Silver - a store of value? Really?
- Thread starter mmissinglink
- Start date
- Status
Phil_Stacker
New Member
Peter said:
In part I agree but silver does have good value.
Silver is more volitile,has a larger spread and hasn't been a safe haven for governments or high wealth individuals.
But the recent history of silver is unusual as it had a declining industrial use (photography),and I would argue that is changing. I've just posted the 2016 year in review (as currently predicted) in the silver thread. Industrial use and total deficit is up.
Is it a gamble? Yes. Is it more of a gamble than Gold (which is still a gamble)? Historically absolutely. Does that mean you should avoid it. I don't think so. Given the current figures I would argue silver is more likely to hold and increase value over gold. Even gold is a gamble.
But I totally agree with the "don't go all in" approach on any investment.
Certainly you could make more money with silver, you could also lose more.
But gold is much more of a store of value.
As a store of value it not to be compared with silver.
"Silver is more volitile,has a larger spread and hasn't been a safe haven for governments or high wealth individuals."
Thats why.
To say PMs are a store of value is doubtful.
Gold is a store of value.
But of course even it can go down to some degree.
However in very uncertain times its the best bet.
But gold is much more of a store of value.
As a store of value it not to be compared with silver.
"Silver is more volitile,has a larger spread and hasn't been a safe haven for governments or high wealth individuals."
Thats why.
To say PMs are a store of value is doubtful.
Gold is a store of value.
But of course even it can go down to some degree.
However in very uncertain times its the best bet.
Phil_Stacker
New Member
Yeah. I agree with your points.
I would just float the point that governments can sell off gold reserves at any time making Gold as volitile as silver, while silver has more and increasing industrial uses.
But fundamentally that is speculation and I agree with your points given the current situation.
I would just float the point that governments can sell off gold reserves at any time making Gold as volitile as silver, while silver has more and increasing industrial uses.
But fundamentally that is speculation and I agree with your points given the current situation.
mmissinglink
Active Member
If silver is not a good store of value (for those who believe this....and I'm not necessarily arguing against that belief), but gold is, what makes it so? Did silver used to be a good store of wealth 50, 500, 5,000 years ago? And can't the same thing happen to gold that happened to silver which has today caused silver to not be a good store of value when at one time ages ago it was?
Ages ago, when things like pretty seashells were seen as a valuable asset, didn't owning and stocking pretty seashells also amount to having a store of wealth? Granted, metals last longer than many other substances that were once highly valued and considered an asset. But the fact that something has historically been seen as holding significant value and that this same thing can last a long time is no assurance that this thing will always be valued in the same way by humans/humanity. Some in this thread brought up diamonds. These things last a very, very long time, were once highly valued as an asset and today, it is argued by many that the only thing that makes diamonds as "valuable" as they are is the powerful diamond cartel which artificially keeps it's value high.
Why can't the same thing happen to gold at some time (not necessarily in our lifetime, but at some point)?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW2XtG7hxF0[/youtube]
.
Ages ago, when things like pretty seashells were seen as a valuable asset, didn't owning and stocking pretty seashells also amount to having a store of wealth? Granted, metals last longer than many other substances that were once highly valued and considered an asset. But the fact that something has historically been seen as holding significant value and that this same thing can last a long time is no assurance that this thing will always be valued in the same way by humans/humanity. Some in this thread brought up diamonds. These things last a very, very long time, were once highly valued as an asset and today, it is argued by many that the only thing that makes diamonds as "valuable" as they are is the powerful diamond cartel which artificially keeps it's value high.
Why can't the same thing happen to gold at some time (not necessarily in our lifetime, but at some point)?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW2XtG7hxF0[/youtube]
.
mmissinglink
Active Member
Rarity? 
There are metals that are more rare than gold but are not nearly as desirable.
Density? Some of these more rare metals are more dense than gold including but not limited to Osmium and Tungsten (though Tungsten is not rare)
Noble metal? Then you'd have to include Osmium, Copper, Rhenium, and other metals that are corrosion resistant
Serves little industrial use? That's not a property rather it is a result of culture and tradition more than anything else. Metals like Osmium serve just as "little" industrial use as gold.
