353 posts shown.
lonehawk5 said:Looks like I'm about to see my 1 again. $761.00 😁
Maybe I'll actually help those exhausted bulls out this time...
From what I can gather, there aren't any bulls in sight here 🤣
—it's just horses on one side and the Federal Reserve on the other.😍
A colleague of Taylor Swift's deputy mentioned that the IRS will soon be able to track (and tax) everything you try to hide😛—except for whatever you keep tucked away at home...😉...🙂
Andrew Barrett4 said:It’s probably best to stash metals somewhere a detector can’t reach. Maybe inside some wood or even down a well 🤣
By the way, I recently got into a bit of a debate with my husband about this. He isn’t exactly a fan of precious metals—he doesn't really believe in anything that doesn't have "tangible value" just sitting there. In investment terms, he’s more of a "frugal builder" type; he’d rather just buy land or build something. To him, a brick is a brick. If I start talking about how bricks don't actually create value but instead just generate ongoing costs, we'll be here all night because he immediately pivots to "utility." (I suppose if you read between the lines, there's a lot of these kinds of debates before any major purchase, since investment decisions aren't solo acts—they're joint ventures)
In a last-ditch effort to make him understand, I tried explaining it using a Pokémon analogy 🤣
Every one has its own "powers," but they also have their "demons"—basically, pros and cons. You pick your weapons, or your Pokémon, based on the situation you're facing. And right now, the situation feels like one where you simply need to have some gold and silver "Pokémon" in your lineup. There's a very real chance things could play out in a way where you won't have much to pay with if you haven't prepared.
The downside of metals really just comes down to their physical nature—the fact that metal is metal and has its own set of properties
>>just smaller bullion or coins.
>>store them where they stay out of sight.
>>never keep all your metal in one single spot.
>>and of course, never put all your wealth into one single asset class (including metals).
Well done—you have the mindset of a serious investor. You might not strike it rich overnight, but your grasp of the fundamentals is solid.🎉 Just stay away from those "finfluencers" who preach putting everything into one single asset; if you follow them, you're asking for trouble.😂
Anthony Evans78 said:Who even needs a safe? 🙂
I saw some guy online who just stacked five 10-pound silver bars right on his doorstep 😁
Honestly, it isn't a bad concept... I’d probably just melt the silver down into a perimeter fence and run a current through it—keep those repo men at bay 😬
Or just toss the whole lot into a bucket out back during a rainstorm... :klap:
Anthony Evans78 said:It’s best if nobody knows you have it—not even your own wife. Actually, especially not her. 😁
Secondly, while you can't be certain about anything, I completely agree that you need multiple locations.
Having a safe just screams that you’re hiding something valuable. Like I said, if you’ve got a few pounds of gold in coins, it's such a small amount that it's incredibly easy to hide.
Just buy five safes and let them all play games—your wife, the kids, even burglars... meanwhile, you keep the actual metal buried. That's the real way to stay secure; Americans hate digging in the dirt more than anything else. 😂
Paul Peterson4 said:I read this story once on a German forum about some guy who buried a stash of gold coins out in the Canadian wilderness. He sold some land, used the cash to buy Maple Leafs at an ounce per unit—or whatever—and just dumped it in the woods. Maybe it was his land, maybe it wasn't; doesn't really matter. The point is he didn't trust banks and figured burying it was the safer bet.
Next time he showed up to dig it up, it was gone. Whether someone was tailing him or some guy with a metal detector stumbled onto it, nobody knows—but yeah, it was a total clusterfuck.
On another note, same German forum: they had this great breakdown of safes. They say a real safe weighs a couple hundred pounds when you pack it with cash, bolted into concrete, and even a few strong guys couldn't budge it. But what's the actual point? What are they afraid of? Two or three masked dudes show up, grab you by the throat, and say: "Open it or we start cutting—starting with your kid, then your wife"—real deep shit. What happens then?
You’ve got idiots going to prison because they decided to gun down a clerk at a gas station just to grab $5,000. If a guy like that realizes you've got way more than that waiting at home, what do you think he's willing to do?
That's why the smart move is to mix it up. Spread it out across two locations—keep one spot totally low-key with just some silver or a few hundred bucks tucked away in plain sight as bait, while the real heavy stuff is hidden properly in a solid safe. And don't go putting more than $20k in any one physical safe; put the rest in a bank vault or an allocated account. I'd much rather have them try to crack a Via Mat vault than mine—at least then my metals are insured against theft.
Forgive me, but couldn't those same people just take a kid and force you to go to the bank to withdraw everything?
The reality is that the most critical factor is total anonymity—minimizing anyone's knowledge of your location. Even banks aren't foolproof; they are targeted by the most sophisticated professional thieves. 😂 Everything else is secondary and highly problematic.
