rroush wrote:
Although I agree with what you said in reply to me,

Your challenge did not specify value of gold/silver vs paper, just that the value of gold/silver go down.


I've recently used the line (on several occasions) that "all roads lead to higher gold and silver prices".

However, as the saying goes "talk is cheap."

So to ILLUSTRATE this point I'm issuing the following challenge to any/all readers: try to INVENT any "bearish" scenario you can imagine for gold and silver - and then I'll explain to you how and why that scenario is actually "bullish" when viewed over the longer term.


My scenario shows that the value of gold/silver would go down vs food. In my scenario, food would become money as that is what the people would then care most for. I think that gold/silver would still maintain value, but I believe that most transactions would involve barter dealing with food.

I'll gladly take a 1oz silver bar as reward

I think you're being unfair Rroush. Look at my reply again.

I stated (I thought quite clearly) that the "food depression" scenario was merely a SPECIFIC example of a "depression scenario" and that in ANY/EVERY depression scenario (irrespective of the particular variation) that it is PAPER that will completely collapse.

Thus with food prices EXPLODING and paper going to ZERO, you would defintely want to be buying your very, very precious food with "precious" metal - and not WORTHLESS paper. I can't "specify" prices for gold and silver in any hypothetical scenario (where you haven't specified prices for food either). I can only point out that bullion-holders would be (literally) a TRILLION TIMES better off than paper-holders.

As for your claim that it would be better to hoard food than gold or silver, we can invent hypothetical scenarios with ANY/EVERY commodity where that individual commodity MIGHT appreciate more than gold and silver.

That is not relevant. I never said that "gold and silver must increase in price more than anything in the universe". I only said they MUST increase in value. And since we PRICE EVERYTHING IN PAPER, then obviously I was only referring to gold and silver appreciating versus paper.

Put another way, the ONLY thing we know (with 100% certainty) that cannot appreciate in price versus gold and silver over the long term is the bankers' paper.



No one who doesn't have a 100% effective crystal ball can tell anyone what THE best-performing asset in the world would be over any specified time horizon. That's not what we are doing here. That's not why people buy precious metals.

Rather, we live in the MOST "uncertain world" in all of HISTORY. We KNOW that gold and silver have represented the ONLY certain protection for wealth for 5,000 years. We KNOW the bankers paper is going to zero.

Anyone who wants to GAMBLE on any particular commodity is free to do so (including food). We have had lots and lots and lots of "starvation scenarios" throughout history. We have NEVER had a single one where gold- or silver-holders went hungry...

Jeff Nielson wrote:
rroush wrote:
Although I agree with what you said in reply to me,

Your challenge did not specify value of gold/silver vs paper, just that the value of gold/silver go down.


I've recently used the line (on several occasions) that "all roads lead to higher gold and silver prices".

However, as the saying goes "talk is cheap."

So to ILLUSTRATE this point I'm issuing the following challenge to any/all readers: try to INVENT any "bearish" scenario you can imagine for gold and silver - and then I'll explain to you how and why that scenario is actually "bullish" when viewed over the longer term.


My scenario shows that the value of gold/silver would go down vs food. In my scenario, food would become money as that is what the people would then care most for. I think that gold/silver would still maintain value, but I believe that most transactions would involve barter dealing with food.

I'll gladly take a 1oz silver bar as reward

I think you're being unfair Rroush. Look at my reply again.

I stated (I thought quite clearly) that the "food depression" scenario was merely a SPECIFIC example of a "depression scenario" and that in ANY/EVERY depression scenario (irrespective of the particular variation) that it is PAPER that will completely collapse.

Thus with food prices EXPLODING and paper going to ZERO, you would defintely want to be buying your very, very precious food with "precious" metal - and not WORTHLESS paper. I can't "specify" prices for gold and silver in any hypothetical scenario (where you haven't specified prices for food either). I can only point out that bullion-holders would be (literally) a TRILLION TIMES better off than paper-holders.

As for your claim that it would be better to hoard food than gold or silver, we can invent hypothetical scenarios with ANY/EVERY commodity where that individual commodity MIGHT appreciate more than gold and silver.

