|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 11, 2024 19:59:19 GMT
If Fort Knox is empty, we can kiss our butts goodbye. They talked us into trading our gold for their printed monopoly money. (OK, actually they forced us). Since then gold has gone up to almost $3000 an oz priced in their funny money. Because 'OUR MONEY" is only worth 1/4 of what it was a year ago. Hoping that Trump will order an audit of Fort Knox. Can he? |
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Nov 11, 2024 20:10:24 GMT
I asked Cindy-
---------------
Since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, I'll try to calculate the rough dollar devaluation:
A dollar in 1913 would have the purchasing power of approximately $30-32 in 2024 dollars. In other words, the dollar has lost about 97% of its purchasing power since the Fed's founding.
To break this down:
Major devaluation periods:
1940s (WWII and aftermath)
1970s (inflation crisis)
2008-2024 (significant monetary expansion)
Some example prices from 1913:
Average house: ~$3,500
New car: ~$500
Loaf of bread: ~$0.06
Average annual income: ~$800
But it's worth noting that this isn't purely due to Fed policy - other factors include:
Changes in the global monetary system
End of gold standard
Technological changes
Growth of global trade
Changes in productivity/living standards
Would you like me to break down the devaluation by specific historical periods?
|
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Nov 11, 2024 20:12:49 GMT
Also-
CM: What should be the equivalent inflation adjusted price of gold today ?
-------------------
Let me think this through step by step:
Gold was officially $20.67/oz in 1913 when Fed started
If gold simply kept pace with inflation (97% devaluation):
$20.67 × 30-32 (our inflation factor from before)
Should be around $620-660/oz today
But gold is actually around $2000/oz today, meaning it has:
Outpaced inflation by roughly 3x
Served as more than just an inflation hedge
Reflected additional factors like:
End of gold standard
Global monetary uncertainty
Central bank purchases
Investment demand
Supply constraints
This suggests either:
Gold is overvalued vs pure inflation adjustment
Or dollar has lost even more "real" value than CPI suggests
Or both factors are at work
Would you like to explore what might explain this divergence between inflation-adjusted and actual gold prices?
------------------
I think that it's pretty simple, gold is being demanded faster than it can be dug out of the ground. That's why it would be a deflationary, poor candidate for a currency. We needed an honest central bank. We didn't get that and I suppose never will.
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 12, 2024 3:29:06 GMT
Also- CM: What should be the equivalent inflation adjusted price of gold today ? ------------------- Let me think this through step by step: Gold was officially $20.67/oz in 1913 when Fed started If gold simply kept pace with inflation (97% devaluation): $20.67 × 30-32 (our inflation factor from before) Should be around $620-660/oz today But gold is actually around $2000/oz today, meaning it has: Outpaced inflation by roughly 3x Served as more than just an inflation hedge Reflected additional factors like: End of gold standard Global monetary uncertainty Central bank purchases Investment demand Supply constraints This suggests either: Gold is overvalued vs pure inflation adjustment Or dollar has lost even more "real" value than CPI suggests Or both factors are at work Would you like to explore what might explain this divergence between inflation-adjusted and actual gold prices? ------------------ I think that it's pretty simple, gold is being demanded faster than it can be dug out of the ground. That's why it would be a deflationary, poor candidate for a currency. We needed an honest central bank. We didn't get that and I suppose never will. Check my calculations here.
If you bought $100 of gold in 1913 it would be worth $12,000 today.
If you bought $100 of stock in 1913 and reinvested the dividends it would be worth $5,564,147.67 today.
__________________________________________________
S&P 500 Historical Return Calculator [With Dividends]
The data comes from Robert Shiller’s website and does not account for taxes, fees, or transaction costs.
Start Month: December 1913
End Month: October 2024
________________________________________
Initial Investment: $100
Nominal Price Return: 71,992.89%
Annualized: 6.12%
Investment Grew To: $72,092.89
|
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Nov 12, 2024 4:24:11 GMT
Also- CM: What should be the equivalent inflation adjusted price of gold today ? ------------------- Let me think this through step by step: Gold was officially $20.67/oz in 1913 when Fed started If gold simply kept pace with inflation (97% devaluation): $20.67 × 30-32 (our inflation factor from before) Should be around $620-660/oz today But gold is actually around $2000/oz today, meaning it has: Outpaced inflation by roughly 3x Served as more than just an inflation hedge Reflected additional factors like: End of gold standard Global monetary uncertainty Central bank purchases Investment demand Supply constraints This suggests either: Gold is overvalued vs pure inflation adjustment Or dollar has lost even more "real" value than CPI suggests Or both factors are at work Would you like to explore what might explain this divergence between inflation-adjusted and actual gold prices? ------------------ I think that it's pretty simple, gold is being demanded faster than it can be dug out of the ground. That's why it would be a deflationary, poor candidate for a currency. We needed an honest central bank. We didn't get that and I suppose never will. Check my calculations here.
If you bought $100 of gold in 1913 it would be worth $12,000 today.
If you bought $100 of stock in 1913 and reinvested the dividends it would be worth $5,564,147.67 today.
__________________________________________________
S&P 500 Historical Return Calculator [With Dividends]
The data comes from Robert Shiller’s website and does not account for taxes, fees, or transaction costs.
