Gold: Past, Present, and Future

rustyseal5 said:Am I accidentally typing in Turkish or something? 😕

Do you even grasp what I was trying to say? Because if you actually understood my point, then your response to me makes absolutely zero sense.

If you want to strip away the anxiety and stop playing games with your future, here’s the move: buy a piece of gold today using whatever cash you know you’re going to need six to twelve months down the line. Then, take that same amount and park it in a high-yield savings account. I’ve been watching the markets closely for the last eighteen months, and frankly, my gut was right on this one. It works.

If you want to strip away the gambling aspect entirely, you aren't looking at year-to-year flips. You’re talking about buying gold for the long haul. We're talking decades, not twelve-month cycles. I remember my old man used to say that if you're trying to time the market on precious metals, you've already lost the game. Real stability comes from holding steady while everyone else panics over the daily news cycle. Don't get cute with it. Buy it, tuck it away, and stop checking the price every morning.

I honestly don't get why you people keep baiting them. You’re essentially luring people into a trap because a massive crowd of uninformed readers fell for the hype. Now, they're stuck. They went in looking for a quick win, but because they didn't know what they were doing, their "short-term play" suddenly turned into a long-term holding they can't even exit. It's a mess.

Honestly, in the short term, I’m actually rooting for a price drop. I want to see it dip just enough so I can dig my heels in, stack my position, and basically cement myself in for the long haul. I want that rock-solid foundation. But hey, if the market decides to moon instead? I won't be caught sleeping. If things really take off, I might end up taking a hit on paper—my unrealized gains would look great, but my actual liquidity might feel the squeeze. Nothing is ever a sure bet, not even my own rambling theories, so why stress? At the end of the day, you just have to appreciate the sheer spectacle of the game. If this wasn't thrilling, I wouldn't bother talking about it at all.

Look, you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want the best of both worlds, but that's just not how the math works. You can't apply that logic to everyone. Some people aren't even looking at long-term savings or retirement funds; they’re just playing around with whatever extra cash they have sitting in their checking account right now. It's all about immediate liquidity for them.

I missed this earlier, so here is my response. Am I speaking anything other than English?🤷 😉
So, your critique targets both the advisors and the people who bought eighteen months ago and are now losing money. Let me ask you again... How can you possibly know what tomorrow holds? How can you be certain we won't see hyperinflation or a massive bank run? You're operating on assumptions. There are no certainties. If hyperinflation hits, what exactly are you going to trade your goods for?
And who is going to buy your art, especially if the buyer is sitting in a restaurant with zero actual purchasing power derived from the people?
Do you honestly think the average American, who has no idea how the system is rigged, is going to buy overpriced art or hyperinflated paper currency? No. It's far more likely they'll grab gold or silver. Those are much more practical mediums of exchange.
It might be an unlikely scenario for now, but let's hope it stays that way.
The elite can buy whatever they want. The rest of us still have to eat.

lonehawk5 said:Look, my friend, you just said something that most people here won't grasp in their entire lives.😉
We've got people here who can read COT reports and interpret them perfectly, we've got the hardcore fundamentalists who know their stuff inside out, and we've got people who are certain gold will rise long-term... but there are very few who actually turn all that talk into actual cash.
Let me repeat: on this forum (and honestly, everywhere else), 95% of people bought gold at or near the peak, 2.5% caught the bottom, and maybe 2.5% hit that sweet spot in the middle over the last decade.
Of that 95%, at least a chunk of them are just sitting on losses, praying for a turnaround, while the rest have just swallowed the hit. As for that 2.5% that bought the bottom, most already cashed out ages ago, and those folks in the middle are just lying to themselves saying they haven't lost anything yet and could still make a killing. That's how it works—not just with gold, but with every single way you try to invest.
As for long-term price forecasts... I'm not even going there.🙂

My average cost is $1,100. It's sitting at $1,300 now. I'm not bluffing, but I don't want to sell either. I just want the peace of mind that comes with being prepared for the worst. Don't you see that the "little guys" are actually the ones benefiting from this current gold movement and the future you all predict? At least when we talk about Americans. A small-scale investor who holds assets long-term and only sells during a crisis has successfully protected themselves. We aren't talking about becoming billionaires here; we're talking about eating well and surviving. Mathematically, it's impossible for everyone to get rich, whether we're talking about anything or gold specifically. The government views the populace as infantry. My logic is simple: you only sell when you have no other choice, and that's when the "little guy" fares best. If someone goes all-in on gold and is suddenly forced to liquidate, they messed up. In that regard, I made a partial mistake, because I had to sell some gold just to ensure another family member remained liquid. Looking back, I might have been able to manage without selling, though that's debatable. Naturally, I hold a portion in paper assets now to maintain liquidity; one learns from mistakes. But for the most part, I stay in assets that hold value long-term... That’s what interests me, not what happens tomorrow.

rustyseal5 said:Am I accidentally typing in Turkish or something? 😕

Do you even grasp what I was trying to say? Because if you actually understood my point, then your response to me makes absolutely zero sense.

If you want to strip away the anxiety and stop playing games with your future, here’s the move: buy a piece of gold today using whatever cash you know you’re going to need six to twelve months down the line. Then, take that same amount and park it in a high-yield savings account. I’ve been watching the markets closely for the last eighteen months, and frankly, my gut was right on this one. It works.

If you want to strip away the gambling aspect entirely, you aren't looking at year-to-year flips. You’re talking about buying gold for the long haul. We're talking decades, not twelve-month cycles. I remember my old man used to say that if you're trying to time the market on precious metals, you've already lost the game. Real stability comes from holding steady while everyone else panics over the daily news cycle. Don't get cute with it. Buy it, tuck it away, and stop checking the price every morning.

I honestly don't get why you people keep baiting them. You’re essentially luring people into a trap because a massive crowd of uninformed readers fell for the hype. Now, they're stuck. They went in looking for a quick win, but because they didn't know what they were doing, their "short-term play" suddenly turned into a long-term holding they can't even exit. It's a mess.

