Gold keeps up rally after best January in 32 years

LONDON, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Gold rallied for a second day on Wednesday, supported by upbeat economic data from Germany and the United States, with the precious metal building on gains in January that marked its strongest year-opening month in 32 years.

Spot gold was up 0.4 percent at $1,744.15 an ounce at 1534 GMT, on course for a fifth straight week of gains.

It rose 11 percent in January, the largest one-month gain since August 2011 and the largest for the month of January since 1980, thanks to a combination of the weakness in the dollar from a Federal Reserve commitment to keep U.S. rates near zero and central bank purchases.

Evidence of Germany's economic health helped boost the euro, and gold by extension.

Market sentiment was also boosted by data showing the pace of growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector picked up in January to its highest level since June.



"If economic data comes in on the positive side and if the U.S. labour market report on Friday doesn't disappoint, then there is still upside potential for gold, but it depends on the recovery in the euro zone and Greece's debt rescheduling," said Peter Fertig, consultant at Quantitative Commodity Research.

The single European currency was expected to remain under pressure from concerns about Greece, however, even after its finance minister said talks with private creditors on a swap deal vital to avoid a chaotic default, were "one formal step away".

Analysts largely expected gold to rally this year, although many say that a pull-back in the near term looks likely.

"Buyers have returned to the euro, which is helping the situation in gold. It had a bit of lacklustre profit-taking yesterday but didn't break anything important on the downside, which helped confirm that being long is back in vogue," Ole Hansen, senior manager at Saxo Bank, said.

"The last two weeks have done a heck of a lot to confidence, and we've seen that attempted corrections have been short-lived, so the mood has definitely changed, but overall, we are overbought quite significantly ... so there will be some kind of consolidation."

The gold price has risen by nearly 15 percent since hitting six-month lows in late December.

Anecdotal evidence of robust Chinese demand over the Lunar New Year holiday last week, together with figures on holdings of the metal in exchange-traded funds and U.S. futures, have added to the perception that the investor mood towards gold has become more positive following December's sharp drop.

"Concerns about Greece and Portugal are keeping demand for gold high and supporting the price. Yesterday gold defied the downward trend in commodity prices and a firmer U.S. dollar, increasing to an eight-week high of $1,748 per troy ounce," Commerzbank analysts said in a note.

"There has still been no breakthrough in negotiations (on Greek debt) ... The sovereign debt crisis will thus continue to preoccupy the markets for some considerable time yet and should support the gold price," they said.

Gold priced in euros was trading at its highest in nearly six months, having also staged its biggest monthly rise in January since August, with a gain of 10 percent.

Holdings of metal in ETFs rose by over 650,000 ounces in January, marking the first month of net inflows in two months. December's outflows of nearly 1 million ounces coincided with the second-largest monthly drop in the gold price since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in late 2008.

Silver outpaced the rest of the precious metals complex, rising nearly 2 percent on the day to trade at $33.71 an ounce. The silver price rose by nearly 20 percent last month, in its largest monthly rally in nine months.

Platinum and palladium both rallied in line with firmness across the industrial commodities complex. An uptick in Chinese factory activity in January offered further support to raw materials prices.


Reuters

The United Nations Wants To Crash The World Economy In Order To Save The Environment

The United Nations says that the earth is in great danger and that the way you and I are living is the problem.  In a shocking new report entitled, "Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing" the UN declares that the entire way that we currently approach economics needs to be changed.  Instead of focusing on things like "economic growth", the UN is encouraging nations all over the world to start basing measurements of economic success on the goal of achieving "sustainable development".  But there is a huge problem with that.  The UN says that what we are doing right now is "unsustainable" by definition, and the major industrialized nations of the western world are the biggest culprits.  According to the UN, since we are the ones that create the most carbon emissions and the most pollution, we are the ones that should make the biggest sacrifices.  In addition, since we have the most money, we should also be willing to finance the transition of the developing world to a "sustainable development" economy as well.  As you will see detailed in the rest of this article, the United Nations basically wants to crash the world economy in order to save the environment.  Considering the fact that the U.S. and Europe are in the midst of a horrible economic crisis and are already drowning in debt, this is something that we simply cannot afford.

There is certainly nothing wrong with taking care of the environment.  But what the United Nations wants is a fundamental restructuring of the global economy based on flawed science.

In this new UN report, we find the following statement....

Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy. Tinkering on the margins will not do the job.

This is absolutely crucial to understand.

The folks over at the UN don't just want to change things a little.

Their goal is a radical transformation of the entire world.

According to the United Nations, if we don't implement their recommendations the consequences will be absolutely disastrous....

But what, then, is to be done if we are to make a real difference for the world’s people and the planet? We must grasp the dimensions of the challenge. We must recognize that the drivers of that challenge include unsustainable lifestyles, production and consumption patterns and the impact of population growth. As the global population grows from 7 billion to almost 9 billion by 2040, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially. By 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water — all at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply. This is true not least for climate change, which affects all aspects of human and planetary health.

So what changes are needed in order for us to achieve a "sustainable" global economy?

Well, the following are some of the disturbing recommendations that we find in the new UN report....

Raise Prices

According to the United Nations, we need to start significantly raising the prices of things that are made in an "unsustainable" way so that they reflect the "true cost" of their production....

Most goods and services sold today fail to bear the full environmental and social cost of production and consumption. Based on the science, we need to reach consensus, over time, on methodologies to price them properly. Costing environmental externalities could open new opportunities for green growth and green jobs

That means that you and I would start paying a lot more for the basic things that we need every day - food, gasoline, etc.

Carbon Taxes

The UN report also discusses the need to use regulations and taxation as tools to penalize economic activities that are not "sustainable"....

Establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020

This is one of the favorite things that social engineers like to do.  They love to use taxation and regulations as weapons to get people to do the things they want.

Base Lending Decisions On Sustainable Development Criteria

The United Nations is actually suggesting that lending decisions be based on whether or not the money will be used for something "sustainable"....

Reform national fiscal and credit systems to provide long-term incentives for sustainable practices, as well as disincentives for unsustainable behaviour

Considering the fact that the entire global economy is based on credit, this is a very dangerous recommendation.

Green Jobs

The UN report also says that governments all over the world should seek to create as many "green jobs" as possible....

Governments should adopt and advance “green jobs” and decent work policies as a priority in their budgets and sustainable development strategies while creating conditions for new jobs in the private sector.

This is something that we have seen Barack Obama try to do, but obviously he has not had much success at it.

A New Economic Paradigm

According to the UN, the very way that we define "economic success" needs to be changed.  Instead of looking at statistics such as GDP and inflation, we should be measuring what we do by how much it gets us closer to a "sustainable world"....

Expanding how we measure progress in sustainable development by creating a sustainable development index or set of indicators

So an economic collapse could actually be "good" if we make "progress" toward the goal of sustainable development.

Wealthy Countries Funding The Sustainable Development Goals Of Poor Countries

The UN report makes it clear that you and I will be paying for sustainable development all over the world in addition to paying for our own transition to a sustainable economy....

Financing sustainable development requires vast new sources of capital from both private and public sources. It requires both mobilizing more public funds and using global and national capital to leverage global private capital through the development of incentives. Official development assistance will also remain critical for the sustainable development needs of low-income countries

But considering the fact that the United States is already flat broke, where are we going to come up with all of this money?

Teach Sustainable Development To Our Children

The United Nations also believes that this philosophy of "sustainable development" should be taught to children in public schools all over the globe....

Government and non-governmental entities should promote the concept of sustainable development and sustainable consumption, and these should be integrated into curricula of primary and secondary education.

Sadly, this agenda is already being pushed on our children in schools all over the United States.  When these children grow up, the concepts behind "sustainable development" will be second nature for them.

Population Control

Those that believe in sustainable development want to reduce carbon emissions by as much as possible.

When you sit down and really think about that, it becomes quite frightening.

Nearly every form of economic activity produces carbon emissions.

In fact, if you just sit in your home and breathe, you are producing carbon emissions.

So to them, you and I are the problem.

For those that are worried about man-made global warming, the math is simple.

The more people on earth, the higher the level of carbon emissions will be.

The less people on earth, the lower the level of carbon emissions will be.

So those that believe in sustainable development love to promote things that will reduce the human population of the earth.

In fact, we see this agenda reflected in one of the recommendations of the new UN report....

Ensuring universal access to quality and affordable family-planning and other sexual and reproductive rights and health services.

If more women have access to abortion facilities, then less babies will be born.  For those that believe in sustainable development, that is a good thing.

But the UN has been pushing this kind of agenda for a long time.

