Gold: Past, Present, and Future

https://srsroccoreport.com/who-reall...te-surprising/

Anthony Evans78 said:https://srsroccoreport.com/who-reall...te-surprising/

I guess I’m not so sure. The guy doesn't really mention that over 170 tons of gold have already been pulled out, while we're seeing less than 3 tons mined annually now. Back when those ratios were different, maybe it made sense to say production costs set the price floor, but since we're mining less than 2% of total gold every year, I just don't see how those small percentages dictate the bottom limit. Even if you look at it cumulatively over ten years, that's still only about 20%. If everyone decides to dump their gold at once, the price could totally slip below $700 regardless of what it costs to mine—it's all just supply and demand, right? Or maybe I've got that part wrong.

Exactly.
Based on his analysis—which I actually agree with—gold prices aren't being driven by supply and demand right now.
More accurately, the Federal Reserve can't push the price below the actual cost of production.
I don't see why everyone is rushing to dump gold... and I’m talking about physical bullion here, not some paper derivative. It’s entirely possible for the exchange price to sit at $500, but good luck actually finding a real ounce of gold at that rate.
At the end of the day, everything comes down to energy. 95% of people just don't get it. They think stuff magically appears on the shelves at Walmart. And even fewer people grasp the whole "store of value" concept.
By the way, you forgot the "thousands" next to those numbers you listed 🙂

Anthony Evans78 said:Exactly.
Based on his analysis—which I actually agree with—gold prices aren't being driven by supply and demand right now.
More accurately, the Federal Reserve can't push the price below the actual cost of production.
I don't see why everyone is rushing to dump gold... and I’m talking about physical bullion here, not some paper derivative. It’s entirely possible for the exchange price to sit at $500, but good luck actually finding a real ounce of gold at that rate.
At the end of the day, everything comes down to energy. 95% of people just don't get it. They think stuff magically appears on the shelves at Walmart. And even fewer people grasp the whole "store of value" concept.
By the way, you forgot the "thousands" next to those numbers you listed 🙂

I'm not saying I disagree with the analysis, it's just that I feel like the main point is that the floor is tied to production costs, which ties back to energy. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I did notice he didn't mention that less than 2% of all gold enters the market annually. Maybe that's because most of the existing supply isn't even out there on the market anymore.

As for energy, it used to be oil and manual labor, but I wonder what the big drivers will be in 20 years... maybe solar power or robotics.

Nathan Morris3 said:I'm not saying I disagree with the analysis, it's just that I feel like the main point is that the floor is tied to production costs, which ties back to energy. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I did notice he didn't mention that less than 2% of all gold enters the market annually. Maybe that's because most of the existing supply isn't even out there on the market anymore.

As for energy, it used to be oil and manual labor, but I wonder what the big drivers will be in 20 years... maybe solar power or robotics.

Exactly.
Unfortunately, solar panels and robots aren't going to save us. There simply isn't an energy SOURCE capable of replacing oil, coal, and natural gas. All this hype about wind, solar, biodiesel, algae, and whatnot? It's just a distraction. Technology can't bail us out, at least not if we want to keep living the way we do right now.
Even if we somehow built a massive solar and electric infrastructure overnight, we'd still be tethered to oil and gas for a thousand other things. And even if we ignore those, the energy return on investment for these alternative generators is just too low to sustain our current standard of living.

http://www.sciencealert.com/tests-co...e-really-works

1. What’s the EROI on this?
2. What kind of infrastructure actually made this possible?

1. This is just the beginning. Back in the day, we were basically using oil to grease the wheels of our wagons.
2. When you look at infrastructure, cobblestones paved the way for everything we see today, much like how oil is laying the groundwork for whatever comes next.

You can't fall into the trap of thinking oil represents some kind of final peak or the ultimate endgame for humanity.
It’ll become obsolete, just like every other major energy source before it.

Oil production could seriously tank once they stop making all the plastic... though, I guess, maybe not within our lifetime.

Then you've got asphalt to deal with too... and man, we're screwed. 😁

Michael Morgan5 said:1. This is just the beginning. Back in the day, we were basically using oil to grease the wheels of our wagons.
2. When you look at infrastructure, cobblestones paved the way for everything we see today, much like how oil is laying the groundwork for whatever comes next.

You can't fall into the trap of thinking oil represents some kind of final peak or the ultimate endgame for humanity.
It’ll become obsolete, just like every other major energy source before it.

