Gold: Past, Present, and Future

analogharbor44 said:This is exactly how things would've looked back in 2013, whether you loved it or not!

http://watch.bnn.ca/the-street/decem...12/#clip825093

The guy sounds pretty realistic. 👍

I'm not getting into whether his forecasts are spot on or not, but he sounds cautious and level-headed. That's enough for me to take him seriously.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Chinese people and Japanese people continuing to buy US Treasuries... if they actually could. I remember about two years ago, running the numbers on various parameters to see if Chinese people and other Asian people could realistically purchase up to a trillion dollars annually, and I concluded it was impossible. But you can never say never. Money and power don't care about race or skin color. Or as quiettrucker12 suggests, the Federal Reserve wouldn't allow Chinese people to buy gold cheaply. Not anytime soon... As if the Federal Reserve actually cares about the fiscal or monetary well-being of American citizens. To the Federal Reserve, which functions primarily as a private organization, the goal is to generate profit and expand its own influence; if that happens to align with the interests of the USA, well, my God, then fine. It's the same with the ruling Chinese leadership and ordinary Chinese people. You can think what you want... Their priority is maintaining order and keeping everyone under control; gold is just a side dish on the menu for the Chinese Communist Party. That’s why they print money and dilute paper—to maintain the status quo and gradually shift toward a new reality, preventing a sudden collapse of the Western Hemisphere.

vividgull10 said:Schiff claims Ben admitted it was monetization.
But wait—are we actually talking about what Schiff *claims* Bernanke said, or what he actually said?
Because Bernanke's take was different. He argued that while constantly buying and holding bonds would constitute monetization, they aren't actually doing that.

At the same time, he set clear boundaries based on inflation and unemployment thresholds.

Look, we can definitely debate what happens when the Federal Reserve eventually has to offload everything they've bought so far. That's a valid discussion.

But saying "Ben admitted it's monetization" is a total misquote. It might be an accurate reflection of what Schiff said, but it isn't what Ben said. It makes me think you haven't actually watched Bernanke's statements and are just watching Schiff's YouTube videos.

That's incorrect. I watched Ben. Ben was perfectly clear: if they hold onto that paper instead of selling it, then yes, it becomes monetization.
So, it is monetization until they sell. And it's unlimited because the criteria for stopping purchases are incredibly shaky. We'll see the reality reflected in the CPI in a year or two. It couldn't be clearer.
And who exactly is going to buy that much paper?
The claim that they aren't doing it isn't true either. He explicitly stated they are expanding the Balance sheet; he said it plainly. They aren't going to walk out and tell everyone, "Listen, we're destroying your currency," and then hide behind the word "somewhat." What does "somewhat" even mean? Is that supposed to be an argument to calm the masses?
Anyway, go ahead and explain which money is actually entering the system... We are looking at $500 billion + $500 billion, whereas the Federal Reserve's Balance sheet back in 2008 was only about $800 billion. So, it's either the money printed since 2008 or the money they are about to print.

Robert Vaughn10 said:That's incorrect. I watched Ben. Ben was perfectly clear: if they hold onto that paper instead of selling it, then yes, it becomes monetization.
So, it is monetization until they sell. And it's unlimited because the criteria for stopping purchases are incredibly shaky. We'll see the reality reflected in the CPI in a year or two. It couldn't be clearer.
And who exactly is going to buy that much paper?
The claim that they aren't doing it isn't true either. He explicitly stated they are expanding the Balance sheet; he said it plainly. They aren't going to walk out and tell everyone, "Listen, we're destroying your currency," and then hide behind the word "somewhat." What does "somewhat" even mean? Is that supposed to be an argument to calm the masses?
Anyway, go ahead and explain which money is actually entering the system... We are looking at $500 billion + $500 billion, whereas the Federal Reserve's Balance sheet back in 2008 was only about $800 billion. So, it's either the money printed since 2008 or the money they are about to print.

Let’s keep it simple: take a hypothetical scenario where the Federal Reserve's Balance sheet hits $10^{100} today.
Can you actually prove a correlation between that event and the resulting inflation? (Measure it however you want)

PS.
Disclaimer: I don't have a bias toward anything—from dollars to gold. I think like a trader; I just want to see things move. To me, this is all just about picking the best entry and exit points.
I'm saying this just so there's no misunderstanding—I'm not rooting for a rally or a crash.

