Started by Melissa Sanchez17 · · 👁 73 views · 3K replies
…
neondriver5 said:I’m not sure if we just rattled the cage of the gold bugs, but I can’t remember the last time gold jumped 3.5 percent in a single day.😍
Man, if I had a position right now... I'd be shorting this move in a heartbeat.
One more time: does anyone know of any reliable US brokers that offer trading on gold ETFs? Maybe even some options.
This is like taking candy from a baby.
crimsonranger38 said:Warren Buffett
Your opening sentence is pure nonsense. If you actually believe that, you seriously need to go back to school and re-indoctrinate yourself. Gold and silver aren't money—period. You can’t walk into a store and buy a gallon of milk or pay your barber with a hunk of bullion. To get anything done, you have to sell those metals first just to get the actual cash required for a transaction. As for your claim that these two metals can't be overvalued? That's just your opinion. The market—meaning the vast majority of people—clearly disagrees, which is exactly why prices have tanked by at least 20%.
The market overvalued it. Period. That’s the bottom line. Second, just because you personally believe money needs to be some permanent, unchanging thing doesn't mean that's how reality works. End of story. In that light, money could just as easily be platinum, iridium, palladium, osmium, rhodium, ruthenium, mercury, copper, or any other precious metal. Honestly, it’s almost unnecessary to point out that most of those metals are far more useful in a practical sense than gold. Gold has virtually zero utility compared to something like copper or rhodium. At the end of the day, people decide what counts as money for them. It’s entirely possible that most Americans might wake up tomorrow, decide the USD isn't worth their time anymore, and start trading goods and services in something else entirely.
Let’s go over this one more time: gold and silver aren't money. In their current physical state, they’re about as useful as an onion or a piece of real estate. However, unlike gold, silver and copper actually offer some sort of net benefit to society. They are productive assets. Gold? For the most part, it just ends up being used to plate microchips to make them look pretty. 😍
You’ve reached that stage where you claim nothing in this world can be truly measured against gold and silver—as if those metals are the only real currency in existence, some kind of divine standard held sacred only by you and your ilk. That’s nonsense. Of course everything can be compared. If you want proof, head down to the local farmers market and ask the vendor how much a pound of onions costs. Then, walk over to a jeweler and ask them to calculate exactly how much gold you’d need to trade for that same pound of onions. That jeweler doesn't know the price of an ounce of gold because they simply decided it was worth $10,000; they know it because the market dictated it. If the market suddenly decided an ounce of gold was worth $100,000, then that’s what it would be. Period. The price of gold, just like the price of anything else, is driven by supply and demand. And we all know the deal here: global gold supply is stagnating while demand keeps climbing—mostly fueled by speculators—which is exactly why the price keeps climbing. Simple math.
Look, there are properties out there with market values exceeding $10,000 per square foot. Ask the average person what they’d pick: a 1,000-square-foot home in the heart of NYC, Chicago, or Los Angeles, or maybe 770 ounces of gold. I suspect most people would choose the house they can actually live in. You can't exactly move into a bar of gold. Sorry, but you can stare at it and admire how shiny it is, but it's perishable and useless for shelter.
I wasn't aware that fiat currency had absolutely no value. If that's the case, I assume you won't mind handing over all that worthless paper in your wallet or sitting in your bank account to me. I'd be quite grateful, and honestly, I'd be doing you a favor by taking that trash off your hands—just scraps of paper that serve no purpose. Any system, current or future, means nothing without the people participating in it. The issue here is the human element. We aren't going to fix today's crisis simply by swapping out the system. At the end of the day, despite its flaws, this system helped build the standard of living we enjoy today—which is undoubtedly the highest in human history. If the political elites would just stop trying to micromanage market processes, things might actually improve for everyone.
As far as I'm concerned, that's just plain old demagoguery, the kind of stuff you hear on the news every single day. We cannot describe an era of unprecedented standards of living for Americans, alongside hundreds of millions of people being lifted out of poverty, as "benefiting a few while harming everyone else."
Warren Buffett says:Ha, sure. Let’s just pivot back to that glorious gold standard you’re obsessed with, because that would obviously make your net worth skyrocket overnight. How incredibly convenient for you, right? Honestly, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that movie to start playing. You’ll probably just stick to your usual routine: daydreaming about the total collapse of the global financial system. Hey, nobody can take your fantasies away from you.