That is not relevant. I never said that "gold and silver must increase in price more than anything in the universe". I only said they MUST increase in value. And since we PRICE EVERYTHING IN PAPER, then obviously I was only referring to gold and silver appreciating versus paper.

Put another way, the ONLY thing we know (with 100% certainty) that cannot appreciate in price versus gold and silver over the long term is the bankers' paper.



No one who doesn't have a 100% effective crystal ball can tell anyone what THE best-performing asset in the world would be over any specified time horizon. That's not what we are doing here. That's not why people buy precious metals.

Rather, we live in the MOST "uncertain world" in all of HISTORY. We KNOW that gold and silver have represented the ONLY certain protection for wealth for 5,000 years. We KNOW the bankers paper is going to zero.

Anyone who wants to GAMBLE on any particular commodity is free to do so (including food). We have had lots and lots and lots of "starvation scenarios" throughout history. We have NEVER had a single one where gold- or silver-holders went hungry...







Ok, so if I admit at being "unfair" and making your life a tiny bit more difficult, can I still get my 1 oz of silver so that sometime in the future I can buy my next meal? LOL j/k

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately we're not handing out ounces of silver for EITHER "making my life difficult" or simply "keeping me on my toes".

If we were handing out ounces of silver for THAT, then one (notable) former poster would have bankrupted us under the FIRST category - while all the rest of you would have bankrupted us under the second...

It was worth a try LOL

I can send you a $50 monopoly money for it, maybe in the not to distant future that will be worth the same as a US $50 bill

rroush wrote:
It was worth a try LOL

I can send you a $50 monopoly money for it, maybe in the not to distant future that will be worth the same as a US $50 bill

Well this thread has ALREADY accomplished one worthwhile goal: generating some dialogue at a time when it's been a LITTLE hard to keep our spirits up.



And here we see the "dividends" from producing these dialogues: topics of interest/relevance come up - which then generates more dialogue (and more topics)...

In this case I can't help but note that we ALREADY use "Monopoly money" to buy our gold and silver. Our central banks ARE "monopolies" in the truest sense of the word. And most importantly, the ONLY reason we can use their (worthless) paper to buy ANYTHING is because they have been granted a monopoly.

The MOMENT any of these monopolies was ended - i.e. the moment that any viable COMPETING currency came into existence - their Monopoly money WOULD go to zero. Either the new "money" would have actual value (i.e. gold or silver) OR it would simply represent DRASTICALLY more dilution.

Think of how much a dollar of "Monopoly money" is worth, and then think how much LESS it would be worth if suddenly there were huge stacks of "New Monopoly money" all over our societies as well.

Now given that I point out in my commentaries on a regular basis that monopolies and oligopolies are (literally and rapidly) destroying the entire global economy, what sort of FUTURE is there in holding our Monopoly money? Unless you believe that the world is LITERALLY coming to an end (in which case gold and silver won't help you either) then the future MUST involve smashing the oligopolies and monopolies into little pieces - either before or after they have completed their total destrucction of the global economy.

Our paper is ALREADY on fire. And the only form of "fire insurance" in the world for the bankers' Monopoly money is to SWAP IT (as regularly and rapidly as possible) for gold and silver.

Thank you Jeff for your logical and meticulous responses.

The one part of my question that you didn't address was the mention of Germany before WWII. How did they summon the resources to do what they did? They were beyond broke and they came back from the brink. What they managed to achieve is admirable, it's a shame it all went so wrong. The reason I refect on this point is because I see several parallels to what is happening today in the US when I think of the history I am familiar with that occured during the period from the late 1920's until the beginning of WWII in 39. The bottom line question is why couldn't the US do something very similar? This is assuming that the will and self control prevailed to allow this to happen.

BlackMill wrote:
Thank you Jeff for your logical and meticulous responses.