The Federal Reserve has just one mission: saving their buddies in the banking sector.
Inflation or unemployment? That's just bedtime stories for children.
In its hundred years of existence, they’ve managed to wipe out 98% of the dollar's value.
Real unemployment is actually north of 12%. Just because they stopped counting people who gave up looking for work doesn't mean those people don't exist. It's all just propaganda and lies designed to make even the average, exhausted American stop believing anything.
I'm talking about next year, analogharbor44. And the Japanese people are a whole different story. Honestly, they're my top candidates for a total collapse. An aging population, a trade deficit, bleeding out against China, and a domestic population that's losing interest in buying bonds... not to mention a social structure that's getting "weird."
And this muppet Jeffrey Christian has been wrong every single time so far. Every time. He thinks gold prices will stay flat... based on what? Is he expecting an economic recovery? Maybe on some other planet, but not here on Earth.
As for silver, he's lying through his teeth. Investment demand weak? The US Mint alone is going to move 35 million Eagles. Austrian Coins will likely do 20 million. Same for the Royal Canadian Mint. I haven't checked on the Perth Mint yet, but it won't be under 15 million. And where are the Chinese people who don't even bother publishing their numbers?
Let's be clear: nobody would be happier than me if silver dropped to $20—I'd buy up every ounce of physical metal I could find. But when you hear these claims from a proven propagandist for the banking clique, you should take them with at least a grain of salt.

If you ask me, this whole thing boils down to a few basic fallacies:

- If inflation were just a simple equation where Federal Reserve printing > inflation = sky-high prices — everyone would be rich.
- If precious metals worked on the logic that inflation spikes > gold must moon — everyone would be rich.
- (Combining 1 and 2) If metals followed the logic that Federal Reserve prints > gold must moon — everyone would be rich.

Obviously, not everyone is rich. There’s a pretty clear correlation between what you know, how informed you are, solid risk management, and your actual bank balance.

The point is... the internet is flooded with characters who take things people study for years and reduce them to oversimplified sentences. I’m no trained economist, but I know enough to realize that any complex system is called "complex" for a reason. Consequently, there’s a reason anyone can start a YouTube channel, but not everyone gets a PhD.

The point being > it means nothing to me if someone happens to be right once in an indefinite period of time. That’s useless. It’s useless because it ignores the most elementary postulates of risk management. More specifically, it ignores risk management itself.

None of this is meant to imply I have all the answers. All I have is a pile of questions and a few stray ideas. For me, that's plenty. I learned long ago that staying disciplined is key—if you don't chase the hype, the profit usually finds you.

vividgull10 said:Let’s keep it simple: take a hypothetical scenario where the Federal Reserve's Balance sheet hits $10^{100} today.
Can you actually prove a correlation between that event and the resulting inflation? (Measure it however you want)

PS.
Disclaimer: I don't have a bias toward anything—from dollars to gold. I think like a trader; I just want to see things move. To me, this is all just about picking the best entry and exit points.
I'm saying this just so there's no misunderstanding—I'm not rooting for a rally or a crash.

You didn't answer, but fine. I'm in a rush, so I'll be brief.
We are talking about money entering the system to fund Government spending.
The balance sheet can grow as much as it wants, but if that new money doesn't actually hit the system, there won't be inflation. But here, it does. I don't have the exact figure for how much of that 800 billion is currently in circulation or held by private hands outside the US, but the data suggests most of it is. It's clearly a dominant amount...
So, we are dealing with newly printed money...
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York itself admitted the S&P 500 would be at 600 if they hadn't been printing. Ultimately, what the CPI looks like will depend on deflationary forces. That said, the dollar remains the official currency of settlement, and many obligations must be covered in dollars. However, it is undeniable that when $300 billion in US Treasuries was purchased back in 2010, inflation rose by several percentage points. I saw the chart once; I can't recall where. The correlation exists.

vividgull10 said:If you ask me, this whole thing boils down to a few basic fallacies:

- If inflation were just a simple equation where Federal Reserve printing > inflation = sky-high prices — everyone would be rich.
- If precious metals worked on the logic that inflation spikes > gold must moon — everyone would be rich.
- (Combining 1 and 2) If metals followed the logic that Federal Reserve prints > gold must moon — everyone would be rich.

