Gold. GOLD!!!!! Gooooollllllllllddddddd!!!!!!!!

[tokeprep]

Thanks, I was going to reply to tokes non thinking on this point.

The board is determined by the politicians who get to choose between the candidates that the Fed has already chosen.
The government cannot choose anyone other than the candidates the Fed puts before them. The deck is 100% stacked, the selection process is the wool over the eyes of the public to make it appear that government can exert control.

Anyone who says the Fed is a government agency should read a book called "Secrets of the Temple." The same Book Nancy Pelosi recommended to reporters at the White House.

If the Fed were a government agency then government or congress would have oversight. As it is there is nothing the congress or the president can do to overrule a decision the Fed makes.

Prove your assertion. You cannot because you're making it up, or parroting claims that had zero backing to begin with. Why was Ben Bernanke handpicked by the Fed to lead the Fed? Because he was a successful member of the banking cabal? Because he entered some secret pact to make all of them wealthier?

Once again, according to you, judges with lifetime terms aren't government actors because they aren't subject to oversight and because the Congress and the president cannot overrule some of their decisions (constitutional decisions can only be overruled by constitutional amendments; interpretations of legislation can be overruled by passing new or clarifying legislation). Of course, the Congress obviously can overrule a decision the Fed makes. All they have to do is amend or repeal the Federal Reserve Act and give themselves that power.

 

[heckler73]

Really, I sure wish I hadn't bought so much silver. Just think, I could have bought some CD's and made practically nothing instead of the 500% profit I'm still sitting on and the boat, quad runner and multiple vacations I paid for by selling some at $40+/oz. Woe is me.

I find that hard to believe.
At $24/Ozt, your average cost would have to be $4/Ozt (4+4*500%)
And that's not even factoring in the transaction costs for Physical.

Meanwhile, your boat and quad are depreciating in value faster than currency (precluding variable costs of operation/maintenance), and the vacations are lost. But I suppose you can ascribe any value you wish to their utility.

So... How much did you actually sell at $40+ and to who?
Perhaps you should reassess your "investment" so you don't get caught with your pants down when it comes time to panic-sell with the rest of the herd.
Or learn how to buy Puts / sell Calls to protect your "investment".
I know several people who bought "monster boxes" at $30+ and are now languishing underwater with their myopic decisions.
PMs take the stairs up, but the elevator down.
You'd be wise to heed that axiom, or at least diversify your holdings a little more (assuming you haven't).

 

[tokeprep]

I took your advice and sold all of my Precious Metals for crisp new $100 bills. I then put those bills in coffee cans and buried them in my yard. My hopes are that in 20 years time they will be worth substantially more, or at least have preserved my spending power without me having to actively worry about what investment I need to do next to get a good yield.

If this doesn't work out, then your ideas were flawed, and I lose my retirement and will have to eat cat food while I slowly starve to death.

Since I keep repeating that saving your cash in that manner is moronic, that would just make you a moron, and it wouldn't reflect at all on my ideas. If you want to maintain or grow your purchasing power, you must make investments.

 

[ChesusRice]

As pointed out in a earlier thread. I was quite invested in 1 ounce englehardt silver coins had hundreds of them
Cost .60 cents each above spot price to buy and .60 cents below spot price to sell.
Think about it if silver was 5 an ounce it cost me 5.60 to buy and if I wanted to sell I had to sell for 4.40
Look at how flat silver was for almost 2 decades and tell me it was a great investment. I lost a 1.20 an ounce from the start.

Silver spiked before
Silver will plummet again

Just in case anyone missed it

 

[tokeprep]

We already espoused our views on inflation, neither side convincing the other of the superiority of their arguments made.

You didn't even understand how inflation was calculated. When it was very clearly explained, you still didn't understand how inflation was calculated. When you're missing such a basic piece of your argument, it's rather difficult to convince anyone of its superiority.