The one part of my question that you didn't address was the mention of Germany before WWII. How did they summon the resources to do what they did? They were beyond broke and they came back from the brink. What they managed to achieve is admirable, it's a shame it all went so wrong. The reason I refect on this point is because I see several parallels to what is happening today in the US when I think of the history I am familiar with that occured during the period from the late 1920's until the beginning of WWII in 39. The bottom line question is why couldn't the US do something very similar? This is assuming that the will and self control prevailed to allow this to happen.



Blackmill, thanks for the reminder - as this is DEFINITELY a topic of both interest and relevance. However, there are many facets to this, and as we look at the SPECIFIC dynamics we see more DIFFERENCES than similarities to the present (despite appearances).

1) Hitler INHERITED a totally destroyed economy: Germany AFTER being destroyed by Weimar hyperinflation. So part of this is just "being in the right place at the right time". The German people are obviously very industrious, so likely ANY leader would have been the figurehead for a period of robust growth (and rebuilding).

2) The question gets more interesting as we get closer to World War II - where Hitler was SPENDING vast amounts of money building his war-machine. But what was he PAYING FOR IT with?

Supposedly Germany still has all its gold. Indeed AFTER hyperinflation it is highly unlikely that any German government would EVER consider selling its bullion. This seems to indicate that Hitler was able to PAY for the materials and munitions for his war machine with more FIAT PAPER - right after Germany's last paper currency had evaporated into hyperinflation.

You CAN'T build a prosperous economy simply BUILDING tanks, artillery, and fighter planes. If you could, then the U.S. wouldn't have BECOME INSOLVENT from Reagan's arms build-up - rather it would have become even more prosperous.

Hitler didn't start getting any DIVIDENDS from building his war machine until AFTER he started invading/annexing nations (and plundering their economies).

We know WHO was supplying Hitler: Prestcott Bush was supplying Hitler with most of his steel and other materials (and even MUNITIONS). And of course that continued DURING the war too. But it begs the question: "how did Hitler pay for what he bought from Prestcott Bush?"

The answer is that WESTERN BANKERS were willing to vouch for Germany's paper (just a few YEARS after hyperinflation). WHY?????????

We can only assume that they KNEW what Hitler was planning on doing, and they APPROVED - because it meant they would be PAID, and that is "good for business".

So the SHORT answer as to how/why the 21st century Fascist States of America could NOT be a "success story" (lol) like Hitler's Germany is that there are no Sugar Daddies to bankroll the U.S. in the 21st century...unless the Rothschilds and Rockefellers choose to do so out of their OWN wealth-hoards.

Blackmill as a general "P.S." to my reply, fascist economies are NEVER "prosperous". Fascism is just a simple equation:

Big Government + Big Business = REALLY Big Crime Syndicate

Neither the Mafia nor all the modern drug-gangs ever bring "prosperity" to the neighbourhoods they infect. The only people who ever "prosper" are the criminals themselves.

Indeed, we can consider it yet ANOTHER example of re-writing history to PRETEND that Hitler's fascist regime was "efficient and prosperous", since if you SUBTRACT that myth then people (like me) will start ASKING QUESTIONS about who and how the Nazis were FINANCED?

Israel is described as "wealthy and prosperous", with media stooges continually praising the "industrious" Israeli people. But take away the $BILLIONS per year in U.S. subsidies and how "prosperous" would THAT fascist regime be?

And even WITH the $billions from U.S. taxpayers, ORDINARY Israelis recently took to the streets in the largest numbers in history to protest WEALTH INEQUALITY.

Thanks for your answer Jeff.

I knew that there was western business involvement with the Nazi's but I had not heard of Prestcott Bush nor that he was supplying goodies to them. I googled him and did some reading last night. Thanks for the enlightenment.

BlackMill wrote:
Thanks for your answer Jeff.

I knew that there was western business involvement with the Nazi's but I had not heard of Prestcott Bush nor that he was supplying goodies to them. I googled him and did some reading last night. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Blackmill, what is EXTRAORDINARY here is that a man who was literally put on trial as a TRAITOR to the U.S. ("trading with the enemy") could put BOTH his son AND his (half-wit) grandson on the U.S. throne.

..and they still call THIS a "democracy"????