For example, the United Nations Population Fund released a report back in 2009 entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate" that included the following very chilling statement....

"Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."

This population control agenda is also being heavily promoted by many of the wealthiest people in the world.  Many big "philanthropists" such as Bill Gates are using their money to fund research into population control measures.  For example, Gates is currently funding research on "cutting edge" forms of birth control that could potentially be used all over the world.  The following comes from a recent Natural News article....

Mass vaccination is apparently not the only depopulation strategy being employed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as new research funded by the organization has developed a way to deliberately destroy sperm using ultrasound technology. BBC News reports that the Gates Foundation awarded a grant to researchers from the University of North Carolina (UNC) to develop this new method of contraception.

For their study, the UNC team tested ultrasound on lab rats and found that two 15-minute doses "significantly reduced" both sperm counts and sperm integrity. When administered two days apart through warm salt water, ultrasound caused the rats' sperm counts to drop below ten million sperm per milliliter, which is five million less than the "sub-fertile" range, and stay that way for up to six months.

This population control agenda is one of the most frightening elements of sustainable development.  Many advocates of sustainable development would actually cheer if something suddenly caused the population of the earth to drop dramatically.

Much Stronger Global Governance

The new UN report also advocates stronger "international governance" by bodies such as the United Nations....

International institutions have a critical role. International governance for sustainable development must be strengthened by using existing institutions more dynamically and by considering the creation of a global sustainable development council and the adoption of sustainable development goals

But this has been the ultimate goal of these control freaks for a long time.  The idea is that a "global government" and a "global economy" will bring a great era of peace and prosperity to all of humanity.

Of course that is a complete and total lie, but there are a lot of people out there that actually believe this stuff.

In fact, the economic crisis that we are going through right now has renewed calls for a "global currency" which would be used by the whole world.

For example, you can watch banker Evelyn de Rothschild discuss the "need" for an "international currency" on Bloomberg Television in the following video....

The new UN report reflects this globalist agenda.  The report states that "the peoples of the world" are not going to put up with all of this "inequality" any longer and that they will be demanding that their national governments adopt a "sustainable development" agenda....

"The peoples of the world will simply not tolerate continued environmental devastation or the persistent inequality which offends deeply held universal principles of social justice. Citizens will no longer accept governments and corporations breaching their compact with them as custodians of a sustainable future for all. More generally, international, national and local governance across the world must fully embrace the requirements of a sustainable development future, as must civil society and the private sector."

If you want to get a really good idea of what a "sustainable development" society would look like, just check out the video posted below....

If you do not want to end up living in a "Planned-opolis" where virtually everything you do is watched, tracked and controlled by bureaucratic control freaks, then you better say something now.

If the United Nations actually succeeded in implementing this agenda worldwide, it would crash the global economy and it would be the end of national sovereignty.

Unfortunately, many of those that are promoting this agenda are absolute fanatics about it because they are convinced that they are saving the planet.  They are so obsessed with "rescuing the earth" that they would do almost anything to all the rest of us in order to accomplish that goal.

Yes, we need to be concerned about the future of the planet, but the truth is that the "sustainable development" agenda is based on flawed science and it would make our economic problems far worse.

But the control freaks that are obsessed with "sustainable development" are going to continue to try to cram this agenda down our throats, so this is a battle that is likely to go on for many years.

Economic Collapse

Obama's four years have seen the four highest deficits since 1946

The political strategy behind Obamanomics was always simple: Call for "stimulus" to rescue the economy, run up the debt with the biggest spending blitz in 60 years, and then when the deficit explodes call for higher taxes. The Congressional Budget Office annual review released yesterday shows this is all on track.

CBO reports that annual spending over the Obama era has climbed to a projected $3.6 trillion this fiscal year from $2.98 trillion in fiscal 2008, or more than 20%. The government spending burden has averaged 24% of GDP, up from an average of about 20%. This doesn't include the $2 trillion tab for ObamaCare.

All of this has increased the federal debt by about $5 trillion in a mere four years. Thanks to higher revenues, the federal deficit will decline to $1.08 trillion in 2012, or 7% of GDP. But that is still the highest deficit since 1946—except for the previous three years. In other words, the four years of the Obama's Presidency will mark the four highest years in spending and deficits as a share of the economy since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office.

