Place a buy stop order just above the level of resistance in the event of a breakout on the upside or buy physical when people start golf clapping "going to the moon" suggestions.
Well, in pricing/liquidity terms, if you don't want to use chartist jargon, then how about using economist jargon, and use resilience? Much less confusing.
Silver and gold are linked together, through out history this has been so. Currency backed by nothing is but a tiny blip on our time line. It has taken only a few decades for central banks to overstep and imperil us all. So what's left, their failed system or a system that endured for hundreds of years. Silver is used by the Central banks to beat down the price of gold, if they loose control of silver they know that gold will explode and then the game is up. Accumulating silver may be not, but manipulatiing beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Currency backed by nothing (fiat) is at least 4000 years old. Before paper money there was Chinese coins from base metal, not silver or gold, but before that there were credits, fiat money. To make his point as clear as possible, Graeber (p. 29) quotes from Caroline Humphrey's Cambridge University dissertation as the definitive anthropological work on barter. Her statement is as clear as it is emphatic. "No example of a barter economy, pure and simple, has ever been described, let alone the emergence from it of money; all available ethnography suggests there has never been such a thing." Innes knew this 100 years ago, yet the myth persists. So if there has never been a land of barter, where did we get money and credit? Innes (p. 397) argues that systems of credit pre-date coins by over a thousand years. "The earliest known coins of the western world are those of ancient Greece, the oldest of which, belonging to the settlements on the coast of Asia Minor, date from the sixth or seventh centuries B.C." In contrast, the law of debt goes back to at least the Code of Hammurabi in Babylonia 2000 years B.C. Innes saw that the foundation of society and thereby of credit was that promises or obligations were and are viewed as sacred. In all societies (p. 391) the breaking of the pledged word, or the refusal to carry out an obligation is held equally disgraceful." He goes on to explain how wooden tally sticks and clay shubati tablets were used to track credits/purchases and debits/sales long before the existence of coins. And that one could repay a debt by returning a credit of the same amount to the lender. In fact, village fairs were convened so that those holding the debts of others could match credits and debits together and thereby clear their accounts. Over time others showed up to buy and sell other goods and services or to cater to those in this most basic business of banking. There are a variety of reasons why this matters for monetary theory and macroeconomic policy. But let me leave you with just one. From the Smithian story, it was gold and silver that backed the issuance of a paper currency. However, if Innes is right, the banking system never worked in that way. In Innes's world, money is and always has been a token representing a socially constructed debit-credit relationship. A stamped coin, $20 bill, or tax refund check is an asseta credit to those who hold it and a liabilitya debitfor the government who issues it. When the federal government spends, perhaps by directly depositing a Social Security recipient's check into her account, a special kind of credit is created. This credita new "debt" of the federal governmentsatisfies all four functions that are used to define money. It serves as a medium of exchange, store of value, means of payment, and a unit of account. But what gives this money value? The money is valuable because it is the only token acceptable for the payment of taxes. And when those taxes are paid, the money that had been spent into existence is extinguished. Thus, it is through federal government spending that money enters the economy and through taxation that it is destroyed. This is where Innes's 100- year-old insights lead. If these ideas are hold up under academic scrutiny, are further disseminated, and become the basis of how we understand money and credit, an entirely new paradigm will need to emerge in the study of monetary economics. http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/09/money-created-overcome-barter.html
More about Graeber. How Barter Followed and Did Not Precede the Creation of Money http://p2pfoundation.net/How_Barter_Followed_and_Did_Not_Precede_the_Creation_of_Money This is talking about systematic bartering, not one caveman trading a flint arrowhead for some berries.
Linear thinking is a dangerous way to invest. Things change. Just because both metals were money decades ago, does not make it true now. Shells used to be money hundreds of years ago and silver was money decades ago. Silver is now an important industrial commodity and can no longer be used as money. Whatever happens to silver pricing in the future, it will not be because it is money. I will answer the question for you. To my knowledge, no Central Banks are accumulating silver. Contrast silver with gold. Gold is an industrial commodity, but not a major one and Central Banks are accumulating gold. Gold can become money again. That is why I am long gold and net short silver.
