What is this guy talking about

Not true.

Germany's starting of WWII was their consistent violation of the Treaty of Versailles by instead of annexing the German areas of border countries to Germany, they annexed the entire border country.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I agree with him on one thing, you should never put all your eggs in the proverbial precious metals basket. It's always wise to carry a diversified portfolio. Aside from that, I think the way a person speaks with typed words is a complete reflection of his/her actual personality. In that case, what a ...

 

He's right about copper not considered a precious metal, it's an ore much like iron. Something that popped up on the scene, at least here locally not sure where else, are these 10 oz copper rounds with the designs of the LMC, and Morgan dollar on them. The sellers are marketing these as sound investments. However, realistically, they are not sound at all.

Both statements are correct. What will happen to everyone who went on a buying frenzy when silver spiked to over $40 an ounce if silver should drop say, another $15-$18 an ounce?

Big losses!

Politely being derogatory towards you.

 

I also believe the poster is correct in many of his assertions. My only disagreement would be how PM is going down for 1000 years. He IMHO is a little misled. It has been going down in terms of real value to vertain degrees for a few hundred years due to both new supplies, (CA gold rush, Comstock lode, etc), as well as advancements in technology. To ignore those factors and simply say its in general been going down for 1000 years is misleading at best.

As for his tone, he sounds like a jerk, but to be honest I don't know what your post was before his response Jason. That is why I won't throw him under the bus, I am only hearing one snippet of a conversation and there are conversations here that if you just take one snippet I would sounds like a righteous SOB. Without context, I do not know why he was being so rude.

My take at least.

Chris

 

That is the direct reason, but I would argue those nations enforcing such rules enacted in the Treaty of Versailles and the treaty itself, (cough**France**cough), were the reasons for the Weimars inability to keep a person like Hitler from power. When people are put into deperate situations they make desparate choices in leadership many times.

Thankfully we learned this lesson and did not impose such treaties to end WWII, and have had many decades of peace because of it, (Soviet Union is a different issue).

 

I'll agree with that.

+1

 

Thank you for all of the replies. I didn't take offense to his comments, and I thought they were kind of funny. He is a top contributor on yahoo answers in the investing category. I jokingly stated that because of inflation I would be a billionaire at a younger age than he would, and he has responded as a militant ever since. His usual tactics are attacking my lack of grammar. I'll inquire about the 1,000 year PM value and see what his insights are.

 

If he wants to get too "historical", I will go down that path with him if you wish Jason. Dude better have a pretty nice library if he wants to make that bet with those odds with me.

Not trying to brag, sorry it its sounds like that, I just have many references on Chinese, ancient Roman, and medieval monetary policies and what affects bullion shortages/surpluses had on their economies over many centuries. Its kind of a specialized area, so I am doubting he is as versed as he thinks he is, that's all I meant.

Chris

 

There's really no way he, or anyone else for that matter, would be able to gauge the value of PMs 1000 years ago. Countries in Europe, Asia,and the African continent used gold and silver as a monetary system, and there was also coinage of those times at some point, but remember one thing, the U.S. is not that old.

 

If you want to look at it in general, you don't have to go back 1000 years. Lets just go back 150 years! People hoarded the real value (gold and silver) and got rid of the paper as fast as they could because most people didn't trust it and didn't want it.

150 years later you have a guy that's been born and raised on paper, who lives and dies by it and thinks he's the end all source of historic information on the value of PMs. He's too sophisticated to care about PMs. I think he is shallow minded and not seeing big picture. Paper can be created out of thin air and manipulated. There's no easier way to lose everything than to just own paper.

Not saying gold and silver is the end all be all, but he's certainly not giving them the credit they are due.

 

Sounds to me like he was just blowing steam a bit. Is he even a buyer of PM's? Doesn't sound like it to me, maybe he is a pusher of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). That's what it sounds like to me.

 

Since the source of this was on Yahoo answers, that pretty much tells me this guy is full of hot air and nothing more.

Yahoo is loaded with trolls.

 

Regarding the OP, I would say that most of what the guy said is correct from a historical persepctive on PMs and the USD. But that might not provide any useful information about what to do for the next year, or decade, or tomorrow.

PMs have to be traded to do better than inflation. They got way too cheap in the 1990s and spent a decade playing catch up. Now they probably are about fairly valued, but it still looks like a bull market to me so I plan to hold for awhile [with no illusions about the gold to the moon nonsense].

And Greece isn't the US and the US isn't Weimar. The US Treasury and Fed have much more control over the value of the currency and its issuance than Greece or 1920 Germany. I don't really see that changing soon, although other problems exist.

Making money in the markets isn't easy, and I'll bet the friend isn't better than average at it.

 

I see a lot of Allen Glick in Bernanke.

 

Sounds like a chapter out of "The Producers"...........

 

Gold is going to the moon eventually, just a matter of how long...5 years 10, 20 a 100 ect. How is the USA ever gonna pay off its debt anyway other than money printing (which should lower the value of the dollar?) Gold is valued in dollars so its not so much gold going up in value but the dollar is going down and golds price goes up as a result.

The Fed is clearly not interested in ever increasing the value of the dollar. Since the Feds creation Gold has went from $20 to $1600 currently.....next stop the moon....(but seriously that is what an 80x increase in the last almost a 100 years.) I don't see any reason to not expect another 80x increase (probably more considering the US debt problems). Of course none of us will probably be alive in a hundred years but I don't think it would be crazy to expect a $128,000 gold price, likely much higher, but that would be the same 80x increase as the preceding 100 years.

 

the guy has some good points but I think he's just using those points for cover as an internet troll...I'd just tell him to buzz off and learn how to be civil toward others...

 

Ahh well, that explains it.

 

Regarding the debt, in the first place there is no reason to believe that it will ever be paid off - at least not in the lifetime of anyone here. Second, it seems highly probable that if the debt is liquidated someday, it will be by using the time-honored method of default. And third, assume that the debt is repaid by printing money. Since most of the money will be going to other central banks and institutional investors who will reinvest the proceeds in other investments, the result may be a general rise in asset values without necessarily triggering a hyperinflation event. For example, if a major pension fund receives cash for their T-Bonds, they aren't going to spend it on consumer goods or even adjust their payouts. They'll just reinvest it in the global stock, bond, real estate and other markets.

So there is no real reason why the present system cannot continue for another century with acceptable inflation rates and a gradual fall in the value of the dollar, much as we have experienced over the past 100 years.

 

First, yeah duh it went from $20 to $1600, so what? That is over a 100 year time span? A US Treasury would have done about the same if you reinvested interest. Stocks performed better than that. You are taking two different things, (dollars in different time frames), and comparing them to each other. In an inflationary monetary system a dollar bill is not supposed to be your store of value, it should be invested in something.

Regarding gold being priced at $128,000, yeah if we keep the same currency it will be. Bread will also go from $.05 to $3 today, and probably $240 someday. Your wages will also increase, so what the heck is the difference?

Yes, if someone wants to put a $100 bill in their wallet and be able to buy the same goods for that $100 forever, they are in trouble. However, I do not see gold any more expensive versus wages today than it was when the Fed began. Prices of something mean nothing if not adjusted to either current dollars, or to relative wage earning of the same period. Its just like people drolling over being able to buy a coin priced today at $1000 100 years ago for $4. Well, there is a darn good chance that $4 back then was just as hard to come by as $1000 today, so that coin really was not any cheaper.