EurAnalysis

zombies are good to me i am green now i am still looking for price to reach 1.3330 next few days hail zombies lol

good luck to U !!!!

Now that Benny Cakes has stopped his oral flatulence, let's see what the market decides to do.

As I speculated earlier, any rallies from here should be capped by 1.3240/50 area and I still hold that view. However, I am not psychic. I am just telling it as I read it right now. As always, time will tell.

I still think that we could hit 13280-90 with a cap on the daily 200sma at 13320.
which i now wouldn't mind.
Guess we are going to ave to wait for the job report tomorrow.

do u think market taking out all stops before taking its natural course toward 1.2500 and below.by the way i am still sitting on the fence.i am still very flexible mentally.i have a feeling market will take the direction tommorrow afternoon[london].

We should all take note that historically, whenever Bernanke hold a press conference, the market listens intently to every word and dissects his statements for the slightest hint of further QE. It's like heroin to them; every little spec gets them jonsing for more and the slightest hint towards that end gets them in a frenzy, only to recover from the high the next day and realize their USD bearish sentiment was nothing less than a drunken faux pas.

My view at this point is to wait until tomorrow to see how a highly liquid market decides to react. Currently volumes are low and liquidity is thin. Certainly not the kind of market we retail traders should be using as a technical gauge.

Your feelings are correct. See my previous post.

I think one real question today for the markets was: is QE3 actually in the offing?

The FOMC statement, and Bernanke's remarks gave the market no reason to believe that QE3 is imminent. Yes, it is "on the table", yes B. intends to resort to additional measures if economic conditions justify. We already knew that.

But. What went unsaid, although it was implied, is that there are no current plans in the works for QE3. The Fed sees economic conditions IMPROVING, albeit more slowly than they would have liked. More Fed members are tilting toward raising interest rates EARLIER.

Overall, still slightly hawkish, in my view. And I believe the markets will reflect that in the near future.

Absolutely, as soon as they come off their QEroin high

in the past i avoided trading the news

i tried it out today, streaming the conference next to my charts, and it is ridiculous how the market reacts to each word Bernake says!

got greedy and came out BE, next time gotta manage it better could've been huge! definitely a gamble though, something i'd have to treat differently than typical trade signals

Any day in the markets without a loss is a great day

Bernanke effectively (AGAIN) managed to fck every dollar bull in their you-know-where. Your spot on here about all that heroin shit. I Just wish that investors, traders and everyone else understands this: QE will FOREVER be on the table - It'll forever be on the table for U.S, forever for UK, forever for EU and China. It's condition DEPENDENT. Even God doesn't know where the hell will the economy turn. However, QE being on the TABLE is not by far equal to QE being AROUND THE CORNER.

It's amazing how drunk the market participants actually are.

Although, i gotta admit the clever ass job Bernanke is doing in regards to human mind manipulation. He's basically indicating that the FED will back every little idiot so that they would keep putting their pension money into stocks just to keep the confidence up as high as possible which in Benny's mind SHOULD turn into real economic confidence and thus into increased economic activity. Could easily pull it off too....for a while.

WSJ(4/26)Heard On The Street: For Markets: No Twist, No Shout

Posted on 25 April 2012 20:21 | Dow Jones Newswires
(From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL) By Justin Lahart [Financial Analysis and Commentary]
The odds of the Federal Reserve launching yet another bond-buying program dimmed further Wednesday. The stock market didn't seem to care.

At the conclusion of its two-day meeting, the Fed released a statement that included only a few minor tweaks to wording, and economic forecasts that were a bit more upbeat than those it offered in January. Gross domestic product this year now looks likely to be stronger, and the unemployment rate lower.

Anyone who hoped the Fed would signal that it planned to stay in the bond market after June was disappointed. That is when "Operation Twist" -- a program in which the Fed sells holdings of short-term government debt and buys longer-dated Treasurys -- ends.

