# Physical silver shortage



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The really strange thing about buying silver is that silver (and gold) prices are controlled by the paper market, not the physical market. Despite silver prices being very low for a long time, many of the most popular bars are not available. As many here know, I like 1 oz Johnson Matthey bars the best, yet the two vendors I usually get them from have been out for some time.

http://www.jmbullion.com/silver/silver-bars/
http://www.goldmart.com/bullion/silver-bullion/silver-bars-1-oz-1-000-oz.html

You can still find them at eBay but at around $20/oz, which is more than a $5 premium over spot price.

As an alternative I've been getting Royal Canadian 10 oz bars for around $174 lately (the sale price fluctuates live with spot price).

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Royal-Canad...-Silver-Bar-/331554993203?hash=item4d3237b433

Premium is about half compared to JM bars, and I like that it's 4 nines instead of 3 nines.

Still, I wish spot silver prices reflected the realistic availability if physical silver bars.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

They do thus the premium for the hard to find ones


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> They do thus the premium for the hard to find ones


But that's not the spot market.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sounds like a supply and demand thing to me, probably caused by some guy in Vegas hoarding the good ones.


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

Thanks for the links NV! The first was very informative.
Do you get a referral kick back?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sounds like a supply and demand thing to me, probably caused by some guy in Vegas hoarding the good ones.


Spot silver price is controlled by banks & exchanges issuing trading contracts (exchange traded funds, or ETFs). When contracts become due the issuing banks have interest in prices being lower, since they can't deliver the silver and they want the settlement price to be low. They control the market.

In other words, paper trading of silver that doesn't exist is controlling the silver market. It's the tail wagging the dog, so to speak.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I know very little about the gold and silver investment - 

Do you physically hold the gold and silver?

Do you just buy it as an investment, with someone else holding it with some certificate saying you own it, waiting for the price to go up?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trixie said:


> I know very little about the gold and silver investment -
> 
> Do you physically hold the gold and silver?
> 
> Do you just buy it as an investment, with someone else holding it with some certificate saying you own it, waiting for the price to go up?


I buy silver bars and have them shipped to me. They come sealed in plastic jackets so they won't tarnish. Most are small 1 oz bars like these.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Thanks, 

Maybe nosy and tell me if I am.

I learn by asking questions.

Are you investing or keeping it in case something happens to the economy?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trixie said:


> Are you investing or keeping it in case something happens to the economy?


Most people become "silver stackers" as either a hedge against inflation or preparation for disaster (collapse of the dollar, collapse of government, collapse of society, etc.). I've found metals to be too volatile to be a useful hedge against inflation, and I"m not sure what silver or gold will be worth after a disaster (I suspect that food and ammunition will be more valuable).

I acquire silver because I foresee a physical shortage within a few years, so I expect silver to do a moonshot (go to $500 or $1000 per oz). Industrial consumption is huge and growing, and silver recovery is minimal because it's not worth going after. Once silver is used industrially, it's gone for the most part. I expect silver to run out (i.e, become expensive) within 5 years.

I have a little gold, but nothing like the way I collect silver. I don't think gold has the potential that silver has. Silver is gold on steroids.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Thank you.

I've always wondered about the gold and silver buying.

Now that you have said it, I will agree I don't see how gold or silver will be good in a collapse.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trixie said:


> Now that you have said it, I will agree I don't see how gold or silver will be good in a collapse.


There are people here at HT who will disagree with me, but of you're preparing for SHTF you might consider investing in a few bricks of 22 LR shells. They'll be worth their weight in gold for sure after the SHTF. Virtually everyone will need them for both protection and small game meat.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There are people here at HT who will disagree with me, but of you're preparing for SHTF you might consider investing in a few bricks of 22 LR shells. They'll be worth their weight in gold for sure after the SHTF. Virtually everyone will need them for both protection and small game meat.


Sadly, I agree.

And food.

My grandson was about 12 he was telling me his teacher had discussed the possible collapse of the economy and maybe society as a whole. He said the teacher said people should have some gold should that happen.

I asked my grandson if there was no food and he had some tomatoes, would he sell his tomatoes for a wheelbarrow of gold.

"Well, no!"


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> There are people here at HT who will disagree with me, but of you're preparing for SHTF you might consider investing in a few bricks of 22 LR shells. They'll be worth their weight in gold for sure after the SHTF. Virtually everyone will need them for both protection and small game meat.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I do not expect a breakdown of society. Won't happen. What may happen is that the cities will erupt in food riots and anarchy, someone in the military will take charge and become the proverbial "man on a white horse", a military dictator. 

Riots will be put down mercilessly, food will be rationed and trading in gold and silver supended, more likely gold and silver will be confiscated in exchange for fiat money as was done in China, and was done here in the 1930's. 

It never hurts to have a bit of ammo on hand, and some canned goods, a big garden and a dryer. A bit of spare clothing, nothing so fancy as to make one look prosperous, some well worn but sturdy footwear and the resolve to do whatever it takes to defend one's home. Riots and hunger in the cities will send some pretty desperate people out foraging.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> I do not expect a breakdown of society. Won't happen. What may happen is that the cities will erupt in food riots and anarchy, someone in the military will take charge and become the proverbial "man on a white horse", a military dictator.
> 
> Riots will be put down mercilessly, food will be rationed and trading in gold and silver supended, more likely gold and silver will be confiscated in exchange for fiat money as was done in China, and was done here in the 1930's.
> 
> It never hurts to have a bit of ammo on hand, and some canned goods, a big garden and a dryer. A bit of spare clothing, nothing so fancy as to make one look prosperous, some well worn but sturdy footwear and the resolve to do whatever it takes to defend one's home. Riots and hunger in the cities will send some pretty desperate people out foraging.


That pretty much sounds like a break down in society ???


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TripleD said:


> That pretty much sounds like a break down in society ???


I see a breakdown in society as nobody performing essential services. The lights go out and water stops running from the tap. Stores & banks are closed. No police, fire or ambulance protection. No hospital to go to.

Consider a mass pandemic where 30% to 40 % of the world's population dies.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-dzfnXVM1w[/ame]

That's a breakdown in society.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

That makes me feel like all that time I spend in S&EP hasn't been wasted :grin:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TripleD said:


> That makes me feel like all that time I spend in S&EP hasn't been wasted :grin:


Haven't been there for years. Something glitched in HT's vBulletin software that made S&EP disappear. Mods haven't been able to figure it out.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Haven't been there for years. Something glitched in HT's vBulletin software that made S&EP disappear. Mods haven't been able to figure it out.


You mean we've been talking about you all this time and you didn't know?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Sitting here in my tin foil suit and hat, I agree with Nevada that silver will go to $1000/ounce, that's called hyperinflation - right after the crash.