Mary Asks:
The beauty of this whole setup for a select few is that most people will fight tooth and nail to defend and maintain it. They cling to it desperately. That works right up until the moment the system starts cracking—which, if you ask me, actually began the very day Nixon signed his name on the dotted line.
And another thing; if you honestly believe everything went south on August 15, 1971, then you clearly haven't done your homework. You’re missing the most basic facts. That whole "Gold Standard" era following World War II was essentially an illusion, and the money supply proves it. During the 26 years of BWS's life, the money supply surged from $107 billion to $720 billion—that's nearly a sevenfold increase. We're looking at an average annual growth rate of 7.7%, which actually outpaces the 5.4% we've seen over the last 27 years. Even inflation rates back then were higher than what we've dealt with recently. Honestly, even a kid in elementary school could see that there wasn't really a Gold Standard in play.
And here’s another crucial point for the record: I can’t for the life of me remember a single time the United States or the UK actually maintained 100% gold backing for their entire money supply. If memory serves—and I try to be precise about these things—the last time we saw anything resembling a legitimate gold standard was back in the mid-19th century, and even then, coverage only hovered around 30%.
If the United States actually wanted to go back to being 100% gold-backed—I can’t even remember the last time we did that—we’d have to revalue gold from its current price of $1,600 all the way up to $60,000 per ounce. Just to hit a 30% coverage level? You’re looking at roughly $17,900 an ounce. It’s the same math for the Eurozone; you’d be looking at $59,000 and $17,600 respectively to hit those targets. For anyone currently hoarding gold, that would be the ultimate jackpot. That’s exactly why the last few holdouts are screaming for a return to the gold standard. They want the payday, but they clearly haven't done the math on the absolute chaos they'd be inviting.
Don't get me wrong—I'm not suggesting the United States and the Eurozone are just printing money like there’s no tomorrow. But let's look at the math. If China were backed 100% by gold, an ounce would need to hit $432,000. Even with a more modest 30% coverage, we're looking at $130,000. It’s all about the ratios. For Russia, those numbers jump to $315,000 and $95,000 respectively. Japan sits at $466,000 and $140,000. And then you have Brazil, where things get truly absurd: $1,520,000 or $456,000 depending on how much skin you have in the game. Numbers don't lie; they just reveal how thin the ice really is. 😍
It would be absolutely bloody marvelous if someone holding $10,000 worth of gold today could just flip it tomorrow for $375,000 or maybe $112,000. A total windfall. But let’s be real—that isn't going to happen, no matter how many doomsday scenarios certain folks in this thread try to conjure up. 😍
I’ve always had a certain level of skepticism toward people who believe that repeating a lie a hundred times will somehow turn it into an undeniable truth on the hundred-and-first attempt. It’s a special kind of delusion. Think about it this way: imagine you walk up to a local farmer's market vendor and try to settle your tab for some organic produce by offering them a handful of gold or silver coins. You might be convinced of their intrinsic value, but that doesn't matter. What matters is how the crowd perceives them. Most Americans don't view gold as "money" in the everyday sense—just like they wouldn't try to pay for a latte with Danish Krone or British Pounds. The reality is simple, if a bit cynical: that vendor is going to take your US dollars long before they ever touch your scrap metal. At the end of the day, consensus beats conviction every single time.
Money, much like anything else in this universe, carries a price tag—a value. That value is ultimately defined by the goods and services you can actually grab with it. In certain corners of the globe, its purchasing power is climbing, whereas out here in the West, we’re seeing a more moderate slide. Then again, if you look at it through the lens of real estate, the dollar's strength tells a different story in many Western nations. It’s been much the same since last summer regarding gold and silver; the dollar has gained ground against those metals, and even against some of the more obscure currencies you might encounter.
It’s a total cult, really. You’ve already gone and said it three times—even went through the trouble of bolding it—that gold and silver are fundamentally different from every other form of currency out there. 😍
Warren Buffett
In that light, money starts looking less like paper and more like copper or some other chemical element on the periodic table.
crimsonranger38 said:Warren Buffett
Your opening sentence is pure nonsense. If you actually believe that, you seriously need to go back to school and re-indoctrinate yourself. Gold and silver aren't money—period. You can’t walk into a store and buy a gallon of milk or pay your barber with a hunk of bullion. To get anything done, you have to sell those metals first just to get the actual cash required for a transaction. As for your claim that these two metals can't be overvalued? That's just your opinion. The market—meaning the vast majority of people—clearly disagrees, which is exactly why prices have tanked by at least 20%.
