# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Prosperity >  Gold / Silver dropping - your thoughts?

## Lord Xar

I know what most of you will say , "just buy.."

BUT, I am curious if you see it going further south?

currently --
gold: 1260
silver: 19

----------


## AFTFNJ

Let's see what happens tomorrow at 8 AM

----------


## Lord Xar

I should wake up early then :-)

----------


## mad cow

I am loving it.I own enough that I don't feel pressured to buy but not so much that I want to see the price rise yet.

I keep this website on a tab whenever I'm on the internet:
https://comparesilverprices.com

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Euro banks lowered rates, which raised the dollar, and dropped commodities (measured against dollars).

----------


## TheCount

You're only allowed to make threads when gold goes up and/or stocks go down.

Also, "manipulation"

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I am actually getting ready for a relatively big buy.  I am trying to decide when to pull the trigger.  it's @ $19 right now and the trigger finger is itching pretty hard...

----------


## Lord Xar

> I am actually getting ready for a relatively big buy.  I am trying to decide when to pull the trigger.  it's @ $19 right now and the trigger finger is itching pretty hard...


who do you usually go with?

I usually go with apmex (higher premium, but reliable), but last two buys were with amagi.

----------


## KCIndy

Buy now, if you have the means.

I'm betting $19 silver is going to look pretty good after the market implodes.

Anyone else see this on Drudge?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...eparing-market



> *Icahn, Soros, Druckenmiller, And Now Zell: The Billionaires Are All Quietly Preparing For The Plunge*
> 
> "The stock market is at an all-time, but economic activity is not at an all-time," explains billionaire investor Sam Zell to CNBC this morning, adding that, "every company that's missed has missed on the revenue side, which is a reflection that there's a demand issue; and when you got a demand issue it's hard to imagine the stock market at an all-time high." Zell said he is being very cautious adding to stocks and cutting some positions because "I don't remember any time in my career where there have been as many wildcards floating out there that have the potential to be very significant and alter people's thinking." Zell also discussed his view on Obama's Fed encouraging disparity and on tax inversions, but concludes, rather ominously, "this is the first time I ever remember where having cash isn't such a terrible thing." Zell's calls should not be shocking following George Soros. Stan Druckenmiller, and Carl Icahn's warnings that there is trouble ahead.


Damn, I'm sure glad my life is untroubled by worries about where to put my billions of dollars....

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> who do you usually go with?
> 
> I usually go with apmex (higher premium, but reliable), but last two buys were with amagi.


APMEX.  Right now they have any quantity APMEX 1oz silver bars at 89¢ over spot.  $19.95 a bar any quantity.  Only reason I haven't backed up the truck yet is I should be better off in the morning getting it wire instead of debit card tonight.  Once I ran my checks out setting up direct deposits I never bothered to buy any more. :-/

----------


## GunnyFreedom

pay 60¢ an ounce just to use my credit card? ugh.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Silver?  But I thought you wanted gold!

Well, I changed my mind!

----------


## Deborah K

We don't buy for profit, we buy silver for trading; gold for protection of wealth.  No matter how the markets are manipulated (and they are), when shtf, metals will help get us through it.

----------


## ctiger2

Gurwitz says it's going lower

It's really looking like Armstrong's gonna be right. The metals aren't really going anywhere til after 2015. A little over a year to go! The only problem is, I'm pretty sure we're not going to like the economic/political environment this rise in metal starts taking place in.

----------


## PRB

> I know what most of you will say , "just buy.."
> 
> BUT, I am curious if you see it going further south?
> 
> currently --
> gold: 1260
> silver: 19


barely.

it's been between 19 and 21 for how long now?

----------


## oyarde

> You're only allowed to make threads when gold goes up and/or stocks go down.
> 
> Also, "manipulation"


I buy metals and some stocks every week , regardless .

----------


## oyarde

> Silver?  But I thought you wanted gold!
> 
> Well, I changed my mind!


 LOL

----------


## PRB

> I buy metals and some stocks every week , regardless .


dollar cost averaging? betting on long term growth?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> We don't buy for profit, we buy silver for trading; gold for protection of wealth.


 Actually, that matches my view pretty closely and I think it a pretty wise way to look at it.

Silver, just as you say, Deb, is for trading in some sort of extreme scenario.  You don't need a ton of it.  A couple hundred dollars worth should be plenty.  With that small amount, you can easily store it at home, and in my opinion, you should.  You should get it in the form of one-ounce coins or old US coins with silver content (so-called "junk silver").  The one-ounce coins can come in convenient plastic containers you can use for storage.  I don't see silver as a good investment opportunity (my opinion!  I do have reasons for it, though!).  Having a little bit of silver like this is just like having a 72-hour kit, or other reasonable emergency preparedness supplies.  In fact, you could keep the silver _in_ your 72-hour kit.

Gold does well in the event of high price inflation in the US dollar (above about 6%).  Gold does extremely well in that event.  It responds more powerfully and reliably to inflation than any other asset we know of.  And so you should hold some gold so that in the event of high price inflation, your wealth will be protected.

We do not know if high inflation will come.  We do not know what the future will bring.  It will almost certainly not match our expectations of it.  But if you have a balanced and diversified portfolio, you are ready for anything.

25% gold in case there is inflation
25% long-term bonds in case there is deflation
25% total stock market funds in case there is prosperity
25% cash in case there is a recession

Nobody knows what's around the next river bend.  So why not be prepared for everything?  That's my conclusion.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Gurwitz says it's going lower
> 
> It's really looking like Armstrong's gonna be right. The metals aren't really going anywhere til after 2015. A little over a year to go! The only problem is, I'm pretty sure we're not going to like the economic/political environment this rise in metal starts taking place in.


There is no reason to believe any of these fortune teller's predictions.  They do not know the future.  Gurwitz's opinion is totally irrelevant.  If Armstrong is "right" it will be by sheer blind luck.

Stop listening to fortune tellers, people!

----------


## RJB

If you want to buy silver, buy some now.

I know some people who bought when shot to $ 20 in 2007 sold when it dropped.  Panicked and bought when it almost shot to $50, and then sold again when it dropped.

----------


## Ronin Truth

My thought is that I'd prefer that the prices were rising.

----------


## RJB

I also predict that by the end of the year gold will be somewhere between $20 and $5000 an ounce.  Mark my words!

----------


## Acala

I predict that in 2015 gold and silver will both continue to be metallic elements listed on the periodic table.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I also predict that by the end of the year gold will be somewhere between $20 and $5000 an ounce.  Mark my words!


What will you give us if it isn't?

----------


## RJB

> What will you give us if it isn't?


If it drops below $20, I'll give you a GAE.

If it goes above $5000 an ounce, good luck finding me in the Bahamas.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If it drops below $20, I'll give you a GAE.


 Yes!  Awesome!  Now don't try to weasel out.  I have it in writing!

Come on, crash, baby, crash!

----------


## Tod

better a little early than too late!

Mathematical certainty, says Bill Holter





John Williams thinks despite the Fed statement that inflation rather than bank bail-ins will be the future...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Seriously, Tod, more fortune-tellers?  Why do you think these guys have any insight into what the future holds?

Guess what: they don't!

Here's a challenge: dig up some predictions from this Bill Holter person and John Williams person from 10 years ago, no make it just 1 year ago.  See if _any_ of the forecasts they made were in any way correct.  I will bet you'll find these forecasts would not have had any value to you whatsoever.

These people do not know what's coming.  There may be a crash *or there may not be.*  Mathematical certainty?  That is absolutely ridiculous.  Totally, totally laughable.

If you want certainty in life, look for it elsewhere.  You're not going to find it in economics.

----------


## Tod

> Seriously, Tod, more fortune-tellers?  Why do you think these guys have any insight into what the future holds?
> 
> Guess what: they don't!
> 
> Here's a challenge: dig up some predictions from this Bill Holter person and John Williams person from 10 years ago, no make it just 1 year ago.  See if _any_ of the forecasts they made were in any way correct.  I will bet you'll find these forecasts would not have had any value to you whatsoever.
> 
> These people do not know what's coming.  There may be a crash *or there may not be.*  Mathematical certainty?  That is absolutely ridiculous.  Totally, totally laughable.
> 
> If you want certainty in life, look for it elsewhere.  You're not going to find it in economics.



You mean like this one where Jim Rogers correctly predicted last summer that gold and silver would continue to fall in this year?




I'll go look for more from Holter (that is the first I've seen him) and Williams.

So far, the numbers on the economy have been in keeping with what all these guys are saying, which is that the economic problems have not been solved; only delayed with QE.

----------


## oyarde

I have no idea , but , today I sold a little and bought a little more.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I still think metals are a bubble which is slowly deflating. They got pumped up massively during the Great Recession- prices quadrupled in about five years. That is a bigger and faster rise than housing prices during their bubble.   A world crisis stirs it up a bit and raises them back up but after the crisis stabilizes the prices of metals resume their declines.  Net effect for the year has actually been little to no change so far. (I haven't checked in a while but see gold broke below $1300 and is about $1270.)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You mean like this one where Jim Rogers correctly predicted last summer that gold and silver would continue to fall in this year?


 Yes, your misguided interpretation of Jim Rogers' statements as fortunetelling is exactly the kind of thing I'm speaking out against.

Jim, "you had foreseen the corrections that happened to gold."

No he did not, Daniella.  He would not claim to.  He didn't "foresee" anything.  He did not know the future.  He did not know what gold would be doing in 2013 back in 2011.  Just like the rest of us didn't.

He does make a prediction, unfortunately: "Gold is probably gonna continue to fluctuate here (rallies, of course) for another year or two, and then make its final bottom."  I find this unfortunate because he does not actually have any special insight into this matter, and because despite that fact most investors listening will nevertheless believe that he does and many will act on his words as if he does.