Honestly, in the short term, I’m actually rooting for a price drop. I want to see it dip just enough so I can dig my heels in, stack my position, and basically cement myself in for the long haul. I want that rock-solid foundation. But hey, if the market decides to moon instead? I won't be caught sleeping. If things really take off, I might end up taking a hit on paper—my unrealized gains would look great, but my actual liquidity might feel the squeeze. Nothing is ever a sure bet, not even my own rambling theories, so why stress? At the end of the day, you just have to appreciate the sheer spectacle of the game. If this wasn't thrilling, I wouldn't bother talking about it at all.

Look, you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want the best of both worlds, but that's just not how the math works. You can't apply that logic to everyone. Some people aren't even looking at long-term savings or retirement funds; they’re just playing around with whatever extra cash they have sitting in their checking account right now. It's all about immediate liquidity for them.

Why wouldn't I root for myself here, given that the price is practically near its peak if you look at the long term? If someone decides to sell now, they’ll lose very little in the absolute worst-case scenario. A tiny amount, really, compared to what you can lose with stocks. Feel free to crucify me for making that comparison.
Back in 2009 and 2010, my advice on these boards wasn't just to buy when gold hit $1,000; I also suggested holding some paper assets to hedge against potential deflation, treating gold as a long-term play for whenever the next crisis hits. Personally, I did sell some gold, even though I had paper savings and another family member had liquid cash available. I simply realized through experience that my investment serves primarily as an immediate safeguard, while holding paper makes sense as a secondary support for my long-term strategy. That said, if my paycheck gets eaten up by further price hikes, I will personally start buying more, especially considering a potential major correction. This is just my personal assessment; nobody needs to follow it blindly. In the worst-case scenario, we saw a 15% dip, but we've always emphasized that this is a protection play over a 10-year horizon or longer. Anyone playing the short game should have opted for paper gold. The premium on coins was only about 10%. That was their mistake; the advice here has always been about the long haul and gradual accumulation. If I made a slight miscalculation in my own situation, that's my business, and I haven't brought it up here until now.
I'm not just interested in hedging for tomorrow or the day after...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvoAvPjADsE

rustyseal5 said:I’m not buying it. I’ll say it again: there is no inflation. Period. And because there's no inflation, there is absolutely no justification for gold prices to keep climbing.

Look at oil. It's sitting right where it was back in 2010. We're living in 2013 here. Historically, oil and food prices spike first and then crash, which is exactly what we've seen over the last four years.

That’s the only "inflation" the gold bugs are clinging to, but let me be blunt: it isn't real inflation.

As for the money printing? It’s not happening the way you think it is, so there is zero momentum for price growth today.

Furthermore, if you actually look at the price of gold compared to production costs and inflation, the current price is perfectly reasonable.

Anyone who thought gold would just keep ripping 20% higher every single year seriously screwed up. It won't happen. Gold had its glory days already. The real question isn't whether it will go up, but when we might see another run like the one we had from 2002 to 2011.

That is absolutely incorrect... inflation exists, and it is significantly higher than the 1.5–2.0% reported by government statisticians.

The key point to emphasize is this: while we see a drastic rise in the cost of food, energy, utilities, and government services...
on the other hand, we are seeing a decline in property values and all the assets held by average citizens (whose standard of living has plummeted). This, combined with the private sector's deleveraging process, actually dampens inflationary pressure—otherwise, inflation would be much more severe.

What we are experiencing right now is a combination of deflation (in what citizens own) and inflation (in what citizens need)... a situation known as stagflation.

As for money printing, the claim that it isn't happening is also false. You can see clearly right here how $80 billion was created out of thin air in a single day:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...goes-sequester

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...ease%20feb.jpg

A quick correction here. Back in January 1980, gold was trading at over $2,000 in today's dollars... I’d guess closer to $2,300. Silver was well north of $130 when adjusted for modern inflation. If someone decides to aggressively hike prices and hyperinflate the currency just for the hell of it, we'll see what kind of prices we end up trading at and exactly what can actually be bought with the physical metal we hold...

lonehawk5 said:The TL;DR version for all you fundamentalists out there...
According to the CBO's baseline projections for the ten-year outlook, that budget deficit is supposed to plummet from the current 7% of GDP down to just 2.5% in only three years. We’re talking about the $1.15 trillion deficit from 2012 shrinking all the way down to a measly $433 billion by 2015. They're predicting nominal economic growth of 3.1%, 3.5%, and then hitting 5.9%. Apparently, tax revenue is going to skyrocket while spending stays under control. Plus, they claim interest on ten-year Treasuries won't top 3.5% by 2015. And since the Federal Reserve promised to keep things steady, interest on 90-day Treasuries shouldn't climb above 20 bps. Inflation will remain high and the interest component of the consolidated budget will go from $223 billion to a mere $273 billion.

If this actually happens, where the hell is gold gonna be?☕

See that? Not a single person commented on the post. Neither the gold bulls nor the bears have said a word. It really shows you how much expertise we have on this forum! But hey, I’ve got a question. The gold Bull market kicked off around 2000, right? And gold went up about 3 or 4 times before the 2008 crash. Back then, Treasury yields were double what they are today, inflation was way lower than it is now, GDP growth was higher, deficits were smaller, total national debt was lower, and the whole financial system was way more stable than it is today. Honestly, I'm pretty confused here. Based on what you wrote, gold should definitely be heading up! 😕

Gold is bound to rise. It would have surged long ago if it weren't for constant manipulation designed to prop up this failing fiat system for as long as possible... Most people buying gold are just waiting for a dip to load up more. To me, gold is the only true hedge against the catastrophic inflation that will inevitably follow once the entire system collapses. Let’s face it, there isn't a single debt-free nation left on this planet. It is only a matter of time before everything falls apart and paper currency becomes worthless. I am perfectly content with my holdings in gold and silver. I don't care about short-term price swings or temporary dips... my goal is to preserve my wealth over the long haul, and perhaps turn a profit along the way.

analogharbor44 said:See that? Not a single person commented on the post. Neither the gold bulls nor the bears have said a word. It really shows you how much expertise we have on this forum! But hey, I’ve got a question. The gold Bull market kicked off around 2000, right? And gold went up about 3 or 4 times before the 2008 crash. Back then, Treasury yields were double what they are today, inflation was way lower than it is now, GDP growth was higher, deficits were smaller, total national debt was lower, and the whole financial system was way more stable than it is today. Honestly, I'm pretty confused here. Based on what you wrote, gold should definitely be heading up! 😕

Look a little closer...
I know, I know—I'm being tedious and over-explaining, but I already answered that.😉

quietraven19 said:Gold is bound to rise. It would have surged long ago if it weren't for constant manipulation designed to prop up this failing fiat system for as long as possible... Most people buying gold are just waiting for a dip to load up more. To me, gold is the only true hedge against the catastrophic inflation that will inevitably follow once the entire system collapses. Let’s face it, there isn't a single debt-free nation left on this planet. It is only a matter of time before everything falls apart and paper currency becomes worthless. I am perfectly content with my holdings in gold and silver. I don't care about short-term price swings or temporary dips... my goal is to preserve my wealth over the long haul, and perhaps turn a profit along the way.

