Options
Silver should be alot Higher
slenda
Posts: 57 ✭✭
I watch a lot of auctions on e bay and see a lot of people paying way to much for numismatic and bullion coins. Prices on e bay tend to be over the PCGS price, which is over priced. At this stage of the game silver should be over $50 ounce, so we have along way to go. I have PCGS coins I owned for 25 years and I still will loose money on them if I sell them.
0
Comments
You stole my question!
I knew it would happen.
Please explain why silver should be over $50 an ounce.
Because that's what smoe people need to break even?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Please explain why silver should be over $50 an ounce.
We been off the silver coinage since 1964 so $50 ounce seems to be a reasonable and conservative number after so many years. Because its not right that the fed could just keep printing worthless money and people keep accepting it. But they seem to be getting away with it.
Well I read a lot of articles on line that say Gold is heading to $5000/ounce, but they been saying this for years and it never happens. Because the fed keeps pumping money into the economy and bailing us out. But its not money its debt. So question is how long can the fed keep doing this. And until then, Cash remains King. Because people still generally prefer cash to precious metals. Otherwise everyone would empty there bank accounts in favor of gold and silver. I could run out right now and go buy some silver or gold, but for now cash remains king, that's why silver is only $19.50/ ounce.
Please explain why silver should be over $50 an ounce.
We been off the silver coinage since 1964 so $50 ounce seems to be a reasonable and conservative number after so many years. Because its not right that the fed could just keep printing worthless money and people keep accepting it. But they seem to be getting away with it.
Right now it seems that the silver market to the public is oversupplied. The Mint's production of silver eagles in June was well under 3 million @ 2,837,500 coins where the usual production has been in excess of 4 million coins for quite a long time. Hard to see $50 silver when there's so much of it.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Please explain why silver should be over $50 an ounce.
You stole my question!
OP has been brainwashed by all the written Internet garbage regarding PM's.
I see some skepticism in his post, rather than brainwashing. I would challenge you to explain where you see the influence of brainwashing.
To wit:
Because the fed keeps pumping money into the economy and bailing us out. But its not money its debt. So question is how long can the fed keep doing this.
Sounds like a fair observation to me. Explain how it isn't.
I knew it would happen.
It is fallacy to think otherwise.
Prices on e bay tend to be over the PCGS price, which is over priced.
It seems to me, that if they are selling for that price, then that IS the price.
Hey, I agree with your Opinion that that number is more than they are "worth,"
but the market doesn't appear to agree with us
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
OP has been brainwashed by all the written Internet garbage regarding PM's.
I see some skepticism in his post, rather than brainwashing. I would challenge you to explain where you see the influence of brainwashing.
To wit:
Because the fed keeps pumping money into the economy and bailing us out. But its not money its debt. So question is how long can the fed keep doing this.
Sounds like a fair observation to me. Explain how it isn't.
So what. Most of the debt is being borrowed from us and as long as the Gov't is able to pay the interest, I don't see it being an issue. The debt will be and has been constantly refinanced and it's unlikely to be ever paid in full. Live with it and benefit from it.
OP has been brainwashed by all the written Internet garbage regarding PM's.
I see some skepticism in his post, rather than brainwashing. I would challenge you to explain where you see the influence of brainwashing.
To wit:
Because the fed keeps pumping money into the economy and bailing us out. But its not money its debt. So question is how long can the fed keep doing this.
Sounds like a fair observation to me. Explain how it isn't.
So what. Most of the debt is being borrowed from us and as long as the Gov't is able to pay the interest, I don't see it being an issue. The debt will be and has been constantly refinanced and it's unlikely to be ever paid in full. Live with it and benefit from it.
How much does it cost to service this debt and what happens when interest rates go up? The cost of servicing this debt as a percentage of the federal budget has continuously increased over time.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
OP has been brainwashed by all the written Internet garbage regarding PM's.
I see some skepticism in his post, rather than brainwashing. I would challenge you to explain where you see the influence of brainwashing.
To wit:
Because the fed keeps pumping money into the economy and bailing us out. But its not money its debt. So question is how long can the fed keep doing this.
Sounds like a fair observation to me. Explain how it isn't.
So what. Most of the debt is being borrowed from us and as long as the Gov't is able to pay the interest, I don't see it being an issue. The debt will be and has been constantly refinanced and it's unlikely to be ever paid in full. Live with it and benefit from it.