And you, Charles—feel free to write "Section 1770" a hundred times as your punishment. 😁
lonehawk5 said:Whoever came up with that doesn't deserve to even be on this forum...😁
Don't be ridiculous🤣—you're essentially throwing money away by ignoring the unit price😍...and what will you do once two summers pass and you're left staring at zeros?😂
lonehawk5 said:Closed out at $770😉
It’s easy enough to jump back in if things look right again😁
Man, just add that extra thousand to the price😍........there are some new guys here who think you're playing games with them.......🤣
Anthony Evans78 said:If you have to announce your arrival just to check on your gold, something smells fishy.
Look, if you’re sitting on pounds of gold, you should have plenty of places within reach to stash it away. 😉
Exactly... my favorite excuse from those idiots at Bloomberg—selling off 13 tons of gold right at the price floor.😁
They claimed they had to pay Swiss firms massive fees for storage—as if they were sitting on thousands of tons instead of just 13 tons... I could have kept that much in my own basement.😂😂
Just concrete over the entrance and you've solved the theft problem without paying a premium for security... absolute lunatics...
And then they have the nerve to brag about their financial expertise...🤣
They dumped the gold on the Federal Reserve—because the Fed is supposedly clueless while they are geniuses🤣—all based on the claim that gold lacks a monetary role, yet the central bank of all central banks is out there buying it up from them.😉
lonehawk5 said:Nice😁
P.S. No offense intended toward the guy
Speculators need to learn how to laugh at themselves😍—it helps manage the stress levels.😬
lonehawk5 said:I just wanted to do it the classy way... 😁Sometimes you just gotta stop looking at the clouds and actually look down at where your feet are hitting the ground...☕
Our colleague quiettrucker12 is quite the successful speculator—and when he's riding the death train, he certainly shouldn't be looking down...😁
quiettrucker12 said:😁 Facts.... this whole thing is messy. It all boils down to the Dollar—basically, whether Mr. $ actually bottomed out on September 14th or not. I don't see an issue holding through a correction; I doubt we drop below 1680, which is only about a 5% dip, though mining stocks might take a harder 12% hit.🙂
Don't mind lonehawk5—he's just joking around. He meant to ask how slim the chances are, not how high they are.😁
There’s that old narrative about Blythe Masters—the idea that they aren't taking silver shorts for their own benefit, but simply hedging positions for clients... Honestly, even Manit couldn't tell you if there's any truth to her story.
Instead of getting bogged down in those minor details, we should probably focus on the fact that gold is breaking through resistance at $1,790. If it holds this level through tomorrow, we’re looking at a clear run past $1,800.
Paul Peterson4 said:From what I can gather, we're looking at a massive short against stocks in the DJIA and Nasdaq 100, not a short against silver itself.
If those stocks tank, precious metals should theoretically head north. Therefore, if you short silver, you're basically just begging to lose money rather than making any.
Fair enough—you're right that the charts support your view. However, if I understood our colleague correctly, his focus is on metals, not the DJIA or Nasdaq... 🤣
That was my mindset when I wrote this—I was looking at the positioning for Commercials (who are supposedly the "smart money"). Take a look at their positions and draw your own conclusions...
http://static.safehaven.com/authors/maund/27152_b.pnghttp://static.safehaven.com/authors/maund/27153_b.pngHere are the links:
http://www.safehaven.com/article/271...-market-update
http://www.safehaven.com/article/271...-market-update
P.S.—It appears the Commercials are hedging by going short on both metals and equities... which, in my opinion, is an incredibly strange hedge... 😍
Unless, of course, there is a deeper play at work here...
nimblepanther18 said:Since my English isn't great, would someone mind providing a brief summary of what this article is actually saying? Thanks!
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldne...ng_Charts.html
In short—Blythe Masters is worried that the Commercials might actually be right. They’ve taken aggressive short positions on silver, and there's a real possibility they aren't wrong—unlike the usual puppets giving advice out there...😁
If you truly believe they have the upper hand, then you should be shorting silver rather than going long. It's your call—your money...
Personally, I'm holding all my positions except for my SLWea short at $37.60 (if I recall the entry correctly)—if it drops significantly below that, I might look to buy back in...
I could also take some profits on my AGQ today, since I'm sitting on a nice gain there; if I do that, I won't really care which direction the price moves next 😁
hollowmoose21 said:Watching closely. 😁
The real question is why they announced it this way, and why right now of all times.
And why send out Carli Evans instead of Bernanke himself? 😁 It’s not like the media went crazy over it. Tons of questions, zero answers. 😁
It’s like the Federal Reserve is desperate 😬—trying to tank the US Dollar and pump the stock market again, but some crisis over in Europe or China (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dollar...040115304.html) keeps messing up their play. 😍
They are likely trying to balance a falling dollar against a controlled rise in precious metals... all while keeping the S&P 500 steady enough to make the deception easier to swallow.
I am more concerned about what happens after the election; we could see a massive, widespread sell-off then. The actual state of the global real economy is nearing a breaking point—all those assets sitting at 12.😍
You remember what the Singaporean Finance Minister asked during the G20 summit, when everyone was taking turns claiming they would double their exports in the coming years to climb out of the crisis?