Obviously, not everyone is rich. There’s a pretty clear correlation between what you know, how informed you are, solid risk management, and your actual bank balance.

The point is... the internet is flooded with characters who take things people study for years and reduce them to oversimplified sentences. I’m no trained economist, but I know enough to realize that any complex system is called "complex" for a reason. Consequently, there’s a reason anyone can start a YouTube channel, but not everyone gets a PhD.

The point being > it means nothing to me if someone happens to be right once in an indefinite period of time. That’s useless. It’s useless because it ignores the most elementary postulates of risk management. More specifically, it ignores risk management itself.

None of this is meant to imply I have all the answers. All I have is a pile of questions and a few stray ideas. For me, that's plenty. I learned long ago that staying disciplined is key—if you don't chase the hype, the profit usually finds you.

Inflation is actually pretty simple. It’s just more money circulating in the system. Nothing more, nothing less. If you pump more cash into circulation without a proportional increase in the goods and services that money is chasing, prices go up. It's basic economics. Does anyone really need it explained any other way?
It’s not about making everyone rich; it's about ensuring the vast majority stays broke. Isn't that always the goal?

vividgull10 said:If you ask me, this whole thing boils down to a few basic fallacies:

- If inflation were just a simple equation where Federal Reserve printing > inflation = sky-high prices — everyone would be rich.
- If precious metals worked on the logic that inflation spikes > gold must moon — everyone would be rich.
- (Combining 1 and 2) If metals followed the logic that Federal Reserve prints > gold must moon — everyone would be rich.

Obviously, not everyone is rich. There’s a pretty clear correlation between what you know, how informed you are, solid risk management, and your actual bank balance.

The point is... the internet is flooded with characters who take things people study for years and reduce them to oversimplified sentences. I’m no trained economist, but I know enough to realize that any complex system is called "complex" for a reason. Consequently, there’s a reason anyone can start a YouTube channel, but not everyone gets a PhD.

The point being > it means nothing to me if someone happens to be right once in an indefinite period of time. That’s useless. It’s useless because it ignores the most elementary postulates of risk management. More specifically, it ignores risk management itself.

None of this is meant to imply I have all the answers. All I have is a pile of questions and a few stray ideas. For me, that's plenty. I learned long ago that staying disciplined is key—if you don't chase the hype, the profit usually finds you.

Wrong again, just like with that first point. Unlike fiat or digital money, you can't just print gold whenever the whim strikes. That’s exactly why it serves as such an incredible barometer for the value of paper currency.
And just when you think everyone's going to strike it rich... as if.

vividgull10 said:If you ask me, this whole thing boils down to a few basic fallacies:

- If inflation were just a simple equation where Federal Reserve printing > inflation = sky-high prices — everyone would be rich.
- If precious metals worked on the logic that inflation spikes > gold must moon — everyone would be rich.
- (Combining 1 and 2) If metals followed the logic that Federal Reserve prints > gold must moon — everyone would be rich.

Obviously, not everyone is rich. There’s a pretty clear correlation between what you know, how informed you are, solid risk management, and your actual bank balance.

The point is... the internet is flooded with characters who take things people study for years and reduce them to oversimplified sentences. I’m no trained economist, but I know enough to realize that any complex system is called "complex" for a reason. Consequently, there’s a reason anyone can start a YouTube channel, but not everyone gets a PhD.

The point being > it means nothing to me if someone happens to be right once in an indefinite period of time. That’s useless. It’s useless because it ignores the most elementary postulates of risk management. More specifically, it ignores risk management itself.

None of this is meant to imply I have all the answers. All I have is a pile of questions and a few stray ideas. For me, that's plenty. I learned long ago that staying disciplined is key—if you don't chase the hype, the profit usually finds you.

Nobody here is actually talking about risk management. Instead, we’re stuck on this age-old delusion held by those with the power to print money—the idea that they can just crank up the supply, conjure value out of thin air, and somehow drive economic growth. It never worked then, and it sure as hell won't work now.

Anthony Evans78 said:Inflation is actually pretty simple. It’s just more money circulating in the system. Nothing more, nothing less. If you pump more cash into circulation without a proportional increase in the goods and services that money is chasing, prices go up. It's basic economics. Does anyone really need it explained any other way?
It’s not about making everyone rich; it's about ensuring the vast majority stays broke. Isn't that always the goal?

