Gold bubbles, tops, and perpetual increases?

gecko109

Lets look at this in a purely logical way.

If U.S. dollars are created at a higher rate than new gold is being mined.......

AND

The U.S. dollar will perpetually lose its value over time........

AND

Gold is valued in terms of U.S. dollars........

THEN

Gold will perpetually rise as expressed in U.S. dollars/oz.




For some of you who think gold has a "top", I challenge you to tell me where my logic is flawed in the above. So long as gold is valued in terms of USDs, and so long as you agree that the USD is in a perpetual decline in value, then how is it possible for gold to not have a nominal perpetual rise in USDs?

The only way for this to not be true is if the rate of new gold mined exceeded the rate of new USDs created each year. Of course there will be speed bumps along the way.....dips in the metal market, and good days or weeks for the USD vs other currencies.....but long term, the price of gold is in a perpetual incline just as the USD is in a perpetual decline. In fact, in the long term, i'd even go so far as to say the value of the USD and the price of gold are inversely proportional to eachother. So how can any of you talk about a gold "top"? Wouldnt that be the same as talking about a purple unicorn?

OzzyAndy

Looks like you're talking in the long term. In which yes, it will rise, just like everything else, however it may only be a few % a year. And if speculators have currently pushed it higher than that, then it could fall just as rapidly and it would take that few % a year many years to get it back to the price it is now.

Just giving the other side of the story, I'm still an optimist for Gold in the short to medium term, but I've heard just as convincing arguments as to why real estate will always go up.

piecesofme

The $ is on a tear as of recent days, look what Gold has done during that time. Unfortunately I can't look out as far as some, I just don't have the ability to do so. Therefore, I have to disagree.
With regards to PM's, I am lucky if I can stand holding what I've bought in the last month any longer than that. Now of course, the part of what I "stack" that I have purchased with profits from that (some will say) quick flip, I don't care so so much because it was bought with $ that I didn't have in the first place. I almost view that part as a bonus.

But if one does have the patience and intestinal fortitude to withstand these 5-7% 2 weeks moves, then I'd say yeah...nice analysis.

roadrunner

This logic would not have worked so well during the 1980's and 1990's. Dollars were certainly being increased at a much faster rate than gold being mined.
There's more at work than just supply of dollars vs. supply of gold. Other factors include total debt, money alternatives such as derivatives, confidence, business climate, etc.

roadrunner

OPA

<< <i>This logic would not have worked so well during the 1980's and 1990's. Dollars were certainly being increased at a much faster rate than gold being mined.
There's more at work than just supply of dollars vs. supply of gold. Other factors include total debt, money alternatives such as derivatives, confidence, business climate, etc.

roadrunner >>



Add savings interest rates. If rates ever go back up to historical rates, us "old folks" will, once again, move some or most of our to PM funds into T Bills, Notes & Bonds. ( State Tax excempt)

revoldlog

<< <i>
For some of you who think gold has a "top", I challenge you to tell me where my logic is flawed in the above. >>



1. Your logic is based on your three assumptions. It is not your logic has flaws, it is your assumptions could be wrong and lead to a completely different conclusion.

2. It depends on how you define a "top". Is the 1980 gold a "top"?

jmski52

And then, there's taxes. The ounce you've saved for and bought with after-tax dollars will be taxed again when you sell it.

The reason that the government politicians aren't too uptight about their rampant money creation is that they can spend it right when it is first created - on their pet social welfare/re-election campaign spending project of the moment, and then they can fleece - via inflation and/or outright taxation on any gains - anyone who has the unmitigated gall to save any of their own money for later.

So, anyone putting money into gold or precious metals really needs to have a longterm plan in place, rather than counting the imaginary profits that are scaled in depreciating dollars. In my own case, that means a very low turnover rate and very good record-keeping.

There are many other considerations that can affect whether gold tops out or not, and almost everything hinges on what the government decides to do, and to whom.

NumbersUsacom

Taking in all the fundamentals pro and con, it still boils down to what is the latest mind grabing, alluring investment that takes on its own aura

and becomes the "wise" undoubtable investment of choice, touted and heralded on evey front, No matter how crazy or fundamentally unsustainable.