I wouldn't bet everything on that outcome. By combining money printing, debt jubilees, a forced drop in living standards, and tighter management of existing resources, they might actually keep the system afloat. Hyperinflation serves no one—not the poor, and certainly not the elite. Losing power is bad business for them. They’ll likely toss enough crumbs to the public to prevent a total meltdown. While seeing the elite lose their grip wouldn't be a bad thing given the current state of affairs, I doubt they'll step down easily. They’re far too skilled at staying in control; that’s why they’re the elite. Still, it would be ideal if the working and middle classes had some semblance of a long-term future instead of being squeezed until they bleed out.☕

Robert Vaughn10 said:I missed this earlier, so here is my response. Am I speaking anything other than English?🤷 😉
So, your critique targets both the advisors and the people who bought eighteen months ago and are now losing money. Let me ask you again... How can you possibly know what tomorrow holds? How can you be certain we won't see hyperinflation or a massive bank run? You're operating on assumptions. There are no certainties. If hyperinflation hits, what exactly are you going to trade your goods for?
And who is going to buy your art, especially if the buyer is sitting in a restaurant with zero actual purchasing power derived from the people?
Do you honestly think the average American, who has no idea how the system is rigged, is going to buy overpriced art or hyperinflated paper currency? No. It's far more likely they'll grab gold or silver. Those are much more practical mediums of exchange.
It might be an unlikely scenario for now, but let's hope it stays that way.
The elite can buy whatever they want. The rest of us still have to eat.

Yeah, and what part of that isn't crystal clear? 😕

Just because a few individuals screwed up doesn't mean we need to find more idiots to blow their cash the exact same way. Where is your basic logic in all of this?

I'm asking you again... How can you know what tomorrow brings? How can you be sure hyperinflation won't hit and trigger a massive bank run? That's just an assumption on your part that it won't happen, but nobody knows for certain.

I said it in 2008 and I’m saying it today: it isn't happening. Only a complete moron would try to draw parallels between the US and countries that actually lived through hyperinflationary nightmares.

You people have been obsessing over some imaginary hyperinflation for five years straight. Don't come at me again with that tired, broken argument.

You're assuming too much. If hyperinflation actually hits, what are you even going to use to trade for decent goods?

No, time has already proven that you and everyone else like you are just guessing—whereas I actually know. You'll still be making those same assumptions five years from now, while I'll still know that hyperinflation isn't coming.

From that perspective, even though I haven't even posted in this specific thread until today, I have way more credibility on this forum than you do. I could dig up your old posts right now and we'd have to take everything you say today with a massive grain of salt, wouldn't we?

And who are you going to sell art to, especially if that person is sitting in some restaurant without any real power, since that power is drawn from the people?

If things ever actually get that bad, paying a bill at a restaurant is going to be the least of your worries.

Will the average person—who doesn't know which way the wind is blowing—actually buy art they can't afford or use hyperinflated paper money?

You don't have the credibility to say something like that, or for anyone to take you seriously. Period. Time has already shown you were wrong.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Why wouldn't I root for myself here, given that the price is practically near its peak if you look at the long term? If someone decides to sell now, they’ll lose very little in the absolute worst-case scenario. A tiny amount, really, compared to what you can lose with stocks. Feel free to crucify me for making that comparison.
Back in 2009 and 2010, my advice on these boards wasn't just to buy when gold hit $1,000; I also suggested holding some paper assets to hedge against potential deflation, treating gold as a long-term play for whenever the next crisis hits. Personally, I did sell some gold, even though I had paper savings and another family member had liquid cash available. I simply realized through experience that my investment serves primarily as an immediate safeguard, while holding paper makes sense as a secondary support for my long-term strategy. That said, if my paycheck gets eaten up by further price hikes, I will personally start buying more, especially considering a potential major correction. This is just my personal assessment; nobody needs to follow it blindly. In the worst-case scenario, we saw a 15% dip, but we've always emphasized that this is a protection play over a 10-year horizon or longer. Anyone playing the short game should have opted for paper gold. The premium on coins was only about 10%. That was their mistake; the advice here has always been about the long haul and gradual accumulation. If I made a slight miscalculation in my own situation, that's my business, and I haven't brought it up here until now.
I'm not just interested in hedging for tomorrow or the day after...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvoAvPjADsE

Because investing isn't about blind faith; it's about hard data. If you want to rely on faith, go sit in a church or a mosque.

Look, if anyone decides to sell right now, they’ll lose a little at worst. And I mean *little*, especially when you compare it to how much people bleed out when playing with stocks. You can try to crucify me for making that distinction, be my guest.

Why would anyone dump gold right now? Especially if they picked it up just eighteen months ago? Only a fool does that unless they absolutely have to. And if they *have* to, then they made a bad call from the jump. People used to say the same thing about gold as they did about real estate—that prices could only ever go up and never down. Time has a funny way of proving those experts wrong.

To be fair, back in 2009 and 2010, I was personally advising on these boards that you shouldn't just buy when it hit $1,000, but that you should also hold a portion in paper gold because of possible deflation. Gold is a long-term play, and a crisis is always on the horizon eventually.

You also used to write about how the collapse of the dollar and the entire system was just a matter of days. Well, time has shown you weren't exactly right about that.

Mind you, I did sell some gold myself, even though I had cash savings and another family member was liquid. I just realized through practical experience that my investment works best as an immediate hedge, while holding the paper side makes sense as support for my long-term strategy.

I think we can all agree that as a long-term investment, gold isn't a bad move.

