...and down she goes!

Yes, we maybe right, and we maybe wrong, and there may be variables that are unknown (incomplete information) but the most important part to understand is that it is not a coin toss either. The whole game is about playing the odds. The odds right now are in favor of PM's falling and Equities rising as per reasons previously explained. The good news is, you don't even need to be right all the time (few if any are) and you can still be wildly successful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

alea iacta est

 

Except I'm not crossing the Rubicon with an army. Just me, my wife a dog and a cat...

 

Not a permabull at all sir. PM is a great asset to own, "at the right price". I think you did very well sir. I probably would have bought halves for 16 times face as well, (especially just a roll for fun).

 

Nah, even the most bearish here (me) knows silver can't go down forever. My gut is telling me we still have a bit to go, but calling bottoms is for fools, so I have no issue with a little DCA here. The key IMO is to do just as you did, and refuse to pay a large premium. The collapse of those out sized premiums was as sure as the sun coming up tomorrow.

Mike

 

As an aside, I would label a permabull as someone who believes pm is a good purchase regardless of price. Someone who believes owning pm at any conversion value to "worthless" paper is always the right move. They believe long term such a swap cannot help but be a winning trade.

Maybe they are right, maybe i am too old fashioned, maybe they will end up being right. However, the error in their logic is assuming I will be keeping my dollars as dollars. I do not. I keep them as stocks, land, bonds, and pm. So its never a choice between FRN and PM, but between PM and other assets. As such, there is a limit of how much land I will sell in exchange for 1000 ounces of silver.

Make sense?

 

I think another flaw in logic has to do with the assumption that wealth will be measured in ounces. As far as we know, if this so called, collapse ever happens, we may be measuring wealth in bullets, at least they are useful. To think you can predict what will be valued in uncharted waters is really a stretch. I get this mental picture in my head, of a stacker trying to acquire nails and shingles to fix their leaky roof in the doomsday scenario, they proudly pull out their ASE's in offer to barter and the merchant just laughs and says, "What the heck do you expect me to do with them?" It could happen........

 

http://www.usagold.com/germannightmare.html

If history teaches anything, it is that government cannot be trusted to manage money. When currency is not redeemable in gold, its value depends entirely on the judgment and the conscience of the politicians. (That is the situation in this country today.)
Especially in an economic crisis or a war, the pressure to inflate becomes overwhelming. Any alternative may seem politically disastrous. Whether it be the Roman emperors repeatedly debasing their coinage, the French revolutionary government printing a flood of assignats, John Law flooding France with debased money, or the Continental Congress issuing money until it was literally "not worth a Continental," the story is similar. A government in financial straits finds its easiest recourse is to issue more and more money until the money loses its value. The entire process is accompanied by a barrage of explanations, propaganda and new regulations which hide the true situation from the eyes of most
[TABLE="width: 280, align: left"]

[TH="width: 278"][/TH]

German national currency (1920s)​

[/TABLE]

people until they have lost all their savings.

 

I have heard that logic many times from people who believe that whisky is also more 'barter-able' than silver. Sure, maybe immediately following a collapse, silver may not have as much value as, say some food staples, I would think that it would soon regain bartering value. There is inherent value in the metal itself, and at some point the ability to use it as barter would resume.

I guess the message is that it will take more than silver bullion to be prepared. Extra food, ammunition, medicines and gasoline will be needed more immediately than silver. Just make sure there is some of that too!

I am not a 'prepper' per se, but am prepared to some degree.

There are many points to keep in mind, especially watching the perimeter of the property!! :sniper:

 

I don't know about the collapse scenario, because it seems to be collapsing already. I don't really know if silver will have barter value, but it might. I plan on selling it and buying food in about 5 years anyway. Whatever happens it's a good thing to put some of my money into. It's a tangible asset, like land. I think land has it's problems because there are high maintenance costs, but it's nice to have a little.

 

Well yeah, I certainly agree with most of that except the point about metal having an "inherent" value. It only has true value if there is a use for it. In the case of this theoretical total collapse, industrial and commercial demand would evaporate, and in that case, metal would just be reduced to another form of fiat. That is a bitter pill for the stacker crowd but it is the truth.

To further the point, it is a common myth that metal, specifically gold, was always valued by all cultures. This is just not true as gold was considered worthless to the Native Americans who resided in what was to be California. It was not until the Europeans arrived that they placed a value on it.

I have another mental picture in my head of a young Native American Brave finding a large gold nugget in a stream, and then throwing it back in the water thinking, "Too soft for an Arrowhead" As the young Brave got older and he "learned" the Europeans valued it, he now thought " Stupid White Man"

 

The Aztecs valued gold before the Europeans ever reached them.

I think the native americans are actually the exception to the rule. I believe Chinese also valued gold/silver, not 100% sure on that one though. They certainly have a very strong culture of gold and silver in both India and China currently.

 

Well, there are more "exceptions" also. The aboriginal people also placed no value on gold, and I could keep going on and on. Like I said, it is a myth that all cultures valued it. So how could something with "inherent" value not be valued by everyone? It simply cannot. Something that has real inherent value such as something that can be used for nourishment like "blueberries" for example would indeed be valued by everyone.

 

The Aztecs valued gold, but not as monetary exchange, nor did they seem to have as much as is often thought. Much of it seems to be a low gold karat mixture including copper and silver. Most of Aztec gold was for jewelry and decorations, with Cacoa beans being superior to metals. The Spanish tried to get them to convert to metal so they could follow them to their mines, which didn't happen. The natives dumped the metal coins into the lakes.

I guess they didn't see the 'inherent value' in the precious metals , preferring the 'fiat value' of plant products

Much of the misunderstanding comes from the fact that the spanish were sent to find riches, so they wrote history to validate their conquest. How could they tell the Queen that the indians preferred beans?


http://www.allabouthistory.org/aztec-civilization.htm

http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/1238-did-you-know-lots-of-real-aztec-gold-was-only-tumbaga

 

I agree. A "value" is very arbitrary. Most native cultures placed a value on gold, but almost none placed as high a value as europeans. Its like saying natives valued gold at $50 an ounce, but europeans at $1400. Both placed a value, but not at the same rate. A very high value of gold is a learned trait for the most part, starting with Babylonian priests.

 

It appears that the less advanced societies were the ones that didn't value gold, perhaps if they had developed further they would of eventually valued it.

 

Agreed its a learned trait of course. Once a society develops they figure out that they need a medium of exchange "money", and gold does a very good job as money. Which is why to this day its still valued as money by many.

 

I mentioned this in another thread : from the ANS vol. 1 , 2013 on Coinage in Tenochtitlan ( Mexico City post-spaniards) : ( The Mexica people later known as the Aztecs): When the spanish arrived in 1519, they described the city as

Vol. 1, pg 7. Of course it didn't take the Spaniards church and soldiers long to destroy a great heritage ( my words).

I disagree, I think you have it backwards. True the more advanced society lost in the warfare, but their heritage shows the differences except for Euro-centric viewpoint of history. IMO.

 

Well the Aztecs did value gold, it simply wasn't used as currency, much like today.