Is Gold and Silver beginning to emerge as the Wise Investment vehicle of choice? I beleive it is, and that cycle is only at mid stage at best, the curtain call is yet to come, and

it will be at a much higher price for both Silver and Gold.

Baley

Lets look at this in a purely logical way.

If U.S. dollars are created at a higher rate than new gold is being mined.......

AND

The U.S. dollar will perpetually lose its value over time........

AND

Gold is valued in terms of U.S. dollars........

THEN

Gold will perpetually rise as expressed in U.S. dollars/oz.

I challenge you to tell me where my logic is flawed in the above

ok, let's try this:


If U.S. dollars are created at a higher rate than new houses are being built.......

AND

The U.S. dollar will perpetually lose its value over time........

AND

Houses are valued in terms of U.S. dollars........

THEN

Houses will perpetually rise as expressed in U.S. dollars/house.

Substitute any physical object for "gold" in your syllogism and test it out. But don't forget a little something called "demand"

Staircoins

<< <i>Lets look at this in a purely logical way.

If U.S. dollars are created at a higher rate than new gold is being mined.......

AND

The U.S. dollar will perpetually lose its value over time........

AND

Gold is valued in terms of U.S. dollars........

THEN

Gold will perpetually rise as expressed in U.S. dollars/oz.

I challenge you to tell me where my logic is flawed in the above

ok, let's try this:


If U.S. dollars are created at a higher rate than new houses are being built.......

AND

The U.S. dollar will perpetually lose its value over time........

AND

Houses are valued in terms of U.S. dollars........

THEN

Houses will perpetually rise as expressed in U.S. dollars/house.

Substitute any physical object for "gold" in your syllogism and test it out. But don't forget a little something called "demand" >>


Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a winner.

I hope you had a pleasant evening. Don't forget to tip your waitresses.

RedTiger

Baley hit the hole in the argument by substituting real estate for gold. The op reminds me of the argument for real estate during that bubble, "they aren't making any more real estate."

Another factor is that all markets are forward looking, not static. In theory, all known information is included in today's price, and that includes the best possible projections for the future. For example, if the market expects a 10% annual increase in the supply of dollars (M3 is sometimes used as measurement), that projection is already factored into the current price of gold. If the reality is less than that, say only 8%, the price could tumble, even though the static fundamentals at any moment might seem to still favor gold. It happens all the time in individual stocks, projections are rosy, actual reality is good growth, but not as good as the projections, and a stock falls, often tumbling down.

cohodk

<< <i>Baley hit the hole in the argument by substituting real estate for gold. The op reminds me of the argument for real estate during that bubble, "they aren't making any more real estate."

Another factor is that all markets are forward looking, not static. In theory, all known information is included in today's price, and that includes the best possible projections for the future. For example, if the market expects a 10% annual increase in the supply of dollars (M3 is sometimes used as measurement), that projection is already factored into the current price of gold. If the reality is less than that, say only 8%, the price could tumble, even though the static fundamentals at any moment might seem to still favor gold. It happens all the time in individual stocks, projections are rosy, actual reality is good growth, but not as good as the projections, and a stock falls, often tumbling down. >>




Superb, RT, superb.

NumbersUsacom

Apples and oranges gentlemen,

Realestates collapse was due largely to an illusion of demand created by congress's push (demand) for the banks to lend to any and all

including illegal aliens and anyone that wanted to buy a home. It was done, but as soon as the loans began to reset, and rates rose a little,

all that dream vanished and the banks got the blame, the people suffer, and congress gets a get out jail free card as always.

Justacommeman

<< <i>

<< <i>Baley hit the hole in the argument by substituting real estate for gold. The op reminds me of the argument for real estate during that bubble, "they aren't making any more real estate."

Another factor is that all markets are forward looking, not static. In theory, all known information is included in today's price, and that includes the best possible projections for the future. For example, if the market expects a 10% annual increase in the supply of dollars (M3 is sometimes used as measurement), that projection is already factored into the current price of gold. If the reality is less than that, say only 8%, the price could tumble, even though the static fundamentals at any moment might seem to still favor gold. It happens all the time in individual stocks, projections are rosy, actual reality is good growth, but not as good as the projections, and a stock falls, often tumbling down. >>




Superb, RT, superb. >>



This. Nail meet head. MJ

gecko109

<< <i>Baley hit the hole in the argument by substituting real estate for gold. The op reminds me of the argument for real estate during that bubble, "they aren't making any more real estate."

