Do my homework on what? You haven't explained anything. You just said that silver is usually 1/16th the price of gold and because of this, it is undervalued.
here is the short and sweet way to play the gold/silver ratio. (source)
When a trader possesses one ounce of gold, and the ratio rises to an unprecedented 100, the trader would then sell his or her single gold ounce for 100 ounces of silver.
When the ratio then contracted to an opposite historical "extreme" of, say, 50, the trader would then sell his or her 100 ounces for two ounces of gold.
In this manner, the trader would continue to accumulate greater and greater quantities of metal, seeking "extreme" ratio numbers from which to trade and maximize his or her holdings.
Do my homework on what? You haven't explained anything. You just said that silver is usually 1/16th the price of gold and because of this, it is undervalued.
historically, the ratio is 1/16th and today it is 1/41. how much more help do you need to realize that silver price will go up in relation to gold?
"Get an energy plan"
"Thank Canada for having the oil"
"Get on your own resources"
"People around the world think we are stupid"
"Focus on ourselves, we are the problem"
historically, the ratio is 1/16th and today it is 1/41. how much more help do you need to realize that silver price will go up in relation to gold?
But if both go down relative to say 'dollars' which you need to use to buy things. Then as expressed in dollars, your position is lower, but I suppose you have a higher quantity of metal that is worth less as expressed in dollars.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by moncton golden flames
historically, the ratio is 1/16th and today it is 1/41. how much more help do you need to realize that silver price will go up in relation to gold?
Clearly silver isn't ALWAYS 1/16 the price of gold - that's it's AVERAGE value over a period of time. Gold could stay 40 or 50 times as valuable for years and that ratio would just get adjusted downwards and you could still make the same "argument" that eventually it's price would deviate towards the norm, but you would still be just guessing.
I suspect the linkage between the two relies on relative scarcity. Maybe much more silver is being produced nowadays. Maybe it's becoming cheaper and cheaper to mine and refine. Maybe gold mines are going dry while silver mines aren't. I don't know, but I sure wouldn't be investing in silver without finding out and just relying on a "historical" ratio that means just about nothing without context.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
historically, the ratio is 1/16th and today it is 1/41. how much more help do you need to realize that silver price will go up in relation to gold?
Well, I look at what drives the price of something like silver. To my limited knowledge, it is driven by supply/demand and speculation. That has nothing to do with gold. Another thing that I have looked at just now is the historical relationship bewteen gold and silver. I see that the current ratio, as of February 19th is 46.9. Going back to 2009, the ratio was as high as 66. What I don't see, however, is this average of silver being 1/16th the value of gold.
In fact, to find that kind of ratio, it looks like you would have to go all the way back to the 1840's. Where did you hear about this 1/16th value?
Clearly silver isn't ALWAYS 1/16 the price of gold - that's it's AVERAGE value over a period of time. Gold could stay 40 or 50 times as valuable for years and that ratio would just get adjusted downwards and you could still make the same "argument" that eventually it's price would deviate towards the norm, but you would still be just guessing.
I suspect the linkage between the two relies on relative scarcity. Maybe much more silver is being produced nowadays. Maybe it's becoming cheaper and cheaper to mine and refine. Maybe gold mines are going dry while silver mines aren't. I don't know, but I sure wouldn't be investing in silver without finding out and just relying on a "historical" ratio that means just about nothing without context.
Exactly, if you played that trade with the Oil/Gas ratio over the past couple of years, you'd be worth a whole lot less in terms of dollars, but I suppose you would have a bunch of gas!
Ah, if only it was this simple. You'd think they would have done this by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Its the $500 billion thats tough to handle. If you're going to cut you're going after the major rails of their government policy. Social Programs, or defense.
The U.S. military budget is at $664 billion, which sounds like a lot, but it represents 4.3% of their GNP. Now I get numbers anywhere from 664 to 948 so who knows, it looks like their biggest budget chunk is pensions at 900 billion.
Well the solution to the problem is easy. Quit spending so much and modify the tax code to help the middle class and get the rich, who by all accounts aren't paying that much in taxes, to pay more.
