|
| I am of the opinion that our central banks are totally corrupt and screwing over the citizens. The Federal Reserve being at effectively negative interest rates for more than a decade (and arguably still so) while not being able to see inflation while housing and land tripled (yeah, that was a tough one to notice) would leave one to think these people really can't be that dumb.
So that leads to the question: if central banks are identifying gold as the top asset to hold, the one with value not dependent on anything else (no counter party risk to influence how its value can be altered) then is that more proof of how dumb they are or is it proof they really know what is of value.
If the central banks are correct, then the dollar isn't the thing of value. And so measuring gold in dollars is irrelevant.
But let's say dollars are the thing of most value and owning "rocks" is pointless. One thing is rocks are often an asset, minerals in the ground for example. An asset always has the same value, regardless of how many dollars change hands to have ownership of an asset. An assets value is inherent to the asset, its not the dollars that give the asset value. A home is not a better shelter if $100,000 buys it one year then $200,000 buys it 10 years later - its the same asset and therefore same value.
So, if the central banking managers continue flooding the economy with currency therefore devaluing all existing currency, do assets go up or down in currency? The trend has been up and debt expansion says that will continue.
So the ultimate question is, are the central banks who are at the top of managing what is value and what isn't, correct in putting gold as a top tier holding - above all things measured in dollars? | |
|
I sincerely hope that no one on here who gives advice about Gold and Silver actually follows their