Another factor is that all markets are forward looking, not static. In theory, all known information is included in today's price, and that includes the best possible projections for the future. For example, if the market expects a 10% annual increase in the supply of dollars (M3 is sometimes used as measurement), that projection is already factored into the current price of gold. If the reality is less than that, say only 8%, the price could tumble, even though the static fundamentals at any moment might seem to still favor gold. It happens all the time in individual stocks, projections are rosy, actual reality is good growth, but not as good as the projections, and a stock falls, often tumbling down. >>





Baley hit nothing but air. The key element to this debate is "time". You want to point to the recent housing bubble? Thats a sliver in time convienent to Baley's argument. But if we go from a house costing $20,000 in 1950 to that same house costing $400,000 in 2006, to that same house costing $275,000 today, then it becomes clear that it dramatically appreciated over time in nominal dollar value.

The point of this thread is to demonstrate that a "top" in any standard, globally traded commodity thats valued in the USD is completely imaginary. This of course excludes paper contracts which could be seen as commodities, but can go bust due to outright fraud. Im talking about a barrel of physical oil, an actual house, a metric ton of copper, and even an ounce of gold. Those types of commodities can never reach "tops" in the current monetary system that our government abuses so badly.

So the next time someone calls for a "top" in gold at say, $5,000......thats like saying there are purple unicorns in your basement. You can specify a "top" in a specific time period, but so long as we borrow or print to pay, that top will eventually be taken out......in perpetuality.

jmski52

For all intents and purposes, FDR made it impractical for US citizens to invest in gold from 1933 until about 1968 or thereabouts, so taking a macro view with 100% certainty only works if you manage to outlive those slivers in time that affect you in particular.

I agree with the macro analysis and I use it in forming my strategy, but it's not the only consideration.

Wingsrule

Thinking back on my high school math classes - in order for a hypothesis to be labeled 'true' it has to be 'true' for each and every outcome. If you can show that the initial statement is 'false' in any situation, it is not a correct hypothesis.

For example, a repeating decimal such as 24.9999999999 is equal to 25. I won't go through the math here.

In any case, I believe RR successfully defined a given (15-20 year) period, and as such, I believe your initial statement to be flawed.

And as Baley pointed out, the is no recognition for the ever-important 'supply-and-demand' function.

gecko109

<< <i>Thinking back on my high school math classes - in order for a hypothesis to be labeled 'true' it has to be 'true' for each and every outcome. If you can show that the initial statement is 'false' in any situation, it is not a correct hypothesis.

For example, a repeating decimal such as 24.9999999999 is equal to 25. I won't go through the math here.

In any case, I believe RR successfully defined a given (15-20 year) period, and as such, I believe your initial statement to be flawed.

And as Baley pointed out, the is no recognition for the ever-important 'supply-and-demand' function. >>








The only period that really matters is 1971-present/future. That is the year when the USD was created. To take a convienent slice of time between then and now is pointless. There will be ups and downs in any market over a time period like an hour, week, year, or even a couple decades. What truly matters is the OVERALL performance of any given commodity from the time the USD became unbacked by anything.

I will conceed to supply/demand fundamentals as a possibility to flaw my logic in general. However, I truly believe gold to be immune from those laws (under the stipulation that worldwide new production expressed as a % growth is less than newly created USDs) in my argument. If we were talking about the latest, greatest talking toy robot, then you are correct. If we are even talking about real estate, then I will conceed to you a bumpy path at times (still gonna be an overall winner). But when we are talking about a substance that has been recognized as being real money for 5,000 years.....and one that holds value in every nation on earth.....we arent talking about a fad here. We arent talking beanie babies or baseball cards. We arent talking about diamonds or even homes. We are talking about the anti-USD. We are talking about gold.

Baley

Don't get us wrong Gecko, we all appreciate gold's uniqueness, and enjoy owning such a neat metal, and like it as a hedge, insurance policy, even investment, it has sure done well the past decade.

