Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If I understood "Another" correctly, he thinks gold at some stage might not trade at all (price = +infinity), while silver might still. So, silver could be pretty useful as money during that time.

:blink:

 

The price of gold is infinite = gold can not be priced = currencies have failed.

 

Before this happens gold will be pricing currencies....

 

gold + government = gold standard.

 

 

And before you object, it is what is, and what will be that counts.... not what you think ought to be. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:blink:

He simply thinks gold will be an unobtainium for some time. We're sort of seeing this in parts of the bullion coin markets already. I don't think that this will necessarily lead to a gold standard in the bad sense i.e. government imposed. But government might see the need again to have gold reserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He simply thinks gold will be an unobtainium for some time. We're sort of seeing this in parts of the bullion coin markets already. I don't think that this will necessarily lead to a gold standard in the bad sense i.e. government imposed. But government might see the need again to have gold reserves.

But are we seeing this? If we were, the price would be massively bid upwards with no-one selling, and many more wanting to buy. As it is, there seems plenty of supply as well as demand, and for now the gold price looks to have found a relatively stable point.

 

If the price did one day explode upwards in a parabolic rise, this would represent capital flight from assets and currencies into gold. Don't you think that governments would have no choice but to cap the price/ fix the currencies/ introduce a standard? Their hand would be forced by the market.... and gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But are we seeing this? If we were, the price would be massively bid upwards with no-one selling, and many more wanting to buy. As it is, there seems plenty of supply as well as demand, and for now the gold price looks to have found a relatively stable point.

 

If the price did one day explode upwards in a parabolic rise, this would represent capital flight from assets and currencies into gold. Don't you think that governments would have no choice but to cap the price/ fix the currencies/ introduce a standard? Their hand would be forced by the market.... and gold.

In theory there should always be a non-zero price of something of value in gold (which is something of value too!). But in a short-term dislocation, maybe closed gold markets, that could not be the case. As for money, almost anything could be money today as long as it is liquid enough. For instance, we could all have an electronic oil account - OilMoney, so to speak, and would have credit cards and debit cards on that oil account. Naturally, gold is the best money, so we might see governments getting that idea some time again too. But there is no guarantee for that.

 

Maybe UK money will be backed by all these empty repossessed houses that no one wants anymore. There should still be some value in them. It's land, after all. LandMoney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe UK money will be backed by all these empty repossessed houses that no one wants anymore. There should still be some value in them. It's land, after all. LandMoney.

Didn't the French issue their Assignats against land [confiscated Church land?]? I believe it turned into another disaster. So I doubt that will work.

 

Maybe it has something to do with the nature of money... it's basis is not real but ideal, and thus all things such as land, oil etc will be a poor substitute.

 

In my mind, gold is the strongest symbol of money [and money being an idea] and therefore will work best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe it has something to do with the nature of money... it's basis is not real but ideal, and thus all things such as land, oil etc will be a poor substitute.

 

In my mind, gold is the strongest symbol of money [and money being an idea] and therefore will work best.

I disagree. The basis of money is always something real (fur, shells, salt, silver, gold), but then some politicians/banksters/ theorists come along and pervert it, so that it sooner or later it has to collapse. At that point, it is back to square one, and money becomes real again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. The basis of money is always something real (fur, shells, salt, silver, gold), but then some politicians/banksters/ theorists come along and pervert it, so that it sooner or later it has to collapse. At that point, it is back to square one, and money becomes real again.

The real stuff is used as money [anything can be used in barter]. Money itself is an idea. For stuff which is used as money to become a currency [which leads to efficient markets] then social/ political organisation is involved. Currencies are social institutions.

 

German idealism is superior to Anglo-saxon realism in these matters.

 

I'd add that the real/ ideal distinction is a bit of a false dichotomy promulgated by realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real stuff is used as money. Money itself is an idea. For stuff which is used as money to become a currency [which leads to efficient markets] then social/ political organisation is involved. Currencies are social institutions. I have to say, German idealist philosophy is superior to Anglo-saxon philosophy in this regard.

Apparently we disagree on the definition of money.

 

You seem to view money as an abstract idea. But it is clear that such money could only evolve as an abstraction/perversion of, simply put, a very marketable asset. This was achieved mainly by banksters and politicians. So, what you think is money, simply is what they made you believe it is. Without them, without the laws that protect it, this kind of money would show its true face as an idea of no value.

 

Before the perversion of money by fractional reserve banking/naked shorting and fiat currency laws, it simply would be the one or two most marketable assets or commodities - usually gold and silver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently we disagree on the definition of money.

 

You seem to view money as an abstract idea. But it is clear that such money could only evolve as an abstraction/perversion of, simply put, a very marketable asset. This was achieved mainly by banksters and politicians. So, what you think is money, simply is what they made you believe it is. Without them, without the laws that protect it, this kind of money would show its true face as an idea of no value.

 

Before the perversion of money by fractional reserve banking/naked shorting and fiat currency laws, it simply would be the one or two most marketable assets or commodities - usually gold and silver.

