|
"As for the apparent disrespect for silver, it's the vector you get from history…and
the suspicion that comes from an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in a
corrupt, stinking, filthy Comex/Nynex/government mess, so that now we are freaking
doomed."
JMR Andrew H. has a question about silver.
He starts off saying, "Most everyone agrees that silver has a monetary value,
yet it seems no one can agree on how to determine it. If silver will have a
greater value over time, why are so many people looking at it as an industrial
need and not a monetary one?"
My answer to that is that silver does not have any monetary value, and I say
this with complete assurance, since no country or economy has a currency tied
to silver (except the Liberty Dollar folks!). You can buy silver and sell silver
using official "money" to effect the transaction, but silver is not "money." Ergo,
silver has no monetary value. It's as simple as that.
Hugo Salinas Price seems to agree with that, and says, "Today, not a single
currency in the world has a valuable content; all of the one hundred and eighty
or so currencies in the world have absolutely no intrinsic value at all."
As for the apparent disrespect for silver, it's the vector you get from history
(it's been low for a long time), bias (the silver cartel and government interests),
real industrial demand met through dis-hoarding government stockpiles, zero
real monetary use, and the suspicion that comes from an enigma, wrapped in
a mystery, wrapped in a corrupt, stinking, filthy Comex/Nynex/government mess,
so that now we are freaking doomed.
In short, I dunno why silver is selling at such a discount. I only know 4,000
continuous years says it can't last, the problem is huge, without an explanation
it can only be explained in retrospect, and thus it qualifies as a looming,
dooming Black Swan event, and people who buy silver now are going to make a
lot of money!
This brings up Bernard
Baruch (1870-1965), who was an arrogant, dictatorial, fascist creep of
the first order, sort of like The Mogambo without a mustache. Nevertheless
(according to Wikipedia.org), he made a fortune in the stock market, most
famously by going massively short against companies that he thought were
overpriced, and "he amassed a fortune before the age of thirty via speculation
in the sugar market. In 1903 he had his own brokerage firm", and "By 1910,
he had become one of Wall Street's financial leaders."
In short, he knew what he was doing and had the guts to risk it all.
I bring this up because a quote of his appeared in a Cryptoquote puzzle in
my local newspaper, and it is what seems to be the precursor to George Soro's
famous dictum to "Identify the trend whose premise is false, and then bet against
it."
Mr. Baruch is quoted as saying, "I am a speculator. The word comes from the
Latin 'speculari', which means to 'observe'. I observe." Hahaha! Perfect!
So, putting these together, observe what in the hell is going on, find the
error, and bet real money that errors and stupidities cannot last very long.
Case in point: silver is selling at the lowest ratio to gold,
or anything else you can name, in 4,000 years of history. It should be selling
- at a minimum - for $40! Right now! Can this trend continue?
And it's not just silver, but gold, too, because when you read between the
lines, you can see that both of these guys - both of them! - are saying to buy
gold, as Alan Greenspan's enormous blunder in letting Congress spend all
that excess money and credit for all those years is now beginning to reap its
just desserts, which sounds really nice, bringing up visions of pies and cakes
like it does, maybe with a little ice cream on top, until you look it up in
a dictionary, and then made even more remarkable since Bernard Baruch has been
dead for more than 40 years! Yet he knew! What a guy!
Antal Fekete, at Memorial University of Newfoundland, writes, "gold is good",
even if huge new finds of gold are found. It will not change things, as, "It
is not the absolute change in mine output that has an impact on the value of
a monetary metal, but the relative change as a percentage of existing stockpiles.
For this reason gold is more valuable than silver: the huge stockpiles of gold
make the impact of a change negligible. Ergo the value of gold is more stable.
In technical language, the marginal utility of gold declines more slowly than
that of silver.
"As a consequence," he continues, "the specific value of gold is higher. This
means that the value of the unit weight of gold is higher than that of the
same weight of silver. The monetary metal with the higher specific value is
more portable both in space and time."
In other words, if I was going to loot the employee pension fund and run away
to start life afresh, I would be best served by converting the traceable money
into gold, because I could carry that much gold, but not into silver, which
I can't.
Mr. Fekete, obviously taken aback by my sociopathic corruption, agrees with
me, however reluctantly, and says, "In more details, the cost of transporting
the unit of value as represented by gold is lower. For example, if the bimetallic
ratio is 15, then the cost of transporting the unit of value as represented
by silver is about 15 times higher. Roughly the same rule applies to the cost
of storage as well. This makes gold superior to silver as a monetary metal.
It is more suitable as a vehicle to transfer value over space as well as over
time."
I held up a finger to indicate that I wished to add that since silver is selling
as a stunning, amazing, historically low percentage of the price of gold, then
silver has more upside potential! But, as usual, like everybody, he didn't
want to hear what I had to say, and he left, but he gave me a finger on his
way out. Just like they all do.
And I am buying silver to see who laughs last!
P.S. To get The Daily Reckoning sent directly to your
inbox, sign up for our
free email newsletter, or if you prefer to use RSS, subscribe to the Daily
Reckoning RSS feed.
|