But he doesn't.

Jim tells the truth about this, as clearly and as plainly as he possibly could, and yet no one wants to hear the truth:

*"I'm the world's worst trader.  I'm the world's worst market timer.  So you should not be wasting your time asking me about gold."*

How much clearer could he be?  But you want to hold him up and say "look, he predicted the future."  No he didn't.  In fact, he predicted that he would be wrong.




> I'll go look for more from Holter (that is the first I've seen him) and Williams.
> 
> So far, the numbers on the economy have been in keeping with *what all these guys are saying*, which is that the economic problems have not been solved; only delayed with QE.


  "What all these guys are saying."  As if they're all one monolithic group.  As if they're all saying the same thing.  No, I am sorry, they are saying different things.  Some which could be mutually compatible, some which contradicts each other, and _a lot_ of which is vague and unactionable and contradicts other things they themselves are saying.

Then you say "the economic problems have not been solved," as if that would contradict anything that I think or have been saying.  Clearly I have totally and completely failed to help you understand _at all_ the ideas I'm trying to get across.  The economic problems of America are not "solved."  I agree with that.  Here is what I do not agree with:

1. Gold is going to go up this year -- or even in the coming five years.  It's a mathematical certainty.
2. Gold is going to go down this year -- or even in the coming five years.  They were in a bubble.  All the charts and fundamentals point to this.
3. Gold is going to muddle along about the same this year.  An analyst with a great track record said so.

Here is what I _do_ agree with:




> I have no idea

----------


## Tod

Helmuth, how do you like this one?  This guy really gets specific!

----------


## Acala

> I still think metals are a bubble which is slowly deflating. They got pumped up massively during the Great Recession- prices quadrupled in about five years. That is a bigger and faster rise than housing prices during their bubble.   A world crisis stirs it up a bit and raises them back up but after the crisis stabilizes the prices of metals resume their declines.  Net effect for the year has actually been little to no change so far. (I haven't checked in a while but see gold broke below $1300 and is about $1270.)


Housing prices were driven to a large extent by the creation of credit money.  There is relatively little credit money pumping up gold.  Not saying prices won't drop.  Just saying that housing is a fundamentally different animal than metals.

----------


## Zippyjuan

The price of gold was driven to a large extent by economic fears (and some political ones such as wars). As the fears decline, so does the price. In 1980 (the last bubble) the fear was high inflation which hit double digits (along with unemployment).  As the rate of inflation came down, so did the price of gold.

----------


## Acala

> The price of gold was driven to a large extent by economic fears (and some political ones such as wars). As the fears decline, so does the price. In 1980 (the last bubble) the fear was high inflation which hit double digits (along with unemployment).  As the rate of inflation came down, so did the price of gold.


Which is an entirely different matter than what drove housing prices, which was a combination of easy credit money and speculation.  So there really is not much comparison, although some of the increase in gold prices was also speculation.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Perhaps the cause is different but that does not make it less of a bubble.  The 1980 gold bubble deflated for 20 years.

----------


## PRB

ouch, it fell again today!

----------


## Acala

> Perhaps the cause is different but that does not make it less of a bubble.  The 1980 gold bubble deflated for 20 years.


As I said, I make no predictions about the price of gold.  My only point was that the comparison between the housing bubble and the price of gold is unsound.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Would you say that gold was NOT in a bubble? (price quadrupled in just a few years and today is one third down in price from its peak (as high as $1900- down to $1250 today)- pretty typical bubble activity). People started jumping in more simply because the price was going up as it went higher.   I think in behavior they are pretty similar. I would not say they were identical- no two bubbles are alike- but it is definately another bubble.

----------


## Acala

> Would you say that gold was NOT in a bubble? (price quadrupled in just a few years and today is one third down in price from its peak (as high as $1900- down to $1250 today)- pretty typical bubble activity). People started jumping in more simply because the price was going up as it went higher.   I think in behavior they are pretty similar. I would not say they were identical but it is definately another bubble.


I think the word "bubble" gets thrown around a lot without precision.  In my mind there are two types of bubbles.  The first is caused by the government and banks pouring fresh credit money into the market causing localized inflationary price increases.  The housing bubble is a perfect example.  The second type is caused by speculators trying to make a profit by following swift price increases not based on sustainable fundamentals.  The housing bubble had some of this as well, particularly at the end, but the type is better represented by the beanie baby bubble or the classic Tulip mania.  Bubbles have the characteristic of rapid price increases with no rational basis beyond the price increase itself followed by rapid drop off. 

Clearly the price increase in gold was not a "type one" bubble.  There WAS some of the "type two" bubble in it, but that has mostly fallen back out.  Certainly the price movements in the last few months look nothing like the price movements when housing collapsed. I think the current price of gold represents a combination of inflation that has already occurred and inflation anticipated for a variety of sound reasons.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Thanks for the comparisons. Both include specualtors- it is the speculation which drives most bubbles once prices get started moving.  The causes of the initial movement may vary but it is the speculators who fuel it- people buying with simply the idea of making money off buying it and selling it- not the idea of wanting to actually own it. True that gold has not had as dramatic of a decline as housing but it is still off significantly from its high (34%).  And as I added while you were thoughtfully composing your post, no two bubbles are alike anyways.

We are arguing over the cause and shape of the bubble- not asking if it is a bubble or not in the first place which was my point.

In terms of percent changes in prices, the movements on the upside and downside of the gold bubble are actually greater than the rise and fall of the housing market.

----------


## PRB

> I think the word "bubble" gets thrown around a lot without precision.  In my mind there are two types of bubbles.  The first is caused by the government and banks pouring fresh credit money into the market causing localized inflationary price increases.  The housing bubble is a perfect example.  The second type is caused by speculators trying to make a profit by following swift price increases not based on sustainable fundamentals.  The housing bubble had some of this as well, particularly at the end, but the type is better represented by the beanie baby bubble or the classic Tulip mania.  Bubbles have the characteristic of rapid price increases with no rational basis beyond the price increase itself followed by rapid drop off. 
> 
> Clearly the price increase in gold was not a "type one" bubble.  There WAS some of the "type two" bubble in it, but that has mostly fallen back out.  Certainly the price movements in the last few months look nothing like the price movements when housing collapsed. I think the current price of gold represents a combination of inflation that has already occurred and inflation anticipated for a variety of sound reasons.


a bubble is anything that is overpriced, overvalued, and then suddenly loses its overspeculated value. causes and how fast it rises and falls are different questions.

----------


## PRB

> Thanks for the comparisons. Both include specualtors- it is the speculation which drives most bubbles once prices get started moving.  The causes of the initial movement may vary but it is the speculators who fuel it- people buying with simply the idea of making money off buying it and selling it- not the idea of wanting to actually own it. True that gold has not had as dramatic of a decline as housing but it is still off significantly from its high (34%).  And as I added while you were thoughtfully composing your post, no two bubbles are alike anyways.


when government inflates a bubble, it's not speculation, it's causing it, fulfilling its own prophecy.

----------


## Lucille

Will Gold Still Go to $5000?
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/0...ll-go-to-5000/




> Yes  to answer a lot of questions. We still see the future rally in gold reaching the $5,000 level.


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/0...metals-report/

----------


## oyarde

I have no idea , but think we may be at the bottom on commodities . I continue on with my regular investments .

----------


## DFF

Silver's on the bottom of it's range of $21-$18 ounce for the past year. Excellent time to buy at a discount.

As far as what gold could eventually go to, $5000 is possible, but it wouldn't surprise me if the price went even higher.

Gold futures are leveraged 100-1, meaning for every 99 paper ounces, there's only 1 ounce of the real thing.

There's not enough gold to satisfy demand if there's a stampede to take physical delivery -- which there will be.

----------


## PRB

> Silver's on the bottom of it's range of $21-$18 ounce for the past year. Excellent time to buy at a discount.
> 
> As far as what gold could eventually go to, $5000 is possible, but it wouldn't surprise me if the price went even higher.
> 
> Gold futures are leveraged 100-1, meaning for every 99 paper ounces, there's only 1 ounce of the real thing.
> 
> There's not enough gold to satisfy demand if there's a stampede to take physical delivery -- which there will be.


yikes, another dip.

well, without a few thousand dollars, just because market price says $18.50 doesn't mean you can buy it $3 less than what it was when it was $21.50 yet. So hopefully this dip lasts.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Helmuth, how do you like this one?  This guy really gets specific!


  I don't feel any need to spend an entire 30 minutes with Harvey Organ and his thoughts, but he says that the price of gold and silver will go way up by the end of the year.  Come January, chances are good he will have to:

1. Admit to his customers he was wrong.  
2. Explain to them why the Martian spaceships threw off the market.
3. Claim that actually, what happened was yet another verification of what he's been predicting.  One more feather in the cap of his stellar track record.

Actually, the chances of 1. happening are very low.  Fortune-tellers are delusional, or they think they must pretend to be.  He will not admit he was wrong.  Anathema!  He will be on USA Watchdog again in 2015 explaining how everything he ever said has been totally correct and sharing more secrets on what's inevitable to happen next.  Just look at Shanghai!  _Inevitable_, I tell you!

If this guy really knew what was going to happen, if he really was smarter than the market, he wouldn't be wasting his time web-cam chatting with USA Watchdog.

Look, you are not going to listen to me.  I am not going to convince you.  You like listening to these guys.  Great.  They tickle your ears by telling you exactly what you want to hear.  Wonderful.  But here's my advice to you, and to all of you:

If you feel bullish on something -- let's say, oh, gold for example -- take the time to listen to the opposite outlook.  Find someone who is bearish on the thing you're bullish on, and furthermore make it someone you can respect so that you can really consider their opinion and the reasons for it.  You owe this to yourself.  If you only hear one side of the fortune-telling story 24 hours a day, you are liable to feel an extreme urgency and have a distorted perspective, both of which are liable to lose you a lot of money.  

