Gold: Past, Present, and Future

vividgull10 said:What are we even talking about here? Are we discussing inflation hedges or just riding some insane bull market?

Drug dealing nets you a few hundred percent return, which more than covers inflation. You gonna conclude that peddling drugs is a hedge against inflation now?

So, here’s a little "just for you" micro-analysis, if you can even call it that.
Some big shots decide to jack up the price of centralized heating—you know, gas, oil, coal—and they just screw over everyday Americans by hiking it maybe 30% on average.
Is that because there's way too much excess capacity in the system?
Or maybe it's because there's 30% less of that specific asset out on the market?
Or is it just the result of some monopoly's total incompetence or terrible policy calls?

😍

dustyheron5 said:Look, my friend, I’d suggest heading down to JP Morgan... they have the best risk management teams in the world... and they'll give you some top-tier advice...😂

For instance, you could always buy some Coca-Cola bonds... or maybe look into Exelon... or even put more capital into Ingram.😁

So, you’re actually telling me you’d park your money in something that doubles in a year only to crater by 50% right after? Seriously?

neondriver5 said:If I'm not mistaken, the whole point of saving isn't necessarily to outrun inflation. That would be nice, sure, but that's not really the objective here.

But wait, who actually said gold was a savings vehicle... hmmm.

I have to admit, some of the posts on this forum feel less like objective analysis and more like religious dogma or cultish chanting, much like what I've noticed before.
Gold is just as speculative as any stock—anyone who doesn't see that (and I'm talking about 2012 and beyond, not the Stone Age) simply isn't participating in the conversation.
The fundamental nature of gold is speculative. At least behind a stock, there's an actual company that might succeed or fail, execute acquisitions, or leverage its R&D department to launch a groundbreaking product the market will snap up... (just to be clear, I'm not a big proponent of stocks myself; I don't own a single one at the moment).

PS
Given all that, I'm a little... unnerved by what Goldman Sachs said regarding gold prices dropping in 2013. When they make calls like that, it genuinely makes me nervous.

Because if they're right, the exact opposite might happen. What do they know that we don't? Why is the outlook so bleak?

Obviously, inflation is just a tool used to blunt the edge of debt, or like, basically a way to devalue what's owed.
The saver is the one left trying to play some weird chemical game just to protect themselves.
That’s why in the American system, they'd rather have the guy blowing through cash than the one starving himself because he's too cheap to buy a damn donut (since the system doesn't get anything out of him).
And if they went ahead and put their life savings in a bank—well, that's a whole other story... you can bet on me being right about that...
😍

vividgull10 said:So, you’re actually telling me you’d park your money in something that doubles in a year only to crater by 50% right after? Seriously?

Look, I'm an investor, a speculator, and a consumer—I've been through all three. I used to be a saver back before the 2008 crash... now, I spend more than I save 😂—essentially playing a strictly counter-cyclical game.

And honestly, go ahead and head down to a big bank like JPMorgan to ask for some "expert" investment advice. They sure know their way around risk management... 😉
Why waste your time on the steel industry when (in your view) it serves no purpose other than spiking 100% and then crashing 50%? 😂

dustyheron5 said:Look, my friend, I’d suggest heading down to JP Morgan... they have the best risk management teams in the world... and they'll give you some top-tier advice...😂

For instance, you could always buy some Coca-Cola bonds... or maybe look into Exelon... or even put more capital into Ingram.😁

🙂

We’re right in the middle of a massive showdown—outcome's anyone's guess, maybe 1685 or 1710—between the bulls and the bears.

dustyheron5 said:Look, I'm an investor, a speculator, and a consumer—I've been through all three. I used to be a saver back before the 2008 crash... now, I spend more than I save 😂—essentially playing a strictly counter-cyclical game.

And honestly, go ahead and head down to a big bank like JPMorgan to ask for some "expert" investment advice. They sure know their way around risk management... 😉
Why waste your time on the steel industry when (in your view) it serves no purpose other than spiking 100% and then crashing 50%? 😂

In other words, it serves its exact purpose: it's meant for speculation, not for a savings account.

vividgull10 said:In other words, it serves its exact purpose: it's meant for speculation, not for a savings account.

Look, you seem to be missing some fundamental concepts here... any type of asset can be used for either investing or speculation. That depends entirely on your own temperament and character as an investor—not the specific class of asset you choose to hold.

