Anthony Evans78 said:Yeah, unemployment would be north of 22% if they measured it the way they did twenty years ago instead of using the current BLS methods. Did you know their model ignores "discouraged workers"—the people who just gave up looking for work and get wiped from the stats entirely? Check out shadowstats.com if you want a real look at how disastrous the US economy actually is.
The NYSE is losing its mind because the Federal Reserve keeps printing dollars relentlessly, pumping all that newly minted cash into stocks and inflating a massive bubble. No real capital is fleeing into precious metals yet. Real money hasn't even entered the fray, but once it does, we’re going to see prices skyrocket and a massive shortage of physical metals.
For the billionth time, gold can only go up in an environment like this—zero interest rates, a shrinking economy, absurd amounts of dollar and fiat printing, rising unemployment, a dead housing market, bank insolvencies, and a world drowning in debt, from the average citizen to local governments and sovereign nations. But since we aren't living in a free market, but rather one of constant intervention, we get nonsense like Alice in Wonderland, where the Federal Reserve announces a $500 billion injection and gold somehow drops by $70.
It’s hilarious that you’re labeling me as having a certain "mindset" just because I believe gold can only move higher. You clearly don't see the largest bubble in history—US government bonds—on the verge of bursting. When that bubble pops, the value of all those papers will plummet to zero. Unlike physical gold. Even if gold's price dips temporarily, its purchasing power will still dwarf everything else.
I think you’re looking at this through a very narrow lens. You’re overlooking the fact that Quantitative Easing or similar liquidity injections are essentially just the central bank lending money to businesses. Here’s the reality: everyone is earning interest on something that technically doesn't exist, but if the money supply gets too bloated, the central banks can simply pull the plug. For instance, those large-scale liquidity facilities might be set for three years, but there are plenty of counterparts maturing soon. Therefore, central banks have plenty of ways to regulate the money supply. These moves effectively lowered interest rates for places like Italy from 8% down to the 3-4% range; without that intervention, they would have been in deep trouble. De facto, the Federal Reserve was acting as the lender of last resort.
On another note, you seem to assume precious metals are the only safe haven, likely because inflation doesn't touch them. But metals don't serve much of a purpose on their own. If you ask me, true value lies in resources: land, seeds, fuel, machinery, minerals, and last but not least, human labor and expertise. You hold a kilo of gold, while I hold 10kg of meat and a rifle with ammo—who do you think is in a better position?
Your assumption that "Treasury bills will collapse and PM will skyrocket" just doesn't hold water. The Federal Reserve will do absolutely everything in its power to prevent a collapse in Treasury bills and maintain some semblance of normalcy within the existing system. A total explosion in precious metals serves nobody's interests, so it isn't going to happen. There might be some sliding, but personally, it seems most likely that PM will continue to track the money supply—meaning they rise simply as more cash enters circulation.