Realcent.org

So....
What are the hive's thoughts of what happens in the PM market, if Romney wins in 5 months?

In terms of spending/borrowing...
With a landslide election win, do we start to live within our means? Maybe.
With a narrow win, what happens? More of the same, probably.
With an Obama win, what happens? Huge inflation, dollar worth nothing, economic stagnation for years, in my opinion.

In terms of PM prices...?

I'd like to hear your opinions, Realcent.

Top contributors to Romney campaign:
Goldman Sachs $573,080
JPMorgan Chase & Co $415,075
Bank of America $398,850
Morgan Stanley $373,850
Credit Suisse Group $317,410
Citigroup Inc $301,550
Kirkland & Ellis $248,052
Barclays $228,400
PricewaterhouseCoopers $214,250
Wells Fargo $204,300
HIG Capital $191,000
UBS AG $190,500
Blackstone Group $182,550
Bain Capital $149,000
Marriott International $132,827
EMC Corp $129,200
Citadel Investment Group $127,125
Elliott Management $125,975
Deloitte LLP $124,250
Bain & Co $123,050

Top contributors to Obama:
Microsoft Corp $347,916
DLA Piper $297,027
University of California $261,846
Sidley Austin LLP $240,846
Google Inc $212,719
Harvard University $194,458
Comcast Corp $184,706
Skadden, Arps et al $153,059
Morgan & Morgan $135,145
US Dept of State $131,032
Time Warner $129,314
US Government $126,164
Stanford University $124,115
Kaiser Permanente $111,781
National Amusements Inc $109,389
Columbia University $108,247
Mayer Brown LLP $108,032
Wilmerhale Llp $106,061
University of Chicago $104,617
Jones Day $100,100

Please note that it is individuals within these various organizations that are making the actual donation, not the organizations themselves. Interestingly, the 2008 figures for Obama are as follows:
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

The point here is that Romney or Obama, Obamney or Rombama, it won't make any difference. The candidates are owned by the big corporations. Obama is lying when he says those headwinds caused by the failed policies of the 8 years preceding his presidency have kept him from fixing the economy. Romney is lying when he says he can return America to prosperity. No matter who wins, massive default, a reset, is necessary. PMs are going to do what ever they do in a deflationary or inflationary scenario. We may get one or the other. We may get one then the other.

I have known and supported Ron Paul since 1976. Even if he, by some miracle, gets elected, the country would still have to descend to extremely austere conditions before the good times return.

If obama wins, more of the same money printing, flat GDP, continued high unemployment, moderate inflation, increased government spending and low interest rates until some event triggers folks to wake up to the risky debt levels we are reaching weakening the US dollar. PMs trend up steadily until the trigger event occurs and then gold spikes, silver might participate some, but not nearly as much. The oddity I see here is that after the trigger event, interest rates would rise due to the need to fund our debt and attract treasury buyers,yet PMs could still be strong as people fear the loss of purchasing power of the US dollar.

If Romney wins, economy and jobs picture improve in 2013-14, inflation picks up as banks start putting money to use into economy instead of buying more treasuries with free money. As inflation picks up, PM prices rise. Silver does just as well as gold or better due to economy improving. Romney gets re-elected in 2016 despite inflation being high. In the second term things really overheat with inflation. Eventually, we have a Volker moment and fed raises rates to choke inflation and we go into recession again. PMs get killed with the interest rate spike.

Utter speculation and interesting to think about and likely easy to poke holes in anyone's theories...nobody knows and anyone that says they do is a fool. It will be fun to read everyone else's scenarios.

inflationhawk wrote:If obama wins, more of the same money printing, flat GDP, continued high unemployment, moderate inflation, increased government spending and low interest rates until some event triggers folks to wake up to the risky debt levels we are reaching weakening the US dollar. PMs trend up steadily until the trigger event occurs and then gold spikes, silver might participate some, but not nearly as much. The oddity I see here is that after the trigger event, interest rates would rise due to the need to fund our debt and attract treasury buyers,yet PMs could still be strong as people fear the loss of purchasing power of the US dollar.

