Gold: Past, Present, and Future

dustyheron5 said:In case you weren't aware, both of them have been blowing the whistle on a crypto bubble since the entire market had a market cap of just $12.5 billion—which, frankly, was peanuts. I can't emphasize how insignificant that amount was.

Now, we are sitting at $600 billion. Is it possible we are currently in a bubble, or could we be looking at a 10x move? Only time will tell.

But returning to gold—while those two prominent investors were busy criticizing the "metallurgy" of crypto, they were essentially laughed at by Mike Malloney, James Turk, Andy Hoffman, Doug Casey, and a whole host of other gold bugs. You can probably imagine the reaction...😉

All five of them. To be precise.
Peter Schiff commented on Bitgold ages ago, but only recently claimed Bitcoin will crash by 90%. Bold claim.
How long has Doug Casey been in crypto? About four months...
Mike Maloney sold off some Bitcoin to move into silver quite a while ago.
Andy Hoffmann? I wouldn't be surprised if he pivots back to silver... how could he not? Bix Weir wears a gold hat, for instance... and his play is a mix of silver and Bitcoin. And so on.
So, this isn't some higher level of wisdom; it's just obvious when you look at their timing and their buy/sell selection.
We'll find out what happens, as always. But I'm finally starting to grasp that deep-seated thought regarding real commodities. I missed the boat on Bitcoin. The mental block was too strong. Obviously, you'd make much more if you knew how to exit properly. I remember the thought crossing my mind, but who would have guessed one Bitcoin might actually fly toward tens of thousands...
It's easy to be smart in hindsight.

Is this actually "real" stuff? Is there even such a thing as "unreal" assets? If I need a product or a service, I see value in both—I don’t see any reason to draw some arbitrary line between them.

If I decide an expert consultant's advice is worth my money, I’ll pay for it just as readily as I would for a physical product. It's simple logic: if it provides utility, it's worth the cost. Anyone else would do the exact same thing! We are all participants in a single market, and right now, the market price is the only metric that matters when determining what a good or a service is truly worth.

So, trying to differentiate between gold and Bitcoin by claiming gold is a "commodity" while Bitcoin isn't? That is complete nonsense. Neither gold nor Bitcoin are government-issued fiat currencies, yet both can be swapped for them whenever necessary. Just because they aren't state-backed doesn't mean they aren't money.

Look, you can literally buy real estate with Bitcoin:
http://bitcoin-realestate.com/property/3123-2/

Crypto bubbles are obviously going to burst eventually. It’s just like what happened with the gold bubble.
That's how bubbles work—they pop.

Get out while you can and start looking for the next one.

Amanda Allen4 said:Is this actually "real" stuff? Is there even such a thing as "unreal" assets? If I need a product or a service, I see value in both—I don’t see any reason to draw some arbitrary line between them.

If I decide an expert consultant's advice is worth my money, I’ll pay for it just as readily as I would for a physical product. It's simple logic: if it provides utility, it's worth the cost. Anyone else would do the exact same thing! We are all participants in a single market, and right now, the market price is the only metric that matters when determining what a good or a service is truly worth.

So, trying to differentiate between gold and Bitcoin by claiming gold is a "commodity" while Bitcoin isn't? That is complete nonsense. Neither gold nor Bitcoin are government-issued fiat currencies, yet both can be swapped for them whenever necessary. Just because they aren't state-backed doesn't mean they aren't money.

Look, you can literally buy real estate with Bitcoin:
http://bitcoin-realestate.com/property/3123-2/

Every product and service has its buyer. Just watch those ratios carefully if you want to actually make it happen. No shade intended; good luck with that.
Especially the Bitcoin crowd. There are definitely some parallels here...
Sure, anyone smart enough to pull this off could come out ahead, and if they do, good for them.
However, I have a casual question: personally, I think people might get burned. Why introduce Bitcoin futures at all? Imagine the price of Bitcoin skyrockets. "Certain people" might feel the itch to go short. Say, from $90,000 down to $70,000, followed by a new accumulation phase, then another drop. A person might think they've hit the dip, only for a "bank" to push the price further down while they're stuck in a short.
Four years, and some claim the six-year bear cycles in precious metals teach their own lessons...
Silver is a physical commodity—both a monetary and industrial metal. It's the best conductor on the planet, and demand is only going up. Meanwhile, the sellers are disappearing.😉

vividgull10 said:Crypto bubbles are obviously going to burst eventually. It’s just like what happened with the gold bubble.
That's how bubbles work—they pop.

Get out while you can and start looking for the next one.

Every bubble eventually bursts. The real challenge lies in determining at what level something becomes a bubble versus when it remains a profitable hold.

Take US stocks, for example—I was convinced they were a bubble back in 2021, yet look at them now. I missed the boat there—which doesn't mean my logic was wrong, but in investing, timing is everything. 😵

It’s the same story with Bitcoin. The question isn't whether it's a bubble, but rather whether we're looking at a $250 billion market cap bubble or a $2.5 trillion one.