The sheer scale of resource and energy consumption today compared to 100, 200, 500, or even 1,000 years ago is simply incomparable.
Replacing fossil fuels remains a theoretical exercise rather than a practical reality. Even if we assume it *is* possible, that practicality won't arrive for many, many decades. In the interim, we are far more likely to slide back into a medieval-style regression than leap into a science-backed utopia.
I believe people place far too much faith in science—they treat it like a magic wand that can solve any problem we encounter.
For millennia, neither science nor technology has actually altered human nature or Mother Nature herself. If anything, progress has merely highlighted the psychopathic tendencies of the ruling elites and the "sheep" mentality that allows those psychopaths to shear and slaughter them.

ironstag8 said:The sheer scale of resource and energy consumption today compared to 100, 200, 500, or even 1,000 years ago is simply incomparable.
Replacing fossil fuels remains a theoretical exercise rather than a practical reality. Even if we assume it *is* possible, that practicality won't arrive for many, many decades. In the interim, we are far more likely to slide back into a medieval-style regression than leap into a science-backed utopia.
I believe people place far too much faith in science—they treat it like a magic wand that can solve any problem we encounter.
For millennia, neither science nor technology has actually altered human nature or Mother Nature herself. If anything, progress has merely highlighted the psychopathic tendencies of the ruling elites and the "sheep" mentality that allows those psychopaths to shear and slaughter them.

Will we actually face a "return to the Dark Ages"? Old acquaintances Max Keiser and Mike Maloney weigh in:

Jumping into this whole debate about what the future holds 🙂

(image)free photo hostingcertificity.com[/IMG]

E.
So, even if the absolute worst-case scenario actually plays out, which of these real estate options from the image should I be grabbing instead of gold?

Michael Morgan5 said:E.
So, even if the absolute worst-case scenario actually plays out, which of these real estate options from the image should I be grabbing instead of gold?

And honestly, who would even have the desire to live in places like that before things go south? Once the dust settles from a "worst-case" event (assuming there's anything left to see), those locations won't exactly be the kind of places anyone would actually want to call home anyway.

Michael Morgan5 said:1. This is just the beginning. Back in the day, we were basically using oil to grease the wheels of our wagons.
2. When you look at infrastructure, cobblestones paved the way for everything we see today, much like how oil is laying the groundwork for whatever comes next.

You can't fall into the trap of thinking oil represents some kind of final peak or the ultimate endgame for humanity.
It’ll become obsolete, just like every other major energy source before it.

No, it isn't the beginning.
Do you even get what EROI actually means?
Of course I see it as a peak—there isn't another energy source out there that offers this kind of density and efficiency.
If we could build that new infrastructure, we would have done it already. The problem is, we can't. 🙂

Anthony Evans78 said:Exactly.
Unfortunately, solar panels and robots aren't going to save us. There simply isn't an energy SOURCE capable of replacing oil, coal, and natural gas. All this hype about wind, solar, biodiesel, algae, and whatnot? It's just a distraction. Technology can't bail us out, at least not if we want to keep living the way we do right now.
Even if we somehow built a massive solar and electric infrastructure overnight, we'd still be tethered to oil and gas for a thousand other things. And even if we ignore those, the energy return on investment for these alternative generators is just too low to sustain our current standard of living.

And until then, I suppose the only move left is to just buy gold and silver, right?

hehehe, you know, global energy issues could actually be resolved today just by ramping up about a hundred nuclear plants—which is technically entirely feasible—along with some hydroelectric dams. And let's not even get started on the wind farms currently being constructed in the North Sea; those aren't some distant dream, they are the present reality, and their sole purpose is to charge batteries during peak demand and power automated factories. This isn't some far-off sci-fi scenario; this will manifest within the next 15 years. Northern European nations will be the first to phase out oil from vehicles, followed by the rest of the world—in my estimation, no later than 2050.

Anthony Evans78 said:No, it isn't the beginning.
Do you even get what EROI actually means?
Of course I see it as a peak—there isn't another energy source out there that offers this kind of density and efficiency.
If we could build that new infrastructure, we would have done it already. The problem is, we can't. 🙂

- So what is it then? The end? Did the Germans just throw up their hands and kill the project? Send me a link.
- Honestly, your condescending attitude toward everything is getting old. Even if I grant you that I "don't understand," I think I can still figure out how to use Google, right?
- Sure, you could. But we’re back to the fundamental reality of human civilization: we’ve spent our entire history hunting down newer, more efficient energy sources. And look at fusion reactors—they don't look like pure science fiction anymore like they did thirty years ago.
I remember reading in a book (either 'What the Bleep Do We Know?' or maybe 'Universe in a Nutshell', I can't recall which) that if we keep burning fossil fuels at this rate while the population explodes, Earth's temperature could hit 250 C by the year 2100.
- And why couldn't it happen? If that vacuum tube project from the Muskian crowd actually takes off, why exactly is it "impossible" to build the necessary infrastructure? That’s just one example.

Look, it's perfectly fine to hold the view that we've peaked, that everything is about to fall apart, and that we'll soon be bartering for houses and farmland like it's the Stone Age. But as Zabotinsky already pointed out... we've been sitting here listening to these same predictions on this specific thread for seven years now, and nothing has happened. Not even a hint of a shift. There's no price action to back it up—just the endless, repetitive whining from Richards and Zerohedge.

