The NOT Wall Street Perspective

Cloud,

Is it really that unreasonable to ask someone to be forthcoming about info provided? When a statement is made and presented as fact, there has to some degree of accountability. If the "proof" is not easily obtainable, that is OK too, as long as when challenged, the poster states that. The reader now has better context to judge the statement. I also don't have a problem, if someone posts an erroneous statement, but when challenged, sees his mistake and man's up. In addition, opinions, personal theories, etc, are all good, as long as presented as such. JMHO

Mike

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hey Peace,

Glad you are talking with me again, and I am happy to say on this point we are in total agreement.

Mike

 

I believe so, which is why I posted. It's too much work to try to keep files to source every statement unless that is what you do for a living. I used to keep a lot of files of interesting information and statistics, but I threw it all out. What is important is in my mind, and if someone wants to reject something I tell them without researching it themselves, that is their right [and loss] The responsibility for checking lies with the recipient of information.

 

If you had been around these parts for some of my older posts you would know that I have no problem owning up when I am wrong. I welcome the truth in whatever shape it takes and I would rather see the truth be widely known than toot my own horn. Any opportunity I have to improve my own understanding is a welcome addition. It is not unreasonable to ask for sources for information. I do recall now that I first heard the information in questoin from futuremoneytrends.com if that is beneficial.

 

I will say you are very good at that sir, and many aren't.

I would simply point out that your quote from your previous post, "I have read so many different places I am certain of it", though was the entire intent of my story I related on Hoover. I could probably find 1000 different "sources" today that say he was a crossdresser.

Numbers of citations, or amounts of websites stating something does not make it true. Repetition of a lie is still a lie. That is why I was simply warning you, if you wish to make a certain "fact" the cornerstone of your investment strategy, I would strongly encourage you to make sure for yourself it is indeed true. Heck, maybe it is, and you are fine, I am simply saying if a certain statement is critically important to your thinking its always best to check the source carefully yourself.

We always believe things we wish to believe readily, and remember them since they reinforce our world view. I do this all of the time. Just a few months ago I read a PhD dissertation explaining how the Hepthalites were a heterogeneous population. This statement was critical to explaining many inconsistencies, so I readily latched onto it and accepted it as truth. Only later did I force myself to go through the work of looking at his sources WHY he believes that to be true. I wanted to believe it so much, I didn't wish to question the statement.

Like I said sir, not saying a word about your PM investment beliefs at all. I just wished to use this opportunity to warn you about this human tendency and how it can be manipulated and lead us astray.

Chris

 

Thankfully this particular bit of information is only a small fraction of my overall sentiment, so it doesn't make or break my stance per my post on the first page. Whether or not the bit about the 700 year mark is accurate, it is also independent of many other sources that may also fall into the same trap of a repeated lie, but it is widely repeated that above ground available refined silver is less than a year's worth of mining supply. The important fact that rises to the top here is that demand has exceeded supply nearly every year for decades and decades which is not a sustainable path.

 

Thanks Inflexion,

Just for the record, I did do my research. What I found was this is extremely difficult to prove either way. It seems, we really do not have a good handle on how much silver is above ground NOW, let alone 700 years ago. There are many different claims on the above ground supply. Also there are many twisted facts. Folks can't even agree on what to count. I have found a number across a few sites including and article on the Kitco site that states around 600 million ounces of investment grade silver is available. That number some might say is quite low but it is talking about INVESTMENT grade silver. They are not talking about ASE's etc. etc. They are only speaking about the BIG bars, so the number may be accurate, but really not very helpful. When you bring in coins, jewelery, art type items, and other recoverable silver, it seems it becomes just a guess. These numbers seem to range from 5 billion to 20 billion ounces.

In addition the numbers from 700 years ago are pretty much a guess also. I did mange to find a claim from the CPM group there were a bit over 3 billion ounces in Christopher Columbus day, but again, since we don't know how much silver we have now, it seems doubtful the number is accurate.

So in conclusion I do not think it is possible to make a factual statement that there was more silver above ground 700 years ago. It really is not logical, since there were only 360 million people in the world then, most who were poor, and we are now closing in on 7 Billion. It is my guess that the original premise came from the fact of 600 Million ounces of INVESTMENT grade silver available today and it was twisted or like I said earlier, they are talking about bullion equivelent and are speaking ounces per person.

 

Mikem, I do agree with your entire post with one exception, which is that the statement being made was that there was more above ground available refined silver 700 years ago. This generally does not include coins, because most of them are hoarded and not available on the market. Even bars would be hit or miss depending on the situation. There used to be an enormous government stockpile which is no longer the case. At this point in order for demand to be met the non-available silver must be purchased in order for it to become available. It's not just sitting there waiting to be utilized. That is the key difference, the stockpiles. Obviously all the silver ever mined is still around somewhere, but availability is the caveat.

 

But I thought the government stockpiles were used to either back up currency or only to be used in case of wartime. That is what most official government stockpiles are used for, not to be there just in case industry in peace time runs low. I don't remember Ft Knox getting emptied in 1980 when prices spiked much higher than today.

 

Yes, I agree that the ratio of above ground silver in terms of mining supply is low. I will not split hairs with you on over a year, under a year, six month's etc. since it is really how you count it, but if all silver production would stop, we would not have much of a buffer until we ran out. Now while you may view that as a problem for long term supplies, I view it as just the opposite. Now first off, this relatively small above ground supply can play havoc with the short term prices, no doubt about that and we have seen that. Long term is a bit different. Think of it this way. If all the above ground gold in the world were to theoretically disappear, it may take 100 years to fill the void and there would be upward pressure on gold prices for a very long time. For silver, we would be back in buisness in a year. The fact that we can refresh depleted supplies quickly is not bullish for silver long term.

 

This is true of gold, but silver stockpiles were depleted after it was demonetized so it's not in that boat.

 

I just don't agree. That's like saying someone on life support doesn't need to eat. Yes we have gotten by so far, but just because it doesn't take much to get silver back to hanging by the skin of its teeth doesn't mean that's a good place to be, and as I've said before the current trajectory is not sustainable longterm. And yes, silver can be restored much more quickly than gold, but it is also used up at a much higher rate. Gold isn't used nearly as much as silver industrially. Most of it is in bank vaults and most of it that has ever been mined is still in the market since central banks use it as their money. If demand disappeared then I would buy into your line of thinking, but I don't see that happening since silver is the hands down most useful metal for heat, electricity, and reflection.