That is a massive distinction.

Besides, if I were ever to sell my Bitcoin, I wouldn't pivot to stocks or bonds—I'd go straight into metallurgy. It's one of the few asset classes that isn't a bubble.

Because honestly, trading 1 Bitcoin for 10 ounces of gold seems like an incredibly good deal to me. :klap:

Robert Vaughn10 said:Every product and service has its buyer. Just watch those ratios carefully if you want to actually make it happen. No shade intended; good luck with that.
Especially the Bitcoin crowd. There are definitely some parallels here...
Sure, anyone smart enough to pull this off could come out ahead, and if they do, good for them.
However, I have a casual question: personally, I think people might get burned. Why introduce Bitcoin futures at all? Imagine the price of Bitcoin skyrockets. "Certain people" might feel the itch to go short. Say, from $90,000 down to $70,000, followed by a new accumulation phase, then another drop. A person might think they've hit the dip, only for a "bank" to push the price further down while they're stuck in a short.
Four years, and some claim the six-year bear cycles in precious metals teach their own lessons...
Silver is a physical commodity—both a monetary and industrial metal. It's the best conductor on the planet, and demand is only going up. Meanwhile, the sellers are disappearing.😉

That doesn't actually change anything. Silver cables? Please. That's just pure snake oil used to justify overpriced audio gear.

Lisa White10 said:That doesn't actually change anything. Silver cables? Please. That's just pure snake oil used to justify overpriced audio gear.

Just stop using silver then.😉
It’s a high-value metal across multiple industries.

Gold and Bitcoin both hold intrinsic monetary value—and while neither functions as a traditional currency, they both serve as money that can be traded via digital transactions. Gold holds one specific advantage: if our entire communication infrastructure were to suffer a total collapse for whatever reason, gold won't simply vanish. However—and this is a massive "however"—it isn't worth much if you don't have it physically on hand at your house; if it's just sitting in some institutional vault, what good is it?

In a scenario like that, neither gold nor Bitcoin would be worth much—certainly far less than a shotgun with a full box of ammo. I certainly hope we never reach that point, though, because my gold is stored quite far from my home😁.

Amanda Allen4 said:Gold and Bitcoin both hold intrinsic monetary value—and while neither functions as a traditional currency, they both serve as money that can be traded via digital transactions. Gold holds one specific advantage: if our entire communication infrastructure were to suffer a total collapse for whatever reason, gold won't simply vanish. However—and this is a massive "however"—it isn't worth much if you don't have it physically on hand at your house; if it's just sitting in some institutional vault, what good is it?

In a scenario like that, neither gold nor Bitcoin would be worth much—certainly far less than a shotgun with a full box of ammo. I certainly hope we never reach that point, though, because my gold is stored quite far from my home😁.

In the United States? Come closer🤣
and let me answer you. You want to live. All five of you do. Most people haven't even given precious metals a second thought. Still... I have analyzed this deeply ingrained premise, and I must say, there is a specific circle of people who believe that gold and silver essentially equal a total collapse, or that the idea of "paying for groceries with gold and silver coins" is a delusion. Regardless, let's look at the objective, effective reality. The situation is simultaneously more refined and, in a way, simpler. Help yourselves while there is still time. An ounce of silver is roughly $33.
Typically, these monetary resets—and in this case, the devaluation of the dollar—are "prepared" more than two days in advance. You are dealing with a banker, gentlemen. They are true masters and can certainly concoct a combination. Just recall the news about zero Silver American Eagles being sold. If a banker is behind it, and we established long ago that money is power, one could conclude that gold and silver, as millennia-old stores of value, are reasonably safe in a bank.
Bitcoin? It needs to stabilize a bit first. As for me, go ahead; I think it will go quite well, and as I mentioned, one should seek that winning combination of electronics and physical assets. Hashgraph was mentioned, for instance. Interesting to me.
Regardless, up next on the program...

"Revenge of the sit"

Robert Vaughn10 said:Just stop using silver then.😉
It’s a high-value metal across multiple industries.

Oh, please, Robert Vaughn10.
Stop burning fuel just to cater to big corporations. Try actually reading what people are saying with a bit of common sense.

Silver costs six times more than copper, yet only offers a 6% boost in conductivity. So, math tells us you'd need to use 6% more copper than silver just to match the resistance.

Because of that massive price tag, nobody uses silver for wiring. It basically priced itself out of the market.

Lisa White10 said:Oh, please, Robert Vaughn10.
Stop burning fuel just to cater to big corporations. Try actually reading what people are saying with a bit of common sense.

Silver costs six times more than copper, yet only offers a 6% boost in conductivity. So, math tells us you'd need to use 6% more copper than silver just to match the resistance.

Because of that massive price tag, nobody uses silver for wiring. It basically priced itself out of the market.

