Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation. There were periods of inflation and periods of deflation, but the purchasing power of the dollar had no net change between those two dates. The gold standard held inflation in check until 1933 and the Great Depression from 1933 to 1945.
Post WWII, inflation kicked in with the return of soldiers, new family formation, and increased demand for goods and services.
We now have an economy which needs 2% annual inflation to function properly and the Fed is trying to create that. So far, they have been unsuccessful.
I see that job creation just announced was the lowest monthly report since 2011 and the unemployment rate fell to 6.7%. Mostly because job seekers gave up on seeking jobs.
<< <i>Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation. There were periods of inflation and periods of deflation, but the purchasing power of the dollar had no net change between those two dates. The gold standard held inflation in check until 1933 and the Great Depression from 1933 to 1945.
Post WWII, inflation kicked in with the return of soldiers, new family formation, and increased demand for goods and services.
We now have an economy which needs 2% annual inflation to function properly and the Fed is trying to create that. So far, they have been unsuccessful.
I see that job creation just announced was the lowest monthly report since 2011 and the unemployment rate fell to 6.7%. Mostly because job seekers gave up on seeking jobs. >>
Year statement regarding gold standard holding the inflation rate in check does not hold water.
<< <i>We now have an economy which needs 2% annual inflation to function properly and the Fed is trying to create that. >>
Central bank propoganda supported by banking industry paid economists. Banks need 2% annual inflation to generate profitable lending. Anything less than 2% cuts their profits and anything more than 2% makes consumers question the whole "good" inflation scam. They have conditioned consumers to quietly accept a 2% annual rise in prices as being good for the economy.
Zero inflation and stable prices are always better for the consumer than 2% (or any) annual price increases. Banks prefer the 2% inflation goal for their own greedy purposes, which of course creates a consuming public that needs more money. Inflation supporters will argue that for GDP to increase we must have inflation. In reality all higher prices do for GDP is either reduce the amount of consumption with the same dollars spent or, as the bankers prefer, keep the demand side up by making more money available in the form of profitable loans. Growth that is funded by debt is not healthy for an economy as was proven in 2008 and is more than likely about to be proven again.
Banks are in business to loan money - it's really that simple. No better way to create more debt than to create a need for more money. Having a policy setting powerful central bank that is owned by the private banks has never been good for the consumer. This "need" for inflation proves that.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
OPA , those inflation stats start in 1914 the first year of the FED . The gold standard was doomed already. The Fed launched out of the gate hard , they need to be bailed out in only 2 decades .
A $5 gold coin in 1820 needed $7.70 to buy it's monetary equivalent in 1945 and $100 to buy it today.
Gold was $16oz during the Cal gold rush in '49 and $35 in 1933.
However a $10 indian was $10 in 1933 and $600 today.
The price of gold is completely irrelevant re the discussion of inflation.
Inflation is too many dollars chasing the same product. Simplified. You want to make money in an asset bubble? Buy/control the asset before the masses figure out they "need" to buy that asset.
<< <i>A $5 gold coin in 1820 needed $7.70 to buy it's monetary equivalent in 1945 and $100 to buy it today.
Gold was $16oz during the Cal gold rush in '49 and $35 in 1933.
However a $10 indian was $10 in 1933 and $600 today.
The price of gold is completely irrelevant re the discussion of inflation.
Inflation is too many dollars chasing the same product. Simplified. You want to make money in an asset bubble? Buy/control the asset before the masses figure out they "need" to buy that asset. >>
The price of gold is irrelevant to inflation. The presence of a gold standard isn't. Inflation isn't an accident its the mission of the Federal reserve to create inflation. The gold standard is an obstacle to banking profits.
Ya know...to stay with the OP, Gold Bugs that speculate or bet on the come get what they get. The folks that are saving gold and silver are not the same guy and they didn't lose their shirts. You won't see their gold until the price is right and it ain't rite. The stock market had a marvelous year so they dismiss the metal guys, even spank them for losing their shirts. Well maybe they lost their shirts on paper but if you look in the SDB or the safe, you will see that in actuality they still got their shirts. If the fed juiced the metals industry with $85 BBBBillion a month of future taxpayer debt, it would be a completely different story.
