"Safe" investment, maybe gold?
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
ATM said:
DonkeyApple said:
Gold this year has been flat which makes it look better than a tech laden equity index but its pricing this year has solely been a result of the USD so the investment play was to switch equities to USD, bypassing gold as all it has been has been an ultra inefficient dollar proxy.
And therefore if we see a medium term horizon where the USD loses its place as the reserve currency, or this comes under threat from some parts of our globe, then surely holding some Gold is a good insurance policy against this?
h. What we happens to the USD over the next 100 years gold will always be a bh, never a daddy. The gold bug argument relies on a belief that for some reason the planet will go back in time 200 years and a yellow metal will somehow become some form of standard medium of exchange.
This is also why cryptoloons despise gold, fearing it and will bang on about it not having any value. They have the same religious zeal as a devout goldbug but worship a different god and will not tollerate false gods.
We're seeing the real value of gold right now as Russia uses it as an emergency proxy to the USD and is giving it away well below market to tin pot regimes in exchange for toilet paper and weapons.
More recently, regarding the reichsbürger nutters, we can probably safely assume part of their manifesto involved rantings either about a gold standard or some cryptojunk.
The key with either assets lies in sensible allocations and avoiding, at all costs, religions.
My understanding is that the underlying point of gold (and other PMs) is that it represents units of work, therefore units of cost expended, and therefore has intrinsic value - unlike electronic digits on a screen created out of thin air by the Fed or A.N.Other government entity.
It is also true that any other physical item that requires work to source/create has value, of course, but shiny yellow and silver metals seem to have historically been valued highly due to rarity, durability, portability, wide acceptance, and their ability to be both useful and aesthetically pleasing, depending on application. Is crypto the same? I'm not sure it is, and gold does not depend on a functioning electricity grid, which apparently can't even be guaranteed in a developed EU country at this moment in time...
I presume the claims re: Russia 'giving gold away' remain conjecture at this point
Scootersp said:
For me there is a philosophical argument going on in my head.
The origin of 'money' is quite well understood. As we formalised society past barter economies people gravitated towards the most saleable commodity within their local group. For some this was shells, glass beads, Yapese Rai stones, salt, copper, silver, gold etc. The key point being that for it to work as money it was generally considered rare or hard to acquire and thus with a low rate of supply increase it worked well to trade with. Shells used for trading were harvested by settlers and devalued them as a saleable commodity with the natives. Glass beads were imported to Africa by European traders which ended up devaluing them and destroying the economy. The Rai stones were forged (quarried?) by traders and thus destroyed the Yapese society. Coin clipping, and metallurgy shenanigans have caused many societies and civilisations to collapse.
Every single time in history the inflation of the money supply broke the society eventually.
Our money today is nothing. It's a unit of account and a medium of exchange, but it is no store of value for long term. It's an IOU. Its a promissory note with nothing behind it. It's money by decree. There is no money any more, only credit. In the entire history of the GBP it has lost 99.5% of its purchasing power through inflation. Since the Euro's inception 20 years ago it has lost 40% of its purchasing power.
The single greatest trick the USA has ever played is that its expansion of the monetary supply has exported its inflation to the globe. The immorality of fiat money printing has caused the vast majority of our current world problems. Of that I am certain.
You would do well to read 'When Money Dies' by Adam Fergusson on the collapse and hyperinflation in post WWI Germany. Draw parallels to what is happening now and your tinfoil hattery becomes a little less crazy.
Edit: You would probably also enjoy The Fiat Standard by Saifedean Ammous.
Fiat apologists will assert that a financial system built on credit is perfectly capable of functioning, and to some extent it does. Until the point where debt and devaluation of the 'money' means it doesn't. And when it doesn't it, breaks spectacularly.
DonkeyApple said:
This is also why cryptoloons despise gold, fearing it and will bang on about it not having any value. They have the same religious zeal as a devout goldbug but worship a different god and will not tollerate false gods.
Bitcoiners and Goldbugs are the same side of the sound money coin. Both of us understand the evils of inflating a currency to destruction. We just disagree on which way to solve it. Many Goldbugs are Bitcoiners too. Gold has longer track history but is worse at being divisible, transportable and has inherent counter party risks and in large quantities also has security and upkeep costs. Edited by RichTT on Sunday 11th December 15:42
I agree and am with you, I just try and play the middle ground a little bit between the two, try not to alienate those with opposing views. The tin foil hat comment was sarcastic/flippant, my comments about Argentina making clear I think the value Gold (anything tangible really?) can be in a crisis out of your control. I have looked through the history and read and listened to many 'sound' money advocates and as I said the average human being throughout history would have wanted something physical or at least genuinely backed by something for their labours.