As to availability, my usual source of junk silver has been without merchandise for about 3 weeks now. With prices down nobody's selling.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The really strange thing about buying silver is that silver (and gold) prices are controlled by the paper market, not the physical market. Despite silver prices being very low for a long time, many of the most popular bars are not available. As many here know, I like 1 oz Johnson Matthey bars the best, yet the two vendors I usually get them from have been out for some time.
> 
> http://www.jmbullion.com/silver/silver-bars/
> http://www.goldmart.com/bullion/silver-bullion/silver-bars-1-oz-1-000-oz.html
> ...


If there is a silver shortage, maybe they need to look under your bed.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Sitting here in my tin foil suit and hat, I agree with Nevada that silver will go to $1000/ounce, that's called hyperinflation - right after the crash.
> 
> As to availability, my usual source of junk silver has been without merchandise for about 3 weeks now. With prices down nobody's selling.


Yep, they bought it higher than it is now and don't want to sell at a loss. Also why those who do sell want higher premium.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

*meh* IIRC, there have been some serious silver mines and deposits opened within the past five years. I just don't see it as a limited supply metal compared to some of the others, nor are the chemical properties particularly unique. As carbon configurations are manipulated and concerns over rare earths are rising, I don't see them as attractive either. Technology has radically changed things.

Copper makes more sense to me than silver for some esoteric reasons I won't burden you with.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Harry Chickpea said:


> *meh* IIRC, there have been some serious silver mines and deposits opened within the past five years. I just don't see it as a limited supply metal compared to some of the others, nor are the chemical properties particularly unique. As carbon configurations are manipulated and concerns over rare earths are rising, I don't see them as attractive either. Technology has radically changed things.
> 
> Copper makes more sense to me than silver for some esoteric reasons I won't burden you with.


In a serious economic collapse scenario lead gets my vote. Followed by sheet copper, coal and field corn.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Harry Chickpea said:


> *meh* IIRC, there have been some serious silver mines and deposits opened within the past five years. I just don't see it as a limited supply metal compared to some of the others, nor are the chemical properties particularly unique. As carbon configurations are manipulated and concerns over rare earths are rising, I don't see them as attractive either. Technology has radically changed things.
> 
> Copper makes more sense to me than silver for some esoteric reasons I won't burden you with.


Copper isn't doing well. Most copper used in communications is being replaced with fiber, and power companies are finding ways of replacing copper with aluminum in some applications. I don't see copper recovering any time soon.

Rare earths aren't doing well. China has taken over that market. Molycorp's Mountain Pass rare earth mine, about 40 miles south of Las Vegas, closed recently. That mine used to produce more than half of the world's consumption of rare earths. I wouldn't put my money there.

Platinum group metals (PGMs) aren't doing well either. Most industrial consumption is for catalyst, both in automotive catalytic converters and for catalysts in fuel refining. The concern is that electric cars will be the end of PGM demand. Doesn't seem like a great investment.

Gold has some industrial uses, mainly as a reliable conductive surface in electronics. But most gold is recovered, due to it's high price and unique appearance. I don't expect industrial demand for gold to outstrip production.

Silver has some outstanding properties. It is the best material in the world for conducting heat, conducting electricity, and is the most reflective element. It's industrial applications are varied and many. You'll find it in computers, cell phones, and even solar panels. In fact a typical photovoltaic (PV) solar panel has a half ounce of silver, and demand for PV panels is growing. With the low price of silver most electronic applications are never recovered, so it's lost forever in landfills. I don't expect silver demand to end anytime soon.

Most silver doesn't come from silver mines, it's produced as a byproduct in copper, lead, and gold mines. Byproduct silver will be mined regardless of silver price, since they're there for something else. In fact when the Bingham Canyon copper mine was closed because of a serious landslide two years ago it cut domestic silver production by 10%. But mining companies aren't concentrating on silver right now because of the low price.

Mark my words: silver is the investment opportunity of a lifetime. There has never been an investment this undervalued in history, and it's about to have its day.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

How much of that $35 silver did you buy a few years back that you're hoping to dump on the next spike? Talk of silver prices as high as you predict are usually saved for late night hucksters.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> How much of that $35 silver did you buy a few years back that you're hoping to dump on the next spike? Talk of silver prices as high as you predict are usually saved for late night hucksters.


None. I started acquiring silver when it was around $20, about a year ago.

As I said, my hopes are based on a silver shortage, not the dollar or government collapsing. I believe my shortage predictions are valid, since they are based on USGS data.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

What makes you think that silver, if it does become more valuable, is not recoverable just as gold is now?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> What makes you think that silver, if it does become more valuable, is not recoverable just as gold is now?


Silver probably is recoverable, but the price will have to run way up for that to happen. By that time I'll have sold my silver.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Silver probably is recoverable, but the price will have to run way up for that to happen. By that time I'll have sold my silver.


Well, I do think that it is a small loss proposition at the worst. So more power to you. In my heart, gains and losses are not worth the moments of life I spend on them. But it is not true for many others. And I'll not say they are wrong.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Well, I do think that it is a small loss proposition at the worst. So more power to you. In my heart, gains and losses are not worth the moments of life I spend on them. But it is not true for many others. And I'll not say they are wrong.


There will be a huge shift in wealth before long. It happens from time to time. Those who have it now will say it's unfair, and the rest will look at those who benefited from the shift and say they were lucky. It's always that way.

I don't know that I'll be on the winning side of the next financial paradigm shift, but I can say I did what makes sense. In this, I rely on USGS data. I know that a lot of you don't believe what scientists say, and don't trust anything the government says. Since the USGS is is a group of scientists working for the government I fully expect conservatives to ignore what they say. But I consider that to be walking away from valuable data that costs me nothing.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> There will be a huge shift in wealth before long. It happens from time to time. Those who have it now will say it's unfair, and the rest will look at those who benefited from the shift and say they were lucky. It's always that way.
> 
> I don't know that I'll be on the winning side of the next financial paradigm shift, but I can say I did what makes sense. In this, I rely on USGS data. I know that a lot of you don't believe what scientists say, and don't trust anything the government says. Since the USGS is is a group of scientists working for the government I fully expect conservatives to ignore what they say. *But I consider that to be walking away from valuable data that costs me nothing*.


Hellooo, there might not be a specific fee to access it now, but didn't you used to pay taxes?? We all paid for that data via our tax dollars, thank you very much. You keep forgetting, IT'S OUR MONEY, not the government's. 

Your logic on the silver situation does sound good, but honestly, lots of things sound good that never actually pan out. Hope it works out for ya! If it does take a big jump in price, I have enough outdated silver jewelry to cash in to some degree, so thank you now in case that happens.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Does that mean my silver jewelry is worth more now?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Does that mean my silver jewelry is worth more now?


Silver is very low right now, which creates a buying opportunity. But it's not a good time to get a lot for your scrap silver.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

My wife has worked in banks since she left high school. For several years, she actually touched the money and made a hobby of trading in dimes, quarters, and dollars for the silver ones that came in. She could hear a silver coin in a handful of change that hit the counter- no BS, I called her on it and she proved it. Everyone thought she was crazy, and she even had a protracted discussion with a younger co-worker who, by the end of the discussion, still couldn't grasp how a silver dime could be worth more than $0.10. 

