Why do you stack?

I primarily stack to save, less likely to spend it if its in metal over fiat.

Also with term deposit rates these days 3-4%, more upside in metals...

I am 22yo and saving mainly for a house. Metals are a good place to store the value for a few years before buying in to the property sector...

 

http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/6824_earlyaustralia_aboriginals.png

I would love to be an Aborigine, (at least a thousand years before the white settlement) yes it would have been hard, yes you could die at any moment, yes a simple cut may kill you, yes you had a shorter life. But you ate fresh food, had multiple wives (at the same time) and you were truly alive.

I strongly doubt they had modern diseases like cancer and heart problems, diabetes, obesity etc (at least their rates would have been much lower).

And access to the Dreamtime!

 

Sorry, when I said "working" I really should have said "sophisticated" - and by "sophisticated" I mean "developed to a high level of complexity" and not as a subjective phrase.

Any culture that survived (particularly those that survived to have their picture taken or painted) clearly had a detailed and complicated enough social structure that enabled them to survive in their environment. This is as self-evident as the fact that a living organism must have the right attributes for it to live. If it didn't it would be extinct.

Do I consider a harsh subsistence lifestyle with a very large child mortality rate where I will most likely be dead by age 30 and constantly need to be exposed to harsh unforgiving natural conditions "inferior" to living in a society where I have a temperature controlled home largely free of pests and debilitating diseases with indoor plumbing and am expected to live to nearly 80? Of course I do. It is massively inferior in thousands of ways. Give any of the 6 billion or so poverty stricken people the opportunity to choose and I reckon 5.999 billion will choose the latter. Will they lament the massive cultural transition required to achieve the latter? Possibly.

Are there aspects of modern society that I dislike and would favour a "simpler" lifestyle? Absolutely. The question is whether I can obtain the "simpler" lifestyle without forgoing the absence of pests and debilitating diseases, without requiring unwanted exposure to harsh natural elements, without forgoing the health services that enable me to live till I'm 80. If we could, I think many people would want that and many people do in fact actively strive for it (and I think you seem to one who is striving for it). IMO, how we best get there is through capitalism and personal and economic freedoms since the fundamental goal of free markets is to find innovative ways that can meet those desires with the least burden on our finite resources.

 

This belongs in the other *done to death* threads about why you stack. I wanted to elicit a different response by asking questions of the cultural landscape we take for granted. People think humans are above the laws of survivals that all other animals must abide by.

Mother culture tells us that we're civilised (moreso than animals) giving rise to our superiority and dominance over them, while at the same time NOT civilised enough (we're aware of our unsustainable use of resources but think that if we "step up" and become more 'advanced', we'll overcome all these issues. Mother culture tells nasty, nasty lies.

Good luck saving for a house! That's the last thing on my mind. I'm happy feeding myself in my quest to find more answers... (meanwhile, my gf puts up with my excrutiating excentricities. She is very patient and understanding.)

 

I love your thinking. But it would be lunacy to suggest we ditch the tech we have now. We just have to offer more. Better lifestyles, less stress, more cameraderie and see past the flaws of this society. Seriously.. working hours are getting longer, it's harder to find appropriate housing, agriculture is making a mess of our water systems (debate on the Murray Darling Basin, anyone?? (kidding)), diseases are rampant, cancer is more prevalent, suicide is more prevalent and we're all becoming more isolated.

We've sent man to the moon, turned weird rocks into atom bombs (with more than a bit of smashing and grinding, of course) and created an amazing information network spanning the globe - surely we can create a new lifestyle! That's the challenge of the 21st century - surviving.

 

They're neither. They are animals - albeit some of the most intelligent on the planet with many social characteristics that we can identify with (with different communities exhibiting different attributes in different ways). Our minds are substantially different to apes and as touched on in the Attenborough thread, are what gives us the capacity to guide our next stage of evolution rather than randomly succumb to the "whims" of the natural world around us. Shaping and changing the natural world in substantial ways that benefit humanity is a GOOD thing. Whether we are clever enough to ensure that the consequences of that shaping happens in a way that is beneficial for more than a few years is a substantially different issue to whether we should. Yes we "should", but we are smart enough to know that we also need to be careful. Different people's perceptions of "how careful" is what generates a lot of debate and discussion.

 

Just read your last couple of posts. I think we are both on the same page and largely want the same sorts of things (but using different lingo).

 

"Do I consider a harsh subsistence lifestyle with a very large child mortality rate where I will most likely be dead by age 30 and constantly need to be exposed to harsh unforgiving natural conditions "inferior" to living in a society where I have a temperature controlled home largely free of pests and debilitating diseases with indoor plumbing and am expected to live to nearly 80? Of course I do. It is massively inferior in thousands of ways. Give any of the 6 billion or so poverty stricken people the opportunity to choose and I reckon 5.999 billion will choose the latter. Will they lament the massive cultural transition required to achieve the latter? Possibly."

I think you are making the assumption that the only solution is to revert to some sort of primitive tribe. If the solution was that, people wouldn't make that choice. I agree.

Living lives til we're 80 and building our economy on extractive resources is NOT sustainable. You may think just because we're living like that now, that's the only option and the BEST option. In fact, it is not. We either find a solution or become extinct.

The going Aboriginal solution is one option. One of a possibly infinite amount of solutions. When all the coal is used up and there are 100,000 humans left inhabiting ruins of cities that are unable to be sufficiently powered have to redesign their lives, how do you think they'll live? I bet they'll be innovative, because when there isn't coal and oil, you have to think of some mighty interesting ways to recreate the beloved 'civilisation'.

 

I think the major reason why we don't do this is because the folks that are attracted to power are also the folks who tell the masses what is ok and what is not ok. If the masses were watching positive educational television, while they ate breakfast (or even just enjoying their breakfast without the TV on) instead of The Kardashian Butt Diet they would make motions toward it.