But no such disappointment showed up in stock prices, which held on to big gains through the close. Where a few months ago the prospect of further Fed bond buying was seen as a crucial crutch for markets, now investors are starting to see an economy more able to stand on its own.
The strength of first-quarter earnings has something to do with the changed view. An outsize 75% of companies in the S&P 500 that have reported results so far have topped estimates, according to Thomson Reuters, versus 62% in a typical quarter. What's more, the source of earnings strength has increasingly been the U.S., rather than other parts of the world. Caterpillar said Wednesday that better first-quarter sales in the U.S. tempered weakness elsewhere. 3M on Tuesday said a 6.9% increase in U.S. sales offset a decline in Asia.

Nobody really knows how well the economy will perform when the Fed weans it off bond buying. But for now, investors seem OK with the Fed trying the experiment this summer.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires
April 25, 2012 20:21 ET (00:21 GMT)

Jim,
"Santoclaro fights the forces of darkness and untruth." And he has a familiar looking little dog…
CIGA Alex/Sandy
http://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/...02_thumb23.jpg

http://www.financialsense.com/contri.../natural-money

The Story of Robinson Crusoe and guest:

"If there were a monetary system on this island and I, as a shipwrecked traveller needed a loan, I should have to apply to a money-lender for money to buy the things which you have just lent me without interest. But a money-lender has not to worry about rats moths, rust and roof-repairing, so I could not have taken up the position towards him that I have taken up towards you. The loss inseparable from the ownership of goods is born, not by money lenders, but by those who have to store the goods. The money-lender is free from such cares and is unmoved by the ingenious arguments that found the joints in your armour. You did not nail up your chest of buckskins when I refused to pay interest; the nature of your capital made you willing to continue the negotiations. Not so the money-capitalist; he would bang the door of his strong room before my face if I announced that I would pay no interest. Yet I do not need the money itself, I need it only to buy buckskins."

In his classic economic treatise "The Natural Economic Order", written in 1929, Silvio Gesell attempted to explain to his audience that many of the economic ills that were befalling the world at the time were not due to problems with demand and supply, as such, but with an erroneous understanding of money. He used the simple Robinson Crusoe anecdote above to show that a society which insists on "interest money" to "allow" exchange" was operating on an erroneous paradigm.

In his view society had allowed banking dynasties to obtain control of not only the money supply but also the mental understanding of what money actually was. He, like the American economist E. C. Riegel, believed money was perhaps the greatest social invention of all time. However, misunderstanding had allowed an elite take over this invention for their selfish gain. Thus Gesell observed that in the midst of plenty society was starving. (We must remember that the book was written during the "great depression").

Gesell tried to educate his peers into the inner workings of money. He spent his life explaining that money was in essence an agreement of mutual reciprocity. He understood that the only entities who could naturally issue money were those that gave value in exchange. Thus governments could never issue money; they could only exploit its natural bounty. To him money was goods and goods exchanged was money. He believed that the best money reflected the true nature of goods. He was therefore against "interest money". He explained that if the money used by a society was "better" than the goods exchanged in that society the holders of money would be in a stronger position than those who worked and slaved to create the goods and services that gave money value. Thus he saw through to the essential failure within general financial comprehension in vogue at that time. Unfortunately this misunderstanding continues in contemporary society and is at the heart of the current financial crisis that is bringing the European Union to its knees.


Natural Free Money:
http://imagesize.financialsense.com/...free-money.jpg
To explain his ideas on natural money Gesell promoted the idea for the issuance of "free money" by governments. By "free" he meant that the money was owned by the people and not banking elites. An example of this money is set out above and can be referenced from the link below.
To him efficient money was all about active circulation. To motivate circulation, and prevent hoarding, Gesell propounded that for money to be valid it should require attachment of a stamp, payable by the holder (be it the citizen or a banking institution), each week, at the rate of 5% per annum. This system meant that money "depreciated" by one twentieth each year. This "negative cost" thus ensured that the holders of money were not is a more powerful position than that of the holders of goods. Thus he explained that; "as the grain merchant suffered time loss due to wastage, so too should the holder of money suffer loss through natural depreciation".