Wrong again, just like with that first point. Unlike fiat or digital money, you can't just print gold whenever the whim strikes. That’s exactly why it serves as such an incredible barometer for the value of paper currency.
And just when you think everyone's going to strike it rich... as if.

Nobody here is actually talking about risk management. Instead, we’re stuck on this age-old delusion held by those with the power to print money—the idea that they can just crank up the supply, conjure value out of thin air, and somehow drive economic growth. It never worked then, and it sure as hell won't work now.

Exactly what I’m talking about.
It isn't "simple" to me. If you think it is, fine by you.

All those "universal truths" from the Austrian School lions flooding the internet are well-known and all well and good, but they’re useless to me when it actually comes time to decide where to park my cash.

If I dump money into something today, wait five years for it to move an inch, and then watch it skyrocket in year six, that doesn't prove a theory was right—it just means I misallocated my resources for five straight years. (Not to mention sitting through a 50% drawdown, damn it!)

That's pretty much my whole philosophy.

The Keynesian crowd makes such a massive fuss about inflation just to mask what it actually is: a systematic theft of wealth, time, and resources from actual producers to feed parasites who live off constant currency devaluation—money they happen to print and control at their own whim.
It’s really not that deep. Once you see through the noise, everything else starts making sense.
I assume in the second half of your post you're talking about investing in them via PM, which is essentially just buying more of the same. You clearly haven't realized yet that we gold bugs and silver bugs don't "invest" in gold or silver—we save in them. I can't speak for everyone, but my income doesn't come from day trading the markets, so I allocate my time and labor carefully to build up a surplus that I then save in precious metals.
How complicated can it get?

Just because you’re delusional enough to call that "saving" doesn't mean it actually is.
What "you guys" choose to do is your business, obviously, but talking about savings when something jumps 100% in six months only to crater by 50% is just plain ridiculous.

vividgull10 said:Just because you’re delusional enough to call that "saving" doesn't mean it actually is.
What "you guys" choose to do is your business, obviously, but talking about savings when something jumps 100% in six months only to crater by 50% is just plain ridiculous.

It’s not just my opinion; it’s backed by thousands of years of history. Then again, I suppose a day trader's brain struggles to see past next Tuesday, let alone a full year.
And what exactly counts as saving? Bonds? US dollars? Old German marks? Oops... those don't exist anymore either. Show me any form of savings better than gold and silver—something that isn't being devalued by governments and banks, something that won't rot, stays liquid, and has actually worked for millennia—and I'll happily switch over.
Like most trolls, I'd suggest you learn the difference between "money" and "currency," or even "saving" versus "investing." You clearly haven't even mastered basic concepts like inflation yet, so you still have a lot to learn.

vividgull10 said:Let’s keep it simple: take a hypothetical scenario where the Federal Reserve's Balance sheet hits $10^{100} today.
Can you actually prove a correlation between that event and the resulting inflation? (Measure it however you want)

PS.
Disclaimer: I don't have a bias toward anything—from dollars to gold. I think like a trader; I just want to see things move. To me, this is all just about picking the best entry and exit points.
I'm saying this just so there's no misunderstanding—I'm not rooting for a rally or a crash.

And then you realize a bull market will always hunt for an excuse. It’ll find any reason to do what it was going to do anyway. There's no debate here: Federal Reserve "liquidity" will eventually flow into stocks, Commodities, and even gold, but gold isn't really an (anti)inflation tool anymore.

We're looking at a commodity bull run, which includes a gold bull within it.

Since 2001, Commodities (CRB) have grown by a factor of 1.5.

Gold, meanwhile, has shot up 6.8 times since 2000.

Sure, we'll see commodity inflation again in the next period, and it's tied to the gold bull, but gold is singing its own tune.

gold/crb:

the ratio of gold to the commodity index

The ratio of the gold price to the CRB commodity index went from 1.1 back in 2000/2001 to today's 5.8 (we even touched over 6 recently).

If what the Federal Reserve is doing right now isn't the perfect excuse for the gold bull to keep climbing, I don't know what is.

Liquidity finds a way into everything. Their biggest headache is oil prices; they couldn't care less about gold. There isn't any massive manipulation happening, just the usual occasional trader activity you see everywhere else.

If gold were being manipulated, the ratio between Commodities and gold wouldn't have swung over 5x in favor of gold over the last 12 years.