What about the over the counter derivatives debt-money-wagers? When it blows, it blows. It can't be "refinanced." And when/if there is a systemic-default, there is no "writing it off" because the winners (big banks) want to paid off. The govt would have to tell them to take a hike. And since those bankers are essentially the govt, that's not likely to happen. The banking laws were recently re-written to give bank derivative holders head of the line privileges to be paid off (ie ahead of checking and savings accounts). In other words, the little guy's assets are on tap to pay off the derivative's losses of the losers, so the winners will get paid in full.
The little guy who has his assets in mutual funds and retirement accounts? Once they tap his account as one of the accounts not to be paid, I can imagine that the banks will be flush once again, but individual accounts will have a liquidity crunch and they won't be bailing individuals out unless it's to buy the necessary number of votes to stay in power.
Since about half the country has no savings anyhow, I can see that a liquidity crunch affecting primarily individuals will dictate more wealth redistribution by gov.com. That's a well-established pattern.
More taxes & inflation, but only targeting anyone who has assets. In the meantime, never let a good liquidity crunch crisis go to waste. New rules, new restrictions, fewer options on what you can & can't do with your own money. Sound familiar yet?
I knew it would happen.
OP has been brainwashed by all the written Internet garbage regarding PM's.
I see some skepticism in his post, rather than brainwashing. I would challenge you to explain where you see the influence of brainwashing.
To wit:
Because the fed keeps pumping money into the economy and bailing us out. But its not money its debt. So question is how long can the fed keep doing this.
Sounds like a fair observation to me. Explain how it isn't.
So what. Most of the debt is being borrowed from us and as long as the Gov't is able to pay the interest, I don't see it being an issue. The debt will be and has been constantly refinanced and it's unlikely to be ever paid in full. Live with it and benefit from it.
How much does it cost to service this debt and what happens when interest rates go up? The cost of servicing this debt as a percentage of the federal budget has continuously increased over time.
It will not cost one single cent more to service the existing debt. Not one single cent more.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Really?
I knew it would happen.
It will not cost one single cent more to service the existing debt. Not one single cent more.
Really?
Really.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
It will not cost one single cent more to service the existing debt. Not one single cent more.
Really?
The interest rates on old debt are probably fixed so any interest rate increases are not retroactive to all old debt.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Interest rates are indeed fixed on all Treasury Debt. The thing is that when interest rates rise in response to an economy that even thinks about recovery, all of that debt is re-priced lower.
What that means is that all bondholders lose money when rates rise, but it also means that all new debt issued is more expensive in relative terms and the outstanding debt is constantly rolling over. When the real market forces rates up (and it will), the COST all of the debt being rolled over will *explode*.
So, technically the "existing debt" won't cost a penny more, but it's not cost-free by any means. Pretending that it's of no consequence is what got us into the corner in which we now find ourselves.
Surely cohodk, you understand the problem. Why are you spinning it?
Spending on infrastructure? If you read, you know that China has financed a worldwide commodity boom for the past decade building "ghost cities" and is now facing a debt implosion in short order.
We shall see if massive debt creation for infrastructure is inconsequential, and unfortunately I don't believe that it is.
I knew it would happen.
And if we could just get our elected leaders to spend money on infrastructure and technology rather than social programs and pork, the I would encourage them to double the debt. Imagine financing the future at 2%. Dang, what good times could lie ahead.
+1
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
And if we could just get our elected leaders to spend money on infrastructure and technology rather than social programs and pork, the I would encourage them to double the debt. Imagine financing the future at 2%. Dang, what good times could lie ahead.
+1
mark
You guys. DC loves them some bbq sammiches and iced tea....this won't happen, ha!
The interest rates on old debt are probably fixed so any interest rate increases are not retroactive to all old debt.
Interest rates are indeed fixed on all Treasury Debt. The thing is that when interest rates rise in response to an economy that even thinks about recovery, all of that debt is re-priced lower.
What that means is that all bondholders lose money when rates rise, but it also means that all new debt issued is more expensive in relative terms and the outstanding debt is constantly rolling over. When the real market forces rates up (and it will), the COST all of the debt being rolled over will *explode*.
So, technically the "existing debt" won't cost a penny more, but it's not cost-free by any means. Pretending that it's of no consequence is what got us into the corner in which we now find ourselves.
Surely cohodk, you understand the problem. Why are you spinning it?