We all know that money, in addition to being a medium of exchange, should also be a store of value. Gesell pointed out that at any point the holder of the free money could opt to buy gold or silver. However, this commodity holder he argued, would soon find out this "store" of wealth is not really a store at all. The owner would have to pay to insure and guard his gold and silver. Thus he brilliantly argued that even the classical "store of wealth" concept of money had a time wastage cost element. In one fell swoop Gesell had cut through the "store of value" fallacy of money.

Namely he outlined that the only true store of value in money was "potential reciprocity of exchange" and this reciprocity was contingent on an efficiently functioning market system within a stable society. The "system" was not the money; the system was the functioning exchange. This was the truth then. This is the truth now. However, this truth regarding money has been blinded from the general public. The money power has conditioned the academic fraternity into accepting an "interest" paradigm of money which places the holders and owners of money at a distinct advantage over those who work to provide true value. Thus capital (the [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]earning[/color][/color] of interest) has supplanted labour in modern exchange relationships.

Gesell powerfully articulated all through his life that once this "essence of money value", i.e. reciprocity of value in exchange was compromised society, which was built on such exchange, would begin to fail. This failure he believed was at the core of the financial crisis of 1929. It is my contention that it is also central to the economic collapse that we are experiencing in 2012.

Only when the lessons and insights of economic pioneers like Silvio Gesell, E. C. Riegel and Clifford Douglas are fully comprehended and acted upon will our current money crisis be well and truly solved. Until then the true cause of our problem will never be successfully comprehended. Without such comprehension all solutions will only be temporary, ill conceived and doomed to failure.

Money is to society as a ticket is to a rail network. The issue is not to own all the tickets and live on the speculation of their value but to have a fully operating rail system available for the use of society, be it citizens or businesses therein. It was Gesell's view that if banking corporations and institutions were corrupting money, to the detriment of the greater society, then it was the moral duty of good government to legally and administratively modify the operation of money to so prevent this state of affairs continuing in perpetuity. He believed that if such action was not taken society itself would continue to fail.

Today we are at this juncture. Our options are simple. Do we rectify money or wreck society. It is time [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]to [COLOR=blue !important]make [/color][COLOR=blue !important]money[/color][/color][/color] natural again.
Reference:

 

1. The Natural Economic Order by Silvio Gesell, 1929. http://wikilivres.info/wiki/The_Natural_Economic_Order
2. E.C. Riegel" Flight From Inflation"

http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...w?art_id=10657

 

1. by Martin Hutchinson
2. April 23, 2012

The French presidential election on April 22 and May 6 is important not only to France; on it rests the future of the euro. Spain, about which the markets have been agonizing for the last few weeks, is merely a sideshow; it has only moderate levels of international debt and could at a pinch be bailed out by its European partners if necessary. France is however both considerably larger, and when looked at closely, in poorer shape. If it gets in trouble, it also leaves a rather small group of nations with the “duty” of supporting it. If Nicolas Sarkozy is re-elected, France will probably muddle through, but his opponents’ policies are sufficiently bad that if one of them is elected the collapse of both French public finances and the euro system are very likely.

Historically, France has been even modestly committed to the free market only for brief periods. Even the U.S. Declaration of Independence, with its ringing but philosophically notorious “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was polluted by foolish French ideas. John Locke, in his 1693 “Essay on Human Understanding” wrote “all mankind ... being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions.” He also wrote, very sensibly, “Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.” The man may have chosen his political associations unwisely in the vile Earl of Shaftesbury and the quasi-treasonous embryonic Whigs, but he knew what to fight for.

