Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;V. Kurt Bellman, post: 2238644, member: 71723&quot;]Here are the fundamentals behind PM&#039;s as I see them. I paid many tens of thousands of dollars for a degree in economics, most of it (not all) from a thoroughly Keynesian emphasis, so you decide whether that makes me more or less worth listening to. I take no responsibility for your choices. My analysis is free, and appropriately priced.</p><p><br /></p><p>There are two kinds of significant physical delivery silver markets - industrial and let&#039;s call it monetary speculation. True numismatics, where the surfaces mean more than the metal itself, is a tiny fairly insignificant market.</p><p><br /></p><p>Industrial - still a shrinking market. Why? Legacy uses, which were HUGE compared to anything today (i.e. silver based imaging) is still decreasing faster than the admittedly more numerous newer uses. More different applications today; less total demand.</p><p><br /></p><p>Monetary speculation - supply is plentiful, although temporary imbalances still occur (means: sometimes there&#039;s a temporary shortage of the right kind of 1 ounce blanks). Demand is driven by both professional and amateur &quot;marketing&quot;, often aimed at a highly unique and easily targeted politically ideological audience. This audience is very well versed in what I call &quot;reasonable sounding but incorrect paleo-economic theory&quot;. In other words, the allegedly common-sense economics of the street. 90%+ of it is pure hogwash, but many people believe it. This school of thought is hung up on key dates in silver&#039;s, and gold&#039;s, monetary history. 1913, 1933, 1965, &amp; 1971 can send these adherents into apoplexy.</p><p><br /></p><p>There you have it. I see the fundamentals of silver still very bearish, even in a sub-$15 world. Silver had a glory period as &quot;poor man&#039;s gold&quot; when a fully justified FEAR of inflation hit in the aftermath of the 2008-09 economic crisis. As it turns out, Bernanke and the Fed were far too light on their policies. The crisis called for interest rates of NEGATIVE 6% per annum, or a huge QE. We all know which the Fed chose. It&#039;s also one part of the reason the recovery is so anemic. QE wasn&#039;t quick enough or big enough.</p><p><br /></p><p>What&#039;s next? I personally believe even $18 trillion in debt is no big deal IF we go full bore on policies for economic GROWTH. Here&#039;s where it gets sticky. Too many people have &quot;bought in&quot; to a &quot;sustainability&quot; or &quot;green&quot; mindset. Yes, if you&#039;re going to go all sustainability, you can&#039;t get the growth we need to handle the debt. Thing is - if it&#039;s really a global problem, the growth may as well be here as in some third world country. If you can&#039;t avoid &quot;green&quot;, then yes, you really need to worry about debt. I&#039;d advocate for pure big honkin&#039; American GROWTH.[/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