New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) probing "technical issue" after some stocks incorrectly show drops up to 99%

Two weeks until I can move a big chunk of my assets to a physical format. :03:

https://ekstrabladet-dk.translate.go..._x_tr_pto=wapp

Markus

This evaded my radar completely: Zimbabwe has introduced a new currency basing on a gold standard. Ghana mulls a similiar step.

I would expect that the FED heavily tries - by whastevber means fair or unfair, legal or illegal - to make sure this fails. While the gold price will not be effected that much by these experiments, the potential danger for the dollar's status could be enormous and in the long run even become cataclysmic - if these currencies prove to become successful and then serve as an example for others to follow. This then could mark the beginning of the end for the dollar regime. Europeans should not giggle: the Euro is not better off than the dollar.



China, India and Russia can be expected to support the African ambitions, not because they like them for what they are, but because they mean trouble for the West, and they all three work and lobby for damaging the dollar status in the world.


https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/...en&_x_tr_hl=de


The word dollar comes form "Thaler", and a Thaler/Taler originally was a quantity of something, it was a quantity measure, or more precise: a weight measure, like karat for diamonds. Dollars were made of silver or gold, minted in private (!) mints of which there were around half a dozen in the early US. How much substantial quantity is there still in a circulating state-faked "dollar" today that goes beyond unfounded abstraction and lies on its "value"? Paper, or nickel and copper, thats what they are these days. Counterfeit dollars, like every other FIAT currency circulating.

[Die Welt] Why gold is becoming increasingly valuable in a world of over-indebtedness

Gold prices are at an all-time high. But hardly anyone is taking notice. Is it now too expensive? Perhaps in the short term. That says a lot about the stability of paper currencies - and should worry citizens.

It is a record-breaking run with an increasingly high irritation threshold: on Thursday, the price of gold reached a new all-time high of 2583 US dollars per troy ounce without attracting much attention beyond the specialist media. The restraint is understandable, as the price follows a series of more than 20 highs since the beginning of the year.

In absolute terms, gold appears expensive, especially in view of the price trend since the turn of the millennium, when an ounce was available for 400 dollars. However, the price has merely adapted to a massively changed environment. Geopolitical tensions are driving government buyers and central banks into the market, and financial investors are now also fueling demand again with the purchase of gold ETFs.

One of the reasons for the hype surrounding the yellow metal is the worrying growth in government debt, including in the West: gold always serves investors as insurance against inflation as well as against disruptions in the financial system that could result from over-indebtedness in the long term. And last week was a kind of warning sign in this respect.

During the TV duel between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the US presidential election came into focus. Whoever wins in the end, neither of them is likely to make a serious effort to reduce the huge national deficit, which is currently growing by one trillion US dollars every 100 days - quite the opposite.

In Brussels, former ECB President Mario Draghi presented his 400-page report on the EU's competitiveness - and called for joint investments of 800 billion euros per year in order to keep up with China and the USA. Debt-financed of course, what else?

And in Berlin, the traffic light coalition presented such a shaky draft budget for 2025 that lawyers are expressing doubts about its constitutionality.

The global lack of understanding that the stability of paper currencies can be jeopardized if governments and supranational organizations continue to live beyond their means is a cause for concern for citizens. For the gold price, however - which by no means rules out short-term, sharp setbacks - these are probably the best prospects in the long term.



https://www.welt.de/debatte/article2...ller-wird.html

Gold breaks $2600 US dollars, I think I called it somewhere around here? I should have listened to myself, as it is I'm only half out of worthless kamala fiat paper.

I'm finding the internet experience via phone far inferior to that on the PC.

I cannot complain about how gold is going. :D Last time I bought was in 2016. If I would sell now (Germany/EU zone), I would gain over 100% profit, numerically (inflation not counted). And I expect the price going up much further in coming years.

As long as they do not prohibit again private owning of gold. They are all gangsters, you know. Polit-Mobsters.