If you want to look for manipulation, look at other Commodities—specifically oil—in the coming period.

People use those tired old theories about gold being manipulated downward as a convenient excuse for when their predictions fail miserably. Watch out for those folks.

quiettrucker12 said:And then you realize a bull market will always hunt for an excuse. It’ll find any reason to do what it was going to do anyway. There's no debate here: Federal Reserve "liquidity" will eventually flow into stocks, Commodities, and even gold, but gold isn't really an (anti)inflation tool anymore.

We're looking at a commodity bull run, which includes a gold bull within it.

Since 2001, Commodities (CRB) have grown by a factor of 1.5.

Gold, meanwhile, has shot up 6.8 times since 2000.

Sure, we'll see commodity inflation again in the next period, and it's tied to the gold bull, but gold is singing its own tune.

gold/crb:

the ratio of gold to the commodity index

The ratio of the gold price to the CRB commodity index went from 1.1 back in 2000/2001 to today's 5.8 (we even touched over 6 recently).

If what the Federal Reserve is doing right now isn't the perfect excuse for the gold bull to keep climbing, I don't know what is.

Liquidity finds a way into everything. Their biggest headache is oil prices; they couldn't care less about gold. There isn't any massive manipulation happening, just the usual occasional trader activity you see everywhere else.

If gold were being manipulated, the ratio between Commodities and gold wouldn't have swung over 5x in favor of gold over the last 12 years.

If you want to look for manipulation, look at other Commodities—specifically oil—in the coming period.

People use those tired old theories about gold being manipulated downward as a convenient excuse for when their predictions fail miserably. Watch out for those folks.

Gold has always been—and will always be—at least a hedge against inflation. History proves it every single time, and we're seeing it happen right now.
As for your other point, your premise is flawed from the jump. Which Commodities are we talking about? You can't just lump them all into one basket using some arbitrary index.
Besides, that doesn't mean gold isn't being manipulated. Gold is climbing because of the endless printing of fiat currency...

Even though this is like six months old now—which I guess is ancient history for all those brokers and traders out there—I figured I’d do a quick little recap of how we were actually beating the Austrians in that trading contest (those guys were basically just buying up junk from us, you know, just total amateurs who think gold is the answer to everything... hehe).
Impaired Americans turning a profit by offloading gold to Austria
🙂

Anthony Evans78 said:Gold has always been—and will always be—at least a hedge against inflation. History proves it every single time, and we're seeing it happen right now.
As for your other point, your premise is flawed from the jump. Which Commodities are we talking about? You can't just lump them all into one basket using some arbitrary index.
Besides, that doesn't mean gold isn't being manipulated. Gold is climbing because of the endless printing of fiat currency...

In a sense, sure, but that’s like saying you need a city bus just to walk to the corner store. I mean, you could technically use it, but it’s wildly overkill for such a simple trip. Gold is sitting in a massive bull market right now.

Anthony Evans78 said:Gold has always been—and will always be—at least a hedge against inflation. History proves it every single time, and we're seeing it happen right now.
As for your other point, your premise is flawed from the jump. Which Commodities are we talking about? You can't just lump them all into one basket using some arbitrary index.
Besides, that doesn't mean gold isn't being manipulated. Gold is climbing because of the endless printing of fiat currency...

The CRB index is basically a cocktail of about 20 different commodities. You've got wheat and similar stuff sitting at 15%, followed by another 15% for oil and gas. Then you throw in 15% for precious metals, 15% for industrial raw materials, 15% for meat, and finally, about 20% for coffee and sugar. Simple enough.

The whole point of an index is to actually be representative. It gets even more interesting when you consider that... Gold and silver included in that bundle. So, if that CRB index hadn't shifted, the spread would have been even wider in gold's favor.

Anthony Evans78 said:Gold has always been—and will always be—at least a hedge against inflation. History proves it every single time, and we're seeing it happen right now.
As for your other point, your premise is flawed from the jump. Which Commodities are we talking about? You can't just lump them all into one basket using some arbitrary index.
Besides, that doesn't mean gold isn't being manipulated. Gold is climbing because of the endless printing of fiat currency...

Gold has surged over five times in twelve years—and I’m not even talking about its value against the Dollar. I mean compared to a basket of about twenty different commodities. And yet, people still claim gold is being manipulated? I just stripped the fiat currencies out of my equation entirely to run a pure comparison between physical assets versus other physical goods.

