G0ldfinger

I wouldn't say that really. http://gold.approximity.com/gold-silver_watch.html

They account for it at $11 billion, BTW. $42 an oz.

You only need to make sure the floor is solid. The space itself is miniscule: Gold is 20 times heavier than water. 1 cubic meter of water weighs a ton, so 1/20 = 0.050 cubic meters = 50 litres gold weighs a ton. 50 litres is approx. 13 gallons or approx. a third of a standard bathtub. So, not all that much really.

The question is, how much 'hidden' holdings do they have on top of that. I don't believe any public numbers form China or Saudi Arabia when it comes to gold. They're not stupid, so they MUST have much more.

This could mean higher Dollar prices of gold too. http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-...c-recovery.html

"Another" definitely got the assessment of the Euro wrong. His timing was slightly off as well (+12 years?).

I'd prefer competing currencies. For instance, the Sovereign (i.e. the British Pound) would be a perfectly good gold currency. In a free market, it would also be clear that its value would essentially be the value of fine gold content, i.e. other gold currencies like Krugerrands or Maples would be perfect substitutes. As such, gold would be the money, and its form as currency (coin) would just enhance its marketability. Bars of recognized assayers would work as well. But these currencies would essentially be "private". No one would be forced to use a particular currency, but anyone could obviously demand a particular currency as payment. CGT on money/currencies would need to be abolished.

There are other examples of cultures that had other moneys, or simply bartered at a more general level. Apparently, the Incas liked to use Cocoa beans and salt for barter, so one could possibly say it was money for them too.

Apparently we disagree on the definition of money. You seem to view money as an abstract idea. But it is clear that such money could only evolve as an abstraction/perversion of, simply put, a very marketable asset. This was achieved mainly by banksters and politicians. So, what you think is money, simply is what they made you believe it is. Without them, without the laws that protect it, this kind of money would show its true face as an idea of no value. Before the perversion of money by fractional reserve banking/naked shorting and fiat currency laws, it simply would be the one or two most marketable assets or commodities - usually gold and silver.

See you up thereeeee!

I disagree. The basis of money is always something real (fur, shells, salt, silver, gold), but then some politicians/banksters/ theorists come along and pervert it, so that it sooner or later it has to collapse. At that point, it is back to square one, and money becomes real again.

In theory there should always be a non-zero price of something of value in gold (which is something of value too!). But in a short-term dislocation, maybe closed gold markets, that could not be the case. As for money, almost anything could be money today as long as it is liquid enough. For instance, we could all have an electronic oil account - OilMoney, so to speak, and would have credit cards and debit cards on that oil account. Naturally, gold is the best money, so we might see governments getting that idea some time again too. But there is no guarantee for that. Maybe UK money will be backed by all these empty repossessed houses that no one wants anymore. There should still be some value in them. It's land, after all. LandMoney.

He simply thinks gold will be an unobtainium for some time. We're sort of seeing this in parts of the bullion coin markets already. I don't think that this will necessarily lead to a gold standard in the bad sense i.e. government imposed. But government might see the need again to have gold reserves.

If I understood "Another" correctly, he thinks gold at some stage might not trade at all (price = +infinity), while silver might still. So, silver could be pretty useful as money during that time.

No one really excited about new all-time highs in gold anymore. Populace possibly trying to figure out how to jump on the bandwaggon. Read gold "analysts" and newsletter writers and say: I wait for $660 and then back up the truck.* Hugh Hendry, who is Hugh Hendry? EDIT: *Not gonna happen. Any entity with unlimited Dollars or Euros (there a quite a few of these) will buy unlimited gold at $1,000 latest. Fiat is done.

Also, when since 2007 was the risk "off" anyway?

This is it. This is the Big One, no question in my mind. The only questions are: what form will it take from here, and how much can they draw it out?

It looks pretty explosive to me! http://gold.approximity.com/since1885/Gold_USD.html

Since I am 100% in (and de-facto more), I can only consider shorting even more currency. The Euro comes to mind. Now, as for Another, interesting stuff he wrote back then, and, in a way, he was a good bottom caller - even if he never did so explicitly. His timing of course was off: the financial world did not implode in 1997/98, and it's still floating right now. But I think we are much, much closer to the end game now. However, Another's posts are a strong reminder of how long the CBs have been able to keep the game going, and how much longer they might be able to do so. Now, for his central argument: the new oil currency, which would have to contain a bit of gold. An interesting thought. Even more interesting his idea, that the oil producing countries (only 1 real one, according to him) will corner the gold market using oil - simply by selling oil VERY cheaply in terms of gold, but at the same time also still for fairly low fiat money prices, therefore instant arbitrage would lead to an unprecedented gold price explosion - with no further action needed from the side of the oil producers (no loans, no derivatives, no gold stock!). Hence, it really would work (not like the Hunt brothers), the oil producers gold stock (and the CB's too!) would explode in value, and no one could complain, because the price of oil would not even go up (but gold would re-set to the world's astonishment). An interesting idea. Will it happen? Not sure. It sounds too hunky-dory for me that you would only see the price of gold go up.

100 oz gold first. Then 50 oz gold. Then, shortly afterwards, 1,000 oz silver.

How is this Kitco analyst lying with his year forecast so far?

http://gold.approximity.com/since1999/Gold_EUR.html

We've seen it all before: http://gold.approximity.com/since1930/UK_H...Silver_LOG.html

Sorry, but this only shows how clouded your thinking is: a gold bug would never(!) buy this "paper wonder".

Sounds about right, assuming money supply and/or CB balance sheets won't explode any further from here (which they will, of course).