Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So you're saying you're fully in to cash or something else... Me too...  :lol:

No, fully in gold [with no further funds earmarked to buy gold] because I don't see the dire need to get out of my 40% dollar position. This reflects my view of a deflationary drive to liquidity where the dollar is a beneficiary along with gold.

 

 

Exetersinversepyramid.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just ribbing you, I know what you're trying to say.

 

No, fully in gold [with no further funds earmarked to buy gold] because I don't see the dire need to get out of my 40% dollar position. This reflects my view of a deflationary drive to liquidity where the dollar is a beneficiary along with gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just ribbing you, I know what you're trying to say.

Yep, no more buying gold for me.... doesn't mean I won't be scrounging around in the Southern Alps for some. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone. I've been lurking for at least half a year now, I'm a poster over at HPC but I've been reading both forums.

 

I'm a fairly young guy, freshly out of Uni. I still have a lot to learn about the world of money, but I've come a very long way in the past year with the help of various HPCers and posters on here.

 

 

I sold all of my gold in bullionvault around July, and was going to buy back in at around £750, but my stocks were making way too much money to bother doing that. Now that my stocks have appeared to plateau for a bit (and with all the fear around) I'm considering selling up and buying back into gold.

Need a bit of advice from the experts though.. many questions this time round. I have some ideas but I'd love your input.

Is a split of gold/silver preferable?

Should I be buying physical?

How do I sell physical when the time comes?

Where am I meant to store the physical?

Do insurance companies actually cover bullion?

 

Cheers for the knowledge over the past months ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

I propose a less dogmatic stance on hyper-inflation if Sinclair's 1650 isn't reached by January 14th 2011. :)

Yes, for instance it could be only $1,649.99 on that day. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello everyone. I've been lurking for at least half a year now, I'm a poster over at HPC but I've been reading both forums.

 

I'm a fairly young guy, freshly out of Uni. I still have a lot to learn about the world of money, but I've come a very long way in the past year with the help of various HPCers and posters on here.

 

I sold all of my gold in bullionvault around July, and was going to buy back in at around £750, but my stocks were making way too much money to bother doing that. Now that my stocks have appeared to plateau for a bit (and with all the fear around) I'm considering selling up and buying back into gold.

Need a bit of advice from the experts though.. many questions this time round. I have some ideas but I'd love your input.

Is a split of gold/silver preferable?

Should I be buying physical?

How do I sell physical when the time comes?

Where am I meant to store the physical?

Do insurance companies actually cover bullion?

 

Cheers for the knowledge over the past months ^_^

Hi fadeaway, welcome to GEI. That's quite a few questions, and I reckon you'd get just as many diverse opinions on them from posters here.

 

My 2c worth: why not buy back into bullionvault, and with a decent proportion of your liquid funds. I'm happy with 60% in bullion, but others no doubt would recommend higher. That may seem a lot, but it helps to think of bullion as an alternative currency, that way you can be safely liquid on the sidelines in the strongest currencies.... if you think asset prices are heading south.

 

A split between gold and silver seems a good idea. Personally, I think silver is a little more speculative than gold, so it should be gold first and then silver.

 

Physical also seems a good idea. Some will recommend only physical, yet I'd suggest once again diversity... a part in physical, a part in bullionvault/ goldmoney, a part elsewhere. Physical bullion can be stored with a private vault company, besides a bit tucked away at home. Not sure about the insurance... but then some would say gold is your insurance.

 

At the end of the day, after DYOR, it may be best to follow your own instincts and go with what you are most comfortable with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, for instance it could be only $1,649.99 on that day. :o

I think that would pretty much count as 1650 ;)

 

I doubt that the January price will even get near to within $100 of $1650.

 

Don't you think 1300 something looks more likely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would, but practically already fully in.

 

 

 

Wow, that's quite bold of Jim to stick with his original prediction. Bold because it involves a rather large explosive parabolic move in gold [or a crash in the dollar for steve], where instead gold has showed itself to be slowly strengthening against the dollar at a steady pace these past few years.

 

At least Jim's sticking to his guns. He may be right, but if he isn't, and gold is only around 1300 early next year, will that mean the hyper-inflationary hypothesis might be up for questioning.... besides Jim's forecasting abilities?

 

I propose a less dogmatic stance on hyper-inflation if Sinclair's 1650 isn't reached by January 14th 2011. :)

 

'Less dogmatic stance on hyperinflation if Jim Sinclairs 1650 $ target is not met' has no place in the reality we are living. I feel it really does not matter if 1650 target is met or not. We are living in a time when these short term fluctuations in the price target or failure to achieve the said target does not change the name of the game. After reading things on internet and borrowing Dr Bubbs phrase - Hyperinflation is now baked in the cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Less dogmatic stance on hyperinflation if Jim Sinclairs 1650 $ target is not met' has no place in the reality we are living. I feel it really does not matter if 1650 target is met or not. We are living in a time when these short term fluctuations in the price target or failure to achieve the said target does not change the name of the game.