I'm thinking it may be appropriate to use a reverse engineering posture regarding the banks that don't lend, the fed that screws with the markets, the markets that screw with the investors and the hapless regular guy just trying to stay afloat...surely there is a better way for regular guys to step aside and just let these people play hide the salami with each other.
So, if you go cash, you miss most of the credit sales tracking/marketing/offers. The other side of this is the gov, the cc banks, the marketing machines don't know what you bought or what you paid for it...the horror, the horror. If you use a credit union for your regular check writing and loans, you skip the meat grinder customer service fees/tracking/marketing of the commercial banks, not to mention all of the hacking and information theft that seems to be rampant in the retail sector.
The bank credit cards charge the retailer 2%-5% for the transactions. The big marketing ploy by the bank CC's is that they will give you 1% back on your purchases. So the retailer gets a 2%-5% hickey that he adds to the price of the products and the consumer gets 1% back for the 5% he just got hosed for but only if he has the right CC. That seems like an exceptional waste of resources but it churns fees so it's all good right? Not so much...what if your groceries cost 2%-5% less? Why fight them, go to places that offer cash discounts.
A lot of retail folks offer the cash discounts. For example, many adult beverage companies do this. They mark their products at the cash price on the shelf and charge you an extra 5% for credit card transactions. It is surprising how many customers pay cash when they can save 5%. The beverage company is not taking the salami, you want the salami, you pay 5% extra. My coin shop will give you a cash price and a credit card price...yep, an extra 5%, yours probably does this too. Car repairs or new tires...cash price/credit card price, doctors offices...cash price/insurance price. It is difficult to escape transaction fees unless you don't use the credit card or limit the use to situations that benefit you like convenience at the gas station or on-line purchases. Cash is king and it's worth an extra 5% so you just made 5% for 2014. Use it to buy some metal and put it away till the price is rite. Would you rather your money went to some guy with a corner office or would you rather it went in your SDB?
Reverse engineering: Use cash as much as possible. Get a credit union for your banking and use their credit card. Leave the mullets to the commercial banks and credit card industry...why do you think they call them mullets? It is good to have a nice warm shirt stashed away. Keep on stacking.
OPA , those inflation stats start in 1914 the first year of the FED . The gold standard was doomed already. The Fed launched out of the gate hard , they need to be bailed out in only 2 decades .
The gold standard was DEAD in 1914 as the world's powers tossed it aside for WW1. The inflation during that period is obvious. The "gold standard" that was put back into effect following WW1 (1919-1933) was a shell of the 1900 standard. One of the reasons for doing that was to grind Germany into the dirt, which they did quite successfully. jThe payback for that was Nazi Germany in the 1930's. In essence, a viable and useful gold standard died in 1914 once the FED was in power and WW1 started. The standard in effect from 1914-1974 was a pseudo gold standard to fool J6P. It took the govt 60 yrs to convince Joe that a gold standard was a barbarous relic.
<< <i>the price of gold is relevant in that it paints a good picture of inflation (or deflation). >>
every argument in favor (and against) gold is already factored into the price of the commodity today, by definition.
folks can speculate all day long on whether new information will change the market value of the commodity in the future, and by how much and when, but they'll only be correct if the actual price does in fact change as they predicted it would
<< <i>every argument in favor (and against) gold is already factored into the price of the commodity today, by definition.
folks can speculate all day long on whether new information will change the market value of the commodity in the future, and by how much and when, but they'll only be correct if the actual price does in fact change as they predicted it would >>
The price of the commodity only accurately reflects all those arguments if they are evenly presented and measured in a proportional manner. Manipulation blows all that out of the water (ie paper gold trading at 100-1 times physical gold). But I would agree that the current price of gold accurately reflects the arguments of the USTreasury, TBTF banks, FED, PPT, and ESF. No argument there at all. Now if only the world's gold producers and J6P could get in an argument or two.
Speaking of a proportional manner. Does anyone else out there other than the TBTF banks and central banks hold hundreds of billions in otc silver and gold derivative contracts? Same comment for the $900 TRILL in otc interest rate swaps held by the same guys. How do the "arguments" for everyone else get heard above those noisy ones? I would submit that the price of NO commodity, currency, bond, or equity is accurately determined today. In fact the prices are basically chosen by shadow markets manned by a relatively small group of individuals.
OPA , those inflation stats start in 1914 the first year of the FED . The gold standard was doomed already. The Fed launched out of the gate hard , they need to be bailed out in only 2 decades .
