Posts by vividgull10

quiettrucker12 said:😁

Just got more proof this morning: gold is already sitting above last week's peak ($1,727). In my book, there's about a 90% chance we hit $1,900 next—basically a sure thing at this point. As for hitting $2,000? I'd put those odds at maybe 60%. We'll likely see the peak sometime in February. After that, expect a correction. It’ll probably be a bit sharper than the current one because once the Dollar gets squeezed hard enough, it's going to have to fight its way back. When we hit bottom this spring, it won't be down here; it'll be higher than this current floor (which is at $1,673)—I'm thinking closer to $1,750.

Is there an actual formula behind these percentages, or are you just taking wild guesses?

lonehawk5 said:Shorting gold at $689.10 and silver at $31.26

Hold up, silver just tanked to $30.65 in the meantime. So that wiped out those 53 pips and now you're sitting on a measly +8?

Sometimes it pays to go back to basics...
http://fxtrade.oanda.com/analysis/
(source doesn't matter, just illustrating the point)

It’s worth remembering what the market actually is. Why does it exist? Who’s really playing the game? What drives different types of players to trade? And so on...
Sounds crazy simple, but honestly, it blows my mind how few people bother to ask those fundamental questions over and over again.🙂

quiettrucker12 said:Even if it actually "dies," Quantitative Easing is an objective reality right now. It might be done for, say, the next year and a half at least. If we actually hit your target of 84, maybe I'll reconsider... but honestly, I don't think we're even seeing 82 anytime soon.

Whoa, slow down there... what "my 84"? 🙂

As far as I'm concerned, it could hit 184 or it could tank to 0.84. All I care about is volatility. I just mentioned it as a possibility; it wasn't some crazy prediction or wishful thinking on my part.

I don't play those games. As long as there's movement, I'm happy, regardless of the direction.🙂

quiettrucker12 said:Emotions. It’s always emotions. Just like any other bottom, everyone starts panicking, claiming it's all over and gold is going to crash forever. As for gold, bottoms happen. We already know there's a chance it could drop as low as 1620 (though there's a slim shot that the slump drags on longer). Ben has already handled the Dollar, so I don't see it breaking 81.5. Thinking it hits 84 is pure science fiction.

It’s just as common to find people screaming that the Dollar is dead every single time the USDX sees a minor pullback.
people 😉

quiettrucker12 said:We'll see if we can hit 75w at around 1670

Why wouldn't it hit the 67EMA?

quiettrucker12 said:The fight for gold is still on. Are we breaking past $1,730 or dropping below $1,698? That’s a roughly $32 swing right there. Right now, things are looking pretty tense around that lower level.

The battle is happening at USDX around 80.

PS.
Just waiting for the weakest link to snap... seeing which way the momentum shifts first. Once that happens, it'll be an easy ride back up to 84+ on the USDX. And obviously, expect corrections across the board.

lonehawk5 said:Look, I never even said I was making that much money. All I wanted was for people to get it—that even a measly 0.39% daily return adds up to a massive payoff over the long haul, no matter how ridiculous it sounds when you just write out "my 0.39%"...

Whatever the case may be.
I used the term 'pipe dream' specifically to highlight the cherry picking trap people fall into when they run these kinds of projections.

lonehawk5 said:Do the math on roughly 250 business days🙂
Look, even if nothing else matters, I'm not wasting my time on crazy predictions...🙂

pipe dreams😍

No surprises here. So, no.

Anything can happen in the market at any given moment.

Anthony Evans78 said:Of course the cartel isn't going to let the week close above $1800 and $35.
That would just trigger a massive buying spree on Monday, and we all know they aren't having any of that, right? 😁

That’s exactly how they triggered a sell-off avalanche... and honestly, it's fine. 👍
As long as things aren't just stagnating, I'm good. 🙂

Patrick Moore3 said:Not quite. It's more about how many times that same dollar changes hands over a certain period. Think about it: I buy something from you for $100, then you take that $100 and buy something from a third person, who buys from a fourth, and so on. That's circulation.
The problem we're seeing now? I buy something from you for $100, but instead of spending it, you just use it to pay down a loan... and boom, the circulation just stops.

Fair enough. So, basically, new credit issued minus credit repaid, right? Because everything else stays in rotation.

(edit)
Actually, you have to factor in savings too.

dustyheron5 said: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.

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.

Andrew Barrett4 said:Which basically means 'hidden' inflation is already way higher than what's being reported, though God knows exactly how high. And that's before you even factor in the endless money printing...

