Gold.

[barracuda]

Buy low, sell high.

What would you folks consider to be a sell signal in gold in the market today? What signs would have to occur to cause you to think gold prices might fall?

[freemason9]

Bubble.

Capitalism can't operate in a monetary environment that is based upon a fixed supply of currency; IOW, a "gold standard" and capitalism cannot coexist.

[smiths]

showing a 50 year chart of gold on its own is worthless barracuda

what would be a sell signal?

for me a sell signal will be the restructuring of the international political system towards a more socially democratic and equitable one,
the end of the private banking cartels as the umbrella power system,
a non-fiat based monetary system
the genuine progress of a sustainable living and manufacturing system

or put the other way

as long as we have a parasitic fascist banking oligarchy that inflates bullshit debt, produces nothing of value and continues to destroy the ecosystem and consciousness of life on earth, i will continue to own silver


and to Marie, the whole reason the gold standard was ended was because it is so much harder to manipulate 'money' that has real existance and a finite supply,
you cannot print gold
hence central bankers hate it, that tell everyone it is a barbarous irrelevant relic,

some relic indeed

forget Glenn Beck, forget the hype

buying gold is a bet that creating debt to solve debt problems wont work
buying gold is a bet that governments and corporations dont tell the truth
buying gold is a bet that destroying the middle class through price inflation and the dismantling of social democracy will result in chaos and unrest

[Nordic]

^^^^
Extremely well said.

Washingtonsblog puts it very well in a couple of ways. Here's one:

Gold Will Crash As Soon As the Economy Stabilizes. But the Government Hasn't Done Anything to Stabilize the Economy ... And So The Economy Won't Recover - And Gold Will Rise - For Years


While I've written complicated 10-factor essays on why gold prices will rise (like this and this), my basic argument for gold is very simple.

People buy gold during periods of volatility, uncertainty, distrust of government and risk aversion. See this, this, this and this.

The governments of the world have done nothing to fix our fundamental economic problems, and so the economy won't stabilizes for many years. See this and this.

Therefore - while there will be corrections (some dramatic) along the way - gold will be in a continuing bull market for years to come.

And here's another:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/average-life-expectancy-for-fiat.html

The Average Life Expectancy For A Fiat Currency Is 27 Years ... Every 30 To 40 Years The Reigning Monetary System Fails And Has To Be Retooled


David Galland notes:

Monetary scholar Edwin Vieira ... pointed out that every 30 to 40 years the reigning monetary system fails and has to be retooled. The last time around for the U.S. was in 1971, when Nixon cancelled the convertibility of dollars into gold. Remarkably, the world bought into the unbacked dollar as its reserve currency, but only because that was the path of least resistance. But here we are 40 years later, and it is clear to anyone paying attention that the monetary system is irretrievably broken and will fail.

What will replace it is still unclear, but I suspect that when the stuff really hits the fan and inflation rages the government will try the approach taken by the Germans to end their hyperinflation back in the 1920s, coming up with the equivalent of the Rentenmark – a dollar that is loosely linked to some basket of commodities and financial instruments. It won’t be convertible, because it would be impossible for bank tellers to exchange your dollar for a cup of oil, and a coupon off of a bond, and a chip of gold, or whatever makes up the basket – but it might restore some semblance of confidence in the currency. That’s one option. Another is that some government decides to make its currency convertible into precious metals; but that will only happen when all other less fiscally restraining systems have been floated and failed. Simply, at this point we can’t know what will replace the current monetary system, or when. All we can know is that the status quo cannot and so will not survive this crisis.

Regardless, between now and the point in time where the Fed throws in the towel on today’s fiat monetary system, you would have to be naïve in the extreme not to expect volatility, uncertainty, and wholesale financial dislocations.
Chris Mack writes:

According to a study of 775 fiat currencies by DollarDaze.org, there is no historical precedence for a fiat currency that has succeeded in holding its value. Twenty percent failed through hyperinflation, 21% were destroyed by war, 12% destroyed by independence, 24% were monetarily reformed, and 23% are still in circulation approaching one of the other outcomes.

The average life expectancy for a fiat currency is 27 years, with the shortest life span being one month. Founded in 1694, the British pound Sterling is the oldest fiat currency in existence. At a ripe old age of 317 years it must be considered a highly successful fiat currency. However, success is relative. The British pound was defined as 12 ounces of silver, so it's worth less than 1/200 or 0.5% of its original value. In other words, the most successful long standing currency in existence has lost 99.5% of its value.

Given the undeniable track record of currencies, it is clear that on a long enough timeline the survival rate of all fiat currencies drops to zero.
And Jeff Clark points out:

History has a message for us: No fiat currency has lasted forever. Eventually, they all fail.