“Pursuit of happiness” was an amendment to Locke injected by the young and radical Thomas Jefferson, heavily influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Contrat Social” (1762). This fatal amendment removed the protection to property given in Locke’s admirable formulation and led to innumerable encroachments on property rights in the centuries ahead. Dislike for property rights was not universal among the Founding Fathers; James Madison’s Bill of Rights, in the Fifth Amendment, prevents government from taking “life liberty or property, without due process of law.” Eighty years later, the Radical Republicans’ Fourteenth Amendment included the same protection.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in essence an extreme leftist (and a very unpleasant man), merely flawed the U.S. constitutional system through his misguided ideas. In France, where intellectuals are taken altogether too seriously, his ideas were far more powerful than those of John Locke, and hence once the Ancien Regime was overthrown in 1789 the moderates such as Mirabeau and Lafayette were helpless against the Rousseauesque force of the Jacobins. The result has been a political system in which, through two Empires, five Republics and a Directory, property rights have never been adequately safeguarded. Only under the two restored monarchies, of Louis XVIII/Charles X (1815-1830) and Louis-Philippe (1830-1848), were property rights largely secure. However the sensible admonition of Louis-Philippe’s minister, the benign Adolphe Thiers: “Enrichissez-vous” proved helpless against the forces of renewed revolution in 1848.

France’s civilization is among the great glories of mankind, its scientific advances are immense and its cuisine is superb, but economically even these great virtues have failed to make the place truly prosperous. The problem is the innate philosophical belief that free markets are an Anglo-Saxon abomination to be regarded with deep suspicion and circumvented wherever possible by government intervention. Government spending of 56% of GDP (compared to Spain’s 45%) leaves little room for the private sector to flourish, while budget deficits every year since 1974 have caused France’s public debt to soar to 89% of GDP in 2012, substantially larger in relation to GDP than Spain’s. The Ecole Nationale d’Administration has produced generations of superbly trained technocrats, far ahead of Britain’s late-blooming business schools, but very few entrepreneurs.
According to Angus Maddison’s data, France’s GDP per capita, 64% of Britain’s in 1900 and 76% of Britain’s in 1950, had risen to 113% of Britain’s GDP by 1974, its last year of budget surplus (and the year the capable rule of Georges Pompidou ended). That’s not a surprise – Britain’s economy in 1945-74 was very badly run while France’s under the early Fifth Republic worked rather well. However by 2010 France’s GDP was only 96% of Britain’s; in the 1974-2010 period it also sank from 81% to 72% of U.S. GDP per capita. That’s a fairly modest relative decline, but against two countries that were also sub-optimally managed during the period; it thus suggests that there are deep flaws in the French economic system.
Those flaws have been demonstrated by French politicians’ reaction to the euro crisis. Even a nominally center-right government, when austerity measures became unavoidable late last year, proposed budget balancing measures of which in the first year 76% were represented by tax increases and 24% by spending cuts. As will be well known to readers of this column, while spending cuts, especially in a bloated public sector such as France’s, can be economically stimulative, tax increases, by sucking money from the productive, inevitably deepen recessions. Naturally therefore, France’s tax-centered austerity has resulted in a sharp decline in already anemic economic growth, with the Economist panel’s growth forecast for 2012 declining from 1.1% to 0.1% since October, with growth forecast to continue below 1% in 2013. Meanwhile, the budget deficit continues to overshoot forecasts. To a lesser degree (so far) France has chosen the tax-raising-in-a-recession solution of Herbert Hoover in 1932, and it appears likely to be equally successful.

If Nicolas Sarkozy wins the presidency May 6, France will doubtless continue to muddle through. Sarkozy is committed to the European stabilization plan he has worked out with Angela Merkel, and while trader attention remains on Spain, France’s deficits should continue to be financeable. However, Sarkozy’s chance of winning is reckoned at below 50% (I write this before results of April 22nd’s first round are available).
All but one of the other candidates all offer dangers in their own way. Francois Bayrou, the moderate, has described the EU as “the most beautiful construction of all humanity,” a view extreme even by Europhile standards. He would presumably undertake whatever austerity measures were necessary to keep France in the euro, and might even cut public spending a little.

