Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1594637, member: 26302&quot;]REgarding the claim &quot;gold has never been a danger&quot;, one should read Solzhintsin. In the Gulag Archepelago he details how rich people who did not turn over their PM were sent to work camps in Siberia. A Bolshevik gulag is not what I would consider &quot;no danger&quot;. Other regimes around the world have done similarly, so I disagree that someone can hold gold danger free in any political climate. Even in the US, I believe it was criminally punishable to hold more gold than legally allowed from 1933 to the early 70&#039;s. Maybe not many, (or any), were caught and punished, but the point is they COULD HAVE been if the government got desperate enough.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>PM IS a good asset. Its great to hold if YOUR currency is collapsing but others are not. What is unknown is if ALL currencies is collapsing because of a worldwide event. In that case its unknown how much people will want pretty metals versus survival supplies, so no sense arguing over it. I hold PM as inflation protection, or as a way to survive if ONLY the greenback loses major value, and also as a contra asset. That&#039;s it, no other reason. Any other reason than that I do not believe has adequate support to justify its use. </p><p><br /></p><p>So, considering its good uses, its a nice play to have as a contra asset if your other assets decline. As a sole asset, though, I simply believe it has too much alpha risk to be a sole asset. Like some other assets, its valuable if held in conjunction with other assets, but too risky on its own.</p><p><br /></p><p>Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in