However, be careful with "sure things" and "putting all eggs in one basket", because if one of the long slumps occurs during a time period when you're trying to put the kids through college, or trying to retire, or have an unforeseen job change or health issue, or heaven forbid, all of the above and more, being "right" about gold's eventual ascent to new highs "someday" won't help a mere mortal who's clock is running.

There are any number of scenarios that could cause the price of gold to go down and stay down for a long while (causing a "local maximum") such that it becomes a poor holding versus other investment alternatives, over that time period

For example, some analysts credit some of gold's recent advance to increased buying by ETFs. What happens if the price of gold levels off or declines, and large withdraws from these funds occur? Similarly, much of gold's advance might be due to central banks of the world net buying. What happens if they become net sellers (again)?

Or, what happens if production that has been coming on line in the past few years matures, and supplies increase? what if new technology is developed to make mining more economical, or a method of economically extracting gold from seawater is developed (possibly as a by product of desalination?)

Or, what happens if some new "hot, can't lose" investment idea becomes popular with money managers (think the next internet, biotechs, etc type of stock) and they redeploy their assets held in gold?

What happens if several of these coincide, and for a decade or two, gold is thought of as "that bubble", much like it was from 1980 - 2000?

Sure, in a generation or two, I agree with your premise that that $275k house will someday surpass $400k again, maybe sooner, maybe later, but inevitably, just like over decades, the prices of gold will go up in the long term as reckoned in dollars.

But with only 40 or 50 years of life left, I can't afford to put all my eggs in just one or even two baskets, even if I think they're really good baskets, someone can come along and knock them out of my hands no matter how "right" they seemed to be at the time.

BigE

I agree that gold will continue to increase in terms of todays US dollar, but its hard to accept this in perpetuity, because the US dollar wont be around forever------BigE



edited for spelling

cohodk

Gecko, ALL assets will appreciate over time at a rate that closely approximates inflation. They will just do so at different times. Real estate, stocks, bonds, PMs will ALL average about the same return over a long time period.

Your task is to calculate the return of each asset over the last 80 years.

gecko109

<< <i>Don't get us wrong Gecko, we all appreciate gold's uniqueness, and enjoy owning such a neat metal, and like it as a hedge, insurance policy, even investment, it has sure done well the past decade.

However, be careful with "sure things" and "putting all eggs in one basket", because if one of the long slumps occurs during a time period when you're trying to put the kids through college, or trying to retire, or have an unforeseen job change or health issue, or heaven forbid, all of the above and more, being "right" about gold's eventual ascent to new highs "someday" won't help a mere mortal who's clock is running.

There are any number of scenarios that could cause the price of gold to go down and stay down for a long while (causing a "local maximum") such that it becomes a poor holding versus other investment alternatives, over that time period

For example, some analysts credit some of gold's recent advance to increased buying by ETFs. What happens if the price of gold levels off or declines, and large withdraws from these funds occur? Similarly, much of gold's advance might be due to central banks of the world net buying. What happens if they become net sellers (again)?

Or, what happens if production that has been coming on line in the past few years matures, and supplies increase? what if new technology is developed to make mining more economical, or a method of economically extracting gold from seawater is developed (possibly as a by product of desalination?)

Or, what happens if some new "hot, can't lose" investment idea becomes popular with money managers (think the next internet, biotechs, etc type of stock) and they redeploy their assets held in gold?

What happens if several of these coincide, and for a decade or two, gold is thought of as "that bubble", much like it was from 1980 - 2000?

Sure, in a generation or two, I agree with your premise that that $275k house will someday surpass $400k again, maybe sooner, maybe later, but inevitably, just like over decades, the prices of gold will go up in the long term as reckoned in dollars.

But with only 40 or 50 years of life left, I can't afford to put all my eggs in just one or even two baskets, even if I think they're really good baskets, someone can come along and knock them out of my hands no matter how "right" they seemed to be at the time. >>






I like this reply. This drives home the idea that we all only have just a "slice" in time. So as far as personal investment goes.....for a specific individual....gold does have a "top" it seems. That top will occur within a person's individual lifespan.....and I completely agree with that. But that does not mean that the commodity of gold itself has a "top". It can continue to climb indefinately as long as all my original premesis' are satisfied.