The car financing threads show the polarising nature of arguments just entrenches each side, and almost forces you to chose a side, rightly or wrongly, effective or not, I try to sit on the fence a lot of the time, try to encourage others to go look for themselves.
We live in a fiat world that's functional and convenient, where it definitely suits the rich and powerful who are, in part, rich and powerful because of it, so it's not like change is going to be easy? For us it could even be a bit "turkeys voting for Christmas" as our economy may not fair well in a commodity backed currency environment?
I think there are enough issues in the world to warrant having some, that's my personal view, and I think it's fair to say most people have none physically in their possession (easily accessible if not exactly on/with them).
Then the issue of 'paper' metals (etf's etc ) rears its head, potential (definite?) price suppression because of it, people might buy in to the message, but will often stop short of physical ownership for various reasons, worse premiums than paper 'equivalents' (both buying and selling), Vat (on Silver), storage cost/risk issue. My argument would be that these vehicles won't protect you from the extreme fiat issues, you'd need
RSturbo on here focusses on the Comex and how the drain of inventory could lead to physical supply issues, you could get a run on them ultimately and then people find what they think they own they actually don't, possession is 9/10ths of the law, and we perhaps get true price discovery?
Everything seems electronic and virtual these days, when a comfortable life is still very much based on the physical, there is throughout history evidence that your virtual on paper or now digital wealth is not always 100% safe and in most cases the masses are the last to know and when the crunch comes flights to safety are grounded!?
The car financing threads show the polarising nature of arguments just entrenches each side, and almost forces you to chose a side, rightly or wrongly, effective or not, I try to sit on the fence a lot of the time, try to encourage others to go look for themselves.
We live in a fiat world that's functional and convenient, where it definitely suits the rich and powerful who are, in part, rich and powerful because of it, so it's not like change is going to be easy? For us it could even be a bit "turkeys voting for Christmas" as our economy may not fair well in a commodity backed currency environment?
I think there are enough issues in the world to warrant having some, that's my personal view, and I think it's fair to say most people have none physically in their possession (easily accessible if not exactly on/with them).
Then the issue of 'paper' metals (etf's etc ) rears its head, potential (definite?) price suppression because of it, people might buy in to the message, but will often stop short of physical ownership for various reasons, worse premiums than paper 'equivalents' (both buying and selling), Vat (on Silver), storage cost/risk issue. My argument would be that these vehicles won't protect you from the extreme fiat issues, you'd need
RSturbo on here focusses on the Comex and how the drain of inventory could lead to physical supply issues, you could get a run on them ultimately and then people find what they think they own they actually don't, possession is 9/10ths of the law, and we perhaps get true price discovery?
Everything seems electronic and virtual these days, when a comfortable life is still very much based on the physical, there is throughout history evidence that your virtual on paper or now digital wealth is not always 100% safe and in most cases the masses are the last to know and when the crunch comes flights to safety are grounded!?
RichTT said:
Fiat apologists will assert that a financial system built on credit is perfectly capable of functioning, and to some extent it does. Until the point where debt and devaluation of the 'money' means it doesn't. And when it doesn't it, breaks spectacularly.
It makes me laugh reading the endless crap posted by the usual suspects in the crypto thread about how bitcoin is such a massive ponzi, whilst singing the praises of the biggest ponzi that's ever existed - the fiat fractional reserve banking system - but this is apparently all fine because it's "regulated by the governments"
Meanwhile, in other threads they can be found making posts complaining about inflation, house prices, cost of borrowing etc.
They are not the brightest crayons in the pack, that much is clear.r3g said:
It makes me laugh reading the endless crap posted by the usual suspects in the crypto thread about how bitcoin is such a massive ponzi, whilst singing the praises of the biggest ponzi that's ever existed - the fiat fractional reserve banking system - but this is apparently all fine because it's "regulated by the governments"
Looking forward to having CBDCs forced on us, then? lolr3g said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Looking forward to having CBDCs forced on us, then? lol
I guess you are reading things that aren't there again. You should get that condition seen to some day. lolMy sincere apologies if I have misconstrued your post in some way.