However, physical gold should not be seen as an investment, but a safety.

Since I'm thinking about living in Southeast Asia gold is almost as easy to operate in as a bank account, and more trusted.

VW - and the other German car manufacturers - are going down the drain.


https://www-achgut-com.translate.goo..._x_tr_pto=wapp

Germany has done a wonderful job over the last decade. But there is also the other side of the coin. Germany has had an average annual growth rate of 1 percent since 2000. That is the lowest growth rate of any European member state. While unemployment fell, the total number of working hours barely increased compared to 2000. Too many people are thus working part-time or in very precarious statuses. Germany may be the European savings champion, but it does so very inefficiently. Since 2000, the country lost over €400 billion in savings because it invested that money abroad in bad projects, such as the Spanish real estate bubble. Another downside: German society became more unequal. Today, the 10 percent lowest earners have incomes 5 percent lower than in 2000, while the 10 percent richest Germans saw their incomes rise by 15 percent. Finally, there is too little investment in the country. The average investment rate in OECD countries is 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). In Germany, that figure fell from 23 percent in the 1990s, to 17 percent today. That, too, is Germany.

Germany under-invests €100 billion every year, or three to four percent of GDP. Of all the OECD countries, Germany invests the least. Germany should already invest 10 billion euros in transport infrastructure every year if Germany wants to keep its roads up to standard. One in five motorways is in bad shape, and as many as 41 percent of major regional roads. And then what does the federal government agreement say? That only EUR 5 billion will be spent on road infrastructure over the next four years. Germany is also particularly weak in education, even though, strangely enough, Germany is at the absolute top in high-tech sectors worldwide. The German government has the space, but is not using it. Since 2012, Germany has had a federal budget surplus. Even if the federal government were to allow a deficit of up to 0.35 percent, it could easily free up €15-20 billion for investment.

Mercedes, BMW and the Volkswagen Group are all in a camp where the blows are falling. According to a survey by the IFO institute in collaboration with the manufacturers, the German car industry expects to shrink by 18.3% this year. That's a hallucinatory figure, given added strength by Germany's current production capacity which is skimming around 78%, far below the healthy 87% it usually manages to turn. They are all too quick to point their finger towards the electric car. Not illogical, because on the one hand, brands have invested billions of euros in development, only to find that demand is waning worldwide. Although that partly exposes the bigger problem. Several brands seem to have bet on the right horse, but not the right race. After all, the EV evolution is not a sprint, but rather a marathon. So was it somewhat arrogant to put billions into electric cars with a sky-high price tag that were mainly used as flagships in the range? Without a doubt. Although mostly, German manufacturers gambled on winning back their investment through huge sales in China and Russia. However, the invasion of Ukraine has completely dried up the Russian market and exponential growth is also coming to an end in China. As a result, not more, but just fewer cars being sold. Oh well, European customers do keep things straight, don't they? Well, no. Because here, too, we wait with open hands for more affordable (electric) cars. That, however, is where a pain point emerges. For several German car brands have invested billions in more expensive large models that are loss-making, and those same German brands have to invest billions again in cheaper compact models in the hope of making money from them. The exception to the rule? Opel, the German brand with the blitz, owned by Stellantis. That giant group also owned by Peugeot, Fiat, Citroën, Alfa Romeo, etc. is launching a massive offensive of more affordable (electric) cars this year. Take the Opel Frontera, a family crossover from 23,260 euros with hybrid engine or 28,500 euros with all-electric powertrain. Volkswagen stood by it... and watched it sink into the drain.

[TE] Qatar's energy minister reminds the ideologues in Brussels of the economic reality: if Qatar is threatened with penalties because its liquefied natural gas does not comply with the new regulations on sustainability testing, it will simply no longer be supplied to the EU.
Saad Sherida al-Kaabi is Qatar's energy minister and warned the Financial Times that he would stop exporting gas to the European Union if the EU countries impose penalties under the recently adopted sustainability impact assessment legislation. This is not a bluff, he added clearly and unequivocally.
In July, the EU directive came into force, according to which companies must prove exactly where the individual components of their products come from and whether they are sufficiently sustainable, whether there are critical effects on human rights or the environment. In case of doubt, Brussels threatens to impose fines of up to five percent of a company's global annual turnover.