So, in the absolute worst-case scenario, people lost 15%. But we've always emphasized that this protection is meant for a timeframe of ten years or more. Anyone looking for a quick flip should have stuck to paper gold.

And that’s exactly the problem. People bought in hoping to walk away with a 10% or 30% profit in six months. In the end, they ended up in the red.
I don't see the issue with me saying that gold is a terrible short-term investment, especially if you look at the last year and a half.

dustyheron5 said:That is absolutely incorrect... inflation exists, and it is significantly higher than the 1.5–2.0% reported by government statisticians.

The key point to emphasize is this: while we see a drastic rise in the cost of food, energy, utilities, and government services...
on the other hand, we are seeing a decline in property values and all the assets held by average citizens (whose standard of living has plummeted). This, combined with the private sector's deleveraging process, actually dampens inflationary pressure—otherwise, inflation would be much more severe.

What we are experiencing right now is a combination of deflation (in what citizens own) and inflation (in what citizens need)... a situation known as stagflation.

As for money printing, the claim that it isn't happening is also false. You can see clearly right here how $80 billion was created out of thin air in a single day:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...goes-sequester

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...ease%20feb.jpg

What you're saying is flat-out wrong.

Look, what we really need to point out is that while we’re seeing this massive spike in food prices, energy costs, utilities, and government services...

You can't just talk about rising food and energy costs while ignoring the fact that some prices are actually dropping. For the last year and a half, we've seen a seesaw effect—prices going up, then down. Look at oil today; it's sitting right where it was back in 2010. So, what kind of inflation are we even talking about here? Or is your definition of inflation strictly limited to when things get more expensive, while you conveniently ignore it when they drop?
Basically, your "famous" inflation theory boils down to the fact that oil is back to 2010 levels. That means three years of absolutely nothing happening.
And I'm not using America as an example here, just like you gold bugs refuse to use anything else.

...but on the flip side, there's a decline in property values and all the assets held by average Americans (whose standard of living has plummeted). Combined with private sector deleveraging, this actually dampens inflationary pressures... otherwise, it would be significantly higher...

That wouldn't even be a factor if all that money printing hadn't failed to trickle down into actual income. Let's be real: real wages have been sliding for the last three or four years.

So, what we're facing right now is a mix of deflation (in terms of what citizens own) and inflation (in terms of what citizens need)... which, in a single word, is stagflation.

Inflation of what? The cost of most things is hovering right around pre-crisis levels. In some sectors, it's actually lower.

As for the money printing, it's not like it isn't happening; you can clearly see here how $80 billion was conjured out of thin air in a single day.

And? What? Did that money magically land in people's wallets? They could print another $10 trillion tomorrow and nothing fundamental would change. All that cash ends up flowing straight into capital markets and, of course, into gold. Eventually, prices settle based on fundamentals, which is why we're stuck in a spot where oil is priced like it's 2010 again.

analogharbor44 said:See that? Not a single person commented on the post. Neither the gold bulls nor the bears have said a word. It really shows you how much expertise we have on this forum! But hey, I’ve got a question. The gold Bull market kicked off around 2000, right? And gold went up about 3 or 4 times before the 2008 crash. Back then, Treasury yields were double what they are today, inflation was way lower than it is now, GDP growth was higher, deficits were smaller, total national debt was lower, and the whole financial system was way more stable than it is today. Honestly, I'm pretty confused here. Based on what you wrote, gold should definitely be heading up! 😕

It's all manipulation! 🙂

The real issue is that gold already made its big move between 2000 and 2010. It did its job back then, and now it's just sitting here, stuck at the same level for the last year and a half.

🤷

rustyseal5 said:Yeah, and what part of that isn't crystal clear? 😕

Just because a few individuals screwed up doesn't mean we need to find more idiots to blow their cash the exact same way. Where is your basic logic in all of this?

I'm asking you again... How can you know what tomorrow brings? How can you be sure hyperinflation won't hit and trigger a massive bank run? That's just an assumption on your part that it won't happen, but nobody knows for certain.

I said it in 2008 and I’m saying it today: it isn't happening. Only a complete moron would try to draw parallels between the US and countries that actually lived through hyperinflationary nightmares.

You people have been obsessing over some imaginary hyperinflation for five years straight. Don't come at me again with that tired, broken argument.

You're assuming too much. If hyperinflation actually hits, what are you even going to use to trade for decent goods?

No, time has already proven that you and everyone else like you are just guessing—whereas I actually know. You'll still be making those same assumptions five years from now, while I'll still know that hyperinflation isn't coming.

From that perspective, even though I haven't even posted in this specific thread until today, I have way more credibility on this forum than you do. I could dig up your old posts right now and we'd have to take everything you say today with a massive grain of salt, wouldn't we?

And who are you going to sell art to, especially if that person is sitting in some restaurant without any real power, since that power is drawn from the people?

If things ever actually get that bad, paying a bill at a restaurant is going to be the least of your worries.

Will the average person—who doesn't know which way the wind is blowing—actually buy art they can't afford or use hyperinflated paper money?

You don't have the credibility to say something like that, or for anyone to take you seriously. Period. Time has already shown you were wrong.

Because investing isn't about blind faith; it's about hard data. If you want to rely on faith, go sit in a church or a mosque.

Look, if anyone decides to sell right now, they’ll lose a little at worst. And I mean *little*, especially when you compare it to how much people bleed out when playing with stocks. You can try to crucify me for making that distinction, be my guest.

Why would anyone dump gold right now? Especially if they picked it up just eighteen months ago? Only a fool does that unless they absolutely have to. And if they *have* to, then they made a bad call from the jump. People used to say the same thing about gold as they did about real estate—that prices could only ever go up and never down. Time has a funny way of proving those experts wrong.

To be fair, back in 2009 and 2010, I was personally advising on these boards that you shouldn't just buy when it hit $1,000, but that you should also hold a portion in paper gold because of possible deflation. Gold is a long-term play, and a crisis is always on the horizon eventually.

You also used to write about how the collapse of the dollar and the entire system was just a matter of days. Well, time has shown you weren't exactly right about that.

Mind you, I did sell some gold myself, even though I had cash savings and another family member was liquid. I just realized through practical experience that my investment works best as an immediate hedge, while holding the paper side makes sense as support for my long-term strategy.