Maybe spend some time actually studying what Keith Neumeyer has to say...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...Alphabet Inc.

Utility comes down to one thing: cost.

Silver conductors are basically a myth at this point. It makes sense—silver’s conductivity is only about 5.6% better than copper. Why bother?
Silver batteries have become a niche curiosity too. They used to be more common, but newer tech pushed them out, even though they offer 30-50% better performance.
Silver halides were once the gold standard in photography. Again, a different technology took over—specifically CCD sensors.
It's the same story everywhere.

Nothing is irreplaceable.
No one is indispensable.

If there's an obstacle to using something, a substitute will always appear. Even if it means sacrificing quality.
And price? That's usually the biggest obstacle of all.

Lisa White10 said:Utility comes down to one thing: cost.

Silver conductors are basically a myth at this point. It makes sense—silver’s conductivity is only about 5.6% better than copper. Why bother?
Silver batteries have become a niche curiosity too. They used to be more common, but newer tech pushed them out, even though they offer 30-50% better performance.
Silver halides were once the gold standard in photography. Again, a different technology took over—specifically CCD sensors.
It's the same story everywhere.

Nothing is irreplaceable.
No one is indispensable.

If there's an obstacle to using something, a substitute will always appear. Even if it means sacrificing quality.
And price? That's usually the biggest obstacle of all.

Jim Rickards, who suggests a 10% gold allocation, touches on industrial applications and hints at where silver prices should head:

https://www.silverdoctors.com/silver...or-golds-ride/

And yes... the higher the quality of the substitutes, the more necessary they become.

Robert Vaughn10 said:So, you're basically trying to peel potatoes with a toothpick. A strategy that sounds brilliant on paper is a complete disaster in practice. You can't even start peeling if you don't have the potatoes in the pantry to begin with.

When it comes to gold and silver, it's strictly about the physical assets, man. Some sort of paper derivative just doesn't cut it.

Edward Robinson34 said:When it comes to gold and silver, it's strictly about the physical assets, man. Some sort of paper derivative just doesn't cut it.

Sure, that sounds like a solid concept in theory, but let's be honest: it's becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's world.

Suppose a total catastrophe hits and we face a massive liquidity crisis—a bank run, for instance—how exactly do you plan to barter your physical gold and silver for basic necessities?

I once heard a story from an old-timer living out near the Rocky Mountains; he mentioned that during that chaotic transition period following the collapse of Nazi Germany and the rise of America, people were actually bartering "gold for gold"—essentially trading their gold jewelry just to get some corn.

Edward Robinson34 said:When it comes to gold and silver, it's strictly about the physical assets, man. Some sort of paper derivative just doesn't cut it.

Actually, paper is definitely on the table.😉

Robert Vaughn10 said:Actually, paper is definitely on the table.😉

Are you actually suggesting that one could trade gold for a cash equivalent that far exceeds its actual market value?

Since there is always liquidity floating around somewhere—as anyone with half a brain knows—it is entirely plausible.

Amanda Allen4 said:Are you actually suggesting that one could trade gold for a cash equivalent that far exceeds its actual market value?

Since there is always liquidity floating around somewhere—as anyone with half a brain knows—it is entirely plausible.

Quantitative easing—the supposed "economic stimulus"—works in mysterious ways.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Quantitative easing—the supposed "economic stimulus"—works in mysterious ways.

That’s what QE looks like in a free market! Honestly, I can already see myself spending more time at the Pike Place Market stalls chatting with the local gossips than actually grabbing a beer at a Sun City pub.😁.

dustyheron5 said:Every bubble eventually bursts. The real challenge lies in determining at what level something becomes a bubble versus when it remains a profitable hold.

Take US stocks, for example—I was convinced they were a bubble back in 2021, yet look at them now. I missed the boat there—which doesn't mean my logic was wrong, but in investing, timing is everything. 😵

It’s the same story with Bitcoin. The question isn't whether it's a bubble, but rather whether we're looking at a $250 billion market cap bubble or a $2.5 trillion one.

That is a massive distinction.

Besides, if I were ever to sell my Bitcoin, I wouldn't pivot to stocks or bonds—I'd go straight into metallurgy. It's one of the few asset classes that isn't a bubble.

Because honestly, trading 1 Bitcoin for 10 ounces of gold seems like an incredibly good deal to me. :klap:

Bitcoin is currently sitting in the exact same spot gold was a few years back.
The only difference is things move way faster in the crypto world.

Regarding timing, I couldn't agree more. I've said it a thousand times on this board.
Personally, I don't care about the formal definition of what qualifies as money or an asset. As long as there's a market and a chance to profit from the spread, I'm interested.

Looking at it that way, speaking of timing... anyone who stayed out of gold over the last few years faced a massive opportunity cost. They could have been accumulating way more while prices were low if they actually believed in it.

So yeah, timing really is everything.