Sure, what I'm saying is this much heralded target was considered a dead cert by Sinclair. If the target falls well short of the mark, and that target was based on his view of hyper-inflation, then it would be sensible to question his view of hyper-inflation...... and how it would play out. Rather than rejecting hyper-inflation outright, this may just involve modifying it to fit in more with present day events.

 

After reading things on internet and borrowing Dr Bubbs phrase - Hyperinflation is now baked in the cake.

Don't believe everything you read on the net ;) ......and I'm not sure if Bubb would consider himself a hyper-inflationist....

 

 

Jim Sinclair Bets a Million Dollars Gold Price Will Hit $1650 before the 2nd Week in January 2011

 

http://www.goldprice.org/gold-news/2008/04...llars-gold.html

"My position on timing and price is that Gold will trade at USD $1650 before the second week of January 2011."

 

"I am offering a $1,000,000USD wager to a financially qualified party that this will occur within the stated timeframe. Any party on Bloomberg, CNBC or CNN-Business stating an opposite opinion on the price of gold should be informed of this challenge."

 

"Please communicate to ANY vocal bearish so-called gold expert that I challenge them to put their money on their views."

 

"Any commentator unable to financially meet this challenge should not be opining. If they really knew the gold and currency market they could easily meet the challenge."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't believe everything you read on the net ;) ......and I'm not sure if Bubb would consider himself a hyper-inflationist....

 

 

That is exactly right. Not everything. But certain things if explained well and all counter arguments are effectively 'countered', then the argument stands. Bubb is not hyperinflationist. But ' baked in cake' was his phrase. Why do you not put your points to FOFOA and let us see, if your argument stands or his?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, what I'm saying is this much heralded target was considered a dead cert by Sinclair. If the target falls well short of the mark, and that target was based on his view of hyper-inflation, then it would be sensible to question his view of hyper-inflation...... and how it would play out. Rather than rejecting hyper-inflation outright, this may just involve modifying it to fit in more with present day events.

 

 

Don't believe everything you read on the net ;) ......and I'm not sure if Bubb would consider himself a hyper-inflationist....

 

 

Jim Sinclair Bets a Million Dollars Gold Price Will Hit $1650 before the 2nd Week in January 2011

 

http://www.goldprice.org/gold-news/2008/04...llars-gold.html

 

 

I wonder what odds he wants for that bet ? I'm assuming pretty long..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is exactly right. Not everything. But certain things if explained well and all counter arguments are effectively 'countered', then the argument stands. Bubb is not hyperinflationist. But ' baked in cake' was his phrase. Why do you not put your points to FOFOA and let us see, if your argument stands or his?

The problem is the incommensurability of "paradigms". The most fruitful thing to do when inflationists, deflationists, hyper-inflationists and hyper-deflationists see the world in fundamentally different ways is to look at all of the views, in terms of themselves, and ask which is the most coherent. All there is are conflicting theories.

 

Also, theory always understands itself as only provisionally true and potentially falsifiable. I find that a lot of hyper-inflationists do not really have this awareness of their "theory". It is usually considered 100% true, which is actually the characteristic of dogma not theory. And it would be silly to argue with a dogmatist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

Historian of science Thomas Kuhn gave this word paradigm its contemporary meaning when he adopted it to refer to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of time. Kuhn himself came to prefer the terms exemplar and normal science, which have more exact philosophical meanings. However in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as:

 

what is to be observed and scrutinized

the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject

how these questions are to be structured

how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted

===

One important aspect of Kuhn's paradigms is that the paradigms are incommensurable, which means that two paradigms cannot be reconciled with each other because they cannot be subjected to the same measure or common standard of comparison. That is, no meaningful comparison between them is possible without fundamental modifications in the concepts which are part of the paradigms being compared. This way of looking at the concept of "paradigm" creates a paradox of sorts, since competing paradigms are in fact constantly being compared with each other. Nonetheless, competing paradigms are not fully intelligible solely within the context of their own conceptual frameworks. For this reason, the concept of paradigm in the philosophy of science might more meaningfully be defined as an explanatory model or conceptual framework. This definition makes it clear that the real barrier to comparison is not necessarily the absence of common units of measure, but an absence of mutually compatible or mutually intelligible concepts. A new paradigm which replaces an old paradigm is not necessarily better, because the criteria of judgment depend on the paradigm—and on the conceptual framework which defines it and gives it its explanatory value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Rickards here uses something akin to Jim Sinclair's "External debt equilibrium model" to arrive at a price of gold ($39,000) and demonstrate the exorbitant privilege it has enjoyed by being able to print the global currency.

 

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN..._New_Opium.html

 

If they spent more than half their savings (from 20,000 tonnes of gold down to 9,000) between 1950 and 1970 then what is the likelihood that they reduced their savings only to zero in the subsequent 40 years? Neither Rickards nor Sinclair assume that the US should end up owing gold, in fact Rickards leaves it with nearly 3 times what China has (though if you repeat the example with other debtor and creditor nations it may get down to zero). If leaving the people of the USA with zero gold would represent a large gift then perhaps it could be explained to them that this solution is a good one (it would kill loads of government debt) and would leave them having enjoyed the fruits of the world's labour for 40 years at a knock down rate and with no comeuppance.