Spending on infrastructure? If you read, you know that China has financed a worldwide commodity boom for the past decade building "ghost cities" and is now facing a debt implosion in short order.
We shall see if massive debt creation for infrastructure is inconsequential, and unfortunately I don't believe that it is.
I'm not spinning anything. Why are you exaggerating..."explode"...come on. And bondholders don't lose money on their bonds....they still get an income stream and principle at maturity.
The USA is not China so stop comparing it as such. We don't need to bring peasants into the cities, but we do need better transportation hubs, completely revamped sanitation systems in all our East Coat cites. Maybe we should even build a few dams. Look how the spending on projects during the Depression set us up so well for the "good old days", as your generation so fondly remembers.
And when are interest rates going to rise? Thats getting almost as old as talk of $5000 gold. Rates will not rise in the US until they rise in Germany and Japan, and Switzerland and Denmark, ect.
The best thing that could happen to the US economy is a 4% yield on the 10 year Treasury....but it aint gonna happen next week or next year or maybe even the next decade.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Well I read a lot of articles on line that say Gold is heading to $5000/ounce, but they been saying this for years and it never happens. Because the fed keeps pumping money into the economy and bailing us out. But its not money its debt. So question is how long can the fed keep doing this. And until then, Cash remains King. Because people still generally prefer cash to precious metals. Otherwise everyone would empty there bank accounts in favor of gold and silver. I could run out right now and go buy some silver or gold, but for now cash remains king, that's why silver is only $19.50/ ounce.
Please explain why silver should be over $50 an ounce.
We been off the silver coinage since 1964 so $50 ounce seems to be a reasonable and conservative number after so many years. Because its not right that the fed could just keep printing worthless money and people keep accepting it. But they seem to be getting away with it.
Right now it seems that the silver market to the public is oversupplied. The Mint's production of silver eagles in June was well under 3 million @ 2,837,500 coins where the usual production has been in excess of 4 million coins for quite a long time. Hard to see $50 silver when there's so much of it.
I'm late to this thread but reading this far I have something to add for everyones consideration. ASE's are the worst thing to ever happen to bullion, meaning the value of bullion.
Sure, if they'd never existed we would have had alot more generic Merry Christmas rounds and like items made than there already is, but they would be considered bullion, never knowing the mintage of them, therefore no one would know if silver is oversupplied as you say. Something about having the denomination of $1 and a mintage figure attached to it makes people think of it as a coin rather than what it really is, a 1 oz piece of silver...therefore, a "coin" can only be worth so much because of its mintage. That holds back the value of what it really is, a 1 oz of silver.
ASE's keep mintage statistics, and THAT killed the chance at bullion/precious metal (particularly Silver) being valued more realistically.
The same pov goes for Gold for the most part, although Gold is slightly different because it's known there's only a finite amount of it in the Earth. Not so much with Silver.
The interest rates on old debt are probably fixed so any interest rate increases are not retroactive to all old debt.
Interest rates are indeed fixed on all Treasury Debt. The thing is that when interest rates rise in response to an economy that even thinks about recovery, all of that debt is re-priced lower.
What that means is that all bondholders lose money when rates rise, but it also means that all new debt issued is more expensive in relative terms and the outstanding debt is constantly rolling over. When the real market forces rates up (and it will), the COST all of the debt being rolled over will *explode*.
So, technically the "existing debt" won't cost a penny more, but it's not cost-free by any means. Pretending that it's of no consequence is what got us into the corner in which we now find ourselves.
Surely cohodk, you understand the problem. Why are you spinning it?
Spending on infrastructure? If you read, you know that China has financed a worldwide commodity boom for the past decade building "ghost cities" and is now facing a debt implosion in short order.
We shall see if massive debt creation for infrastructure is inconsequential, and unfortunately I don't believe that it is.
We don't need to bring peasants into the cities
Are you kidding, where do you live? The peasants ARE in the cities. Move away from the cities and you'll see the real Americans. Large city feed the peasants. You don't see a poor person standing at the intersection of country roads, but you do at every other intersection in the city. Maybe I'm taking your comment regarding this a little too literal and it's a little OT, but felt it had to be mentioned.
The best thing that could happen to the US economy is a 4% yield on the 10 year Treasury....but it aint gonna happen next week or next year or maybe even the next decade.
