The 'Crack up Boom' approaches.

Jimmy_31

Realmoney wrote: »

Still houses not reached bottom yet, they will not stop falling for a while yet.

That chart does indeed apply to silver :eek: You have to look at the big picture, that little graph is only a few yrs, you have to look longer term.


We are now in the first sell off and the first bear trap, the big gains have not yet happened but we are on our way

Thanks for the response.

Hamish has left the overpriced building:rotfl:

Jimmy_31

TheEnigma wrote: »

He does that.

He often lost the argument about gold with smeagold. He leaves the overpriced building and hopes people do not remember.

But when you are so opinionated and riducle someone so much like when he disagreed with smeagold that gold would be over £1,000 an ounce some time ago.

Smeagold clearly stated when gold would be over £1,000 an ounce and said then it would never go under ever again.

Hamish goes all quiet or then claims he did not say that.

Yes he clearly does not like to lose a debate.

Maybe hes busy ramping prices outside his local estate agents

pwllbwdr

Does it become more true if you post the same unsubstantiated drivel in multiple threads?

robmatic

Maybe somebody will fall for it?

wotsthat

Tnemeleht74eht wrote: »

Very interesting how much talk there is now about bullion.

Most of that talk here is by 3 people under about 12 usernames.

I wonder if that's the same in the real world. I can't remember the last time I had a conversation with a 'normal' about bullion.

I think it might have been a discussion comparing whether the golds 4 you type adverts were better or worse than Foxy bingo.

deary65

Here is an interesting Good article, by a very influential international magazine. Discussing the pro's and con's of the Austrian and Keynesian economic theories.

http://www.economist.com/node/17522368?story_id=17522368

Generali

Bullfighter wrote: »

Interesting anecdotal, however I respectfully think you are missing the point. Whilst there is a new market for digital distribution, it is the essentials which are truly limited: water, food, land, energy etc.

We will see the 7th billion person born this month. Currently several billion people exist on this planet with limited access to water, food, land, energy. If we just bring the next billion out of poverty and instead of all the trappings of the West we just gave them a 60w light bulb each. For them to turn that lightbulb on, for just four hours a day, we would require 10,000 megawatts or an ADDITIONAL twenty or so 500-megawatt coal-burning power plants... just so they can turn a light bulb on.

To have growth in Apps, or Kindle books we would require billions of tonnes of materials and hundreds of thousands of extra megawatts...

It ain't gonna happen.

Ok, setting aside the apps thing which was meant to be an analogy more than anything else.

Land is limited pretty much (the Netherlands not withstanding). Water is a finite commodity yet the oceans are pretty massive and the water in them has barely been tapped for irrigation or drinking.

Food again has regularly seen massive increases in production. The Agricultural Revolution in the C18th and early C19th saw productivity gains in wheat production of about 50% (if memory serves) and far more than that for meat with the introduction of selective breeding and nitrogen-fixing winter feed crops.

Ultimately the total population of all creatures the planet will be constrained by the resources to support life. That is a truism. It needn't be apocalyptic though. When war-torn countries in Africa suffer drought or locusts or something and aid can't get through, people die because they can't get to food. That is sad but it doesn't really affect people in the rest of the world on a physical level.

Similarly, if we run out of land on which to grow food, some people will die and fewer children will be born. That's not the end of the planet though, just nature.

http://home.messiah.edu/~deroos/csc171/PredPrey/PPIntro.htm

Generali

deary65 wrote: »

Here is an interesting Good article, by a very influential international magazine. Discussing the pro's and con's of the Austrian and Keynesian economic theories.

http://www.economist.com/node/17522368?story_id=17522368

An excellent article.

IMHO, no group of economists is right all the time. I believe you can have a Keynsian recession (late 80s/early 90s), a monetarist one (late 70s/early 80s) or an Austrian one (2000s).

Economics is a field of study in its infancy.

deary65

A video presentation 'The Austrian Bust' Prof. Krassimir Petrov. This is an excellent hour long presentation.32 minutes in, the reason for Biflation and how it occurs is explained.

This stunning video, from 4 years ago...you can SEE what they are doing in exact opposition to combat the effects....near the end of the video, he goes on to explain how governments will react....and bearing in mind this was 4 years ago...and its not a new theory anyway....what THEY have done is predicted just about perfectly.

sadly, the results of this action by governments and central banks is also explained and predicted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTUaCLWoKc