Not to mention the cool tricked out cars and leather outfits [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vky3F36hoU0[/youtube]
Imo pms are good for an economic shtf scenario. Everyone else is thinking of an apocalyptic zombie shtf scenario. There is a difference.
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful reply. Yes, I agree. A lot will depend on whether it seems likely that such a situation will have a foreseeable end (reasonably within one's own lifetime). I definitely agree that a form of money would be needed for the world to run properly. It's just not practical to trade X,000 bags of wheat for a car or a gallon of water for a loaf of bread. Precious metals are definitely a good and sustainable way to do this when things are calm. I do wonder, though, how electronic transactions might work. These seem to negate some of the benefits of precious metals, but are quite necessary for large-scale trade, especially internationally. If trade was only to be done through the actual delivery of physical bullion as settlement of an account, it seems that the transport/shipping of precious metals between trading partners might be an incredibly profitable business Absolutely. I just meant that, during a 'SHTF' scenario, priorities would be so drastically different to what we are used to that the rarity of a metal (or of anything) will likely have no significance. Afterwards, of course, rarity will likely become important once again. I agree, again. I just meant that while the S is still being flung from the F, no-one is likely to care about the rarity if it's not going to increase their likelihood of still being alive tomorrow.
Economic collapse would be a catalyst for many other crises. Worthless treasury currency = no pay for doctors/police/military/judges/everyone else who keeps modern society running --> services and businesses coming to a grinding halt --> lawlessness/desperation --> fighting 'just because', as well as the perfect opportunity for various interested parties with little to lose and everything to gain to attempt to assert and establish dominance and take power. There would be no-one to stop them, aside from each other - this would not be a pretty sight. Economic collapse means total collapse of all of the institutions and supports that sustain modern society. This would not end with everyone sitting around a camp fire singing Kumbaya; this much should be apparent. So, there might be a difference in the cause, yet little difference in the flow on effects and ultimate outcome.
if you invest in 100 dollars in cash and don't touch it for 20 years or keep silver for 20 years we know which will be worth more.
The silver/gold ratio in the ground is said to be around 9-12 : 1. If this is true then that's a rational reason.
We do? Please tell us more about this time machine / absolutely accurate future-predicting technology you have. It may well end up being worth far more than either cash or silver.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgN1sLcAQnw[/youtube] Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?
You are making a lot of assumptions which have no historical basis. real life economic shtf crises including Zimbabwe, Serbia/Bosnia, Argentina, turkey, South American high inflation in the 80s and 70s, do not support your total collapse hypothesis. There was no total collapse or people eating each other. Even under nazi occupation which my grandparents lived through there was some form of central authority and law and order despite severe hardship and starvation. I call bs on the zombie crap unless its an epidemic or a meteor strike. Its good to be prepared and self sufficient though.
Historicaly, Ivan is right. At 1 time $100 would have bought around 3oz of gold but at the same time, $100 was a good bit of money to have. But if you had hung onto the $100 in cash, it would have lost its buying power as more $ are printed. PMs are a STORE of wealth, the only time there will be a true increase in wealth by holding PMs is when everyone is trying to store wealth in them at the same time and drive up the price due to no supply. And for that to happen, some really bad things must happen first. What will happen in the future can only be guessed at but history is a good indication.
If there was no total collapse, then they are clearly not the sort of situation to which I refer. These were obviously regionally limited financial crises. I'm clearly talking about a worldwide, actual total economic collapse (which I clearly differentiated from a 'crisis' in an earlier post). What you're saying is akin to claiming that sawing one's arm off will not lead to significant blood loss because I got a paper cut on my finger and only lost a few drops - they are two very different things. Of course there was some form of central authority and law and order during Nazi occupation. If there wasn't, it wouldn't be an occupation - that's the whole point. 'Awful central authority' is not the same as 'no central authority'. I'm not saying that I think that anything like this is - or isn't - likely to happen, but this is what people seem to be talking about.
Ivan was not speaking historically, so his unsubstantiated prediction/claim is baseless. He did not say that precious metals have, historically, performed better than cash deposits. - not: if you had invested [...] we know which was worth more [in the end]. Note also the use of the word 'know'. We know what happened in the past; we do not know what will or will not happen in the future.
You just have to wrap your brain around a new paradigm, and forget about this "currency" business that had ingrained itself into the way everyone thinks today (and I mean that in the gentlest, nicest way possible, I used to think in terms of currency too, and still do - but there is another paradigm)... I have 17.324518 ounces of gold in my vault. I log on, and electronically transfer 0.025184 ounces to your vault. I just paid you $38.53 if you want to express that in current fiat AUD. Solutions for this exist today, see Guardian Vaults if you're curious.
:lol: it's like a massive circle and once a new crew joins the same old FAQ's come up but I suppose we too were once like that
Not going to get into a pissing contest over interpretation of meaning but by using 20yrs to quantify his statement, it seems he is drawing on historical data to look into the future. As in, past 20yr porformance is indication that it will be worth more. If it didnt have that, Id see your point. Regardless, Predictions are exactly that... predictions. Opinions put into words. Just my 2 cents, that historicaly his statement makes sense, not a statement of fact as Im not in Ivans head nor like everyone else on here can I see into the future. At the end of the day, both sides are only and will ever only be opinions. So really a moot point to have an internet arguement over.
