> Everyone should expect the stock market to thrive off this data today...
There are too many huge announcements for anyone to claim they know why the (millions?) of individuals whose actions are reflected in market prices from noise.
77 karma · joined October 12, 2019
There are too many huge announcements for anyone to claim they know why the (millions?) of individuals whose actions are reflected in market prices from noise.
Case closed.
Maybe a different tablet device that can run Linux or an Android variant capable of providing the tools you require.
A nice thing about tablets is instantaneous sleep to on even vs. modern desktop OS.
> You appealed to authority, it's pretty legitimate to point out that it isn't actually an authority on the subject.
> If the information provided is so poor, you should easily be able to disprove the claims.
> As previously pointed out, only 10% of gold is used in industry.
I'm guessing you are referring to an appeal to false authority, because the acquisition of all knowledge presumably originates from an authority. If you are claiming that geology.com has presented false information, then you need to demonstrate this. Stating that it makes money from ads is not a claim against the provided information. You have inserted an arbitrarily derived claim.
Your statement of percent of gold makes no sense. From the World Gold Council[1]:
> Total above ground stocks (end-2017)
> Total above ground stocks: 190,040 tonnes
> Jewellery: 90,718 tonnes, 47.7% > Private investment: 40,035 tonnes, 21.1% > Official sector: 32,575 tonnes, 17.1% > Other: 26,711 tonnes, 14.1% > Below ground reserves: 54,000 tonnes
Further, if we take the total amount of above ground stocks and multiply it by the current gold price of around $1500, we find that the current markets value the total gold at over $10 trillion. If 90% of gold mined isn't in use, why is it valued at $9 trillion? And if the remaining 10% of gold has such little usefulness, why choose such an expensive mineral?
And all of this supports my original point that gold has uses.
[1] https://www.gold.org/about-gold/gold-supply/gold-mining/how-...
Gold has uses.
> You can tell because (a) the way the page is covered in ads, (b) the simple language used to improve search engine traffic and (c) the lack of references.
If the information provided is so poor, you should easily be able to disprove the claims.
Instead, you resort to a sort of ad hominem.
> you have not made a scientific argument that gold has more uses than any other element nor does geology.com
> intuitively, gold is less useful and has fewer uses than iron since we tend to measure industrial output in terms of steel and not gold production
> tautologically though, hydrogen takes the cake for having the most uses since if you have enough of it, it can be fused into all the other elements.
I'm not clear you know what an argument is.
You have not been able to determine that I stated findings, not claimed news findings.
The scientific uses will not be by volume, but by the properties of the material. So, I'm also not clear you know what science is.
> "Only 10% of the world consumption of new gold produced goes to industry"
> Gold does have some industrial use and probably would have more if it weren't so expensive due to people valuing it as a reserve currency.
You aren't presenting a scientific argument. My entire point was that gold is useful and actually has more uses than any other element.
Whatever else it is used for or the reasons the price is high do not present anything against my claim.
It is so weird to just state scientific findings and be hated for it.
Sounds like a very scientific position you've laid out here against the editors ate geology.com. Why don't you send that to them and post there response here?
> My guess is that this is the product of silver prices being driven by industry much more than gold prices are. We're looking at a supply side decline here which means a decline in demand for the things that go into making other things.
> Gold is far less useful industrially than silver.
For whatever reason, there is a common misconception regarding the usefulness of gold. Commonly on any of the popular investment shows and websites, you will see various people stating "gold has no use" without any measure of a qualifying statement.
My perception is that these people likely mean "gold has no use [as an asset]." The degree to which this is correct is not what I'm trying to address, but rather the literal interpretation of the statement that could be read as "gold has [absolutely] no use."
Here is the intro from the article on gold at geology.com[1], which doesn't have a dog in this fight:
> What is Gold?
> Native gold is an element and a mineral. It is highly prized by people because of its attractive color, its rarity, resistance to tarnish, and its many special properties - some of which are unique to gold. No other element has more uses than gold. All of these factors help support a price of gold that is higher than all but a few other metals.
In case you missed that sentence in there:
> No other element has more uses than gold.
I imagine there are states that will be willing exempt them from forced shutdowns.