I think we can all agree that as a long-term investment, gold isn't a bad move.

So, in the absolute worst-case scenario, people lost 15%. But we've always emphasized that this protection is meant for a timeframe of ten years or more. Anyone looking for a quick flip should have stuck to paper gold.

And that’s exactly the problem. People bought in hoping to walk away with a 10% or 30% profit in six months. In the end, they ended up in the red.
I don't see the issue with me saying that gold is a terrible short-term investment, especially if you look at the last year and a half.

What you're saying is flat-out wrong.

Look, what we really need to point out is that while we’re seeing this massive spike in food prices, energy costs, utilities, and government services...

You can't just talk about rising food and energy costs while ignoring the fact that some prices are actually dropping. For the last year and a half, we've seen a seesaw effect—prices going up, then down. Look at oil today; it's sitting right where it was back in 2010. So, what kind of inflation are we even talking about here? Or is your definition of inflation strictly limited to when things get more expensive, while you conveniently ignore it when they drop?
Basically, your "famous" inflation theory boils down to the fact that oil is back to 2010 levels. That means three years of absolutely nothing happening.
And I'm not using America as an example here, just like you gold bugs refuse to use anything else.

...but on the flip side, there's a decline in property values and all the assets held by average Americans (whose standard of living has plummeted). Combined with private sector deleveraging, this actually dampens inflationary pressures... otherwise, it would be significantly higher...

That wouldn't even be a factor if all that money printing hadn't failed to trickle down into actual income. Let's be real: real wages have been sliding for the last three or four years.

So, what we're facing right now is a mix of deflation (in terms of what citizens own) and inflation (in terms of what citizens need)... which, in a single word, is stagflation.

Inflation of what? The cost of most things is hovering right around pre-crisis levels. In some sectors, it's actually lower.

As for the money printing, it's not like it isn't happening; you can clearly see here how $80 billion was conjured out of thin air in a single day.

And? What? Did that money magically land in people's wallets? They could print another $10 trillion tomorrow and nothing fundamental would change. All that cash ends up flowing straight into capital markets and, of course, into gold. Eventually, prices settle based on fundamentals, which is why we're stuck in a spot where oil is priced like it's 2010 again.

Why wouldn't you use a hedge to protect your principal? I'll say it again: you can lose massive amounts on individual stocks. Look at the data—compare those losses against how much gold and silver have gained over the same three-to-five-year periods. It’s simple math.

You’ve been obsessing over some supposed hyperinflation for the last five years. Now you’re coming at me again with that same tired, fundamentally flawed argument.

Real inflation is already well north of 10%, and I expect that number to climb. Just ask everyday Americans about their cost of living; if you can look past the insults, the reality is clear.

No, time has proven that you and others like you prefer guessing while I prefer knowing. You’ll still be making those same assumptions five years from now, but I already know hyperinflation isn't coming.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Even though I haven't posted on this specific thread before, my credibility on this forum far outweighs yours. I could easily dig up a few of your old posts to prove that everything you're claiming today should be taken with a massive question mark.

Let’s get back to it. I argued that avoiding hyperinflation for the dollar would be an uphill battle. Looking at the situation now, maybe we just got lucky, but don't hold your breath. How much value has the dollar actually shed over the last five years? Let me save you the math: it has lost a massive chunk of its purchasing power—at least 20%, if not more. Meanwhile, gold and silver have surged by 50%. My conclusions are set in stone. If I had stayed strictly in dollars—or even euros, to be honest—I would have lost dozens of percentage points compared to the cost of food, energy, gold, and silver. The math simply doesn't add up.

If you manage to get to that point, your biggest headache will probably just be settling the tab at a restaurant.

I've lost my appetite for fine dining. I'd much rather just grab some street food.🤣

You lack the credibility required to make claims like that, let alone be taken seriously. Time has already proven you wrong.

The data regarding gold, silver, food, and energy clearly confirms I was right all along.

Investments aren't based on faith; they're based on data. If you want to rely on faith, go to a church or a temple.

I’ll say it again: I stick to the facts when looking at a 3-5 year horizon, because that's what the numbers suggest. Look for yourself...
As for the short term, I have no idea what happens next. I don't trade short-term; I just hedge my position.

Why would anyone sell gold right now? Especially if they bought in eighteen months ago? Unless they absolutely have to, only a fool would do that. And if they have to, they made a bad call. Gold was the same story as real estate. The price can only go up, never down. Time has proven everyone who claimed otherwise wrong.

It's easy enough for me to find my own posts where I warned about heavy corrections. It would be helpful if you could actually point out where I said gold "can only go up."

You also wrote that the collapse of the dollar and the entire system was just a matter of days. Time has shown you weren't right.

I predicted the dollar would weaken within a year or two, and it did...
Essentially, my conclusions were sound. First, I don't buy government figures claiming inflation is at 2%. It's significantly higher than that. During that window, gold and silver rose 50%, and food and energy prices followed suit. We aren't seeing hyperinflation, but we aren't far from it either. The core of my analysis holds up. Theoretically, dollar hyperinflation could happen tonight; gold and silver, quite simply, are not going to fail.

I think we can all agree that gold is a solid long-term investment.

Amen to that.

And there's the issue. People bought in hoping to walk away with a 10% or 30% profit in six months. In the end, they lost money.
So where is the issue if I state that gold is not a smart short-term play, especially considering the last eighteen months?

That's their problem, not the problem of the people here who cautioned against it. No one is giving short-term advice on this forum.

A lot of analysts out there completely miss the scientific reality that the CPI actually overestimates inflation rather than underestimating it.

The only reason they’re still clinging to that Laspeyes index for inflation calculations is purely political—it's about buying votes. Besides, using it conveniently masks the massive, fuzzy hikes in social spending as a percentage of GDP we've seen across the West over the last 50 years, statistically smoothing it down to "just" 150% over that entire stretch.

lonehawk5 said:The TL;DR version for all you fundamentalists out there...
According to the CBO's baseline projections for the ten-year outlook, that budget deficit is supposed to plummet from the current 7% of GDP down to just 2.5% in only three years. We’re talking about the $1.15 trillion deficit from 2012 shrinking all the way down to a measly $433 billion by 2015. They're predicting nominal economic growth of 3.1%, 3.5%, and then hitting 5.9%. Apparently, tax revenue is going to skyrocket while spending stays under control. Plus, they claim interest on ten-year Treasuries won't top 3.5% by 2015. And since the Federal Reserve promised to keep things steady, interest on 90-day Treasuries shouldn't climb above 20 bps. Inflation will remain high and the interest component of the consolidated budget will go from $223 billion to a mere $273 billion.

