Replies to post #1180 on Mining Sector Ideas

[gfp927z]

Bigworld, 2500 for gold by year end sounds feasible. It took 12 years to finally break through 2000 convincingly, so I figure the upside should be considerable as gold makes up for lost time.

Thanks for the Rinear update. I think he's right about the Fed wanting to help the markets remain relatively buoyant and in kumbaya mode. You said that Rinear is mainly a shorter term trader, but I figure we're in more of a buy/hold environment for the foreseeable future. Fed guidance is for 3 rate cuts this year, so that's a clear tailwind for the markets, therefore 'don't fight the Fed' seems like the logical strategy. Landmines abound though - geopolitical, election, black swans, so caution is warranted. So I figure a moderate stock allocation (28%) to take into account the risks, and a buy / hold strategy to take into account the Fed tailwind.



---

[gfp927z]

Bigworld, Btw, with that bridge collision, I haven't looked into it much, but not every big event is a conspiracy. Having seen various false flag events over the years, the tendency is for us observers to start seeing conspiracies everywhere. They do happen, but with the bridge collision it seems unlikely. According to Wikipedia - >>> the ship suffered a "complete blackout" and began to drift out of the shipping channel; a backup generator supported electrical systems but did not provide power to the propulsion system. <<<

So a conspiracy narrative would have to first account for the complete blackout on the ship. The possibilities would be - 1) someone on the ship deliberately disabled the power, or 2) the power was disabled by external means. Not impossible, but more likely just a non-intentional failure within the electrical system, and then the bigger problem was that the backup system did not provide power to the propulsion system.

When we see a 'blame China / Russia' explanation for an event, that is almost always wrong, but is a convenient 'go to' smokescreen for anything that happens, ie 'Russia-gate'. Ditto with the 'blame the Arabs' explanation for events. It can happen, but more likely the real culprit is the CIA, MI-6, NATO Intelligence, Mossad, etc. Not always, but with a false flag the idea is to pin the blame on your enemy in order to justify the desired response.

Fwiw, I figure we'll be due for a 9-11 part 2 at some point in order to justify the 'US bombs Iran' scenario. Iran is close to getting nuclear weapon, so it seems inevitable that their Natanz underground facilities will have to be attacked before too long. Probably next year (?), but just a guess. Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities are reportedly under a mountain, so presumably tactical nuke bunker buster bombs will be needed. So that means - 1) the US has to do it, and 2) a big pretext event will be needed to justify the attack (ala 9-11). The alternative of allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons won't be allowed by either US foreign policy groups in power (Trilaterals or Neocons), at least that's the assumption. But lots of unknowns.


False Flag -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag




---