Marine LePen opposes free trade, opposes Sarkozy’s pension reform (which raised the retirement age from 60 to 62) and wants to allow the government to borrow at zero interest from the Banque de France (given the existence of the euro, what would happen when the Banque de France ran out of money is unclear). She’s also anathema to the EU political class, and their hostility to her would itself endanger market perceptions of French credit.

Jean-Luc Melanchon is a leftist of truly spectacular intensity, who favors a Hugo Chavez-style “citizens revolution.” He also favors capping annual earnings at 350,000 euros. Needless to say, a French debt default would be inevitable with him in charge, and the wholesale revision of European arrangements which he favors would doubtless destroy the euro.

Finally Francois Hollande, the most likely successor to Sarkozy, favors a 75% top rate of income tax, the reversal of Sarkozy’s pension reforms, and a substantial increase in public spending. He also enthuses his followers by calling for the “Spirit of ’81,” referring to the first election of Francois Mitterrand. The policy of Mitterrand’s first two years, socialism in a fairly pure form, resulted in three devaluations of the franc and a sharp increase in unemployment. It also led to bank nationalization, after which Guy de Rothschild uttered the immortal line: “To be a Jew under Petain (the French Vichy Republic wartime leader) was bad enough, but to be a banker under Mitterrand, c’est insupportable.”

If markets had full confidence in French credit, a Hollande victory would doubtless be manageable. However they don’t, and nor should they. A run on French government debt would be inevitable, and would be accompanied by further attacks on Italian and Spanish debt.

At that point, the destruction of the euro would appear certain – there is simply not enough of a base of soundly run countries to bail out France, Italy and Spain simultaneously. Once the euro had disappeared (or had become a “strong currency” bloc led by Germany) French debt default would not be inevitable – the country would simply suffer a moderate collapse in the currency, as it did initially under Mitterrand. Italy in that event would probably be closest to default because the Monti government, imposed by the EU, would collapse and the Italian unions would then force policy leftwards. Spain, on the other hand, might well survive, since its current government is competent, its public debt is moderate and its problem is mainly one of the latter stages of a property collapse, concentrated in the banking sector.

Thus the good news for the rest of us is that a Hollande victory would not inevitably cause the collapse of the entire global banking system through an outright French default. And a break-up of the euro, which once again allowed the sillier European countries to be foolish in their own way, without bailouts, might well be a good thing in the long run. However it will do nothing for the living standards of France itself.

All depends on France. But if French political developments cause the collapse of the euro and a major global recession, we will be able to blame the misguided eighteenth century philosophers whose teachings prevented France from ever truly adopting a free market economy.

The solution is to ignore intellectuals. As Keynes said “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.” The Anglo-Saxon tradition of distrusting theoretical constructs is nowhere more valuable than here.
(The Bear's Lair is a weekly column intended to appear each Monday, an appropriately gloomy day of the week. Its rationale is that the proportion of "sell" recommendations put out by Wall Street houses remains far below that of “buy” recommendations. Accordingly, investors have an excess of positive information and very little negative information. The column thus takes the ursine view of life and the market, in the hope that it may be usefully different from what investors see elsewhere.)
Martin Hutchinson is the author of "Great Conservatives" (Academica Press, 2005)—details can be found on the Web site www.greatconservatives.com—and co-author with Professor Kevin Dowd of “Alchemists of Loss” (Wiley – 2010). Both now available on Amazon.com, “Great Conservatives” only in a Kindle edition, “Alchemists of Loss” in both Kindle and print editions.

Views are as of April 23, 2012, and are subject to change based on market conditions and other factors. These views should not be construed as a recommendation for any specific security or sector.

Long Term (100, 200) Raffs are Up ... interesting would be to see the next attempts @ 1.3235, 1.3250

Have a small Buy from 1.3190 looking forward to close it @ 1.3250 and reload short from there.

am hate u ben2...

but am ready for short again ^^

.

Though of the Day

Women are like a Stock Market
The More she sell herself
The more less value her are