Silver is not a good hedge against inflation
- Thread starter Cheepo
- Start date
worldbubble
Active Member
1/100 seconds :lol:alor said:
Cheepo said:
you've clearly debated with too many people if you cant remember our debate.
I came to my conclusion because I can acknowledge some of your points and logic whereas you would dismiss all mine.
hence cant reason with you is my conclusion.
you are free to make the same conclusion about me.
only time will tell.
I remember 25 cent gasoline - although I was buying high test for 30 cents to put in my motorcycle, to go to work at my 90 cent per hour job - minimum wage.Phiber said:
So I could buy 3 gallons of high test for one hour of gross wages.
Today, an hour of minimum wages would be worth 2 gallons of gas, since my motorcycle burns regular. High test, less than 2 gallons.
I have compared many things to minimum wage, and only electronics has become cheap compared to minimum wage.
Many things higher.
Does that mean working is not a good hedge against inflation.
Yeah, that working for minimum wage isn't looking so good.
Should I be discouraging my grandkids for working for minimum wage, nah, don't think so.
Should I be discouraging them from buying silver, nah, don't think so.
In the history of the U.S. a silver dollar can buy you a good meal.
In 1881, a Morgan dollar could buy you a reasonable steak dinner.
I bought an 1881 Morgan - nice but circulated - for $22, about the same as I paid for a nice 1/2 rack of baby back ribs, full dinner.
My wife had the N.Y. strip, about the same money.
living in the sticks has its advantages.
On and on it goes.
Where the rubber meets the rubber meets the road, holding silver may not make you wealthy, but it will allow you to eat.
People who want to become wealthy just by owning something - Capitalists some would say - Money for nothing club, I would say (still not sure if this means the same to me as to other who use the phrase) - well, they should depend on their own efforts more, if they want to become wealthy.
Capitalism has many good and noble attributes, but allowing people to do nothing productive, except owning wealth, and lord over the peons, is not among its finer points, IMO.
An unintended consequence of a potentially fine system that has gone awry.
Dead celebrities 'earning' more than when they were alive.
Crazy.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't use the word 'capitalism' for it, it's fascism instead. One of those Big Lies. Adolf Hitler once said that if you want people to believe a lie, make the lie as big as you can, by all means (read: total control / dictature).
By using the word too, you are helping them to obfuscate things, capitalism implies free market (and I've seen wiki's being edited over time to remove that element, says enough on how determined they are to obfuscate). Instead, I claim the word back, capitalism = free market. There is nothing wrong with 'capital'. There is alot wrong with those that want it for nothing. Capital is a means, capitalism is allowing it to exist (property right). Fascism/communism, in any degree, is forbidding it, in that degree.
By using the word too, you are helping them to obfuscate things, capitalism implies free market (and I've seen wiki's being edited over time to remove that element, says enough on how determined they are to obfuscate). Instead, I claim the word back, capitalism = free market. There is nothing wrong with 'capital'. There is alot wrong with those that want it for nothing. Capital is a means, capitalism is allowing it to exist (property right). Fascism/communism, in any degree, is forbidding it, in that degree.
Can we take it one step further?Pirocco said:
Who (or what) is to 'blame' - as in 'the cause of' - this masquerade of 'capitalism', that lacks free markets?
I would say Government and (would be) Capitalists are together and in cahoots, by all appearances, to restrict markets to their mutual benefit.
It seems to me this is true in USA and Russia, to name two, and most others that claim to practice Capitalism as well.
Some of course are Fascist, and make no claim otherwise. An iron fist keeps it so.
To simplify, those on top of the heap, do what is good and beneficial for those on the top of the heap, regardless of which side of the fence they are on. They work together, from different points, with a common goal of staying on top.
Although some would say government alone is the cause of the amount of Capitalism vs Fascism in the nation, I would say they only do what the rich and powerful allow them to do.
Would you agree, or would you say one side is the cause, and the other side blameless?
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
You want what is called 'primary cause'?BeHereNow said:
Well simple: tax.
The privilege to force people to buy a dictated product/service (including nothing and harm), at a dictated price.
Take that privilege away, and the entire chain from primary cause to last consequence, falls apart. Because it is the single crucial link that turns the sequence into a closed system (read: a controlled environment)
Without government supporting it in one way or another, any entity or organisation that tries to go against peoples wishes on the market, is bound to lose income, and goes bankrupt.
Real (!) capitalists are the antipoles of government. Their income is based on product and service choice and quality, and their 'force' is reputation instead of suppression.
What you name as 'capitalist', actually isn't. They're nothing but an arm of State / government. They work together to realize a theft. They are, as you say, the same.