The market overvalued it. Period. That’s the bottom line. Second, just because you personally believe money needs to be some permanent, unchanging thing doesn't mean that's how reality works. End of story. In that light, money could just as easily be platinum, iridium, palladium, osmium, rhodium, ruthenium, mercury, copper, or any other precious metal. Honestly, it’s almost unnecessary to point out that most of those metals are far more useful in a practical sense than gold. Gold has virtually zero utility compared to something like copper or rhodium. At the end of the day, people decide what counts as money for them. It’s entirely possible that most Americans might wake up tomorrow, decide the USD isn't worth their time anymore, and start trading goods and services in something else entirely.
Let’s go over this one more time: gold and silver aren't money. In their current physical state, they’re about as useful as an onion or a piece of real estate. However, unlike gold, silver and copper actually offer some sort of net benefit to society. They are productive assets. Gold? For the most part, it just ends up being used to plate microchips to make them look pretty. 😍
You’ve reached that stage where you claim nothing in this world can be truly measured against gold and silver—as if those metals are the only real currency in existence, some kind of divine standard held sacred only by you and your ilk. That’s nonsense. Of course everything can be compared. If you want proof, head down to the local farmers market and ask the vendor how much a pound of onions costs. Then, walk over to a jeweler and ask them to calculate exactly how much gold you’d need to trade for that same pound of onions. That jeweler doesn't know the price of an ounce of gold because they simply decided it was worth $10,000; they know it because the market dictated it. If the market suddenly decided an ounce of gold was worth $100,000, then that’s what it would be. Period. The price of gold, just like the price of anything else, is driven by supply and demand. And we all know the deal here: global gold supply is stagnating while demand keeps climbing—mostly fueled by speculators—which is exactly why the price keeps climbing. Simple math.
Look, there are properties out there with market values exceeding $10,000 per square foot. Ask the average person what they’d pick: a 1,000-square-foot home in the heart of NYC, Chicago, or Los Angeles, or maybe 770 ounces of gold. I suspect most people would choose the house they can actually live in. You can't exactly move into a bar of gold. Sorry, but you can stare at it and admire how shiny it is, but it's perishable and useless for shelter.
I wasn't aware that fiat currency had absolutely no value. If that's the case, I assume you won't mind handing over all that worthless paper in your wallet or sitting in your bank account to me. I'd be quite grateful, and honestly, I'd be doing you a favor by taking that trash off your hands—just scraps of paper that serve no purpose. Any system, current or future, means nothing without the people participating in it. The issue here is the human element. We aren't going to fix today's crisis simply by swapping out the system. At the end of the day, despite its flaws, this system helped build the standard of living we enjoy today—which is undoubtedly the highest in human history. If the political elites would just stop trying to micromanage market processes, things might actually improve for everyone.
As far as I'm concerned, that's just plain old demagoguery, the kind of stuff you hear on the news every single day. We cannot describe an era of unprecedented standards of living for Americans, alongside hundreds of millions of people being lifted out of poverty, as "benefiting a few while harming everyone else."
Warren Buffett says:Ha, sure. Let’s just pivot back to that glorious gold standard you’re obsessed with, because that would obviously make your net worth skyrocket overnight. How incredibly convenient for you, right? Honestly, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that movie to start playing. You’ll probably just stick to your usual routine: daydreaming about the total collapse of the global financial system. Hey, nobody can take your fantasies away from you.
Mary Asks:
The beauty of this whole setup for a select few is that most people will fight tooth and nail to defend and maintain it. They cling to it desperately. That works right up until the moment the system starts cracking—which, if you ask me, actually began the very day Nixon signed his name on the dotted line.
And another thing; if you honestly believe everything went south on August 15, 1971, then you clearly haven't done your homework. You’re missing the most basic facts. That whole "Gold Standard" era following World War II was essentially an illusion, and the money supply proves it. During the 26 years of BWS's life, the money supply surged from $107 billion to $720 billion—that's nearly a sevenfold increase. We're looking at an average annual growth rate of 7.7%, which actually outpaces the 5.4% we've seen over the last 27 years. Even inflation rates back then were higher than what we've dealt with recently. Honestly, even a kid in elementary school could see that there wasn't really a Gold Standard in play.
