Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1421. (Read 2032272 times)

I agree...but I'm speaking in terms of what you can buy physical metal for. I see people getting spooked out of their PM position and selling to get cash. Of course the smart money will hold.

Paper variants, perhaps. With physical metal, and other physical assets in general, capital flows will rush to them (smart money already has) in an escape from financial instruments. In this situation, paper gold and silver could fall below $500 and $10, respectively. So don't hold ETFs or shares unless there's actual metal or production backing them up and there are multiple records of your ownership aside from just the broker. Otherwise, you risk becoming another MF Global victim.

Meanwhile, if bonds experience an outflow, the primary recipients will be commodities and equities. Currencies will benefit, but will not be the primary targets because of inherent instabilities shared with bonds. Everyone is expecting stock market crashes when there are signs of accumulation, and the opposite in bonds. I expect a bond market crash instead.

Bitcoin - weekly Gox volume below 350k would be suggestive of a $10.80-11 floor next week, and <320k points to $12 or better.

I am waiting for silver parity,
somewhere around 20 usd

that would be a bomb , to catch these two at that level and make a partial transition

If equity markets crash so will gold and silver.

If we have short term deflation equities will crash and PMs as well.

How much of a crash? I see it reaching $21 for silver...previous resistance turned support.

The bull doesn't want anyone along for the ride, so there probably won't be any obvious dips as entry points. It's probably best to scale in and out by selling some BTC at spikes, then buying PMs.

I think in the next 12 months we will see once again silver to bitcoin parity in USD price. We did see that in June 2011.

 

It seems highly unlikely.

so, will gold and silver have a decent spike down any time soon ?

I am waiting to redistribute some from btc into PM-s,
they are good aphrodisiac, and for general bragging

while bitcoin is not there yet, it still has quite the opposite impact

Bitcoin is still outperforming gold.

I'm happy to say I got it wrong, gold didn't pull back some like I thought it would after the Fed didn't do anything more at last weeks meeting..

Talking 'bout a no-brainer:



Chart from sharelynx
http://www.sharelynx.com

http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/quickview.do?SERIES_KEY=123.ILM.M.U2.C.LT01.Z5.EUR

Your interpretation of the phrase is, I believe, correct and I agree fully with the founders in this.  The phrase is, I believe, often distorted and used to justify absurdities by 'my people';  That is, the libs.


Heh.  We're back to significant agreement and mirrored behaviour vis-a-vis Obama.  At this point I would have more hope that Romney would pull an FDR on 'his people' than that Obama would actually do anything of significance for anyone besides his funders.

And I have the same hopes for Bitcoin and Bitcoiners (and others for that matter.)  At the very least, I hope Bitcoin provides utility and leverage in this struggle.


Least I am misunderstood here, let me clarify that I have a huge amount of respect for the 'free market' and consider it the powerplant behind modern society.  I only want to communicate my belief that left completely to it's own it has every bit as much of a chance of tearing itself and everything around it apart as it does auto-seek the ultimate solution to every problem.

i grew up in relatively humble beginnings and you might call me a "self-made man".  i put myself all the way thru college and grad school.  i also spent 2 summers as a kid at a disabled childrens camp as the son of the camp nurse.  i have great sympathy for the "underdog" to a fault.  this might explain my temporary lack of judgment for having voted for Obama b/c he was black hoping that he might actually do what he said.  this is why i truly do want to help Bitcoiners avoid the clutch of the Wall St punks. 

what i was agreeing to with tvbcof was that i do think certain men are born with more talents, intelligence, or drive than other men.  but i do believe that all mean should start off in life with equal opportunities to the extent that is possible but at some point market forces need to be allowed to work.

You probably agree with the USA founding fathers, too.  This quote "all men are created equal" is often misused.  Put in its historical context it was meant to mean that there are no God-appointed "lords" or "serfs".  Think of it like "every baby is equal" or perhaps "All men are created with equal opportunity".

You've probably interpreted my statement as I intended.

Not perfectly clear in my original screed was that I do not believe that our modern world is structured such that the natural state is that there is an equal enough distribution to create even close to a harmonized society.  That, and only that, is the basis for my seeking means by which distribution of wealth to a level which makes society work as smoothly as possible.  I personally, while not wealthy by many standards, am distinctly in the 'have' catagory.  In other words, I have much more than I need and well beyond the mean on a global and local basis.  It's worth a lot to me to have a socioeconomic structure which works even if I have to shell out a sizable chunk of my income/fortune and more than most of my peers to make it happen.  That said, I am as human as anyone  will not necessarily do it willingly and am certainly in no hurry to part with my possessions to a political regime which is corrupt...I've zero interest in pissing into the wind and even less in forking over more of my shit than necessary to scum who give it to their well connected and wealthy friends.  You and I have been through this before.  I'm currently receiving a non-trivial amount of services in return for the taxes I pay and am happy for it...but while it is some combination of laziness and fear which induces me to overpay (and thus fund the notable war, death, graft and corruption that exists) I'm currently doing just that.  Sue me

I specifically do NOT wish to see anything like forced equality in wealth, and that is NOT the same thing as 'redistribution'.  My point is that in a modern society, it is not only possible but utterly likely that a large majority of individuals could work their fingers to the bone and have next to nothing to show for it.  That is not a healthy or stable situation.  My conception of 'redistribution' is nothing more than a mechanism by which the field is very roughly leveled such that most people who put in some effort can be suitable rewarded and most people who ride the backs of society do so at the expense of whatever fortune they may, for whatever reason, find themselves sitting on.  Taxes are probably the best way to do this if a decent political system exists to organize them.  But political systems come and go and evolve and devolve.  Other redistribution solutions exist as well.