If this actually happens, where the hell is gold gonna be?☕

If this actually happens, gold hits 1200...........but I have to admit, I've seen plenty of these "phenomenal" growth projections lately—almost as many as those overly bullish articles on gold.😂

rustywalker82 said:A lot of analysts out there completely miss the scientific reality that the CPI actually overestimates inflation rather than underestimating it.

The only reason they’re still clinging to that Laspeyes index for inflation calculations is purely political—it's about buying votes. Besides, using it conveniently masks the massive, fuzzy hikes in social spending as a percentage of GDP we've seen across the West over the last 50 years, statistically smoothing it down to "just" 150% over that entire stretch.

Forget about the rise in social spending... that isn't an inflation issue—that's an election cycle issue... it's about pre-election promises and the bureaucracy's desire to rule based on the support of those dependent on the budget... which, the larger that group becomes, the easier it is for the state to manage them like cattle.
As for proof, I can provide as much as you need.

Can you provide a link to those specific calculations that overestimate inflation?

And why have there been three separate changes to how the CPI is calculated in the US so far?

By the way, the inflation rate is being manipulated specifically because of how government expenditures are indexed—the lower the reported rate, the lower the subsequent payouts for things like Social Security and other adjustments.

I was digging through some course materials from the School of Economics today, specifically looking over some files for Intermediate Macroeconomics. It’s one of those deep dives that really makes you sit back and think about how everything connects. The reading covers a lot of ground—things like the Laspeyres index, different ways to look at inflation, and how we actually measure the cost of living. It’s pretty heavy stuff when you first encounter it, but once you start connecting the dots between the Consumer Price Index and what the Federal Reserve is doing, it starts to make sense. You see how the Bureau of Labor Statistics pulls all this data together, and then the Fed looks at that CPI to decide whether to hike or hold rates. It’s basically the heartbeat of the entire American economy. It also touches on some classic theories, like Dirk Krueger’s work, which is always interesting to revisit. Studying this kind of theory isn't just academic fluff; it's the foundation for understanding why things feel so expensive at the grocery store or why mortgage rates are jumping around. It's easy to get lost in the math, but if you keep the real-world implications in mind, it becomes much more engaging. Just my two cents while I'm grinding through these modules.
Intermediate Macroeconomics
Dirk Krueger
Department of Economics at a University in Pennsylvania
Translated and adapted.
Ivo be
The University in Washington, D.C.
School of Economics
I didn't catch that last part—looks like you might have hit send too early! What was on your mind? I'm around if you want to dive into some macro stuff or just vent about the economy.
ash cowards
Goran Nikša
Vjerana Spaji
August 2009.

Unfortunately, both of these indices have a major flaw. The issue with the Laspeyres index is that it assumes households are buying the exact same basket of goods in period $t$ as they were back in period 0. But that’s just not how life works. When prices shift, people aren't robots—they swap out stuff that got too expensive for things that became relatively cheaper. It's basic substitution, and the index just doesn't account for it.
If you just stick with the same old shopping basket regardless of what happens in either period, the Laspeyres index completely ignores the substitution effect. In the real world, that basically means it ends up overestimating the inflation rate.
So, basically, whenever you see those inflation numbers hitting the news, they're looking at the Consumer Price Index, or CPI. It’s pretty straightforward: every single month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics runs the math—they spend the middle of the month gathering all that pricing data and then drop the index for the previous month.
There are a ton of reasons why everyone is glued to the screen whenever that monthly report drops. It’s basically impossible to look away.
So, here’s the deal with the data. The Federal Reserve—basically the big bosses in charge of our money policy—is constantly watching one specific goal: keeping prices stable. To do that, they have to keep a super close eye on how inflation is moving. If they see inflation starting to climb higher than what they actually expected, then things get interesting.
Look, there’s a pretty direct link between how the Fed handles rate hikes and what happens to stock prices—usually, when they crank up those rates, the market takes a hit. Because of that, investors are constantly glued to inflation reports. If it looks like the numbers are going to come in higher than what everyone was expecting, things tend to get ugly fast. The reason the CPI matters so much isn't just about the math; it's because of how it affects real money flowing through the economy. A lot of contracts actually have these "COLA" clauses—Cost-of-Living Adjustments—baked right in. These essentially mandate that payments increase in lockstep with changes in the CPI. You see this all the time with Social Security benefits. That’s why the CPI is probably the most watched macroeconomic variable out there. So, you might be wondering... how do they actually calculate it?
The whole process kicks off with the BSL setting up the basket of goods and services that a typical consumer actually uses.
So, here's how it works. Imagine a typical American family going about their usual business during a base year. Their shopping basket—the stuff they actually buy—is pretty standard: maybe four loaves of bread, a case of beer, a tiny fraction of a car, four haircuts, and all that other everyday stuff. The Bureau of Labor Statistics steps in and calculates exactly what that specific basket would cost during that base year versus what it costs in a typical month this year. To get the CPI, they just take that ratio between the current price and the base year price. Simple enough, right?
So, here’s how it works: the inflation rate is basically calculated by taking the price levels from a specific period and...
So, you've got $P_t$, which basically functions as the CPI for that specific period $t$. Think of it as the Laspeyres index.
There’s been this massive political firestorm lately about whether the CPI is actually overestimating inflation. People are losing their minds over it, and honestly, I can see why. It feels like every time you turn on the news or scroll through social media, there’s another heated debate about whether the numbers coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics are actually reflecting what we're seeing at the grocery store or the gas pump. I was grabbing coffee the other day near downtown Chicago, and the guy behind me was venting about how his weekly bill had jumped significantly, yet he was looking at some report saying things were cooling down. That’s the disconnect right there. It’s one thing to look at a spreadsheet in a government office in Washington, D.C., and another thing entirely to look at your bank account after a trip to Target or Whole Foods. The whole argument basically boils down to how these indices are calculated—specifically how they weigh different goods and services. Some critics argue that the methodology used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't capture the real-world sting of rising costs for everyday Americans. They think the math is skewed in a way that makes inflation look more manageable than it actually feels to a regular person just trying to pay rent and buy eggs. It’s a messy, complicated topic, but it’s definitely more than just academic chatter. When the gap between official data and reality gets this wide, people start losing trust in the institutions meant to track our economy. Whether you're an expert studying Intermediate Macroeconomics or someone just trying to budget for the month, this stuff hits home.
Whether inflation is actually hitting us or not, there’s a massive hole in how we measure it that people keep pointing out. The first issue is substitution. In the real world, when things get pricey, people just stop buying them and switch to whatever is cheaper. They swap out expensive goods or services for more affordable alternatives. That’s just common sense, right? Then you’ve got the whole "new stuff" problem. Think about things like USB drives, tanning services, or smartphones. These things didn't even exist in the consumer basket decades ago, so they aren't factored into the CPI calculation. But adding these new products to our lives actually makes life better and stretches our dollars further. The math just doesn't catch up. The third thing—and this one is almost impossible to track—is the sheer improvement in quality. Let’s say a product gets way better but the price stays exactly the same because the improvement is too subtle to measure. Technically, the cost of living should be dropping because you're getting more bang for your buck, but since the price tag hasn't moved, the CPI stays flat. It misses the fact that we're actually better off. Because of COLA clauses, government spending relies heavily on how we define inflation. If the CPI overestimates inflation by even a single percentage point—which some economists argue is totally plausible—the consequences are huge. For example, back in 1997, the U.S. government ended up overpaying for social welfare programs by about $10 billion just because the numbers were off. It's a massive gap.
It’s hitting the dollar hard, which is a pretty massive number. Here in the States, we calculate inflation using the exact same methodology—basically through the Consumer Price Index. To figure out what a typical four-person household actually spends, they look at annual consumer surveys, then track those prices on a monthly basis to get the data.