And here’s another crucial point for the record: I can’t for the life of me remember a single time the United States or the UK actually maintained 100% gold backing for their entire money supply. If memory serves—and I try to be precise about these things—the last time we saw anything resembling a legitimate gold standard was back in the mid-19th century, and even then, coverage only hovered around 30%.
If the United States actually wanted to go back to being 100% gold-backed—I can’t even remember the last time we did that—we’d have to revalue gold from its current price of $1,600 all the way up to $60,000 per ounce. Just to hit a 30% coverage level? You’re looking at roughly $17,900 an ounce. It’s the same math for the Eurozone; you’d be looking at $59,000 and $17,600 respectively to hit those targets. For anyone currently hoarding gold, that would be the ultimate jackpot. That’s exactly why the last few holdouts are screaming for a return to the gold standard. They want the payday, but they clearly haven't done the math on the absolute chaos they'd be inviting.
Don't get me wrong—I'm not suggesting the United States and the Eurozone are just printing money like there’s no tomorrow. But let's look at the math. If China were backed 100% by gold, an ounce would need to hit $432,000. Even with a more modest 30% coverage, we're looking at $130,000. It’s all about the ratios. For Russia, those numbers jump to $315,000 and $95,000 respectively. Japan sits at $466,000 and $140,000. And then you have Brazil, where things get truly absurd: $1,520,000 or $456,000 depending on how much skin you have in the game. Numbers don't lie; they just reveal how thin the ice really is. 😍
It would be absolutely bloody marvelous if someone holding $10,000 worth of gold today could just flip it tomorrow for $375,000 or maybe $112,000. A total windfall. But let’s be real—that isn't going to happen, no matter how many doomsday scenarios certain folks in this thread try to conjure up. 😍
I’ve always had a certain level of skepticism toward people who believe that repeating a lie a hundred times will somehow turn it into an undeniable truth on the hundred-and-first attempt. It’s a special kind of delusion. Think about it this way: imagine you walk up to a local farmer's market vendor and try to settle your tab for some organic produce by offering them a handful of gold or silver coins. You might be convinced of their intrinsic value, but that doesn't matter. What matters is how the crowd perceives them. Most Americans don't view gold as "money" in the everyday sense—just like they wouldn't try to pay for a latte with Danish Krone or British Pounds. The reality is simple, if a bit cynical: that vendor is going to take your US dollars long before they ever touch your scrap metal. At the end of the day, consensus beats conviction every single time.
Money, much like anything else in this universe, carries a price tag—a value. That value is ultimately defined by the goods and services you can actually grab with it. In certain corners of the globe, its purchasing power is climbing, whereas out here in the West, we’re seeing a more moderate slide. Then again, if you look at it through the lens of real estate, the dollar's strength tells a different story in many Western nations. It’s been much the same since last summer regarding gold and silver; the dollar has gained ground against those metals, and even against some of the more obscure currencies you might encounter.
It’s a total cult, really. You’ve already gone and said it three times—even went through the trouble of bolding it—that gold and silver are fundamentally different from every other form of currency out there. 😍
Warren Buffett
In that light, money starts looking less like paper and more like copper or some other chemical element on the periodic table.
neondriver5 said:I’m not sure if we just rattled the cage of the gold bugs, but I can’t remember the last time gold jumped 3.5 percent in a single day.😍
Man, if I had a position right now... I'd be shorting this move in a heartbeat.
One more time: does anyone know of any reliable US brokers that offer trading on gold ETFs? Maybe even some options.
This is like taking candy from a baby.
quiettrucker12 said:Man, that’s a lot of text. Honestly, 🙂😉
Since you brought it up, what would you choose right now?
I get the point, but... In trader speak, Silvercorp and San Francisco are "investors," not speculators. To me, they are the perfect "riders" for a bull market. I wrote a ton about this 7 or 8 months ago. They don't flinch during corrections, which is great, but there's a massive catch: they think the bull market will last forever, so when the end comes, they won't sell in time. Even the people planning an early exit might not make it out. If we were trying to build the ultimate bull market rider, they’d need to act like Silvercorp and San Francisco for the first 90% of the run, then suddenly transform into completely different people for the last 10%—selling everything instantly to grab whatever is undervalued at that moment. Personally, I think we're in a bull market unlike anything we'll ever see again. Just getting in early isn't enough; the trick is getting out early—before it's too late.