You clearly indicated that: "Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation." Which, btw, I still disagree with. BTW the US did not enter WWI until 1917.
You may be interested in the below inflation indicator going back to 1774 and crunch some figures....it seems to me, that there where numerous years where inflation or deflation was rampant.
If you read the comments you will see that even the author did not like the headline.
Roadrunner, I think you are focusing on the quick drop from 1500 to 1200 as a point of manipulation. Just forget everything we think we know about gold and look at the chart. 1500 was MAJOR support, and when it broke there was no one left to fill the sandbags. This chart would have broken the exact same way if it was a chart of corn, potato chips, oil, precipitation, or even emotions. It didnt matter that the chart was of gold, its just a chart, and ANYTHING that had a similar chart pattern would have broken in the same manner.
I wrote for almost 2 years that gold needed to have a 38% retrace of the move, and that exactly what it did. If 38% is all that it eventually corrects, then it probably has a much stronger run to come in the future--5-20 years out. That said, there is no guarantee that gold will outperform any other assets, nor that it will correct all the worlds ills. Its just another asset class. Invest in it accordingly and prosper.
For the sake of ones own sanity, investors should rid themselves of the ideas of manipulation or conspiracy. Even if one believes in these ideas, did it prevent them from losing 35-60% of their investment? No it didnt. So why look for someone else to blame? Gold is just a shiny yellow metal in which humans have historically found comfort. Sometimes they seek comfort more than other times and its value increases faster than other assets. Sometimes it doesnt. Dont let the emotions associated with these time periods drive your psychology.
You may be interested in the below inflation indicator going back to 1774 and crunch some figures....it seems to me, that there where numerous years where inflation or deflation was rampant.
inflation calculator
And aint it something that the USA survived all that. Incredible.
This chart would have broken the exact same way if it was a chart of corn, potato chips, oil, precipitation, or even emotions. It didn't matter that the chart was of gold, its just a chart, and ANYTHING that had a similar chart pattern would have broken in the same manner.
This, I disagree with. I do not think any specific chart pattern can guarantee any future outcome, particularly with the stock of an individual company. Big news, positive or negative, almost always trumps the historical chart. Right were gold "broke" the support, if that had been a company, and after support was broken, it announced huge great news, like a successful product launch, a big problem with a main competitor, a merger or acquisition, landing a giant new contract or making a big partnership, a landmark patent granted, an unexpected surge in earnings growth, the list goes on and on, any big huge good news will override the chart behavior. and likewise, a company's stock may be looking to set up for a big advance ("cup and handle", breakout of a pattern, ascending wedge, you name it, real bad news will kill the predictive ability of the chart, in my experience, at least for stocks.
Something fungible like gold or oil or sugar or cotton, or currencies, I do tend to agree more with the statement above, except that sudden good or bad news for prices, like a strike or drought or banking crisis in the country can also trump the chart patterns
<< <i>In reality all higher prices do for GDP is either reduce the amount of consumption with the same dollars spent or, as the bankers prefer, keep the demand side up by making more money available in the form of profitable loans. >>
You clearly indicated that: "Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation." Which, btw, I still disagree with. BTW the US did not enter WWI until 1917.
You may be interested in the below inflation indicator going back to 1774 and crunch some figures....it seems to me, that there where numerous years where inflation or deflation was rampant.
I didn't add all the years up and total it. My impression is that when there was inflation it was in bursts centered around events . Inflation doesn't adequately describe certain events anyway during the gold standard. Is it a measure of paper currency or gold? The 2 were not the same thing even though the word dollar was used interchangeably . In 1863 people knew which they preferred .
As far as the US joining WW1 it depends. The army went to war in 1917 but our illustrious bankers were in the war from the start .
As a neutral country we weren't supposed to loan money to belligerents on either side. Laws were in place to prevent such loans but they weren't enforced by the executive branch.
The reason they didn't was that the banks owned President Wilson , they bought the white house for him in 1913 it was the least he could do. Over a billion dollars was loaned by Morgan and others by the time we actually joined hostilities.
Money could be loaned to the French and English but they were running out of young men to feed into the trenches , they were being blown to pieces faster than they could be trained . By 1917 Morgan and his ilk needed America to join the war to protect their investment. It wasn't about the 4 million dead Frenchmen it was about the loans that wouldn't be paid back if the Allies lost.