BMG BullionBars recently published a poster featuring pictures of numerous currencies that have gone bust. Some got there quickly, while others took a century or more. Regardless of how long it took, though, the seductive temptations allowed under a fiat monetary system eventually caught up with these governments, and their currencies went poof!

You might suspect this happened only to third world countries. You’d be wrong. There was no discrimination as to the size or perceived stability of a nation’s economy; if the leaders abused their currency, the country paid the price.

As you scroll through the currencies below, you’ll see some long-ago casualties. What’s shocking, though, is how many have occurred in our lifetime. You might count how many currencies have failed since you’ve been born.

So what’s the one word for the “thousand pictures” below? Worthless.

This is followed by an endless stream of pictures like this one:



and this one:



Seemingly endless examples.

THAT is why the price of gold is shooting way up, because the world's reserve currency, the dollar, is doomed.

[Stephen Morgan]

showing a 50 year chart of gold on its own is worthless barracuda

Well, it shows that gold has been at similar prices to those now prevalent and come back down again. In fact it looks rather like it came back down with the onset of Thatcherism.

what would be a sell signal?

People wedded to the idea that metal has some mystical value will hold onto it until it's worth a fraction of what they paid for it, as it will be when the speculators have made enough money on the up-slope and decide more is not to be made on the down.

for me a sell signal will be the restructuring of the international political system towards a more socially democratic and equitable one,
the end of the private banking cartels as the umbrella power system,
a non-fiat based monetary system
the genuine progress of a sustainable living and manufacturing system

None of which has anything to do with the "value" of gold. And only an idiot would want a non-fiat money system. Money ultimately represents human labour, tying it to metal simply enslaves people to the big interests which own those metals. The potential expansion of the money supply should be in democratic hands, not in the hands of the holders of metal.

or put the other way

as long as we have a parasitic fascist banking oligarchy that inflates bullshit debt, produces nothing of value and continues to destroy the ecosystem and consciousness of life on earth, i will continue to own silver

Silver can at least be used to disinfect things. And to turn yourself blue, so better than gold.

and to Marie, the whole reason the gold standard was ended was because it is so much harder to manipulate 'money' that has real existance and a finite supply,
you cannot print gold
hence central bankers hate it, that tell everyone it is a barbarous irrelevant relic,

The gold standard has been ended and reintroduced on a number of occasions. Reintroduction caused the Great Strike of 1926. With modern technology currencies fixed against the gold standard are excessively volatile, trade imbalances combined with redeemability of currency against metal leave the currency prey to anyone who wants to swipe the nation's gold. So central bankers tend not to like it, speculators and private bankers tend to love it.

some relic indeed

forget Glenn Beck, forget the hype

buying gold is a bet that creating debt to solve debt problems wont work
buying gold is a bet that governments and corporations dont tell the truth
buying gold is a bet that destroying the middle class through price inflation and the dismantling of social democracy will result in chaos and unrest

Buying gold is a bet that bubbles never burst.

[smiths]

In fact it looks rather like it came back down with the onset of Thatcherism.

yes exactly, right at the moment that the rationalists and monetarists got hold of the levers and gave the bankers the green light to do whatever it took maintain the 'western economic illusion'
the clever people that spurned gold in the 80s knew its time woud come but werent prepared to bet against the entire reserve banking system, that was a good bet
but when interest rates hit rock bottom, housing prices topped and the entire manufacturing base of the west moved to china, anyoe with any sense knew that the debt bubble was done

i am not saying that the price of gold will not go down stephen, in fact i wonder if you actually read it at all

i am saying it will not go down until fundamental instutional change occurs

The potential expansion of the money supply should be in democratic hands, not in the hands of the holders of metal

what money? managed by whom, valued how?

[Elihu]

"The monetary managers are fond of telling us that they have substituted 'responsible money management' for the gold standard. But there is no historic record of responsible paper money management ... The record taken, as a whole is one of hyperinflation, devaluation and monetary chaos."
– Henry Hazlitt

nay gentlemen on the f ron paul thread, i have not retired from the field. regarding the constitution, i hope to return to the parlay. these two issues are intricately linked.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."
- John Adams

this is not corn-pone americana. there is a deductive scientific theory of money/interest/indirect exchannge. it's astounding the prevailing ignorance. and funny how that has been no mistake. lest we imbibe the confusion of whether or not gold is "intrinsically" valuable (a lengthy exegesis itself) let's look at it from another angle: honest accounting standards. period. it allows the assessment of whether people have done what they said they were going to do. especially those in positions of fiduciary responsibility. without a sovereign money in the hands of the people (where every unit is equal to every other unit, period, period, period), any horsesh!t project can be undertaken on a massive scale but only by those standing at magical fount of issuance with their hands on the tap...

