Posts by Amy Sanchez2

I was looking at some upgrade parts for my workstation last night, and I honestly had to close the tab after ten minutes. It feels like every time I check the market for specific components, the prices have jumped another 15% or 20% for no apparent reason.

Usually, tech follows such a predictable cycle of "expensive then cheap," but lately, it feels like the rules are being rewritten in real-time. I’m seeing huge spikes in the stuff that used to be considered budget-friendly or at least stable. It’s getting to the point where building a decent rig feels like a luxury investment rather than a hobby.

I can't help but wonder if we're entering a new era where "consumer-grade" hardware is just going to be perpetually overpriced because the big players are vacuuming up all the supply for their own specialized needs. It’s frustrating when you just want to tinker or upgrade, but the market feels like it's working against the average enthusiast.

Are you guys seeing these same weird price hikes on your usual components, or am I just looking at the wrong vendors?

I was digging through some old boxes in my garage the other weekend—the kind of deep cleaning you only do when you’re feeling particularly productive or particularly overwhelmed—and I stumbled upon a stack of old hobby supplies from my teenage years. It was mostly old card games, a few worn-out rulebooks, and some figurines that had lost most of their paint. Looking at that pile, I had this weird, sudden realization of how much of my identity has been tied to "collecting" things that represent the worlds I love.

It’s a strange psychological loop, isn't it? We find a story that resonates with us—something that feels more real than our actual daily grind—and suddenly, we don't just want to read the book or watch the movie. We want to *hold* it. We want a physical piece of that magic sitting on our desk or tucked into a binder. There’s this intense drive to possess a fragment of a fictional universe, as if owning a specific piece of art or a specialized item can somehow bridge the gap between our mundane reality and that epic, sweeping sense of wonder.

I used to justify it all the time. I'd tell myself, "It's an investment," or "This is a piece of history," or "I'll just get this one special edition, and then I'll stop." But we all know how that goes. The "just one more" mentality is a powerful force. It’s not really about the utility of the item—I mean, what am I actually going to *do* with a rare card or a limited-run statue? I'm not going to play with it, and I'm certainly not going to sell it because the emotional attachment is too high. It becomes a shrine to a feeling.

Lately, I've been thinking about how this obsession has shifted with the way media is consumed. It used to be that you just enjoyed the story and moved on. Now, the industry seems to have mastered the art of turning "fandom" into "ownership." They know exactly which buttons to push to make us feel like our collection is incomplete without that one specific, elusive piece of lore. It’s a brilliant business model, but sometimes it feels a bit predatory, or at least incredibly taxing on the wallet.

I struggle with the guilt of it sometimes. I look at my shelf and see these beautiful, expensive objects that represent moments of escapism, and I wonder if I'm just cluttering my life with ghosts of stories. Is it a way of preserving our memories, or is it just a way of trying to control something that we can't actually touch? There's a certain melancholy in realizing that the most meaningful things we own are often just ink, cardboard, or plastic, yet they carry more weight in our hearts than almost anything else in our homes.

I’m curious to hear how you all handle this. Do you find that collecting items from your favorite franchises adds to your enjoyment of the medium, or does it start to feel like a chore or a burden? Is there a line where "appreciation" turns into "compulsion" for you, and how do you decide when to stop?

Ethan Barrett7 said:My bet is gold heats up one last time before crashing down toward $650 an ounce...

Look, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble here, but I honestly have to disagree with you on this one because $650 is roughly $760 in our currency, and if you actually look at the numbers, the average cost for a mining company to pull a single ounce out of the ground is sitting somewhere between $600 and $800, and that's not even touching on the overhead like employee wages, profit margins, or Uncle Sam's tax cut, so what you're basically suggesting is that these massive mining corporations are going to start selling their gold at a massive loss just for the fun of it, which... yeah, doesn't seem very realistic to me.

Anthony Evans78 said:Exactly. The Federal Reserve. The Chinese are already working on phasing it out,
which they've already started doing. The dollar won't collapse right here at home, but its status as the global reserve currency? That's on borrowed time. It’s just a matter of which event finally pulls the trigger.
No, I don't have a specific date. 🙂
Amanda Allen4, we're talking about a global reserve currency here...

Look, people act like the whole dollar reserve issue just popped up overnight, but honestly, this mess has been brewing for nearly fifty years now. It’s not some sudden crisis; it's a long-standing structural headache. If you really want to dig into the roots of this, you have to look back at the 1960s, when central banks everywhere were already sweating bullets over the idea of actually holding dollars as a legitimate asset. It wasn't a new struggle; we've been dancing around this instability for decades. France Germany Back in the early 70s, you had Germany, Japan, and Switzerland all getting pulled into the mix, and before you knew it, Italy and the UK were right there alongside them too.