And don't forget the national debt held by the public—the kind we have to pay back. On President Obama's watch, CBO says public debt will climb this year to 72.5% of the economy from 40.3% in 2008. This isn't as high as Italy or Greece, but it's rising fast toward the 90% level that begins to debilitate an economy.

We pause from this gloom for some good news: Despite the abuse they've taken, House Republicans have made some fiscal progress. CBO estimates that overall federal spending in 2012 will grow by only $3 billion, or less than 1%, which compares with double digit increases during the Obama-Pelosi years. Republicans have also tried to reform entitlements, but Democrats wanted a $1 trillion tax hike ransom for even modest cuts, which was wisely rejected.

The other part of the fiscal story is that revenues have been in the tank for five years. In 2012 revenues will hit $2.52 trillion down from $2.57 trillion in 2007. Revenues are still only 16.3% of GDP, about two percentage points below the norm.

The drought has two main causes. First, the anemic recovery in jobs and investment isn't spinning off enough new output (1.7% growth last year) to boost tax receipts anywhere near their historic level.

Second, a series of non-stimulative tax cuts—tax rebates in 2008 and 2009, and payroll tax holidays in 2011 and this year—have depleted the Treasury with little economic benefit. These tax cuts don't change the incentive at the margin to work or invest, and they thus have little feedback effect in revenues from faster growth.

The most amusing part of the CBO's report is its projection that the deficit will fall to $269 billion by 2015, or a mere 1.5% of GDP, if current law holds. But this is a fiscal fantasy because current law never holds.

CBO predicts, for example, that all the Bush tax cuts will go away next year. The Alternative Minimum Tax will supposedly be allowed to hit 30 million tax filers (up from four million now) with an income as low as $75,000 a year. Under those assumptions total federal revenues rise by $1 trillion over the next three years, $1.5 trillion over five years, and $3.6 trillion over 10 years. You can't get anywhere near that level of revenues without a much bigger tax increase on the rich and the middle class, or an extended boom in the range of 5% to 6% annual growth.

Even the Keynesians who run CBO concede that the 2013 tax hike—on capital gains, dividends, estates and small business—would knock economic growth down to 1% next year and raise unemployment to 9.1% (from 8.5%). That means about 750,000 more jobless Americans. You can't have such a lousy economy and cut the deficit in half.

CBO also indulges in the fantasy that discretionary spending will fall by nearly $2 trillion over the next decade—with almost all the cuts after 2015. About $1.25 trillion of those cuts come from the automatic across-the-board reductions that Congress and Mr. Obama agreed to last year. But wait. More than half of those cuts will come from the military budget and even Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said these reductions could be "devastating" to national security.

To sum it all up, CBO's facts plainly show that Mr. Obama has the worst fiscal record of any President in modern times. No one else is even close.




WSJ

California State to run out of cash in March without action

California will run out of cash by early March if the state does not take swift action to find $3.3 billion through payment delays and borrowing, according to a letter state Controller John Chiang sent to state lawmakers today.

The announcement is surprising since lawmakers previously believed the state had enough cash to last through the fiscal year that ends in June.

But Chiang said additional cash management solutions are needed because state tax revenues are $2.6 billion less than what Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers assumed in their optimistic budget last year. Meanwhile, Chiang said, the state is spending $2.6 billion more than state leaders planned on.


The Assembly budget committee approved a bill today that would enable $865 million of borrowing from existing state accounts, Senate Bill 95. Chiang, after consultation with the Department of Finance and state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, is also seeking about $2.4 billion in delayed payments to universities, counties and Medi-Cal, as well as additional borrowing from outside investors.

Absent these actions, the state would fall below its prudent $2.5 billion cash cushion on Feb. 29, Chiang estimated. On March 8, the state would actually end up $730 million in the red. The state would be below the safe cash cushion for several weeks ending April 13, save for several days at the end of March.

With such actions, Chiang believes the state would not have to use IOUs or delay tax refunds, maneuvers that have been relied upon in previous years. But Chiang also said that "more cash solutions may be required if our revenues continue to erode or if disbursements significantly exceed estimates."

California borrows money early each fiscal year because the state has regular monthly expenses but receives the bulk of its tax revenues in the spring. The state borrowed $5.4 billion last fall for this purpose.

Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, D-Woodland Hills, downplayed the significance of the new borrowing in a hearing. He said $5.4 billion was small relative to the $10 billion state leaders were prepared to borrow last year.

