Video by Stansberry's Investment Advisory - Any merit?

70 posts / 0 new
Last post
David.a.Isaksson's picture
David.a.Isaksson
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 29 2010
Posts: 17
Video by Stansberry's Investment Advisory - Any merit?

Hello everyone,

I just saw a video by Stansberry's Investment Advisory that presents a lot of the information that most of us has heard in one form or another already, but in the end of the video he also gives some investment advise, some of which is only available once you subscribe (for free). Much of the information is presented as facts, and while some probably are, other things feel more like predictions while presented as facts.

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/LPSILC86/PR

Anyone know if this Stansberry's Investment is a trustworthy source and if its worth subscribing? What about his investment advice, the precious metals are of course a known phenomenon but what about the other stuff, any ideas? What are your opinions on the information presented? Does it hold any merit or is it just someone trying to get a bunch of subscribers?

Hope I'm not stepping on any toes posting this here.

David

jerryzimmer's picture
jerryzimmer
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 16 2009
Posts: 4
Re: Video by Stansberry's Investment Advisory - Any merit?

You might want to review these documents and then decide for yourself.

http://briandeer.com/vaxgen/stansberry-fraud.htm

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18090.htm

Like you said, David, it sounds good, but there doesn't seem to be any new information for CM readers.  I'm staying away.

Jerry

David.a.Isaksson's picture
David.a.Isaksson
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 29 2010
Posts: 17
Re: Video by Stansberry's Investment Advisory - Any merit?

Thanks for that! Something felt kind of off. Now I know to be cautious.

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1441
Re: Video by Stansberry's Investment Advisory - Any merit?

David

I think the information is pretty accurate. I'm not giving the guy any of my money so no cost in listening.

Two issues I thought about while listening:

What happens if other countries just buy oil in their currency? In other words what is to stop them? Is it just a 'gentleman's" agreement or is there some punishment that ensues?

Once it looks like dollar is going to end as the world reserve currency what boogeymen will the US pull out as a 'threat'? Remember all the talk about the Chinese being a threat to the US if they let the yuan increase in value?

blakbelt's picture
blakbelt
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 20 2011
Posts: 1
Re: Video by Stansberry's Investment Advisory - Any merit?

Johnny Oxygen wrote:

What happens if other countries just buy oil in their currency? In other words what is to stop them? Is it just a 'gentleman's" agreement or is there some punishment that ensues?

That's what Saddam Hussein threatened to do, see what happened to him.

The U.S. Government has a very strong interest in making sure the dollar remains the oil currency, but, it can't overthrow every country in the world that threatens to stop buying oil in u.s. dollars.

diamondrn's picture
diamondrn
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2011
Posts: 1
Stansberry's Investment Advisory

I can't believe I listened to the whole thing.

The author takes a few facts and figures and paints a very bleak picture, but doesn't really tell you anything you can't find out for yourself.

The Euro is actually in more trouble than the dollar, due to the insolvency of the EU Countries like Greece and Spain, etc.

We do have to worry about the One World Order; but that shouldn't happen if we rein in the global warming idiots and their kind. Energy/carbon taxes are how they plan to finance the One World Order, to be housed in Belgium or wherever.

C02 is Green... and Green is Good! http://ht.ly/4fANS

We will be in trouble if the government doesn't rein in spending, so you should be screaming at every elected official you know that they had either cut their spending or you will vote them out of office; period. and for them to start drilling for the oil that we have in the ground in and around the US.

Anyone can invest in gold, silver and oil without ever having to buy an ounce of anything by using Exchange Traded Funds - ETFs, etc. Anyone can buy inverse funds that make money when the market is going down. It's not shorting.

Long story, short version; he's out to separate you from your money.

Keep your debt under control, buy a big gun with plenty of bullets and keep your pantry full. Keep your powder dry.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
I listened to most of it...

I listened to most of it.  It got tough near the end as it was all about him.  Same old doomsday gig.  There may well be some truth in it though.  If we do not get government spending under control there will be a financial collapse.  I am not sure how we gett he politicians to cut spending enough.  I was hoping that the tea party would be a good  influence but it has not happened so far - not enough of them.  The 2012 election will bring many more and then we will see.  Hopefully we do not implode before we get a chance to fix it.

wds's picture
wds
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 1
CO2 is Green ?????