So, my take is that anyone smart enough to bail before the crash (maybe even 20% before the peak) would likely buckle and sell during a minor correction instead. This applies to any bull market, especially this "my precious" thing that keeps shining.
A winning combo would be: Person A buys gold and holds it, while Person B inherits that gold right at the tail end of the bull market, dumps it immediately, and pivots into something else.
As for the idea that silver will outperform gold—that's a shallow argument just because silver is an industrial metal. The idea that it has more upside simply because it's much cheaper than gold sounds a lot more convincing to me.
If anybody has any idea of hoarding our silver coins, let me say this. Treasury has a lot of silver on hand, and it can be, and it will be used to keep the price of silver in line with its value in our present silver coin. There will be no profit in holding them out of circulation for the value of their silver content
'] [/URL] 
'] [/URL] ironstag8 said:I’d like to offer a response to Shadow regarding the decline of the American standard of living since the demonetization of silver back in 1964. Even though our main focus here is gold, allow me to use the history of silver as a lens to illustrate this broader point.
To set the stage, President Johnson made a rather "eloquent" decision—and followed it up with an equally eloquent statement:If anybody has any idea of hoarding our silver coins, let me say this. Treasury has a lot of silver on hand, and it can be, and it will be used to keep the price of silver in line with its value in our present silver coin. There will be no profit in holding them out of circulation for the value of their silver content
He essentially believed that a silver dollar and a fiat dollar were interchangeable, assuming the government could simply maintain that parity as long as those old silver coins remained in circulation.
Honestly, looking back, you have to wonder who was foolish enough to buy into that nonsense.
So, if we look at the landscape in 1964—average home prices, cars, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, postage stamps, tuition for a decent university, natural birth costs, average wages, a gallon of milk, a gallon of gas—we can see the trajectory.
Below are the figures from 2012. I've included both the raw increase and the percentage. You'll notice that while wages grew by 766%, almost everything else—except perhaps milk—skyrocketed far beyond that.
It’s particularly striking to observe the surge in college tuition. A student in '64 paid a fraction of what people pay today, yet they walked into much better-paying careers. Today, students are crushed under mountains of debt, forced to pay exorbitant fees—artificially inflated by universities, driven by a mindset similar to that of bankers or the intellectual elite—only to end up in lower-paying roles (assuming they even find work).
Let’s follow the thread through the prism of silver. President Johnson claimed there was no point in collecting silver coins because they would retain their value. First, let's compare how many ounces of silver a dollar bought in '64 versus how much it buys today. If the sheer absurdity of Johnson’s logic—and the logic of anyone distancing themselves from real money in favor of paper—isn't obvious from these numbers, then I don't know what else to say. We also see that tuition has outpaced nearly everything else. Some might argue this doesn't impact the standard of living, but 😵that's a stretch. Just as a side note: in the '50s, a single income was often enough to support a large family; nowadays, even two incomes frequently fall short.
Now, let's look at the outcome for those gambling on paper versus those holding real money.
Suppose someone decided in 1964 to set aside $10,000—either in paper currency or in silver (which would have been about 7,150 ounces).
If the picture isn't clear: the paper lost 95% of its value. Let me break that down further. Inflation and the decoupling from gold and silver lead directly to a drop in the standard of living and purchasing power. Wage growth simply cannot keep pace with the rising cost of everything else.
Keep in mind, these figures are based on official inflation statistics. And if you want to know how truthful those numbers really are, just look at how they conveniently exclude the massive spikes in energy and food costs. If we used actual, real-world inflation metrics, the result for those holding paper would be even more catastrophic.
The question for Johnson and his contemporaries remains: was it actually worth holding onto those silver dollars from '64, or should they have just stuck with the paper dollar?
Patrick Moore3 said:ironstag8, you're straight up ignoring a massive factor here—the sheer jump in standards from 1964 to 2012...
Look, say you buy the cheapest base-model Ford today, zero bells or whistles, weakest engine possible... that car is still gonna blow an average ride from 1964 out of the water, let alone compete with the luxury models back then...
What you're actually looking for is this: take 20 average salaries from 1964, what it took to buy an typical car back then... and expect that same amount of money (your purchasing power) to buy a typical car in 2012. It just isn't happening... 🙂
You'd want all the upgrades, right? A much better, more reliable engine, better bodywork, safety features, comfort, a warranty... all because you think having the purchasing power makes it equal? 😁
Anthony Evans78 said:Look, Patrick Moore3, you’re conflating general living standards with technological progress.
