I'll just point out that manipulation of gold markets is constantly discussed in all the gold trade journals and let it go with the question of "who wants to use a money base that is easily manipulated and has an actual starting point on the exchange not much larger than many personal fortunes?". (Dependent on prices on a given day OFC.) Soros would just love it. Buy
five billions in futures, watch the gold move into the hands of people who cheer about their increasing value of money, dump the futures, get the gold back as prices plummet, buy futures, etc., which is exactly what the gold journals speculate is happening right now. First one to say "SEC WILL PREVENT THAT", given that this is a move to get away from "FEDERAL INTERVENTION", gets a raspberry. It's illogical to assume federal protection when you are trying to remove federal influence. I see a lot of that.
In other news, this:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41969508/
will doubtless get a bunch of play. Apart from being false to fact in intent (Social Security is not a handout or giveaway or paid for from tax dollars in the general fund, which is implied by not stating the facts), lets look at the reality instead of the imaginary.
The reality is as follows, there is not a single repetitive job on the planet that cannot be done by a computer at this time. Many jobs that require limited creativity will be done or assisted by computers in the near term of ten years or less. Those are facts, not fantasy, not science fiction, and they are the facts of this year, not last year, not the last decade and not some distant point in the future, either.
Given those facts, what is the impact on society? One thing is obvious, insofar as "jobs" go, "jobs" being defined as "work performed in an industrial setting to create innumerable identical objects", there are not going to be any for human beings. Given that many human related jobs (HR dept, payroll, etc) are DEPENDENT on those "jobs" for their existence, it becomes painfully obvious that easily 3/4 of the current working population is not needed for any sort of production. Foisting the problem off on China is a temporary measure, yes, for the moment, Chinese labor is cheaper than computers, but that's already coming to an end. As production moves back to the US (already happening, Google it, especially GE) we will NOT see the expected increase in factory jobs, but a much smaller increase in higher paying jobs that are essentially systems analysis/administration or robot tending.
So what's the choices for the people that aren't in the upper 1/3 of the bell curve? Most simply do not have the temperament to run a small business, and the notion isn't viable anyhow, you cannot have 100,000 dry cleaners in the same city, there simply isn't enough demand for service jobs to fill the gaps here. The service job niche is overfilled in most places inside the USA. If you let surplus population starve, they'll riot and do tremendous damage, besides which is the fact that every other country in the world will be facing the same issues, and you'll need those people if you go to all out war. Welfare for all is not an attractive choice to Americans, but I'm not seeing much in the way of the alternative here sans a total restructuring of society. (Dead easy to come up with solutions if you pull off all the rules and customs, but kind of worthless in terms of reality, as reality decides things by a process that pays little attention to the way things should be according to academics. And academics don't have a very good record at designing societies anyhow, too much of the angel factor tends to creep in.)
And THAT is the real trend for the economy in the USA and world wide. It is not "long term" any more either, unless you define long term as "longer than a year" like so many businesses and government do. It's here it's now and what are we going to do about it? Figure that out, invest accordingly, and you'll be the winner, otherwise, you'll be bucking the underlying trend, and that never works over the long term.