Skip to content

Additional resources for earning interest in gold

13 responses to “The Demand to Hoard, Report 13 May 2018”

  1. Just to be clear, I’m a big fan of your interest rate and basis model, which is why I like to read and study up on the concepts and analysis MM presents. Long-term wealth & business planning are incomplete without a solid understanding of interest and gold basis.

    First, I’d like to point out that the quote you are criticizing as the health care industry is not based on opinion, but on someone’s personal experience. If your issue is with the generalization and extrapolation of that experience then at least you need to acknowledge that the generalization is true at least some of the time, within some of the health care industry. Same as your point about good care.

    However, your constant bickering with the rest of the gold crowd really makes you guys sound like just another annoying gold bug. I just spent the time to read your thesis on why interest > production results in dishoarding, and then you end up concluding that general distaste for gold is because of charlatans? Interest has not much to do with saving gold then I guess? Far as I can tell, legal tender laws enforced at gun point are manipulation of free market forces, so at least to some degree the conspiracy crowd has a point. The same crowd also couldn’t have been more wrong about the direction of the usd/gold price since 2011, but was generally right on for several decades preceding that period.

    Please do me a favour and let your work speak for itself, and leave out the annoying rant. Maybe take the time to proofread and and make your work a tad more presentable. Maybe then your marketing reach with the rest of the gold crowd would be that much better. Because that is your target market is it not?

    1. Well said, Tom. While I don’t care for the “gold bug” label or characterization — it belittles the proponents and dismisses their arguments before a fair hearing — it’s a worthwhile reminder that we all need to be better objective historians (and therefore less emotional) when discussing what constitutes good money.

      Naturally many of us long for the day when we can use gold-backed money (or gold itself) as a medium of exchange, but that’s certainly not the case today, is it? In that sense gold is certainly not money, it’s an asset.

      So what money? Is debt (the dollar) money? (“Credit is money and money is credit” were words written on these very MM pages) So yes, debt is money in our upside down world — unfortunately. Of course, only by fiat… by decree. Like you said, it is forced upon us at the point of a gun.

      Someday the world will see the error of its profligate ways and phony “money”… but to quote one great Thinker: Today is not that day.

      1. Fair enough, we all get our rants in every once in a while I guess. There’s usually some truth in stereotypes. My intent was to show that putting your work at odds with others in your industry takes you to the same level they are at. Whether that takes you up to their level or down, depends on the relative quality. Obviously I have much higher regard for Keith’s work than the rest of the gold crowd and MM’s relative track record shows the same.

    2. The dollar system works by force. So how could this not involve manipulation? For countries to hold dollar debt (with a 2 cent intrinsic value according to Prof. Fekete) in their reserves above gold proves its contrived and manipulated . Who would accept depreciating IOUS instead of real money? If dollar reserves were sold on to the market for gold, then the dollar would lose value and gold, including existing reserves at central banks would appreciate. There being a potentially unlimited quantity fiat, and a finite quantity of gold. Gold would go to its true value.
      Health care is a monopoly selling drugs, which are bad for the health, controlled by big Pharma (who are in bed with the FDA), who put profits before the patients best interests, which are largely ignored.
      There are proven therapies available in mexico curing almost every disease known to man. There are substances passed as safe by the FDA, for sale in the US which are withheld by the same authority from treating patients, because these treatments would make existing drugs and systems redundant. They are cheap work fast and readilyavailable.
      I honestly find it incredible that you seem so unaware of the realities of life. Is 911 and the collapse of building seven a another conspiracy theory?

      1. @Angus,
        I think that you have misunderstood or misstated Professor Fekete. I think that he would say the USD has no intrinsic value but that, perhaps, it would buy $.02 today of what it would buy for $1.00 in 1971 (when the USA defaulted on its gold convertibility obligation).

  2. Thanks for the comments and the feedback.

    In medicine, “standard of care” describes the consensus of what treatment is appropriate. One can have a bad personal experience, of course, but that does not change what is the standard of care.

    I spoke to a few doctors before I wrote that.

    1. Mr. W is correct.

      Although I find the great majority of doctors (in my personal experience) very helpful and concerned about my health, who can deny the pressure they are under to prescribe a pill for every ill?

      When I’ve questioned my doctors about holistic remedies, the responses are generally similar: “I wasn’t trained in that approach”.

    2. Fair enough about standard of care. The experience in question has more to do with mis-diagnosis than treatment. Accepted treatment options are likely better today than in the days of sawbones, especially with availability of Eastern methods. But as Bruce mentioned, I’d still question the general consensus in the West re appropriate treatments. There’s certainly much more to the picture besides pharmaceuticals and surgery.

  3. “Monetary Metals’ Fundamental price seeks to back out speculative forces in the gold market to reveal the underlying physical supply and demand picture.” Right? That quote is directly from the website.

    So, MM “seeks” to back out speculative forces…. but how successful is it? As you’ve noticed, not very. Rather, I continue to obverse a distinct psychological component in Fundamental and have outlined the evidence for months.

    In the most recent example, how can we explain the nearly $300 dollar run-up in Fundamental (impressive!!) with only lackluster participation in bullion? Then, rather than bullion remaining firm and eventually catching up to Fundamental, what happened? That $300 surge in Fundamental — as is typical — occurred simultaneously with a bullish psychological backdrop in bullion (Daily Sentiment Index reached over 80% bulls for example) which means what was likely to happen?

    Listen folks, when over 8 of 10 of the investing and trading public is already bullish it means only one thing — the market is vulnerable to a drop.

    So what happened? Bullion dropped $80. So far. (Not surprisingly sentiment is approaching the opposite extreme)

    If the Fundamental was at all leading bullion, you see, we would have expected bullion to remain firm and eventually rise — or stay flat — to meet a moderating Fundamental. That’s not what we observed at all, is it? And lest we forget, for Fundamental to be $250 over spot gold is a considerable spread based on historical data. This isn’t noise level stuff.

    Rather than bullion eventually following the so-called “Fundamental”, Fundamental is actually following bullion lower — just as occurred previously when there is a bullish psychological extreme. Take note of these situations.

    Think back to last year when gold hit $1,230…. Remember that wicked, almost last minute plunge of $100 in Fundamental (to below spot gold) moments before bullion raced higher by an even greater amount? That’s when the opposite occurred, the bullion market was facing capitulation (DSI was under 10% for example) and Fundamental was clearly parroting the negative psychology that was dominating the bullion market at the time.

    I don’t know much stronger the evidence needs to be.

  4. Bruce,

    Shouldn’t you be looking more closely at the premium/discount of fundamental price to the market price, and not just at the absolute movements of the fundamental price? The fundamental price is tied at the hip with the market price, but the differential between the two is, in theory at least, the indication of the likelihood of future movements in the market price. It would be helpful to see an analysis of these factors, with a focus on causality. Is there a relationship between premium/discount and price, does one lead the other, or is any relationship just coincidental? On the face of the longer term charts available, the relationships are fairly tenuous, although the premium/discount has definitely led price on occasion. Also, the premium/discount tends to persist for periods of up to several years, and the ‘leash’ tied between the price and fundamentals seems to be a rather long and flexible one.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?

Feel free to contribute!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.