Don't sell your Gold

[user 4386]

Please watch Grant Williams,till the VERY END.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjhLp8AHAYc

You will not see a "Better Presentation"

I look forward to your comments.

Perhaps an unfortunate analogy:

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-wolves-impact-yellowstone-ecosystems.html

best summarised as "the removal of wolves from Yellowstone National Park caused complex changes in ecological processes that cannot be simply reversed by wolf reintroduction alone". i.e. re-introduction of an apex predator does not take you back to where you were before.

We all like to think we can return to the past - but everything evolves and life is not so simple. He mentions but sort of brushes off the immense problems that would be caused by even effecting such a change. No doubt the present system will not last forever either - but tying all value to a commodity that must inevitably become more and more scarce does not seem an answer - and overnight, wealth would be transferred from many who are most effective in running the economy to those who have simply hoarded gold (and countries would become rich or poor according to their gold holdings and irrespective of the effectiveness of their economies, or relative to their unmined gold in the ground). And of course the Bretton-Woods system was never instituted in full either - the USA and others vetoed an important section related to an international currency and balance of trade controls (the "bancor"). Gold was removed, but controls on the effect of doing do were vetoed.

He is of course using a "catastrophist" approach, and he is working on the assumption of total collapse and trying to reconstruct from it, not just "hey, lets change to the gold standard and thus prevent the catastrophe occurring".

We will no doubt muddle through in some way.....even in the Great Depression years, unemployment only reached an all-time high of 15-22%.

 

[user 4386]

x

 

[mudgee hunter]

No ____ Sherlock!
That reckless call could of cost people thousands.

Irresponsible. Except it and apologize.

Well some people have a mind of their OWN...... and can invest at their risk.
Mr magoo was totally blind if I recall.......!

 

[Outback]

We will no doubt muddle through in some way.....even in the Great Depression years, unemployment only reached an all-time high of 15-22%.

In Australia Unemployment reached a record high of around 30% in 1932 .

 

[Rockhunter62]

The unemployment rate then increased rapidly to19.3%in 1930, before reaching a peak of29.0%in 1932, in response to the economic conditions of the Great Depression. This unprecedented high rate of unemployment persisted for two years, before the unemployment rate fell rapidly to below 10% by 1937.

Cheers

Doug

 

[mudgee hunter]

But........ unemployment can no longer be compared to older figures... as they are now totally fudged to compare.
Once, say "80's" if you where not working full-time ( 38hrs a week)
You would be considered "UNEMPLOYED"
25 hrs a week was NOT an acceptable benchmark as gainfully employed by the goverment.
Even 16hrs a week is now acceptable!
If a recruitment agency wants extra people on their list..... they advertise 10 forklift drivers wanted! And it could be a load of crap, yet 10 jobs are considered as "VACANT"
Therefore 10 people unemployed are removed from the "unemployed" list count.....
And the goverment love it as a bluff of what is a real statistic!

 

[user 4386]

Different nations use a common system of estimating unemployment so that figures are comparable between them (and yes, it would not be directly comparable with the 1930s - but of course the employment of women was negligible in those days, so an unemployed male usually meant a family without income, unlike now). Likewise, the "susso" of the depression was hardly comparable to New Start today (totally inadequate as it is) - many people were at the point of starvation.

Australia separately publishes figures for fully-employed and underemployed (those not working as many hours as they want to). The figures are there if you google, they just don't make headline news, and underemployed are not as major a percentage as most of us would assume - eg around 14%). The "employed" figure (unless you look at the detailed breakdown) is ridiculous I agree - but it is the one used by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and therefore by most countries, for the purpose of international comparison. It is not the same as "full-time employment".

"In Australia, full time employment change refers to the change in the number of employed persons who usually work 35 hours or more a week (in all jobs) and those who, although usually working fewer than 35 hours a week, work 35 hours or more during the reference week". "In 201011, more than a third (37%) of employed males worked between 35 and 44 hours per week, and a further 31% worked 45 hours or more per week (graph 8.24). Females were most likely to have worked between 35 and 44 hours per week or between 16 and 34 hours (at 31% each). Females who worked 45 hours or more per week made up 12% of all employed females".

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/1301.0Main+Features462012

Re your comment about recruitment agencies - governments do not get their figures in any way from such sources (they survey the population directly). That is, they may use this for the number of jobs advertised and number of jobs filled (which would cancel out anyway - any major rigging would soon show up) but not for % of people who consider themselves unemployed etc.

And of course the exact figure is not so important to government planning as the exact change in the figure each month, year etc. But not much consolation if you are unemployed and want work I have found.....

 

[mudgee hunter]

Seems you have swollowed a heap of crock, survey, what survey?
And you say it changes monthly, what monthly survey is that. oop: survey.
Head in the clouds

 

[mudgee hunter]

It was simply calculated once on people who registered with CES, looking for ful time work. Simple.
Without the crap of oop: surveys....
Hidden facts blurred with criteria.
That some cant comprehend obviously
Your link will be full of bull oop: that you are trying to sell, and those that know what is, aint buying it.

 

[mudgee hunter]

Any party in power do not want people to know the truth or authentic stats, stats can be still stats, even if twisted. Not a fact but

 

[user 4386]

It was simply calculated once on people who registered with CES, looking for ful time work. Simple.
Without the crap of oop: surveys....
Hidden facts blurred with criteria.
That some cant comprehend obviously
Your link will be full of bull oop: that you are trying to sell, and those that know what is, aint buying it.

Has always been done this way:

"In Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is responsible for collecting labour market data. The ABS conducts a survey each month called the Labour Force Survey in which it asks around 50,000 people about their participation in the labour market".

I don't work for the government, nor do I vote for the present one, so I'm not sure what my motive would be for "selling" anything ...and as I said, I think the criterion for "employed" is ridiculous. Just telling you how they do it, as I do not find it difficult to comprehend, even if I don't consider it a brilliant method.

 

[mudgee hunter]

There is an X amount of people out there , that you cant " google" ( a pathetic term for gospel, for those who cant read between the lines) that do not register, or no longer qualify as unemployed, yet in the old way they would of been counted as such.
Please dont insult us with the Census survey...
So if all those of working age criteria, not working fulltime (contract 35/38 hrs, not casuals ) where to put the hands up as a count in whole. You beleive it would be the same as what the goverment says....... or even your mate google......?
Seriously...
A politicians best friend. Beleive what they have fed you

 

[mudgee hunter]

So, how would they get my number for a totally random crap survey.
So now you beleive a survey over facts, and how long has this survey being going...... since the 30's? Really!
Oh, it's new is it!

 

[mudgee hunter]

If your head is in the oven, and your feet are in the freezer, on average your at a good temperature?
Google that

 

[thedigger]

There is a lot people do not believe that precious metals are manipulated,well this makes interesting reading.

https://www.sharpspixley.com/articl...ion-and-spoofing-is-this-the-norm_286970.html

 

[mudgee hunter]

So there you are, given stats..... that cant be beleived. And I doubt theyare under estimated by any means.
Fudged for favour.
So as I said, dont always beleive in surveys, or goverment stats!
STATS ARNT FACTS. but selected favourable figures collected, when it comes goverment departments!
Fool to beleive anything but.

 

[user 4386]

There is a lot people do not believe that precious metals are manipulated,well this makes interesting reading.

https://www.sharpspixley.com/articl...ion-and-spoofing-is-this-the-norm_286970.html

The heading is a bit misleading I suspect - it actually says in the text: "This trading strategy was admittedly intended to inject materially false and misleading liquidity and price information into the precious metals futures contracts markets"

I don't think manipulating the price of gold is the same as manipulating the precious metals futures contracts - it would not change the price of gold itself, only the price people think it will be some time in the future (the price they are willing to pay for gold now on the assumption that it will be that price in the future).

However the price of gold itself is kept fairly constant (for 6 or more years now) by preventing short supply. Usually when there is a shortage of a commodity its price increases, but that is not the case with gold. The annual demand is 4,000 tonnes and mines only produce around 3,000 tonnes each year - the shortfall is simply made up by melting down old jewellery etc. (where most gold exists, not in central bank vaults etc) - and by minor sales from central banks. In itself it is neither illegal or dishonest (it is simply the way the shortfall is made up to supply demand). When people talk about the price being manipulated, it is usually because they believe gold is like other commodities (e.g. they incorrectly believe that if world gold production is down in a year, that the price will therefore go up). The factors that drive gold price up are not simple supply and demand related to annual production, but appear to be things like oil, wars and economic and political uncertainty in the main. Exactly the type of things that people such as Outback emphasize - the questions (and disagreements) mostly being the magnitude of such swings and whether or not a return to the gold standard is required (or at least, required at this time). Regardless of this, it does seem to be a buffer against major economic catastrophes, and more to the point a hedge against extreme inflation (if you have the time to wait).

 

[user 4386]

T

 

[user 4386]

This is something that most people are unaware of:

"The International Energy Agency made headlines Monday when it declared in its World Energy Outlook 2017 that the U.S. could be a net exporter of oil within a decade. The IEA also projected that the U.S. is set to become the worlds dominant oil and gas production leader for decades".

It is interesting when considering the gold price versus the oil price, and trying to predict future trends in both (red line is oil price, blue line is gold price).

The two have always closely followed each other, as one would climb, so would the other. Around 2015 this relationship fell apart, with oil no longer correlating with gold, but dropping in price. This seems to correlate with the US becoming significantly in dependent of major oil imports (it was still strongly dependent in 2005) - between 2013 and 2017 US oil imports decreased 50%. China and the USA are by far the largest oil-importing countries (35% of total). Most comes from the Middle East followed by west Africa (China now gets 40% of its imports from Angola alone). One conclusion that could be made is that the USA will not need to spend as much on Middle East wars (decrease being a Trump policy) to protect petroleum supplies, another that the USA will not need to import much oil and will have more control over its price - both favourable to US economic growth. But why the apparent inter-dependence, why else might it be breaking down, and could factors affecting one price affect the other?

"It is argued that prices of gold and oil are also related. Higher price of oil would translate in higher prices of gold. Since there is no apparent intuitive connection between what happens with oil and what happens with gold, there is need for some explanations here.
The main idea behind the gold-oil relation is the one which suggests that prices of crude oil partly account for inflation. Increases in the price of oil result in increased prices of gasoline which is derived from oil. If gasoline is more expensive, than its more costly to transport goods and their prices go up. The final result is an increased price level in other words, inflation. The second part of the causal link is the fact that precious metals tend to appreciate with inflation rising (in the current fiat monetary environment). So, an increase in the price of crude oil can, eventually, translate into higher precious metals prices".

So the current long period of low interest rates and low inflation since the GFC, with associated low oil prices, could be the main reason for the breakdown in the oil-gold price relationship- and USA oil independence could be a second lesser but potentially significant reason. If so, the prediction of prolonged lower interest rates plus a major USA decline in oil imports would not bode well for a major increase in the gold price in the short term (short of a major economic crisis).

Fortunately, not everyone agrees that precious metal prices increase with inflation rising.