Back then, the dollar was basically bleeding out because of the Federal Reserve’s obsession with expansionary policies, which meant that any country sitting on a mountain of dollars was essentially watching their wealth evaporate in real-time. It put these nations in this absolutely impossible, high-stakes bind: they could either dump their dollars—and take a massive, immediate hit on their books—or they could let their own domestic currencies appreciate, which, let's be honest, sounded like a total nightmare to most of them. So, naturally, they went with the first option, choosing to offload everything and they ended up forming... The London Gold Pool... honestly, where do we even start with that whole mess? It’s one of those historical rabbit holes that just keeps pulling you down, isn't it? You look back at how they tried to manipulate the price, trying to keep everything pinned down under a certain level, and it just feels like a precursor to so much of the madness we see today. It was this massive, coordinated effort by central banks—big players trying to play God with the markets—and we all know how those little experiments usually end up. They try to hold back the tide, but the tide always comes in eventually, right? It’s just wild to think about the sheer audacity of it all, acting like they could just micromanage global stability through sheer willpower. It makes you wonder what other "stable" systems are actually just house of cards waiting for a breeze.Once the London Gold pool finally went belly up back in '68 and that gold window slammed shut for good in '71, everything shifted, and you saw Germany and Japan basically step up to the plate and agree to let their currencies strengthen.
It’s honestly pretty wild when you look at the parallels between what happened back in Japan and what we’re seeing with China today. You’ve got these two massive export giants, both essentially running on undervalued currencies, which forces them into this endless cycle of hoarding US dollars just to keep the gears turning. It’s like watching history repeat itself in slow motion.
Back in 1973, Japan finally decided they’d had enough of being pegged to the dollar, and honestly, that move kept the yen stuck in a pretty tight corner for years afterward. But if you look at why they did it, they waited until the global economy was absolutely booming in '73 to make their break. Now, looking at the mess we’re dealing with today, it’s night and day—back then, Japan was in a much stronger position to ditch the dollar than China is right now, especially since the global economy feels like it's staring down a massive depression. Because of that, I really don't see China or those other mercantilist Asian exporters walking away from the dollar anytime soon; they just can't afford the risk. It’s the same playbook we saw from Europe and Japan throughout the 60s and 70s—they stayed hitched because, at the time, sticking with the dollar felt like the lesser of two evils.

If you’re looking to wrap your head around the whole mess regarding the history and future of the dollar acting as the world's reserve currency, I honestly can't recommend diving into this enough. Seriously, if you want to understand where we're headed, you really need to check out... Barry Eichengreen: I was just revisiting *Global Imbalances and The Lessons of Bretton Woods* (2006) and *Exorbitant Privilege* (2010), and honestly, it’s refreshing. You know, Barry Eichengreen—he’s actually quite moderate compared to those hardcore gold bugs or that whole "doomsday is coming tomorrow" crowd that seems to populate every corner of the internet lately. He offers this much more nuanced analysis that doesn't just scream about the end of the world every five minutes, which, let's face it, can get exhausting after a while. Jim Sinclair The Countdown to The Implosion of The Dollar I haven't quite figured out what you're getting at here, have I? It’s just a single word floating in the void, like a stray thought lost in a sea of endless economic data and late-night speculation. Are we starting a debate? Are we waiting for a punchline? Honestly, sometimes I feel like I'm staring at a blank ticker tape, just waiting for some actual substance to crawl across the screen so I can finally lose my mind over it. Give me something to work with! James Turk - The Collapse of the Dollar and How to profit fra IT Even she’s basically admitting that the dollar is on its last legs—it's all coming to an end sooner rather than later, if you ask me.

dustyheron5 said:If the Federal Reserve has truly given up on quantitative theory as you claim, how then do you interpret the Federal Reserve's targeting of nominal GDP?

( keeping in mind that GDP = money supply x velocity )

What I was trying to get at is that from 1982 all the way up to today (Quantitative Easing 3), the Federal Reserve hasn't really been following quantitative theory; what you’re talking about now—this whole business of targeting nominal GDP (which I guess is the big goal behind Quantitative Easing III)—is that shiny new "uber method" they're using to try and pump up both the money supply and velocity. It's a bit of a wild goose chase, really, because we still have to see exactly how they plan to kickstart that velocity—maybe through some heavy-handed regulations on the banks, who knows?—and whether they can even pull it off, if you look at Patrick Moore3's post above. If they actually manage to get a handle on velocity, then, and only then, will they be in a position to actually apply quantitative theory to hit those specific GDP targets.

dustyheron5 said:Who actually determines the velocity of money?