By the way, just a friendly suggestion... you should really look into $32 Lamar Jackson's book: Investing And
😉

dustyheron5 said:Look, you seem to be missing some fundamental concepts here... any type of asset can be used for either investing or speculation. That depends entirely on your own temperament and character as an investor—not the specific class of asset you choose to hold.

By the way, just a friendly suggestion... you should really look into $32 Lamar Jackson's book: Investing And
😉

I’m talking about saving and speculation; you're out here talking about investing and speculation.
Either you’ve completely confused investing with saving—which I highly doubt—or you just aren't paying attention to what's being written here.

vividgull10 said:I’m talking about saving and speculation; you're out here talking about investing and speculation.
Either you’ve completely confused investing with saving—which I highly doubt—or you just aren't paying attention to what's being written here.

Fine... but you're still missing the point entirely.🤣

Anything can function as saving, speculation, or an investment simultaneously.

Take my collection of solar panels, for instance—that serves as both a way to save money and a long-term investment. Plus, if prices spike suddenly, I could sell them speculatively.😁

No offense intended, but grasping these fundamental concepts seems to be a struggle for you—so I'll go read something substantive elsewhere to avoid wasting more of my day on this, while you continue your usual trolling. 😂

dustyheron5 said:Fine... but you're still missing the point entirely.🤣

Anything can function as saving, speculation, or an investment simultaneously.

Take my collection of solar panels, for instance—that serves as both a way to save money and a long-term investment. Plus, if prices spike suddenly, I could sell them speculatively.😁

No offense intended, but grasping these fundamental concepts seems to be a struggle for you—so I'll go read something substantive elsewhere to avoid wasting more of my day on this, while you continue your usual trolling. 😂

Sure it can.
A hole in the ground could work for just about anything if you try hard enough.

The real question is how well.

It’s totally possible the whole PM sector is just sitting on its hands, waiting for silver to finish this correction... might not even dip below this $32.30 mark.

Just knocked out my silver order, picked up another $32.26

Double post

Andrew Barrett4 said:The bombshell Goldman Sachs just dropped isn't actually anything new; it’s just a more dramatic way of presenting the scenarios we've already been dissecting in this thread. I guess the theatrical delivery is just a nudge to get us questioning their underlying motives.

Down the road, odysseyinspace20?? suggests that if interest rates do eventually climb, it'll be a dead giveaway that velocity hasn't just picked up, but is basically screaming toward the other extreme.😁.

We just haven't pinned down the small detail: which year. 😁

One shouldn't overlook the long-standing policy of keeping rates low to prop up the economy. Maybe the only thing capable of breaking that trend is a worrying spike in inflation, where hiking rates becomes a necessary countermeasure.

When prices start climbing, it usually means there's money floating around. A lot of it. You can see it in how much industrial activity, retail, and general consumer spending have been picking up lately.

A question for Twitter/X: Is something like that even on the horizon? If not, why would they bother raising rates at all?

The answer pretty much tells you exactly what your move should be regarding gold.

Dennis Myers6 said:Sorry for breaking your post down into pieces, I was just trying to grab the meat of it:
1. Keeping interest rates low is basically just a way to protect the system and all the big players.
2. You're talking about:
a) how the import-export ratio drives domestic currency inflation.
b) global commodity prices versus the strength of a nation's currency, which leads to inflation or higher costs.
3. Yeah... there's always money floating around, but the real issue is that you can't find products at the old prices, or honestly, just finding any product at all.

A line from Wikipedia:
"People know a ton about inflation, but still not enough to actually 'cure' it."

But if you ask me, they can totally dose it out and exploit it whenever they need to keep the system running.
Just sell off some Euros, pull in some Dollars—create an artificial shortage of Clementines or whatever.

If I completely missed the mark here...😍

Anyone...🙂

No need for apologies.

Smart Ass was asking whether she should sell her gold or hold onto it. If she had taken my advice to dump it, it would have been based on the idea that rates will rise and gold will fall. My response was more about how likely that specific scenario actually is.