She doesn't touch the money anymore, so she hasn't added any in a while, but her collection ended up in two rolled up pillow cases. They're only about 1/10th full each, but I had to move them a few weeks ago, and I bet there's 20# between them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Everyone thought she was crazy, and she even had a protracted discussion with a younger co-worker who, by the end of the discussion, still couldn't grasp how a silver dime could be worth more than $0.10.


The conversion of 90% silver coin is about $10 face value to about $150 in silver. That dime alone has $1.50 worth of silver. Silver coin is getting very hard to find in circulation, but it doesn't hurt to look.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

There's a theory in the Austrian School of economics about "price discovery". That the government and central banks can only drive a price up or down through paper schemes for so long until the hard realities of supply and demand force prices in line with economic fundamentals.

Printing money or gold certificates have much the same effect. The hard reality of the existence and quantity of the actual goods do not change, only the pieces of paper that represent them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sounds like a supply and demand thing to me, probably caused by some guy in Vegas hoarding the good ones.


I had to think about this one for awhile. It's not really a supply/demand thing, it's an availability thing. You see, even though silver bar is difficult to find, when you find it the price still accurately reflects spot price (the price 'paper silver' is trading for). Price is still very low, you just have to look around to find the better quality bars.


----------



## Randy Rooster (Dec 14, 2004)

Nevada said:


> The really strange thing about buying silver is that silver (and gold) prices are controlled by the paper market, not the physical market. Despite silver prices being very low for a long time, many of the most popular bars are not available. As many here know, I like 1 oz Johnson Matthey bars the best, yet the two vendors I usually get them from have been out for some time.
> 
> http://www.jmbullion.com/silver/silver-bars/
> http://www.goldmart.com/bullion/silver-bullion/silver-bars-1-oz-1-000-oz.html
> ...


That first website you note shows the 1 oz JM bars as in stock. Why do you like them more than the others?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Randy Rooster said:


> That first website you note shows the 1 oz JM bars as in stock. Why do you like them more than the others?


Yes, JMBullion has JM bars back in stock. Thanks!

There are a few attributes that I look for in silver. The first is that the bar's refiner/assayer be LBMA approved. LBMA is a trade organization that certifies gold & silver bullion makers for deposit in government vaults. Many silver makers are not LMBA approved, such as Silvertowne and Highland Mint. Silvertowne sells more bars than anyone else, yet they're not approved. LBMA silver & gold are money in the truest sense, accepted all over the world. What you're trying to avoid is having your silver not respected when you go to sell. If that happens they'll drill holes in your silver and deduct a assay charge from your settlement check. Stick with LBMA silver & gold.

Another thing to look for is premium over spot price. PAMP Suisse bars are LBMA approved and popular, but sell for up to 50% over spot. It's not worth the markup. Stay away from anything that has a collector or artwork markup. You'll probably only get metal value when you go to sell anyway.

Also look for a serial number stamped on the bar. When you buy a bar save the receipt in a save place (not the same place as the metal), and write the serial number on the receipt. That way if they're stolen you can give the police the serial numbers so they can identify your bars of they show up at a pawn shop. OPM & RMC bars are both LBMA approved, but don't have serial numbers. The price isn't that much different to have serial numbers.

When I buy 10 oz bars I go for Royal Canadian, since they're the only 4 nines silver bars available. Silver is considered fine silver when it's 3 nines, but when it doesn't cost extra I like to have 4 nines.

I like bars that come sealed in plastic so they won't tarnish. Tarnish doesn't amount to much weight loss, and silver buyers don't really care about a little tarnish, but I like to keep my bars in proof condition. Silver does not combine with oxygen, it combines with sulfur to make tarnish. Since there's very little sulfur in air tarnish is a minor problem. Anyway, JM bars are sealed in plastic.

I prefer bars over rounds because they store so well. But that's up to you.

Here is a short video clip (National Geographic documentary) of Johnson Matthey gold bars being deposited in the NY Fed vault. JM bars are the top bars in the world.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JWB2FQIwAo[/ame]


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Isn't there a risk the government, in a 'announced' emergency, will confiscate gold and silver?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In a serious economic collapse scenario lead gets my vote. Followed by sheet copper, coal and field corn.


 Lead always comes first, I like mine wrapped around a nice steel core. 
Sheet copper is nice but I'll take any copper I can get cheap. Anaconda wire tops the list, followed by pipe. I'd follow that with tobacco and booze. No matter what happens in the world, people won't give up those vices.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Trixie said:


> Isn't there a risk the government, in a 'announced' emergency, will confiscate gold and silver?


 Nevada and the rest of the folks I know got robbed right before that happened. Folks didn't even realize they'd been robbed until, in the spirit of the law, they went to get that gold and silver and turn it over to the government as asked.

It's a real shame too.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> Nevada and the rest of the folks I know got robbed right before that happened. Folks didn't even realize they'd been robbed until, in the spirit of the law, they went to get that gold and silver and turn it over to the government as asked.
> 
> It's a real shame too.


That might work.

"Well, I don't know what happened to it - it was right there in the bottom of my closet."

Of course, they could confiscate or food, etc., as well.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trixie said:


> Isn't there a risk the government, in a 'announced' emergency, will confiscate gold and silver?


I doubt we'll see gold confiscation unless there is some big change in our monetary system. There was a practical purpose behind FDR calling in gold. The dollar was tied directly to gold at that time and FDR needed to get more money in circulation. The only way to do that was to for the government to acquire more gold (more gold - more dollars). But that condition doesn't exist today.

If it happened today it would basically be a tax, for the purpose of taking assets to help the government. While that's possible, there's no reason to believe that they will go after people holding gold over going after people holding other assets, say people who are holding corporate stock.

I just don't see it happening.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

All the government needs to do is have a precious metal exchange "surcharge" added to any legal transaction. But of course in a collapse situation, there's not going to be a state to enforce it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> All the government needs to do is have a precious metal exchange "surcharge" added to any legal transaction. But of course in a collapse situation, there's not going to be a state to enforce it.


The government already has a surcharge for gold & silver transactions. Precious metal profits are not taxed as capital gains, they're taxes as collectibles. That means the profits can be taxedat 28% instead of 15%.

But there is some good news. Transactions under $10,000 are not reportable to the government, so there is no 1099 for smaller transactions. That puts smaller transactions under the radar. Also, if you hold the gold for less than a year the profits are taxed as regular income. If you hold the gold over a year it's the lesser of your tax bracket or 28%.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The government already has a surcharge for gold & silver transactions. Precious metal profits are not taxed as capital gains, they're taxes as collectibles. That means the profits can be taxedat 28% instead of 15%.
> 
> But there is some good news. Transactions under $10,000 are not reportable to the government, so there is no 1099 for smaller transactions. That puts smaller transactions under the radar. Also, if you hold the gold for less than a year the profits are taxed as regular income. If you hold the gold over a year it's the lesser of your tax bracket or 28%.