“If I lose 5 percent of my turnover because I supply Europe, I will not supply Europe,” al-Kaabi coolly replied to the newspaper in an interview published on Sunday. Qatar is one of the most important suppliers of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe. QatarEnergy, the state-owned energy giant, has concluded long-term LNG supply contracts with Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands.
Al-Kaabi, who is also Chairman of QatarEnergy, said EU legislation is not practical for companies like QatarEnergy. The Corporate Due Diligence Directive adopted this year first requires larger companies operating in the European Union to check whether their supply chains use forced labor or cause environmental damage and to take appropriate action.

In plain English, the “Supply Chain Act” means that companies must prove that the components and primary products of their goods are ecologically sound. Worldwide. This must be documented and proven. Countries must transpose the new rules into national law by 2026. One year later, in 2027, the rules for companies will then gradually come into force.

Al-Kaabi: “Five percent of QatarEnergy's revenue means five percent of the revenue of the state of Qatar. That is the people's money - and no one would accept losing that much money.” He went on to say that the EU should thoroughly review the law on due diligence. He also said that his Gulf state had no concerns about US President-elect Donald Trump's promise to lift the cap on liquefied natural gas exports.

Qatar would have no problem getting rid of its LNG. Federal Economics Minister Habeck also had to learn this when he flew to Qatar after the supply stop for gas from Russia and begged for additional LNG supplies. “But only for a few years,” he added - this was in the face of the rulers in the Gulf, of all people, who are doubling their capacities with gigantic investments in their LNG production plants and are only used to talking about long-term supply contracts. Even his deep stoop was of no use.

Qatar would not have to fear a loss of supply to Europe; Asian countries with their increasing hunger for energy would be good customers. And it is more than questionable whether the USA would get involved in such outlandish, extremely expensive bureaucratic games with its LNG deliveries to Europe.

Incidentally, not a single battery for e-cars would be allowed to be imported into Europe under these rules. The routes by which the gigantic quantities of raw materials for battery production come from all over the world are too tortuous. Only hardcore greens in Brussels can believe that their sustainability would somehow be documented.


:haha::haha::haha:

European countries import the commodity from around the world, such as from the United States (19.4), African countries (14.1%) as Algeria and even some more from Russia (14.8%), Norway (30.3%), United Kingdom (5.7%). Apart from Qatar (5.3%), gas also comes from other Middle Eastern countries such as Oman. These are long-term contracts of 20 or +20 years, Qatar cannot cancel them tomorrow! Qatar is largely economically dependent on fossil fuel exports. If there are no more sales heading towards Europe, it will have to sell more in Asia, for example. America also wants to sell more gas to the EU. It's a trade they won't just stop, the EU is too important for that. Above all, they want to make a point. Financial markets are hardly reacting to Qatar's threat, the buying price on the gas market has not increased hugely or higher than other days. This is totally not a problem gas plenty for sale in the world sellers plenty who want to supply Europe! With the Dutch and Spanish intensifying hydrogen we will need much less natural gas, this is going to happen in 2 years then we won't need Qatar at all, this is all just scaremongering the markets are not scared, so this analysing is FUBAR.Natural gas will certainly not give way to hydrogen overnight. If the production of hydrogen increases in the coming years, the introduction of hydrogen as a fuel for central heating could take place step by step. It is conceivable that already in the next few years, in some places, the gas will consist partly of hydrogen. Natural gas will then be ‘blended’ with hydrogen. Currently, hydrogen, because of its properties, is mainly used in industry. Such as in fertiliser production, blast furnaces of metal industries and refining processes. It is also increasingly used as a fuel for vehicles, such as cars and buses. The use of hydrogen as a fuel for aircraft is also being experimented with. All heavy industry and large parts of the electric energy will use hydrogen as a fuel.