Do you need a refresher? You said if the price of filet was $30 and the price of flank was $4, and the price increase on filet was less than on flank, filet would be used to calculate the inflation rate for beefsteak. Your example said the inflation rate was 2% based on substitution assumptions. Except in your very own example, the price of beefsteak increased from $4 to $30. Inflation was $30 - $4 = $26 / $4 = 650% for the beefsteak category, not the 2% you tried to claim.

The actual thread is about Gold, which I can agree is priced according to many things, but mostly its about leveraged naked shorts by bankers who pretend that they actually have 1 billion ounces of gold to trade each day.

Yeah, it's all manipulation, not simple supply and demand. Sure.

Your comment about silver not being one of the best asset classes the last few years seems to be time limited. If we time limit things I can make silver the best asset class in the history of the world.

Since the real price of silver in the last 50 years is a tiny fraction of the price it commanded in the rest of human history, that would be quite a feat. Had you put all of your money in silver 1000 years ago, 500 years ago ago, 250 years ago, you would have lost almost all of the original value.

In the last decade, silver is one of the best asset classes. 500% gains. That beats all stocks, equities and treasuries on an aggregate basis.

Yes, because there was huge industrial demand for silver, not because it was a precious metal or store of value. How would it have performed without said industrial demand? This is why you should drop silver and just move on to gold, since gold has far less utility than silver and doesn't have new industrial demand heavily influencing its price.

 

[tokeprep]

Really, I sure wish I hadn't bought so much silver. Just think, I could have bought some CD's and made practically nothing instead of the 500% profit I'm still sitting on and the boat, quad runner and multiple vacations I paid for by selling some at $40+/oz. Woe is me.

Since this keeps coming up, no one is saying that the CD is or ever was comparable to investing in metals. I posted an example using CD rates only to show that comparable returns could have been earned over the same time period by investing in other assets. Making an investment comparable to one in silver would involve taking on far more risk than you can in a CD.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

I find that hard to believe.
At $24/Ozt, your average cost would have to be $4/Ozt (4+4*500%)
And that's not even factoring in the transaction costs for Physical.

Meanwhile, your boat and quad are depreciating in value faster than currency (precluding variable costs of operation/maintenance), and the vacations are lost. But I suppose you can ascribe any value you wish to their utility.

So... How much did you actually sell at $40+ and to who?
Perhaps you should reassess your "investment" so you don't get caught with your pants down when it comes time to panic-sell with the rest of the herd.
Or learn how to buy Puts / sell Calls to protect your "investment".
I know several people who bought "monster boxes" at $30+ and are now languishing underwater with their myopic decisions.
PMs take the stairs up, but the elevator down.
You'd be wise to heed that axiom, or at least diversify your holdings a little more (assuming you haven't).

The bulk of my silver was purchased in 2003-2004, right before I retired. I was basing the 500% on my average price paid around $4.85 and the current price being around $25. Of course there are transaction fees with physical gold and silver, but they work both ways. I sold directly to other investors at $1/oz over spot, which is a deal on 100oz APMEX and Engelhard bars.

I won't be panic selling anything and neither will most people holding physical gold or silver. Go ahead and take $25 down to your local coin shop and see if you can walk out with an ounce of silver. Don't feel bad when they laugh you right out the door. I wouldn't sell any serious quantity if someone walked up to me and offered me $30/oz. As I stated earlier in the thread, I hope it plummets, I'll start buying bars again the day it hits $10.

 

[ChesusRice]

And how smart would your investment be if the price remainec flat for 20 years?
It would be fucking as stupid and you would sell at a loss after transaction fees

 

[NoDrama]

Just in case anyone missed it

But you said the first spike was due to the Hunt Brothers. Which of the hunt brothers is manipulating silver this time????

 

[NoDrama]

And how smart would your investment be if the price remainec flat for 20 years?
It would be fucking as stupid and you would sell at a loss after transaction fees

Transaction fees? Those are paid by the buyer, not the seller.

 

[NoDrama]

You didn't even understand how inflation was calculated. When it was very clearly explained, you still didn't understand how inflation was calculated. When you're missing such a basic piece of your argument, it's rather difficult to convince anyone of its superiority.