Also should you sell it to Hop Sing for cash and keep your yap shut there is no tax :hysterical:ound:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Also should you sell it to Hop Sing for cash and keep your yap shut there is no tax :hysterical:ound:


Someone here in Las Vegas told me that pawn shops who deal in gold & silver will 1099 anything over $600. I haven't verified that, but I'd stay away from pawn shops anyway.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Someone here in Las Vegas told me that pawn shops who deal in gold & silver will 1099 anything over $600. I haven't verified that, but I'd stay away from pawn shops anyway.


Many don''t know it but lots of silver and gold is not really accounted for . If one knows the right people eep: These people do trades by references only eep:


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I doubt we'll see gold confiscation unless there is some big change in our monetary system. There was a practical purpose behind FDR calling in gold. The dollar was tied directly to gold at that time and FDR needed to get more money in circulation. The only way to do that was to for the government to acquire more gold (more gold - more dollars). But that condition doesn't exist today.
> 
> If it happened today it would basically be a tax, for the purpose of taking assets to help the government. While that's possible, there's no reason to believe that they will go after people holding gold over going after people holding other assets, say people who are holding corporate stock.
> 
> I just don't see it happening.


 I agree, before they go for the gold they'll go for the 401K's and IRA's. The idea has been floated already, more than once.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

InvalidID said:


> I agree, before they go for the gold they'll go for the 401K's and IRA's. The idea has been floated already, more than once.


And why not they already got it in their hand plus people are pretty much paying them to take it .:hysterical:ound:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

InvalidID said:


> Lead always comes first, I like mine wrapped around a nice steel core.
> Sheet copper is nice but I'll take any copper I can get cheap. Anaconda wire tops the list, followed by pipe. *I'd follow that with tobacco and booze. *No matter what happens in the world, people won't give up those vices.


That's why I suggested sheet copper coal and corn.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Randy Rooster said:


> That first website you note shows the 1 oz JM bars as in stock. Why do you like them more than the others?


JMBullion is out of 1 oz Johnson Matthey bars again.

http://www.jmbullion.com/silver/silver-bars/

I bought Royal Canadian silver instead.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There is a hard to resolve dichotomy between the philosophy that consistently advocates spending other people's money on social programs while being so avid in accumulating treasure for themselves. 
It does not compute.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> There is a hard to resolve dichotomy between the philosophy that consistently advocates spending other people's money on social programs while being so avid in accumulating treasure for themselves.
> It does not compute.


I buy a little silver when I can with money saved from my Social Security & pension check. Other than SS & Medicare, which I paid for, I'm not really on any social programs.

It's a slow process to accumulate silver with limited funds, but my little stack of silver is growing. Quite frankly, I'm more than a little surprised that a conservative would criticize saving & investing.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I buy a little silver when I can with money saved from my Social Security & pension check. Other than SS & Medicare, which I paid for, I'm not really on any social programs.
> 
> It's a slow process to accumulate silver with limited funds, but my little stack of silver is growing. *Quite frankly, I'm more than a little surprised that a conservative would criticize saving & investing.*


 I think he's not so much criticizing you for saving so much as for hording money that he feels isn't yours to begin with. SS is a separate issue than PM's for sure but that discussion does need to happen at some point I suppose.

That your generation feels like they've paid for it and deserve it bothers my generation to no end. We all know I'm paying a higher percentage into SS than you did and I'll never see a dime of it when I retire. Because you guys spent it all, and now think you should still get have it. You guys wanted all the social spending, voted people into office that borrowed and stole it, funded wars with it, and neglected the infrastructure your parents built for us all. 

My personal opinion is you guys don't deserve it on a whole. You guys  it up pretty good, fix it before you retire and live off us.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I especially remember this defense of almost totally subsidized health insurance-

"Speaking for myself, there is no way I could have afforded insurance before ACA. I use an outdoor antenna for TV, I've had free wifi phone service through Google for 5 years, I have a very modest home built in 1954, and my car is 11 years old."

But apparently the poverty was not preventing precious metal accumulation simultaneously. .



Nevada said:


> I buy a little silver when I can with money saved from my Social Security & pension check. Other than SS & Medicare, which I paid for, I'm not really on any social programs.
> 
> It's a slow process to accumulate silver with limited funds, but my little stack of silver is growing. Quite frankly, I'm more than a little surprised that a conservative would criticize saving & investing.


You know I am not criticizing savings and investing. I'm am more like curious, about someone who has advocated almost totally taking money from other's investing and savings, and criticizing them for objecting, can suddenly tout the benefits of doing so.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> I think he's not so much criticizing you for saving so much as for hording money that he feels isn't yours to begin with. SS is a separate issue than PM's for sure but that discussion does need to happen at some point I suppose.
> 
> That your generation feels like they've paid for it and deserve it bothers my generation to no end. We all know I'm paying a higher percentage into SS than you did and I'll never see a dime of it when I retire. Because you guys spent it all, and now think you should still get have it. You guys wanted all the social spending, voted people into office that borrowed and stole it, funded wars with it, and neglected the infrastructure your parents built for us all.
> 
> My personal opinion is you guys don't deserve it on a whole. You guys  it up pretty good, fix it before you retire and live off us.


The baby boomer generation supported the "greatest generation" before them. To make matters worse, the greatest generations sold their homes to baby boomers and bought $400K motorhomes. The greatest generation retired with a standard of living we certainly aren't going to enjoy.

It's a shame that after 80 years of SS they never caught up FICA to the point where we're paying for our own retirement, rather than the donkey chasing the carrot. But this is the system I was handed. It's not like anyone asked me for my advice.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The baby boomer generation supported the "greatest generation" before them. To make matters worse, the greatest generations sold their homes to baby boomers and bought $400K motorhomes. The greatest generation retired with a standard of living we certainly aren't going to enjoy.
> 
> It's a shame that after 80 years of SS they never caught up FICA to the point where we're paying for our own retirement, rather than the donkey chasing the carrot. But this is the system I was handed. It's not like anyone asked me for my advice.


They actually did do that in the 1980s- enough to cover the expected cost of baby boomers retirements. However they did not take the radical expansion of benefits into account. All those unfunded giveaways that seem so bright and shiny to the current generation, who thought every ill could be cured by spending more and delaying paying for it. 
If you seek the problem, don't look to the previous generation. They warned you. It was the baby boomers, so coddled, that thought they could get their cake without paying for it and then eat it and keep it too.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> "Speaking for myself, there is no way I could have afforded insurance before ACA. I use an outdoor antenna for TV, I've had free wifi phone service through Google for 5 years, I have a very modest home built in 1954, and my car is 11 years old."