On a personal level, I stack metal as an insurance policy against a catastrophic failure of the current monetary systems of the world. Short of that happening, I dont have a whole lot of use for the shiny metal. I have never bought a single oz for the purposes of investment.....I have other vehicles which I use to invest in my future/retirement. My master plan is to someday turn the metal over to my son.......preferably after he has passed the "sell everything for beer money" phase.

However, the metal has proven....so far.....to be a nifty savings account as well. I have "borrowed" from it a couple times to fund some ventures that I would have had to finance in a more traditional way. And before one of you really sharp guys wants to equate this to what happened in the real estate market....ala HELOCs and refis......just remember that whenever I borrowed from my "equity pool", it was a loan to myself, from myself with no chance of forclosure on the remainder of the pile at a later time.

cohodk

People were once paid in salt.

Cotton hit a high in 1864, took until 2010 to break that top.


Just examples of 2 very important commodities that are used everyday and were once scarce or highly regarded.

Like i've been saying for years, no one alive today has any experience with deflation. Its effects will surprise everyone.

Baley

here's a 650 year chart of the price of silver in adjusted 1998 dollars. Silver peaked at $806 the oz in 1477.

It's a log chart, adjusted for linear the story is even more interesting



this also shows the G/S ratio, I'd be interested if someone had the gumption to dig up a similar adjusted price analysis for gold

Baley

the US dollar wont be around forever

well, forever is a very very long time, and not even our Milky Way galaxy is expected to be around "forever", much less our particular star and planetary system which is only expected to last a couple billion more years.

However, the strong probability IMO, is that the world and especially the USA will still be accounting money in Dollars for the rest of the century, and still use cash, too.

Gecko and others, the local maximum, or top in gold was at $1900 and change earlier this month. When in perpetuity do you expect it to exceed that?

I think this correction will take it below $1500 and that it won't see $1900 again the rest of the year.

Baley

So much for the "perpetual increases" that were "inevitable" for Gold.
or is it just a matter of, "not yet"? What happens when everyone who wants some gold, has as much gold as they want or can afford to have?

cohodk

<< <i>So much for the "perpetual increases" that were "inevitable" for Gold.
or is it just a matter of, "not yet"? What happens when everyone who wants some gold, has as much gold as they want or can afford to have? >>



People will never have enough gold. Demand is insatiable. Billions of Chinese and Indians want gold--it is in their blood. Viva la GOLD!! Gold IS money!!!

Baley

The ancient aliens who helped early man become "civilized" must have planted the gold lust deep in their collective psyche?

Justacommeman

You two need to get a room. MJ

Where is gecko?

cohodk

<< <i>The ancient aliens who helped early man become "civilized" must have planted the gold lust deep in their collective psyche? >>



Of course. The love of gold is universal.

clouisejewelers

<< <i>So much for the "perpetual increases" that were "inevitable" for Gold.
or is it just a matter of, "not yet"? What happens when everyone who wants some gold, has as much gold as they want or can afford to have? >>



Seriously, do you work for JP Morgan? Do you get paid to spread negative thoughts about gold and silver in every thread? Or are you short the metals and trying to kill investor confidence so your trades will be more profitable?

tneig

Went through this and I can understand about no gold top concept, and goes up as the dollar value goes down..
Questions?

-In reality how high could the US price go, because its tied to the world gold market, isn't it? If the us messes up its dollar,
doesn't mean the entire world gold market follows it one for one, right? I understand a ripple effect of course, but
the us condition is not the only nation that affects the price of gold, right?

-I see silver steadily going down (which is supposed to have parallel performance to gold)
but gold is not dipping w the same percentage. If we are in this semi-good temporary state,
dow is up, election year, then how come gold is not dipping more right now?

;-)

cohodk

<< <i>

<< <i>So much for the "perpetual increases" that were "inevitable" for Gold.
or is it just a matter of, "not yet"? What happens when everyone who wants some gold, has as much gold as they want or can afford to have? >>



Seriously, do you work for JP Morgan? Do you get paid to spread negative thoughts about gold and silver in every thread? Or are you short the metals and trying to kill investor confidence so your trades will be more profitable? >>




Not to speak for Baley, but personally I think he is just being pragnatic and realistic. Gold WILL NOT go up perpetually and inevitably---unless you perhaps your timeframe is measured in decades.