Do you need a refresher? You said if the price of filet was $30 and the price of flank was $4, and the price increase on filet was less than on flank, filet would be used to calculate the inflation rate for beefsteak. Your example said the inflation rate was 2% based on substitution assumptions. Except in your very own example, the price of beefsteak increased from $4 to $30. Inflation was $30 - $4 = $26 / $4 = 650% for the beefsteak category, not the 2% you tried to claim.

Actually that is not what I claimed, you misunderstand my argument and I am not going to waste my time trying to get you to understand.

Since the real price of silver in the last 50 years is a tiny fraction of the price it commanded in the rest of human history, that would be quite a feat. Had you put all of your money in silver 1000 years ago, 500 years ago ago, 250 years ago, you would have lost almost all of the original value.

If you had put all of your money into silver in 2003 at $4 and sold it all at $49 in 2011 you would have made gains of over 1000%. If you had put all your money into stocks, bonds, equities, money markets etc etc you would have made less than 10% and probably a negative number.

Yes, because there was huge industrial demand for silver, not because it was a precious metal or store of value. How would it have performed without said industrial demand? This is why you should drop silver and just move on to gold, since gold has far less utility than silver and doesn't have new industrial demand heavily influencing its price.

Drop Silver to move on to gold?

LOL I have more cash tied up into gold than silver, but silver is where the real profits can be made due to the volatility.


Gold has almost no industrial use at all.

Gold is money, and nothing else.

 

[NoDrama]

Prove your assertion. You cannot because you're making it up, or parroting claims that had zero backing to begin with. Why was Ben Bernanke handpicked by the Fed to lead the Fed? Because he was a successful member of the banking cabal? Because he entered some secret pact to make all of them wealthier?

Once again, according to you, judges with lifetime terms aren't government actors because they aren't subject to oversight and because the Congress and the president cannot overrule some of their decisions (constitutional decisions can only be overruled by constitutional amendments; interpretations of legislation can be overruled by passing new or clarifying legislation). Of course, the Congress obviously can overrule a decision the Fed makes. All they have to do is amend or repeal the Federal Reserve Act and give themselves that power.

The policy is made up by the FOMC, not the board of governors, of which the majority are from the Federal Reserve system itself, the rest are bankers, former bank regulators, and economics professors who previously were beholden to banks for grant money.

of the 12 members 7 are from inside the Fed Reserve system. Everyone else is just window dressing.


Alan Greenspan said:

The Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically, that there is no other agency of government that which can overrule actions that we take.

So long as that is in place and there is no evidence the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don’t, frankly, matter.
​

This was said in an interview by Charlie Rose, its not taken out of context.

 

[echelon1k1]

sure, but they only recently got them, it takes a few years to get the money makers in deep enough into the woodwork to make all that currency and sell it off as money.

Iran, Cuba and N. Korea are the only countries left without a central bank operating under the rules of the BIS, IMF....


in the Year 2000, the countries without such a central bank were:

Afghanistan
Iraq
Sudan
Libya
Cuba
North Korea
Iran


What countries have we been fighting?

I was trying to lead the horse to water, but alas, it's a logical fallacy

 

[tokeprep]

Actually that is not what I claimed, you misunderstand my argument and I am not going to waste my time trying to get you to understand.

This is exactly what you said, with my emphasis added.

If they use the lesser of the two because it is implicity implied that people will substitute the lower rate rising beefsteak over the higher rising price. i.e if Flank steak goes up $2 a pound to $10, and Filet Mignon goes up $1.50 to $32 a pound, the BLS ASSUMES that you will buy the Filet Mignon.

Its not hard to understand, so I don't see where you get the 700% figure when it would be 2%. This UNDERSTATES the inflation because one price has been SUBSTITUTED over another, giving a false impression.

They don't average the prices and compare them to last year.