You are spinning the facts. If the 10 year rate goes from its current 1.48% to 4.00% that more than doubles the payments that will be required by the Treasury on all debt that is rolled over (which is ALL of it, not just "new debt"). More than doubling the payments is an "explosion", and that's just for starters.
I knew it would happen.
I'm not spinning anything. Why are you exaggerating..."explode"...come on. And bondholders don't lose money on their bonds....they still get an income stream and principle at maturity.
You are spinning the facts. If the 10 year rate goes from its current 1.48% to 4.00% that more than doubles the payments that will be required by the Treasury on all debt that is rolled over (which is ALL of it, not just "new debt"). More than doubling the payments is "exploding", and that's just for starters.
Jmski52. ....we do not "rollover" all our debt every year. You may want to investigate how much debt we have due in what years. It may help understand this a little better. And don't forget that the 10yr bond we issued 10 years ago at 5% is now being "rolled over" at 1.5%. What if we refinanced all debt to 30 years at 2.5%. What that calm your interest expense explosion fears?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The interest rates on old debt are probably fixed so any interest rate increases are not retroactive to all old debt.
Interest rates are indeed fixed on all Treasury Debt. The thing is that when interest rates rise in response to an economy that even thinks about recovery, all of that debt is re-priced lower.
What that means is that all bondholders lose money when rates rise, but it also means that all new debt issued is more expensive in relative terms and the outstanding debt is constantly rolling over. When the real market forces rates up (and it will), the COST all of the debt being rolled over will *explode*.
So, technically the "existing debt" won't cost a penny more, but it's not cost-free by any means. Pretending that it's of no consequence is what got us into the corner in which we now find ourselves.
Surely cohodk, you understand the problem. Why are you spinning it?
Spending on infrastructure? If you read, you know that China has financed a worldwide commodity boom for the past decade building "ghost cities" and is now facing a debt implosion in short order.
We shall see if massive debt creation for infrastructure is inconsequential, and unfortunately I don't believe that it is.
We don't need to bring peasants into the cities
Are you kidding, where do you live? The peasants ARE in the cities. Move away from the cities and you'll see the real Americans. Large city feed the peasants. You don't see a poor person standing at the intersection of country roads, but you do at every other intersection in the city. Maybe I'm taking your comment regarding this a little too literal and it's a little OT, but felt it had to be mentioned.
Yes, you are taking it too literally. And just so you know, I am 100% certain that you have not seen as much of this country, or the world for that matter, as I.
The people you see in the street corner are not peasants, they are leeches. There is a massive difference.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
"Is the Fed simply monetizing the debt? That's one of the effects. The Fed purchases Treasuries from its member banks, using credit it created out of thin air. It has the same effect as printing money."
Every new dollar created by the Fed to purchase US debt dilutes the purchasing power of existing dollars. As foreign purchases of US debt shrink, fed purchases will grow.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Who owns the US national debt?
"Is the Fed simply monetizing the debt? That's one of the effects. The Fed purchases Treasuries from its member banks, using credit it created out of thin air. It has the same effect as printing money."
Every new dollar created by the Fed to purchase US debt dilutes the purchasing power of existing dollars. As foreign purchases of US debt shrink, fed purchases will grow.
And there's a lot of dilution these days. Those at the top both demand and exercise control over dilution as it gets more in the hands of their cronies under the pretense of economic expansion.
OP has been brainwashed by all the written Internet garbage regarding PM's.
I see some skepticism in his post, rather than brainwashing. I would challenge you to explain where you see the influence of brainwashing.
To wit:
Because the fed keeps pumping money into the economy and bailing us out. But its not money its debt. So question is how long can the fed keep doing this.
Sounds like a fair observation to me. Explain how it isn't.
So what. Most of the debt is being borrowed from us and as long as the Gov't is able to pay the interest, I don't see it being an issue. The debt will be and has been constantly refinanced and it's unlikely to be ever paid in full. Live with it and benefit from it.
How much does it cost to service this debt and what happens when interest rates go up? The cost of servicing this debt as a percentage of the federal budget has continuously increased over time.
Capitalism is dead in large part because we can't afford the interest on the debt. Instead of paying the time value of money we get central planning in the form protection of existing business from competition and increasingly poor efficiency. We are getting better and better at wasting resources to benefit the few.
The current economy is unsustainable. It has been unsustainable at least since the early 1980's. We can prop up failed companies forever but we can't prop up a failed economy forever by stealing from the future because eventually the future catches up with us.