This doesn't mean the bear is right.  Doesn't mean the bulls are right.  It just means that you should get a full range of perspectives to alert you to possible futures which you may not have considered.  If you only hear one perspective asserting over and over that one particular future is inevitable, you may come eventually to take that assertion seriously!  

And you shouldn't.  You really shouldn't.

----------


## Original_Intent

Buy fear and sell greed.

If you are afraid, buy!
If you are feeling greedy, sell!

This honestly has worked well for me. I have lost a lot doing the opposite, and made a lot following it.

Oh yeah, BTFD FTW.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I don't feel any need to spend an entire 30 minutes with Harvey Organ and his thoughts, but he says that the price of gold and silver will go way up by the end of the year. Come January, chances are good he will have to:
> 
> 1. Admit to his customers he was wrong. 
> 2. Explain to them why the Martian spaceships threw off the market.
> 3. Claim that actually, what happened was yet another verification of what he's been predicting. One more feather in the cap of his stellar track record.


Nah- he will just say he was wrong on the timing.  I still stand by my early guess that by the end of they year we will be much closer to $1000 an ounce than $2000- let alone $5000.  I think even Peter Schiff doesn't say $5000 an ounce anymore. 

Actually looks like he may still be saying $5000 as well.  This was in April:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pet...000-2014-04-25




> Q: Before this year began, what were your expectations for gold prices and how does that compare with the metal’s performance year to date?
> 
> Schiff: I thought that the selloff in 2013 was completely out of touch with reality, so I expected the price to rise this year. In this, I was virtually alone in the financial community. Just about every major investment house had predicted even more losses for gold in 2014.
> 
> So far this year, gold is the best-performing asset class, but I think the pullback we have seen over the last few weeks is just another indication of how much negative sentiment remains. Ultimately however, the fundamentals will prevail. The Fed will keep printing [dollars] and gold will keep rising.
> 
> Q: In a recent interview with CNBC, you said the Federal Reserve’s quantitative-easing program will push gold to $5,000 an ounce. Could you explain that a bit further? What’s your time frame for that forecast? [Watch: Gold bear takes on bug: ‘You’re miles off base’]
> 
> I believe the consensus expectation that the U.S. recovery is real and that the Fed will end its [quantitative-easing] program and normalize interest rates is wrong.Over the past few years the Fed had become [a] serial mover of goal posts, delaying the decision to end stimulus more than anyone would have predicted. When the Fed has to admit that its forecast of a sustained recovery is wrong, it will come to the aid of a faltering economy with even more QE. When that happens, gold will rally.
> ...


He has been saying his timing is off since 2011- it is still coming. Promise.  Buy gold from me and be protected. 




> First off, Schiff’s gold forecast isn’t brand new. The author of “The Real Crash — America’s Coming Bankruptcy” has talked about the possibility of gold hitting $5,000 or higher since at least 2011, when prices for the metal topped $1,900 in intraday trading. Schiff reiterated his call on the potential for $5,000 gold and beyond during a heated debate with Paul Krake of View from the Peak on CNBC’s “Futures Now” episode posted on April 15.


Gold is still falling today- as of right now below $1240 an ounce.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Gold averaged around $275 a little over 10 tens years ago.  It now hovers around 4-5 times that amount.  I don't know anything about anything, but I really don't think it will ever go back to that $275 mark.

----------


## TheCount

> If you feel bullish on something -- let's say, oh, gold for example -- take the time to listen to the opposite outlook.  Find someone who is bearish on the thing you're bullish on, and furthermore make it someone you can respect so that you can really consider their opinion and the reasons for it.  You owe this to yourself.  If you only hear one side of the fortune-telling story 24 hours a day, you are liable to feel an extreme urgency and have a distorted perspective, both of which are liable to lose you a lot of money.


Well said.  It seems to me that for a lot of liberty-minded people, market expectations are now completely decoupled from market reality.  Instead, ideology is the main factor driving expectations.  I believe X, therefore the market must do Y.  Works great if X is the only factor in the economy, but real markets are vastly more complicated than that.

It's almost the exact opposite of the dot-com bubble, actually, where hope and belief replaced rational investing.  Just replace hope with doom.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Gold averaged around $275 a little over 10 tens years ago.  It now hovers around 4-5 times that amount.  I don't know anything about anything, but I really don't think it will ever go back to that $275 mark.


Everything is going down! Gold will be $275. A gallon of gas and a gallon of milk will be $1. A Whopper or Big Mac burger will be $.99. The size of a box of cereal will grow. Budweiser will be $5.99 a 12 pack. All is well.

Am I doing it right Zippy?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

BTW, silver is close to breaking through to the downside.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

Everything is dropping on dollar strength including oil. I do not think it will not last and Gold and Silver will go up from here.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> BTW, silver is close to breaking through to the downside.


We've been going back and forth at these levels since the April 2013 smashdown. 

Think about this... we've touched these levels in November 2013, December 2013, January 2013, May 2014, June 2014, and now September 2014. 

Back and forth it goes the banks make the market and keep burning the specs back and forth. This has been going on forever and it's pure market manipulation. I'm loving these levels and i'm still stacking. Who cares what they smash the price to we're at sub 19 and that's damn cheap.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Silver broke through the 2014 low, closing at 18.70 today.

18.61 was the beat-down low of 2013.

----------


## PRB

> Silver broke through the 2014 low, closing at 18.70 today.
> 
> 18.61 was the beat-down low of 2013.


it's all iPhone's fault.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Gold hit seven month low at $1248 close in NY.

----------


## oyarde

> Everything is dropping on dollar strength including oil. I do not think it will not last and Gold and Silver will go up from here.


Oil and corn are low , gasoline and diesel are not .

----------


## oyarde

> Gold hit seven month low at $1248 close in NY.


Right now , probably only up $35 from last New Year's Eve .

----------


## oyarde

Think I will go take a look around tomorrow , see what I can get .

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Silver broke through the 2014 low, closing at 18.70 today.
> 
> 18.61 was the beat-down low of 2013.


It opened under the magic 18.61, but went up. A buy signal for many, and probably won't close under 18.61.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Wow. Gold dropped below $1230 today.

----------


## Vanguard101

My thoughts are you should buy now. I wish I had a spare 20 grand to invest in gold

----------


## Zippyjuan

Nobody knows if this is a bottom or not.  It could continue or it could change direction.  History never repeats but the last time we had a gold bubble in 1980, prices worked their way down (moving up and down along the way) for the next 20 years.

----------


## Carson

_"Gold / Silver dropping - your thoughts?"_


Buy Mortimore! Buy!


Then again the stock market seems perched at a the edge of a cliff and we have the Argentina domino falling. It could be time to get back into stocks a few months after some currency crashes out of the system and the market has finished adjusting.

----------


## oyarde

> It opened under the magic 18.61, but went up. A buy signal for many, and probably won't close under 18.61.


I picked up a couple 1800's silver half dimes and an 1899 half , probably go back wed for some more half dimes

----------


## PRB

> I picked up a couple 1800's silver half dimes and an 1899 half , probably go back wed for some more half dimes


back then they actually called them half dimes. not nickels *mindblown*

----------


## oyarde

> back then they actually called them half dimes. not nickels *mindblown*


Yes , half dimes ( and even the 3 cent pc.'s then ) , were silver , nickels came along  ( made from nickel ) , around 1866 if I recall ( due to lobbyists )  , my two 1853 , silver Half Dimes I bought today , from the new Orleans mint and Philadelphia mint were silver  , and , later , the three cent pc.'s were no longer made of silver , your first example of currency devaluation after the penny went from a large cent to a small cent, which was  about ten years earlier , if I recall . The three cent , if I remember was the price of a stamp . I have a beautiful Two cent pc  ( 1867), it is the first to have , In God We Trust .

----------


## Jim Casey

Gold and silver prices will continue to drop through the end of 2014, and will bottom around $10 silver and $1000 gold by early 2015. Then things will get interesting...

Rand Paul will announce his candidacy for US President, and precious metals prices will begin to rapidly rebound.  By the time Rand wins the nomination for the Republican Party, precious metals prices will be beyond the stratosphere with silver at $100 and gold at $5000.  Once Rand wins the general election metals prices will have passed the mesophere with $300 silver and $10000 gold.  When Rand is sworn in as President of the United States, the metals will pass through the thermosphere with $500 silver and $12000 gold.

By the end of Rand's first term gold and silver will have finished their trip to the moon.  Silver prices will be $1000 and gold prices will establish a permanent lunar colony at $20000.  During Rand's second term, silver will rocket from the lunar colony established by gold and make its way to Mars, landing there at a cool million per troy ounce once Rand leaves the White House.

----------


## oyarde

> Gold and silver prices will continue to drop through the end of 2014, and will bottom around $10 silver and $1000 gold by early 2015. Then things will get interesting...
> 
> Rand Paul will announce his candidacy for US President, and precious metals prices will begin to rapidly rebound.  By the time Rand wins the nomination for the Republican Party, precious metals prices will be beyond the stratosphere with silver at $100 and gold at $5000.  Once Rand wins the general election metals prices will have passed the mesophere with $300 silver and $10000 gold.  When Rand is sworn in as President of the United States, the metals will pass through the thermosphere with $500 silver and $12000 gold.
> 
> By the end of Rand's first term gold and silver will have finished their trip to the moon.  Silver prices will be $1000 and gold prices will establish a permanent lunar colony at $20000.  During Rand's second term, silver will rocket from the lunar colony established by gold and make its way to Mars, landing there at a cool million per troy ounce once Rand leaves the White House.