RSTurboPaul said:
It's late and I am low on sleep for a number of reasons.
My sincere apologies if I have misconstrued your post in some way.
Lilewise, sorry if I'm misinterpreted your post - wasn't sure about the smiley. I am certainly NOT looking forward to the CBDCs which is clearly the path our self-appointed overlords are trying to funnel us down. Whilst there are several similarities with 'traditional' crypto coins, I don't agree with lumping them in the same basket,My sincere apologies if I have misconstrued your post in some way.
Sadly I don't think there is going to be a viable alternative to them once cash is done away with. Most people have been totally dumbed down and brainwashed into believing that their government is here to help, protect and look after them and blindly believe whatever is pumped out of the idiot box in the corner of the room, so all those people will just do whatever they are told is "best" for them and drag the rest of us in with them. Some rebels who refuse the system will use PMs, others will use traditional cryptos, each with essentially their own blackmarkets.
As I know you're a prolific reader of ZH, I expect you saw the recent article about Nigeria's plans to restrict withdrawals to the equivalent of $25 and they are cancelling notes currently in circulation by replacing them with new notes, only available from the banks (of course), and you're still restricted to $25. Clever! By their own admission this is being done deliberately as there hasn't been sufficient take-up of their CBDC so what better way to do it than force people into it by denying them access to cash? It doesn't take a genius to see it's only a matter until this comes to other countries, which will then be linked to your digital ID , carbon credit score and vax status for total control of you. <waits for cries of cOnSpIrAcY tHeOrY>
Perhaps a discussion for the CDBD thread started elsewhere a few months ago before the gold maxis get angry.
r3g said:
RSTurboPaul said:
It's late and I am low on sleep for a number of reasons.
My sincere apologies if I have misconstrued your post in some way.
Lilewise, sorry if I'm misinterpreted your post - wasn't sure about the smiley. I am certainly NOT looking forward to the CBDCs which is clearly the path our self-appointed overlords are trying to funnel us down. Whilst there are several similarities with 'traditional' crypto coins, I don't agree with lumping them in the same basket,My sincere apologies if I have misconstrued your post in some way.
Sadly I don't think there is going to be a viable alternative to them once cash is done away with. Most people have been totally dumbed down and brainwashed into believing that their government is here to help, protect and look after them and blindly believe whatever is pumped out of the idiot box in the corner of the room, so all those people will just do whatever they are told is "best" for them and drag the rest of us in with them. Some rebels who refuse the system will use PMs, others will use traditional cryptos, each with essentially their own blackmarkets.
As I know you're a prolific reader of ZH, I expect you saw the recent article about Nigeria's plans to restrict withdrawals to the equivalent of $25 and they are cancelling notes currently in circulation by replacing them with new notes, only available from the banks (of course), and you're still restricted to $25. Clever! By their own admission this is being done deliberately as there hasn't been sufficient take-up of their CBDC so what better way to do it than force people into it by denying them access to cash? It doesn't take a genius to see it's only a matter until this comes to other countries, which will then be linked to your digital ID , carbon credit score and vax status for total control of you. <waits for cries of cOnSpIrAcY tHeOrY>
Perhaps a discussion for the CDBD thread started elsewhere a few months ago before the gold maxis get angry.
lolEven the banks are warning us, but as usual, it seems people are blind to it!
To keep it vaguely on topic for this thread
I think we have pondered on here before about what might happen if physical gold is linked to a digital asset number in some way. Perhaps we'll end up in a world like that film 'Looper', with unnumbered slabs of silver and gold being the 'black market' currency of the future!RSTurboPaul said:
To keep it vaguely on topic for this thread I think we have pondered on here before about what might happen if physical gold is linked to a digital asset number in some way. Perhaps we'll end up in a world like that film 'Looper', with unnumbered slabs of silver and gold being the 'black market' currency of the future!
You can't put physical things on a Blockchain. I think we have pondered on here before about what might happen if physical gold is linked to a digital asset number in some way. Perhaps we'll end up in a world like that film 'Looper', with unnumbered slabs of silver and gold being the 'black market' currency of the future!@dergigi explains this quite well. Worth a read.
https://twitter.com/dergigi/status/142520208478226...
NMNeil said:
I don't trade FOREX, but if anyone does, how will this impact the market?
https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/sa...
The question is who does it impact? https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/sa...
