Posted on 03/01/2014 8:24:03 PM PST by SeekAndFind
suicidal ping
Short term thinking? How has gold done versus inflation over the last 200 years?
You do understand the difference between money and currency, right? Who fared best in the Wiemar Republic? Those with paper currency, or those who preserved their wealth with gold and silver? Gold and silver have been the world’s money for 6000 years. I think that pretty well trumps the past 200 years. Knowledge of history is the key to successfully navigating the future. When you talk about using gold and silver in this manner you’re talking about wealth preservation, not an investment strategy. Short term gains or losses are meaningless.
Wasn't very good preservation from 1980-1999. Or 2011 until today.
Short term gains or losses are meaningless.
Unless you need to sell some today.
Why bankers, and not the leadership of the agencies which will be tasked with disarming us, the order givers?
“Nope, sorry. They lend out less than deposits, not multiples of deposits.”
Ha, ha, funny! (suggest look-up “fractional reserve banking”)
It's not rocket science, and the actual amount of global currency held in derivatives is in the quadrillions. The purported 16 or 17 trillion US debt doesn't constitute a significant fraction of the liabilities in the market.
Ha, ha, funny! (suggest look-up “fractional reserve banking”)
Good idea.
Okay, looked it up. It appears that when you have a bank with demand deposits, they only keep a fraction of the deposits in reserve, while they lend out the rest.
Since a fraction is less than multiples, it sounds like my original claim is correct.
Which statement?
To put it plainly, if you can loan out 90% with a 10% deposit, what could you loan out if you deposited 90%.
You can loan out 90%, while holding 10% in reserve.
So a single $1000 deposit allows $900 in loans.
It's not rocket science, and the actual amount of global currency held in derivatives is in the quadrillions.
Derivatives are like options, currency is not "held in them".
The purported 16 or 17 trillion US debt doesn't constitute a significant fraction of the liabilities in the market.
Liabilities are offset, one for one, by assets. Not sure what you're trying to say.
These liabilities are not tied to real properties or assets. All of the financial assets in history do not equal the liabilities in the markets today. They may be “backed” by paper, but there is little relation to physical assets. Do you not recall the Housing bubble, the Dot Con? Were these backed?
How do you think an infinite money supply can be backed? The past 10 years would be characterized as money laundering if anyone but the Fed did it. The banks and the Fed have colluded to print the stock market up without any reflective increase in earnings. How do we have a 0% interest rate in concert with inflation? Does that make any economic sense? How are banks able to finance these massive portfolios?
There are no 90% deposits.
There are only dollar deposits.
A $1000 deposit allows $900 in loans. Why is that a problem?
These liabilities are not tied to real properties or assets.
Which liabilities? Be specific.
All of the financial assets in history do not equal the liabilities in the markets today.
Every liability is someone elses asset.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.