. And you can take that to the bank, unless of course the world falls into another recession, in which of course the response from monetary policy makers will be to only further erode their currencies, which will lead to future inflation.

Obama's economic Growth record, the worst in 60 years Obama's first term legacy is 1) That he was incapable of ushering us into a decent recovery and oversaw one of the most anemic economies in modern day U.S history 2) Exploded the U.S deficit with 4 straight Trillion dollar deficits. No sitting president even achieved half that amount. 3) Signed into law one of the largest and unpopular pieces of legislation in U.S history.

Oh Geez! How many times have we talked about this? We've even spoken about these studies before. No one denies that speculation can add froth to the price or for that matter cause excessive selling leading to oversold markets. What you don't understand, is that the overall rising trend or the baselines that i was talking about the other day, has virtually nothing to do with the rising price. Why can't you get that through your head?

What? So you have the market rising up in a direct line for almost one straight month, and predicting a pull back within a month or two is some sort of amazing prediction?

Why should the R's agree to anything Obama proposes? Virtually everything he has passed has or is destined to failed. The economy sucks, debt is exploding, government is continuing to grow at an exorbitant rate, entitlements are being ignored and he passed a health care bill that is going to seriously !@#$ up the entire system come here shortly. Sorry, but everything the fool proposes ends up being detrimental to the economy. No thanks

You truly don't understand what markets are. Until you do, you will always remain clueless on this topic.

Oh my god!! It's the SPECULATORS!!! Run for your lives! They mean you harm!

I could agree that it could be linked to one another, and that I believe that is precisely what will happen. However, budget deficits are tied to lending through U.S bonds, not the printing of money. I can also fairly certainly say that what is driving gold prices higher isn't so much because of our ballooning deficits, even though it certainly plays a role, but much more so the devaluation of currencies across the board. The way investors should view gold is an alternate currency, as monetary policy becomes loose, the price of gold goes higher, as it tightens, the appeal drops off.

"Increasing the debt limit means you print more dollars" is a false statement.

Sheppard just doesn't seem to be able to cover enough ground, from what I've seen he always seems to hit the gap on those out wide plays a tad too late. I don't know if it's that his instincts aren't quite there to anticipate those players better or if he lacks the speed to make the play. In any case, I don't believe he is the answer.

I don't believe the debt has been the fundamental driver of gold over this past decade's bull run. It's more about currency devaluation than anything else.

I was just reading that the amount of money people are spending on gas – as a percentage of household income is at nearly 30-year highs.

That's a helluva observation there.

Oh the Irony

I agree that he should be replaced, but it is a new hole to fill, because with the current roster we have he would of been a starter.

The release of Barnett and Wilson are two of the better cap savings cuts we could have possibly made. If I'm not mistaken, the cuts of these two will save us over $7 M next year. I'm guessing they are saving cash for some re signings and new signings come FA.

I'd be perfectly happy if we selected Ansah with the #8 pick overall. In the senior bowl did you guys happen to catch how he sped out to the corner to make an open field tackle on Denard Robinson? Or in the first half when he had that impressive bull rush against the tackle, he drove that guy straight to the QB. He's got the speed and strength to be a stud at the next level, now what he needs is desire and more experience.