> In an email obtained by The Chronicle, Justin Kirkland, a plant manager, wrote to some Tesla employees at the Fremont plant Monday night that they should report to work until they hear otherwise from the company.
> Another email sent to a Tesla employee instructs employees who are following the shelter in place order to take paid vacation days for days they do not show up to work and to contact human resources if they run out of those days.
Odds are Tesla wins in court and the authorities also know this, so won't actually do anything because they don't want the precedent.
I'm not clear on how the Sheriff can act without a warrant or something, but sure he can tweet.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
The enforcement here in the SF Bay Area was written and published by the health department bureaucrats without even some semblance of economic consideration.
It seems like if you attempt to bring up what you are asking about, most responses suggest to me that "compared to what" critical thinking analyses are not what people are concerned with.
> Gold is useless.
I am making the comparison on the worst-case assumption that $1000 is sent to every American every month (extended lock-down of the economy will still require people to have some measure of income or they will riot in the streets), so that's $330 billion pumped into consumer goods sectors every month. Your position is that this will not cause CPI rate of increase to go up?
I just reread my post and I can't find the word "gold" anywhere in the post and I am assuming that your claim is to be amended to state "Gold is useless [as an asset]" since it is one of the most useful minerals known to mankind. Where do you get this from?
"Physical assets" can be anything physical: a building; a lot's worth of used cars; a warehouse full of Play-Doh, etc. When people don't want dollars or financial assets, they will replace them with whatever seems like a better deal.
> T-bills will do just fine despite any outward appearances of inflation. BTW, would rather load up on real estate than "precious" metals. Gold is a relic from a bygone era.
It is further back to the inflationary period of the 70s, which is the last period that there was a mass flight from dollars due to the rate of CPI increase.
Investopedia[1] states the problem related to T-Bills rather well:
> Treasuries also have to compete with inflation, which measures the pace of rising prices in the economy. Even if T-Bills are the most liquid and safest debt security in the market, fewer investors tend to buy them in times when the inflation rate is higher than the T-bill return. For example, if an investor bought a T-Bill with a 2% yield while inflation was at 3%, the investor would have a net loss on the investment when measured in real terms. As a result, T-bill prices tend to fall during inflationary periods as investors sell them and opt for higher-yielding investments.
So when the CPI is going up and dollars are being used to bid up the price of physical assets, who is buying T-Bills?
> So for the next year or so as defaults accelerate I expect that deflation will be a larger concern than inflation, and central banks will try to counter that by large, frequent injections of new money.
The flow of new money creation is not evenly distributed throughout an economy, and this is called the Cantillon Effect (which can also be applied to deflation).
The new money creation has been going strong for some time now, but hasn't been flowing into sectors measured by the CPI. This has kept CPI increases relatively low in comparison to the increases.
However, send $1000 per month to every American and nearly all of that will go into sectors measured by the CPI, which will then go up.
> They'll be even higher if/when that happens. They're not in bonds for the interest. They're in bonds for safety and price appreciation.
Assuming someone is interested in buying those bonds, since during inflation physical assets (e.g., precious metals) tend to be what buyers prefer.
This is assuming no CPI increases from all the money creation, especially if they send the money directly to consumers, likely reducing the Cantillon effects.
And "lately" isn't after weeks or months of substantially reduced economic activity.
> Also luckily the comment ranking here seems to mean your peers disagree with you.
> [1]: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop....
> [2]: https://www.flattenthecurve.com/
I've noticed these discussions all revolve around problems related to the virus. However, these quarantine measures are also economic in their nature and I'm not seeing even the standard university economics professor trotted out in front of the press to support why this is all going to be okay.
If you are concerned about old people, consider that their investments go belly-up, their pensions funds dry up, their house goes negative equity, and they cannot physically work. How bad is for them after this happens? Because this is what is going to happen with the economy shut down.
Since they wouldn't be able to sell stocks, they would start selling everything else they've invested in.
Same would go for anyone else requiring cash.
Then everyone holding the other stuff that is liquid, will sell it because why hold onto a plummeting asset when the only reason to own it is the value?
;-)
Well, that's a relief. I was concerned they might leave their homes!