Well, instead of honoring them with the title 'capitalist', name them like they are: thieves. If that goes too far for you, then name them 'parasiting clubs'. And if that STILL goes too far for you, name them 'State interest groups'. But don't use the term 'capitalist', that is helping them to obfuscate what they really are, and also giving the term 'capitalist' a bad notation.
And this makes clear the answer on your question: there are no 'one side' and 'other side'. They are the same.
That is the classical trick, as said, of the biggest lie. There is a saturdaynoon state tv show here, named 'The Free Market'. They talk more about government doing this and that than about market/trading. Hell, since a decade, they even ceased to use the word 'economy'. Instead they persistently use 'socialeconomy'. Does this ring a bell to you? It does to me, and looking back in history, it has some quite ugly periods attached. Even the term 'social' is abused. They aren't social at all. They play Santa Claus with other peoples money, and try to drive whole population parts into dependency of that System of Theft. They refuse to help in the economy. They steal from and harass the producing population part. They are the most a-social people out there. Instead, they are a bunch of ordinary thieves with no shame and no regret.
Agreed, with a caveat.
Most large businesses do use municipal services, such as roads, water and sewage services, more, and it is only with taxes these can be supported, under current systems.
Some of them even receive protection from the Armed Services and police, against foreign invaders, or criminal elements within the community. These too are paid for by taxes.
I advocate for greatly reduced taxes, but not no taxes.
I also advocate against government subsidizing those who choose to be nonproductive, which describes the majority of social service recipients.
I would say there are some entrepreneurs, who are actual Capitalists (not pretend).
Not many, but there are some.
In all probability they have a very small operation, family only, in the truest sense.
In some parts of our Nation, what pass as 'family farms', are actually multimillion dollar operations, with hundreds of employees, thousands of acres, even being paid to allow land to go unworked, or growing crops that are subsidized by taxpayers.
Some years ago I was involved in providing services to people who has suffered through a natural disaster. The government run Small Business Association was making low interest loans to help in the recovery.
The first requirement was - you must have 50 or more employees, or no services.
You and I would say those who qualified on that point, were probably not capitalists, if they wanted the government bailout.
Those who were too small to qualify, undoubtedly contained some actual capitalists, and they did not want a government bailout.
Most large businesses do use municipal services, such as roads, water and sewage services, more, and it is only with taxes these can be supported, under current systems.
Some of them even receive protection from the Armed Services and police, against foreign invaders, or criminal elements within the community. These too are paid for by taxes.
I advocate for greatly reduced taxes, but not no taxes.
I also advocate against government subsidizing those who choose to be nonproductive, which describes the majority of social service recipients.
I would say there are some entrepreneurs, who are actual Capitalists (not pretend).
Not many, but there are some.
In all probability they have a very small operation, family only, in the truest sense.
In some parts of our Nation, what pass as 'family farms', are actually multimillion dollar operations, with hundreds of employees, thousands of acres, even being paid to allow land to go unworked, or growing crops that are subsidized by taxpayers.
Some years ago I was involved in providing services to people who has suffered through a natural disaster. The government run Small Business Association was making low interest loans to help in the recovery.
The first requirement was - you must have 50 or more employees, or no services.
You and I would say those who qualified on that point, were probably not capitalists, if they wanted the government bailout.
Those who were too small to qualify, undoubtedly contained some actual capitalists, and they did not want a government bailout.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
See, I came across those arguments numerous times. Why does it need force to make people (regardless small/large/business/nonbusiness) pay for roads water sewage etc?BeHereNow said:
All it needs, is a contract between a seller and a buyer. Just like any other.
Tax is the root, and any 'greatly reduced tax', and any 'greatly reduced government', is just a start of another cycle. Because the privilege to make people pay whatever for whatever, is in itself a feedback mechanism to become bigger in an unpunished/notcorrected fashion.
Without tax, there wouldn't be business cycles and conflicts (due to polarisation / classification / divide and conquer), because correction mechanisms would freely work every hour of the day, giving people time and chance to do it better. It's like you want ice cream but no freezer. Well, the two situations exclude eachother. In other words: you are wishful thinking. Some years ago, on this subject, I passed that stage. I changed my mind. Because I started to understand the problem, and the magnitude of its consequences, better. I changed my mind as I learnt more. In some past, I have argued against people that then said the same as I say now. Unlike some others, I face it when I have no answer. I revise my view on things, to what I wasn't able to go against.
Over the years, I came across numerous examples, of how the mechanism (read: privilege) of State, changes peoples mind and behaviour. How people, with ideological positive, free market viewpoints, gradually turned into system adepts. There is a wellknown statement for this: "Power Corrupts". And the root of that "Power", is tax.
Maybe at some day, you'll realize. Or maybe not. Happens.
The dark side beckons.
Like you, one day I may cross over, who knows.