OPA , those inflation stats start in 1914 the first year of the FED . The gold standard was doomed already. The Fed launched out of the gate hard , they need to be bailed out in only 2 decades .
You clearly indicated that: "Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation." Which, btw, I still disagree with. BTW the US did not enter WWI until 1917.
You may be interested in the below inflation indicator going back to 1774 and crunch some figures....it seems to me, that there where numerous years where inflation or deflation was rampant.
Using the numbers on your link, there was no net inflation between 1814 and 1944, I stated 1820 to 1945 which was based on another study. Anyway, 1814 to 1944 was a 130 year period with no net inflation.
You clearly indicated that: "Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation." Which, btw, I still disagree with. BTW the US did not enter WWI until 1917.
You may be interested in the below inflation indicator going back to 1774 and crunch some figures....it seems to me, that there where numerous years where inflation or deflation was rampant.
I didn't add all the years up and total it. My impression is that when there was inflation it was in bursts centered around events . Inflation doesn't adequately describe certain events anyway during the gold standard. Is it a measure of paper currency or gold? The 2 were not the same thing even though the word dollar was used interchangeably . In 1863 people knew which they preferred .
As far as the US joining WW1 it depends. The army went to war in 1917 but our illustrious bankers were in the war from the start .
As a neutral country we weren't supposed to loan money to belligerents on either side. Laws were in place to prevent such loans but they weren't enforced by the executive branch.
The reason they didn't was that the banks owned President Wilson , they bought the white house for him in 1913 it was the least he could do. Over a billion dollars was loaned by Morgan and others by the time we actually joined hostilities.
Money could be loaned to the French and English but they were running out of young men to feed into the trenches , they were being blown to pieces faster than they could be trained . By 1917 Morgan and his ilk needed America to join the war to protect their investment. It wasn't about the 4 million dead Frenchmen it was about the loans that wouldn't be paid back if the Allies lost.
I never felt that the US entry into WW1 made any sense other than the economic interests you mentioned. The warring parties could have slugged it out in the trenches (posing no threat to us) for years and we might have even avoided WWII.
OPA's table on the buying power of the dollar is interesting but raises the question what is a dollar. For instance there was a great devaluation in the dollar from 1854 to 1865 (inflation). Was that 1865 dollar a Greenback or a gold dollar?
<< <i> This chart would have broken the exact same way if it was a chart of corn, potato chips, oil, precipitation, or even emotions. It didn't matter that the chart was of gold, its just a chart, and ANYTHING that had a similar chart pattern would have broken in the same manner.
This, I disagree with. I do not think any specific chart pattern can guarantee any future outcome, particularly with the stock of an individual company. Big news, positive or negative, almost always trumps the historical chart. Right were gold "broke" the support, if that had been a company, and after support was broken, it announced huge great news, like a successful product launch, a big problem with a main competitor, a merger or acquisition, landing a giant new contract or making a big partnership, a landmark patent granted, an unexpected surge in earnings growth, the list goes on and on, any big huge good news will override the chart behavior. and likewise, a company's stock may be looking to set up for a big advance ("cup and handle", breakout of a pattern, ascending wedge, you name it, real bad news will kill the predictive ability of the chart, in my experience, at least for stocks.
Something fungible like gold or oil or sugar or cotton, or currencies, I do tend to agree more with the statement above, except that sudden good or bad news for prices, like a strike or drought or banking crisis in the country can also trump the chart patterns
You are trying to compare several different sitations to prove a point. "They" are getting to you.
I am talking about a specific chart pattern. It ghas nothing to do with unexpected nws. You know I've written many times that today's prices largely reflect known news and that it takes something unexpected to drive pricing. The price if gold already reflects Yellen, the death of the dollar, inflation, " manipulation", German repatriation, India, China, JPM, ect. This will take something unexpected about these knows to push prices. Perhaps it will be an acceleration of inflation or WW3 or a new mining technique.
Comments
deflation, but the purchasing power of the dollar had no net change between those two dates. The gold standard
held inflation in check until 1933 and the Great Depression from 1933 to 1945.
Post WWII, inflation kicked in with the return of soldiers, new family formation, and increased demand for goods and
services.