Sounds a bit high , but I can work with that , LOL

----------


## DFF

Once John Q public realizes that the Fed is bluffing about raising interest rates, then you will see a strong rebound in gold and silver.

----------


## Carson

> Yes , half dimes ( and even the 3 cent pc.'s then ) , were silver , nickels came along  ( made from nickel ) , around 1866 if I recall ( due to lobbyists )  , my two 1853 , silver Half Dimes I bought today , from the new Orleans mint and Philadelphia mint were silver  , and , later , the three cent pc.'s were no longer made of silver , your first example of currency devaluation after the penny went from a large cent to a small cent, which was  about ten years earlier , if I recall . The three cent , if I remember was the price of a stamp . I have a beautiful Two cent pc  ( 1867), it is the first to have , In God We Trust .



You must have a beautiful collection by now. I've heard you mention some really interesting finds.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Gold and silver prices will continue to drop through the end of 2014, and will bottom around $10 silver and $1000 gold by early 2015. Then things will get interesting...
> 
> Rand Paul will announce his candidacy for US President, and precious metals prices will begin to rapidly rebound.  By the time Rand wins the nomination for the Republican Party, precious metals prices will be beyond the stratosphere with silver at $100 and gold at $5000.  Once Rand wins the general election metals prices will have passed the mesophere with $300 silver and $10000 gold.  When Rand is sworn in as President of the United States, the metals will pass through the thermosphere with $500 silver and $12000 gold.
> 
> By the end of Rand's first term gold and silver will have finished their trip to the moon.  Silver prices will be $1000 and gold prices will establish a permanent lunar colony at $20000.  During Rand's second term, silver will rocket from the lunar colony established by gold and make its way to Mars, landing there at a cool million per troy ounce once Rand leaves the White House.


If gold and silver are "going to the moon" then the economy is probably going into the tank to drive them up (metals tend to move up the most in bad economies- last peak was in 1980 when we had double digit inflation and double digit unemployment and this peak was during the Great Recession).  So you think Rand will destroy the economy and cause hyperinflation?

----------


## Peter4Paul2016

According to their "survey participants," Forbes believes gold will keep going down this week 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kitconew...-participants/

Inflation is believed to be stable right now, and gold really shines during times of inflation fears...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...month-low.html

Goldman Sachs predicts *gold will hit $1,050.*

Looking at a gold price chart -

http://goldsilverinvestments.net/rea...-metal-prices/

I think Gold is still on it's way down... But as others have said - we're not fortune tellers!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If gold and silver are "going to the moon" then the economy is probably going into the tank to drive them up (metals tend to move up the most in bad economies- last peak was in 1980 when we had double digit inflation and double digit unemployment and this peak was during the Great Recession).  So you think Rand will destroy the economy and cause hyperinflation?


Good grief, Zippy, he's joking.  And by the way, no, gold is linked to _inflation_.  There is no reason to believe that gold will always -- or ever -- go up in future economic downturns.  The economy is bad therefore the price of gold increases?  There's no causal link!  But there is very good reason to believe it will go up in value whenever the US dollar is rapidly going down in value.

----------


## oyarde

> Good grief, Zippy, he's joking.  And by the way, no, gold is linked to _inflation_.  There is no reason to believe that gold will always -- or ever -- go up in future economic downturns.  The economy is bad therefore the price of gold increases?  There's no causal link!  But there is very good reason to believe it will go up in value whenever the US dollar is rapidly going down in value.


Not sure I should have a lot of faith in the future of the unbacked paper dollar.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> But there is very good reason to believe it will go up in value whenever the US dollar is rapidly going down in value.


And the dollar has been going up recently, so relative to the dollar, gold/silver have dropped.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And the dollar has been going up recently, so relative to the dollar, gold/silver have dropped.


 It doesn't exactly work like that.  Your "recently" is far too short a time envelope.  Long-term -- meaning a year, two years, three years -- if there is sustained high price inflation in the dollar then the price of gold will tend to go upward.  An example (the only example) would be in the 1970s.  Shorter-term, it's anyone's guess.

And if the dollar is strong relative to other fiat currencies, well, gold may go down or it may go up.  The link is not that strong for the deflation side of things; that is, gold does not always perform poorly during a deflationary period, and furthermore the dollar becoming stronger relative to other fiat currencies does not necessarily mean that deflation is even occurring.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Good grief, Zippy, he's joking.  And by the way, no, gold is linked to _inflation_.  There is no reason to believe that gold will always -- or ever -- go up in future economic downturns.  The economy is bad therefore the price of gold increases?  There's no causal link!  But there is very good reason to believe it will go up in value whenever the US dollar is rapidly going down in value.



If gold is only linked to inflation, there is no reason it should have hit $1900 since inflation was low. If there IS a strong link between inflation and the price of gold, that would suggest deflation was happening from 1980 through 2004 and again since 2011. Was that the case? (the rate of price inflation was declining from 1980 to 2004 so it does correlate in that manner but we were not in price deflation as the price of gold fell and in terms of monetary inflation, the supply of money increased over that time- M2 more than quadrupled- why didn't the price of gold?). 

 It does not correlate well with inflation (monetary or price inflation). Gold moves most strongly based on economic fears. Investors fearing losses on other investments seek something "safe" to at least preserve the value of their assets without as much risk of losing them. They move out of things like stocks and bonds into gold- driving up the price.  As the economy improves, investors move money out of gold into other options offering higher returns. The price declines again.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If gold is only linked to inflation, there is no reason it should have hit $1900 since inflation was low.


 Right, there is no reason.  Things do things for no or unclear reasons all the time.





> If there IS a strong link between inflation and the price of gold, that would suggest deflation was happening from 1980 through 2004 and again since 2011.


 What was _not_ happening was high price inflation in the US dollar.  Inflation was, in fact a good deal lower during those two decades than most anyone would have expected it would be going into them.  So it makes perfect sense that gold would not necessarily be going up during such a time.  Sure enough, it didn't (for the most part).

So, relatively speaking, the 1980s and 1990s were deflationary, yes -- relative to expectations.  Interest rates kept dropping.  Bonds did fantastic.  In 1980, you could have bought a 30-year-bond and locked in an interest rate, on average, of 11.27%!  For the next 30 years!  Can you imagine that?  You could have been getting 11% nominal for your money until 2010!

1980 11.27
1981 13.45
1982 12.76
1983 11.18
1984 12.41
1985 10.79

Bonds do good in deflation.  Gold does good in inflation.  Bonds and gold are opposite in that sense.




> rate of price inflation was declining from 1980 to 2004 so it does correlate in that manner


 And that manner, Zippy my fine google-eyed friend, is an important one.

It is important -- to _me_ -- that bonds do well in such a situation.  And sure enough, they do.  It is not as important that gold do poorly in that situation, though often it probably will.




> It does not correlate well with inflation (monetary or price inflation).


 Actually, it does correlate very well, in a very important way, and one that I find very useful in my portfolio.  What way?  This way:

*When there is high price inflation in the US dollar, gold does well.*

That's it!  Simple, eh?  In every other economic condition, you can't count on it doing well, and you don't need to.  It may do well, but you can't count on that.  So it's not a total correlation.  Price of gold is not some mathematical factor of the level of inflation.  When price inflation is low, there is no strong link between price inflation and the price of gold (much less monetary inflation!).

Gold is valuable to have in a balanced portfolio because during a period of high price inflation in the US dollar, it very well may be that _nothing else_ is doing well.  So gold has to carry the whole portfolio.

In this very valuable correlation, gold has a 100% track record.  Every time there has been high price inflation in the US dollar, gold has gone up very strongly.  100% of the time.  Perfect correlation.




> Gold moves most strongly based on economic fears. Investors fearing losses on other investments seek something "safe" to at least preserve the value of their assets without as much risk of losing them. They move out of things like stocks and bonds into gold- driving up the price.  As the economy improves, investors move money out of gold into other options offering higher returns. The price declines again.


 Well perhaps you have a mind-reading machine, but I do not.  I'm thrilled to know that you know exactly why investors do things and when they will do them.  If you really knew this, however, I have this nagging suspicion that you might not be unemployed and sharing all your wisdom and insight for free on a relatively obscure thread on a relatively obscure message board.  You would be rolling in the money, charging $100,000 per hour and raking in the returns on your investment mind-reading brilliance.

So you'll forgive me if I commit the blasphemy of actually checking to see if your confident assertions line up with reality.  Let's see: was the year following Sept 11th, 2001 one with a lot of "economic fears"?  Yes, I think everyone would agree it was.  Did the investment world flee into gold, causing it to zoom upwards in price?  Nope, it just muddled along, relatively flat.  How about the great crash of October, 1987?  That year gold actually went down significantly, from $480 in Oct 1987 to $400 in Oct 1988.  And it continued muddling along for the next few years.  There was a big economic crisis in 2008, and gold just muddled along.  It did not jump in price.

Now following 2001 gold did begin a protracted climb.  Why was that?  I don't think anyone knows for sure.  Because of that lack of understanding (as I see it), would I bet my precious life savings that if a similar event were to happen again that gold would necessarily do the same thing again?  No.  It might be like 1987 or 2008 instead.

But would I bet that if we saw high price inflation in the US dollar that gold would perform well just as it has in the past when that occurred?  Yes.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> How about the great crash of October, 1987?


Gold Price- October 1987:


http://www.sniper.at/stock-market-crash-of-1987.htm

What was happening to the rate of inflation between 2004 and 2010 (the latest gold bubble?) Was the rate of inflation soaring? If your theory is true, it must have been since that is one of the two largest increases we have seen (percentage wise) in gold prices. It was actually pretty stable- staying near three percent (with some points above and some below). Inflation at the beginning of the bubble was slightly higher than the inflation rate at the peak of it. 



http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit.../inflation-cpi


http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.html




> Let's see: was the year following Sept 11th, 2001 one with a lot of "economic fears"? Yes, I think everyone would agree it was. Did the investment world flee into gold, causing it to zoom upwards in price?


