Does anyone know if you mine silver like gold sluice etc. Or is it all chemicals? I guess the point about holding well I read in the last bullion magazine there are 6 types of stackers. Mad max'ers, speculators, etc and insurers that just sit it. If you have a lot of spare cash it is a bit risky to put it in the bank these days. And silver looks like it could go up might take ten years maybe thirty. But it is real, it is not a promise from a desperate corrupt bank. Who has a good safe? Any pics? I just bought one the door weighs 1020 pounds. I am not proud i wish i had spent that money on silver, just into safes would be interestng to hear others. Silver is not absolute insurance nothing is but what is better?
Wow. So putting silver in a safe in your house is safer than putting money in a bank? Haha. Good one!! :lol:
Rare numismatic coins are probably a safer store of wealth. High quality farmland is probably a better store of wealth for some. But, as I've stated previously somewhere, what may be the best store of wealth for one person may not be the best store of wealth for another. Everyone has different circumstances that they are encumbered by so the answer to which is the best for all is not a win-sum answer. RE bulls will tell you that RE is the best way to ensure you have something of value for the long term but I think they are only partly right. And for those others who are looking for some reason to attack me, I never stated that gold and silver are a poor store of wealth, I simply assert(always have) that metals are not insurance as some metal permabulls claim. There's some valuation risk in every commodity including metals. .
It's insurance if you buy PMs believing that even though they might go down in value , that everything else might collapse completely. I insure my house and lose money ever year doing so because something much worse could happen. It might burn down? I'm not trying to make money. Other people don't believe in the collapse at all, or think that other things are better insurance. Land, etc. But again others think PMs will fair better. In unsure times PMs are good insurance, even if you're lost a bit when the dangerous times are over. I think you're arguing that if my house burns down I'm 100% guaranteed that I get a new house, But that if gold goes down I'm not 100% guaranteed that I'll get my value back later, so its not insurance. But in a collapse I'm interested in survival and a loss in its value is not the main thing. If there's no collapse other investments will be proved better.
You have a passionate misunderstanding of the concept of insurance, of risk, and of recent world history. 1) There are no absolute guarantees or assurances of perpetual wealth preservation. If you doubt me, visit a cemetery sometime. 2) Insurance is a transfer of risk, a loss you bear now as a hedge against uncertain future events. It is not an absolute guarantee of wealth preservation, it is nothing more than a bet you make with another party or against the future. Insurance contracts and gambling constructs are both considered to be aleatory contracts. 3) Many years of world history do indeed include events where the holding of precious metals would have insured a degree of wealth preservation. Ask the people of Venezuela what they'd rather be holding. 4) There are many reasons people stack. Some of those reasons are even sensible. Insurance is one of those reasons.
Stacking can be both Insurance and Gambling, but the difference between the 2 : Insurance - you are guaranteed a payout only if an event occurs Gambling - a result is guaranteed you choose which is better......
Are you talking about a collapse in only one country? If so, I can understand how most things would be good insurance. But we are in a global fiat currency world and I would expect the US to take most of the world down with it during a collapse. So my following arguments are based upon a global collapse. I can understand the collapse argument for gold, but not for silver. In the GFC, silver performed worse than the US stock market by dropping 60%. Gold only declined 30%. In a collapse who will want your silver or even your gold? Pms value in a collapse is widely touted, but I don't see the explanations as to who would buy silver and why they would buy silver. Silver for IPhones, no cellular service. Silver for solar panels, no solar panel manufacturing. Silver for computers, no internet. Let's say there is a collapse. You take silver to town and I take booze, cigarettes, food & toilet paper. Assuming the zombies don't get us, which one of us will be able to barter for what we want? While I own pms, the masses have grown up in a fiat currency world and place little value on pms and I am realistic as to their value during a period of collapse. If anyone has seen an article about the value of pms during a collapse that offers real world scenarios for the value of pms in that situation, please provide the link. But if the world economy collapses, wants and needs are going to be the go to items. Here is as good a list as any. "Water, food, medicine, skills, bullets and women. In that order." There is one thing wrong with that list........bullets should be first. :lol: I think it is safe to assume the poster is male.
What you say is very possible. No one can say what will happen in complete chaos. However, gold has been the choice in chaotic times over centuries. And before complete collapse it would be very useful. Gold rings were the preferred method of barter with street gangs in the Argentinan? collapse.