C02 is Green... and Green is Good! http://ht.ly/4fANS

This statement is ridiculous. Obviously plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, but there's already plenty in the atmopshere for plants. It's the harmful effects of CO2 emissions (drought, climate change, flooding, sea level rise, spread of disease) that we should be looking at. The website that diamondm linked ("CO2 is Green"), is based on fraudulent science and backed by powerful American coal investors and proponents. Here's the inside scoope on the website: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Plants_Need_CO2. However, I agree with all of diamondm's other statements about financial investments.

tictac1's picture
tictac1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 25 2009
Posts: 166
Actually, the poster is

Actually, the poster is correct, bad source notwithstanding.  Man-made CO2 is not capable of effecting climate, there is plenty of research out there to show this.  Water vapor accounts for over 96% of "greenhouse effect", and man-made CO2 accounts for only a small fraction of atmospheric CO2.  It is not a pollutant, it is an essential gas for life on this planet, like O2.

CO2 levels in the past have been much higher than they are now, and commercial greenhouse operations regularly supplement to 1000 ppm for better growth (350-400 ppm is normal for outside air).

Again, tons of hard data out there to support this, but just read this report-

http://cei.org/news-releases/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

I've done a lot of reading in this area, and come to the conclusion that anthropomorphic climate change is purple Kool-Aid.  Come to your own conclusions, but do your own research.

Septimus's picture
Septimus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 19 2008
Posts: 200
Here, here!

+1, absolutely...

tictac1 wrote:

Actually, the poster is correct, bad source notwithstanding.  Man-made CO2 is not capable of effecting climate, there is plenty of research out there to show this.  Water vapor accounts for over 96% of "greenhouse effect", and man-made CO2 accounts for only a small fraction of atmospheric CO2.  It is not a pollutant, it is an essential gas for life on this planet, like O2.

CO2 levels in the past have been much higher than they are now, and commercial greenhouse operations regularly supplement to 1000 ppm for better growth (350-400 ppm is normal for outside air).

Again, tons of hard data out there to support this, but just read this report-

http://cei.org/news-releases/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

I've done a lot of reading in this area, and come to the conclusion that anthropomorphic climate change is purple Kool-Aid.  Come to your own conclusions, but do your own research.

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1264
Now you've done it!

tictac1 wrote:

Man-made CO2 is not capable of effecting climate, there is plenty of research out there to show this.  Water vapor accounts for over 96% of "greenhouse effect", and man-made CO2 accounts for only a small fraction of atmospheric CO2.  It is not a pollutant, it is an essential gas for life on this planet, like O2.

Let the flamage begin!  I happen to agree with you but have decided to no longer discuss it at CM. I figure either you don't believe it's man made or it is and discussions simply turn into religious wars....  Hence why this topic ends up in the dungeon....

On the Stansbury video it has gone viral.  It doesn't really cover anything new if you have been following CM, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber, Gerald Celente, Jim Rodgers, and others.  I find its too much of a sales pitch, so when people forward it to me I refer them back to the Crash Course.  I actually think the Inflation.us videos are less obnoxious.  I mean who produces that long a video with just text of what your saying....

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 809
Take it outside fellas!

tictac1 wrote:

Actually, the poster is correct, bad source notwithstanding.  Man-made CO2 is not capable of effecting climate, there is plenty of research out there to show this.  Water vapor accounts for over 96% of "greenhouse effect", and man-made CO2 accounts for only a small fraction of atmospheric CO2.  It is not a pollutant, it is an essential gas for life on this planet, like O2.

CO2 levels in the past have been much higher than they are now, and commercial greenhouse operations regularly supplement to 1000 ppm for better growth (350-400 ppm is normal for outside air).

Again, tons of hard data out there to support this, but just read this report-

http://cei.org/news-releases/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

I've done a lot of reading in this area, and come to the conclusion that anthropomorphic climate change is purple Kool-Aid.  Come to your own conclusions, but do your own research.

Actually, I agree with you but, just like rhare pointed out, that is a very contentious topic here, so much so, that it has been given it's own thread so as not to hijack every other thread into an AGW debate. So, if you want to pick that scab, please go to Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?.

tictac1's picture
tictac1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 25 2009
Posts: 166
My apologies

I did not know it was so hotly debated, will discontinue...

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1441
LoL @ "pick that scab"

LoL @ "pick that scab"

DEUS X MACHINA's picture
DEUS X MACHINA
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2011
Posts: 28
i agree with most of what he is saying

I think what he is saying is legit!

jturbo68's picture
jturbo68
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 4 2009
Posts: 191
Whatever

God in the Machine,

Take it here if you want to go round and round with it.

Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?.