Some Republicans raised questions about when the borrowing from state accounts from would be paid back and why the state is spending more than expected.

Michael Cohen, chief deputy director of Brown's Department of Finance, said the state would pay back special funds whenever programs need the money to operate. Cohen also said the state is spending more money than expected because courts have blocked some cuts, while some savings may come later in the fiscal year than forecasters predicted.




Sacramento Bee

As Greece Nears a Big Debt Deal, Investors know Portugal is next

Despite the best efforts of European politicians to place a quarantine fence around the Greek economy, the crisis there continues to plague Portugal.

The authorities in Lisbon insist otherwise, but investors are predicting that Portugal will be next in line to impose losses on bondholders as it struggles to meet the terms of a 78 billion-euro, or $103 billion, bailout agreement struck with international creditors last May.

While a short-term debt auction on Wednesday went off comfortably, Portugal’s long-term borrowing costs remain unsustainably high, and spending cuts that are cleaning up public finances are also helping to plunge Portugal into one of the deepest recessions in the Western world. Its economy is predicted to contract 3 percent this year, and the unemployment rate, at 13.6 percent, is one of the highest in the euro zone.

Whatever deal with creditors is reached in Athens in the coming days, “it’s most likely that Portugal will say that it wants one of those, too,” said Edward Hugh, an economist in Barcelona who has been tracking the euro zone’s debt crisis. Portugal “literally has nothing further to lose, except some of its debt burden,” he said.

Lisbon’s center-right coalition government, which came into power last June, insists that it needs more time rather than more money. Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho said on Tuesday that Portugal would comply with the agreement reached last May, “whatever the cost.”

The International Monetary Fund , alongside other creditors involved in the debt repayment negotiations in Athens, also emphasizes that Greece need not set a precedent for other ailing economies like Portugal.

“It’s going to be hard for Portugal, but we’re talking about different numbers, and Portugal’s tax collection system is much more effective,” said Albert Jaeger, who heads the I.M.F.’s office in Lisbon. He added: “The most important advantage that Portugal has is probably its internal political and social consensus.”

Domestic discord continues to be one of the main stumbling blocks in Athens, with Prime Minister Lucas D. Papademos struggling to secure backing from the three parties in his shaky coalition — particularly over private sector wage cuts — before signing a deal with creditors that will also require majority approval from Parliament. Mr. Papademos is set to meet with the party leaders Thursday to work out an agreement that could be discussed at a meeting of European finance ministers in Brussels on Monday.


CNBC

The Gold Market reaction to Bernanke testimony on Capitol Hill

The Fed chairman's testimony on Capitol Hill seems to be positive so far for the gold price , gold was up $15 an ounce so far , Ben Bernanke is not announcing directly that we are going to have a QE3 , but he is hinting to it , many expert have said that a QE3 is now an almost certainty , it will be inevitable for the FED no matter what it will call it .Bottom line Load Up On Gold and Silver as much as you can only physical gold and silver , cause the rally is just starting and it is going to be a nice one

U.S. Worries Israel is about to Strike Iran

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is "a strong likelihood" that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June, according to the Washington Post's David Ignatius.

Israel believes that after this time, Iran will have entered a “zone of immunity” that will enable it to build a nuclear bomb at its leisure, Ignatius wrote. Defense Minister Ehud Barak used the same words Thursday in his speech at the Herzliya Conference.

"Very soon,the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily," explained Ignatius. The U.S., however, does not intend to hit Iran until it has intelligence that Iran is actually building a bomb, and "Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action..."

When Barak asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise, he may have been signaling that an Israeli attack is imminent, the senior journalist wrote. Barak "apologized that Israel couldn’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring."

President Obama and Panetta cautioned Israel against an attack, because they believe it would derail "increasingly successful international economic sanctions" against Iran.

The White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how to react to an Israeli attack on Iran. The U.S. appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits American assets, which would trigger a strong U.S. response. But administration officials "caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense."

Ignatius quotes an Israeli official who reportedly told the U.S.: “You stay to the side, and let us do it.” The pundit mentions a “short-war” scenario that assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire. This, too, jibes with comments made yesterday by Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Col. Benny Gantz.

U.S. officials don’t think that Netanyahu has made a final decision to attack, says Ignatius, but "senior Americans doubt that the Israelis are bluffing."


Arutz Sheba