Bottom line, the main reason why gold and silver are seen as "precious" is because of (ancient) traditional desires still being held by enough people in our current culture. That said....that's the reality on the ground today.....but for how long will it be so for each of these metals? What if gold gains more widespread industrial use in time? How will that change how gold is viewed? According to your criteria, Aureus, that would make gold less valuable to those who value it as precious.
Isn't collective subjective desire really what gives gold it's value? Desire is what gives anything value I'd argue. I think that certain coins made from gold look awesome and are desirable to me. If there are enough people who feel the same as me then that creates demand. Demand (and supply, of course) drives value.
There is zero intrinsic value in gold, silver, and pretty seashells (though each has intrinsic characteristics). Their value is derived entirely by (collective) human desire to own it (demand).
.
There are metals that are more rare than gold but are not nearly as desirable. Density?
Some of these more rare metals are more dense than gold including but not limited to Osmium and Tungsten (though Tungsten is not rare) Noble metal?
Then you'd have to include Osmium, Copper, Rhenium, and other metals that are corrosion resistant Serves little industrial use?
That's not a property rather it is a result of culture and tradition more than anything else. Metals like Osmium serve just as "little" industrial use as gold.Bottom line, the main reason why gold and silver are seen as "precious" is because of (ancient) traditional desires still being held by enough people in our current culture. That said....that's the reality on the ground today.....but for how long will it be so for each of these metals? What if gold gains more widespread industrial use in time? How will that change how gold is viewed? According to your criteria, Aureus, that would make gold less valuable to those who value it as precious.
Isn't collective subjective desire really what gives gold it's value? Desire is what gives anything value I'd argue. I think that certain coins made from gold look awesome and are desirable to me. If there are enough people who feel the same as me then that creates demand. Demand (and supply, of course) drives value.
There is zero intrinsic value in gold, silver, and pretty seashells (though each has intrinsic characteristics). Their value is derived entirely by (collective) human desire to own it (demand).
.
mmissinglink, I suspect your Kilo proofs have milk spots. 
Associated costs?
*Negligible really, when considering other costs such as:
1. Car Insurance
2. Home and contents insurance
3. Licences
4. Affiliations
5. Food, Drink, Entertainment
6. And all those other expenses folk don't seem to care about such as, Easter eggs, Father Xmas presents, Valentines, Tooth Fairy.
Associated costs?
*Negligible really, when considering other costs such as:
1. Car Insurance
2. Home and contents insurance
3. Licences
4. Affiliations
5. Food, Drink, Entertainment
6. And all those other expenses folk don't seem to care about such as, Easter eggs, Father Xmas presents, Valentines, Tooth Fairy.
mmissinglink said:Rarity?
Density?
Noble metal?
Serves little industrial use?
.
First up, don't use an "
" with someone unless you're looking to start an argument, and if you are, I wouldn't.Gold is all of the above, it is desirable for that reason and i'm not debating there are more - not toxic, malleable, even pretty if you want to grasp at straws.
I am not debating there are other metals that have some of the same properties, gold is unique in the fact it has all.
Now again, if you want to start a degenerative debate you can, but the feeling isn't mutual and i'll play no part in it.
mmissinglink
Active Member
Holdfast said:mmissinglink, I suspect your Kilo proofs have milk spots.
No longer.....I discovered a foolproof incantation that wards away all milk spots permanently. I'm going to put it on the market soon and be wealthy! If you want part of that wealth, just send me a sack full of the intrinsic value of all gold in the world and you get 10% of all proceeds of sales!
.
mmissinglink
Active Member
Aureus said:mmissinglink said:Rarity?
Density?
Noble metal?
Serves little industrial use?
.
First up, don't use an "
Gold is all of the above, it is desirable for that reason and i'm not debating there are more - not toxic, malleable, even pretty if you want to grasp at straws.
I am not debating there are other metals that have some of the same properties, gold is unique in the fact it has all.
Now again, if you want to start a degenerative debate you can, but the feeling isn't mutual and i'll play no part in it.