I still get TV reception from an antenna and use Google Voice for free phone service. My home was still built in 1954, and I still drive the same car.

I misspoke, my care wasn't 11 years old, it was 14 years old but I had been driving it for 11 years. It's 15 years old now and I've been driving it for 12 years. But it's not so bad. It's a 2000 Ford Explorer with 130K miles on it. I don't drive all that much and it's got a lot of life left in it.

But I'm no longer on Obamacare. I'm on Medicare now.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The baby boomer generation supported the "greatest generation" before them. To make matters worse, the greatest generations sold their homes to baby boomers and bought $400K motorhomes. The greatest generation retired with a standard of living we certainly aren't going to enjoy.
> 
> It's a shame that after 80 years of SS they never caught up FICA to the point where we're paying for our own retirement, rather than the donkey chasing the carrot. But this is the system I was handed. It's not like anyone asked me for my advice.


 Get out of here with that... :hysterical:You're calling out the generation before you for selling their homes and buying motorhomes? How exactly did that cost you money? 

You guys supported the generation before you? Who build the entire infrastructure and landed us on the moon? Who paid for that? And SS was enacted in 1935, first taxes paid in '37. I'm pretty sure the Greatest Generation paid their own way on SS as well as funding the Moon landing, building all the highways, building the electrical grid, and the numerous other modern conveniences they've left behind for us.

But who's generation oversaw the decline of America?:stars: Motorhomes? Really?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I still get TV reception from an antenna and use Google Voice for free phone service. My home was still built in 1954, and I still drive the same car.
> 
> I misspoke, my care wasn't 11 years old, it was 14 years old but I had been driving it for 11 years. It's 15 years old now and I've been driving it for 12 years. But it's not so bad. It's a 2000 Ford Explorer with 130K miles on it. I don't drive all that much and it's got a lot of life left in it.
> 
> But I'm no longer on Obamacare. I'm on Medicare now.


And that last statement is the whole ball of wax. 
But it certainly is not so bad, even the edited for effect parts. 
I get one pathetic channel, drive a 20 year old truck. But that is my choice, not a representation of need. I choose to spend my money on other things and would never use it as an excuse to demand others cover my expenses.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> They actually did do that in the 1980s- enough to cover the expected cost of baby boomers retirements.


What Reagan's SS reform act did was force congress to do an accounting for money borrowed from FICA. While my generation accumulated some excess credit, it didn't really allow us to catch up. A lot of our FICA contributions went to support the previous generation and younger people will still fund our SS payments, which is a shame.

I wish there was another way. I hope you aren't suggesting that my generation get cut off for SS & Medicare funds. That's really the only alternative.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> Get out of here with that... :hysterical:You're calling out the generation before you for selling their homes and buying motorhomes? How exactly did that cost you money?


The greatest generation bought their homes for $25K and sold them for $400K. Real estate profits funded a lot of the greatest generation's retirement. Baby Boomers were left largely "house poor" as a result.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> What Reagan's SS reform act did was force congress to do an accounting for money borrowed from FICA. While my generation accumulated some excess credit, it didn't really allow us to catch up. Younger people will still fund current SS payments, which is a shame.
> 
> I wish there was another way. I hope you aren't suggesting that my generation get cut off for SS & Medicare funds. That's really the only alternative.


No, but I sure would like the Obamacare subsidies refunded and put in the social security funds.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

Nevada said:


> The greatest generation bought their homes for $25K and sold them for $400K. Real estate profits funded a lot of the greatest generation's retirement. Baby Boomers were left largely "house poor" as a result.


Wasn't that a result of the fed's policy of inflating real estate prices? Greenspan actually is quoted as saying "we need a real estate bubble" after the dot.com boom popped. He proceeded to cut interest rates and created one, which went bust in '08.

If you want to blame somebody for real estate prices, don't blame the people who bought and sold, blame the monetary policy of inflating asset bubbles.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oldshep said:


> Wasn't that a result of the fed's policy of inflating real estate prices? Greenspan actually is quoted as saying "we need a real estate bubble" after the dot.com boom popped. He proceeded to cut interest rates and created one, which went bust in '08.
> 
> If you want to blame somebody for real estate prices, don't blame the people who bought and sold, blame the monetary policy of inflating asset bubbles.


I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just saying that the greatest generation retired comfortably on real estate profits they got from selling overpriced homes to baby boomers, while a large part of baby boomer FICA contributions still went to support the greatest generation's SS & Medicare. If the Fed caused that bubble then fine, but it doesn't change the facts.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The greatest generation bought their homes for $25K and sold them for $400K. Real estate profits funded a lot of the greatest generation's retirement. Baby Boomers were left largely "house poor" as a result.


 The housing bubble burst in 2007/08. You guys weren't house poor. :hysterical:
And are you telling me the "Greatest" didn't buy homes until 1970? (The average home cost $23,400 in 1970 and the average yearly income was $9,350) ((That's roughly 2.5 times earnings to buy a home))

The average house in 2010 was $232,880.00 while the average income was $49,445 (a decline from previous years!) ((4.7 times earnings)

So wait, what you meant was the Boomers bought houses for 25k and sold them for 400k... Oh! Or else you're just talking out of your backside.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The baby boomer generation supported the "greatest generation" before them. To make matters worse, the greatest generations sold their homes to baby boomers and bought $400K motorhomes. The greatest generation retired with a standard of living we certainly aren't going to enjoy.
> 
> It's a shame that after 80 years of SS they never caught up FICA to the point where we're paying for our own retirement, rather than the donkey chasing the carrot. But this is the system I was handed. It's not like anyone asked me for my advice.


Oh I dunno, I am enjoying a much higher standard of living in my retirement than my father did, and much higher than my grandfathers did. I think a lot of it depends on how a person plans when they are young. As to SS not catching up..... That's the nature of any ponzie scheme.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The greatest generation bought their homes for $25K and sold them for $400K. Real estate profits funded a lot of the greatest generation's retirement. Baby Boomers were left largely "house poor" as a result.


My grandfather built his house for less than 3k in the late forties, when he passed away in 1980 my dad gave to his uncle who sold it for 5k. It's probably worth twice that today. I began building my home (twice the size of grandpas)in 2000 and had less than 25k in it. If baby boomers are house poor they aren't doing something right. As my second wife used to say "excuses don't feed the bulldog".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

InvalidID said:


> The housing bubble burst in 2007/08. You guys weren't house poor. :hysterical:
> And are you telling me the "Greatest" didn't buy homes until 1970? (The average home cost $23,400 in 1970 and the average yearly income was $9,350) ((That's roughly 2.5 times earnings to buy a home))
> 
> The average house in 2010 was $232,880.00 while the average income was $49,445 (a decline from previous years!) ((4.7 times earnings)
> ...


Bought my first house in 71, paid 18,500 for it. Probably made around five grand that year.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Bought my first house in 71, paid 18,500 for it. Probably made around five grand that year.