The people who are attracted to power could have their own special island and allow humanity to evolve, they could build their own house, grow and make their own food and clean their own toilets . That island would need constant monitoring but that would be ok because we could just use all the cctv cameras that are around already (they wont mind, they're all for cctv ).

 

^^ Technically, I didn't make "the assumption that the only solution is to revert to some sort of primitive tribe". In fact I said the pathway to get there is by using the the best features of the same economic structure that got us to this point.

For all intensive purposes, energy is the most critical factor as everything else is essentially plentiful enough or has enough viable substitutes. There is no shortage of energy per se, but there is a shortage of energy harnessed in a usable way that is socially accepted. At some stage fossil fuels will need to give way to a mixture of the next generation of nuclear, to fusion (which assuming the next CERN project goes ahead as planned won't be until the latter half of the century) not to mention solar as the primary sources. The only way to unlock these things in a sustainable manner and to transition society is to let free undistorted markets do what they do best - allocate scarce resources to their best and most valuable use.

 

"They're neither. They are animals - albeit some of the most intelligent on the planet with many social characteristics that we can identify with (with different communities exhibiting different attributes in different ways). Our minds are substantially different to apes and as touched on in the Attenborough thread, are what gives us the capacity to guide our next stage of evolution rather than randomly succumb to the "whims" of the natural world around us. Shaping and changing the natural world in substantial ways that benefit humanity is a GOOD thing. Whether we are clever enough to ensure that the consequences of that shaping happens in a way that is beneficial for more than a few years is a substantially different issue to whether we should. Yes we "should", but we are smart enough to know that we also need to be careful. Different people's perceptions of "how careful" is what generates a lot of debate and discussion."

Are you saying that humans are not animals? Are we not able to choose options other than capitalism and communism? I think you are giving humans more credit than deserved when it come to guiding where we need to go. Evolution had no guidance and lo and behold, ambled stepwise to the humans that are here now. Why do we think we need to step in and take over the guidance? That's what I find disturbing. We ignore the 'whims' of the natural world as something inconsequential and of no function. Those same 'whims' bring rain to crops and have formed the coal we dig up without a second thought. I think humanity would benefit greatly from a little more humble-ness and a little less 'we're the most sophisticated being on this planet, so its ours to use and abuse'.

I also think that assuming capitalism in a different form will take us where we need to go is misguided. In fact, capitalism is founded in consumption. I understand the self-regulation of finite resources, but whileever humans horde this form of wealth, there will continue to be an unnecessary consumption above and beyond what is needed to survive.

 

Bordsilver: "For all intensive purposes(intents and purposes), energy is the most critical factor as everything else is essentially plentiful enough or has enough viable substitutes."

You know what the market does when it grows more food than people can pay for? It burns/destroys it. We have more than enough food to feed the world right now. Why are so many people still hungry? Is it because we can't get it to them? If we can get to the moon and rovers to mars, I doubt this is the issue. To make it a bit more obvious, ask yourself what Woolworths, Coles or any other food chain or store does at the end of the day with remaining food?

IT BINS IT. - This is a function of the capitalist model. If you can't sell it, don't give it away for free, dispose of it so it becomes undesirable or in a manner in which people CANNOT access it. This is just one of the perversities of being able to accumulate wealth. You have to make something scarce in order to make it valuable. Lock up the food and what you throw out, make it hard for people to get at.

This is the lunacy that's driving us into this twisted spiral of extinction.

 

More about diversification. You know 10 years from now, people are going say, you should have bought it back then. So now, im going to take a risk so that, one day when someone tells me i should have bought silver or gold when price was $XXX, my reply would be, yes i did.

 

haha nice one Spoony. Just to play Devil's advocate, when silver's at $3.80 in 10 years time, you'll say, "Yep, I bought at $30.52". Nothing is certain. Hope for the best. Plan for the worst, and don't bury all your nuts in one spot.

There are plenty of people around who bought at $45 and close to $50 for silver. They will be waiting for those losses to come back to them. We're all vulnerable and pretending we're not is delusional.

 

+1.

 

Someones been reading . When other options are available, there will be a few on this special island, still obsessed with locking up their food and forcing each other to do crappy work just to survive. Without the rest of humanity keeping them propped up in the clouds, that island is going to be full of cranky rich people. Plenty of money but no one to pay to get them to do their bidding.

I say keep your 'money'. We're going out to have a good time. Good luck trying to convince someone that keeping the food, shelter and water at arms length is more 'civilised' and the 'right' way to live.

 

I love Permaculture, the main goal (besides an overabundance of food shelter and water, which excess is then shared/sold on) is about making your land better, making your soil better and making the planet better with every step. It's a definate option for a positive evolution.

I actually thought I thought that scenario up (island for psychopaths)? Has someone else been talking about that? I know there are some that would like to roll out the old guillotine but I think it makes you as bad as the bad guys. All the stuff I said that they could do, we would be doing also

 

Oh sorry for the confusion. What makes you think if you kill the top dog (apparently they're the evil ones you want to put on the island) that another one wont take their place amongst the rest of us not living on the island?

By the way, the island shouldn't be a secluded prison of sorts. More of a, "this is your spot." "But this is the only place to be a "taker". You can join us if you want to be a 'leaver'. But leave your money and hording behind. We don't want it."

I love the idea of permaculture. It's definitely an improvement on current agricultural practices.

 

seems like all gold and silvers stacker like propertys!!!! winners

GOLD+SILVER=PROPERTYS

 

I'm just being faecetious really, you're right we have to evolve all together at some point, whether by choice or by circumstance. I've got my plan I'm acting towards I guess everyone has to make their own decisions.

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."