Ultimately, a second global currency would at least offer competition and potential better stability for those not on either currency but this would be decades away and Saudi Arabia is an irrelevance in this game as it's supplies of cheap oil and relevance therefore within OPEC is set to run out before 2050.
RSTurboPaul said:
DonkeyApple said:
ATM said:
DonkeyApple said:
Gold this year has been flat which makes it look better than a tech laden equity index but its pricing this year has solely been a result of the USD so the investment play was to switch equities to USD, bypassing gold as all it has been has been an ultra inefficient dollar proxy.
And therefore if we see a medium term horizon where the USD loses its place as the reserve currency, or this comes under threat from some parts of our globe, then surely holding some Gold is a good insurance policy against this?h. What we happens to the USD over the next 100 years gold will always be a bh, never a daddy. The gold bug argument relies on a belief that for some reason the planet will go back in time 200 years and a yellow metal will somehow become some form of standard medium of exchange.
This is also why cryptoloons despise gold, fearing it and will bang on about it not having any value. They have the same religious zeal as a devout goldbug but worship a different god and will not tollerate false gods.
We're seeing the real value of gold right now as Russia uses it as an emergency proxy to the USD and is giving it away well below market to tin pot regimes in exchange for toilet paper and weapons.
More recently, regarding the reichsbürger nutters, we can probably safely assume part of their manifesto involved rantings either about a gold standard or some cryptojunk.
The key with either assets lies in sensible allocations and avoiding, at all costs, religions.
My understanding is that the underlying point of gold (and other PMs) is that it represents units of work, therefore units of cost expended, and therefore has intrinsic value - unlike electronic digits on a screen created out of thin air by the Fed or A.N.Other government entity.
It is also true that any other physical item that requires work to source/create has value, of course, but shiny yellow and silver metals seem to have historically been valued highly due to rarity, durability, portability, wide acceptance, and their ability to be both useful and aesthetically pleasing, depending on application. Is crypto the same? I'm not sure it is, and gold does not depend on a functioning electricity grid, which apparently can't even be guaranteed in a developed EU country at this moment in time...
I presume the claims re: Russia 'giving gold away' remain conjecture at this point
The whole pitch about BRICs and some kind of gold standard is exactly that, a sales pitch. It originated in the US where the people grow up in fear of Russians and Chinese people coming to eat their babies if they aren't good. That means you can phone them up and sell them a cure for this illness and that cure happens to be a shiny metal that everyone thinks is really, really pretty anyway.
Cross over the Atlantic and one finds another English speaking country full of scared old blokes who can also be so easily talked out of handing their life savings over to strangers that they have to run TV adverts trying to explain that this isn't a good idea so the good folk of Boca Raton, dust off their call notes and newsletters and start tapping up the good folk of Britain like a Nigerian Prince needing help moving his $50m or the guy selling £10k of solar panels to the bloke in a tiny house who just appeared on a mugs list having accidentally hit a few markers on various databases such as reaching retirement age, having a private pension, living in a small house and having bought UPVC windows in the last decade.
In the times of the Gold standard was the world full of old mugs and scared old blokes, or had it been thought up and accepted as a reasonable way to account for wealth? May be we can't go back and we left it behind for valid reasons but to say all the reasons were positive for everyone is a stretch, all systems have pro's and con's?
You had coins made of silver you had promissory notes backed by something, you had a 'fair' trade balancing system whereby if you imported too much you started losing Gold/Wealth to the producing nations, so you had to step up and make/create yourself, that just feels a more equitable system than the one we have today?
Even after many decades of leaving the gold standard behind we do have Gold as part of the banking regulations. So are the people drawing up Basel regulations scared old men and mugs? "Basel III is an internationally agreed set of measures developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in response to the financial crisis of 2007-09. The measures aim to strengthen the regulation, supervision and risk management of banks"
https://www.efginternational.com/uk/insights/2021/...
"The new regulation distinguishes between allocated and unallocated gold accounts. Gold in allocated accounts is held in custody in a bank’s vaults but belongs to the bank’s clients. Unallocated gold accounts reflect financial transactions linked to gold including gold lending, swaps, futures, and hedging for producers and refiners as well as jewellers and other corporate users. Unallocated gold accounts belong to the bank. Under the new regulation, allocated gold will be considered a Tier 1 asset and will continue to have zero risk weighting. Conversely, banks’ unallocated gold and exposures due to other financial transactions will be considered a Tier 3 asset subject to a Required Stable Funding (RSF) ratio of 85% like other risky assets such as equities. Under the new rules, banks are required to hold physical gold or other liquid assets for an amount equal to at least 85% of the value of unallocated gold on their books"
DA may have a nice witty Monty Python'esque diatribe about Gold but it doesn't seem to match the above regulators view.