In reality, by not going into heavy detail, I was simply echoing what Ben said two days ago 😍. He suggested that rates won't be hiked until:
a) the economy really starts humming along,
meaning industry, agriculture, stocks, and everything else sees growth (it's only the availability of cash and investment that drives output);
b) because of all that available cash, things don't become too expensive and (official) inflation doesn't climb
(central banks, as things stand, seem confident that they can control inflation with just a few measures or mouse clicks)
c) and finally, that a rate hike will act as a measure to curb runaway inflation.
It’s nothing new; they’ve always played it this way. Only this time, Paul Volcker barely escaped with his skin intact, and back then, things were looking significantly better than they are now. (Which really makes me wonder who 😍 will actually have the guts to implement these kinds of measures in the future)

Ben said essentially the same thing ('RATES LOW AS LONG AS UNEMPLOYMENT IS ABOVE 6.5%, INFLATION BELOW 2.5%'). The only difference is that instead of using industrial growth like I did in my explanation, he pointed to the unemployment rate (which is inversely proportional, but it functions as an analogy here). In other words, he was just saying the exact same thing through a different lens.

So, I’m not quite sure what part of my point was unclear. 🤷

Edit: Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any actual links regarding those threats against P. V.'s life during his time as chairman.

@Dennis Myers6

Here is that script developed through a collaboration between Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Rochester.

The script basically dissects the most recent historical instance where we saw printing money lead to inflation, which then triggered interest rate hikes. I think it’s actually quite useful because it breaks down the specific factors at play right before those rate hikes were implemented—things like rising inflation, falling unemployment, and climbing long-term bond yields.

Also, since it’s written retrospectively—kind of as a post-mortem analysis—it provides a really solid, continuous timeline (check the attachment too). It helps you wrap your head around economic shifts as they unfold over time, which makes it easier to figure out exactly what phase we’re currently stuck in. From what I can see, we are still miles away from seeing rates climb and the PM drop.

One last thing: the script isn't long, so it doesn't require much effort to get through. You really have no excuse not to give it a read. 😍 🤣

Respect, lady.

Man, this 78-page study guide...🤔
In trader speak? It's a massive slog.
I mean, I promise I’ll eventually sit down and read all about how that tall guy managed to rein in US inflation and whatever else, but honestly... I don't think I can actually wrap my head around any of it.
🙂

🙄 😁

You’ve basically got about 40 pages of actual content here; everything else is just references and an appendix packed with some seriously useful graphs and tables. It’s quite a massive undertaking under the desert sun 🤣

Andrew Barrett4 said:No need for apologies.

Smart Ass was asking whether she should sell her gold or hold onto it. If she had taken my advice to dump it, it would have been based on the idea that rates will rise and gold will fall. My response was more about how likely that specific scenario actually is.

In reality, by not going into heavy detail, I was simply echoing what Ben said two days ago 😍. He suggested that rates won't be hiked until:
a) the economy really starts humming along,
meaning industry, agriculture, stocks, and everything else sees growth (it's only the availability of cash and investment that drives output);
b) because of all that available cash, things don't become too expensive and (official) inflation doesn't climb
(central banks, as things stand, seem confident that they can control inflation with just a few measures or mouse clicks)
c) and finally, that a rate hike will act as a measure to curb runaway inflation.
It’s nothing new; they’ve always played it this way. Only this time, Paul Volcker barely escaped with his skin intact, and back then, things were looking significantly better than they are now. (Which really makes me wonder who 😍 will actually have the guts to implement these kinds of measures in the future)

Ben said essentially the same thing ('RATES LOW AS LONG AS UNEMPLOYMENT IS ABOVE 6.5%, INFLATION BELOW 2.5%'). The only difference is that instead of using industrial growth like I did in my explanation, he pointed to the unemployment rate (which is inversely proportional, but it functions as an analogy here). In other words, he was just saying the exact same thing through a different lens.

So, I’m not quite sure what part of my point was unclear. 🤷

Edit: Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any actual links regarding those threats against P. V.'s life during his time as chairman.

Of course they aren't going to hike interest rates—that would just make the government's new borrowing way more expensive, and honestly, it would only drive their deficit even deeper into the red. 😁

The real issue with today’s banking system isn't risk—it's leverage—or if we're being honest, just straight-up greed. And before anyone tries to drag Volcker into this, let me stop you right there—he has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If you're suggesting the main difference during that era was just an endless accumulation of debt—basically pure greed—once the gold standard was ditched, then I suppose the whole point of inflation is to erode or just downplay the weight of that debt 😁. Only after things get that far out of hand do interest rates spike, or at least you see some desperate attempts to rein it in, maybe with someone stepping in like a new Volcker.
Anyway, I can respect the disagreement.