DEUS X MACHINA's picture
DEUS X MACHINA
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2011
Posts: 28
that's God OF the Machine...your link is bad by the way

God OF the Machine

jturbo68's picture
jturbo68
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 4 2009
Posts: 191
sure

Im sure you can find the thread if you want

Roxy's picture
Roxy
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 8 2011
Posts: 1
Stansberry's Investment Advisory //US currency inflation

Why Stansberry is saying that US gov simply prints money??Isn't it true that U.S. Treasury prints money - Fed Reserve notes and coins- (liability) against Fed's  assets , i.e. gold, US government securities, notes receivable, foreign currencies? This equiasion of Assets and Liabilities should be in balance. If it is not, I do not understand why there are no serious  investigations on this case.... I understand that nowdays these notes are not convertible into gold or silver etc., i.e."fiat money", but Feds "monetizes" an asset by issuing Feds notes.Buying an asset in this way increases the money supply and the asset "backs" the money..Isn't it so??????

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1154
I am a subscriber to the

I am a subscriber to the newsletter. I gave it a "what the heck" a half a year ago with a 50% trial offer. 

I'll say this. I've made a lot of money from that newsletter. They know how to pick performing instruments. 

ericg's picture
ericg
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 23 2010
Posts: 101
C02 is Green... and Green is

C02 is Green... and Green is Good! http://ht.ly/4fANS

Here is another great site on the ins and outs of CO2:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=196 

Don't beleive the hype of IPCC....

ericg's picture
ericg
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 23 2010
Posts: 101
wds wrote: This statement is

wds wrote:

This statement is ridiculous. Obviously plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, but there's already plenty in the atmopshere for plants. It's the harmful effects of CO2 emissions (drought, climate change, flooding, sea level rise, spread of disease) that we should be looking at. The website that diamondm linked ("CO2 is Green"), is based on fraudulent science and backed by powerful American coal investors and proponents. Here's the inside scoope on the website: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Plants_Need_CO2. However, I agree with all of diamondm's other statements about financial investments.

This will probably get this flagged for the basement..... How do you know that the site you indicate isn't a Propaganda site for the Climate Change wackos ? I've asked this before, how can 390 parts per million CO2 have any kind of detremental effects ?

That would mean there are 39 molecules CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of other gases and what not... Please explain how 39 molecules can get so hot that they heat up the other 99,961  molecules to the point of "Global Warming" ?? Someone once tried to explain that they vibrated so hard that they created friction LMAO that's ridiculous!!!! Do CO2 molecules explode in a massive fusion reaction when they get hot ? Seriously, if someone can explain it so that it makes any kind of sense I would love to hear it. IMHO it's just another fearmongering tactic to scare the masses into compliance.

I'm all for conservation and alternative energy, but not because I'm a scared little puppy of climate change. The climate is always in a constant state of change and sometimes it even causes droughts and long periods of unusual weather patterns.

Eric

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1836
To EricG, Your Answer

ericg wrote:

I've asked this before, how can 390 parts per million CO2 have any kind of detremental effects?

And I've answered you before:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/100402#comment-100402

But you never replied.

Poet

ericg's picture
ericg
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 23 2010
Posts: 101
poet wrote: And I've

poet wrote:

And I've answered you before:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/daily...

But you never replied.

Sorry poet.... I think this article may give a better explanation than I can :

http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory

The climate change arguement hasn't convinced me for reasons in this study and from my own personal observations. The weather patterns where i live are cooling and have been for several years. I moved here in the mid seventies and the weather was much cooler then. Then for about 25 years or so there was a warming trend, and now it has gone back to a cooling trend. This tells me it is cyclical. I also have a friend that has been keeping daily temperature records for the last 16 years and he says that the average temperature has dropped since he started keeping records by almost 1.5 degrees. I still don't understand how 39 molecules, even if they get excited over and over again can have that much influence over the other 99,961 molecules.

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1836
Thanks For At Least Finally Reading And Responding

ericg wrote:

poet wrote:

And I've answered you before:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/daily...

But you never replied.

Sorry poet.... I think this article may give a better explanation than I can :

http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory

The climate change arguement hasn't convinced me for reasons in this study and from my own personal observations. The weather patterns where i live are cooling and have been for several years. I moved here in the mid seventies and the weather was much cooler then. Then for about 25 years or so there was a warming trend, and now it has gone back to a cooling trend. This tells me it is cyclical. I also have a friend that has been keeping daily temperature records for the last 16 years and he says that the average temperature has dropped since he started keeping records by almost 1.5 degrees. I still don't understand how 39 molecules, even if they get excited over and over again can have that much influence over the other 99,961 molecules.

Well, if you read what I wrote (as linked to above) and it's still not enough to show 1. 25 carbon dioxide molecules per 100,000 is more than enough for all plant life on Earth, and that 2. humans have contributedly greatly to carbon in the atmosphere through deforestation and fossil fuel de-sequestration, and 3. 39 carbon dioxide molecules per 100,000 is enough critical mass to repeatedly pass through Sun energy at a certain wavelength while absorbing reflected Earth energy at a different wavelength to radiate back to the Earth, then there's no use trying to further convince you.

