Does buying physical silver bullion mean you are investing?
- Thread starter mmissinglink
- Start date
mmissinglink
Active Member
Miloman said:
No good arguments you have posited in this entire thread, miloman...sorry to burst your bubble. All you do is rely on tired old end-of-times rhetoric without the slightest amount of evidence to corroborate your assertions.
Until you can posit a valid, evidenced-based argument for your faith-based beliefs, I will treat your arguments as they should be.
You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not to making up your own facts. Thinking that the blobs of silver you have in your basement or wherever you put your blobs assures you protection of loss of the wealth you put into buying those blobs, is a faith-based belief, not fact. When you have a contract to be insured against loss, if that contract states that you are guaranteed protection then it's a fact that the contract states that you are protected against loss. It's not faith-based belief. Of course contracts can be broken....but that's not the point at all. I never claimed that a contract can not ever be broken. There is no contract with silver....there is nothing in writing or otherwise which states that you are guaranteed protection against loss...therefore silver is not insurance....it's just not no matter how much you wish it was. With blobs of silver, of course there's counter-party risk. The current and future value of your silver is based on the behavior and valuation of many third parties (mining companies, paper trading firms, CB's, certain large goods manufacturers, big investment houses, masses of people buying or selling physical silver, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc). Just because your faith-based belief gives you the impression that your 1 oz of silver will buy you a car or even a loaf of bread in a hypothetical SHTF scenario doesn't mean that that will jive with the reality on the ground at that time. You don't know and I don't know...no one does and that's why silver is not insurance.
If you bought an ounce of silver at the same cost it would have been to buy 25 pounds of freeze dried staple foods and the value of that silver ounce plunges and stays buried under the value of 2 pounds of that same freeze dried food till your dying day, that means you preserved wealth? Really? The value of your silver is affected by counter-party risk.
@ a1nipper,
I'm not arrogant for making the argument that silver is not insurance....how you could possibly believe that my argument is arrogant tells me a lot about you. Someone claims that silver is insurance I posit an argument that it is not....nothing arrogant about me doing this.
.
wrcmad said:Hates generalisations about Christians.... makes generalisations about Catholics.Miloman said:
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/57/577372c44b722ec5c554a58bf471fa28864126c1d2f21bd4f11b1c720e5f38be.jpg
Hahaha,
Pity the irony of your own generalisation is lost on you.
Here have a read why catholism is not Christianity. This is by no means comprehensive...
http://carm.org/is-catholicism-christian
Miloman said:
No, the irony is not lost on me - I have not observed religion to be anything but a source of human hurt.
You can argue the stereotypical "my God is better than their God" between religions till the end of days .... that is lost on me.
Honestly, you are wasting your time on me by trying to distinguish between them.
wrcmad said:
I can sympathise with you. And I would all but agree with you. I think it is difficult to discern for many sadly.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them...
James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
About those other "Gods"
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
So yeah I can see why you would lump all white people as being part of the KKK or how all German people are Nazi's. A lot of people have called out to Christ and have been helped. You might pick up a KJV and read it for yourself. You might be surprised that what it contains is very different from what those people proclaim it does and what your bias is. I'd say VERY surprised, so perhaps one day you won't let your prejudices get in the way. Until then then
Miloman said:
Don't sympathise. And don't condescend.
You can continue to read lines from your fairy tale, it doesn't make you right. It doesn't make you a better person either, it makes you sound gullible. Religion is but a mere cartel with a license to insight hatred in the name of faith.
FFS, I did no such thing. :lol:Miloman said:
The only one who lumped people into a general category was you:
Miloman said:
wrcmad said:
Whoa. If you take it as condescending that's not how it was intended.
Also it's kinda strikes me as weird... calling others condescending and then calling the bible, that is deemed by that person to be true... "fairy lines". Hmmm... who's accusing who?
You think I think I am a better person, if anything i am a sinner and have sinned and will likely continue to, I am very imperfect. You got some issues you need to sort out. Inferiority complex maybe? Or do you think you are better than others. I sure never would profess that. I do have faith and belief in Christ, does that make me better, I can't equate that to being better. I am a sinner and am imperfect that believes. How does that make one better? It doesn't. To me I simply realize that the Bible is to me infallible truth.