[barracuda]

showing a 50 year chart of gold on its own is worthless barracuda

On its own, perhaps, but price charting within an informed context is not without value. For some context to my question, here's another chart:



This one shows a consistent and precise historical inverse relationship between gold and stock market returns. I can think of no reason to assume this trend won't continue, as it is based upon highly coherent data points. But since we know without a speck of uncertainty that the nominal value of the stock market can be manipulated like a child's toy, why do we consider gold to be somehow inherently more stable in investment terms?

The counter argument:

Speculative long positions, or bets prices will rise, outnumbered short positions by 21,928 contracts on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange, the Washington-based commission said in its Commitments of Traders report. Net-long positions rose by 3,540 contracts, or 19 percent, from a week earlier.

The dumb money continues to warn that gold and silver are bubbles.

Their simplistic bubble thesis is based almost exclusively on the nominal US dollar price and recent price movements and on the assumption that (to paraphrase) ‘gold has gone up in price a lot - therefore it is a bubble’.

There is a continuing failure to look at the important supply and demand fundamentals of the gold and silver markets which leads to unsound reasoning and irrational conclusions. There is also a failure to adjust for inflation.

There is little knowledge of the very small size of the physical bullion markets vis-à-vis the stock, bond, currency and other markets.

There is also very little knowledge of financial, economic and monetary history and a continuing ignorance regarding ‘investment 101’ which is diversification.

Being prudent and having an allocation of 10% to gold will protect no matter what economic and monetary scenario develops in the coming months. If one is not leveraged and is prudently diversified and owns gold bullion (coins and bars in the safest way possible), it does not matter if gold is a bubble or not as you own a range of other quality assets.

From a purely investment point of view - an allocation of 5% to 10% makes sense.

From a financial insurance or store of wealth point of view – having a higher proportion of your overall net worth makes sense.

Especially given the risks posed to the dollar, euro, pound and fiat currencies and to deposits “guaranteed” by insolvent states.

[freemason9]

"Fiat currencies" are a necessary component of economic growth. They may stumble and collapse from time to time, but they are also the default currencies.

Good luck growing your economy with a fixed money supply.

[barracuda]

Why is "growth" assumed to be necessary to an economy? Hyothetically, couldn't a sustaining economy be just as vital and innovative, or an economy in equilibrium?

Surely there is enough "money" available in the world at the moment to achieve almost any goal or realise any creative endeavor, if that money were actually at work in the real world rather than trapped in non-productive accounts and sublimated into the derivatives con-job.

[NaturalMystik]

Wow, looks like it broke $1910oz today!

On an somewhat related note, the silver coin market is really hot on eBay. If you're looking to make a couple bucks in these tough times, time to dig out those old silver dollars and half dollars...

[Nordic]

Economic "growth", as we define it today in our culture, is quite literally a Ponzi scheme. Environmentally it is unquestionably that! Financially as well.

[smiths]

so how does the value of gold; the movements of the markets; growth; inequality; and the limits of growth go together? (in 50 words or less)

[Marie Laveau]

and to Marie, the whole reason the gold standard was ended was because it is so much harder to manipulate 'money' that has real existance and a finite supply,
you cannot print gold
hence central bankers hate it, that tell everyone it is a barbarous irrelevant relic,

Seriously? The gold standard ended in 1971. Perhaps you've heard of the Robber Barons? They did quite, QUITE well with a gold standard in place.

And this is exactly why I think this whole thing is a bunch of crap. People, you are on a conspiracy forum. And you are sitting here talking about gold like it has any REAL, INTRINSIC value. (in·trin·sicAdjective/inˈtrinzik/1. Belonging naturally; essential.)

For whom does it have this value? More value than a piece of paper? Really? Because we're TOLD it does? Because it's so pretty and shiny?

Yes, historically it's had value. In reality, dog poop could have just as much value to the common person- actually, as a means of fertilizer, it has more. What the COMMON person NEEDS is a way to survive, and the system is set up as such now that one blip and that means of survival is GONE, i.e., a job, the grocery store, the gas station, medicine, heat, water, etc. If you have, say, $100,000 in gold is that going to bring food to your table if the grocery stores are empty because the trucking industry has gone belly-up if the banks cut off their line of credit?

How about if the city defaults on its bonds to BIG bank in NYC? What if your hospital is in the same boat, i.e., bonds? And don't think the banks and Wall Street won't shut it down. They will.

Keep your gold. Give me food, water, warmth. And a means to produce the food. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. I think this is just one more way TParasitesTB are, ahem, socially controlling us.

*looks around* yes, yes, I am on a conspiracy forum.

[Marie Laveau]

so how does the value of gold; the movements of the markets; growth; inequality; and the limits of growth go together? (in 50 words or less)

dieoff.org

(did I make the word limit? )