 Both being a little under the average and the income to price ratio being a bit over the average. Which is still better than the average today. Because you planned well, I bet you sold for a fair profit and moved into whatever house it was you needed next correct?

There's just something about prudence. She's a swell lady unless you shun her. :hysterical:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just saying that the greatest generation retired comfortably on real estate profits they got from selling overpriced homes to baby boomers, while a large part of baby boomer FICA contributions still went to support the greatest generation's SS & Medicare. If the Fed caused that bubble then fine, but it doesn't change the facts.


Didn't you write some post awhioe back about having bought a house low and sold it at a sizable profit?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Didn't you write some post awhioe back about having bought a house low and sold it at a sizable profit?


I bought low, but I still live there.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

InvalidID said:


> Both being a little under the average and the income to price ratio being a bit over the average. Which is still better than the average today. Because you planned well, I bet you sold for a fair profit and moved into whatever house it was you needed next correct?
> 
> There's just something about prudence. She's a swell lady unless you shun her. :hysterical:


I sold sold it in 76, put 5k in my pocket and headed to ky. Put it down on my first place here. Yeppers prudence is a good old gal if you don't scorn her. And a rather nasty wench if you do.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Do not blame the generation that fought and won WWII for ANYTHING. Those men and their women came thru the worse years of the last century as children, fought a war, rebuilt our country and raised a generation of children who lived better, had more and turned out worse than any before or after. 

Worse yet, the worse of the so-called baby boomers are now in our public offices making stupid, selfish decisions that affect us all. 

I was born poor in 1931. I watched my older cousins and youngest uncle go off to war and get shot at, and shot. I saw them come back different people, taking chances that draft dodgers would not take, making successes of their lives and rearing families. I saw some of the draft-dodgers children enjoying the prosperity of postwar America, shouting hell no I won't go, sit ins, love-fests, dope-snorting. Sad to say some of the spoiled children of the vets did the same, encouraged by leftists in the colleges they attended.  

In my own generation we went off to Korea; my friends who hit combat (I got sent to a soft spot in Japan) came back with the same risk-taking attitudes that their parents had--we all made successes of our lives. We do not feel that we owe anything to the baby boomers, spoiled brats that some of them were.

Houses; My first cost $9,000, sold it for $14 grand. Second I bought for $15, lived in it for over 30 years, sold it for $52 as I recall. Next I paid $102,000 for and sold it for $232K. Am I supposed to feel guilty? I lived well within my income, saved what I could after educating my children, paying for funerals, weddings, etc along the way. 

Sorry, I don't blame the WWII crowd for anything and I don't owe the boomers a damned thing. I should add that I expect my children to live much as their mother and I did; within their income, saving for their old age, educating their children and staying the hell off welfare.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> Do not blame the generation that fought and won WWII for ANYTHING. Those men and their women came thru the worse years of the last century as children, fought a war, rebuilt our country and raised a generation of children who lived better, had more and turned out worse than any before or after.
> 
> Worse yet, the worse of the so-called baby boomers are now in our public offices making stupid, selfish decisions that affect us all.
> 
> ...


 Thank you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> Do not blame the generation that fought and won WWII for ANYTHING.


I don't blame them. I didn't mean to suggest that. I was just pointing out that conditions are very different today. Many baby boomers lost their homes in the mortgage crisis, and many more lost pensions due to corporate bankruptcy. We may have lived easier lives in a lot of respects but the financial realities of retirement are more harsh.

It could be that retirement will become a thing of the past before long.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I don't blame them. I didn't mean to suggest that. I was just pointing out that conditions are very different today. *Many baby boomers lost their homes in the mortgage crisis,* and many more lost pensions due to corporate bankruptcy. We may have lived easier lives in a lot of respects but the financial realities of retirement are more harsh.
> 
> It could be that retirement will become a thing of the past before long.


 Why would you lose your home if you weren't in over your head to begin with? With few exceptions (bad things happen to everyone) the bulk of those people that lost their homes shouldn't have cash out refi'd them in the first place. Many more shouldn't have bought a house they couldn't afford with a  ninja loan. 

(First person to say people weren't savoy enough to know they'd gotten a Ninja loan loses. IF you can't read, you shouldn't buy a house) 

The reality is that had you guys not blown the whole grip retirement would be easy for you too. There was plenty, you spent it, now you want someone else to cover the debt. That someone being mostly your kids and grandkids.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> Why would you lose your home if you weren't in over your head to begin with? With few exceptions (bad things happen to everyone) the bulk of those people that lost their homes shouldn't have cash out refi'd them in the first place. Many more shouldn't have bought a house they couldn't afford with a  ninja loan.


Maybe. I don't want to argue about it. But the fact is that it's part of the retirement reality for a lot of baby boomers.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

And I feel I need to point out, not all the Boomers are screw ups or what have you. As a generation, screw ups, but there are a lot of good, sound minded folks in that group. 

I have more respect for those that did it right too. When everyone around you is drinking in excess it's hard to be the designated driver.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Maybe. I don't want to argue about it. But the fact is that it's part of the retirement reality for a lot of baby boomers.


 Indeed it is, and we shouldn't punish them for their excess, we should forgive it and punish their kids instead....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't blame them. I didn't mean to suggest that. I was just pointing out that conditions are very different today. Many baby boomers lost their homes in the mortgage crisis, and many more lost pensions due to corporate bankruptcy. We may have lived easier lives in a lot of respects but the financial realities of retirement are more harsh.
> 
> It could be that retirement will become a thing of the past before long.


And where did you come up with the notion that anyone is supposed to be able to retire? Those who plan and work toward that goal may be able to..... Those who squander their working years living it up, never thinking about tomorrow? Prolly not. Just like it has always been.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And where did you come up with the notion that anyone is supposed to be able to retire? Those who plan and work toward that goal may be able to..... Those who squander their working years living it up, never thinking about tomorrow? Prolly not. Just like it has always been.


 Are you trying to take away Nevada's _constitutional_ right to free stuff and a paid retirement? ound:


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Back to metal shortages.... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...virtually-impossible-get-physical-gold-london



> My baseline is they [the Chinese] have been buying and the Indian have been buying in enormous quantities. It&#8217;s virtually impossible to get physical gold in London to ship to those countries. We get permanent requests from Russia, would we please sell our physical gold to India and China. Because there is no physical, only endless promises. And I really worry that the market, that paper market, could be stamped on and people will say &#8220;sorry we&#8217;ll have a financial close out&#8221;, and it&#8217;s all over.