9/11?  It was a traumatic event and the trauma continues today but the economic impact was short lived.  Gold did spike for a short time and the economy was shocked for a short term but both quickly returned to "normal" levels. 




> Miraculously, however, *the market and business in general bounced back in a relatively short time.* By the end of the year, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services, had increased over the previous year about 1%, to more than $10 trillion, demonstrating that the economy had not been critically hurt by the 9/11 attacks. In fact, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), *GDP increased 2.7% in the fourth quarter of 2001.* 
> 
> Business Takes a Hit
> But the immediate impact on business was significant.* Gold prices leaped from $215.50 an ounce to $287, reflecting the uncertainty and flight to safety of nervous investors.* Gas and oil prices also shot upward as fears emerged that oil imports from the Middle East would be curtailed. Within a week, however, these prices retreated to their approximate pre-attack levels as no new attacks occurred and deliveries of crude oil to the U.S. from its usual sources continued unabated

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Gold Price- October 1987:


 Bzzt, wrong.  That chart is for all of 1987.  Your implied statement that gold went up from $400 to $500 following or during the crash is wrong.  My actual statement that gold went from $480 in Oct 1987 to $400 in Oct 1988 is true.




> What was happening to the rate of inflation between 2004 and 2010?


 Well thanks so much for asking.  There was no clear straight-line trend during this time.




> Was the rate of inflation soaring?


 No.  Again, thanks for asking.  Glad I could enlighten you.





> If your theory is true, it must have been since that is one of the two largest increases we have seen (percentage wise) in gold prices.


 Could you explain what you think my theory is?  

Nevermind, you're not smart enough.  Here is what you think my theory is:

Gold is correlated to inflation.

Here is what my actual theory is:

*When there is high price inflation in the US dollar, gold does well.*

That does not mean that gold might not do well during other economic conditions.  It also doesn't mean that gold will necessarily do poorly during low or negative price inflation.  It means only what it says.  What gold will do during times without high US dollar inflation is unknown to me.  It is outside the scope of my statement.

I doubt you will ever admit to understanding this.  But it really is very simple, and I'm confident that everyone reading this, including, probably, you, will understand it.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Well thanks so much for asking. There was no clear straight-line trend during this time.


Exactly.  Yet gold was on a steady increase. Thus, no correlation between the two.  To correlate, they both need to move together.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It doesn't exactly work like that.


What doesn't work like that?




> Your "recently" is far too short a time envelope.  Long-term -- meaning a year, two years, three years -- if there is sustained high price inflation in the dollar then the price of gold will tend to go upward.


My "recently" was meant to be the last few weeks:




> Dollar index gains for ninth week, dollar hits six-year high vs yen
> 
> (Reuters) - The dollar index posted its ninth consecutive week of gains on Friday and the U.S. currency rose to six-year highs against the yen on speculation that the Federal Reserve may strike a more hawkish tone when it meets next week.


Obviously in the long run, with massive monetary inflation, there will eventually be price inflation in the metals. And most everything else too.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Exactly.  Yet gold was on a steady increase. Thus, no correlation between the two.  To correlate, they both need to move together.


I did not claim a correlation.  

I have now explained this slowly, explicitly, and repeatedly in at least three separate posts in this thread alone.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What doesn't work like that?


 Just because the "dollar is strong" as you put it, does not mean that gold's price will go down.  

It most especially does not mean anything whatsoever will happen in the next day, week, month, or even few months.  This is too short a time frame.  There's a lot of (apparent) randomness in the market from so many participants with so many different goals and ideas doing so many different things.




> My "recently" was meant to be the last few weeks:


 Yes, and that is too short a time-frame for my statement to be true.  My statement is:

*When there is high price inflation in the US dollar, gold does well.*

That doesn't mean that gold did well every single day the dollar did badly, nor every month that the CPI seemed to be high.  Nor even every year where the CPI was high.  But over longer time horizons, like 2 years or 5 years or 10 years, that is when my statement has held true.




> Obviously in the long run, with massive monetary inflation, there will eventually be price inflation in the metals. And most everything else too.


 There has been massive monetary inflation for a very long time now.  We just don't know what the future will bring.  A balanced portfolio will hold stocks, bonds, gold and cash so as to be ready for whatever may happen.  Nothing is inevitable.  We need to have humility and circumspection.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *I did not claim a correlation*.  
> 
> I have now explained this slowly, explicitly, and repeatedly in at least three separate posts in this thread alone.



Hmm. Maybe I misread you in your previous post where you said:



> *Gold is correlated to inflation*.


I do agree with this: 



> When price inflation is low, there is no strong link between price inflation and the price of gold (much less monetary inflation!).


Which does say that the price of gold does not correlate with the rate of inflation.  You seem to be saying that only sometimes it does- which is not a correlation. 

My theory covers more events- gold moves up higher when economic expectations are bad.  That was true for the 1980 bubble as well as for the 2010 bubble.  Your theory only covers the 1980 bubble.

A paper you may be interested in reading which examined different theories of gold price movements. 
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstr...pdf?sequence=1

On consumer expectations for the economy and its impact:



> We would expect consumer expectations to give an overall picture of longer term trends 
> in the economy. This characteristic would make ICE less able to inform the return on gold prices 
> for any given month. Using quarterly and bi-annually gold returns yields coefficients of -38.71 
> and -42.83, respectively. Both coefficients are statistically significant, and the R-squared 
> increases as the frequency decreases. *The interpretation is that declines in consumer confidence 
> are more reliably indicative of increasing gold prices in the longer term*.


Gold and Expected Inflation:



> At the first sight, there seems to be a close relationship between the gold price and 
> expected inflation. The two variables nearly mirror each other, through the peaks of the early 
> 1980s, to the decline in 1986, to the troughs in 2000. However this relationship is very crude. 
> Looking closer, we can see that in 1983 inflation is dropping dramatically, but the gold price is 
> rising. There are also numerous instances such as 1986, 1988, and 1998-2004 where either 
> expected inflation or the gold price are making large moves but the other remains quite stable or 
> behaves in a way contrary to what inflation hedge theory would suggest. McCown and 
> Zimmerman (2006) find the same result for monthly returns, however, they do find when annual 
> frequency (but not quarterly frequency) is used higher inflation is associated with higher gold 
> ...


The paper looks at many other factors as well. Unfortunately it is not quite recent enough to cover the latest bubble (data runs through 2008).

----------


## oyarde

> What doesn't work like that?
> 
> 
> 
> My "recently" was meant to be the last few weeks:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously in the long run, with massive monetary inflation, there will eventually be price inflation in the metals. And most everything else too.


 first place , I imagine , will be food ....

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Hmm. Maybe I misread you in your previous post where you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Gold is correlated to inflation.


 Well wham, bam, boom.  You sure showed me, Zippy.  Way to go out of your way to alienate one of the vanishingly few people on this forum who doesn't hate your guts and who treats you with any modicum of respect.  Not that you deserve it.

Now I just went back in the thread to find the post where I said that.  I assumed I _had_.  Language is not always a precise thing, you see.  I could totally see myself painting with broad strokes and saying something like "Gold is correlated to inflation," and only later clarifying that it is linked to _high_ inflation, high _price_ inflation, high price inflation_ in the US dollar_.

However, I expected too much of you.  I thought that you had gone back and found such a gotcha quote, which would have been a clever thing to do.  Of course, it would have been purely rhetorical, and would not further actual dialogue and understanding in the least.  But if your goal was just scoring debating points in some imaginary childish debating game, it would further that goal, and as I said it at least exhibited some cleverness.  For a moment I could think that maybe there was a cerebrum somewhere in that noggin that might actually be capable of higher-level thought.

Alas, this was not to be.  For it turns out that this is the actual quote you were quoting, in context:

"Nevermind, you're not smart enough. Here is what you think my theory is:

Gold is correlated to inflation.

Here is what my actual theory is:

When there is high price inflation in the US dollar, gold does well."

  




> You seem to be saying that only sometimes it does- which is not a correlation.


 Yes, pretend that what I am saying is very cryptic.  Actually, it is very simple.

*When there is high price inflation in the US dollar, gold does well.*

That's all!  It's a theory that has never been disproven.  And it's a theory with sound logical reasons that it makes sense.  There's a causality chain that one can explain and that makes sense.

Now here's an alternative theory:

"Gold moves up higher when economic expectations are bad."

This theory also has a coherent causality chain.  That's one thing it has going for it!  Many theories don't have that, and so fail right out of the gate.  But this one has it.  So it at least sounds plausible.  Whenever people have a lot of economic fears (aka bad expectations) they will flee out of more perceived-risky investments into gold as a safe haven.  One could see why they would do that.  And I think that some people do.  So it has logic plausibility.  But there's one more thing it needs.

It needs to work.

It needs to be true.

How do we test this?  Back-testing.  Back-testing cannot prove an economic theory right, but _it can disprove a theory_.  And backtesting shows that this theory that you have that every time there are strong economic fears that gold will go up does not turn out to be true.  It doesn't happen every time.  You can't count on it.  And so that's a problem from a portfolio design standpoint.  Now if you're doing something else with the information, that might not be a problem.  Maybe it doesn't have to work every time.  Maybe seemingly random results that actually turn out to have a correlation, but one so weak only a computer can see it, is useful somehow to something you may be trying to accomplish (though I don't know what it would be).  But for portfolio design, if it's not reliable it's not very useful.




> My theory covers more events-


 Unfortunately for the theory, it covers events wherein it did not work.  Events, that is, that prove the theory wrong.