No, that's a belief, that's not insurance. Here in the US (and probably in many other places around the world today), home owner's insurance is as good as a guarantee against loss because States are required to insure the home owner in the event the insurance company will not. It's basically like a double guarantee. On the other hand, blobs of metal have no one or nothing guaranteeing you against the loss of their value....so silver is not insurance at all....never has been, never will be. You are woefully mistaken. Here's why: 1) Wealth preservation in almost all cases isn't contingent of any person's life...wealth can readily be transferred in most cases. Your cemetery point is....pardon the pun....a dead corpse of an argument. To claim there are no absolute guarantees in a discussion like this is like arguing in a discussion about billiards that a brand new billiard ball isn't absolutely smooth and round because if you examine it under a high power microscope, you will see imperfections that aren't visible by the naked eye. If that's your notion of discussing things that are understood in every other way to be a legitimate assurance against loss (and that is your notion clearly), then why would you even entertain the possibility that silver is insurance...that's just truly absurd and flies against your own contention that nothing is an absolute guarantee against wealth preservation. 2) In determining whether a contract is an aleatory contract or not, there is NO requirement to evaluate or assess whether there is a guarantee against loss or not as part of that contract. Aleatory is a term to describe a certain type of contract that is contingent upon or involves a degree of chance. That's all it is. You can have aleatory contracts that provide a guarantee against loss (see my comment to Peter above). For example, aleatory, in reference to a homeowner's insurance contract, refers to the chance or possibility that your home will get burglarized or damaged by a storm....that's the "chance" that aleatory refers to. Look up the etymology of "aleatory". 3) I have already given a concrete example of why blobs of metal are not insurance....there are nearly countless experiences by people throughout history who have learned the hard way that blobs of metal are not insurance....we have current and past members of this forum who are certain that their blobs of metal did not act like insurance....because blobs of metal can not be insurance since their only value is based on human sentiment. 4) Blobs of metal is not insurance. The only best argument in favor of stacking and holding for a SHTF scenario is that stacking blobs is a potentially good hedge against a lot of loss if instead you would have kept your fiat money in the bank as just one example (a fiat currency collapse presents the risk of a lot of loss in that example). That in no way, shape, or form makes blobs of metal insurance of any kind because the value of a blob is based on a BELIEF in the continued value of that blob of metal. We appear to agree on only one point, that is "Some of those reasons (people stack) are even sensible." That's our only agreement in this discussion apparently. Let's leave it at that because your arguments are not convincing in the least and if you don't get my arguments by now, there's no point in continuing to argue the points we've made. So, enjoy your day. .
Agree. Your attempts to actively misunderstand the concept of silver as insurance are becoming so tortuously complex that I might as well be debating 17th theologians over heliocentrism. Meanwhile, the Earth still orbits the sun and silver can still be used as insurance against future events.
Your argument is about the definition of insurance. Ours is about how best to survive chaos. You're right in saying PMs don't always hold value.
SilverPete, you really ought to stop looking in the mirror while you write, you confuse your baffoonery for others' sound arguments. Peter, First of all, it's folks like you that use that term "insurance" (incorrectly). You have to first be able to define and understand terms you use before you start using them in arguments otherwise you get failed arguments as your side clearly has. I actually am much more in favor of discussing what are better ways of surviving chaos; I wish you guys would stop with the failed "insurance" notions then we can actually get down to a realistic discussion. Want to survive chaos, read dccpa's comment in this thread....it's one to which I largely agree and it's very informative. Please stop with the nonsensical "insurance" notion. Silver blobs is not insurance no matter how much you want to believe it is. .
I think a lot of the confusion is over peoples' different use of terms, slang and shorthand. Despite all speaking English we all use it in different ways based on our culture. Then you have to look into the medium we are using, short notes with long delays in responding etc. are not the best way to hold a conversation. For me, saying that silver is 'insurance' would just be shorthand for saying, "If something happens to the money supply I will have something else I can use instead." I have ensured that I will still be able to make purchases in fiat collapses. When I write that I make sure I use 'ensure' rather then 'insure' but when I speak, maybe I use them interchangeably because it isn't what I do for a living and I am not that interested in the nuances, just the general idea. Same with 'Holding it forever', I might say that I have no intention of selling it, rather than go through a long list of situations in which I would or wouldn't sell it. The general idea is that I have no intention of selling it just because prices have gone up, I am not in it to make money, I am not a trader and I don't think there is any point in swapping silver for fiat, the whole idea was to get my money out of fiat and into something more tangiable, so why would I swap something tangiable for something depreciating like fiat? But it is a lot quicker to say I am not selling it, most people will understand that I don't want to be burried with the stuff. At the end of the day most people are stacking for a reason. Not all the reasons make sense, many of the things I do I have put a lot of thought into but they don't make much sense to others either.