Who owns the US national debt?
"Is the Fed simply monetizing the debt? That's one of the effects. The Fed purchases Treasuries from its member banks, using credit it created out of thin air. It has the same effect as printing money."
Every new dollar created by the Fed to purchase US debt dilutes the purchasing power of existing dollars. As foreign purchases of US debt shrink, fed purchases will grow.
Not to disagree, as obviously the more of something that is produced!-if not a corresponding destruction of said something-is dilutive.....just as every ounce of new gold mined is dilutive, especially since the existing quantity is never destroyed. So hence, every new ounce mined decreases the purchasing power of existing gold. Stop mining now!!! ; )
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
OP has been brainwashed by all the written Internet garbage regarding PM's.
I see some skepticism in his post, rather than brainwashing. I would challenge you to explain where you see the influence of brainwashing.
To wit:
Because the fed keeps pumping money into the economy and bailing us out. But its not money its debt. So question is how long can the fed keep doing this.
Sounds like a fair observation to me. Explain how it isn't.
So what. Most of the debt is being borrowed from us and as long as the Gov't is able to pay the interest, I don't see it being an issue. The debt will be and has been constantly refinanced and it's unlikely to be ever paid in full. Live with it and benefit from it.
How much does it cost to service this debt and what happens when interest rates go up? The cost of servicing this debt as a percentage of the federal budget has continuously increased over time.
Capitalism is dead in large part because we can't afford the interest on the debt. Instead of paying the time value of money we get central planning in the form protection of existing business from competition and increasingly poor efficiency. We are getting better and better at wasting resources to benefit the few.
The current economy is unsustainable. It has been unsustainable at least since the early 1980's. We can prop up failed companies forever but we can't prop up a failed economy forever by stealing from the future because eventually the future catches up with us.
An economy is based on the demands of its population. You can't have a failed economy without failing demand from its population. People gotta eat. I think it pretty safe to say demand from a growing population will continue. And companies go bankrupt everyday and are replaced by more efficient companies. Should we pity the poor buggy whip manufacturer or praise Tesla?
Such a defeated population thst visits this forum. So sad. Especially in light of the Holiday that is upon us.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
New debt is issued faster than old debt is retired. You're correct. It's worse than just rolling it over.
You may want to investigate how much debt we have due in what years. It may help understand this a little better.
Is that why Lew has to wring his hands at least once a year because gov.com is running out of money? So they can keep juggling and extending the maturities further out?
And don't forget that the 10yr bond we issued 10 years ago at 5% is now being "rolled over" at 1.5%.
The 10 year Treasury was issued at 3.45% 10 years ago when the debt was $8 trillion, and the rate has trended down for those 10 years to 1.48% now, while the debt is now over $19 trillion. The Fed can't afford to raise rates because that will explode the required interest payments and a stock market massacre will ensue due to a liquidity crunch, bigtime.
What if we refinanced all debt to 30 years at 2.5%. What that calm your interest expense explosion fears?
No, but it would make the accounting easier. Debt re-prices itself continuously via interest rates anyway, so changing the maturities is only just a shell game.
every ounce of new gold mined is dilutive, especially since the existing quantity is never destroyed
The difference between the rate of increase in gold supplies vs. the rate of increase in money supply is about 10X. That's the difference in the degree of dilution.
I knew it would happen.
Not to disagree, as obviously the more of something that is produced!-if not a corresponding destruction of said something-is dilutive.....just as every ounce of new gold mined is dilutive, especially since the existing quantity is never destroyed. So hence, every new ounce mined decreases the purchasing power of existing gold. Stop mining now!!! ; )
When precious metals can be created out of thin air, as is money, then it will be time to stop accumulating them. The more it costs to produce something that is in demand, the greater the value of what is produced. The depletion of limited PM reserves, through their mining, makes it more expensive to mine and this adds to their value. New money is limited only by the amount of endless paper and ink available. Digital keystrokes are even more unlimited.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
The interest rates on old debt are probably fixed so any interest rate increases are not retroactive to all old debt.
Interest rates are indeed fixed on all Treasury Debt. The thing is that when interest rates rise in response to an economy that even thinks about recovery, all of that debt is re-priced lower.
What that means is that all bondholders lose money when rates rise, but it also means that all new debt issued is more expensive in relative terms and the outstanding debt is constantly rolling over. When the real market forces rates up (and it will), the COST all of the debt being rolled over will *explode*.
