We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Gold/Mining/EnergyBig Dog's Boom Boom Room

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (199271)6/13/2019 1:00:56 PM
From: isopatch
   of 205752
<Long term US policy is an extension of what the US economy needs>

FWIW, been an advocate of The Economic Interpretation Of History, since reading excerpts from the work of Charles Beard when I was an undergraduate in the 60s. Active reading, in decades since only strengthened a knowledge base supporting that historical school of thought. Of course...))

<The Way Back Machine> shows how far into the primordial mists, even of pre-history, that reality extends.

Have to log off for awhile.



Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: isopatch who wrote (199270)6/13/2019 8:28:26 PM
From: miraje
   of 205752
China will not do "a deal", compromise or show any flexibility, let alone cave.

Disagree with that. China has much more to lose, the longer that this dispute goes on. Trump holds the trump cards, IMO..

Message 32182999

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

To: miraje who wrote (199273)6/13/2019 9:00:25 PM
From: Elroy Jetson
3 Recommendations   of 205752
China probably does have a lot more to lose, but I'm not convinced they're currently rational in that way.

China has a long history of seeing their country as the victim of others in the world and is thus entitled to the intellectual property owned by others as some sort of reparations for past slights. A lot of this same victim justification runs through Russian society. China arrests their own citizens to use them fatally as organ donors because "victims" can justify any sort of barbarity as a natural response to their own past real or imagined hurts.

Both Russia and China have long operated major programs of industrial espionage without any sense of shame, because they see themselves in a fight against a world that is "rigged against them".

Of course it's their political suppression of their own scientists, intellectuals and entrepreneurs that keeps them at a perpetual disadvantage, but they truly don't understand this as they believe these most intelligent of people are primarily the source of anti-state agitation and plots.

China does have a very strong economic incentive to do a deal to protect foreign intellectual property, reveal the level of state subsidies to each of their government-owned industries, and halt the shift of their economy into a war machine - but instead their propaganda is preparing their population for "another Long March" to defeat the oppressors.

This is the same fundamental misunderstanding Trump has used in his "negotiations" with North Korea.

North Korea doesn't see themselves as a merchant trying to make life better for their citizens. They see themselves as an underdog in an ongoing fifty-year-long war with the United States. Trump is effectively trying to bring an end to Nazi Germany by trying to convince Hitler to instead pour his efforts into being a partner in a new potentially profitable condominium and golf resort.

I wish Trump luck but it's such a bizarre long-shot that it's both sad and comical.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: miraje who wrote (199273)6/13/2019 9:02:09 PM
From: isopatch
1 Recommendation   of 205752
No problem. Let's agree to disagree. Though, everything would turn out much better for us all if you prove to be right.

Worth repeating the posted opinion UR replying to isn't political. It's based entirely on life long focus on reading the best historical research on economic, financial history, and other branches of history over many years. That perspective was the single most important edge during long career, as a professional investor. Had no idea that would be the case, 40-50 yrs ago. Life is full of surprises....

Worth repeating that I avoid politics on this board AWA my own thread. Have to leave it there. No time for back and forth.



Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Black Blade6/14/2019 8:38:49 PM
   of 205752
Baker Hughes: US rig count down 6 units to 969

HOUSTON, June 14
By OGJ editors

The US drilling rig count fell 6 units, reaching 969 rigs working for the week ended June 14, according to Baker Hughes data. The count is down 90 units from the 1,059 rigs working this time a year ago.

The number of rigs drilling on land dropped 7 units week-over-week to a total of 941 units. The number of rigs drilling in inland waters was unchanged at 4 units for the week. The number of rigs drilling offshore increased by a single unit to 24.

US oil-directed rigs decreased by 1 from last week to reach 788 units. This time a year ago, 863 units were drilling for oil. Rigs targeting gas decreased by 5 units to reach 181 rigs, which was 13 fewer than were drilling for gas at this time a year ago.

Among the major oil and gas-producing states and for the second straight week, Texas dropped the largest number of rigs. At 467 rigs running, the count is 6 fewer than the previous week.

Wyoming and Alaska both dropped a single rig to reach 31 and 5 rigs running, respectively.

Ten states remained unchanged this week, namely New Mexico, 101; Oklahoma, 101; North Dakota, 56; Pennsylvania, 39; Colorado, 31; California, 18; West Virginia, 19; Ohio, 18; Utah, 6; and Arkansas, 0.

For the second week, Louisiana was the only state with an increase in rigs week over week. With an additional 2 rigs, the state saw 70 rigs running for the week ended June 14.

Canada’s rig count increased by 4 units for the week. At 107 rigs, the count is 32 fewer than the 139 units drilling this week a year ago. With 69 rigs drilling, Canada’s oil-directed rigs gained 10 units this week. Gas-directed rigs in Canada decreased by 6 units to reach 38.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: miraje who wrote (199273)6/15/2019 12:05:04 PM
From: JimisJim
1 Recommendation   of 205752
There are no winners or losers in trade wars -- both sides lose the longer they continue and the general citizenry loses the most. Both China and Trump hold losing hands and the longer they keep betting, raising the bets and continuing the hand, the more both will lose ultimately -- and that's it -- that's all the politics I'm willing to endure for the day. I hate even commenting one way or another on a msg. link posted here from a very active political thread.

And just like nobody ever wins trade wars -- neither side -- nobody in the history of social media actually changed someone's mind about political or even religious beliefs just by posting about them. Nobody wins, and the rest of the thread members either pile on or have to ignore both/all sides of politics and religious questions.

So put me on record for being anti discussion of either topic from any "side" of them all. Too much, and some day, someone may notice I'm not around anymore -- at least the threads that fall under the above categories and only see everything from one perspective and won't even consider the other perspectives as valid, only targets to be flamed.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: JimisJim who wrote (199277)6/15/2019 12:26:46 PM
From: kidl
   of 205752
Ditto to your comments.