Robert Vaughn10 Asks:
Why on earth wouldn't you want an insurance policy to protect your principal? I’ll say it again because apparently people aren't listening: you can lose everything on individual stocks. It happens. I've seen it. I'm looking back at how much was wiped out in certain plays versus how much gold and silver actually gained over that same three-to-five-year stretch. Protect your capital. It’s not rocket science.

Why don't you have it? It’s pretty simple: because it’s just not going to happen. Period. Building an entire investment strategy around "what ifs" like that is a total waste of time. You're basically chasing ghosts.

Real inflation is already sitting well north of 10%, and honestly, I expect that number to keep climbing. If you want the truth, stop looking at spreadsheets and go talk to actual people on the street about what they’re paying just to survive. And look, if you want to throw around insults to dodge the point, go ahead—but an epithet isn't an argument. It won't change the math.

Inflation of what, exactly? Are we talking about the US or somewhere else? Because if we're talking about America, there is absolutely no way. America isn't Argentina. You’ve been preaching about 10% inflation for five years straight now. According to your logic, prices are just going to climb higher and higher until we hit hyperinflation. You've been blowing that horn for half a decade, and yet, nothing has happened. Nothing is happening, and frankly, nothing ever will.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It’s basic common sense, really. I’ve always lived by that rule—better to take what you can actually grab right now than to go chasing some flashy, theoretical windfall that might never even materialize. I remember once trying to play it smart with a small investment back in Chicago, thinking I could double my money overnight by chasing a trend, only to end up staring at an empty wallet while everyone else was laughing. Some people call it being cautious; I call it not being a fool. Why gamble on a "maybe" when you've already got a "definitely"?

It’s always like that, really—except this time, it just doesn't apply. Not even close.

Alright, let's get down to business. I’ve been shouting from the rooftops that dodging hyperinflation with the dollar is an uphill battle. Even today, I still think it’s possible—look, maybe we just get lucky and dodge the bullet, fine. But let's look at the cold, hard facts. How much has the dollar actually lost over the last five years? Let me tell you right now: its purchasing power has tanked. We're talking a minimum of 20%, if not way more. Meanwhile, look at gold and silver. They’ve surged by 50%. My conclusions aren't just opinions; they are set in stone. If I had played it safe and stayed strictly in dollars—and let’s be honest, even if I had held Euros—I would have lost dozens of percentage points in real terms compared to the cost of food, energy, gold, and silver. The math simply doesn't add up. It's broken.

Why are you even asking me to dig for things when you immediately follow up by claiming I said something I never actually said? It’s ridiculous. Hyperinflation was a massive possibility five years ago—just like it is now. But look at what actually happened. Instead of sliding into a depression, the US started seeing steady growth, and the federal deficit actually began to shrink as revenues climbed. Everything turned out to be the exact opposite of the doom and gloom you were preaching.
That precious gold you’ve been obsessing over for the last year and a half? It’s either flatlining or actually losing ground. That’s just the reality of it. According to your little group, it should have already blown past $3,000 by now. Just admit it to yourself: your collective predictions have been nothing but total misses.

I’m telling you, I am absolutely right about this. Just look at the data coming in for gold, silver, food, energy—it all points to the same thing. The numbers don't lie.

How can you possibly claim to be right? Where exactly is this inflation everyone’s screaming about? Where is this supposed hyperinflation? And where on earth is gold trading at an extra $3,000 or $5,000? Everything you predicted has failed to materialize. Seriously, look at the charts—gold has been flatlining for the last year and a half, if not actually dipping slightly. Your "inevitable" catastrophe just isn't happening.

Look, I’m telling you again: facts matter to me when we’re talking about the long haul—say, a 3 to 5-year window. That’s what the numbers show. If you want to talk short-term? I don't know what's going to happen. I don't play the short game; I just buy things to protect myself.

You're using the exact same "facts" people used to spin that fairy tale about how gold could only go up, telling everyone to buy whenever they wanted because it was a guaranteed climb. How many people are sitting on losses right now because they bought a piece of gold eighteen months ago? Those are the "facts" you're peddling. Why didn't you write back then saying people should hold off because prices would stay flat or even drop over the next year and a half?

It’s easy for me to find my own old posts where I warned about heavy corrections. It would be nice if you actually pointed out where I ever claimed gold "could only go up."