> I just got off the phone with A-Mark which is one of the world&#8217;s largest wholesalers. They are reporting that they have no gold and silver at all live available, that they have stopped taking orders for Silver Maples and Silver Philharmonics altogether and that Silver Eagles are available first in the end of November. For Pamp, there is similarly long delivery times for all minted gold bars.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

BlackFeather said:


> Itâs virtually impossible to get physical gold in London to ship to those countries. We get permanent requests from Russia, would we please sell our physical gold to India and China.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...virtually-impossible-get-physical-gold-london


India is an interesting case, since they have a tax on gold investment. To avoid that tax silver investment has become popular.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

InvalidID said:


> Are you trying to take away Nevada's _constitutional_ right to free stuff and a paid retirement? ound:


Nope, I couldn't do that even if I wanted to. You can't take away something that doesn't exist.ound:


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I always thought the government took the gold - I think they paid for it - because they couldn't somehow control the price of gold. I hope that makes sense.

The government, during the depression, did a lot of things to control the prices, sales, barter, etc. I just assumed that was one of them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trixie said:


> I always thought the government took the gold - I think they paid for it - because they couldn't somehow control the price of gold. I hope that makes sense.
> 
> The government, during the depression, did a lot of things to control the prices, sales, barter, etc. I just assumed that was one of them.


During the depression the dollar was tied to gold. Since the economy had suffered serious deflation, FDR needed to increase the money supply. But the only way to do that was for the government to obtain more gold. FDR did that through executive order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

At that time gold price was about $20/oz, so that's what citizens who turned in gold were paid. Unfortunately, not enough gold was collected to expand the money supply as much as FDR needed, so after the gold recall he increased the value of gold to $35/oz. Of course that also devalued the dollar. But a lot of people who were compensated only $20/oz felt that they got screwed.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Nevada said:


> During the depression the dollar was tied to gold. Since the economy had suffered serious deflation, FDR needed to increase the money supply. But the only way to do that was for the government to obtain more gold. FDR did that through executive order.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
> 
> At that time gold price was about $20/oz, so that's what citizens who turned in gold were paid. Unfortunately, not enough gold was collected to expand the money supply as much as FDR needed, so after the gold recall he increased the value of gold to $35/oz. Of course that also devalued the dollar. But a lot of people who were compensated only $20/oz felt that they got screwed.


Thanks - 

As for the people getting 'took' - 'twas ever thus.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trixie said:


> Thanks -
> 
> As for the people getting 'took' - 'twas ever thus.


The question is whether it might happen again. While anything is possible, the practical purpose that FDR called-in gold for no longer exists, since the dollar value is no longer tied to gold. I don't think it will happen with gold, and it's even more unlikely with silver.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Nevada said:


> During the depression the dollar was tied to gold. Since the economy had suffered serious deflation, FDR needed to increase the money supply. But the only way to do that was for the government to obtain more gold. FDR did that through executive order.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
> 
> At that time gold price was about $20/oz, so that's what citizens who turned in gold were paid. Unfortunately, not enough gold was collected to expand the money supply as much as FDR needed, so after the gold recall he increased the value of gold to $35/oz. Of course that also devalued the dollar. But a lot of people who were compensated only $20/oz felt that they got screwed.


And again only the broke or stupid complied :cowboy: Recall anything they want good luck coming here and finding it . I got a good burying place (few acres) that was a scrap yard for over ten years ,one would have to dig and sift every inch to find anything if it was even there .:hysterical:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> And again only the broke or stupid complied :cowboy: Recall anything they want good luck coming here and finding it . I got a good burying place (few acres) that was a scrap yard for over ten years ,one would have to dig and sift every inch to find anything if it was even there .:hysterical:


My grandmother had a bracelet made with a bunch of gold coins hanging from it during the gold recall. She knew that it was over the 1 oz limit, but she said she would tell them it was a valuable family heirloom. She wore it in public from time to time but never got called on it officially. The coins were sold as part of her estate when she died in 1981.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The question is whether it might happen again. While anything is possible, the practical purpose that FDR called-in gold for no longer exists, since the dollar value is no longer tied to gold. I don't think it will happen with gold, and it's even more unlikely with silver.


Again, I'm thinking more along the lines of 'control'. Since gold would be something they weren't controlling, as they could paper money, they might either buy, confiscate, otherwise stop the use of gold as legal tender.

Off topic - but might explain my thinking.

My grandfather did all manner of odd jobs during the depression to feed his wife, two daughters still at home, two married daughters and their families.

A man, government man, once approached him and asked if he could operate a bulldozer and would he like a day or two of work. 

They took him out to a site and told him to dig a hole and gave him the dimensions. 

When he finished the hole, he was sitting on his dozer waiting and he heard the sound of animals running. Then he saw a group of men on horseback herding a bunch of cows - they ran them over the dam of earth and they dropped into the hole. The men then sat on horseback and shot the cattle and told my Grandad to cover them up.

He asked if he could 'dress out' a couple of them. He said he knew a lot of people who were really hungry. He was told he couldn't as the government had bought them to keep the price of cattle up. He asked what about just a a couple of hind quarters. He explained it would make no difference as these people were never going to be customers for beef on the market - they couldn't afford it.

They said no - he covered up tons of beef while people were literally going hungry - 

I know they are still doing things as ridiculous now - just like to think they aren't causing others to go hungry - at least in this country.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Trixie said:


> Again, I'm thinking more along the lines of 'control'. Since gold would be something they weren't controlling, as they could paper money, they might either buy, confiscate, otherwise stop the use of gold as legal tender.
> 
> Off topic - but might explain my thinking.
> 
> ...


People just can't get it threw their head TPLB are one group ,the rest are expendable


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> People just can't get it threw their head TPLB are one group ,the rest are expendable


Sadly, you are right.

My son had a young man who worked for him. He was Mexican by ethnicity, but born in the US. He still had extensive family in Mexico. His family owned a lot of land and they had farmed it.

Enter NAFTA and the American agribusiness wanted to sell corn on the market in Mexico - so they paid this family to not grow grain.

Every year, this young man went back to Mexico, they met with an official, signed an agreement to not farm the land. His grandmother was still alive, so he was 3rd generation in a large family. 

As a grandchild, he got $40K a year from US taxpayers, so agribusiness could sell corn to Mexico.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Trixie: I was around when they were killing cattle, but it was not to reduce the number and make cattle more expensive. 

What was happening is that the department of agriculture was going thru a great program designed to eliminate tuberculosis from the American cattle herd. Vets rounded up and tested every cow on every farm and ranch in the country. Those that tested positive for TB were killed. The owner got a small payment for each animal killed. I've seen posts here that indicated the owners were permitted to take the meat from one calf or steer for their own use, but no meat was sold.

As a result of this program TB was taken out of the cattle herd and became rare in humans. Only when Mexican cattle were allowed into the country did it reappear. Since then all dairy cattle are tested on a periodic basis, and in recent years we sometimes hear of a herd being infected, usually down in the southern states bordering Mexico. 

