Paul wrote:fofoa nog steeds aan het schaken zeker.
Ik ben meer voor kleurwiezen maar dat doet weinig ter zake.
De barsten in de kruik zijn alleen maar groter geworden. Als fysiek moeilijker vast te krijgen is, dan gaat de prijs automatisch
gaan stijgen. vb Van ABN Amro....
Jim Willie CB had ook wat over fofoa te melden in zijn nieuwsbrief. Niks nieuws over het zilverfront dezelfde mantra
die al 10 jaar wordt herhaalt (niet recycleerbaar etc.)
Het valt mij op dat fofoa en aanhang wel wat meer naambekendheid beginnen krijgen... Nu Jim Willie CB een 2 tal maanden geleden Jim Sinclair. Ze worden nog salonfähig... Enfin het maakt mij niet uit.
Ik verwacht/hoop dat de omwille van moeilijker beschikbaar fysiek een stijging van de prijs. Minder manipulatie is iets meer freegold.
Al de overige bullshit van mediocratie en lorejassen die hun straat gaan laten meedelen in hun rijkdom als de prijs x 50 gaat is ijl gezever. Hun grootste moraalridder "Hille" een oud koloniaal van Congo die daar vermoedelijk het luilekkerst leven heeft gehad, komt doodleuk beweren dat we moeten werken tot onze kloten van ons lijf vallen... Ik denk alleen al maar aan het boek Black Venus van Geraerts... Despotisme ten top.
JIM WILLIE over fofoa
◄$$$ FREEGOLD SILVER ADVOCATES DO NOT EXPECT THAT SILVER WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE PRECIOUS METALS RALLY DURING THE CRISIS PHASE THAT SOON COMES. THEY ARE MISTAKEN. SILVER WILL ZOOM. ARGUMENTS ARE GIVEN OF NECESSITY OF CHEAP PRICE, WHICH IS ENTIRELY BACKWARDS. NECESSITY WILL FORCE A HIGHER PRICE, AS HISTORY SHOWS. THE EXCEPTIONS OCCUR ONLY WHEN REPLACEABLE ALTERNATIVES ARE DEVELOPED. $$$
The premise in the FreeGold argument is that necessity of a cheap Silver price is the order to be satisfied. The economies require a convenient Silver price that accommodates the many irreplaceable applications for the white metal loaded with unique characteristics. The argument is blockheaded stupid, and reminiscent of many mindless Keynesian beliefs. People "need" cheap gasoline to get to work and ship products. People "need" cheap food to survive. People "need" cheap heating oil in New England winters. People "need" fresh water for life. The "need" argument is laced with socialist stupidity klapptrapp and mental deficiency. Do not buy into it. The Jackass might "need" a slick BMW or two for my garage. The Jackass might "need" the best medical care. Whenever the economic argument brings in "need" to argue lower price, the stupidity enters the room with a sharp break from reality. Truly bad analysis follows, worth ignoring. A basic in Supply & Demand is that shortage dictates higher price. To relieve chronic shortage, the Silver price will go much higher. Bums on the street "need" money for food and wine. Incredibly shallow! GREATER NEED DICTATES HIGHER PRICE!! Always has, always will, really simple concept except to simpletons. Those ever popular comm devices will possibly see empty shelves since they "need" lower prices. The real market is a bitch!
Two extremely important factors must not be overlooked when future Silver price is argued and forecasted. 1) Silver is not replaceable for a long growing list of applications, from industry to photography to consumer items, to medical, and lately to pressure treated lumber. Moreover, the incremental cost per product is very small, since a tiny but critical ingredient. 2) Silver has a huge annual deficit from mining output versus demand which worsens by the year, not resolved. The conclusion is higher price comes, much higher price. In fact, the stated FreeGold premise for need is precisely the argument for higher price. They are FOFOA are dead wrong with stupid arguments. They argue that the cost of communication devices would rise too much, or camera items would rise too much, or various electronic products large and small would rise too much. But they overlook something very important.
Consider just an Apple comm device, which requires silver. It requires very small amounts of silver. To be sure, if the entire fleet of Apple products would be forced to pay five times as much for the silver component, then so be it. The price of the Apple product would rise in a small way, probably much less than the shipping cost from distribution centers would rise. Nowhere is the argument by the Freegold brainless crowd that shipping costs will be forecasted lower since the economies need it. The higher silver price would be very bearable indeed, since a small increment in overall production cost. If Apple executives explained that due to the five-fold rise in the silver price, for instance, the comm device was going to be $3 to $5 more expensive, the reaction would be a yawn. Even if $10 to $12 more costly, a yawn would come. The opposite is true. Since indispensable, customers would be willing to pay the small incremental cost if the silver price shot up sharply. Apple would pay up, and even possibly assist in the investment for the supply chain.
The FreeGold argument for more prevalent recovery in recycling also lacks substance. The cost of recovery is rather high, relative to the current price. My belief is that not until the Silver price is over $70 to $80 will much recycling from electronics junk heaps be economically feasible. They would disagree, but let them disagree. The recycle ledger item for Silver supply is still small, to be overwhelmed by increasing investment demand, which always is the driving factor in a bull market. They might include household silverware meltdown with electronics salvage recycle, as data is collected. Let them observe the fast rising Silver price certain to occur in the next crisis chapter. Their arguments were heard when Silver was in the teens, now doubled in price.