I see the problem here, we are on opposite sides of this equation . I won't the current system to be destroyed and replaced with a much fairer inclusive one, one that gives all nations the right to prosper. You are content with the status quo and are part of the problem, you short silver for personal gain, you are helping the bankers to maintain control. You see I am a SILVER STACKER, I have never sold a single ounce of silver, every ounce I buy removes it from the corrupt system and weakens it, may be only by the minutest fraction and will not make a blind bit of difference by my actions alone. But what if a hundred more people did the same , or a thousand or ten thousands then I sure that would register on their radar. This site is called SILVER STACKERS , I will continue to stack silver with every spare dollar , once all other living expenses are taking care of, the rest will go towards the fight. Will I live to see the end of this existing corrupt system, I sure hope so. But only time will tell. So let's just agree to disagree because you and me are oil and water. Keep stacking folks and have a very very merry Xmas
no, not really. I shorted the sh*t out of leveraged metals on the announcement of Friday's non farm payrolls and cleaned up nicely. Some of that fiat profit will eventually end up in physical metals. Why fight a system you can't beat on any personal level when you can take advantage of it to benefit your personal fight?
Wow, I feel much more powerful after reading your post. Since you have drunk the silver permabull koolaid and have reach the sammysilver level of denial, yes we will have to agree to disagree. All nations have the ability to prosper, but it is up to the citizens and the government to accomplish prosperity. I am surprised you didn't learn from history that equality happens only when everyone is impoverished. The ability to improve one's life is necessary for prosperity. So, I am philosophically against equality. If you truly believe in equality, give your silver away to people as long as they promise not to sell it. :/
All nations do NOT have the ability to prosper under the current system, that's the whole point / reason why this system WILL fail. The west have taken/stolen resources for far too long and it will end. I truly believe in equality, that is why I want this system to fail. I think every man , woman and child should have the same opportunities as we have here in the west. Otherwise I would simply invest in that rigged one horse race you call the stock market, pocket the money and live the high life. But I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror , knowing that my opulence was at the expense of another. So I may not be living high on the hog , but I sure do sleep well at night. Keep stacking folks and .............ho ho ho
Are you seriously suggesting you hoard silver as a noble crusade to help impoverished nations? :lol: :lol: :lol: ho, ho, ho alright. OMG, I have heard some good justifications from socialists for thier participation in capitalist activities, but this one is up there with the best of 'em.... :lol: :lol: :lol:
I hate to introduce reality into your dream world, but some citizens in every country do prosper. That fact alone proves your thesis false. If you want those impoverished people to get ahead, send them your money instead of blowing it on silver. Better yet, quit your job, move to one of those countries and show them how to prosper. Good luck with your liberal guilt trip.
1. A mining company sells stock and borrows money from banks. 2. They dig up some silver as a byproduct which is very inexpensive per ounce. 3. They sell the silver to a company that makes coins (also may sell stock and borrow money from banks). 4. You purchase silver. 5. The sale of silver helps mining companies, stocks, banks, and sales companies make money. If silver in step 4 isn't sold, start again with step 1.
Central banks control gold, meaning that they sell low and buy high as to make sure PM savers receive fewer ounces when buying and fewer fiat when selling. But they also control gold so that its price trend doesn't lag too much on silvers, as to lure people that chose PM anyway, to gold rather than silver, because they don't want to have big silver stocks and a thus higher silver price that would hit industrials and alike. Keep stacking, yes, but paying again higher prices, no. We have seen $14, the futures total net position again indicates that the return to $16 is also a temporary story. So my next stacking decision will wait till there. Should take again a season or so, 3 months from now would make it end february. I can change mind in meantime, if I see reason to.
