Jim Sinclair has something to say, (and I personally disagree)Submitted by Apple on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 07:07
FM: What if political pressure on Bernanke prevents him from continuing QE?
JS: That is why Ron Paul can’t win. The desire to do the right thing would be absolutely the wrong thing. The explosion you would hear economically, you would hear on Mars. The right things only can be done in conditions of economic ease. You can’t have a gold convertible currency. You can’t at this point in time violently drain the system. That whole mountain of notional value will descend on us all. The idea that we are going to have a change in administration, in an extreme sense, isn’t going to happen. The other candidates that have any possibility of being able to [beat] President Obama wouldn’t make much change. The only one in there who would make great change — and it would be wonderful intellectually and horrible practically — [is Ron Paul]. We are in a box, there is one way out, there is only one tool available, quantitative easing.
FM: What about silver?
JS: Silver is not money for one practical reason: It is too heavy. Gold is extremely portable. If you wanted to buy a pick-up truck you could put the money in your lefty pocket in gold but if you wanted to buy it with silver even at today’s prices you would need a pick-up truck full of silver. Silver is not as monetary as gold
Sinclair is a legendary Gold trader, but politically the system has to change to make it fair. Ron Paul's competing currencies and balancing the budget plan would even out the playing field for the the people who can't get .25% loans and have to pay 20%. If the general population could get the same loans the insiders get with no collateral and no personal guarantee and .25% interest, then nobody would be defaulting and everyone would be borrowing and house prices would be way up. How would the the insiders like it if the the shoe was on the other foot. They would be crying like babies. ($250,000 @ .25% interest is $102 a month)
Most importantly, Ron Paul represents personal freedom and free markets. If the insiders can't compete on a level playing field then they shouldn't be in charge. It's called capitalism. The insiders should try it some time, and join the rest of us.
BTW, when halve of Bain Capital's leverage buyouts went bankrupt was Mitt and his buddies on the hook personally like the rest of us would be? I suspect the answer is no, and that's not capitalism.