Gold: Past, Present, and Future

KuciloOro said:If you can manage it, please explain what you read between the lines, because I couldn't make sense of any of it...

! Greenspan likely hasn't shifted his stance on gold one bit.
2. For his former employers, treating gold as a component of the system isn't even an option—it acts as a massive deterrent against market manipulation and the extraction of unearned profits (or rather, it makes such manipulation far too transparent).
3. It is curious how central banks—for the most part—never actually abandon gold; they go to great lengths to prevent physical bullion from leaving their vaults, even while publicly disavowing its utility. To believe otherwise is merely naive.
4. It remains obvious that central banks exist primarily to shield the interests of their constituents—commercial banks and the state—rather than the public or the end-users of currency.
But we have known this for ages (or at least suspected it); this supposed "change of heart" is nothing more than a confirmation of existing realities. I understand why people pivot; circumstances shift, motives evolve, and frankly, I don't expect much in the way of sincerity. Greenspan is nearing the end of his career; he likely has very little left to lose by making these statements. Perhaps it is simply a way to quiet his conscience.

Michael Morgan5 said:From what I can gather, this individual pushes the dollar while they're drawing a paycheck from the Federal Reserve, then pivots to Goldman Sachs when they aren't—all while maintaining a relentless bias against the Eurozone regardless of the circumstances.
A textbook example of a representative serving their chosen constituency.

While they are collecting a salary from the Federal Reserve, they promote the policies of the Federal Reserve. It stands to reason. They might hold different views privately—opinions they may only feel free to voice once that Federal Reserve paycheck stops flowing and any hope of returning to such a seat vanishes. An intelligent man understands that biology eventually catches up with everyone. As for the Eurozone, that story is far from over. It possesses distinct advantages, certainly, but also glaring flaws—primarily rooted in human nature and certain systemic vices that a single currency can no longer mask.

Nancy Gomez26 said:While they are collecting a salary from the Federal Reserve, they promote the policies of the Federal Reserve. It stands to reason. They might hold different views privately—opinions they may only feel free to voice once that Federal Reserve paycheck stops flowing and any hope of returning to such a seat vanishes. An intelligent man understands that biology eventually catches up with everyone. As for the Eurozone, that story is far from over. It possesses distinct advantages, certainly, but also glaring flaws—primarily rooted in human nature and certain systemic vices that a single currency can no longer mask.

Congrats!

Once we join the Eurozone, that part in parentheses could just be:
... we won't be able to hide it anymore.

----
👍

Gold just cleared $1,250.
The most recent dip was barely $10 and didn't even last a full day before things turned back around.

Snagged some mux today at $3.28. Honestly, if this thing goes south, so be it.

3.74 exit. ☕
Targeting 3.51 if you're looking to play it safer.

David Stockman chimed in with his usual low-effort observation:



"there's still time"

Let's run through the current numbers once more:
Dow Jones industrial average:21115
US federal debt:19,980 trillion
Silver:18.37 USD
Things are looking a bit precarious...

"still stacking them up"

Robert Vaughn10 said:Let's run through the current numbers once more:
Dow Jones industrial average:21115
US federal debt:19,980 trillion
Silver:18.37 USD
Things are looking a bit precarious...

"still stacking them up"

Could you maybe explain that a bit more for us amateurs?

Nathan Morris3 said:Could you maybe explain that a bit more for us amateurs?

From the dark tower's edge,
the sleepy clock counts down

"either hit or miss"

Robert Vaughn10 said:From the dark tower's edge,
the sleepy clock counts down

"either hit or miss"

I guess I don't really get this haiku stuff... maybe could you write it in English instead? 😉

Let me take a crack at this 🙂

buy silver.
Yesterday.

Michael Morgan5 said:Let me take a crack at this 🙂

buy silver.
Yesterday.

Well, isn't that just brilliant, Michael Morgan5!
I guess I'm actually down on silver right now. I've been buying paper contracts at an average of $18.6 over maybe the last 8 years—about 1,200 ounces total. I'm sitting on a loss of roughly 1,400 Euro. It’s the sales tax that really gets me, and I'm not a big fan of those offshore schemes out of places like Estonia. I don't buy paper anymore, mostly because even if it turns a profit, I have to deal with capital gains taxes (like a 27.5% rate back home), whereas physical gold/silver usually avoids certain taxes. From what I gather, silver and gold move pretty closely together, though silver is way more volatile. So, if I moved my $20K in silver paper into, say, $60K in physical gold, would I be similarly "covered"? Liquidity isn't a huge issue for me, so I don't need leverage. I am up on physical gold, and I recently started playing around with some mining stocks.