We now have an economy which needs 2% annual inflation to function properly and the Fed is trying to create that.
So far, they have been unsuccessful.
I see that job creation just announced was the lowest monthly report since 2011 and the unemployment
rate fell to 6.7%. Mostly because job seekers gave up on seeking jobs.
<< <i>Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation. There were periods of inflation and periods of
deflation, but the purchasing power of the dollar had no net change between those two dates. The gold standard
held inflation in check until 1933 and the Great Depression from 1933 to 1945.
Post WWII, inflation kicked in with the return of soldiers, new family formation, and increased demand for goods and
services.
We now have an economy which needs 2% annual inflation to function properly and the Fed is trying to create that.
So far, they have been unsuccessful.
I see that job creation just announced was the lowest monthly report since 2011 and the unemployment
rate fell to 6.7%. Mostly because job seekers gave up on seeking jobs. >>
Year statement regarding gold standard holding the inflation rate in check does not hold water.
monthly inflation rate from 1913 to current
<< <i>We now have an economy which needs 2% annual inflation to function properly and the Fed is trying to create that. >>
Central bank propoganda supported by banking industry paid economists. Banks need 2% annual inflation to generate profitable lending. Anything less than 2% cuts their profits and anything more than 2% makes consumers question the whole "good" inflation scam. They have conditioned consumers to quietly accept a 2% annual rise in prices as being good for the economy.
Zero inflation and stable prices are always better for the consumer than 2% (or any) annual price increases. Banks prefer the 2% inflation goal for their own greedy purposes, which of course creates a consuming public that needs more money. Inflation supporters will argue that for GDP to increase we must have inflation. In reality all higher prices do for GDP is either reduce the amount of consumption with the same dollars spent or, as the bankers prefer, keep the demand side up by making more money available in the form of profitable loans. Growth that is funded by debt is not healthy for an economy as was proven in 2008 and is more than likely about to be proven again.
Banks are in business to loan money - it's really that simple. No better way to create more debt than to create a need for more money. Having a policy setting powerful central bank that is owned by the private banks has never been good for the consumer. This "need" for inflation proves that.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
C'mon derry banks don't need inflation to make money.
Not when they can do it this way Wells fargo lawsuit
OPA , those inflation stats start in 1914 the first year of the FED . The gold standard was doomed already. The Fed launched out of the gate hard , they need to be bailed out in only 2 decades .
Something else started in 1914 , WW1 death toll
Gold was $16oz during the Cal gold rush in '49 and $35 in 1933.
However a $10 indian was $10 in 1933 and $600 today.
The price of gold is completely irrelevant re the discussion of inflation.
Inflation is too many dollars chasing the same product. Simplified. You want to make money in an asset bubble? Buy/control the asset before the masses figure out they "need" to buy that asset.
<< <i>A $5 gold coin in 1820 needed $7.70 to buy it's monetary equivalent in 1945 and $100 to buy it today.
Gold was $16oz during the Cal gold rush in '49 and $35 in 1933.
However a $10 indian was $10 in 1933 and $600 today.
The price of gold is completely irrelevant re the discussion of inflation.
Inflation is too many dollars chasing the same product. Simplified. You want to make money in an asset bubble? Buy/control the asset before the masses figure out they "need" to buy that asset. >>
The price of gold is irrelevant to inflation. The presence of a gold standard isn't. Inflation isn't an accident its the mission of the Federal reserve to create inflation. The gold standard is an obstacle to banking profits.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
I'm thinking it may be appropriate to use a reverse engineering posture regarding the banks that don't lend, the fed that screws with the markets, the markets that screw with the investors and the hapless regular guy just trying to stay afloat...surely there is a better way for regular guys to step aside and just let these people play hide the salami with each other.
So, if you go cash, you miss most of the credit sales tracking/marketing/offers. The other side of this is the gov, the cc banks, the marketing machines don't know what you bought or what you paid for it...the horror, the horror. If you use a credit union for your regular check writing and loans, you skip the meat grinder customer service fees/tracking/marketing of the commercial banks, not to mention all of the hacking and information theft that seems to be rampant in the retail sector.