Start Month: December 1913
End Month: October 2024
________________________________________
Initial Investment: $100
Nominal Price Return: 71,992.89%
Annualized: 6.12%
Investment Grew To: $72,092.89
Oh I agree with you completely about good common stocks being the real way to go, but gold is nice to have and the more the better. |
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Nov 14, 2024 23:51:29 GMT
Check my calculations here.
If you bought $100 of gold in 1913 it would be worth $12,000 today.
If you bought $100 of stock in 1913 and reinvested the dividends it would be worth $5,564,147.67 today.
__________________________________________________
S&P 500 Historical Return Calculator [With Dividends]
The data comes from Robert Shiller’s website and does not account for taxes, fees, or transaction costs.
Start Month: December 1913
End Month: October 2024
________________________________________
Initial Investment: $100
Nominal Price Return: 71,992.89%
Annualized: 6.12%
Investment Grew To: $72,092.89
Oh I agree with you completely about good common stocks being the real way to go, but gold is nice to have and the more the better. If “it” all goes down the toilet, do you want a stock certificate or physical gold? |
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Nov 15, 2024 0:23:48 GMT
Oh I agree with you completely about good common stocks being the real way to go, but gold is nice to have and the more the better. If “it” all goes down the toilet, do you want a stock certificate or physical gold? "If", and or "when", then yes... but I've been hearing about the 'big collapse' my whole adult life. It just never happens. Better to make hay while the sun is shining. But I'm a swing trader anyway. However, it really sucks to chase gold higher. Speaking of that, here in mid-November, the stone business really turned on. Just election bounce-back, or the beginning of a sustained recovery? I dunno. Still think that the wolf will be paying visits to front doors this winter. |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 15, 2024 2:41:11 GMT
Oh I agree with you completely about good common stocks being the real way to go, but gold is nice to have and the more the better. If “it” all goes down the toilet, do you want a stock certificate or physical gold? I think of it as ownership in hundreds of diversified companies, not as paper. |
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Nov 15, 2024 12:32:45 GMT
Oh I agree with you completely about good common stocks being the real way to go, but gold is nice to have and the more the better. If “it” all goes down the toilet, do you want a stock certificate or physical gold? If "it" *all* goes down the toilet, I want lead, copper, brass, and nitrates. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 15, 2024 14:33:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 15, 2024 14:47:11 GMT
If “it” all goes down the toilet, do you want a stock certificate or physical gold? "If", and or "when", then yes... but I've been hearing about the 'big collapse' my whole adult life. It just never happens. Better to make hay while the sun is shining. But I'm a swing trader anyway. However, it really sucks to chase gold higher. Speaking of that, here in mid-November, the stone business really turned on. Just election bounce-back, or the beginning of a sustained recovery? I dunno. Still think that the wolf will be paying visits to front doors this winter. if you have accumulated enough (gold) to insure much of the rest, then there is no need to chase it higher. |
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Nov 15, 2024 17:46:42 GMT
If “it” all goes down the toilet, do you want a stock certificate or physical gold? "If", and or "when", then yes... but I've been hearing about the 'big collapse' my whole adult life. It just never happens. Better to make hay while the sun is shining. But I'm a swing trader anyway. However, it really sucks to chase gold higher. Speaking of that, here in mid-November, the stone business really turned on. Just election bounce-back, or the beginning of a sustained recovery? I dunno. Still think that the wolf will be paying visits to front doors this winter. Wonder if twine and rope sales spurred as well? Stone on ankle in 300' of water buries a lot of "evidence". |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 18, 2024 20:30:33 GMT
As a result of the Trump win several items of concern have been taken off my watch list. But a couple of items have been added. One concern is a possible tariff war. Another is the possibility of a recession due to actions of the DOGE team of Musk and Vivek.
Large cuts in the size of the Federal Government are great. But the size of the cuts Musk has hinted at could have a significant short-term negative effect on the economy due to reduced buying by those who lose their jobs and by those who are concerned about losing their jobs.
How about some stimulus checks from the savings to keep the economy moving ahead and to show the benefits of reducing costs? |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Nov 18, 2024 21:32:18 GMT
As a result of the Trump win several items of concern have been taken off my watch list. But a couple of items have been added. One concern is a possible tariff war. Another is the possibility of a recession due to actions of the DOGE team of Musk and Vivek. Large cuts in the size of the Federal Government are great. But the size of the cuts Musk has hinted at could have a significant short-term negative effect on the economy due to reduced buying by those who lose their jobs and by those who are concerned about losing their jobs. How about some stimulus checks from the savings to keep the economy moving ahead and to show the benefits of reducing costs? As an outsider, I agree with your concerns. A wholesale sacking of public servants would be bad for the economy and a stain on the Republican Party going forward. There is some evidence here in Queensland to support my view ... Campbell Newman One Term Government |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 19, 2024 4:59:31 GMT
If Trump is smart he will cap spending at current levels his first year in office. Decrease it by one or two percent for the next 3 years of his term. If the economy grows at 3% we can get this turned around in short order.
The private sector has to be able to absorb job losses from the federal sector. Going in there like Elon did with Twitter and slashing too aggressively could be a recipe for disaster and a shock to the system. Every Federal agency should be able to take a two or three percent reduction in their budget without causing too much pain.
When it comes to the economy I think slow and steady wins the race. They should be very transparent in their methodology and I think the market will rise on shear optimism that common sense and a budget it returning to Washington.
|
|