This part of your post looked after my morning smile requirement:
“Both China and Trump hold losing hands”

“The United States of Trump” … It’s coming! LOL

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: JimisJim who wrote (199277)6/15/2019 12:42:22 PM
From: miraje
1 Recommendation   of 205752
There are no winners or losers in trade wars

Of course there can be winners and losers in tariff disputes, just as in military wars. To be on topic with this thread, OPEC's policy decisions, which could be considered as trade wars, creates winners and losers in global energy markets, as well as in investment decisions that are discussed here.

I have no wish to drag politics into this thread, but I am cognizant of the fact that trade, economics and politics are intertwined, energy issues being no exception.

When Big Dog was actively monitoring this board, he would put a stop to egregious and often off topic political postings. Perhaps an active moderator might be needed here again, if OT postings get out of control..

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: miraje who wrote (199279)6/15/2019 1:55:21 PM
From: JimisJim
1 Recommendation   of 205752
Oh, I'm sorry, there likely will be some potential winners in the China/Trump trade wars: Argentina and Brazil stand to sell a lot more grain... South Korea and Taiwan are selling more electronics and making more of them as trading these between China and the US is falling... Vietnam is already "stealing" from both China and the US a lot of the sort of stuff that major international companies need doing or making... forget cars and trucks, Mexico is the 2nd largest exporter of computer gear to China and the US (as they trade less and less of that stuff themselves)...

Finally, I find this quote quite illuminating on the topic:

"Shifting supply chains is costly, and businesses try to avoid it. Many analysts predict that once new supply chains form they will tend to stick around, even if the U.S.-China dispute cools. Trade-war winners could enjoy long-term gains even after a truce.

Of course, counting on any such gains is risky. A trade war that torpedoes global growth or leads to a recession in the United States would likely sink all boats."


The one thing a majority of all political parties and macro-economists overwhelmingly agree on is that capitalism and world economies (including China and the US) work best when all or almost all global trade is free -- i.e., free trade is the lynchpin of capitalism and most developed nations' GDP.

OPEC was not a trade war... it was what we'd call an economic sanction, just like oil out of Iran. Note that OPEC was not "fighting" against any single nation, but the entire global GDP (and arguably themselves). In the end, OPEC became irrelevant and in that sense, they lost their war on the rest of the world -- many of its members are in economic shambles now and even the Saudis have lost bazillions as they supplement former energy sales income with cash from their sovereign funds...

Even when Big Dog was around sporadically, I doubt he ever mentioned "egregious and often off topic political postings" more than once a year when many of us would PM to police the board -- perhaps this board has outlived its usefulness if the only way to spark discussion and posts is to discuss these sorts of things... esp., considering Big Dog's last post here was to the effect he was moving on in life and leaving this board behind.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: JimisJim who wrote (199280)6/15/2019 3:38:57 PM
From: E_K_S
2 Recommendations   of 205752
If those new supply chains come back to the U.S. as a result of new high tech manufacturing, then U.S. and consumers are the winners.

Just look what US did w/ domestic shale oil and NG development. The US now is the leader in worldwide production just 10 years ago it was the Saudi's. The world trade is dynamic and always changing. Tariff's make those changes get done faster (via the implied tax) and typically to the benefit of the Country imposing those tariffs (look at Japan and the EU w/ their auto tariffs).

There will always be disruption in the markets. I personally see a Next Generation smart AI assisted manufacturing as the disruptive technology. Think of large scale 3D-printing and AI assisted automation. This is now being done at the new MN plant for AGCO. They use AI assisted software in their flexible custom tractor assembly. They still have workers but are much more efficient as tools, JIT inventory (delivered by automated robots), testing is all done by computer/robots and guided by the human assistant. Final tests are done by computer and they even fill all liquids (oil & lubricants), air etc by AI/computer machines.

Much of those tractors produced in MN are shipped into Europe & Germany (even w/ tariffs and farmers still buy those products).

The one thing you can not change really are the costs related to logistics/transportation delivered to the final end user. You cut those costs by manufacturing/assembly at the closest delivery point to the end user.

Now think ahead . . . what if you had super efficient automated AI manufacturing (using next generation 3D printing) located in facilities at/near each Amazon distribution center. Remember, all those 3D-printers are still linked to some intelligent network updated in the cloud.

There is no need to build/assemble in China and then ship across the world back to the U.S..

It's all changing and markets may/can create companies to change based on efficiencies and/or Governments can motivate that change by using taxes and tariffs (think of the proposed carbon tax).

Just like US shipping our recycling to China. China takes that cardboard and makes boxes that is shipped back to the U.S. and used by Amazon to deliver products to local customers. We really need to tax that recycling stream so it is recycled at the local level (that's like a tariff).

The EU has been using tariffs to promote local manufacturing for years (as has Japan).

I am very excited about the future of very smart AI/robotic manufacturing and the sooner the U.S. promotes & installs this inside the U.S. (for US consumers), the better the U.S. will be at exporting these technology manufacturing systems to other countries (remember manufactured products must be close to the end consumer).

The key for investors is (1) to recognize the disruptive changes and (2) to invest in those companies providing solutions. The US has many of those companies and the best engineers in the World to effect this change.

I love the US for that and we really need to make huge investments in our Human Capital (get rid of student debt). Maybe Congress/Senate can do a multi Trillion deal that promotes investment in our Human Capital so we can stay the leader in this AI/Manufacturing change.


"Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth." Abraham Lincoln
"Experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort" Thomas Jefferson

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)
Previous 10 Next 10