The bank credit cards charge the retailer 2%-5% for the transactions. The big marketing ploy by the bank CC's is that they will give you 1% back on your purchases. So the retailer gets a 2%-5% hickey that he adds to the price of the products and the consumer gets 1% back for the 5% he just got hosed for but only if he has the right CC. That seems like an exceptional waste of resources but it churns fees so it's all good right? Not so much...what if your groceries cost 2%-5% less? Why fight them, go to places that offer cash discounts.
A lot of retail folks offer the cash discounts. For example, many adult beverage companies do this. They mark their products at the cash price on the shelf and charge you an extra 5% for credit card transactions. It is surprising how many customers pay cash when they can save 5%. The beverage company is not taking the salami, you want the salami, you pay 5% extra. My coin shop will give you a cash price and a credit card price...yep, an extra 5%, yours probably does this too. Car repairs or new tires...cash price/credit card price, doctors offices...cash price/insurance price. It is difficult to escape transaction fees unless you don't use the credit card or limit the use to situations that benefit you like convenience at the gas station or on-line purchases. Cash is king and it's worth an extra 5% so you just made 5% for 2014. Use it to buy some metal and put it away till the price is rite. Would you rather your money went to some guy with a corner office or would you rather it went in your SDB?
Reverse engineering: Use cash as much as possible. Get a credit union for your banking and use their credit card. Leave the mullets to the commercial banks and credit card industry...why do you think they call them mullets? It is good to have a nice warm shirt stashed away. Keep on stacking.
Happy New Year.
<< <i>C'mon derry banks don't need inflation to make money.
Not when they can do it this way Wells fargo lawsuit
OPA , those inflation stats start in 1914 the first year of the FED . The gold standard was doomed already. The Fed launched out of the gate hard , they need to be bailed out in only 2 decades .
Something else started in 1914 , WW1 death toll >>
The gold standard was DEAD in 1914 as the world's powers tossed it aside for WW1. The inflation during that period is obvious. The "gold standard" that was put back into effect following WW1 (1919-1933) was a shell of the
1900 standard. One of the reasons for doing that was to grind Germany into the dirt, which they did quite successfully. jThe payback for that was Nazi Germany in the 1930's. In essence, a viable and useful gold standard died
in 1914 once the FED was in power and WW1 started. The standard in effect from 1914-1974 was a pseudo gold standard to fool J6P. It took the govt 60 yrs to convince Joe that a gold standard was a barbarous relic.
<< <i>the price of gold is relevant in that it paints a good picture of inflation (or deflation). >>
every argument in favor (and against) gold is already factored into the price of the commodity today, by definition.
folks can speculate all day long on whether new information will change the market value of the commodity in the future, and by how much and when, but they'll only be correct if the actual price does in fact change as they predicted it would
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>every argument in favor (and against) gold is already factored into the price of the commodity today, by definition.
folks can speculate all day long on whether new information will change the market value of the commodity in the future, and by how much and when, but they'll only be correct if the actual price does in fact change as they predicted it would >>
The price of the commodity only accurately reflects all those arguments if they are evenly presented and measured in a proportional manner. Manipulation blows all that out of the water (ie paper gold trading at 100-1 times
physical gold). But I would agree that the current price of gold accurately reflects the arguments of the USTreasury, TBTF banks, FED, PPT, and ESF. No argument there at all. Now if only the world's gold producers and J6P could
get in an argument or two.
Speaking of a proportional manner. Does anyone else out there other than the TBTF banks and central banks hold hundreds of billions in otc silver and gold derivative contracts? Same comment for the $900 TRILL in otc interest
rate swaps held by the same guys. How do the "arguments" for everyone else get heard above those noisy ones? I would submit that the price of NO commodity, currency, bond, or equity is accurately determined today. In
fact the prices are basically chosen by shadow markets manned by a relatively small group of individuals.
<< <i>C'mon derry banks don't need inflation to make money.
Not when they can do it this way Wells fargo lawsuit
OPA , those inflation stats start in 1914 the first year of the FED . The gold standard was doomed already. The Fed launched out of the gate hard , they need to be bailed out in only 2 decades .
Something else started in 1914 , WW1 death toll >>
You clearly indicated that: "Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation." Which, btw, I still disagree with. BTW the US did not enter WWI until 1917.