If Romney wins, economy and jobs picture improve in 2013-14, inflation picks up as banks start putting money to use into economy instead of buying more treasuries with free money. As inflation picks up, PM prices rise. Silver does just as well as gold or better due to economy improving. Romney gets re-elected in 2016 despite inflation being high. In the second term things really overheat with inflation. Eventually, we have a Volker moment and fed raises rates to choke inflation and we go into recession again. PMs get killed with the interest rate spike.

Utter speculation and interesting to think about and likely easy to poke holes in anyone's theories...nobody knows and anyone that says they do is a fool. It will be fun to read everyone else's scenarios.

Your forgetting the Mayan 2012 predictions, the instability in the Middle East, and what hipsters will think s the "next fad they can corrupt with their stupidity."

@shinnosuke

It is interesting to note the difference in contributors. Obama's is largely technology corporations or government entities. Romney's list is primarily big banks. It is the big banks who are holding down PM right now, so that they can buy it cheaper.

shinnosuke wrote:Top contributors to Romney campaign:
Goldman Sachs $573,080
JPMorgan Chase & Co $415,075
Bank of America $398,850
Morgan Stanley $373,850
Credit Suisse Group $317,410
Citigroup Inc $301,550
Kirkland & Ellis $248,052
Barclays $228,400
PricewaterhouseCoopers $214,250
Wells Fargo $204,300
HIG Capital $191,000
UBS AG $190,500
Blackstone Group $182,550
Bain Capital $149,000
Marriott International $132,827
EMC Corp $129,200
Citadel Investment Group $127,125
Elliott Management $125,975
Deloitte LLP $124,250
Bain & Co $123,050

Top contributors to Obama:
Microsoft Corp $347,916
DLA Piper $297,027
University of California $261,846
Sidley Austin LLP $240,846
Google Inc $212,719
Harvard University $194,458
Comcast Corp $184,706
Skadden, Arps et al $153,059
Morgan & Morgan $135,145
US Dept of State $131,032
Time Warner $129,314
US Government $126,164
Stanford University $124,115
Kaiser Permanente $111,781
National Amusements Inc $109,389
Columbia University $108,247
Mayer Brown LLP $108,032
Wilmerhale Llp $106,061
University of Chicago $104,617
Jones Day $100,100

Please note that it is individuals within these various organizations that are making the actual donation, not the organizations themselves. Interestingly, the 2008 figures for Obama are as follows:
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

The point here is that Romney or Obama, Obamney or Rombama, it won't make any difference. The candidates are owned by the big corporations. Obama is lying when he says those headwinds caused by the failed policies of the 8 years preceding his presidency have kept him from fixing the economy. Romney is lying when he says he can return America to prosperity. No matter who wins, massive default, a reset, is necessary. PMs are going to do what ever they do in a deflationary or inflationary scenario. We may get one or the other. We may get one then the other.

I have known and supported Ron Paul since 1976. Even if he, by some miracle, gets elected, the country would still have to descend to extremely austere conditions before the good times return.

They will be announced as the president of the united states brought to you by Goldman sachs from this election forward.

RTPMarine wrote:@shinnosuke

It is interesting to note the difference in contributors. Obama's is largely technology corporations or government entities. Romney's list is primarily big banks. It is the big banks who are holding down PM right now, so that they can buy it cheaper.

But notice that Obama had the big banks in '08. The elite have decided that it's better for public relations to have a Republican in office this time.

shinnosuke wrote:

RTPMarine wrote:But notice that Obama had the big banks in '08. The elite have decided that it's better for public relations to have a Republican in office this time.

Or the banks want to line the pockets of the politician they expect to win?

RTPMarine wrote:

shinnosuke wrote:

RTPMarine wrote:But notice that Obama had the big banks in '08. The elite have decided that it's better for public relations to have a Republican in office this time.

Or the banks want to line the pockets of the politician they expect to win?

Yes, that's a fair assessment, too.

RTPMarine wrote:

shinnosuke wrote:

RTPMarine wrote:But notice that Obama had the big banks in '08. The elite have decided that it's better for public relations to have a Republican in office this time.

Or the banks want to line the pockets of the politician they expect to win?

Agreed.