 

On the other hand, maybe that's too hard a sell. But getting rid of the debt would likely benefit both the Chinese and the Americans in the long run and we know which country in the world is most focused on the long run. If it's true that "there is nothing in the world which China lacks" and they can shift enough of their workers away from US export-derived occupations (to cut down on the inevitable social strife) then they could raise the Beijing Put to $20,000 and make out like bandits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also posted on the Hyperinflation thread...

 

Why Hyperinflation Isn't Coming to the U.S.

by Mike Stathis August 2010

 

He talks more about gold than hyperinflation really:

Instead of individuals like me, the media floods you with hacks whose only mission is to sell you gold. Many gold bugs continue to insist that gold is headed to 10,000 or higher, and that the dollar will fall to zero. Others have insisted that gold will never again fall below $1000. The volume of these ridiculous claims about gold is endless. And their lackeys, which are spread throughout the Internet, mirror these delusions when they write articles. It’s truly become a circus show of followers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also posted on the Hyperinflation thread...

 

Why Hyperinflation Isn't Coming to the U.S.

by Mike Stathis August 2010

 

He talks more about gold than hyperinflation really:

 

I have to say this individual shows a shocking lack of understanding of the importance of gold within a financial system. He ignores the gold wars that have taken place for decades (see 'Gold Wars') and the efforts central banks have made to keep the price under control (admitted on many occasions).

 

Not sure he understands much, to be honest. Or at least, his understanding seems to be warped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is the incommensurability of "paradigms".

 

You've outdone yourself on that one!

Maybe you should switch to German so you can get in some REALLY long words :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've outdone yourself on that one!

Maybe you should switch to German so you can get in some REALLY long words :lol:

Well, I did provide an explanatory link. :) The theory we buy into determines what we see and how we interpret the world.

 

I don't much like using the word "paradigm" as it's meaning has been blurred [hence the "interrogation" quotes]. I notice it's Jim Puplava's favorite word, yet he misuses it; a "paradigm shift" can not happen in the world, or in the economy... it's an intellectual event that happens in minds.

 

Incommensurability... is an essential concept, and a favorite one of mine.

 

imo it is due to the incommensurability of concepts and definitions that the conventional inflation/ deflation debate goes nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason is quite simple. Gold dealers know gold prices are driven by supply and demand. Unlike securities and most other investments, supply and demand for gold is only based on hype; fear, panic and greed, along with market manipulation of course.

 

In contrast, supply and demand for securities is based on valuation, which is assessed by comparing business risk versus cash dividends, cash flows and earnings growth.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Tremendous, thanks for that, it gave me a really good laugh.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I thought it was quite a funny piece as well. The writer seems to place great faith in securities - which is odd given the continual PPT support, the banks messing around with HFT machines and the entire market seemingly based on fraud piled on fraud.

 

The music will stop one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I thought it was quite a funny piece as well. The writer seems to place great faith in securities - which is odd given the continual PPT support, the banks messing around with HFT machines and the entire market seemingly based on fraud piled on fraud.

 

The music will stop one day.

 

 

I have posted this in the Silver thread but think it warrants another post in Gold also:

 

especially from 1.05. :o as we already knew though.... <_<

 

From:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi fadeaway, welcome to GEI. That's quite a few questions, and I reckon you'd get just as many diverse opinions on them from posters here.

 

My 2c worth: why not buy back into bullionvault, and with a decent proportion of your liquid funds. I'm happy with 60% in bullion, but others no doubt would recommend higher. That may seem a lot, but it helps to think of bullion as an alternative currency, that way you can be safely liquid on the sidelines in the strongest currencies.... if you think asset prices are heading south.

 

A split between gold and silver seems a good idea. Personally, I think silver is a little more speculative than gold, so it should be gold first and then silver.

 

Physical also seems a good idea. Some will recommend only physical, yet I'd suggest once again diversity... a part in physical, a part in bullionvault/ goldmoney, a part elsewhere. Physical bullion can be stored with a private vault company, besides a bit tucked away at home. Not sure about the insurance... but then some would say gold is your insurance.

 

At the end of the day, after DYOR, it may be best to follow your own instincts and go with what you are most comfortable with.

 

Thanks for the reply.

I think the reason I'm cautious of bullionvault is that Lord Rothschild has a 12.5 million stake in it. I don't like the thought of him and his new world order buddies controlling the place I store my 'insurance' against the future. I don't trust insurance companies to pay up when someone breaks in and steals my bullion. It's all about trust, and nobody is trustworthy. You're probably spot on about the diversity, splits up the risk.

 

I know a lot less about silver. What I do know is that I pay VAT to buy it, but don't get it back when I sell it. So it has to rise by 20% in value before I even make that back? Seems odd to me. Maybe I'm missing something. Do most people use something like coininvestdirect to buy/sell gold and silver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think 1300 something looks more likely?

We could have $1,300 this afternoon given the bullishness of this market right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×