We have gone from arguing about stacking silver as SHTF protection to talking about Aleatory contracts? Now I have a headache. I am going back to watching a real SHTF situation (Godzilla and the MUTAs destroying San Francisco). I am right at the point where the ACLU lawyers are at the courthouse arguing that the MUTAs should be protected as an endangered species. That reminds me of the first rule in a SHTF scenario - shoot all the lawyers. Watching this move I have realized that the best asset for a SHTF scenario is the ability to leave and either take assets with you or already have some of them somewhere else.
You make some good points about some of the inherent difficulties of communication styles and the venue of an international forum. I appreciate your explanation even though I do take issue with the part where you write "I have ensured that I will still be able to make purchases in fiat collapses." which goes to the heart of my contention with the term "insurance". You can't ensure that you can make purchases with blobs of metal if the current fiat currency collapses in some future hypothetical time. The world is rapidly changing and some or many people do not value today what they valued 50 years ago and may not value 50 years from now what they value today. The best we can do is say we have a belief that we can use these blobs as money at such a time. I'm not sure a simpler way exists to express this point. What you are asserting is no different than if I were to claim that the polished Lightning Ridge opals that Mr Wellingworth is storing will ensure that he will be able to make purchases in a fiat currency collapse in some future time. Having neither silver blobs nor polished opals (or faceted diamonds or whatever one believes is a store of wealth) ensures any meaningful value in some hypothetical time of a future currency collapse. We can not possibly know the sort of world that will be....what gov'ts will do (the US gov't probably already has a plan to install an alternative fiat (maybe digital) currency when the bottom drops out), what people will truly value...we just don't and that's why it's not really truthful to claim that blobs of silver are insurance. It's nothing more than a belief or really, a hope. It's a hope that I SHARE WITH YOU, no doubt, but I can not call it insurance because there's no way that I can be "ensured" that my blobs will have meaningful value in a SHTF time. .
I tend to agree with ML. This very assumption, made in unquestionable blind faith by many stackers, is speculative. It then obscures their appreciation for the notion that consequently stacking is speculation at its best in this context, as opposed to the perception of it being an act of self-insurance.
One concern that I have in regards to "if fiat collapses" is just what does the market I'm going to try to sell my PM into, going to look like. At this point in time, with markets etc just going along reasonably traditional lines, I can sell my PM through eBay, back to a dealer, etc. If the SHTF scenario comes along, who is buying? There is the idea that PM will come out as the new currency. Fair enough. But otherwise, if we have had a financial meltdown, where am I selling my PM? I not saying that PM isn't a good idea - I wouldn't be buying it if I thought that - just wondering what others are thinking under some of these future scenarios ......
Ideally, excess wealth in the form of PMs would be held through the period of turmoil, and when stability returned you would exchange them for the new currency as required when trust is restored. In this scenario, PMs are acting as a basic store of value* as they have done in the past. Assuming you had forewarning of a collapse, you'd likely be prepared with other suitable assets and easily tradable items to get you through. Focusing on one possible scenario -- rapid erosion of the value of a local currency: *Store of value in this case is defined as: Any form of commodity, asset, or money that has value and can be stored and retrieved over time. Possessing a store of value is an underlying basis for any economic system, as some medium is necessary for a store of value in order for individuals to engage in the exchange of goods and services. As long as a currency is relatively stable in its value, money (such as a dollar bill) is the most common and efficient store of value found in an economy. Investopedia explains 'Store Of Value' What is considered a store of value can be markedly different from one region of the world to another. In truth, any physical asset can be considered a store of value under the right circumstances, or when a base level of demand is believed to exist. In most of the world's advanced economies, the local currency can be counted on as a store of value in all but the worst case scenarios. However, currency can sometimes come under attack as a store of value (such as in hyperinflation). In those instances, other stores of value have proved their consistency over time, such as gold, silver, real estate and art. The price of gold, in particular, will often skyrocket during times of national peril or when a financial shock hits the broad markets, as demand grows for other widely recognized stores of value. While the relative value of these items will fluctuate over time, they can be counted on to retain some value in almost any scenario, especially in those cases where the store of value has a finite supply (like gold). From: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/storeofvalue.asp
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the benefit of silver in a potential future werewolf and vampire apocalypse.