> A paper you may be interested in reading which examined different theories of gold price movements.


 I read much of it.  It was, in fact, interesting.  It's not bad, for a bachelor's thesis (excerpt).

It is unsurprising, since you were incapable of reading a few extremely simple sentences of mine, that you were also apparently unable to comprehend this paper, and instead simply cherry-picked a few promising sentences that seemed to be saying "Zippy's right; Helmuth's wrong."

*I buy and hold gold for a very specific reason, Zippy: because if high price inflation ever hits the US dollar again, the gold will protect me.*  Every time that high price inflation has hit the US in the past, having gold would have protected a guy.  And so back-testing has yet to disprove this theory.  It hasn't _proved_ it -- next time high inflation hits, it's possible that gold won't afford any protection.  But from where I'm sitting, chances look pretty good that it will.

----------


## oyarde

Looks to be pretty steady in the past few days between  $1232 and $1242 or something like that.

----------


## mad cow

Spot silver currently $17.79.It dropped like a rock today.This is the lowest it has been in some years,the markups over spot at all of the dealers haven't fallen as fast but I'm watching them for  good buying opportunities in the next few days.

----------


## TheCount

> the markups over spot at all of the dealers haven't fallen as fast


They won't.  It's like oil.  Mysteriously, gas prices go up instantly when oil prices go up, but take forever to go down.  Silver and gold are the same.


Also, when silver and gold prices go too low, that's when it's time for bloggers to get out the old "oh, well that's the price of PAPER, but it's impossible to get PHYSICAL at that price" horse and start beating it again.  Makes their advertisers really happy.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

OK I'm backing up the truck.

----------


## oyarde

> Spot silver currently $17.79.It dropped like a rock today.This is the lowest it has been in some years,the markups over spot at all of the dealers haven't fallen as fast but I'm watching them for  good buying opportunities in the next few days.


I bought a coin today .

----------


## Tod

Think it will get down to $15?

----------


## oyarde

> Think it will get down to $15?


Seems doubtful to me , that would be a 15 % drop from now.But , what do I know ? I would not have guessed it to get below $20 .

----------


## DFF

Silver's done a lot of technical damage by dropping into the 17's...15 wouldn't surprise me at this point...and looking ahead, we may even go back to 13.

It's in a bear market no doubt about it, and hasn't shown any meaningful signs of switching gears.

That said, it's a good time to buy physical coins and bars...buy when everyone else hates it...then be patient.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Lowest price in silver since 2010. Gold getting closer to $1200 an ounce. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0RN2MQ20140922




> * Silver prices drop to lowest since mid-2010
> 
> * Gold eyes key chart support at $1,180/oz, June 2013 low
> 
> * Comex, ETF data suggest weak investment demand for metals (Updates market activity, adds comment, NEW YORK to dateline, second byline)





> "Given how poorly (gold) trades and the lack of building blocks to support it as well as the break lower on silver, we suspect a bearish break through $1,180 can be seen next," said Tom Fitzpatrick, analyst at CitiFX, Citigroup's technical research unit in New York.
> 
> Spot gold touched a low of $1,208.36 an ounce and inched up 0.1 percent to $1,216.46 by 12:19 p.m. EDT (1619 GMT).

----------


## oyarde

Gold is at $1220 . I will probably go look around at some silver coins Wed .

----------


## oyarde

Looks like about $1222 now after going over $1230 this morning .

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Silver's done a lot of technical damage


   I must say, sometimes I feel like this quote:




> Conza, why do you even bother? lol.


There's no such thing as "technical damage."  Technical analysis is hand-waving and voodoo potions.  Pi Cycles, Elliot Waves, Head and Shoulders -- it's all nonsense peddled for the rubes.  Don't be a rube.

You'd be better off buying a bottle of Head and Shoulders dandruff shampoo, throwing it into the air in your shower, and then buying or selling based on which side of the bottle lands face up.

Now if it lands upright, of course, (against all odds!  Amazing!) that's an overwhelming technical signal to back up the truck.  Something like that is too unlikely to be a coincidence.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Silver takes another dive.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Silver takes another dive.


Makes me think the economy is about to take a huge tumble.

----------


## Acala

Gold is a funny critter.  It is currently not used for the purpose history has found it to be best suited: money.  There are historical, legal, and psychological reasons for this.  But it at the very least should give one pause and cause to suspect that the market might once again put gold to what markets worldwide and through all of known history have determined to be its highest use.  Or maybe not, if something better has been found.  Certainly fiat currency is better for banks, governments, and crony-capitalists and as long as they have control, gold will stay largely on the bench.  But history isn't over.  The only thing that is certain is change.  And should those who benefit from fiat money lose their power of fiat, well . . . who knows?

----------


## PRB

> Silver takes another dive.


Not low enough. Still waiting.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

An old prediction, from an old thread:




> Silver could fall by two-thirds!
> 
> Silver prices are now well ahead of their historical average (the red line). The chart doesn't do justice to the extent of the gap that has opened up with respect to a fair price since it ends on the average price of silver during the first quarter of this year (roughly $32), whereas daily prices are now close to $50. In fact, the price of silver would need to fall by nearly two-thirds to get back to its long-term average of $18/ ounce -- not to mention that markets typically overshoot.
> 
> http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...all-by-66.aspx


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5661486

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> An old prediction, from an old thread:


Thank you so much, Brian!  An excellent illustration of why we should be skeptical of expectations and predictions, including our own.  Read through that thread and see how many posters and how sure they are that the article writer is wrong.

Keep in mind also: it easily could be sitting at $100/oz today instead.  And then there would be some other predictor who looked like a genius in retrospect.  You just never know.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Thank you so much, Brian!  An excellent illustration of why we should be skeptical of expectations and predictions, including our own.  Read through that thread and see how many posters and how sure they are that the article writer is wrong.
> 
> Keep in mind also: it easily could be sitting at $100/oz today instead.  And then there would be some other predictor who looked like a genius in retrospect.  You just never know.


It also illustrates the problem of timing. The author said that "silver prices will decline significantly by the end of 2012". The timing was off by a couple of years, but this is also common. When a bubble or investment mania occurs, the predictions of the "pop" usually come many years too early. The dot-com bubble and the housing bubble had people calling it "irrational" for years before the crashes.

And here we are today, with the DOW and S&P in obviously overbought and overvalued conditions. Will they crash 25-75% within the next ten years? Probably. Can they go up for another 3 years? Easily.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And here we are today, with the DOW and S&P in obviously overbought and overvalued conditions.


Obviously, eh?  Can you explain to me why they you believe they are "overvalued" and "overbought"?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Obviously, eh?  Can you explain to me why they you believe they are "overvalued" and "overbought"?


Where do you think the DOW and S&P are going in 1 year, 2 year and 5 years?

----------


## PRB

> Thank you so much, Brian!  An excellent illustration of why we should be skeptical of expectations and predictions, including our own.


I don't make predictions, so I don't need to look at my own :P

----------


## PRB

> Where do you think the DOW and S&P are going in 1 year, 2 year and 5 years?


No honest person can say he knows.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Gold is getting closer to $1200- at this moment- $1208.

----------


## mad cow

Well,I just ordered 60 troy ounces of silver.

Catch a falling knife and put it in your pocket,never let it fade away...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Where do you think the DOW and S&P are going in 1 year, 2 year and 5 years?


I would say probably up and down.

----------


## DFF

> Gold is getting closer to $1200- at this moment- $1208.


Yeah, but gold is holding up fairly well considering the dollar is on a rampage.

Silver meanwhile, due to the fact that it's more of an industrial metal, is getting straight up punked. Expect it to continue going down.




> There's no such thing as "technical damage." Technical analysis is hand-waving and voodoo potions. Pi Cycles, Elliot Waves, Head and Shoulders -- it's all nonsense peddled for the rubes. Don't be a rube.


You don't know what in the hell you're talking about, but given your history of idiotic, provocative, troll-lite statements, this doesn't come as much of a surprise.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You don't know what you're talking about, but given your history of idiotic, provocative, troll-lite statements, this doesn't come as much of a surprise.


 How does one qualify as knowing what one is talking about?  If I, in fact, have significantly more in-depth knowledge of the subject, have significantly more real-life experience dealing with the subject, and have read significantly more high-quality books on the subject, would that in fact disqualify you from having an opinion as to whether I know what I am talking about?

If you would like to try to defend the idea that technical analysis is valuable, feel free to defend it.  I'm always happy to have my ideas challenged.  If you just want to throw insults, get a life.  I'm sorry, but you just make _yourself_ look bad, not me.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Where do you think the DOW and S&P are going in 1 year, 2 year and 5 years?


You should already know my answer.

Do you have any actual, articulable _reason_ for thinking that the stock market is "overvalued" and "overbought"?

----------


## AFTFNJ

Ahhhh Lets see main street is in the dumps with jobs being created are low wage & middle class going broke but wall street breaking new high hmmmmmmmmmm.

----------


## TheCount

> You should already know my answer.
> 
> Do you have any actual, articulable _reason_ for thinking that the stock market is "overvalued" and "overbought"?


No, but I have feelings, and my mom says feelings are important.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> You should already know my answer.
> 
> Do you have any actual, articulable _reason_ for thinking that the stock market is "overvalued" and "overbought"?


Would your answer be that no one can accurately predict?

----------


## TheCount

> Would your answer be that no can accurately predict?


I think it will be that ideological arguments do not affect the market.

----------


## PRB

> No, but I have feelings, and my mom says feelings are important.


And my teacher said my opinions are special.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Would your answer be that no one can accurately predict?


Probably close enough for practical purposes, but I'll clarify a little.