Well, nobody can, because if the Federal Reserve can't even explain why velocity is cratering, then we're lost. Alan Greenspan just dropped yet another one of his legendary gems when he muttered, "We don’t know what money is, any more."
Since the Federal Reserve has zero influence over velocity, the whole idea of controlling the economy via the quantity theory of money is basically dead in the water.
That's why, ever since the 80s, the Federal Reserve has been leaning on this thing called the Taylor rule.
But hey, 2008 happened, and it turns out even that rule doesn't guarantee "control" over the economy—you know, the whole low inflation and low unemployment dream—so now the Federal Reserve is just cooking up these new uber-methods of control that will inevitably fail us all over again.

If you're betting on someone deciding to dump massive amounts of US Treasuries in the future to spike velocity and trigger (hyper)inflation, you've got two big problems to deal with.
(1) The US market is just too massive; there isn't a single market out there capable of absorbing that kind of cash injection (that's what M. Armstrong was talking about)
(2) The President could just step in and freeze the sale of Dollar-denominated assets and a whole bunch of other stuff under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act Quote.

Anthony Evans78 said:The answer is pretty straightforward: all that money the Federal Reserve printed just went straight to the banks so they could cover their OTC derivatives, MBS, and whatever other financial magic tricks they’re pulling. Of course we aren't seeing hyperinflation yet—that cash is still just sitting there with the banks while they pretend they're actually solvent.

And honestly, that might be the catch right there. Banks aren't handing out loans because they're terrified of going insolvent again, which could happen the second the Federal Reserve decides to hike interest rates. So, yeah, velocity is just going to keep on falling.

dustyheron5 said:A little something for my fellow fiat-believers to chew on—let’s talk hyperinflation. 😍

http://goldsilver.com/news/concerted...yperinflation/

God, I honestly pity these so-called experts and the massive paychecks they pull for being so wrong. It’s like they’re mentally stuck in 1971 and just refuse to accept that the entire American monetary system has fundamentally shifted since then—I mean, the gold standard is dead, and ever since '82, the money supply hasn't even played the role people think it does.

According to the quantity theory of money:
MV = PQ

Greyer focuses way too much on the money supply (M), but he's completely overlooking the fact that back in '82, the Federal Reserve basically gave up on targeting the money supply altogether and pivoted toward targeting interest rates instead. And you know why? Because around 1980, the velocity of money (V) started acting totally bizarre; it stopped growing linearly like the theory predicts it should have from 1958 through 1980. So, the Federal Reserve just walked away from trying to control the money supply because they realized velocity could plummet at any moment, which essentially made that whole theory useless for actually "controlling" the economy.



The Count's chart explains everything perfectly: if the Federal Reserve were pumping out this much cash through things like QE back in, say, 1965, we would be staring down the barrel of hyperinflation right now (because if M and V both rise according to that equation, prices P absolutely have to skyrocket). But since V is falling today, the Federal Reserve can print as much as they want, and yet, look—no miracle hyperinflation in sight.

Anthony Evans78 said:Or, back when we were still clinging to the quasi-gold standard before 1971, there wasn't nearly as much.

Honestly, all those charts showing gold prices versus everything else? They’re basically useless after 1971. You’re better off ignoring them because they just end up misleading everyone. The whole thing changed when gold was demonetized in 1971—once that happened, the actual amount of gold held by a country or its specific price stopped being the engine driving the economy.

Since people (and governments) aren't actually using gold to trade goods and services anymore like they did under the classic gold standard, trying to compare today's gold prices to anything else is just... I don't even know, it's pointless. The fundamental pricing mechanism that makes a market actually function has been totally lost to us.
If you look at a graph comparing the last ten years of gold against the Swiss Franc—which is probably one of the most stable fiat currencies out there—you might walk away thinking the standard has tanked or that prices have skyrocketed several times over. But honestly, I highly doubt any Swissman would agree with that interpretation.

dustyheron5 said:It’s only natural to be concerned when you're keeping it in a home safe—the government knows exactly what you have...😂

Instead of keeping it off the books...
The thought of what prices might do if they decide to seize it is genuinely unsettling. 😍

So, basically, according to you guys, if we hit hyperinflation or some massive credit crunch or whatever disaster strikes, the only way for banks to stay afloat is by looting gold straight out of their clients' private safes? Wow, what absolute nonsense from NHF. They couldn't care less about your gold; frankly, they wouldn't be able to save themselves in a crisis like that anyway.