You may be interested in the below inflation indicator going back to 1774 and crunch some figures....it seems to me, that there where numerous years where inflation or deflation was rampant.
inflation calculator
Roadrunner, I think you are focusing on the quick drop from 1500 to 1200 as a point of manipulation. Just forget everything we think we know about gold and look at the chart. 1500 was MAJOR support, and when it broke there was no one left to fill the sandbags. This chart would have broken the exact same way if it was a chart of corn, potato chips, oil, precipitation, or even emotions. It didnt matter that the chart was of gold, its just a chart, and ANYTHING that had a similar chart pattern would have broken in the same manner.
I wrote for almost 2 years that gold needed to have a 38% retrace of the move, and that exactly what it did. If 38% is all that it eventually corrects, then it probably has a much stronger run to come in the future--5-20 years out. That said, there is no guarantee that gold will outperform any other assets, nor that it will correct all the worlds ills. Its just another asset class. Invest in it accordingly and prosper.
For the sake of ones own sanity, investors should rid themselves of the ideas of manipulation or conspiracy. Even if one believes in these ideas, did it prevent them from losing 35-60% of their investment? No it didnt. So why look for someone else to blame? Gold is just a shiny yellow metal in which humans have historically found comfort. Sometimes they seek comfort more than other times and its value increases faster than other assets. Sometimes it doesnt. Dont let the emotions associated with these time periods drive your psychology.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
inflation calculator
And aint it something that the USA survived all that. Incredible.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
This, I disagree with. I do not think any specific chart pattern can guarantee any future outcome, particularly with the stock of an individual company. Big news, positive or negative, almost always trumps the historical chart. Right were gold "broke" the support, if that had been a company, and after support was broken, it announced huge great news, like a successful product launch, a big problem with a main competitor, a merger or acquisition, landing a giant new contract or making a big partnership, a landmark patent granted, an unexpected surge in earnings growth, the list goes on and on, any big huge good news will override the chart behavior. and likewise, a company's stock may be looking to set up for a big advance ("cup and handle", breakout of a pattern, ascending wedge, you name it, real bad news will kill the predictive ability of the chart, in my experience, at least for stocks.
Something fungible like gold or oil or sugar or cotton, or currencies, I do tend to agree more with the statement above, except that sudden good or bad news for prices, like a strike or drought or banking crisis in the country can also trump the chart patterns
an example from yesterday and today: from $75 to $445 in 2 days there's nothing in the2 year chart to predict that!!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>In reality all higher prices do for GDP is either reduce the amount of consumption with the same dollars spent or, as the bankers prefer, keep the demand side up by making more money available in the form of profitable loans. >>
$ are not money, they are currency.
BST Transactions (as the seller): Collectall, GRANDAM, epcjimi1, wondercoin, jmski52, wheathoarder, jay1187, jdsueu, grote15, airplanenut, bigole
<< <i>[
You clearly indicated that: "Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation." Which, btw, I still disagree with. BTW the US did not enter WWI until 1917.
You may be interested in the below inflation indicator going back to 1774 and crunch some figures....it seems to me, that there where numerous years where inflation or deflation was rampant.
inflation calculator >>
I didn't add all the years up and total it. My impression is that when there was inflation it was in bursts centered around events . Inflation doesn't adequately describe certain events anyway during the gold standard. Is it a measure of paper currency or gold? The 2 were not the same thing even though the word dollar was used interchangeably . In 1863 people knew which they preferred .
As far as the US joining WW1 it depends. The army went to war in 1917 but our illustrious bankers were in the war from the start .
As a neutral country we weren't supposed to loan money to belligerents on either side. Laws were in place to prevent such loans but they weren't enforced by the executive branch.
The reason they didn't was that the banks owned President Wilson , they bought the white house for him in 1913 it was the least he could do. Over a billion dollars was loaned by Morgan and others by the time we actually joined hostilities.
Money could be loaned to the French and English but they were running out of young men to feed into the trenches , they were being blown to pieces faster than they could be trained . By 1917 Morgan and his ilk needed America to join the war to protect their investment. It wasn't about the 4 million dead Frenchmen it was about the loans that wouldn't be paid back if the Allies lost.
The Legacy of the banker
<< <i>every argument in favor (and against) gold is already factored into the price of the commodity today, by definition. >>
Not always. How much did the arguments change on Jan. 6 in the 1/10 of a second that it took for gold to drop $30, or 2.4%?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>
<< <i>C'mon derry banks don't need inflation to make money.