Basically, what I'm wondering is... are you guys all just betting on silver (and if so, why skip gold?), or do you balance between the two? And for silver, is it physical or paper?

That’s what happens when you settle for paper 😁
When you actually buy physical, you just tuck it away and forget about it. Then, when everything hits the fan, you pull it out and finally enjoy some peace of mind 🙂>

Look, there are plenty of people on this thread who know way more about silver than I ever will, so they’re better suited to answer your questions.
Personally, I’ve never actually bought any silver, though I’ll probably head over to Estonia in the next couple of months to look into some things and get a feel for the market.

As far as I'm concerned, if I do dive in, it's physical bullion or nothing.

Check this out—take a look at the differences in the SVM/multiplexer graph...

Nathan Morris3 said:Well, isn't that just brilliant, Michael Morgan5!
I guess I'm actually down on silver right now. I've been buying paper contracts at an average of $18.6 over maybe the last 8 years—about 1,200 ounces total. I'm sitting on a loss of roughly 1,400 Euro. It’s the sales tax that really gets me, and I'm not a big fan of those offshore schemes out of places like Estonia. I don't buy paper anymore, mostly because even if it turns a profit, I have to deal with capital gains taxes (like a 27.5% rate back home), whereas physical gold/silver usually avoids certain taxes. From what I gather, silver and gold move pretty closely together, though silver is way more volatile. So, if I moved my $20K in silver paper into, say, $60K in physical gold, would I be similarly "covered"? Liquidity isn't a huge issue for me, so I don't need leverage. I am up on physical gold, and I recently started playing around with some mining stocks.

Basically, what I'm wondering is... are you guys all just betting on silver (and if so, why skip gold?), or do you balance between the two? And for silver, is it physical or paper?

In reality, you are simply swapping one scrap of paper for another. When things truly go south, that paper will become practically worthless; you might even find that the original currency was far more useful in hindsight. Always choose physical. Paper is a logical fallacy. Physical assets almost entirely insulate you from the whims of politicians, state actors, various special interests, and the mounting debts of past generations coming due. Paper, however, remains nothing more than paper.

Melissa Sanchez17 said:Snagged some mux today at $3.28. Honestly, if this thing goes south, so be it.

(Nada) I picked some up at 3.15 too.

Nancy Gomez26 said:In reality, you are simply swapping one scrap of paper for another. When things truly go south, that paper will become practically worthless; you might even find that the original currency was far more useful in hindsight. Always choose physical. Paper is a logical fallacy. Physical assets almost entirely insulate you from the whims of politicians, state actors, various special interests, and the mounting debts of past generations coming due. Paper, however, remains nothing more than paper.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Most of my holdings are in gold, specifically physical gold. I stick to physical because there’s really no reason not to, right? No sales tax, no capital gains tax... what I have in paper is mostly just for day trading, and I definitely see the risks there. I was actually wondering what your split is between paper and physical? By "paper," I mean everything digital, like fiat, silver, or stocks. For me, it's probably about 50:50.

Anyway, silver looked pretty good today, both the physical and the paper stuff.

Nathan Morris3 said:Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Most of my holdings are in gold, specifically physical gold. I stick to physical because there’s really no reason not to, right? No sales tax, no capital gains tax... what I have in paper is mostly just for day trading, and I definitely see the risks there. I was actually wondering what your split is between paper and physical? By "paper," I mean everything digital, like fiat, silver, or stocks. For me, it's probably about 50:50.

Anyway, silver looked pretty good today, both the physical and the paper stuff.

Attempting to "park" your capital—the literal fruit of your labor—in paper assets makes no sense in this current climate. If you want to gamble via trading, then fine, paper has its place. But what is the point of playing the game if you face a massive risk of losing everything you've accumulated simply because you stayed in the digital realm?
As for silver's dip today, it is nothing more than the same old script being played out yet again;
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...massive-volume