And that point you just made: "What you actually want is to take, say, 20 average salaries from 1964—enough to buy a decent car back then—and have that same amount of money (your Prime Minister's math) be enough to buy an average car in 2012."
That is what a drop in purchasing power looks like.🙂
ironstag8 said:Let's say you have a point regarding certain aspects of cars (though, honestly, those vintage bodies in Miami and Cuba seem pretty sturdy considering they're from the 40s and 50s). Just look at refrigerators or even vacuum cleaners; things used to last 20 or 30 years, whereas nowadays, they're practically designed to last only as long as the warranty expires.
I don't want this to spiral into a complete tangent, but please don't try to inject your desire for consumerism and living beyond one's means into this debate. That exact impulse—wanting more than what is sustainable—is precisely what drives inflation and eventual ruin.
Sure, you could argue that milk is higher quality now, or that groceries are better. I’d argue the opposite—that food quality has actually dipped. And are houses being built with space-age materials these days? Not really.
Go ahead and comment on the second photo since there aren't any cars in it. Give it a shot, you skeptic.
ironstag8 said:Nice one, Silver. At first glance, I didn't realize you were essentially arguing against yourself. It seems technological advancement hasn't been matched by a corresponding jump in wages that would actually reflect an improved quality of life. So, we have progress everywhere—except, apparently, when it comes to our actual take-home pay.
Patrick Moore3 said:Sure, we can talk without the car. Take milk... back when we used to get milk in bags, every single time it was some sour mess with a 2-3 day shelf life without being tested for a million diseases. We don't have those problems today... 😉
You can say anything about food quality. Organic farming costs money, and clearly people aren't willing to pay for it, so they buy cheap, low-quality junk... It wouldn't have been a loss if people actually bought his produce for $3.25 and paid $67 for a pound of Gouda. On the flip side, the biggest input for food production and everything else is oil, which used to be $3 and now it's nearly $100... and that, along with other energy costs, is the main reason for the price hikes we deal with every day.
Modern washing machines actually cost way less than before—back 20 or 30 years ago, you had to work much harder than the average 10 days (price of a washer divided by average salary) just to afford one... But then again, if you want quality, you have to be ready to pay for it, and obviously (be sure you aren't getting sold junk meant for emerging markets), you get all the bells and whistles: tons of programs, less ruined clothes, timers, lower electricity and water usage... damn, all that stuff costs money!
You mentioned childbirth costs earlier too... What was the infant mortality rate in 1964 versus today? Dammit, that costs money too... A woman could give birth at home for nothing with huge risks, like it used to be. We could do that with everything else, but we'd be drifting too far into off-topic territory...
Aha, so technological progress and rising standards just happen for free? Like they just show up out of nowhere? You think you'll get that for nothing just by keeping the Quincy under your bed? How could you think 😁
If you think you can earn money just by holding onto something—in this case, the Quincy—without putting in extra work, then you're a speculator just like anyone investing in real estate, stocks, funds, savings, or forex... Don't kid yourself thinking you just want to preserve the value of your labor, because you want more than that.😉
ironstag8 said:No problems with food? 😵
Oil is hitting $100 because the dollar is losing its value.
By your logic, we're headed for a long-term decline in living standards since wages can't keep pace with progress. If that's the case, who is all this progress actually for? 🤷 Isn't there something fundamentally broken in a world like that (besides the financial system)?
Where did that bolded part come from? And how do you think I earned enough to buy my Quincy? By speculating and sitting on the couch? I put in work to afford the Quincy. Investing hard-earned labor into paper that constantly loses value is a risky gamble—one that's only going to get even more obvious in the near future.
ironstag8 said:No problems with food? 😵
Oil is hitting $100 because the dollar is losing its value.
By your logic, we're headed for a long-term decline in living standards since wages can't keep pace with progress. If that's the case, who is all this progress actually for? 🤷 Isn't there something fundamentally broken in a world like that (besides the financial system)?
Where did that bolded part come from? And how do you think I earned enough to buy my Quincy? By speculating and sitting on the couch? I put in work to afford the Quincy. Investing hard-earned labor into paper that constantly loses value is a risky gamble—one that's only going to get even more obvious in the near future.