Not when they can do it this way Wells fargo lawsuit
OPA , those inflation stats start in 1914 the first year of the FED . The gold standard was doomed already. The Fed launched out of the gate hard , they need to be bailed out in only 2 decades .
Something else started in 1914 , WW1 death toll >>
You clearly indicated that: "Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation." Which, btw, I still disagree with. BTW the US did not enter WWI until 1917.
You may be interested in the below inflation indicator going back to 1774 and crunch some figures....it seems to me, that there where numerous years where inflation or deflation was rampant.
inflation calculator >>
Using the numbers on your link, there was no net inflation between 1814 and 1944, I stated 1820 to 1945 which was based on another study. Anyway, 1814 to 1944 was a 130 year period with no net inflation.
<< <i>
<< <i>[
You clearly indicated that: "Between 1820 and 1945 there was zero net inflation." Which, btw, I still disagree with. BTW the US did not enter WWI until 1917.
You may be interested in the below inflation indicator going back to 1774 and crunch some figures....it seems to me, that there where numerous years where inflation or deflation was rampant.
inflation calculator >>
I didn't add all the years up and total it. My impression is that when there was inflation it was in bursts centered around events . Inflation doesn't adequately describe certain events anyway during the gold standard. Is it a measure of paper currency or gold? The 2 were not the same thing even though the word dollar was used interchangeably . In 1863 people knew which they preferred .
As far as the US joining WW1 it depends. The army went to war in 1917 but our illustrious bankers were in the war from the start .
As a neutral country we weren't supposed to loan money to belligerents on either side. Laws were in place to prevent such loans but they weren't enforced by the executive branch.
The reason they didn't was that the banks owned President Wilson , they bought the white house for him in 1913 it was the least he could do. Over a billion dollars was loaned by Morgan and others by the time we actually joined hostilities.
Money could be loaned to the French and English but they were running out of young men to feed into the trenches , they were being blown to pieces faster than they could be trained . By 1917 Morgan and his ilk needed America to join the war to protect their investment. It wasn't about the 4 million dead Frenchmen it was about the loans that wouldn't be paid back if the Allies lost.
The Legacy of the banker
I never felt that the US entry into WW1 made any sense other than the economic interests you mentioned. The
warring parties could have slugged it out in the trenches (posing no threat to us) for years and we might have even avoided WWII.
OPA's table on the buying power of the dollar is interesting but raises the question what is a dollar. For instance there was a great
devaluation in the dollar from 1854 to 1865 (inflation). Was that 1865 dollar a Greenback or a gold dollar?
<< <i> This chart would have broken the exact same way if it was a chart of corn, potato chips, oil, precipitation, or even emotions. It didn't matter that the chart was of gold, its just a chart, and ANYTHING that had a similar chart pattern would have broken in the same manner.
This, I disagree with. I do not think any specific chart pattern can guarantee any future outcome, particularly with the stock of an individual company. Big news, positive or negative, almost always trumps the historical chart. Right were gold "broke" the support, if that had been a company, and after support was broken, it announced huge great news, like a successful product launch, a big problem with a main competitor, a merger or acquisition, landing a giant new contract or making a big partnership, a landmark patent granted, an unexpected surge in earnings growth, the list goes on and on, any big huge good news will override the chart behavior. and likewise, a company's stock may be looking to set up for a big advance ("cup and handle", breakout of a pattern, ascending wedge, you name it, real bad news will kill the predictive ability of the chart, in my experience, at least for stocks.
Something fungible like gold or oil or sugar or cotton, or currencies, I do tend to agree more with the statement above, except that sudden good or bad news for prices, like a strike or drought or banking crisis in the country can also trump the chart patterns
an example from yesterday and today: from $75 to $445 in 2 days there's nothing in the;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;">2 year chart to predict that!! >>
You are trying to compare several different sitations to prove a point. "They" are getting to you.
I am talking about a specific chart pattern. It ghas nothing to do with unexpected nws. You know I've written many times that today's prices largely reflect known news and that it takes something unexpected to drive pricing. The price if gold already reflects Yellen, the death of the dollar, inflation, " manipulation", German repatriation, India, China, JPM, ect. This will take something unexpected about these knows to push prices. Perhaps it will be an acceleration of inflation or WW3 or a new mining technique.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear