Is silver better then a term deposit in a bank?
- Thread starter lshallperish
- Start date
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
Assumptions and what if's, those two words describe this entire topic.
Whether silver, or anything, is better or not than whatever, depends on your trading behaviour.
If you buy higher and sell lower, it's tends to be worser.
Intrest rate on bank deposits is nearly always lower than general price risings.
The sole exception is a period of ginormous economical progress, and even then, central planning thieves quickly crank up their theft too.
The situation like it now is, since some years, is one of big amounts money on bank deposits.
That's the reason that intrest rates are so low, and that is the single Capital problem that the central planners now face. All that deposited money actually wasn't saved, it was lend out, spent, and drove prices up. Those that spent it, bought products with it, and those products aren't thus anymore available when the bank depositors decide to spend. Basically they lost their purchasing power.
And that's why the crisis, and the efforts from the central planning thieves to drive bank depositors into paying temporary bloated prices of certain stuff (including stocks).
In the light of the current economical progress outlook, it doesn't matter anymore whether or not they will succeed in this. All they can is trying to shift as much borrowed property into finalized ownership, before the larger part discovers the situation.
There are many indicators pointing to this dead-end.
For ex, since 2000, in my country, 36% of the butchers, 30% of the fish shops, 23% of the bakers, 19.5% of the grocery stores and 30% of the newspapershops disappeared.
This market was overtaken by smaller scale local supers, that increased with 64%
And a next phase of this process started. Those small scale local supers, lost last year 9.5% of their market share, to hard discount big supermarkets.
It's clear what the next, and final stage is: only the biggest ones left, and beyond that, nothing. This is a blueprint for economical destruction. It could be compared with nature, many lifeforms, many specific adaptations to many specific situations, provide the ability to keep life going on by overcoming distorting events. The same applies to economy: once you reduce the whole to a few sorts of a few kinds, it becomes vulnerable, upto a degree that small distorting events already suffice to bring the entirety to its end.
The same applies to an economical core market: housing.
The last decade, the central planning crappers did all they can to prevent house prices to drop. By sponsoring going in debt for a house. In 2005, government introduced a new supportive measure, a bonus (basically a tax reduction). It was so called geared towards making housing more affordable. Bullshit of course. It had, as we can expect from any State measure, the very opposite effect: over 9 years, house prices rose 28%.
And there the major problem pops up: they can't just stop that measure. Because house prices would nearly immediately collapse by a same %. The market, and the banks, and their system, would end up a same way as the US in 2008.
The problem I have with a term deposit at a bank, is that I 'undergo' then. I don't control anymore. I'm depending on what they decide. And the longer it last, the more their decisions will have accumulated my purchasing power loss.
So, I chosed to buy stuff instead, silver being an example. It isn't better so far, and maybe never will, not due to the metal but due to my bad purchase decisions.
Those that bought when spot was under $20 certainly will end up better then me. And not due to silver, but due to their better decision. This topics question is like asking if a blue ball is better than a red ball. It's not the color of the ball that decides that, it's the one kicking it.
Whether silver, or anything, is better or not than whatever, depends on your trading behaviour.
If you buy higher and sell lower, it's tends to be worser.
Intrest rate on bank deposits is nearly always lower than general price risings.
The sole exception is a period of ginormous economical progress, and even then, central planning thieves quickly crank up their theft too.
The situation like it now is, since some years, is one of big amounts money on bank deposits.
That's the reason that intrest rates are so low, and that is the single Capital problem that the central planners now face. All that deposited money actually wasn't saved, it was lend out, spent, and drove prices up. Those that spent it, bought products with it, and those products aren't thus anymore available when the bank depositors decide to spend. Basically they lost their purchasing power.
And that's why the crisis, and the efforts from the central planning thieves to drive bank depositors into paying temporary bloated prices of certain stuff (including stocks).
In the light of the current economical progress outlook, it doesn't matter anymore whether or not they will succeed in this. All they can is trying to shift as much borrowed property into finalized ownership, before the larger part discovers the situation.
There are many indicators pointing to this dead-end.
For ex, since 2000, in my country, 36% of the butchers, 30% of the fish shops, 23% of the bakers, 19.5% of the grocery stores and 30% of the newspapershops disappeared.
This market was overtaken by smaller scale local supers, that increased with 64%
And a next phase of this process started. Those small scale local supers, lost last year 9.5% of their market share, to hard discount big supermarkets.
It's clear what the next, and final stage is: only the biggest ones left, and beyond that, nothing. This is a blueprint for economical destruction. It could be compared with nature, many lifeforms, many specific adaptations to many specific situations, provide the ability to keep life going on by overcoming distorting events. The same applies to economy: once you reduce the whole to a few sorts of a few kinds, it becomes vulnerable, upto a degree that small distorting events already suffice to bring the entirety to its end.
The same applies to an economical core market: housing.
The last decade, the central planning crappers did all they can to prevent house prices to drop. By sponsoring going in debt for a house. In 2005, government introduced a new supportive measure, a bonus (basically a tax reduction). It was so called geared towards making housing more affordable. Bullshit of course. It had, as we can expect from any State measure, the very opposite effect: over 9 years, house prices rose 28%.
And there the major problem pops up: they can't just stop that measure. Because house prices would nearly immediately collapse by a same %. The market, and the banks, and their system, would end up a same way as the US in 2008.
The problem I have with a term deposit at a bank, is that I 'undergo' then. I don't control anymore. I'm depending on what they decide. And the longer it last, the more their decisions will have accumulated my purchasing power loss.
So, I chosed to buy stuff instead, silver being an example. It isn't better so far, and maybe never will, not due to the metal but due to my bad purchase decisions.
Those that bought when spot was under $20 certainly will end up better then me. And not due to silver, but due to their better decision. This topics question is like asking if a blue ball is better than a red ball. It's not the color of the ball that decides that, it's the one kicking it.
Oh Pirocco, you're funny......in a Dustin Hoffman (Rainman) kinda way
lshallperish
New Member
betterinvestmentthanshare said:
So you cant go to say 20 stores in sydney with say 20 ounces of silver everyday? sure you can =)
lshallperish
New Member
trew said:
Then you saw him get robbed
lshallperish
New Member
toorak13 said:
Who cares if it goes to 15 bucks an ounce, you have 4 year's to reach 23-24 per ounce to beat the bank
lshallperish
New Member
Pirocco said:
What do you mean due to the metal? It's hard to understand why silver is priced so low.. the world need's silver more then gold i think..
What i dont understand is, is silver low because it's basically not a rare metal? even though people use 850-1billion ounces of it or because the fed keep it down?
lshallperish
New Member
iluvbeanz said:lshallperish said:
Is this true? Here in America, I get a pathetic 0.03% interest keeping money in my savings account.
Wow checked interest rates now, it's around 3.50% lool My ones 7% because I locked it away for 5 year's.. but it's coming close to ending so bye bye 7%
Why do you think Melbourne and sydney in australia are the only country in the world to have 2 city's in the top 10 most expensive citys to live in..
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
Every purchase of 1000 ounces implies someone succeeding in selling 1000 ounces. Transferred physical or not moved paper represented physical, is just a choice people made based on their own preferences and goals.betterinvestmentthanshare said:
And if you think about silver in terms of "getting rid of it", then lol, just stay out its market?
I think of silver as money or any asset, and I don't think in terms of "getting rid" of my property.
Thieves use that terminology, they wanna get rid of what they stole, because they they didn't chose it, they just took what was there.
So try to be more incognito than this.