First of all, you don't get to decide for everyone else what a "rolleyes" smiley means. If you want to believe that it means that it's an argument instigator, then that's your personal belief and it reflects your insecurities. To me, it means that the comment it follows is silly or ridiculous. That you only have in mind to want to start a degenerative argument out of the fact that someone thinks your comment is silly is entirely on your shoulders. So please don't attempt to tell me when I can and can't use certain smiley's.
As for your argument about gold today, you have completely and predictably missed the point about tradition. Tradition plays the most important role as to why gold is still seen as "precious" valuable thing by those who view it as such. Think about it....when most gold bugs marvel at a bar of gold, the first thing that comes to mind isn't the fact that gold, like certain other metals has a particular level of corrosion resistance. They don't immediately think about the comparative rarity of gold to other materials or that it is one of the densest metals. I'd argue that most gold bugs think first and foremost about it's historic value.....which really is a consequence of tradition.
This is not a good or bad thing....it's a "just is" thing.
If I put a bar of gold and one of those handheld electronic games in front of my teen nephew who hasn't been taught about the historical use and traditional value of gold by his parents or school, that boy will likely not see any value in the gold and would only care to have the handheld electronic game. But were he taught about and understood the historical use and traditional value of gold, he would likely have a different appreciation for it. Which goes directly to my point about the value of gold....it's because of tradition much more than anything else.
.
Jim4silver
Well-Known Member
Silver has NO intrinsic value? What about colloidal silver? You actually eat that. Silver has anti bacterial properties used in medicine. But I guess based on the OP's views posted herein, silver has no intrinsic value. That is patently absurd.
PS Society's opinion of the value of an object determines its cost, not an object's intrinsic value. The OP seems to confuse market value with intrinsic value.
Just my opinion.
Jim
PS Society's opinion of the value of an object determines its cost, not an object's intrinsic value. The OP seems to confuse market value with intrinsic value.
Just my opinion.
Jim
mmissinglink
Active Member
Jim,
You are woefully wrong and you are guilty of making one of the most rudimentary logical fallacies - conflation. You are conflating properties/characteristics with value.
Value is always a subjective perception or view. That means that regardless of what silly things you have been led to believe, an inanimate object, whether a pile of elephant feces, pretty seashells, or a blob of silver can have no intrinsic value because it has no ability to hold subjective perceptions.
That some humans can choose to attach some self-perceived or self-serving, arbitrary, discordant, or non-unanimous value to these things because some humans have found some use for these things, means that the value is by definition, extrinsic. The fact that there may be some level of consensus of the value that numbers of people attach to these things also doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean that this extrinsic value is magically intrinsic....it can not possibly be since value is always subjectively perceived.
Ergo, that silver may have a property that some have found to be beneficial to them or to certain living organisms in general means that silver has certain intrinsic properties. The value is what individuals attach to the silver as a consequence of it's useful intrinsic properties or characteristics.
Jim, since you believe the absurd notion that silver has intrinsic value, please tell me what was the specific "intrinsic" value of silver 125,000 years ago. And please do not give me a list of properties or characteristics of silver ore....I am not asking for the intrinsic characteristics or property of silver.
.
You are woefully wrong and you are guilty of making one of the most rudimentary logical fallacies - conflation. You are conflating properties/characteristics with value.
Value is always a subjective perception or view. That means that regardless of what silly things you have been led to believe, an inanimate object, whether a pile of elephant feces, pretty seashells, or a blob of silver can have no intrinsic value because it has no ability to hold subjective perceptions.
That some humans can choose to attach some self-perceived or self-serving, arbitrary, discordant, or non-unanimous value to these things because some humans have found some use for these things, means that the value is by definition, extrinsic. The fact that there may be some level of consensus of the value that numbers of people attach to these things also doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean that this extrinsic value is magically intrinsic....it can not possibly be since value is always subjectively perceived.
Ergo, that silver may have a property that some have found to be beneficial to them or to certain living organisms in general means that silver has certain intrinsic properties. The value is what individuals attach to the silver as a consequence of it's useful intrinsic properties or characteristics.
Jim, since you believe the absurd notion that silver has intrinsic value, please tell me what was the specific "intrinsic" value of silver 125,000 years ago. And please do not give me a list of properties or characteristics of silver ore....I am not asking for the intrinsic characteristics or property of silver.
.
- Status