Well, I think the idea of money is fundamentally grounded in human nature/ culture... as opposed to just nature [obviously, all value is anthropocentric, so too monetary value]. That said, I reject the slide into relativism where anything is as good as anything else as money [or should I say currency]. I think the classic functional definitions of money hold up pretty well. But I would emphasis the role of culture here. For example, the Incas were surrounded by gold yet never thought of it as money and never developed a monetary culture. There needs to be first some cultural development [hence the reference to German idealism], from which a need for money emerges. Historically, gold has satisfied that need at the practical, and social, level providing the bedrock for economic development. Due to the functional and social nature of money, our modern currencies [essentially gold derivatives] can continue their momentum for some time....

 

edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, the Incas were surrounded by gold yet never thought of it as money and never developed a monetary culture.

There are other examples of cultures that had other moneys, or simply bartered at a more general level. Apparently, the Incas liked to use Cocoa beans and salt for barter, so one could possibly say it was money for them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are other examples of cultures that had other moneys, or simply bartered at a more general level. Apparently, the Incas liked to use Cocoa beans and salt for barter, so one could possibly say it was money for them too.

Yes, those various things may have functioned at the same time as money [inefficient/ self-sufficient barter]. But for efficient markets to emerge... and the division of labour, a currency needs to be established so the value of stuff can be standardized...

 

Perhaps you prefer the noble savage ideal to civilization? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, those various things may have functioned at the same time as money. But for efficient markets to emerge... and the division of labour, a currency needs to be established so the value of stuff can be standardized...

 

Perhaps you prefer the noble savage ideal to civilization? :)

I'd prefer competing currencies. For instance, the Sovereign (i.e. the British Pound) would be a perfectly good gold currency. In a free market, it would also be clear that its value would essentially be the value of fine gold content, i.e. other gold currencies like Krugerrands or Maples would be perfect substitutes. As such, gold would be the money, and its form as currency (coin) would just enhance its marketability. Bars of recognized assayers would work as well. But these currencies would essentially be "private". No one would be forced to use a particular currency, but anyone could obviously demand a particular currency as payment. CGT on money/currencies would need to be abolished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd prefer competing currencies. For instance, the Sovereign (i.e. the British Pound) would be a perfectly good gold currency. In a free market, it would also be clear that its value would essentially be the value of fine gold content, i.e. other gold currencies like Krugerrands or Maples would be perfect substitutes. As such, gold would be the money, and its form as currency (coin) would just enhance its marketability. Bars of recognized assayers would work as well. But these currencies would essentially be "private". No one would be forced to use a particular currency, but anyone could obviously demand a particular currency as payment. CGT on money/currencies would need to be abolished.

Perhaps preferences won't come into it, and practicalities will rule the day. A return to gold could see it become the [politically instituted... desperate measures/ desperate times] super-currency to which modern existing currencies will once again become representations at the appropriate level.

 

Coins/ bars of gold wouldn't be currencies but denominations of gold which you could happily sell for paper if you so wished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistake on CID? Silver eagles are cheapest 1oz coin. 500 cheaper than a monster box. Mistake IMO at £16.65......

 

Looks like the prices have settled for the weekend a bit lower than normal. Does anyone know where you can get Silver Eagles for less than £16.65?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a most excellent report from Ted Butler on KWN, at about 4:50 re silver he says could be ready for a big move up; and things are looking very tight on the COMEX - with lots of physical moving in and out to meed withdrawal demands. SLV he thinks they are having trouble getting hold of the metal. In watching the COMEX for 30 yrs he can't recall a time when there was such rapid turnover.

 

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Bro...3A19%3A2010.mp3

 

Big incease in open interest, but it was spread related and apparently these don't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just reading a short piece about Brazil in MoneyWeek.

 

"Brazil 'won't be immune'," it says, "to a renewed slide in global growth, says Morgan Stanley. That would be bad news for commodities, which are also threatened by a Chinese slowdown."

 

Further, in an item about copper:

 

"Then there's China, the biggest user of [copper]. Demand will soften as the government keep trying to reign in growth."

 

Is there a general downward trend in commodity prices incoming, and what do folks imagine the effect on silver will be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The C.I shops are back up to £17.99 for A.S.E's and Maples. A drop would be welcome for those guys now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gold_2_year_silver-7.png

 

Silver/ gold ratio looks like it wants to head back to 80. Will look to trade gold for silver at 80 and back again at 60. 50, or less, looks too optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gold_2_year_silver-7.png

 

Silver/ gold ratio looks like it wants to head back to 80. Will look to trade gold for silver at 80 and back again at 60. 50, or less, looks too optimistic.

 

good luck with the wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's up with silver? Both the 50 and 200 moving averages are flat-lining, threatening to roll over. Could be a buying op coming up. I'll be using the a gold/ silver ratio at about 80 to time my buying. Now 67.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telling point for silver here. Will be interesting how well it holds up. Could see a good trading range here.

 

Have to say, it's holding up better than I thought it would.

 

 

range2.gif

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

×