Do you work for a jeweler who buys scrap gold and whose income would suffer if gold dropped?

clouisejewelers

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>So much for the "perpetual increases" that were "inevitable" for Gold.
or is it just a matter of, "not yet"? What happens when everyone who wants some gold, has as much gold as they want or can afford to have? >>



Seriously, do you work for JP Morgan? Do you get paid to spread negative thoughts about gold and silver in every thread? Or are you short the metals and trying to kill investor confidence so your trades will be more profitable? >>




Not to speak for Baley, but personally I think he is just being pragnatic and realistic. Gold WILL NOT go up perpetually and inevitably---unless you perhaps your timeframe is measured in decades.

Do you work for a jeweler who buys scrap gold and whose income would suffer if gold dropped? >>



I do not reply to every single thread saying gold will go up forever. I realize it can go up and down, you can check my posts for evidence. I am suspicious when somebody has the time to reply with the same opinion to EVERY SINGLE THREAD. It's as if that IS their job.

I do own a jewelry/coin shop. I love it when spot prices drop because panic sellers come into my shop and I am sure to be busy that day. Then I have fresh merchandise to sell. I am a trader, not a hoarder so transaction volume and my buy/sell spread is where I make my money.

jmski52

It's really not about gold.

streeter

You two need to get a room. MJ

Where is gecko?


Threesome?

Oh Gecko? He's in a meeting and not taking calls.

derryb

<< <i>Substitute any physical object for "gold" in your syllogism and test it out. But don't forget a little something called "demand" >>



Excellent point.

Keep in mind that in modern economics demand is no long controlled strictly by market forces. We saw runaway demand in housing with quite a bit of nudging from both the financial industry (turning a blind eye to mortgage fraud on the part of unqualified borrowers), from government regulatory policy (deregulation of banking, removal of fraud safeguards and failure to enforce remaining safeguards), and from government monetary policy (low interest rates). In the case of metals I submit that non-market forces can also affect demand but in an entirely different direction. Probably a few here on the forum, after being burnt with price takedowns, now reluctant to buy back in. Supply and demand still dictate price, but controlling either supply or demand will produce an artificial price. I submit that controlling supply or demand is the modern approach to price fixing..

yellowkid

Over time I would generally agree with you, but you can have long periods, twenty years or more,when the price remains static.

Baley

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>So much for the "perpetual increases" that were "inevitable" for Gold.
or is it just a matter of, "not yet"? What happens when everyone who wants some gold, has as much gold as they want or can afford to have? >>



Seriously, do you work for JP Morgan? Do you get paid to spread negative thoughts about gold and silver in every thread? Or are you short the metals and trying to kill investor confidence so your trades will be more profitable? >>




Not to speak for Baley, but personally I think he is just being pragnatic and realistic. Gold WILL NOT go up perpetually and inevitably---unless you perhaps your timeframe is measured in decades.

Do you work for a jeweler who buys scrap gold and whose income would suffer if gold dropped? >>



I do not reply to every single thread saying gold will go up forever. I realize it can go up and down, you can check my posts for evidence. I am suspicious when somebody has the time to reply with the same opinion to EVERY SINGLE THREAD. It's as if that IS their job.

I do own a jewelry/coin shop. I love it when spot prices drop because panic sellers come into my shop and I am sure to be busy that day. Then I have fresh merchandise to sell. I am a trader, not a hoarder so transaction volume and my buy/sell spread is where I make my money. >>



I'm just a guy having a conversation on a chat board. I happen to have a lot of numismatic coins and bullion, because I like them, but for [investing] I try to be an unbiassed guy who likes to participate and learn. I may ask questions that I already know (or think I know) the answer to, to get other points of view. I certainly don't respond to every single thread, and most of my posts are on the numismatic main board about collecting type coins and early coins. The posts of mine which might be perceived to have a negative slant toward the metals (which, remember, I love) tend to be the ones, like this thread, where someone states as a fact that gold can only go up, forever, or until some major component of modern society changes radically. Or the ones that suggest that the only thing worth investing in is gold, guns, and canned grub, because modern civilization is a farce that is about to end. Or the ones from people who aren't unbiassed because they want other people to do certain things so they [themselves] can make more money.