People do accurately predict things sometimes.  It would be silly to pretend they don't.  My position is that no one can _reliably_ make accurate predictions, year in and year out.  You can't depend on it.  _Such predictions are speculative in nature._  There is nothing wrong with speculating -- *with money that you can afford to lose*.  But you should also do it with your eyes wide open and realize that the chances of beating the market by speculating are vanishingly small.  The person who beats the market one year will almost never do it the next.  Here is a study about that:

The S.&P. Dow Jones team looked at 2,862 mutual funds that had been operating for at least 12 months as of March 2010. Those funds were all broad, actively managed domestic stock funds. (The study excluded narrowly focused sector funds and leveraged funds that, essentially, used borrowed money to magnify their returns.)

The team selected the 25 percent of funds with the best performance over the 12 months through March 2010. Then the analysts asked how many of those funds  those in the top quarter for the original 12-month period  actually remained in the top quarter for the four succeeding 12-month periods through March 2014.

The answer was a vanishingly small number: Just 0.07 percent of the initial 2,862 funds managed to achieve top-quartile performance for those five successive years. If you do the math, that works out to just two funds. Put another way, 99.93 percent, or 2,860 of the 2,862 funds, failed the test.
[IMG]http://static01.********/images/2014/07/20/business/20-STRA/20-STRA-superJumbo.jpg[/IMG]

-- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/yo...unds.html?_r=0
-- http://us.spindices.com/resource-cen...ship/research/

So out of all those funds, only two small unknown funds, the Hodges Small Cap fund and the AMG SouthernSun Small Cap fund, outperformed and kept outperforming for five years in a row.  And guess what?  In the coming year, I can essentially guarantee you that those two funds will not outperform the market.  There is almost no chance that they will.

The interesting thing is, funds drop out of the over-performance slots faster than would be predicted by sheer random luck!  You would actually do better to label 500 ping-pong balls with stock tickers and choose what stocks to buy like you choose your bingo calls than to put your money in an actively-managed fund with a "good track record"!

So anyway, the point is, you cannot depend on predictions.  You're far, far, far more likely to _lose_ your money than to strike it rich.  So, it makes a guy ask: why bother?  The risk is _overwhelmingly_ probable -- almost to the point of being inevitable -- and yet the reward is relatively small.  If you want to speculate and take risks you should do that in your career!  Start a business!  Come up with a new product line!  Do something innovative!  Even something as simple as: Ask for a raise!  _That's_ where the risks you take can actually pay off 100, 1000, 10,000 times over!




> I think it will be that ideological arguments do not affect the market.


This I definitely agree with.

----------


## Acala

> Probably close enough for practical purposes, but I'll clarify a little.
> 
> People do accurately predict things sometimes.  It would be silly to pretend they don't.  My position is that no one can _reliably_ make accurate predictions, year in and year out.  You can't depend on it.  _Such predictions are speculative in nature._  There is nothing wrong with speculating -- *with money that you can afford to lose*.  But you should also do it with your eyes wide open and realize that the chances of beating the market by speculating are vanishingly small.  The person who beats the market one year will almost never do it the next.  Here is a study about that:
> 
> The S.&P. Dow Jones team looked at 2,862 mutual funds that had been operating for at least 12 months as of March 2010. Those funds were all broad, actively managed domestic stock funds. (The study excluded narrowly focused sector funds and leveraged funds that, essentially, used borrowed money to magnify their returns.)
> 
> The team selected the 25 percent of funds with the best performance over the 12 months through March 2010. Then the analysts asked how many of those funds — those in the top quarter for the original 12-month period — actually remained in the top quarter for the four succeeding 12-month periods through March 2014.
> 
> The answer was a vanishingly small number: Just 0.07 percent of the initial 2,862 funds managed to achieve top-quartile performance for those five successive years. If you do the math, that works out to just two funds. Put another way, 99.93 percent, or 2,860 of the 2,862 funds, failed the test.
> ...


Nicely done.  Out of rep

----------


## Zippyjuan

Accurately predict?  Maybe short term- usually predicting a trend will continue comes true more often than trying to predict a change.  Long term?  More luck than accuracy and knowledge.  To be called a successful predictor you need to be right on a regular basis- and nobody can do that. 

Excellent piece. Repped.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

Alerts went off yesterday when Ag broke below $17 ($16.94) But since the Money Masters plan/rig everything when appropriate... the "NSA mutual fund" would be the winner and one to invest upon. <sarcasm>

 

24-hour Spot Chart - Silver

----------


## PRB

> Accurately predict?  Maybe short term- usually predicting a trend will continue comes true more often than trying to predict a change.  Long term?  More luck than accuracy and knowledge.  To be called a successful predictor you need to be right on a regular basis- and nobody can do that. 
> 
> Excellent piece. Repped.


but history shows us paper money always fails and gold always wins!!!!

ok, keep laughing at me, i'll be laughing at you when the dollar is toilet paper like the weimar republic and zimbabwe, i'll be rich with my gold.

----------


## Lucille

> Accurately predict?  Maybe short term- usually predicting a trend will continue comes true more often than trying to predict a change.  Long term?  More luck than accuracy and knowledge.  To be called a successful predictor you need to be right on a regular basis- and nobody can do that.


Nobody, eh?  

Martin Armstrong has got to be the luckiest guy on the planet, expect for the 11 years (7 for contempt of court) that he spent in prison for "manipulating the world economy."

----------


## Acala

> but history shows us paper money always fails and gold always wins!!!!
> 
> ok, keep laughing at me, i'll be laughing at you when the dollar is toilet paper like the weimar republic and zimbabwe, i'll be rich with my gold.


The question is when.  And the answer is guess work.  It could literally be tomorrow or a hundred years from now.

Black Swan is really essential reading on the topic of predictability and knowledge.  A mind-blowing book by a fan of Hayek and Ron Paul.  I need to read it again.

----------


## Acala

> Nobody, eh?  
> 
> Martin Armstrong has got to be the luckiest guy on the planet, expect for the 11 years (7 for contempt of court) that he spent in prison for "manipulating the world economy."


The problem, as HH has pointed out in other threads, is that the market will inevitably produce relative winners, but the history of their winning has no predictive value for winning in the future, not for them and not for anyone else following their methods.

----------


## PRB

> The question is when.  And the answer is guess work.  It could literally be tomorrow or a hundred years from now.
> 
> Black Swan is really essential reading on the topic of predictability and knowledge.  A mind-blowing book by a fan of Hayek and Ron Paul.  I need to read it again.


why would I give you an answer so I can be proven wrong!?

----------


## mad cow

The price of silver does have a floor,it cost money to mine,smelt,mint and market silver bullion.
I don't know this aggregate cost but everybody in the chain has to make a profit or marginal producers will start dropping out,reducing supply and thus increasing the price for the reduced product.
Meanwhile,I hope it continues to drop because I want more than I have now.

Also,the silver/gold price ratio is north of 70/1 right now,I think that is a record.
Silver is looking pretty good to me right now.

----------


## Zippyjuan

The market price can fall below the costs of producing silver as long as there is silver available in the market at that price.  Obviously the mines cannot stay in business forever if what they get for their output is below their production costs.  Mining produces often many minerals at the same time (gold and silver with copper and zinc for example) so they may not be relying only on silver to support their operations.

The gold silver ratio really doesn't tell you anything about what the price of silver will be.  It has ranged just in the last ten years from about 30 to over 80. And that doesn't say anything about if it is going up or down in dollars- only up or down relative to gold. 



http://www.kitco.com/Gold_Silver_Rat...io-charts.html

----------


## Acala

> why would I give you an answer so I can be proven wrong!?


I'm not expecting any answers in advance with regard to the future.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The price of silver does have a floor,it cost money to mine,smelt,mint and market silver bullion.


 Production cost theory of value.  Sorry, subjective theory of value for me.  Just because it cost you a billion dollars to produce some widgets doesn't mean that anyone wants to pay a billion dollars for them.  Doesn't mean they want to pay _anything_.

----------


## TheCount

> The price of silver does have a floor,it cost money to mine,smelt,mint and market silver bullion.


Sort of.  There is not one set cost of silver; different sources of silver have different costs associated with them.  If price drops, some mines will close as they are profitable at $20 an ounce but not at $15 an ounce, and so on.

----------


## mad cow

> Production cost theory of value.  Sorry, subjective theory of value for me.  Just because it cost you a billion dollars to produce some widgets doesn't mean that anyone wants to pay a billion dollars for them.  Doesn't mean they want to pay _anything_.


And just because the market values something for less than you can produce it for doesn't mean you can stay in business producing it at a loss for very long.

They cap oil wells,stop exploration and new drilling all of the time when the price of production is more than they can sell it for.
Same with farmers deciding how many acres of which crops to plant and fishermen choosing what species to target.

Maybe nobody is going to pay a billion dollars for a widget but by the same token nobody is going to sell you a barrel of oil or a bushel of corn or 10 pounds of lobster for a penny.

----------


## mad cow

> Sort of.  There is not one set cost of silver; different sources of silver have different costs associated with them.  If price drops, some mines will close as they are profitable at $20 an ounce but not at $15 an ounce, and so on.


That's why I said that_ marginal_ producers will start dropping out.

----------


## PRB

> The price of silver does have a floor,it cost money to mine,smelt,mint and market silver bullion.


Yes, there are production costs, but production costs do not add up to market sale value if there is none. Just because it costs money to print money or make toilet paper, doesn't mean the costs of either is the sum of labor costs. Such would be the fallacy of labor theory.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And just because the market values something for less than you can produce it for doesn't mean you can stay in business producing it at a loss for very long.


 Yes!  That's the beauty of the market!  Isn't it beautiful?  If you're doing something the market doesn't value, you make a loss.  The market reallocates resources away from you and to others instead.  Soon, the inefficient action no longer exists.  Everyone wasting their time doing it went out of business.