Also, while there’s a general 'roadmap' provided (whether it’s optional or, as dustyheron5 puts it, orchestrated QE), I can't seem to find any actual, relevant short-term forecasts or potential scenarios for the next two years that go into any real detail beyond just saying: "inflation is coming." I'm not seeing a clear timeline anywhere.

Since these two points are weighing on my mind quite a bit, I'm heading to a lecture next weekend specifically on this topic.

It's a talk by Edin Mujagic, a monetary economist at Harvard University, who is also a well-known columnist, journalist, and (formerly) blogger in North America, focusing on inflation. I'm interested not just because he's an expert, but mostly because he's independent. Plus, he mentioned he has some sort of forecast. I'm just not entirely sure if he meant for the US, Europe, or perhaps the "entire world." 🤷

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? 😵

If you’re burning through fuel and choosing to view the world through rose-colored glasses, then these oil prices might look like this to you:
http://www.macrotrends.org/1380/gold...eading-back-up

How do you read this chart?

Anthony Evans78 said:I honestly just wonder when you traders are going to stop playing with paper instruments and move into the real stuff, like metals or land.
It should be pretty obvious by now that those papers you're gambling on only hold value as long as everyone else agrees they do. 🙂

Personally, I'll stick to paper instruments as long as they're printing money. I don't see anything smart or rational about walking away from a profit sitting right there on the table.

Anthony Evans78 said:Look, man, just like everyone else before you, you're confusing price with actual value. 🙂
That "hitting the ice" phase you're talking about wasn't some freak accident either; people have been writing about this exact pattern forever.
Caution? Please. I stick strictly to physical precious metals—it’s the only way I get any decent sleep. 😁

I'm sure your theory that this "wasn't a natural occurrence" totally compensates everyone who just watched half their net worth vanish. I bet they feel a whole lot better now that you've enlightened them on the difference between price and value. 🙂

The fact that you hold nothing but physical metals and can't sleep unless you do just means you hold nothing but physical metals and can't sleep. That's fine. But it doesn't make anyone else crazy just because they don't follow your lead—especially since your big idea is that a 50% drop isn't actually a drop, it's just an "unnatural event," and whatever you say is going to happen is the only thing that counts as "natural." 🙂

quiettrucker12 said:It’s just not happening. Or, if you want to be polite, it’s nowhere near realistic for something to shift like that overnight. What you're saying is just oversimplifying a massive, complicated mess.

Back in 2008, nobody thought it was "realistic" for the S&P 500 to tank 50%, yet it happened without asking for permission. Same goes for silver—it didn't ask anyone before dropping over 50% in both 2008 and 2011.
The internet was full of debates, "expert" projections, and endless noise about how healthy and sustainable the housing market was... until suddenly, the data flipped and turned the world upside down.

I never said how likely it is. I'm just saying that in this climate, anything can be switched off. That's all I said.

I'll say it again: my personal take is that a rise in PMOvs is much more probable. But even with that conviction, I’m staying extremely cautious because of exactly what I just laid out.

Anthony Evans78 said:Look, it's perfectly fine to call them that. There's a difference between having a different opinion and completely turning off your brain and pretending we're still in a normal market. We haven't been in a real market since 2008; it's just been constant intervention ever since.
And it wasn't a drop in value, it was a drop in price. We've already covered why that happened. Maybe you should go back and read our previous discussions.
And do a bit more homework. The dollar started its decline in 1971, not at Bretton Woods 🙂
Anyway, back to gold. I still think the paradigm has shifted. There will definitely be a correction, but one thing is certain: paper goes to zero, metals go to the moon.

Watch your wording: I said the rhetoric about fiat collapsing has been around since Bretton Woods (and even before), not that the dollar's value has been dropping since then. If we're talking actual purchasing power, that's been sliding since the 30s.

And whether people like it or not, value dropped in 2011. This isn't about hoarding indefinitely; it's about saving with liquidity in mind (which is a fundamental requirement for any store of value). Savings exist so that when you actually need them, you can turn them into liquid cash and use them. Someone who needed their silver stash back in 2011 lost half their value. Take it how you want.

You can talk all you want about "if only I had waited this long, I would have made X." Sure, absolutely everything in the world happens if you wait long enough.
But at that point, you're practicing religion, not dealing with reality.

To reiterate, I'm personally on the bullish side for PMs. However, I don't think for a second that people who aren't convinced about PM growth are crazy.
Especially considering that just a year ago, those same PMs got slammed by 50%. (Let's be precise: they dropped 50% twice in three years, so what are we even discussing here?) It doesn't matter what the reasons were. That's exactly the point of "caution first."