This is the beauty of recommending gold as an investment. If it sucks balls as an actual investment, in the sense of something you expect to make money on, you can always fall back on the value it will presumably have in the event of the complete meltdown of the social order, whatever that means. The average idiot's ability to turn his gold portfolio into something he's going to be able to feed his family with when the social order melts down is likely to be pretty negligible in my opinion.
I'm not saying one should have a portfolio of it--rather, buy it only as insurance. One can buy $100 of silver coins for about $1500 right now. $100 of "copper penny bullion" is about $150. This is enough to get you through 30-60 days. If one has the resources, sure, buy gold in 1 gram denominations. I agree with you as a long-term investment its bad. As someone said earlier, if you don't take possession of the physical product, you got zilch if and when the shit hits the fan and the long term return is less than your average index fund.
LOL. Two points. they open at 10 AM. And I work 14 hour days, so 7:30 PM is my earliest opportunity. (did you catch what I did there?)
Brilliantly said. Byz just made that very point. "I don't trust the government either" Great. So in the anarchist walking dead future, what value will your gold have? might as well invest in Corn futures at that point. (skip the futures point, buy fucking seeds)
I am only going to say this once. For every fucking doofus that repeats the 'shit hits the fan' or 'everything goes to shit' mantra. there are only three things you should invest in, if you believe that. Bullets.Seeds.Knowledge. In that order. The dumber you are, the better they will serve you.
I don't need to stock seed if I have silver--I can buy fruit and vegetables at that time as well as bullets. Knowledge is of course always valuable. I don't think people appreciate the idea that there will still be an economy and some semblance of law and order. We're not going back to the stone age. Rather, the fiat US dollar will become worthless and if you want to buy goods and services, you will need some form of currency. There will be communities--probably based upon something in common like religion. The federal government will be an enemy to all as they seek to take from the people. I'm not sure why you have to use the language like "dumb" and "doofus". It's all a matter of conjecture. Don't know if you've ever tried to grow anything. It takes a lot of water, priming the soil, and some effort to protect the seedling from wind and critters. It's not as easy as many think.
You clearly do not understand market economics. Wall Street's demand for product, in this case mortgages including subprime, drove the banks and other lenders to offer mortgages at lower costs and under lower standards than would have otherwise been the case. Facilitating the process were the ratings companies that understated the risks of such loans. The loans were then bundled and sold as securities. It was the interest of Wall Street in having such product under this process that was why these loans were made available in the manner they were. Your focus on what is in effect the moral aspect here is misplaced. Clearly the cost to the overall economy was great, and harmed many people who dd not take on debt. So, knowing that some people took on debt as they did, and the harm it caused, we see how the unregulated markets harmed everyone. In that connection the bolded part is no argument at all. For example some people would not murder anyone even if the criminal law was not enforced. But since we know some will even if the law is enforced, and more will if it is not, that is why the law is enforced, and everyone is potentially subject to it. In other words, the standard of why government regulation is necessary is not whether you or I think we need it on some personal level. It is whether society and the overall economy as a whole will be more likely to be harmed without it, as we saw leading up to the Great Recession. This is not a matter of idealism and personal preference. It is a matter of historical record and what actually happens. Perhaps what most concerns me about conservatives today is how little they care for understanding what actually occurs in the real world.
Blaming Fannie and Freddie is part of the urban legend explanation for the Great Recession that right wingers prefer. The fact is that private lenders were responsible for hte increase in mortgage loans, with those Fannie and Freddie's shares of hte overall market decreasing, leading up to and causing the housing bubble in the mid- ought years. Default rates on loans originating in the private markets were approcimately 6 times those for Fannie and Freddie loans. Your argument also ignores what occurred in the commercial real estate markets, in which Fannie and Freddie were not involved. The peak to trough decline in such markets was far greater than in the housing markets. Roughly 45% compared to 33%. http://www.theatlantic.com/business...reddie-didnt-cause-the-housing-crisis/250121/ Finally your argument ignores the housing bubbles in other countries in which Fannie and Freddie obviously were not involved. No, the better argument is that unregulated markets allowed new forms of financing to be developed that created the housing and other lending driven bubbles.
I simply don't agree with your narrative although I recognize it as the official government narrative--one that leads to the conclusion that the Feds should oversee most of our lives. You seem to have no problem with this and that's fine.
Who cares, the market goes up and down like a rollercoaster, only a fool wastes their time following it on a daily basis. Put some money in index funds, get a life, and forget about the market. ... I learned a long time ago not to waste my precious time on the market. It's a fool's errand.
I don;t know anything about an official government narrative. But it is the view of most competent economists, meaning not those aligned with right wing think tanks or media, or on the payroll of this or that billionaire. I am not generally in favor of government involvement in my life. But the idea that a complex economy such as we have can and should be left to run on its own without limits is absurd. The Great Recession occurred during GOP rule of the US government. It was not coincidental that it did. That you have apparently no problem with, but you should.
You can believe what you want to believe but your constant comments such as "part of the urban legend explanation for the Great Recession that right wingers prefer" show that you are just another that thinks their party is the great savior and the other party is out for no one but themselves. Pretty hopeless trying to convince someone when they already know their party did no wrong. Gramm–Leach–Bliley was signed by Clinton, it was first introduced by a Democrat turned Republican turned lobbyist. The final bill passed the Senate 90–8, and by the House 362–57, pretty bipartisan if you ask me. Democrats made sure the bill included provisions strengthening the CRA while the Republicans had their side covered also. So you had a bill which repealed part of Glass-Steagall and strengthened the CRA. I never intended to say the CRA or Fannie and Freddies increasing purchase of low income loans was the only cause, I only brought those up since it seemed many were placing the blame squarely on Republican shoulders when it is clear there is enough blame to go around between both parties. Fannie and Freddie were not involved in lending in other countries but likewise any U.S. lenders typically require a good 40% down for loans on real estate in other countries so those loans would not be at issue in the collapse in any other country. It was just a domino of the recession in the U.S. effecting other markets.
Oh, I agree some parts of the financial deregulation took part during the Clinton presidency. But the fact remains that 2008 was the 8th year of GOP control of the WHite House, and the GOP controlled Congress up to 2006. The Dems could not pass anything once they took Congress back because Bush was still in the WH. So, of what good was it that the GOP controlled the government all that time only to have the Great Recession occur? To be clear as I said earlier this was as much about omisisions as commissions. There were things that should have been done that were not along with things that should not hvae been done. What caused the collapse of housing markets in other countries was the great contraction of credit following collapse of Lehman Brothers. Ther is no direct tie in between the default rate in Southern California and Spain, to take two examples. As for Freddie and Fannie, the point was that they were following the market, not leading it. To blame them as CAUSES of hte financial collapse is inaccurate.
I have taken all of my Krugerrands and melted them down then recast them in bitcoin molds. And I leave those fuckers on my desk at work and nobody gives them even a glance. So safe. _