derryb

<< <i>The posts of mine which might be perceived to have a negative slant toward the metals (which, remember, I love) tend to be the ones, like this thread, where someone states as a fact that gold can only go up, forever, or until some major component of modern society changes radically. Or the ones that suggest that the only thing worth investing in is gold, guns, and canned grub, because modern civilization is a farce that is about to end. Or the ones from people who aren't unbiassed because they want other people to do certain things so they [themselves] can make more money. >>


Are you my nemisis because I believe in the value of PMs and also buy and sell them? And all this time I thought it was because you disagreed with me on the issues under discussion. Do you carry the same grudge when discussing US coins on the other forum? You know a lot of those guys buy and sell US coins.

derryb

<< <i>People were once paid in salt.

Cotton hit a high in 1864, took until 2010 to break that top.


Just examples of 2 very important commodities that are used everyday and were once scarce or highly regarded.

Like i've been saying for years, no one alive today has any experience with deflation. Its effects will surprise everyone. >>


Don't forget the tulips!

Baley

<< <i>

<< <i>The posts of mine which might be perceived to have a negative slant toward the metals (which, remember, I love) tend to be the ones, like this thread, where someone states as a fact that gold can only go up, forever, or until some major component of modern society changes radically. Or the ones that suggest that the only thing worth investing in is gold, guns, and canned grub, because modern civilization is a farce that is about to end. Or the ones from people who aren't unbiassed because they want other people to do certain things so they [themselves] can make more money. >>



Are you my nemisis because I believe in the value of PMs and also make a living buying and selling them? And all this time I thought it was because you disagreed with me on the issues under discussion. Do you carry the same grudge when discussing US coins on the other forum? You know a lot of those guys buy and sell US coins for a living. >>



I'm not anyone or any object's nemesis, and certainly not yours or golds. There are some [ideas] that I'm opposed to, and others I haven't made my mind up about, and seek to learn more. If what someone says appears to distort reality, I may post from time to time and seek clarification, or offer my own opinion. I may even sometimes "disagree" with someone in order to back-test or reality-test my own beliefs, again, in a quest for clarity in communication and perception of reality. This would certainly apply to numismatic coins as well as metal bullion. In this very thread, I predicted that 1900ish in September was a local maximum for the price of gold in US dollars, and I was right. No bragging, no grudges, just a statement of fact. If someone says that the 25th anniversary ASE sets are going to $1500 each this year, I will disagree with the [idea], but have no animosity toward the person making the claim. If they're saying (predicting) it and also selling them now for $900, I'm bound to point out the illogic of their actions versus their words.

Baley

Another blast from the past, the original post and discussion corresponding almost exactly to the date of top in gold prices

yellowkid

I'm not sure you can apply "logic' to economic matters.

Kip

Martin says...
Volatility tomorrow...and into Monday.' It will now take a daily closing back above 1400 to stabilize gold. This implies we have lower to go.
" Key support lies at 1270 followed critical support at 1236-1233. A weekly closing beneath that level opens the door to a test of the 939.50 level". My god i am glad I went out at $1600..just luck..I needed the money
K Strong

VanHalen

Gold prices have not come close to "topping". PMs are going far higher than anything we've seen yet and will do it within 5 years.

Let's bring this thread back in a few years and see...............

jdimmick

Wont happen!

its over, been saying it for the better part of this year.

streeter

Every shop I know has a tough time buying silver and gold over the counter and very little inventory to sell.

I am converting non liquid assets into PM just as fast as I can. I have slow moving non liquid assets
that I can't sell fast enough right now. Automobiles and related, antiques and collectibles. Ebay, Samba, craigslist, auctions. I can't convert fast enough right now.

I think we are going into a deathroes of a liquidity crises the likes of which we have never seen.

derryb

down, but not out.

Elliot Wave Technology is reporting:

Fed Crashes Markets to Defend against Dollar Collapse

Is it possible that dollar weight against other currencies has now become a matter of national security?