> They cap oil wells,stop exploration and new drilling all of the time when the price of production is more than they can sell it for.
> Same with farmers deciding how many acres of which crops to plant and fishermen choosing what species to target.


 Yep, yep, yep, yep, all good examples.




> Maybe nobody is going to pay a billion dollars for a widget but by the same token nobody is going to sell you a barrel of oil or a bushel of corn or 10 pounds of lobster for a penny.


 Unless they want to! (in both cases)

I think that you understand this the same way I do.  You have usefully pointed out the other side of the equation in this post.  Subjective value cuts both ways: buyers buy whatever they want to, at whatever price they subjectively want to, and sellers sell whatever they want to, at whatever price they subjectively want to.

So I think we're on the same page.  It was just that you did say that "The price of silver does have a floor."  But actually, it doesn't.  It could go to zero.  It could even go to negative (like radioactive waste).  There is no floor and no ceiling for any price of any thing on the market.  That is conceptually and theoretically.  It would certainly be _unlikely_ for silver to go down to, say, $5/oz given that there is currently a large and steady industrial demand for it, and super-highly-unlikely for it to approach zero.  But there isn't any floor at all.  It all just depends on supply and demand.  And with silver, both sides of that equation are unpredictable.  Looking at the mining cost situation doesn't tell you all there is to know about the potential silver supply.  There are _billions_ of ounces of silver supply laying around in kitchen drawers, old electronics, attics, basements, and jewelry boxes around the world, all potentially harvestable.  How many people decided to sell some of their silver this year?  Not many.  Will that be the same next year, or less, or more?  Ahhh..... there's a question nobody really knows 'til it happens.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Martin Armstrong has got to be the luckiest guy on the planet, expect for the 11 years (7 for contempt of court) that he spent in prison for "manipulating the world economy."


 Here is some wonderful information your guru put up for our amusement:

 
Wow, look at how wonderful and prosperous things were during World War II!  If I could just have been able to be alive and investing during that time, it would have been dead simple to make a fortune!  Right?

Right?

Hmm....

But it's 3D!  And I don't even understand _why_ it's 3D!  It _must_ be sophisticated!

----------


## TheCount

> Wow, look at how wonderful and prosperous things were during World War II!


He's obviously looking at total production during these times without looking the different components of GDP individually.

----------


## PRB

> Here is some wonderful information your guru put up for our amusement:
> 
>  
> Wow, look at how wonderful and prosperous things were during World War II!  If I could just have been able to be alive and investing during that time, it would have been dead simple to make a fortune!  Right?
> 
> Right?
> 
> Hmm....
> 
> But it's 3D!  And I don't even understand _why_ it's 3D!  It _must_ be sophisticated!


Everybody's entitled to his/her own opinion and false religion, it's not nice to make fun of people just believe they're wrong.

It's 3D but it's not colored, today we have a much nicer graphic, with videos too!!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> He's obviously looking at total production during these times without looking the different components of GDP individually.


Oh, he's looking at something.

Probably not this, from Higgs:



Nor at this, from our own Ron Paul:
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul81.html

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Nor this:

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...me-prosperity/

The graph doesn't solve all the statistical problems, either.  Much, perhaps most, of the war output is of unknown value.  The government may have paid a certain dollar amount for ten thousand tanks, but we don't really know what their price is, due to a lack of a price system in a one-buyer totally socialist system.

So it's hard to measure how the economy was doing during WWII, just as it was hard to measure how soviet Russia's was doing.  But it's pretty safe to say that it was not very good, certainly as measured by standard of living it was not very good, and very certainly never soaring up by leaps and bounds of 40% annual growth.

But it's 3D!  It's AI!  It's fractal and pattern recognition and spiral and New Age and weather patterns and 51.6 years and so incomprehensible it can't be wrong!

----------


## PRB

> But it's 3D!  It's AI!  It's fractal and pattern recognition and spiral and New Age and weather patterns and 51.6 years and so incomprehensible it can't be wrong!


Except it is. Much worser.

----------


## TheCount

> Oh, he's looking at something.


My point is that government consumption is by definition malconsumption/malinvestment.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...it's not nice to make fun of people...


But that is your reason for being on this board.  You said one of your reasons for being here is to try to belittle people.

----------


## Zippyjuan

nm

----------


## PRB

> But that is your reason for being on this board.  You said one of your reasons for being here is to try to belittle people.


I never said I was nice.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I never said I was nice.



You libs are a callous and selfish bunch, so that is no surprise.  You unflinchingly take other peoples' dollars by government mandate, and then distribute them to yourselves.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

This thread is funny.  Three lib/anti-liberty trolls: Zippy, PRB, and TheCount.  

It's like those video games with a zombie wave.

----------


## PRB

> You libs are a callous and selfish bunch, so that is no surprise.  You unflinchingly take other peoples' dollars by government mandate, and then distribute them to yourselves.


I'm not a liberal and I am against government taking money from anybody.

----------


## Zippyjuan

But you don't agree with him on everything- you must be a liberal and anti- liberty!

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> But you don't agree with him on everything- you must be a liberal and anti- liberty!


It doesn't have anything to do with me.  Most of the things posted by you two trolls is not even engaging me.

Your anti-liberty stances are apparent all by themselves.

----------


## DFF

I am a buyer of physical gold at these firesale prices. 

Silver...gonna wait on that one.

----------


## PRB

> It doesn't have anything to do with me.  Most of the things posted by you two trolls is not even engaging me.
> 
> Your anti-liberty stances are apparent all by themselves.


You keep saying my posts are anti-liberty, can you just quote one? Please?

It has everything to do with you, you're one of the only ones accusing us.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I am a buyer of physical gold at these firesale prices. 
> 
> Silver...gonna wait on that one.


Dropped under $17 today, when are you going to buy?

I am continuing some dollar cost averaging on physical, just a little at a time.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Dollar cost averaging is a good way to invest in almost everything.  You end up buying more when prices are low and less when prices are higher.

----------


## Lord Xar

> ...
> 
> I am continuing some dollar cost averaging on physical, just a little at a time.


Please expand on this methodology.

----------


## Tod

> Please expand on this methodology.


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/...taveraging.asp

----------


## PRB

> Please expand on this methodology.


Dollar cost average means you spend a fixed dollar amount every period of time (instead of buying a fixed amount of shares or ounces each period)

Example : every month you spend $200 on silver coins, regardless of how much it costs.

Contrast this with buying 5 ounces of silver each month, regardless of how much it costs.

The theory is that the most you lose is how much you spend per month, not more, it's a short hand way for people with low risk tolerance to manage loss.

----------


## ctiger2

Wait for $8. $5 premium you're paying $13/coin if you can get 'em.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> You keep saying my posts are anti-liberty, can you just quote one? Please?



I've done that countless times on this board.  The evidence is in.  People can draw their own conclusions.

Why don't you answer my question about your gun statement?  You said, "I love my guns."  You said however, that you're not as obsessed with guns as most people here.  

Who are these RPF members obsessed with guns?

----------


## PRB

> I've done that countless times on this board.  The evidence is in.  People can draw their own conclusions.
> 
> Why don't you answer my question about your gun statement?


I answered you. What is it about what I said that makes me anti-liberty?




> You said, "I love my guns."  You said however, that you're not as obsessed with guns as most people here.  
> 
> Who are these RPF members obsessed with guns?


Whoever thinks you must give detail model numbers about your guns to prove you own them

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Whoever thinks you must give detail model numbers about your guns to prove you own them



Model numbers?  I just asked you the brand, but you declined.

Your post suggests a plural number of RPF members who are obsessed with guns.  Who else?

----------


## PRB

> Model numbers?  I just asked you the brand, but you declined.
> 
> Your post suggests a plural number of RPF members who are obsessed with guns.  Who else?


I gave you one brand. I declined on others. 

What would it take for you to believe I love my guns? 

What is your definition of obsessed with guns?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> What is your definition of obsessed with guns?



You're the one who used the word.  You tell me.

----------


## PRB

> You're the one who used the word.  You tell me.


My definition is : one must tell you what brand and make he owns to prove he owns it.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> My definition is : one must tell you what brand and make he owns to prove he owns it.



So who else said this?

----------


## PRB

> So who else said this?


you're the one who said nobody has a problem answering you.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> you're the one who said nobody has a problem answering you.



You said that you're not as gun obsessed as most RPF members.  Who are these members?

----------


## PRB

> You said that you're not as gun obsessed as most RPF members.  Who are these members?


whoever answered your question without question, whoever thinks answering you is necessary to prove they actually own what they say they do.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

What are their names?

You said that you're not as gun obsessed as most RPF members. Who are these members?

----------


## Dforkus

> This thread is funny.  Three lib/anti-liberty trolls: Zippy, PRB, and TheCount.  
> 
> It's like those video games with a zombie wave.


So pointing out (rightly, I might add) that commodities (be it Silver, Gold, wheat, etc..) is not always a great investment means one is an "lib/anti-liberty troll"...

I know I don't post that much, but you might as well count me in that group...


I'll just add:
Becoming emotionally attached to an investment strategy, ANY investment strategy, leads to bad decisions... It's a lesson one can learn the easy way, or the hard way.

----------


## PRB

> So pointing out (rightly, I might add) that commodities (be it Silver, Gold, wheat, etc..) is not always a great investment means one is an "lib/anti-liberty troll"...
> 
> I know I don't post that much, but you might as well count me in that group...


Yeah, we broke some great commandment of the liberty movement doctrine




> I'll just add:
> Becoming emotionally attached to an investment strategy, ANY investment strategy, leads to bad decisions... It's a lesson one can learn the easy way, or the hard way.


But it's a sacrifice we have to make for the cause of LIBERTY

----------