You had coins made of silver you had promissory notes backed by something, you had a 'fair' trade balancing system whereby if you imported too much you started losing Gold/Wealth to the producing nations, so you had to step up and make/create yourself, that just feels a more equitable system than the one we have today?
Even after many decades of leaving the gold standard behind we do have Gold as part of the banking regulations. So are the people drawing up Basel regulations scared old men and mugs? "Basel III is an internationally agreed set of measures developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in response to the financial crisis of 2007-09. The measures aim to strengthen the regulation, supervision and risk management of banks"
https://www.efginternational.com/uk/insights/2021/...
"The new regulation distinguishes between allocated and unallocated gold accounts. Gold in allocated accounts is held in custody in a bank’s vaults but belongs to the bank’s clients. Unallocated gold accounts reflect financial transactions linked to gold including gold lending, swaps, futures, and hedging for producers and refiners as well as jewellers and other corporate users. Unallocated gold accounts belong to the bank. Under the new regulation, allocated gold will be considered a Tier 1 asset and will continue to have zero risk weighting. Conversely, banks’ unallocated gold and exposures due to other financial transactions will be considered a Tier 3 asset subject to a Required Stable Funding (RSF) ratio of 85% like other risky assets such as equities. Under the new rules, banks are required to hold physical gold or other liquid assets for an amount equal to at least 85% of the value of unallocated gold on their books"
DA may have a nice witty Monty Python'esque diatribe about Gold but it doesn't seem to match the above regulators view.
DonkeyApple said:
Ok but if the USD loses its place as the global reserve currency, no one is going to put forward an argument that it is somehow replaced by gold or Bitcoin. It would be being replaced by another currency of which there is one one, the Yuan. At which point, gold just becomes Yuan's bh. What we happens to the USD over the next 100 years gold will always be a bh, never a daddy.
Yeah I like to think that we might not get one super power currency because that has not worked out so well and therefore hopefully in the future we wont make the same mistake again. That's a big Assumption. If we get a multi country world where they each have a say or no one dictates then we may not get one stronger than the others. Sure if one is making all the money or making all the tat we consume / import then they should be more dominant or theirs would be more valuable but who knows what will happen. If the Yuan gets too valuable then the cheap tat we import is no longer cheap. And so the merry go round goes round some more. h. What we happens to the USD over the next 100 years gold will always be a bh, never a daddy. China currently sell Yuan right and buy USD to make their currency worth less and USD worth more. Well I think they buy US treasuries. What if they stop doing this and start doing the same but with Gold.
Maybe as more undeveloped nations start to develop they too will produce cheap tat for Us to consume. But who knows if commodities will be become even more valuable and the mark up on making tat from them may be less and therefore the miners getting this stuff out of the ground can make more and therefore the countries who predominantly produce commodities may have stronger currencies.
My point is this. If we dont know which currency will win then we would be better off holding a currency which is not linked to one country only and maybe that is Gold. Yes Yes Yes it is a bet against the USD and I'm ok with that. I think it is also a bet against no one particular currency winning and more of a hedging your bets play.
Scootersp said:
In the times of the Gold standard was the world full of old mugs and scared old blokes, or had it been thought up and accepted as a reasonable way to account for wealth? May be we can't go back and we left it behind for valid reasons but to say all the reasons were positive for everyone is a stretch, all systems have pro's and con's?
We won't go back to a gold standard simply because that would mean the governments would have to be fiscally responsible. Hah.
Another book recommendation:
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Fede...
And a 1 minute video clip from a Hayek interview in 1984.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nswOYo0zUcI&t=...
Scootersp said:
In the times of the Gold standard was the world full of old mugs and scared old blokes, or had it been thought up and accepted as a reasonable way to account for wealth? May be we can't go back and we left it behind for valid reasons but to say all the reasons were positive for everyone is a stretch, all systems have pro's and con's?
