Category Archives: economy and money

Gold

Posted on by
Reply

Gold is starting to show signs of exponential growth.

If we look how long it took the price of gold to permanently double, historically, it was at €10000 in 2000, then doubled in 2009. Then it doubled again to €40000 in 2019, and again to €80000 in 2024. This means 9 years, then 10 years, then 5 years, but the steepness of the curve at the end is something I’ve historically seen only in hyper-inflationary circumstances. I think gold is catching up to the real estate, and consumer goods that have inflated first. It’s late in reaction because America and the UK are traditionally trying to suppress gold in order to prop up their fiat currencies, but if you look at this chart, it no longer seems to be working that well. Sure, they can bring it down at the end of the week, month or year in order to fake the short-term stats, but at some point soon enough, I don’t think they will have any control at all.

Crumbling

Posted on by
Reply

There’s been breaking news on the YouTube tech channels about high-end Intel CPUs of the latest generations showing serious instability.

Boeing is on public display as evidence of Jack Welch’s profitability-first policy’s final outcome.

Trump just barely survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally.

Joe Biden, the current president of the USA, is showing mental abilities unseen since the times of Brezhnev.

The assignment: find the common denominator.

Gold price rise

Posted on by
1

Gold has been growing lately, and the question some people ask is whether it’s time to sell because it might crash.

That logic might have made sense in the past, but I don’t think it does now. Let me explain.

First of all, gold didn’t even catch up to inflation yet. The commodities such as olive oil went up 2x and I don’t see anybody expecting it to come down. However, the more important reason why people expect it to crash is the expectation that the Americans control the gold price in order to prop up the dollar, and since they are still in power, the expectation is that they will manage to crash the gold just because they always do.

The problem with this logic is that the dollar, at this point, is the world’s hottest hot potato. Everybody who has it is trying to get rid of it, because America is using it as a weapon.

China, in particular, invented a very good method of simultaneously getting rid of their dollar reserves and buying all the dumped gold from the West, and it’s so elegant I’m amazed that the Russians didn’t think of it. You see, all the Chinese did was set the gold price on the Shanghai exchange $100 above what they sell it for in London. As a result, everybody wanting to earn a quick profit will buy gold in the West and sell it in China for more money. If the West wants to dump gold to prop up the dollar, they can feel free, but everybody will quickly scoop it up and sell it in China, thus pumping the Western gold to China and Chinese dollar reserves to the West. As a result, this makes China more resistant to Western financial pressures, prepares it for a future where all the currencies are either gold backed or irrelevant, and depletes the Western gold reserves. If the West tries to counter this by raising the price of gold, it will actually increase the buying pressure because the retail buyers might smell the coffee and jump on the hype train. If they prohibit sales of gold for dollars, it’s the end of the dollar. The beauty of the thing is that they can’t even prohibit China from buying up their gold, because formally speaking it’s not China doing it, it’s everybody who wants to make money on the Shanghai exchange.

So, I guess if you think gold will crash, just because it always did, I would say you don’t understand what’s going on in the world. What’s going in the world is the end of America, the end of Dollar, and the return of gold as money. No, Bitcoin is not the new gold. Gold is the new gold, and the fact that the central banks are the ones buying most of it at this time, and the fact that the retail buyers don’t get it yet, means that you will either have gold, or you will be bankrupt.

How do I know that this present gold price rise is not a retail phenomenon? Because you can go to your local bullion dealer and buy pretty much whatever you want. When it’s a retail phenomenon, everything instantly vanishes from the shelves, because the supply of retail products is very limited, being tailored for the normal levels of demand.

Also, according to my estimates, gold is still super cheap considering where it will be soon. That’s why the Chinese can put the price at +$100 over spot; it’s because where spot is. They don’t think they are losing money doing it, they think it’s the best deal ever.

Spike

Posted on by
2

Both gold and Bitcoin are spiking, and it looks as if some insiders started moving assets out of fiat currency and the stock market and into parallel perceived stores of value, and the move was significant enough to have triggered a small panic, because people are asking themselves why now, amidst all the crises, and what does someone know that we don’t.

 

The limit of prediction

Posted on by
Reply

The problem with trying to predict future events is that all interested parties also make their own predictions, they assess outcomes of possible moves and use all of their power to avoid the most undesirable outcomes.

Basically, this means that I can, for instance, see the predicament of the American economy, but so do the American analysts, and their willingness to make even the most drastic moves in order to prolong the status quo should never be underestimated. If they know that something will doom them, they will do literally anything to prevent it. “Anything” can range from printing trillions of dollars, spoofing the entire economy, creating a civil war, to cooking up a nuclear war. One can think that nothing can be as bad as nuclear war, but if you’re in a position of someone who knows they will be doomed without it, and with a nuclear war they can arrange everybody else to be doomed worse, the picture changes.

Also, it’s easy to speculate what the Russians could do, if they so wanted, but it’s almost impossible to know the exact thinking of the people who are actually in charge. They might have an internal red line they will never make known, and if that red line is crossed, they might activate a pre-arranged plan that is also not known outside their inner circle; for instance, if the Americans escalate past a certain point, for instance by starting to hit deep targets within the Russian Federation with carriers that can be modified to carry nuclear warheads, and it can’t be known in advance whether the warheads are conventional or nuclear, they might activate something ranging from a deep tactical response to a full nuclear first strike. You see, they really want to avoid a nuclear confrontation, but they are aware that they are in fact encouraging escalation by being too restrained, and this will inevitably encourage the West to perform a sneak nuclear attack. They are torn between really not wanting things to escalate, and realisation that their restraint might cause exactly that. So, it’s reasonably easy to understand what they might do by analysing the options that are available to them and making a cross-section between that and the analysis of their behaviour and thinking. Basically, you see what they can do and then eliminate the options that cause outcomes that are highly unfavourable to them, and then plot a tree of possible desirable courses. For instance, it is quite obvious to me that the Russians can take the entire Ukraine within a month. They could also cut off their gas, oil, food, water and electricity during winter and kill off the entire population. They could cut off all supply and communication between NATO and Ukraine. However, when you make a cross-section between that and the desire to de-escalate and decrease the probability of making the conflict threatening enough for NATO that really bad options start looking probable, you are left with options that look like “winning by not losing while the enemy is drained of resources and demotivated”.

In essence, I can plot out a tree of options, but you need to be aware that all the parties involved are doing the same thing, and what makes sense to me doesn’t necessarily have to make sense to them; for instance, if I calculate that the best outcome would be a nuclear first strike, and Russian leadership already decided that they would never use that option, it would be very hard for me to assess what the second most favourable option would be, because they might be betting on something I see as exceedingly unlikely.