2017 - Silver may outperform gold, but there could be high volatility

Some thoughts on the direction of PMs in 2017 if the US under Trump continues to strengthen, and if the world avoids another major war:

* Silver (and platinum) should outperform gold due to strengthening of industrial demand.

* The gold price could experience greater volitility due to demand swings as nervous investors react to global uncertainty.

However, if Trump triggers a major military conflict, all bets are off and it's gold to the moon.

 

I heard that jobs growth for December is the US came in under expectations - pathetic when you think spend spend spend being Christmas :/

And "wage growth" was 10c per hour :lol: to da moon

 

Note that this isn't a bash Trump and Obama thread. It's about what could happen to metals under a couple of scenarios in 2017.

Also, on jobs and wage growth, it's a bit early to be criticising any growth data under Trump. The latest stats are:

U.S. adds 156,000 jobs, wage growth surges to 7-year high
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) The U.S. added 156,000 new jobs in the final month of 2016 and worker pay rose at the fastest pace since the Great Recession, reflecting a surge in employment over the past six years that's left many companies complaining about a shortage of skilled labor.

www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/571DA4D0-D378-11E6-ACB9-174D52089D58

 

156,000 New Jobs :/

Yes poorly paid ($10.00 per hour) and mostly - Part Time

Jobs growth - Surges :/ I suppose being that things in the last 8 years (mentioning no names :lol has been abysmal.

Happy

P.S. as you mention - uncertainty - is the WORD

 

Silver will outperform gold this year is what many reckon. I think so too.

I bought a little gold last year. This year it be all silver I stacking. Same with the mining stocks.

 

Certainty=silver
Uncertainty=GOLD.

What will trump bring.

 

Have you seen the people on dole queue? I wouldn't hire them uness I got paid

 

We train - Hundreds Of Thousands - here in Australia costing tax payers hundreds of millions making - No Real Difference - making the training companies millions upon millions :/

Create the jobs and the employers will train the people being job specific meeting their needs creating Real Jobs

We continue "to train people" for jobs that don't exist and if you don't honour "your obligation" cutting wood for the smoke screen then off with your head.

On the surface "it all looks good" but the government is paddling like mad under the water like a duck just continuing to prop up the house of cards

A lot of "work" forgive the pun and Taxpayers $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for nothing

Note - I am voting for - CHAOS - Gold Up - Silver Down - Sorry

 

Can't work that way - when time is money, training gets outsourced and your back at square one.

Capitalist machine is too far in motion to dream of that scenario.

But my personal take on your statement - I'd rather have generalist training, and pick up specificity in the workforce - than go straight to gaining specificity in the job. Your theory assumes everyone is good at teaching what they know, and that a-hole employers don't exist, people need options - so training companies exist.

 

Wrong - have you ever heard of a traineeships being 100% on the job training

Generalist training is something like - a blue card or a white card - being keep your back straight when lifting - which fire extinguisher to use - where the fire exit is - etc,etc.

You will - NEVER - and I will say it again,you will - NEVER - learn more than - 100% on the job training - watching someone working doing whatever keeping your mouth shut and your ears open

Your argument sounds socialist to me and nanny state,the only government job creation should be about infrastructure.

We don't need the government to help you learn something that adds value,they just continue to get in the way.

In Australia "we" have become so addicted to the government for everything especially government $$$$$$$$$ that we have forgotten how to tie our own shoe laces :/

 

AGAIN...

The rest of what you said was an attempt at a strawman fallacy if ever I saw one, cant really progress on this one with you I'm afraid.

 

I guess that you will just have to accept being wrong

P.S. I wish we had an "age index" showing peoples real life experience in years,then we could save our "breath" not arguing with someone who just came down in the last shower,but I am not speaking about you S.J. :lol:

 

Both the US dollar and gold up. Could be an interesting start to the year.

 

Wrong? Wrong about what? You keep circling with weird idioms and grand patriotic statements - your solution would do nothing to the job rate, you literally said: create the jobs and ended with creating real jobs, you can't start with something and make it its own validation. My issue was with "...and the employers will train the people" part in-between - not this "cutting wood for the smokescreen" BS.

Fact is, my rebuttal and opinion to your flimsy argument is met with loosely gathered counter arguments that broaden with every one of your posts, (I mean, "socialist nanny state"!? HA!), even to the point where age is now a factor.

All presumptions about my age ignored - its not wise to pretend fools don't get old.

 

The fact is you can't put an old head on young shoulders - and - youth is also wasted on the young

Smack Down :lol:

 

So where are we so far for 2017?

Silver is still looking good but Trump is stirring things up which may drive increased gold volatility and some wild swings.

 

With the swamp filled Trump administration and a pathological lying Trump sitting on top of the raw sewage that is his cabinet for the most part, it's almost impossible to know what the future will bring except to know that it's an unpredictable future because of that.



.

 

Unpredictably and chaos is good for gold.

 

^ In spite of a strong US dollar (at this moment in time), I do believe that 2017 will see a weakening dollar and ergo higher PM prices (and lots of volatility along the way).


Only time will tell though.



.

 

I used to work for a training organisation working with the long-term unemployed.
Quite honestly, the only employment outcomes was that it kept myself and others at the training organisation working.
I can only speak for what I saw, but if I were an employer, I wouldn't want to employ any of the long-term unemployed. The jobs they were best suited for was things like sweeping floors, etc.
Generally speaking, they all seemed to have mild intellectual or persoanlity disorders, in particular, ones that got in the way of attending anything for a significant amount of time.
Around where I live, there are quite a few who are quite active in their own pursuits (for hobby money) but could never hold down regular employment. Their issue is that it requires "committment" either to regularity or to a full working week. It's outside of their scope, therefore they end up unemployed. These people need ad hoc work, which used to exist back when there was "menial" work, but that's mostly gone with computerisation and mechanisation.