"For the system, money has become either totally free, or extraordinarily cheap, and available to all. "
The problem when some people read this kind of assertion is that they would ask themselves "Hey why shouldn't money be totally free ? This should be good no ? Is this guy wanting to prevent people from getting rich ? " So this kind of text can be even more dangerous because it doesn't explain really the problem : it can even mislead to the contrary. This is in fact the same argument than FED uses when FED when wants to increase the rates again.
When it is said that "money has become either totally free" the term free is ambiguous. Free is associated in people mind with liberty. This would be true if there wasn't a power like FED or Governement, it doesn't really matter if private or public power since it is the same group of people in either case, who has the power to raise the rate so that "free" mean rather low value of unit of money but globally (think global is obvious) the real value of total money is constant that is to say people are paid for example with paper with less and less real value and have to pay what they buy at a relatively high price since I have already explained that Governement and Corporation have more power than people to maintain a certain price even during deflation and they can even profit from low rates whereas the majority of the mass can't especially during crisis they have no more assets to garantee any credit and if they really need to borrow they will have to borrow at a very high rate and sooner or later the rest of their real assets that is to say their home will be taken especially when the rates will increase. So free rather mean "free slavery". Free would mean liberty only in a stable rate hypothesis : this is an impossible premisce since FED pretend to use rate variation for regulating whereas it is more than regulation: it is variation that could appear as not so great but they use an amplificaton system through the banking system so that the entire economy is leveraged like in stock market. And everybody knows : when you use money you don't really own what happens one day to the majority when crisis arrive ? The crisis hasn't arrived yet but it WILL arrive because it is unescapable like gravitation law. When I speak of crisis I mean the secular crisis which happens every 50 or 100 years I don't mean just a little deflation or inflation we have known until now during the seventies eigthies. So it won't happen straight away there could even be a new stock market rally before (I said that my model has a target of 16000 for the most optimistic projection) but it will only imply one thing: the things will get even more worse after the last mania. My estimation is within ten years.
I bet that when the FED will need to increase the rate they would exactly use that kind of argument . And then everybody will claim : what a great man ! This is really a farce and again the same farce that reproduce many times in history. And pro-fed Analysts (that is to say the banks and the big brokers) and so called "Goldbugs" oppose one each other - although I find that the Goldbugs speak more truth - nevertheless even goldbugs groups have a big interest to overfrighten people, they are playing their role when needed. It doesn't mean that there is duplicity with FED it means that the FED know perfectly when to let the Goldbugs group speak and when to make them shut up through their exposition or not to the medias.
The problem when some people read this kind of assertion is that they would ask themselves "Hey why shouldn't money be totally free ? This should be good no ? Is this guy wanting to prevent people from getting rich ? " So this kind of text can be even more dangerous because it doesn't explain really the problem : it can even mislead to the contrary. This is in fact the same argument than FED uses when FED when wants to increase the rates again.
When it is said that "money has become either totally free" the term free is ambiguous. Free is associated in people mind with liberty. This would be true if there wasn't a power like FED or Governement, it doesn't really matter if private or public power since it is the same group of people in either case, who has the power to raise the rate so that "free" mean rather low value of unit of money but globally (think global is obvious) the real value of total money is constant that is to say people are paid for example with paper with less and less real value and have to pay what they buy at a relatively high price since I have already explained that Governement and Corporation have more power than people to maintain a certain price even during deflation and they can even profit from low rates whereas the majority of the mass can't especially during crisis they have no more assets to garantee any credit and if they really need to borrow they will have to borrow at a very high rate and sooner or later the rest of their real assets that is to say their home will be taken especially when the rates will increase. So free rather mean "free slavery". Free would mean liberty only in a stable rate hypothesis : this is an impossible premisce since FED pretend to use rate variation for regulating whereas it is more than regulation: it is variation that could appear as not so great but they use an amplificaton system through the banking system so that the entire economy is leveraged like in stock market. And everybody knows : when you use money you don't really own what happens one day to the majority when crisis arrive ? The crisis hasn't arrived yet but it WILL arrive because it is unescapable like gravitation law. When I speak of crisis I mean the secular crisis which happens every 50 or 100 years I don't mean just a little deflation or inflation we have known until now during the seventies eigthies. So it won't happen straight away there could even be a new stock market rally before (I said that my model has a target of 16000 for the most optimistic projection) but it will only imply one thing: the things will get even more worse after the last mania. My estimation is within ten years.
I bet that when the FED will need to increase the rate they would exactly use that kind of argument . And then everybody will claim : what a great man ! This is really a farce and again the same farce that reproduce many times in history. And pro-fed Analysts (that is to say the banks and the big brokers) and so called "Goldbugs" oppose one each other - although I find that the Goldbugs speak more truth - nevertheless even goldbugs groups have a big interest to overfrighten people, they are playing their role when needed. It doesn't mean that there is duplicity with FED it means that the FED know perfectly when to let the Goldbugs group speak and when to make them shut up through their exposition or not to the medias.
I've had more than a couple whiskeys, but this statement I do not understand. Lower demand = higher prices? And, I thought gold mines are (in general) running a chunk below cap, so they can up production should a spike occur? I'd appreciate it if you could explain.