Here is the problem I see.
I own the roads, you own a business, and want to use my roads, so I will send you a bill to use them, and you will tell me since my work crews are 90% female (or immigrants, Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc), you dispute my charges, and call my bill a tax, subsidizing the no-goods, who are overpaid, underworked, and given free healthcare.
Will you simply pay my bill, or object?
Like you, one day I may cross over, who knows.
Here is the problem I see.
I own the roads, you own a business, and want to use my roads, so I will send you a bill to use them, and you will tell me since my work crews are 90% female (or immigrants, Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc), you dispute my charges, and call my bill a tax, subsidizing the no-goods, who are overpaid, underworked, and given free healthcare.
Will you simply pay my bill, or object?
There is a lot of words on this thread... I have to admit that there is far too many words for what is needed. I'm a n00b to all this. If there are any other n00b's reading then i thought I might post something simple, basic and to the point that could actually be helpful, rather than arguing something I have no idea what people are talking about.
I've been wanting to invest for one and a half years now (Dec 2012 lets say).
Dec 2012 - Spot price was between 18 - 21
June 2014 - Spot price is now 11.50ish
If i had purchased say... 100oz of silver in Dec 2012 at 18 that would have cost me: 1800 (plus premiums and delivery costs)
That same purchase today would be 1150 (plus premiums and delivery costs). That's a difference of 650 (excluding costs). Over 1/3 of the initial investment lost.
Equally... if the flipside happened then your investment would be worth over 50% more.
If someone was to throw 50,000 into silver now. and it was to rise back to 20 an ounce then they would have gained over 25,000 for doing absolutely nothing. How can anyone possibly argue that silver isn't a potential investment opportunity?
For me... I've set up a saving account for my 1 year old daughter and it's actually losing money each year over inflation. Along with actually having cash savings the precious metal investment may/may not grow her total shock pile by the time she is 18-21 or mature enough to inherit it. It's a gamble... but I've started to invest now so hopefully avoided the large decline from April 2011.
I've been wanting to invest for one and a half years now (Dec 2012 lets say).
Dec 2012 - Spot price was between 18 - 21
June 2014 - Spot price is now 11.50ish
If i had purchased say... 100oz of silver in Dec 2012 at 18 that would have cost me: 1800 (plus premiums and delivery costs)
That same purchase today would be 1150 (plus premiums and delivery costs). That's a difference of 650 (excluding costs). Over 1/3 of the initial investment lost.
Equally... if the flipside happened then your investment would be worth over 50% more.
If someone was to throw 50,000 into silver now. and it was to rise back to 20 an ounce then they would have gained over 25,000 for doing absolutely nothing. How can anyone possibly argue that silver isn't a potential investment opportunity?
For me... I've set up a saving account for my 1 year old daughter and it's actually losing money each year over inflation. Along with actually having cash savings the precious metal investment may/may not grow her total shock pile by the time she is 18-21 or mature enough to inherit it. It's a gamble... but I've started to invest now so hopefully avoided the large decline from April 2011.
Well ScottyRS, good post, but I will mention that any investment can lose money.
Take that savings account you mentioned, a form of investment, loses money.
Think of those who loaded up the truck at $40 USD spot.
How soon will their investment pay off.
I started at about $33 USD, and just can't stop buying because it just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.
At sub $20 USD, there is less speculation and more investment, but still some speculation.
I am on your side on this, just want to keep it real.
As you say 'a gamble', but you and I like the odds.
Take that savings account you mentioned, a form of investment, loses money.
Think of those who loaded up the truck at $40 USD spot.
How soon will their investment pay off.
I started at about $33 USD, and just can't stop buying because it just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper.
At sub $20 USD, there is less speculation and more investment, but still some speculation.
I am on your side on this, just want to keep it real.
As you say 'a gamble', but you and I like the odds.
BeHereNow - Bang on.
I think anything in life is a gamble. You buy a new car... it could be the worst investment in your life, cost you a fortune and depreciate half it's value in 3 years. You'll probably find the people who worry about little premiums or talk about economic things I simply do not understand are motoring around in BMW's losing money hand over fist.
I shall carry on buying as much as I can afford each month. The further it drops down the more I will be able to purchase. We're all in the same boat and I'm currently enjoying the down turn.
I think anything in life is a gamble. You buy a new car... it could be the worst investment in your life, cost you a fortune and depreciate half it's value in 3 years. You'll probably find the people who worry about little premiums or talk about economic things I simply do not understand are motoring around in BMW's losing money hand over fist.
I shall carry on buying as much as I can afford each month. The further it drops down the more I will be able to purchase. We're all in the same boat and I'm currently enjoying the down turn.
I agree.Aureus said:
But others don't: http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-679169.html#p679169