You only changed your tune once you saw the dismal performance from gold over the last year and a half. Before that, you acted like gold—just like a lot of real estate—was nothing but an upward trajectory.

I wrote that within a year or two, the dollar had to weaken, and it did...

What, should I dig up the posts where you predicted a total dollar collapse? And if I find them, am I supposed to kick you off this forum forever since it's painfully obvious you were 100% wrong in your projections? 😁

First off, I don't trust the government data claiming inflation is only 2%. It’s way higher than that...

It’s incredibly easy to claim you don't trust the numbers when those numbers aren't working in your favor. What you can actually observe is the inflation in commodity markets. Looking there, you don't see any hyperinflationary explosion; in fact, look at oil prices—they're hovering near 2010 levels. That tells me we haven't actually seen inflation in energy over the last two years. As for that "hidden" inflation the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports... you have no way of knowing if it's true or fake. You can only guess. And building an investment strategy on guesses is a one-way ticket to ruin.

During that stretch, gold and silver climbed 50%, and food and energy followed suit. It’s not hyperinflation, but it isn't low either. So, my conclusions are, to put it mildly, valid. Theoretically, dollar hyperinflation could happen tonight, but for gold and silver, in plain English, it simply isn't happening.

Global energy prices haven't surged. If you look back at the summer of 2008, oil dropped from $150 to below $100. Where exactly do you see inflation there? Or are you just cherry-picking whatever timeframes make your argument work?
Regarding gold prices, that recent rally resulted in the price sitting flat or dropping for the last eighteen months.

Preach.

Look, at least we can find some common ground here. 😁

That’s on them, not the people on this forum who were calling it out. Nobody was handing out financial advice here based on such a tiny window of time.

Maybe not, but from the way you guys were typing, it sounded like you were convinced gold could only go up and never down. People said the exact same thing about real estate, and well, look how that turned out.

analogharbor44 said:See that? Not a single person commented on the post. Neither the gold bulls nor the bears have said a word. It really shows you how much expertise we have on this forum! But hey, I’ve got a question. The gold Bull market kicked off around 2000, right? And gold went up about 3 or 4 times before the 2008 crash. Back then, Treasury yields were double what they are today, inflation was way lower than it is now, GDP growth was higher, deficits were smaller, total national debt was lower, and the whole financial system was way more stable than it is today. Honestly, I'm pretty confused here. Based on what you wrote, gold should definitely be heading up! 😕

Look, Goldman Sachs was kept under "control" for years. All that multi-year accumulation had to break loose eventually, and one crisis after another just made that outcome more and more inevitable. The real warning sign was 2007. (I remember getting called a doomsayer for saying a massive market meltdown was coming, especially regarding JPMorgan Chase), but don't use current interest rates or debt levels as a benchmark—people trade on expectations. Those expectations drove the price of Goldman Sachs to double over the last 7-8 years, and as time passed, reality just caught up with those expectations. I'm not trying to play Monday morning quarterback here, so I'll just leave it at this.
The data I posted isn't good for Goldman Sachs, if things move that way. And that’s enough for me.
You really need to keep in mind what "the big players" want and expect. You can't get greedy (you can't expect 10 years of straight growth), and you have to realize that "smart money" eventually has to hand the baton over to the masses. Most importantly? Watch the charts. It’s not about dumping your money in and watching it go up or down; it's about recognizing the cycle and catching a piece of it. That’s how you adjust your portfolio (Goldman Sachs, stocks, cash).

Just ask yourself one thing.
What would have to happen in the world for the price of Goldman Sachs to double again in the next 5-7 years?
Assign a probability to that, and then act accordingly with your investments.

Look, I'm not some genius claiming to know exactly where Goldman Sachs or silver will land by the end of the year or two or five... like some guys on this forum. Nobody knows that for sure. The market is a "living thing," fueled by the emotions of everyone involved.

The charts always hold most of the answers... hints about shifts, corrections, all that stuff.
99% of people don't just lack the knowledge, they don't even have access to the real info (which costs a fortune), and that's why most of them lose everything.

Stop trying to link gold and inflation so tightly. It’s obvious that gold jumping from $250 to $1,577 during this Goldman Sachs market—that's a 6.3x increase—has nothing to do with inflation. Why is it so hard to grasp that a bull market is just a bull market? Maybe this one is slightly larger than what we've seen before, but you can probably chalk that up to how much politicians love delaying any kind of actual pain. We can call the periods where gold spikes "inflationary," sure, but it doesn't really have anything to do with actual inflation or hyperinflation. Bull markets end in a parabola, so I doubt this one will be the exception. A bull will always find some excuse to rally.

Charles, what’s your take on this recent currency turbulence (at least, that's how it looks to me)? I feel like currencies—not economic fundamentals or even debt—are what everything is revolving around right now. The answer to how the next 5 or 6 years play out lies in the currency game.

The Goldman Sachs bull isn't some paper game like everything else because it's tied directly to the physical market. Central banks are buying gold, and that physical demand acts like a constant pilot light under gold prices, especially since the general public hasn't really jumped into the fray yet. I highly doubt central banks are buying out of fear of inflation; it feels more like they're grabbing starting positions. But starting positions for what?

I’m no economist, but this sounds like total nonsense to me—honestly, it reads more like a cheap political flyer than actual analysis:

...Unfortunately, both indices have their flaws. The issue with the Laspeyres index is that it assumes households buy the exact same basket of goods in period t as they did in period 0. In reality, when prices shift, consumers substitute expensive goods for ones that have become relatively cheaper between period 0 and period t.
By keeping the basket identical across both periods, the Laspeyres index ignores that substitution effect, which ends up overstating the inflation rate.

Look, if we accept that price is a reflection of exchange—which is what economics should be about, since the field literally built price theory—then there’s zero difference in inflation between these two scenarios:
1) I keep buying the same product but pay more for it.
2) I swap out my old product for a new one that costs less.

In both cases, the inflation is effectively the same. The only difference is how I "paid" for it. In scenario 1, I paid with cash; in scenario 2, I paid with my quality of life.

Since there’s no objective way to measure quality of life, but there is a solid price theory, everything ultimately boils down to price—specifically, the price gap between the old product and the substitute.
So, I don't see the problem.
The only inflation rate that actually matters is the one measuring the price change of the exact same product.