this is so dangerous. i've tried to tell you many times there is NO WAY you can be aware of all the factors affecting the price of gold. too much is unknown. the only way to play this game is to follow the charts and go with the price. if you stick to so many assumptions you could go broke.
and as for the "theory" of gold, i know that i've given you a strong case for deflation that you understand. you just refuse to believe it.
It isn't necessary to know all of the factors, as long as you understand what
. Rote memorization of myriad different case situations can often be described by a single formula - understanding the principle allows narrowing of potentials.
goes up in value no matter what!!! anyone with a brain can see this is wrong.
Not "goes up in value no matter what" - maintains purchasing power relative to other real goods
no matter what. This distinction is very important.
for a year now the USD has been gaining purchasing power over silver and almost a year for gold.
Read that again - where did I say anything about the USD?
Gold has maintained a steady range in relation to
oil for over 50 years. The dollar has not. A similar situation exists with various other real
what the heck are u talking about?
What hurts is the sad trend of western nations toward a modernized Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin-style fascism and the associated destruction of humanity.hey bitcool; who's trying to scare ppl into investing in what? i'd say gold bugs are notorious for this.
You made a statement about the falling paper price of gold "hurting" and I replied by saying that it was something else entirely that hurt, not the falling gold price. Miscommunication perhaps; the two were separate and if you hadn't mentioned hurting, I wouldn't have brought up fascism.
This real pain
has nothing explicitly to do with gold.
it'll be one or the other. not both.
In the end, yes - but the transition will be a process, whether it's fast or slow.
and as much as u think the Fed will allow this, i think the Fed will put a stop to this.
By doing what? By raiding demand deposit accounts of citizens because everything else has already been drained? By telling the BRICs that they'd better keep buying US debt - or else? By bombing brown people to keep the oil flowing?
The Fed is a big magician - a snake oil salesman. And he's outstayed his welcome.
you are so wrapped up in conspiracy theories i don't know how you do the "living" you say you do.
Where's the logical, reasoned rebuttal that refutes documented efforts by the US gov't to manage markets?
isn't Norcini the one who said to go long right at the top of the miner breakout when i said sell?
I haven't been keeping track for some time. Link?
I wouldn't be surprised if the total amount of outstanding derivatives now exceeds $2 quadrillion rather than the $700 trillion to $1.44 quadrillion estimates from the BIS.
i wouldn't either. and you know what those are built upon? DEBT.
what happens if it blows? the USD skyrockets.
Armageddon accompanies that. Monetization is the only option when there isn't enough time to naturally process the debt. It's like choking because you've stuffed too much beef down your gullet, and peristalsis can't move the backlog quickly enough.
The question is: how much
debt monetization must occur to stabilize the economy on a global
basis? Will it be 20%, 50%, 80% or more?
What would happen if even 10% had to be monetized? Including Eurodollars/Petrodollars, there is perhaps $20-30 trillion in base money supply. If $70-144 trillion came into the world markets over a period of less than a decade, monetary
inflation stands a very good chance of causing pricing
destabilization which rapidly leads to catastrophic business failure and debt defaults. The whole cycle accelerates from there.
I subjectively think any less than 50% debt monetization ($350-722 trillion or more) would be insufficient. If that level is not met, debt growth would be virtually guaranteed to outpace the world's ability to process it - this may be the US dollar's 51% threat.
do u realize just how perverted u gold bugs have become?
the gold argument just one year ago went something like this:
"diversify your gold holdings by buying some physical, leveraging it by buying gold majors, and then getting even more beta by buying gold juniors. nothing like owning some free gold in the ground. and if u really want to make alot of money, buy silver for even higher beta. and silver majors and juniors? oh gaud, printing money! and buying gold and silver is even more easy now that we have ETF's!"
what is the argument now?:
"oh, never mind gold major, gold juniors, silver majors, silver juniors, gold ETF's, silver ETF's. they are just paper representations of the real thing. and oh, BTW, never mind the quoted prices on the exchanges either, they're just manipulated by THE MANIPULATORS."
I know I don't speak for all gold advocates, and many would rail against my ideas just as they do Bitcoin.
I have always
been negative on the majority of precious metal ETFs as an investment
- they are by and large short-term trading
instruments; GLD especially is the epitome of paper gold.
Miners have had and still have massive upside growth potential. There are geopolitical risks inherent with owning them, which is less desirable than having physical bullion in possession - potentially to the point of avoiding miners under certain circumstances. Careful selection is necessary, but miners are still very
worthwhile - especially with the possibility of paying dividends in kind.
I've been saying for a long time that a paper/physical separation is possible, and that each stress to extreme outside ranges raises the chance of that occurring. The mechanism for that occurring have also been outlined repeatedly.
and another thing. all u guys want us to think u just own bullion and have all along. remember, i was there too. i followed the above advice and owned miners on the way up. i bet y'all still do and if u don't, sold at a huge loss.
To that, I think it's been said better than any way I can put it...
I'm a socialist.
I don't know if we can be friends anymore
The fluctuation in the value of the USD are easily explainable in the here and now as the 'leper with the most fingers' principle. On a higher plane it has to do with our military might and how we've positioned it.
no. at least 60% of worldwide debt is denominated in USD. and the rest of the foreign debt is backed in foreign vaults by USD reserve currency. why do u think the Fed has to do swap lines to Europe constantly? to prevent the USD denominated debt within that region from imploding. this USD denominated debt expansion worldwide is what drove down the USD value the last 4 decades.
now that is going into reverse, and when that bad debt is liquidated there is a scramble for the remaining USD cash that drives up the relative
value of the remaining USD's in circulation. this is why you saw the USD rise in 2008 paradoxically. and its been going on again since last July. it's FORCED not voluntary or based on TRUST.
I love the leper analogies
"Denominated in" does not equate to "exclusively redeemable in".
Absent increasing inflation, there is more pressure for the USD to collapse than to continue providing stability. Since all other options have been shut out, the USD can only swing in one of two directions: it can remain the world's reserve currency at the expense of the US economy or
it can be inflated to oblivion so America can escape its debt burden.
Forcing USD holders in a certain direction after they trusted
the US promise to manage the dollar responsibly results in foreign holders seeking a way to get out
of the USD. You don't think there's selling of the dollar by the biggest participants on the planet? What do you think China is using to acquire gold and natural resources?
if i was Ben, just to spite all of you and the Chinese, Russians, and Mexicans, i'd RAISE interest rates tomorrow. point being i wouldn't trust him with a 10 ft pole.
Seriously, WTF? Raise
So the US would be paying the BRICs more
on the massive holdings they already have? Some "punishment". How does that do anything but harm domestic interests in the short-term? At least there might be a glimmer of hope for genuine recover, but the sitting political establishment would have the Bernank replaced in a split second, possibly after a surprise "terror" attack so further power grabs could be pushed.