I would go further and agree Religion has been used by those in power to control populations, no doubt about it you are right.
Funny how when I point out proven facts about the evils of the Catholic church I am admonished but when you do, well that's alright then.
You are free to disagree. Up to you. Fight and continue to fight.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
At least good that the question moved from investing to storage of value.
Insurance? There is no insurance that works on a large scale, simply because insurance is based on the principle many pay for few, as to reduce the cost per paying node, as to allow the insured one to survive without the killing of the paying.
The next question then is: is fiatcurrency value dropping, a small or large scale story? I'd say a large scale story.
So, I think this discussion dwarfed away (in any direction).
It's not about insurance as such, as a yes or no, but about which degree of insurance.
What is insured most?
What is insured least?
Or: where is the biggest degree of certainty?
With silver, you are sure of an amount of a metal that has a relative high production cost.
With fiat, you are sure of an amount of paper, cotton, or bits in an electronical environment, all having a relative low production cost, but all backed by governments, in the degree they decide.
And, who is inflicting the need for more insurance in the first place: governments.
So using any government based insurance against government based theft is like relying on the thieves to avoid the theft. Good luck with that!
The conclusion of all above is that silver has a higher insurance degree than fiat, due to its higher production cost. The latter also helps to be trusted, and to be accepted as means of payment.
That doesn't mean that you can buy it at any price without affecting its insurance degree.
Note: bigger stockpiles have the same but opposite effect of higher production cost. Because it's supply that is available at no production cost.
Saving in silver, is not investing and is not insuring 100%, it's increasing the percent insured and decreasing dependency from some third parties out there, usually those with sticky fingers, a brutal mouth and most notably, a lazy butt.
Insurance? There is no insurance that works on a large scale, simply because insurance is based on the principle many pay for few, as to reduce the cost per paying node, as to allow the insured one to survive without the killing of the paying.
The next question then is: is fiatcurrency value dropping, a small or large scale story? I'd say a large scale story.
So, I think this discussion dwarfed away (in any direction).
It's not about insurance as such, as a yes or no, but about which degree of insurance.
What is insured most?
What is insured least?
Or: where is the biggest degree of certainty?
With silver, you are sure of an amount of a metal that has a relative high production cost.
With fiat, you are sure of an amount of paper, cotton, or bits in an electronical environment, all having a relative low production cost, but all backed by governments, in the degree they decide.
And, who is inflicting the need for more insurance in the first place: governments.
So using any government based insurance against government based theft is like relying on the thieves to avoid the theft. Good luck with that!
The conclusion of all above is that silver has a higher insurance degree than fiat, due to its higher production cost. The latter also helps to be trusted, and to be accepted as means of payment.
That doesn't mean that you can buy it at any price without affecting its insurance degree.
Note: bigger stockpiles have the same but opposite effect of higher production cost. Because it's supply that is available at no production cost.
Saving in silver, is not investing and is not insuring 100%, it's increasing the percent insured and decreasing dependency from some third parties out there, usually those with sticky fingers, a brutal mouth and most notably, a lazy butt.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
It just illustrates that sometimes quoted seeming-replies actually aren't. Known as strawmen.Miloman said:
Disagreeing just to disagree with a person rather than his argument.
And that typically results in contradictions like you mention here.
Same statement, not agree, then agree. Simply because the statement wasn't the goal, the person was.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
Pre-edit version of this post:wrcmad said::lol:
You are kidding right? Thanks for not intending to be condescending.
Ok. I agree to disagree.
I'll leave it at that.
Apparently, you couldn't leave it at that.wrcmad said:Ok. I agree to disagree.
I'll leave it at that.
Apparently.Pirocco said:Pre-edit version of this post:wrcmad said::lol:
You are kidding right? Thanks for not intending to be condescending.
Ok. I agree to disagree.
I'll leave it at that.
Apparently, you couldn't leave it at that.wrcmad said:Ok. I agree to disagree.
I'll leave it at that.
That's the most accurate conclusion you have drawn for over 18 months.
mmissinglink
Active Member
After further thought, I want to be more clear as to how I see the issue about "investing" initially raised by me.
"Investing" in terms of how I have applied the term to this thread, doesn't necessarily exclude preserving wealth. It seems that some people use the phrase "preserving wealth" almost interchangeably with "insurance" to which I would disagree if that's your take.
As an example of how investing can be a means of preserving wealth, many years ago when my parents realized that they were more or less flushing money down the toilet paying a monthly rent check to the landlord who owned the apartment we were living in for years, they decided it was better to keep their wealth in their own pockets so-to-speak in the form of living in a house they owned because afterall, the monthly check they'd be writing to pay down the mortgage was going to be putting the value of that money into a home they owned (or would own) instead of into the pocket of the landlord. So my father found a good deal on a house (situated on a couple or so acres of land) that came with 2 additional tiny parcels of land in a different part of town than where the house was located. The 2 tiny parcels were less than 1/10th of an acre each...too small to even get a variance to build on. My parents decided that investing in the purchase of these properties was a good way to stop the flushing of money down the toilet and keep (preserve) their wealth instead of giving it away. They had no intention of generating additional revenue from the properties because they would not rent out any part of the house nor were they interested in trying to find a buyer for the 2 tiny parcels that couldn't be built upon anyway. Yet, this preservation of wealth for them was also an investment in real estate for them....at least temporarily....until years later when they learned that the land the house was built on was sitting atop some sort of toxic refuse. This investment turned out to be not a good one and certainly the purchase of a house is not insurance. But that's no different than the purchase of silver....silver is not insurance.
Buying motorcycle insurance for example, mitigates risk by guaranteeing protection against certain damage or loss covered by the policy. Silver doesn't act like insurance because it doesn't guarantee protection against loss of valuation. Silver is not insurance.
@ Pirocco, correct me if I'm wrong, you perceive blobs of silver to be money? Assuming that you do, based on the most reasonable definition of money I have come across, you are wrong, blobs of silver is not money. You also assume, I believe, that by stacking silver you perceive that you are are storing wealth. With this I could agree unless you equate this stacking as insurance...then I disagree. Insurance is a guarantee against loss. The assumption that silver is insurance is faulty because the value of silver as a unit of account today is pegged to sentiment, by-and-large. Sentiment ensures anything but a guarantee against loss. Hoarding "chocolate diamonds" could be seen by some as insurance by those who perceive chocolate diamonds to be valued independently from sentiment....but like silver, they are not. By stacking silver blobs you are accumulating silver blobs for sure but you are not necessarily storing wealth and certainly you have no insurance tucked into that mattress in the form of metal blobs. What's my tiny stack or your giant stack ( ) worth today is a matter of the current sentiment attached to silver measured in a currency like the $US for example. That value is mainly sentiment-based.
Silver has no intrinsic value. Silver is more or less just like diamonds when it comes to how it's value is derived. You can raise the issue of the diamond cartel price fixing to argue that the value of diamonds is "a fix" but then you would also have to admit that the value of silver today is also subject to similar manipulation. The value is derived at mainly by sentiment (ie, the London fix).
What if for X thousand years, tin and rhodium, instead of silver and gold had great sentiment as a unit of account attached to it and tin was used as money for 4 thousand years and not silver? You'd be shoving blobs of tin under your mattress instead of blobs of silver, right? Anything that derives it's value largely as a result of sentiment can become largely devalued (less valuable) in time. Silver has no magical spells that it can cast to maintain sentiment for it at the level it is today. By stacking silver, you are assured to only be accumulating or saving blobs of metal, not holding some sort of insurance policy. That's because something considered to be insurance would have to have the component of being able to reliably protect against loss and there's no certainty that silver will preserve its value over time nor is there any certainty that silver will be ever viewed or treated as money by most people in most societies in the future.
My use of the word "investing" in this thread means: taking money and purchasing some goods (silver in this case) for the purpose of preserving or increasing wealth. In other words, I trade in my money to buy a few blobs of silver because I believe that this investment of my money will preserve or grow my wealth. I know that there's always risk involved with investing in something that derives its value through sentiment just like if I were investing my money into stacking chocolate diamonds (which to those who are curious....I am not). I see this transaction as investing not buying insurance. Is there risk to investing in silver or land or chocolate diamonds? Yes, absolutely because the value of these investments is sentiment-based.
Okay, clear as mud?
.