If you actually know how to use Google, try searching for this:
"EROI", "thermodynamics", "entropy"
After digging through enough papers, you'll realize we've already burned through—or are right on the edge of exhausting—the cheap, easy, energy-dense resources.
Our entire way of life is built on that foundation.
No amount of tech is going to save us because there simply isn't an energy SOURCE capable of replacing oil, gas, or coal.
All these hype cycles around fusion or thorium reactors look great on paper, but they’re energetically inefficient, not to mention the massive infrastructure overhaul required just to make them economically viable.
Regarding Musk... if it weren't for government subsidies and constantly sucking capital from investors, he would have gone bust long ago. After all these years, he hasn't even turned a real profit from selling cars or his tech.
This whole 250-degree thing is pure nonsense. Thirty years ago, I was sitting there listening to doomsday prophets claim we'd all be underwater by 2010 due to global warming.
Money isn't the issue; energy is. You can sit on trillions of dollars, but it doesn't matter if the energy system itself is unstable or inefficient.
To maintain our current standard of living, we need an EROI of 30:1—meaning one unit of energy invested yields thirty. We're pushing that limit because fields like Ghawar still offer an EROI higher than that.
Meanwhile, American and Canadian shale sits at a measly 5-10:1. That’s unsustainable for a system where we expect to stroll into Walmart for everything we need, or click a button on Amazon and have stuff magically arrive from China in a week.
Going back to the crashes... history repeats itself this way constantly. Everything looks perfect and prosperous until, suddenly, bam!
Suddenly, everyone who missed the warning signs of a collapse acts shocked—just like in 1929, 1987, or 2006.
Do you really think people in the spring of 1939 saw the war coming just a few months later? Of course not. It's always easier to bury your head in the sand and ignore reality than to pause, think, and see where things are actually headed.
Nobody has a crystal ball to tell you the exact date and time everything falls apart. But the signs are there. And they've never been clearer.
Once the dust settles and Mother Nature puts us back in our place, everyone is going to ask themselves, "How did we miss this?" and "What were we thinking?"

Anthony Evans78 said:If you actually know how to use Google, try searching for this:
"EROI", "thermodynamics", "entropy"
After digging through enough papers, you'll realize we've already burned through—or are right on the edge of exhausting—the cheap, easy, energy-dense resources.
Our entire way of life is built on that foundation.
No amount of tech is going to save us because there simply isn't an energy SOURCE capable of replacing oil, gas, or coal.
All these hype cycles around fusion or thorium reactors look great on paper, but they’re energetically inefficient, not to mention the massive infrastructure overhaul required just to make them economically viable.
Regarding Musk... if it weren't for government subsidies and constantly sucking capital from investors, he would have gone bust long ago. After all these years, he hasn't even turned a real profit from selling cars or his tech.
This whole 250-degree thing is pure nonsense. Thirty years ago, I was sitting there listening to doomsday prophets claim we'd all be underwater by 2010 due to global warming.
Money isn't the issue; energy is. You can sit on trillions of dollars, but it doesn't matter if the energy system itself is unstable or inefficient.
To maintain our current standard of living, we need an EROI of 30:1—meaning one unit of energy invested yields thirty. We're pushing that limit because fields like Ghawar still offer an EROI higher than that.
Meanwhile, American and Canadian shale sits at a measly 5-10:1. That’s unsustainable for a system where we expect to stroll into Walmart for everything we need, or click a button on Amazon and have stuff magically arrive from China in a week.
Going back to the crashes... history repeats itself this way constantly. Everything looks perfect and prosperous until, suddenly, bam!
Suddenly, everyone who missed the warning signs of a collapse acts shocked—just like in 1929, 1987, or 2006.
Do you really think people in the spring of 1939 saw the war coming just a few months later? Of course not. It's always easier to bury your head in the sand and ignore reality than to pause, think, and see where things are actually headed.
Nobody has a crystal ball to tell you the exact date and time everything falls apart. But the signs are there. And they've never been clearer.
Once the dust settles and Mother Nature puts us back in our place, everyone is going to ask themselves, "How did we miss this?" and "What were we thinking?"

Sure, you could possess mountains of gold, but that isn't going to help you generate a single kilowatt of power.🙂
At least paper burns reasonably well.🙂

By the way, nuclear energy boasts an EROI of 75:1🙂—and that’s assuming we ignore waste disposal, whereas with oil, the byproduct just goes straight into the atmosphere.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0422154911.htm

Does anyone here know anything about projects like this?

I remember hearing somewhere that a bunch of big oil companies—maybe ExxonMobil or something similar—were pouring billions into research involving massive amounts of bacteria... I wonder if there's any actual news on that lately?