The weakening Dollar and the systemic need to wipe out debt by devaluing the currency is a fundamental driver for a gold bull. But being a gold bull is about way more than just hedging against inflation. Look at the numbers: gold is outperforming everything. It’s up five times more than general commodities—we're talking 2.7x compared to oil, 2x compared to wheat, and so on.

The math is pretty straightforward here: that whole "you can't cram commodities into a single index" argument doesn't hold any water. It’s a total non-starter. If we just break them out individually, the gap actually widens because you're looking at gold and silver separately. Simple as that. Engaged. Check the CRB index.

Look, after running all the math—where we strip fiat out of the equation entirely and just compare physical assets against physical reality—concluding that someone is pulling the strings on gold prices is just plain illogical. If you can't manipulate something, then it's gold. Period.

If someone tried to manipulate prices during a massive gold bull run, they’d fail. It wouldn't last. You can't fight the momentum; the market just snaps back to where it belongs. That's just how this game works.

Let him go, quiettrucker12! It turns out inflation has been sitting at a massive 30-40% annually since 2000 🤣
Plus, he was already talking about swapping his Silverstein for gold months ago if the ratio hits 1:20, so he’s clearly just speculating and praying silver moons so he can make that trade. He isn't actually saving anything! But hey, what do I know? 😂

That bus analogy is completely off base.
You’re implying gold plays a role beyond just being money. What exactly is it?
As long as you view gold as a commodity rather than currency, you’re going to stay lost.
The evidence of price manipulation is everywhere, yet you won't budge. Do you honestly think naked shorting is standard practice? Or that it's perfectly fine to dump gold in the middle of the night when liquidity is at its lowest?
And it isn't just gold. If you actually bothered to look into it, you'd see how heavily oil is manipulated too.
Gold has been rigged since the Bretton Woods system, and it's so obvious that only the blind wouldn't notice.
It seems impossible for you to wrap your head around the idea of steady price growth over the last 13 years existing alongside manipulation. Just look at the gold price explosion in the late seventies. That was pure mania driven by the fear that the dollar would collapse.
Like I mentioned yesterday, this is just a combat deviation. If they had actually let the market breathe, the dollar and the euro would have been in the gutter a long time ago.
And for what it's worth, can we even call this a "market" when everything is dictated by Fed interest rates and the rhetoric from central bank chairs? Is that really supply and demand?

analogharbor44 said:Let him go, quiettrucker12! It turns out inflation has been sitting at a massive 30-40% annually since 2000 🤣
Plus, he was already talking about swapping his Silverstein for gold months ago if the ratio hits 1:20, so he’s clearly just speculating and praying silver moons so he can make that trade. He isn't actually saving anything! But hey, what do I know? 😂

Maybe brush up on some basic math, specifically compound interest.
Try Googling "compound interest." You're really starting to show how little you actually get this. 🙂
I stick to silver because it's more affordable and I can pick up a few ounces whenever I want. I have no intention of swapping at 1:20; maybe I'll do it at 1:1, or maybe not at all. I might just use the silver to buy something productive.
You clearly don't have a clue. You don't understand inflation, you can't calculate interest, and frankly, you haven't contributed anything useful to this thread.

Anthony Evans78 said:That bus analogy is completely off base.
You’re implying gold plays a role beyond just being money. What exactly is it?
As long as you view gold as a commodity rather than currency, you’re going to stay lost.
The evidence of price manipulation is everywhere, yet you won't budge. Do you honestly think naked shorting is standard practice? Or that it's perfectly fine to dump gold in the middle of the night when liquidity is at its lowest?
And it isn't just gold. If you actually bothered to look into it, you'd see how heavily oil is manipulated too.
Gold has been rigged since the Bretton Woods system, and it's so obvious that only the blind wouldn't notice.
It seems impossible for you to wrap your head around the idea of steady price growth over the last 13 years existing alongside manipulation. Just look at the gold price explosion in the late seventies. That was pure mania driven by the fear that the dollar would collapse.
Like I mentioned yesterday, this is just a combat deviation. If they had actually let the market breathe, the dollar and the euro would have been in the gutter a long time ago.
And for what it's worth, can we even call this a "market" when everything is dictated by Fed interest rates and the rhetoric from central bank chairs? Is that really supply and demand?