---

Since this screed went longer than I initially intended, I'll double-up to include a basic response to cypherdoc as well:

In My (not so humble) Opinion, your slavish devotion to 'free markets' as the solution to every problem is as illogically and demonstrably absurd as are the various Love and Peace solutions of my kumba-ya friends who I tend to identify with a bit more.

Most people (or males at least) understand the relationship between a crankshaft and connecting rod.  Whether they are in a fight to the death to destroy one another, or in a harmonious relationship to do useful work is only a matter of perception.  They are designed to meet the force of one another and they exist is a stable relationship which functions well most of the time.  I seek similar solutions to a lot of problems including an exchange currency used by both people who, for whatever reason, have the ability to gain the upper hand in terms of wealth accrual and those who do not.

Unless I've misinterpreted again, I read that as the masses acting for themselves using tools that lower the cost of empowerment, while 'the few to give' is the socialist practice of politicians doling out freebies and promises. I can see how it could be viewed as the masses demanding their 'fair share' instead of working for it. Just an inversion of perspective.

agree.


agree here too.


oh boy, now we have a problem.  totally disagree.  you're probably referring to taxing the rich to give to the poor.  this must be the Socialist in you. 

i vastly prefer a system where the rules are uniform for all.  a system which strips the wealthy of their means of control such as the printing press.  if we did just that one thing the world would be a much better place.  forget Socialism.


forcibly taking Bitcoin from the rich to give to the poor would once again be a terrible idea and would stifle any chances of a nascent cryptocurrency from taking hold due to this threat. 

the single best way to discourage hoarding is to allow free market principles to take effect and let the price of Bitcoin rise to its fair value.  hoarders then would most willingly relinquish their stores of Bitcoin into circulation for usage by the general population, ie, poor people.

I see now - my misinterpretation.

I agree with the startup view. The only thing I'd point out is that there have been numerous other attempts, much like in social networking. Multiple attempts were made with varying degrees of success until Facebook hit the magical formula. It seems very likely that Bitcoin is in that position, where the magical formula has been realized. While that doesn't guarantee its success, it drastically increases the likelihood. I guess we're inverted - I see around a 2/3^rd chance of success, you (maybe?) see a 2/3^rd chance of failure.


Aside from the math, great summation.

The only additional point I'd add is that Bitcoin can be good for transferring wealth over time. As it matures, it will be immune to internal supply shocks the way other forms of money are. That's one of the things that make gold such a powerful store of wealth - the flow in use is minor compared to the stock held as savings (referring to physical, not paper).


There was also the faux attempt at establishing legitimacy by appealing to the New Zealand government for certification, rather than pursuing credibility in the eyes of the market. That was the final straw for me. It was certainly a valuable service which met a demand, but the implementation ran away from Zhou and as you said earlier, his youth seemed to guide toward irresponsible missteps in the reactions taken.


To quote Stephen Hawking: "Rubbish."

Those charts are looking at gold and the DOW without considering the common denominator upon which both are being measured - the USD. What happens with the dollar should affect equities and gold synchronously. In other words, they should both move together - DOW up, gold up; DOW down, gold down. As the realization of counterparty risk increases thanks to events like those surrounding MF Global and PFGBest, gold will be held more readily than equities, resulting in the separation of the ratio in favor of gold.

The Armstrong and Duncan links from conspirosphere are very good reads as well.

Exploiting a situation for personal gain is entirely normal and natural, and any rational system design would be centered around that being the base behavior of almost everyone.  I certainly exploit any situation which I run across or engineer (to the degree that my personal ethics allow, at least) and if anything this seems to me to be something of a cornerstone of Libertarian philosophy.  I've not much use for the fantasies of some of my Liberal brethren because they seem to neglect various realities such as this since they are unpleasant or something.

All men are demonstrably NOT created equal.  Human evolution cannot keep pace with the shift from hunter/gatherer modes in which we evolved to modern capital-based  modes.  A slight advantage in one area can produce the ability to dominate in our modern world than was the case in hunter/gatherer times.  (And other degenerate issues such as inheritance where a person who would likely be a truck driver if left to his own devices ends up as the president of the US.)  The most reliable way for distribution of wealth to occur is for the masses to take rather than relying on the few to give.

Hoarding of any medium is usually in itself exploitation insofar as it reduces the carrying capacity of any system which relies on the medium.  Taking gold from the few is messy and probably not very effective.  My hope for crypto-currencies is that it would be easier and more effective for the masses to 'take'...and in being so produce the conditions which would keep hoarding and other abuses to a reasonable and workable level.