So, technically the "existing debt" won't cost a penny more, but it's not cost-free by any means. Pretending that it's of no consequence is what got us into the corner in which we now find ourselves.
Surely cohodk, you understand the problem. Why are you spinning it?
Spending on infrastructure? If you read, you know that China has financed a worldwide commodity boom for the past decade building "ghost cities" and is now facing a debt implosion in short order.
We shall see if massive debt creation for infrastructure is inconsequential, and unfortunately I don't believe that it is.
We don't need to bring peasants into the cities
Are you kidding, where do you live? The peasants ARE in the cities. Move away from the cities and you'll see the real Americans. Large city feed the peasants. You don't see a poor person standing at the intersection of country roads, but you do at every other intersection in the city. Maybe I'm taking your comment regarding this a little too literal and it's a little OT, but felt it had to be mentioned.
Yes, you are taking it too literally. And just so you know, I am 100% certain that you have not seen as much of this country, or the world for that matter, as I.
The people you see in the street corner are not peasants, they are leeches. There is a massive difference.
Staying true to your arrogant form. Oh well, I tried.
On topic, the silence that has occured since I made the comment that ASE's have ruined any chance for Spot bullion to be at any level near what it's actually worth speaks volumes.
On here, when people don't reply to a truthful comment it's because they agree with it. No acknowledgement of the way something is because it wasn't their idea...the way it is on good ol' CU, sadly.
If you would like to prove me wrong about anything I write I welcome you.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Truth is not arrogance POM.
If you would like to prove me wrong about anything I write I welcome you.
What am I supposed to show you, travel receipts of where I've been in my life. For you to make a comment like that is completely assinine. You don't know sh*t about me coho, you know what you think you know from on here based on me speaking my mind.
, you know what you think you know from on here based on me speaking my mind.
I think that's all any of us need to know. LOL. Happy Independence Day.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
This is true.... have seen the truth of this many times...Cheers, RickO
On topic, the silence that has occured since I made the comment that ASE's have ruined any chance for Spot bullion to be at any level near what it's actually worth speaks volumes.
I have something to add for everyones consideration. ASE's are the worst thing to ever happen to bullion, meaning the value of bullion.
I disagree, and I'll explain why below.
Sure, if they'd never existed we would have had alot more generic Merry Christmas rounds and like items made than there already is, but they would be considered bullion, never knowing the mintage of them, therefore no one would know if silver is oversupplied as you say.
I don't know that there is a market pricing relationship based mainly upon the number of generic rounds vs. official "coins" in terms of mintages. How would we know? It's all hypothetical.
Something about having the denomination of $1 and a mintage figure attached to it makes people think of it as a coin rather than what it really is, a 1 oz piece of silver...therefore, a "coin" can only be worth so much because of its mintage. That holds back the value of what it really is, a 1 oz of silver.
ASE's keep mintage statistics, and THAT killed the chance at bullion/precious metal (particularly Silver) being valued more realistically.
I don't understand why you think that having an official mintage number limits the price. Why then is there a premium attached to ASEs, instead of a discount?
Also,
Going back to the late 1970's and early 1980's there was a premium attached to bags of silver dollars and no premium for fractional 90% silver. I conclude that people found Silver Dollars more desirable than fractional 90% silver. Why? I could guess, but the reason doesn't matter as much as the fact that they simply liked Silver Dollars better and were willing to pay a premium. Does that mean that Silver Dollars were holding back the value or price of silver? I don't think so. It didn't keep silver from climbing all the way to $50 in 1980.
I also think that the same analogy applies to generic silver rounds vs. ASEs today. Apparently more people simply like ASEs better than generic silver rounds and are willing to pay up for them. That fact didn't keep silver from climbing to $49 in 2011.
I think that premiums are only a matter of personal preference. They also fluctuate with the market and I don't believe the lack of premiums on generic silver rounds or the premiums on ASEs affect the demand, or the base price of the metal - see those examples I gave above. Explain why you think otherwise, and maybe give an example.
More than anything else, I think that premiums fluctuate when there is market volatility. That's just my own personal opinion, but I don't have a statistical proof handy in my back pocket. Sometimes, I just wing it.
I knew it would happen.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Rumor has it that JPM is a big buyer of silver eagles. Not sure if its true or what to make of it if it is .