Maybe you took me the wrong way. I think my point was pretty clear. You’re underselling gold when you call it an inflation hedge. It’s like saying a backhoe is just for digging little holes for petunias. Sure, you can use it for that, but you can also dig foundations for skyscrapers with it. Use the right scale.

Anthony Evans78 said:That bus analogy is completely off base.
You’re implying gold plays a role beyond just being money. What exactly is it?
As long as you view gold as a commodity rather than currency, you’re going to stay lost.
The evidence of price manipulation is everywhere, yet you won't budge. Do you honestly think naked shorting is standard practice? Or that it's perfectly fine to dump gold in the middle of the night when liquidity is at its lowest?
And it isn't just gold. If you actually bothered to look into it, you'd see how heavily oil is manipulated too.
Gold has been rigged since the Bretton Woods system, and it's so obvious that only the blind wouldn't notice.
It seems impossible for you to wrap your head around the idea of steady price growth over the last 13 years existing alongside manipulation. Just look at the gold price explosion in the late seventies. That was pure mania driven by the fear that the dollar would collapse.
Like I mentioned yesterday, this is just a combat deviation. If they had actually let the market breathe, the dollar and the euro would have been in the gutter a long time ago.
And for what it's worth, can we even call this a "market" when everything is dictated by Fed interest rates and the rhetoric from central bank chairs? Is that really supply and demand?

I’ve said this a dozen times already: we’re looking at an asset sitting in the middle of a massive bull market. Once the hype hits its peak and things get overpriced, that value is going to bleed right into other assets—specifically blue-chip stocks that actually generate real value—regardless of what the dollar is doing.

Anthony Evans78 said:That bus analogy is completely off base.
You’re implying gold plays a role beyond just being money. What exactly is it?
As long as you view gold as a commodity rather than currency, you’re going to stay lost.
The evidence of price manipulation is everywhere, yet you won't budge. Do you honestly think naked shorting is standard practice? Or that it's perfectly fine to dump gold in the middle of the night when liquidity is at its lowest?
And it isn't just gold. If you actually bothered to look into it, you'd see how heavily oil is manipulated too.
Gold has been rigged since the Bretton Woods system, and it's so obvious that only the blind wouldn't notice.
It seems impossible for you to wrap your head around the idea of steady price growth over the last 13 years existing alongside manipulation. Just look at the gold price explosion in the late seventies. That was pure mania driven by the fear that the dollar would collapse.
Like I mentioned yesterday, this is just a combat deviation. If they had actually let the market breathe, the dollar and the euro would have been in the gutter a long time ago.
And for what it's worth, can we even call this a "market" when everything is dictated by Fed interest rates and the rhetoric from central bank chairs? Is that really supply and demand?

Sure, traders manipulate the market from time to time—it happens everywhere, whether they're pumping it up or dumping it. That’s not up for debate. But that’s a far cry from the big picture we've seen from 2000 to now. I already laid out how things actually stand, and I did it without even factoring in fiat currency.

Anthony Evans78 said:That bus analogy is completely off base.
You’re implying gold plays a role beyond just being money. What exactly is it?
As long as you view gold as a commodity rather than currency, you’re going to stay lost.
The evidence of price manipulation is everywhere, yet you won't budge. Do you honestly think naked shorting is standard practice? Or that it's perfectly fine to dump gold in the middle of the night when liquidity is at its lowest?
And it isn't just gold. If you actually bothered to look into it, you'd see how heavily oil is manipulated too.
Gold has been rigged since the Bretton Woods system, and it's so obvious that only the blind wouldn't notice.
It seems impossible for you to wrap your head around the idea of steady price growth over the last 13 years existing alongside manipulation. Just look at the gold price explosion in the late seventies. That was pure mania driven by the fear that the dollar would collapse.
Like I mentioned yesterday, this is just a combat deviation. If they had actually let the market breathe, the dollar and the euro would have been in the gutter a long time ago.
And for what it's worth, can we even call this a "market" when everything is dictated by Fed interest rates and the rhetoric from central bank chairs? Is that really supply and demand?

You’ve got to learn how to tell the difference between temporary market manipulation—whether they're pumping it or dumping it—and an actual, sustained bull market. One is a trap; the other is the real deal.