Discussion in 'Bullion Investing' started by Revi, Feb 3, 2013.
So you havent eaten since 1964? Bet you have wicked abs.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
This paper from Fekete Research explains things perfectly in my view, from Sandeep Jaitly on Austrian school of economics. It just makes a lot of sense to me. I first saw him discuss this on the Keiser Report, and have provided a couple short clips about this topic. Although there are more interviews with him that are just as worth watching.
As the paper in my previous post postulates to some degree, I agree with it that the concept of measuring valuation originated with gold (and silver too) as the baseline because it was always in surplus compared to what came out of the ground which stemmed from it's desirability as jewelry. The labor cost ensures it will always be representative of the same amount of work, and the fungibility+divisibility+durability+portability means not only will the metal last forever but so will the value regardless of what happens to it.
Not necessarily. Greece is using Tem coupons in addition to the Euro. There are a number of barter currencies there, and over 4,000 gold dealers in Attica. It just depends on what you need to be able to use the currency for, taxes or groceries?
"For each ounce of gold we have, we are
willing to accept the next ounce of gold on exactly the same terms"
I simply do not believe that is true of gold. Substitute oil in our modern economy and that would be closest in my view.
The entire premise of this paper is predicated on this statement, so therefor the paper in total I do not agree with. I agree with many of the actions as theorized, I just do not believe they pertain to gold.
I also hesitated there, but I don't think it undermines the premise which is that the baseline for valuation was derived out of precious metals. It could have been worded more accurately as "For each ounce of gold we have, we are willing to accept the same approximate amount of buying power in collateral". Oil gets used up and wouldn't have a growing surplus over time as gold does which was part of the reasoning behind the premise. I don't think you are focusing on the right aspects. It's fine if you don't agree with Austiran economics, but I ascribe to that as opposed to Keynesianism.
Same here. But I don't think I'll ever be interested in copper or nickel coins unless they are really exceptional. Lately, I have been buying large silver pieces like 8 reales and yen from the Meiji period, and I just bought a Napoleon 5 francs and Chinese silver dollar. These are big, thick coins with a decent melt value. But whenever I go overboard with numismatic, I remind myself to revert to buying bars or rounds to balance things out. I think semi-numismatic coins may do decent in the next leg of the silver bull run. They may not perform as well as bullion, but I want to snatch a good amount before they become unattainable by most of the middle class.
Apparently not, trillions printed to fund yearly deficits, everything is OK though!!! Dollar is king and will never fall, of course that is what they all say during their reign, but hey we are DIFFERENT!!
The government has 16 trillion dollars in debt with yearly deficits at around 1.1 trillion and probably going to increase. Don't see how that isn't going to cause at least moderate inflation, if not runaway hyperinflation at some point.
Never underestimate the governments ability to prop up a decaying system though, they truly are experts in the field.
Hard assets is where its at in my opinion. Gold/Silver/Land/Businesses that are more immune to currency collapse and recession.
Separate names with a comma.