If BLS assumed that people bought filet instead of flank in your example, it would mean they moved up from paying $2/pound to $32/pound for beefsteak. According to you, the inflation rate is just arbitrarily picked, with the BLS choosing the lowest price increase and calling that the inflation rate. But that's patently false. BLS is measuring the cost of a pound of beef and deriving its inflation numbers from the cost of a pound of beef now over the cost last year, not just estimating inflation by playing games with percentages, as you repeatedly and ignorantly suggested over and over again.

The result of the substitution assumption you were complaining about would be inflation of 600% in the category, not the 2% increase in filet prices.

If you had put all of your money into silver in 2003 at $4 and sold it all at $49 in 2011 you would have made gains of over 1000%. If you had put all your money into stocks, bonds, equities, money markets etc etc you would have made less than 10% and probably a negative number.

If you put all your money into Apple stock in 2003 at $10 a share and sold it all at $700 in 2012, you would have made gains of over 6000%. What's your point?

 

[tokeprep]

The policy is made up by the FOMC, not the board of governors, of which the majority are from the Federal Reserve system itself, the rest are bankers, former bank regulators, and economics professors who previously were beholden to banks for grant money.

of the 12 members 7 are from inside the Fed Reserve system. Everyone else is just window dressing.

Your ignorance is on full display yet again. You're right that the FOMC has 12 members, but 7 of them are from the Board of Governors. Only 5 members come from the regional banks, which means that the Board of Governors has voting control over monetary policy and thus controls it.

Seriously, where did you get that finance degree from? The structure of the Federal Reserve System and the composition of the FOMC is something that should have come up in your introductory economics course.

Alan Greenspan said:

This was said in an interview by Charlie Rose, its not taken out of context.

Is Greenspan's quote supposed to be contradicting something I said? Because it doesn't.

 

[budsmoker87]

Your ignorance is on full display yet again. You're right that the FOMC has 12 members, but 7 of them are from the Board of Governors. Only 5 members come from the regional banks, which means that the Board of Governors has voting control over monetary policy and thus controls it.

Seriously, where did you get that finance degree from? The structure of the Federal Reserve System and the composition of the FOMC is something that should have come up in your introductory economics course.



Is Greenspan's quote supposed to be contradicting something I said? Because it doesn't.

Christ, you are one dumb motherfucker

 

[tokeprep]

Christ, you are one dumb motherfucker

And why is that?

 

[budsmoker87]

you're hopeless. explanations for you are pointless. cognitive dissonance in its highest form

 

[tokeprep]

you're hopeless. explanations for you are pointless. cognitive dissonance in its highest form

Explanations are pointless when they aren't based on facts. It's an undeniable fact that NoDrama doesn't understand how inflation is calculated, and it's an undeniable fact that he misstated the membership of the FOMC.

If you're ignoring facts, you're the hopeless one.

 

[NoDrama]

This is exactly what you said, with my emphasis added.



If BLS assumed that people bought filet instead of flank in your example, it would mean they moved up from paying $2/pound to $32/pound for beefsteak. According to you, the inflation rate is just arbitrarily picked, with the BLS choosing the lowest price increase and calling that the inflation rate. But that's patently false. BLS is measuring the cost of a pound of beef and deriving its inflation numbers from the cost of a pound of beef now over the cost last year, not just estimating inflation by playing games with percentages, as you repeatedly and ignorantly suggested over and over again.

No, you are choosing to move to the filet because it went up in price LESS than the flank. So you are going from $30 to $32. Not $2 to $32, I never said that, but somehow you misunderstood it that way. The BLS Implicitly Assumes this, i.e it measures the inflation of the item that went up the least because it assumes you switched. It doesn't use the basis of the cost you switched from, it uses the basis of the item you switched to. Get it?

If you put all your money into Apple stock in 2003 at $10 a share and sold it all at $700 in 2012, you would have made gains of over 6000%. What's your point?

Is Apple stock an asset class? Pretty sure its just a stock, so overall how did equities do vs precious metals? They didn't do anything, 0% return.