You had coins made of silver you had promissory notes backed by something, you had a 'fair' trade balancing system whereby if you imported too much you started losing Gold/Wealth to the producing nations, so you had to step up and make/create yourself, that just feels a more equitable system than the one we have today?
Even after many decades of leaving the gold standard behind we do have Gold as part of the banking regulations. So are the people drawing up Basel regulations scared old men and mugs? "Basel III is an internationally agreed set of measures developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in response to the financial crisis of 2007-09. The measures aim to strengthen the regulation, supervision and risk management of banks"
https://www.efginternational.com/uk/insights/2021/...
"The new regulation distinguishes between allocated and unallocated gold accounts. Gold in allocated accounts is held in custody in a bank’s vaults but belongs to the bank’s clients. Unallocated gold accounts reflect financial transactions linked to gold including gold lending, swaps, futures, and hedging for producers and refiners as well as jewellers and other corporate users. Unallocated gold accounts belong to the bank. Under the new regulation, allocated gold will be considered a Tier 1 asset and will continue to have zero risk weighting. Conversely, banks’ unallocated gold and exposures due to other financial transactions will be considered a Tier 3 asset subject to a Required Stable Funding (RSF) ratio of 85% like other risky assets such as equities. Under the new rules, banks are required to hold physical gold or other liquid assets for an amount equal to at least 85% of the value of unallocated gold on their books"
DA may have a nice witty Monty Python'esque diatribe about Gold but it doesn't seem to match the above regulators view.
Weightings, Scooter!! Weightings!! You had coins made of silver you had promissory notes backed by something, you had a 'fair' trade balancing system whereby if you imported too much you started losing Gold/Wealth to the producing nations, so you had to step up and make/create yourself, that just feels a more equitable system than the one we have today?
Even after many decades of leaving the gold standard behind we do have Gold as part of the banking regulations. So are the people drawing up Basel regulations scared old men and mugs? "Basel III is an internationally agreed set of measures developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in response to the financial crisis of 2007-09. The measures aim to strengthen the regulation, supervision and risk management of banks"
https://www.efginternational.com/uk/insights/2021/...
"The new regulation distinguishes between allocated and unallocated gold accounts. Gold in allocated accounts is held in custody in a bank’s vaults but belongs to the bank’s clients. Unallocated gold accounts reflect financial transactions linked to gold including gold lending, swaps, futures, and hedging for producers and refiners as well as jewellers and other corporate users. Unallocated gold accounts belong to the bank. Under the new regulation, allocated gold will be considered a Tier 1 asset and will continue to have zero risk weighting. Conversely, banks’ unallocated gold and exposures due to other financial transactions will be considered a Tier 3 asset subject to a Required Stable Funding (RSF) ratio of 85% like other risky assets such as equities. Under the new rules, banks are required to hold physical gold or other liquid assets for an amount equal to at least 85% of the value of unallocated gold on their books"
DA may have a nice witty Monty Python'esque diatribe about Gold but it doesn't seem to match the above regulators view.
ATM said:
Yeah I like to think that we might not get one super power currency because that has not worked out so well and therefore hopefully in the future we wont make the same mistake again. That's a big Assumption. If we get a multi country world where they each have a say or no one dictates then we may not get one stronger than the others. Sure if one is making all the money or making all the tat we consume / import then they should be more dominant or theirs would be more valuable but who knows what will happen. If the Yuan gets too valuable then the cheap tat we import is no longer cheap. And so the merry go round goes round some more.
China currently sell Yuan right and buy USD to make their currency worth less and USD worth more. Well I think they buy US treasuries. What if they stop doing this and start doing the same but with Gold.
Maybe as more undeveloped nations start to develop they too will produce cheap tat for Us to consume. But who knows if commodities will be become even more valuable and the mark up on making tat from them may be less and therefore the miners getting this stuff out of the ground can make more and therefore the countries who predominantly produce commodities may have stronger currencies.
My point is this. If we dont know which currency will win then we would be better off holding a currency which is not linked to one country only and maybe that is Gold. Yes Yes Yes it is a bet against the USD and I'm ok with that. I think it is also a bet against no one particular currency winning and more of a hedging your bets play.
Yup but these would be very long dated bets. No one of merit is going to be taking Chinese currency any time soon. And if one wanted a basket of currency to spread that long term risk would long dated govt debt not be cleaner or just the currency itself?China currently sell Yuan right and buy USD to make their currency worth less and USD worth more. Well I think they buy US treasuries. What if they stop doing this and start doing the same but with Gold.