The Middle East is in the midst of a difficult transition as it slowly has to start saying goodbye to highly lucrative oil and gas. Dubai made its first oil discovery only in 1966, eight years later than neighbouring Emirate Abu Dhabi. And two decades before that, Saudi Arabia discovered the world's largest oil well. Once accounting for half of Dubai's national income, oil is now less than 1 per cent, according to Bloomberg. In Saudi Arabia, 40 per cent of its gross national product still comes from oil. Under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia has made no secret of its ambitions to boost tourism and is investing heavily in its aviation. The oil and natural gas party is going to end not now, but certainly this century so get used to switching to the new train, this old-fashioned line is closing fast, every oil and gas country knows this and is switching. You can stay behind on the old platform, your choice, but don't expect any more wealth than just old-fashioned ideas that are no longer worth anything.

Of course they can, if Brussels unilaterally wants to change trade conditions they cannot be expected to just accept that.
And even a valid treaty you can simply break - you just must not care for the consequences.
Quatar has what others want, namely in Asia, but also all the world: energy. The demand is exploding. Namely in Asia. And it does not economically depend on hard economic returns in form of hardware or industrial production from Europe, it can easily get all that from other parts of the world, including the US or China. The EU needs Quatar more than the other way around. In other words: Brussels has no threats to sanction them. Quatar predominantly lives by boosting soft power, not hard power. And thats why it is practically immune to Brussels. I remind of the football world championship, and the scandal about Quatari driven corruption in the EU parliament, or the quite one-sided airtravel agreement between Quatar and the EU, whih economically is quite disadvantageous for European airlines. And if Europe does not do trade with Quatar - the Cinese would be all too willing to fill the gap.

Also, piss Trump with overboarding excesses in bureaucracy and according costs, and see what you will get in return. Won't get pretty, thats for sure.

An unloaded gun rarely produces a loud bang.

Edit, on hydrogen, check the physics and costs and logistics behind using hydrogen as an energy storage medium for transportation, and be dramatically disillusioned. Economically this is just a very effective way to destroy stellar quantities of money in no time for the smallest effect imaginable. Means: it will not work as hoped for, not even close to it, not now, not in the forseeable and not in a distant future. And hydrogen being used for general household heating - NEVER. Its an absolutely laughable fantasy that will not work with the presently existing set of natural and economic laws.

There are people who seriously think fusion reactors are just around the corner. They are not, they are still many decades away (if they ever come). But their concept is more realistic than the idea you could have a highy developed industry on the basis of hydrogen as energy carrier. There will be lighthouse projects here and there, small compounds with limited industrial relevance for the bigger pirtcure that will get maintained for curiosity. But it will never become mainstream- NEVER. Its economically and financially and logistically unsustainable.

I stand by that these long-term contracts can not be cancelled, and I tell you Qatar will not do that like Russia, Ukraine do not break up long-term contracts (During the whole Cold War we had gas long-term contracts with our enemy the USSR.). We as buyer have the loaded gun, it is bigger than the tiny 5,1 gun Qatar has. Trump is waiting for us to do this, the more products he can sell to the biggest market this biggly enlarge his narcist ego. You better learn Trump, economics and the importance of geopolitics we are the ones they make profit from we therefore can also demand... both sides in a deal have needs and demands!

That hydrogen as energy is already a part of our economy, industry but by all means stay behind on that old track we will become the hydrogen gateway of Europe same as we are the Transport gateway because we are the stupid ones that made all those big mistakes in the past centuries that made us a world power in the past you Germans, Brits and French started wars because we were so bad at making choices that made us to big and prosper. Yeah, we so stupid you out of fear needed to get rid of us, pfff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cIHLgGZByY