"But who is going to import them?" 😂😂
That theory about the Arab nations being able to just turn off the oil taps—it’s arguably a bit of a stretch... though I agree with you that the crisis will exert downward pressure on oil prices for a while... however, looking at the longer term:
Dr. Richard Duncan:
In the US, the average piece of food travels nearly 1,500 miles before hitting your plate. A source in Canada notes that the average piece of food is transported 5,000 miles from production to consumption. Source
A recent article published by CNN documented the massive amount of fossil fuel energy required just to produce our food. Emphasis added:
The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. The ramifications of peak oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. A 200-pound man, therefore, carries 140 pounds of water. Since water is so vital to every biological function, that man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before dehydration causes him to collapse. Losing as little as 10 to 15 pounds of water might be enough to kill him.
In a similar sense, an oil-based economy like ours doesn't need to drain its entire reserve before the collapse begins. A supply-demand shortfall of just 10 to 15 percent is sufficient to completely shatter an oil-dependent economy and plunge its citizens into poverty.
Production drop effects can be devastating. Source For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, production shortfalls as low as 5% caused oil prices to nearly quadruple. Source The same thing occurred in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% sent prices skyrocketing by 400%.
Fortunately, those specific price shocks were only temporary.
The upcoming oil shocks won't be so fleeting. They represent the beginning of "a new, permanent condition." Source Once the decline starts, production will drop (conservatively) by 3% annually, every single year. Between war, terrorism, extreme weather, and other "above ground" geopolitical issues, the effective decline rate will likely exceed 10% per year—effectively cutting total supply by 50% within seven years. Source
This estimate comes from numerous sources, not the least of which is Dick Cheney himself. During a 1999 speech given while he was still CEO of Halliburton, Cheney stated:
By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we'll need an additional 50 million barrels per day.
vividgull10 said:If I'm following you, money velocity is basically just measuring how fast the cash created by the Federal Reserve moves from banks into the economy through credit. So, you're saying the Federal Reserve controls the money supply while the market drives velocity, right?
From what I remember reading about inflation, it’s not something that just happens instantly; it goes through specific stages.
But I was thinking about something else. It's not just about whether prices go up and we call it inflation. For example, if electricity prices spike by 50%, but the money supply (or velocity?) grew by 60%—wouldn't we effectively be looking at deflation?
ps.
When calculating inflation, do they look at *why* prices are rising? Because I doubt they care if food gets more expensive due to monetary policy versus a drought.
No—velocity is the rate at which the money supply circulates through the economy. Currently, a single US Dollar in the US economy turns over about 1.57 times per year (though trends suggest velocity has been slowing down since 2001, if not earlier).
I think Reggie Middleton described this whole deflation vs. inflation dynamic better than anyone else...
If I can track down the specific article, I'll post it....
If all of this holds up, the odds are in Ben's favor.......
( I hope hollowmoose21 is following along? )
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldne...unced_QE4.htmlhttp://kingworldnews.com/kingworldne..._Huge_Run.htmlAnyone who lived through the 1970s will instantly recognize these conditions as stagflation—which is exactly how we described it back then....
“A poor economy and rising prices sharply reduced American standards of living in the 1970s. In fact, the numbers show that when adjusted for inflation and US Dollar debasement, American standards of living, as measured by disposable income, actually peaked in 1973.
Give that some thought, Eric. That was nearly forty years ago. It strikes me as a record—though certainly not one the Federal Reserve wants to highlight. I suspect it is the longest stretch in American history regarding living standards.
Stagflation in the 1970s created an environment that lit a fire under precious metal prices, so seeing gold and silver rally once again isn't particularly surprising.....
vividgull10 said:I'll be the first to admit I don't know this stuff inside out, so forgive me if this sounds like a dumb question...
Basically, are money supply and money velocity interdependent? Specifically, does money velocity depend on the amount of money in the system? (I'm assuming it does.)
The reason I ask is...
If the Federal Reserve increases the money supply (and if that indirectly impacts money velocity since they're linked), then there should be a mathematical relationship between inflation and both variables: money supply and money velocity.
At that point, it stops being a qualitative guess and becomes a quantitative issue. It opens up the possibility where money supply rises and velocity rises, yet the CPI (or whatever inflation metric we use) doesn't rise proportionally—regardless of the function used. In other words, if the money supply skyrockets but inflation doesn't keep pace, shouldn't we actually be talking about real deflation? 😵
The Federal Reserve controls velocity, so there isn't much direct correlation between them—aside from the fact that central banks monitor velocity to try and balance the two categories. It’s similar to how the Federal Reserve targets nominal GDP...
Right now, we are seeing a collision of forces: deflationary pressures on what citizens hold (labor, real estate, etc.) versus inflationary pressures on essential assets (food, energy, utilities). That is precisely where the conflict between deflationists and inflationists stems from.
For instance, I personally bought a tool for 50% less than usual, yet my electricity and water bills have jumped by 30% (though I have my own well and water source, and don't use gas at all 😍).......
Initially, "easy money" doesn't hit every asset class simultaneously. It trickles through certain sectors first. It could take quite a while before the effects are felt across the entire board.