The whole idea of the government seizing assets doesn't even make sense this time around because the USA isn't on the gold standard like it was back in the '30s. If they really wanted to move back toward that kind of system, they wouldn't go around confiscating everything—that’s just messy. Instead, they'd likely just peg the dollar to an ounce of gold at some fixed rate and then absolutely hammer you with a sales tax on gold—we're talking maybe up to 90%—and just call it a day. That's how it would work.

Look, I think Faber is a total legend, but I honestly don't get why she's always harping on about the USA confiscating its citizens' gold. It's just pure nonsense.

Anthony Evans78 said:This chart says it all.
http://goldsilver.com/news/us-dollar...ld-since-1900/

Alright, look, sure, that graph basically proves that currencies are losing their value against gold—honestly, they're losing value against just about everything else these days—but it doesn't actually touch on why gold has skyrocketed sevenfold while the US dollar has managed to tank by 25% over the last decade alone.😕

BlackRock is going to step in once things finally settle down over at the European Union—you know, basically just waiting for the bureaucrats to cough up some new bailout scheme or whatever they call their "rescue plans" these days—but until then, there’s really no point in even talking about it.

Look, I’ve been lurking in this thread for quite a while now, so I figured it was finally time to weigh in:

Honestly, I think this whole gold hysteria is being fueled by both sides—you’ve got the extreme gold bugs on one end and the anti-gold crowd on the other, just driving the madness.
Let’s start with the bears for a second: from the jump, they completely ignored the fundamentals and just laughed at anyone trying to call a bull market since 2000. But look at the facts—we were seeing the end of a 20-year bear market which led to shorter research cycles and basically caused production stagnation over the last few years. On top of that, you have massive surges in demand from two huge markets, China and India, combined with central banks selling off less gold than before. It was practically inevitable that gold would go up.

Most mainstream commentators act like gold is in some massive bubble, but if you actually asked them, they’d probably say gold is only worth maybe $300-$400. Here’s the thing: the cost for companies per ounce is around $650 for the big players like Newmont and others, and it hits closer to $800 for the smaller outfits once you factor in profit margins and everything else. There is no way gold stays below $1200 without being a complete steal. If you adjusted gold prices to track US inflation, we’d be looking at $400-$500, which is way, way below the actual cost of digging it out of the ground!!
The bottom line is you have to admit that gold has been a solid investment, and if you didn't get in when you had the chance, well, you can just sit there and cry about it. That's all there is to it.

Then you have the gold bug crowd: it’s a real mixed bag here, ranging from legitimate price forecasters to people lost in hyperinflationary delusions. For example, you have guys like Jim Sinclair saying, "Oh, gold is hitting $1800 this week!" then two days later the price drops $40 and suddenly it's all "market manipulation!" If they know it's being manipulated, why bother making predictions in the first place? It makes zero sense. 🤷 The gold market behaves totally irrationally, much like some of the "experts" we saw back after 2008 when everyone was freaking out about hyperinflation threats following the massive money printing in the US.
Even though these experts should know that the Federal Reserve can expand its balance sheet indefinitely without actually triggering hyperinflation. We see gold rising today because people fear the Fed might pivot back to QE, but honestly, what does that matter? Whatever inflation that causes won't actually show up for years.
In general, the price of gold doesn't actually have that much to do with the US; the US isn't even the largest producer or the biggest market.

A huge chunk of this depends on China and India (which account for about 50% of investment gold), and I think Shadow missed the mark a little bit when he claimed gold isn't money. In India, they view it as money and a hedge against inflation—it doesn't matter if that's "irrational" to Westerners; they believe it, so they buy it. China and Russia are ramping up their gold reserves too, but I don't think it's just a move to escape
the dollar as the global reserve currency; they're doing it because they simply want to spite Americans. You could also see gold prices driven up by mining taxes, which are trending upward, or civil unrest and nationalization in the remote areas where the gold is actually pulled from the earth.

Regarding manipulation, if you look strictly at history, you could conclude that the elites don't particularly care for gold. But interestingly enough, Paul Volcker mentioned in his memoirs that he actually regretted not keeping gold prices under tighter control during the 80s.
Because of this manipulation, prices can actually head UP, because the cartel doesn't want people buying physical gold at low prices and crashing the paper market—at least, that's what the pros say.

As for the gold standard, I personally think it would be fascinating if the market just picked the best form of money to effectively abolish legal tender, capital gains taxes on gold sales, and deposit guarantees, just to see what happens. And please, Shadow, give us a more detailed breakdown of why the gold standard wouldn't work.

I find it interesting how J. Rickards suggests that, in the style of Bernanke, the goal is slow gold growth because that implies a weakening dollar. The Federal Reserve wants a cheap dollar, which really just means there's still plenty of room to make money on gold. 😉