Spot gold recovered above support at $1700 per ounce. Frequent penetrations of the declining trendline indicate the correction is slowing. Note how the metal tends to move in increments of $25. Breakout above $1725 would indicate an advance to $1900*. Breach of resistance at $1800 would confirm. A 63-day Twiggs Momentum trough above zero is likely — and would signal a primary up-trend, while reversal below zero is unlikely and would warn of a down-trend.
* Target calculation: 1800 + ( 1800 – 1700 ) = 1900
if we look at the point and figure long term chart on spot gold (10 and 20 USD) we can see much activity due to the fail to overcome resistance levels at 1820 and 1940 USD. I would bet a fortune on that the PPT (plunge protection team) has riged the gold market with fresh green money produced out of thin air to control the gold market price surge. The tactic is to get the market in a range bound situation 1540 to 1800 USD. If they fail to control this and we see new highs on gold the collaps of the debt based money system will accelerate. Since gold and precious metals are effective gauge of inflation we have to watch closely what is going on in the gold and silver markets. Infinite economic growth on a limited planet is impossible and dangerous for the whole human race.
A PPT would not have introduced QE3. The bull run was coming to an end until QE3 gave it new life.
Hi Colin,
Thanks for sending me your Trading Diary. I had one question about your comment:
“Barack Obama appears to have secured sufficient electoral votes to win re-election. The move may indicate anticipation of easier monetary policy and ****larger fiscal deficits than under Mitt Romney.**** ”
How does one anticipate larger fiscal deficits with Obama as opposed to Romney? All political biases put aside, it would seem that the Republican administrations have accumulated greater fiscal deficits than the Democrat Administrations. This assumes the first year’s deficit of any administration was inherited from the previous administration, and it assumes that the deficit as a percentage of the GDP.
Thanks!
you will never gain something for the public out of the duopoly situation in the US (democrats or republicans i.e. mac donalds or burger king). You can choose only between the pest or ebola. Ron Paul a republican who would have made a tremendous difference as president of the united states was discarded up front, because he is a real threat for the bankster monopoly.
You would have to change the whole electoral process before someone like Paul or Johnson could have a say in government. This is long overdue but don’t hold your breath. There is too much self-interest at stake.
Democrats were in office during the two world wars and the Great Depression — are you excluding these periods?
Are you saying the President elected in November is not responsible for the budget the following October?
The three peaks are Wilson, Roosevelt/Truman, and Bush/Obama.
My comments are referring to the more recent developments starting in the Carter administration, not ancient history. Moreover, it is my understanding that the real estate bubble-burst was unprecedented, but perhaps that is misinformation. However, I do believe that the 13.5 percent deficit/GDP in 2009 was a product of the Bush administration, not Obama’s. I cannot understand how Obama can be blamed for not fixing a problem in 3 years … with a divided legislation no less … when it has been developing since the banks were deregulated. At best, over the past 4 years American politics have been steered by a can of finger-pointing, smoke-and-mirrors, uncooperative, bipartisan worms. As a result, when it comes to the most recent fiscal deficits you are seeing a hodgepodge of variables, not a single party’s effect.
We can’t blame Obama for not fixing the problem in 3 years nor can we blame Bush for 9/11 and the ensuing conflicts — or Wilson and Roosevelt for the problems during their tenures. This is not black and white (or red and blue) but varying shades of gray.