"Investing" in terms of how I have applied the term to this thread, doesn't necessarily exclude preserving wealth. It seems that some people use the phrase "preserving wealth" almost interchangeably with "insurance" to which I would disagree if that's your take.
As an example of how investing can be a means of preserving wealth, many years ago when my parents realized that they were more or less flushing money down the toilet paying a monthly rent check to the landlord who owned the apartment we were living in for years, they decided it was better to keep their wealth in their own pockets so-to-speak in the form of living in a house they owned because afterall, the monthly check they'd be writing to pay down the mortgage was going to be putting the value of that money into a home they owned (or would own) instead of into the pocket of the landlord. So my father found a good deal on a house (situated on a couple or so acres of land) that came with 2 additional tiny parcels of land in a different part of town than where the house was located. The 2 tiny parcels were less than 1/10th of an acre each...too small to even get a variance to build on. My parents decided that investing in the purchase of these properties was a good way to stop the flushing of money down the toilet and keep (preserve) their wealth instead of giving it away. They had no intention of generating additional revenue from the properties because they would not rent out any part of the house nor were they interested in trying to find a buyer for the 2 tiny parcels that couldn't be built upon anyway. Yet, this preservation of wealth for them was also an investment in real estate for them....at least temporarily....until years later when they learned that the land the house was built on was sitting atop some sort of toxic refuse. This investment turned out to be not a good one and certainly the purchase of a house is not insurance. But that's no different than the purchase of silver....silver is not insurance.
Buying motorcycle insurance for example, mitigates risk by guaranteeing protection against certain damage or loss covered by the policy. Silver doesn't act like insurance because it doesn't guarantee protection against loss of valuation. Silver is not insurance.
@ Pirocco, correct me if I'm wrong, you perceive blobs of silver to be money? Assuming that you do, based on the most reasonable definition of money I have come across, you are wrong, blobs of silver is not money. You also assume, I believe, that by stacking silver you perceive that you are are storing wealth. With this I could agree unless you equate this stacking as insurance...then I disagree. Insurance is a guarantee against loss. The assumption that silver is insurance is faulty because the value of silver as a unit of account today is pegged to sentiment, by-and-large. Sentiment ensures anything but a guarantee against loss. Hoarding "chocolate diamonds" could be seen by some as insurance by those who perceive chocolate diamonds to be valued independently from sentiment....but like silver, they are not. By stacking silver blobs you are accumulating silver blobs for sure but you are not necessarily storing wealth and certainly you have no insurance tucked into that mattress in the form of metal blobs. What's my tiny stack or your giant stack (
) worth today is a matter of the current sentiment attached to silver measured in a currency like the $US for example. That value is mainly sentiment-based. Silver has no intrinsic value. Silver is more or less just like diamonds when it comes to how it's value is derived. You can raise the issue of the diamond cartel price fixing to argue that the value of diamonds is "a fix" but then you would also have to admit that the value of silver today is also subject to similar manipulation. The value is derived at mainly by sentiment (ie, the London fix).
What if for X thousand years, tin and rhodium, instead of silver and gold had great sentiment as a unit of account attached to it and tin was used as money for 4 thousand years and not silver? You'd be shoving blobs of tin under your mattress instead of blobs of silver, right? Anything that derives it's value largely as a result of sentiment can become largely devalued (less valuable) in time. Silver has no magical spells that it can cast to maintain sentiment for it at the level it is today. By stacking silver, you are assured to only be accumulating or saving blobs of metal, not holding some sort of insurance policy. That's because something considered to be insurance would have to have the component of being able to reliably protect against loss and there's no certainty that silver will preserve its value over time nor is there any certainty that silver will be ever viewed or treated as money by most people in most societies in the future.
My use of the word "investing" in this thread means: taking money and purchasing some goods (silver in this case) for the purpose of preserving or increasing wealth. In other words, I trade in my money to buy a few blobs of silver because I believe that this investment of my money will preserve or grow my wealth. I know that there's always risk involved with investing in something that derives its value through sentiment just like if I were investing my money into stacking chocolate diamonds (which to those who are curious....I am not). I see this transaction as investing not buying insurance. Is there risk to investing in silver or land or chocolate diamonds? Yes, absolutely because the value of these investments is sentiment-based.
Okay, clear as mud?
.