The $500 billion will be tough to handle. Everything from the military, to social programs to food stamps will have to be cut. But then again, if you cut taxes to the middle class, but offset them with higher taxes for rich people....the loss of the food stamps won't matter.
Will it be hard for some people? Sure it will. But is there any other way? Not if you want to sustain some long term success for the country.
If they implement a fair tax how is taxing the rich more fair? So you say the rich should be punished for being successful? 10% tax on 1,000,000 is a lot more than 10% on 50,000...
It isn't fair at all.
Point is that you're looking at a 10 trillion dollar debt that needs to be cut down. Maybe not completely, but at least to some degree.
How are you going to do that? Cutting spending works great for balancing the budget. For the time being. Increased revenues from an economy that will get back to 3-4% growth in the next 2 years will also help 'balance' the budget. Perhaps even run a surplus with time. But, its not going to pay off the debt. So you have to look at other methods.
I'm as libertarian as they come. But I'm not naive enough to say that not paying taxes is productive, nor do I think the rich people should be able to get away with paying 15% tax rates.
The most innovative firms in the world are still mostly American. Apple, Google, hell even GE, and the lion share of profitable energy and internet firms.
What's going on is the painful economic restructuring where workers from uncompetitive sectors (primary manufacturing) and losing out to workers to competitive ones (high tech, services). The key is to not mess with that. There will be winners and losers unfortunately but on the whole, as their economy transitions they will be better off.
What about the figure mentioned by Gordan Gecko in the fictional but interesting movie, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps?
40% of the profit made in the US was made by financial institutions. I assume he was talking about the year 2008. Any truth to that?
"I think we are all doomed. I think what will happen is that we are in the midst of a kind of a crack-up boom that is not sustainable, that eventually the economy will deteriorate, that there will be more money-printing, and then you have inflation, and a poor economy, an extreme form of stagflation, and, eventually, in that situation, countries go to war, and, as a whole, derivatives, the market, and everything will collapse, and like a computer when it crashes, you will have to reboot it."
I suspect the linkage between the two relies on relative scarcity. Maybe much more silver is being produced nowadays. Maybe it's becoming cheaper and cheaper to mine and refine. Maybe gold mines are going dry while silver mines aren't. I don't know, but I sure wouldn't be investing in silver without finding out and just relying on a "historical" ratio that means just about nothing without context.
Location: Oklahoma - Where they call a puck a ball...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
So you don't use the healthcare system? You didn't get educated in Canada? Do you use the highways or transit systems? The list goes on and on.
Bottom line is: If people want these social services to continue at the rate they are at, they must be prepared to pay more in taxes. The problem with that is we have governments that can not be trusted to manage our money properly.
Yes I use the healthcare system , but I pay 300 bucks a month for insurance , then pay my deductible and prescription costs. If I wasnt on my Wife's insurance plan at work most insurance wouldnt cover me. I have to go to Oklahoma High Risk pool because of Diabetes and the prices are outrageous. Not to mention there is a 5000 dollar deductible and it doesnt cover any visits to doctor for when I am ill or need check ups ( Its 150 bucks a pop each time I visit a doctor) .
As for education , what if I was home schooled? The kids that were home- schooled are still having to pay social security .
In Oklahoma we dont have much of a transit system so No I have not used it. I have traveled on the highways and such. There are a ton of roads I pay tolls on to use as well.
I do not really know where you were going with those questions . I am not arguing about paying more taxes. I wouldnt mind as long as its across the board. 10% across the board would fix a lot of problems. What does piss me off is I make decent money but I pay my bills and what not , but old trailer trash eddy and his wife ( whom doesnt work) make 19,000 bucks a year with 3 kids and get 10,000 bucks back at tax time.
I didn't know protectionism was a dirty word.
Atleast American workers can get paid a wage that can support a family with most manufacturing jobs. The kids growing up now will be working 2 service-sector jobs for minimum wage when they grow up.
Protectionism is a dirty word. Show me where it has been implemented and I will show you a failed state or on the verge of failing.
Workers will be paid a wage to support a family, for how long? People have choice, and they choose to buy the better product, not necessarily the cheapest product. Japanese vs. American cars is a good example.