The dept of Ag. also has a program designed to eliminate brucellosis, which is undulant fever in humans. Some cattlemen have resisted rounding up their herds for this test, but most states are now brucellosis free. Infected cattle can be sold for slaughter, but must be removed from the breeding herd.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Oxankle said:


> Trixie: I was around when they were killing cattle, but it was not to reduce the number and make cattle more expensive.
> 
> What was happening is that the department of agriculture was going thru a great program designed to eliminate tuberculosis from the American cattle herd. Vets rounded up and tested every cow on every farm and ranch in the country. Those that tested positive for TB were killed. The owner got a small payment for each animal killed. I've seen posts here that indicated the owners were permitted to take the meat from one calf or steer for their own use, but no meat was sold.
> 
> ...


No - it was to keep the price of cattle up. They did lots of things to keep the prices up during the depression. They felt they had to 'control' the economy. We are still stuck with the legacy of some of those agricultural props.

Totally different from controlling diseases.

I also remember when they had a 'dipping tank' for cattle. 

I do remember the TB and certainly remember brucellosis.

I also have been at auctions and seen the 'bangers' with a 'B' painted on their faces and the announcement 'Packers only, folks.'

This was not what this was all about.

Back when they killed cattle for diseases, they usually burned them before burying.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> No - it was to keep the price of cattle up. They did lots of things to keep the prices up during the depression.


Why keep prices up? Nobody had enough money to buy beef at rock bottom prices, much less artificially created high prices. Daddy relayed this story of the situation where he was living at the time. 

Seems as though some of the farmers near the river wher a "Hooverville" had sprung up kept losing beef. They went to the sheriff to get something done. He just looked at them and told them straight out... The county couldn't feed the rustlers if he locked them up! The farmers then appealed to the cattlemen across a wider area, everyone agreed to share the burden and offered up a beef a week to be donated to the folks in Hooverville. It worked, no more stolen beef.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why keep prices up? Nobody had enough money to buy beef at rock bottom prices, much less artificially created high prices. Daddy relayed this story of the situation where he was living at the time.
> 
> Seems as though some of the farmers near the river wher a "Hooverville" had sprung up kept losing beef. They went to the sheriff to get something done. He just looked at them and told them straight out... The county couldn't feed the rustlers if he locked them up! The farmers then appealed to the cattlemen across a wider area, everyone agreed to share the burden and offered up a beef a week to be donated to the folks in Hooverville. It worked, no more stolen beef.


I don't understand the first paragraph.

The prices were propped up supposedly to keep farmers from going out of business. With the idea the country needed it's farmers that were left.


There were lots of people who had money during the depression - not everyone lived in Hoovervilles.

Yes, animals were stolen, chickens were big targets. Yes, people did share what they had. 

I'm not sure what that has to do with it.

The government did a lot of things during the depression to 'manage' the depression.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> I don't understand the first paragraph.
> 
> The prices were propped up supposedly to keep farmers from going out of business. With the idea the country needed it's farmers that were left.
> 
> ...


According to those farmers that survived (my grand father and others his age) there were no price supports, only price ceilings. The older generations here in Kentucky have told similar tales of taking their crop to market and getting a bill instead of a check! The crop had not brought enough to pay the handling charges.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> According to those farmers that survived (my grand father and others his age) there were no price supports, only price ceilings. The older generations here in Kentucky have told similar tales of taking their crop to market and getting a bill instead of a check! The crop had not brought enough to pay the handling charges.


I don't know what to say to you - check out some of the information on the internet.

The government managed the economy and money flow in various ways.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> I don't know what to say to you - check out some of the information on the internet.
> 
> The government managed the economy and money flow in various ways.


The government made poor attempts at managing a basically non existent economy. I will agree with you there. All the first hand accounts I have heard tell a different story.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The government made poor attempts at managing a basically non existent economy. I will agree with you there. All the first hand accounts I have heard tell a different story.


I just did a quick search and came up with 'parity and price supports' on agriculture.

Also, I cannot find it now, but I have researched it, and it used to be on the internet. We learned when I took insurance courses, the government would not allow insurance companies to let people withdraw the cash value from their life insurance policies during the depression. They wanted to control the amount of money in the economy.

When I was a teenager and young adult the government was buying ag crops, paying people not to plant crops, and otherwise propping up the ag industry. Pundits and government officials always referred back to the fact the government believed the farmers were essential during the depression, so propped them up. They said farmers were no less important now and these were necessary.

As I said, we are still burdened with the legacy of those farm programs of the depression era.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> I just did a quick search and came up with 'parity and price supports' on agriculture.
> 
> 
> As I said, we are still burdened with the legacy of those farm programs of the depression era.


I picked up the search and found that Hoover and Roosevelt both took a shot at "farm subsides" they were both dismal failures and fairly short lived. Hovers program never really got out the gate when the Supreme Court shot it down. Roosevelts didn't do much better although it made a tremendous mess of the wheat and cotton markets during its few years existence. Those were the only crops affected by that program. It ultimately suffered the same fate as hovers program at the hands of the Supreme Court when they ruled it unconstitutional. Farm subsidies did not reemerge until the forties when farmers were paid to not grow crops in order to prevent gluts on the market that would drive prices down. This was the "soil bank" programs I recall as a kid growing up on gramps farm. Those programs gained support through the fifties and sixties.
The beef buyouts were done well before the depression according to the article I read, that was early twenties and also short lived due to being ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I picked up the search and found that Hoover and Roosevelt both took a shot at "farm subsides" they were both dismal failures and fairly short lived. Hovers program never really got out the gate when the Supreme Court shot it down. Roosevelts didn't do much better although it made a tremendous mess of the wheat and cotton markets during its few years existence. Those were the only crops affected by that program. It ultimately suffered the same fate as hovers program at the hands of the Supreme Court when they ruled it unconstitutional. Farm subsidies did not reemerge until the forties when farmers were paid to not grow crops in order to prevent gluts on the market that would drive prices down. This was the "soil bank" programs I recall as a kid growing up on gramps farm. Those programs gained support through the fifties and sixties.
> The beef buyouts were done well before the depression according to the article I read, that was early twenties and also short lived due to being ruled unconstitutional.


Well, beef buyouts happened during the 30's - I don't know what to tell you.

I also know it was the specter of the depression era they put out all the time to promote the soil bank.

Read more on the 'Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, (which covered a few things, expanded and did cover cattle} - which was declared unconstitutional in 1936, because of the way it was financed, I think. There was also the AAA of 1938 -


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Well, beef buyouts happened during the 30's - I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> I also know it was the specter of the depression era they put out all the time to promote the soil bank.
> 
> ...


the article I read did talk about that drastic changes in farm subsidies from their early disasters on up until today. I remember the numerous government programs during the sixties when farmers were able to cash in on money to improve their farms. Leveling land for irrigation, irrigation ditches and equipment were very common in eastern Oregon and south western Idaho. When I first came to Kentucky in the late seventies there numerous funds available for farm land improvements, along with a very good tobacco price support program. Those have all gone the wayside now, replaced by others to put land back to nature, in order to provide wildlife habitat.


----------