Maybe as more undeveloped nations start to develop they too will produce cheap tat for Us to consume. But who knows if commodities will be become even more valuable and the mark up on making tat from them may be less and therefore the miners getting this stuff out of the ground can make more and therefore the countries who predominantly produce commodities may have stronger currencies.
My point is this. If we dont know which currency will win then we would be better off holding a currency which is not linked to one country only and maybe that is Gold. Yes Yes Yes it is a bet against the USD and I'm ok with that. I think it is also a bet against no one particular currency winning and more of a hedging your bets play.
We're seeing first hand from Russia the reason why a nation maintains a tiny weighting of its wealth as something such as gold and we obviously know the benefits of changing ownership allocations etc but I've never seen how this logically translates over to dear old Barry going heavily long on mispriced coins. Is he planning on procuring arms from Iran? Needing to balance a global trade discrepancy? Or is he just a bit mad and gone down some David Ickesque rabbit hole like the cryptospuds?
There's no point in filling your pockets with Krugerrands if you can't then swim the river. A few will do.
DonkeyApple said:
Yup but these would be very long dated bets. No one of merit is going to be taking Chinese currency any time soon. And if one wanted a basket of currency to spread that long term risk would long dated govt debt not be cleaner or just the currency itself?
We're seeing first hand from Russia the reason why a nation maintains a tiny weighting of its wealth as something such as gold and we obviously know the benefits of changing ownership allocations etc but I've never seen how this logically translates over to dear old Barry going heavily long on mispriced coins. Is he planning on procuring arms from Iran? Needing to balance a global trade discrepancy? Or is he just a bit mad and gone down some David Ickesque rabbit hole like the cryptospuds?
There's no point in filling your pockets with Krugerrands if you can't then swim the river. A few will do.
May I ask if you can defined 'mispriced coins'?We're seeing first hand from Russia the reason why a nation maintains a tiny weighting of its wealth as something such as gold and we obviously know the benefits of changing ownership allocations etc but I've never seen how this logically translates over to dear old Barry going heavily long on mispriced coins. Is he planning on procuring arms from Iran? Needing to balance a global trade discrepancy? Or is he just a bit mad and gone down some David Ickesque rabbit hole like the cryptospuds?
There's no point in filling your pockets with Krugerrands if you can't then swim the river. A few will do.
Gold/Silver Brits (for example) from Royal Mint or any of the reputable vendors that exist would seem to reflect market (spot) value + a margin (determined by supply and demand), which would seem to suggest that such prices are a realistic reflection of current values and market conditions. (Other national coins are available.)
Or are you suggesting that people are being suckered in by 'This limited edition of only 5000 coins is not available in the shops...' kind of adverts? Because arguably such things are true about many products sold, not just PMs in an overpriced form.
Scootersp said:
DonkeyApple said:
Weightings, Scooter!! Weightings!!
Fair enough, I still maintain far more have zero than have tin foil hat levels, especially real stuff not etf's. Having no gold in your portfolio isn't a de facto sign that someone is anti gold or hasn't understood gold but typically a sign either of a lack of wealth to be at the point to logically consider diversifying into more esoteric markets or a decision that the weighting would be so low as to make it a time drag on the portfolio.
On the other side are those who generally have insufficient wealth to logically be considering such diversification but end up abnormally overweight and holding a toxic portfolio. Many head towards mining shares or crypto driven by the desperate hope of randomly making more money through gambling or due to Dunning Kruger leading them to genuinely believe they have randomly developed some form of market edge. Hence why you get people going into extreme detail on a mining stock or crypto. That's a typical sign that they've gone down the rabbit hole of self belief and are hideously over exposed. Then you have those who buy physical gold. People who will pay huge premiums, take on higher risk just to hold a yellow shiny thing in their hands. Invariably they're hugely over weight in the asset, of average or below income/wealth and tending to hold more extreme political views or fears than is typical.
There's nothing at all wrong with gold, holding gold or governments using gold, digging it out of the ground etc etc. The single issue is when blokes who have money but not the amount of money they believe they deserve or have developed fears about what money they have being taken from them by lizard like people buying more than just one or two coins but sinking all their wife's pension in and talking about the end of days.
The problem with gold is that it is catnip for pensioners, like UPVC windows, solar panels, minibonds and emails from Boca Raton mailing lists.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff