| OldMcdonald - 2/20/2015 09:09
Maybe not, but there are going to be some that are a LOT more unsafe than others.
Gold obviously isn't as liquid, but historically, it has made it through crises in tact.
How many times do we have to go over this? No, gold did not make it through the last (not even really major) crisis. It was confiscated, at least here in the US - or at least about half of the value was confiscated. *If* you are right about Russia and China accumulating gold, and this does indeed precipitate a crisis, where do you think the government here will get gold - if it really, really needs it? Take your head out of the sand and look around at the real world. Government will do whatever it feels it needs to do to retain power. Do you really think government will respect your ownership of gold? If the currency is really failing, do you think government will tolerate a competing currency? This is what I mean by looking at the real world - and not a world that you build in your own mind.
"I have a problem when someone says something that I think is simplistic - like all the new money created will cause the dollar to collapse and gold to skyrocket"
Here's the problem: Just because it sounds simple, doesn't mean it's wrong.
"Simple" and "simplistic" are very different things. IMHO, your conviction that the dollar *had to* fall relative to other currencies was simplistic. I say "other currencies" because you also were posting links about the USD losing world reserve currency status. All I would ask is for you to look at charts of the USD compared to other currencies. The charts show the real world - as opposed to the world you might want to live in. I'm merely talking about living in reality.
I guess that's what differs between us... you want to believe that it is all too complex to do anything about, that nothing can be done, and whatever answer can be deduced from looking at the situation will likely be wrong since "markets are very complex". Hence, why you believe there is "no safe haven".
Once again, you make things up. I said "That in no way means I am not making decisions" - I'm curious - what about that did you not understand?
There is "no safe haven" for one very simple reason. When you have so much money sloshing around the system, and when it becomes increasingly clear that the system is unstable, you have *everyone* desperately looking for that "safe haven." Every "safe haven" that might exist gets bid up to where the risk/uncertainty is bid into the price, and it no longer can be considered a "safe haven." *Everyone* wants to park at least some money in a "safe haven" - why would you ever think that you could find something that everyone else is looking for too - at least before they find it? IMHO, this illustrates the difference between "simple" and "simplistic" thinking. |
Martin Armstrong - A History of Ranting, Wild Predictions, and of Course, Fraud
