China is complicated, Chinese r complicated, they r too many of them , single city have more people than whole Australia only people who rule China and India can understand these at some point. Main goal for Chinese is to preserve peace in China and sustainable development, that means they need to acquire resources around the world , but they dont have carriers , not even single one, Thailand have one, mini one but have, to make so many operational and functional carriers as USA they will need decades, so they will wait at least decade that China became super power No1, until then silver medal for China is reality. Combat experience is also important same like technology and numbers and they dont have any for many yeas . The biggest problem with Chinese in China ,is they cant to do 2 thing at same time, if u give him 3 task to do at same time he will all 3 do wrong. That who can do multitasking they r bosses.
I'm no war nerd but aren't carriers WWII tech? The current tech is UAV's aka Drone Wars. Although the raid to kill Osama left behind a sizeable chunk of the US's notsosecretnow Stealth Helicopter which promptly made it over the border to China. I have read opinions that say that one reason the US sticks with carriers is that the are big ticket items with large amounts of prestige and a hell of a lot of personal reputations at stake. One war game the US navy was obliterated only for the whole exercise to be run again "only this time do it properly" Again I reiterate I know nothing just shooting the breeze.... Oh yeah, in Korea the Chinese didn't have enough guns for everyone so when the man with the gun got killed someone had to run up to pick it up. Also the Chinese soldiers weren't equipped for the winter and stripped warm clothing from dead US Soldiers. And Chairman Mao's son fought and died there unlike Allied leaders who just sent other peoples kids to die.
Yes , it is true they r relic but... drones r perfect bcoz u dont need to think about public at home but drones r to sensitive to EMP and on large scale can be easily stopped, same like nuke for humans, but carriers r military base for themselves, it is not easy to establish military base with complete infrastructure in remote area of the world, also there is opinion that carries can be destroyed successfully only by tactical nuclear assault, what makes them interesting target , bcoz theres number and maneuverability and autonomy, if u spend 200 nukes only on carriers and u didnt hit all of them how many will left for other targets such industry cities, airplane, navy,infantry base, power plants...
About that 1/16 gold2silver. Let's bring in some history. That ratio was indeed historic. The major change was due to the discovery of The New World (America) and large silver deposits there. This new supply made silver alot cheaper. But, there is an opposite trend. Because silver was alot cheaper, it couldn't be recovered at a lower cost, especially in complex products. So, silver was actually 'used up'. Because gold was alot more expensive, and also not much used industrially so not within complex products, it could be recovered at a lower cost. So, gold was actually 'stacked up'. So yes, the ratio should lower again. About the industrial share within the silver price. The amount dollars tripled since 2008. Silver priced tripled since 2008. Are the industrials following the amount dollars or so? Or did the industrial demand see a 300% increase?
I would think that nothing beats projecting power to all corners of the globe than aircraft carriers. China has one russian carrier in the works and another 4 to come.
Exactly.. you cant invade a country with drones. Whereas a single large carrier can hold its own against an entire country
ummm ... i said that tongue in cheek. you're the very first guru i've heard who has proposed that the US government manipulated silver upwards during said period. The exact opposite is claimed, and the facts support the opposite. I'm not sure why you cant understand that when the market (represented by tens of millions of people) believes that silver is more valuable than what the government decrees it to be (through their coinage), that this indicates that silver IS more valuable than what the government says it is... And when government decrees a value lower than what the market says then that is definately manipulation. savvy?? lol - just love that one ... We'll see just how "useless" an asset silver is in the coming years.... ummm... me thinks you should look up the meaning of the words "savvy" and "derogatory" and then reasses the suitability of your decreed defacto marriage of them ...
I think the Gold Silver ratio gets flogged as a promotional catch cry to be honest , I have mentioned in forums before that there is 16 times more silver than gold in the crust of the earth , and its interesting how the market place has historically reflected that fact , but in the modern times of sheer magnitude of investment bankers and globalisation , we may never see those ratios again , but if we did ? .. why will silver rise to meet the ratio with gold ? ... why wont gold fall to meet the ratio with silver ? ... or perhaps a bit of both ..? As for store of wealth , i think that is purely mind set and choice , and importantly economics . If you look at the mechanical properties of gold you will realise that there are countless industrial uses for it , but economics prevents that , as it will with silver at some point . But i think we can all agree that silver has been to cheap and still is . The higher the price of silver ? .. the more transition from industrial to store of wealth .
ratios is about balance. so if the price of gold is priced relatively higher in say the US than the far east, then we can send the gold to be sold there and ship back the silver over here. I asked that gold to silver is 1:42 easy in the States, but here in Singapore you can not even get 1:37. Silver is over priced here. The premium on ASE and CML have dropped We can sell gold online and post to overseas, and buy silver online from overseas. in small quantities of course. So it will take a long time to re-balance the ratios. But mind set is very hard to change and sleep is hard to awaken from, those who hold gold still believe that the ratio should go back to 1:80. most silver stacker may want believe the ratio should be 1:20. we can only wait and see, hope one side will be right, and I hope when we are there we can ACT on it. SWAPS!!! If you own both, it really does not give a problem where it goes, so long it move from one end to the other. HIHO swaps here and there.
YKY, Straight out - no hedging, no beating around the bush or hiding behind the skirts of some internet guru. Explain to me how the Silver Purchases Act of 1934 can have any other effect on the price of silver other than increasing it. malachii
No arguments from me about that. What are your views though of government actions during the 1960's whereby silver was removed from all coinage? Do you reckon that was an attempt to help or hurt silver?
I am sure there are many things I am ignorant about. Unlike some people I don't believe I know everything about everything.
Does this mean you agree that the price of silver was supported by the US Government actions? My view (this is my view only and I am no guru) is that if the government was trying to harm the price of silver they failed dismally. The last US silver coin for circulation was produced in 1970 by the US government. As can be seen from the following chart produced by chartsrus.com (click to enlarge), the price of silver was less than $2 at the end of 1970. Within 4 years the price of silver had increase by 300% and it has never been below $2 US since. [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/337_si1970-80.gif][/imgz] President Lyndon Johnson said the following as to why the silver was being removed "Now, all of you know these changes are necessary for a very simple reason--silver is a scarce material. Our uses of silver are growing as our population and our economy grows. The hard fact is that silver consumption is now more than double new silver production each year. So, in the face of this worldwide shortage of silver, and our rapidly growing need for coins, the only really prudent course was to reduce our dependence upon silver for making our coins. If we had not done so, we would have risked chronic coin shortages in the very near future." 23rd July 1965. www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27108#ixzz1PgnszGUp My view is that "they" saw the coming silver shortage and acted appropriately. I wouldn't want a government paying more to produce a coin than what it's face value was. The governments of this world work hard enough to waste our tax dollars imaginatively without give them a "slam dunk". malachii Edit due typo.