We'll likely both be long dead by the time either of us would be vindicated. Our kids will find out in their lifetimes. As you can tell, I am of the opinion that while climate change is real, all attempts at trying to stop it or reverse it are futile when arrayed against the forces currently at play.

Thank you for at least finally reading and responding. It's been almost 3 months, but better late than never.

Poet

ericg's picture
ericg
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 23 2010
Posts: 101
Poet wrote: Thank you for at

Poet wrote:

Thank you for at least finally reading and responding. It's been almost 3 months, but better late than never.

poet,  I did read it three months ago and meant to reply then ( has it really been three months ?) I get very busy and don't always get back to things in a timely manner. Sometimes I never get back unless I'm reminded as you did.

I can see now why CM puts the AWG stuff in the basement. There are two very stongly opposing schools of thought on this and we happen to be on opposing sides. I'd still feed ya if you came to my house hungry :)

eric 

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1836
Thanks, Eric!

ericg wrote:

Poet wrote:

Thank you for at least finally reading and responding. It's been almost 3 months, but better late than never.

poet,  I did read it three months ago and meant to reply then ( has it really been three months ?) I get very busy and don't always get back to things in a timely manner. Sometimes I never get back unless I'm reminded as you did.

I can see now why CM puts the AWG stuff in the basement. There are two very stongly opposing schools of thought on this and we happen to be on opposing sides. I'd still feed ya if you came to my house hungry :)

eric 

Thanks, Eric! I'd still feed you, too.

By the way, I just read a fascinating article in Mother Jones that talks about The Science Of Why We Don't Believe Science. It talks about how we as human beings tend to reject evidence that is contrary to our already-held beliefs and come up with counter-arguments in terms of rationalization versus reason.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

Poet

ericg's picture
ericg
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 23 2010
Posts: 101
poet wrote: The Science Of

poet wrote:

The Science Of Why We Don't Believe Science. It talks about how we as human beings tend to reject evidence that is contrary to our already-held beliefs and come up with counter-arguments in terms of rationalization versus reason.

Poet,  You are right, that was an interesting article. I'm not sure that you are implying I have no belief in science, which of course I do, it's just not the "changer's" science. I used to believe in AGW. I started digging deeper though and found that most of it was based on manipulated computer models. If the model didn't give them the answer they wanted they changed the program so it would. They left out critical data and variables just so it would show the results they wanted. The article could apply to Changers just as easily as it can to "nonbelievers."

I'll give you an example: Al Gore quoted extensively from Chief Seattle's speech in his book, An Inconvenient Truth. The majority of the population still believes Chief Seattle gave that particular speech. In reality it was written by Ted Perry, a screenwriter, for the documentary film Home. When I tell hardline enviromentalists this and prove it they claim that if Chief Seattle were alive today that is the speech he'd give. Maybe he would maybe he wouldn't. We will never know. My feeling is is that if he didn't do enough research to know that Chief Seattle didn't write that speech, then he didn't do enough research to back up his other claims.

I've always thought that if governments could figure out a away to tax the air we breath they would. Lo and behold they've figured it out !

Eric

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1836
We're Just Human, After All

ericg wrote:

poet wrote:

The Science Of Why We Don't Believe Science. It talks about how we as human beings tend to reject evidence that is contrary to our already-held beliefs and come up with counter-arguments in terms of rationalization versus reason.

Poet,  You are right, that was an interesting article. I'm not sure that you are implying I have no belief in science, which of course I do, it's just not the "changer's" science.

Eric

No, I wasn't implying anything about you or your beliefs so much as: the two of us are on opposing sides of the man-made global warming debate and not likely to be changing our minds, and part of that is due to just plain human tendencies as outlined in that article. I'm sure I'm just as guilty of having the biases that I do.

I still love the Chief Seattle quote, though. Even if he didn't say it.

Poet

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 809
No Respect for Forum Guidelines??

ericg wrote:

.................I can see now why CM puts the AWG stuff in the basement. .........................

eric 

And yet you guys still keep dragging out of the basement, hijacking whatever thread you feel like. Why is that?

ericg's picture
ericg
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 23 2010
Posts: 101
earthwise wrote: And yet you

earthwise wrote:

And yet you guys still keep dragging out of the basement, hijacking whatever thread you feel like. Why is that?

Maybe instead of throwing it in the basement CM should allow a Climate Change forum where us "wackos" from both sides can battle it out like gentlemen (or not) . It has much to do with the 3E's Enviroment, Economics, and Energy. I consider what was discussed useful even if we did only come to the agreement that we disagree. Maybe one of us will end up having dinner at the other's home. You can come too Ewise :)

Eric

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments