Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (168884)	2/23/2021 7:43:42 PM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Recommended By dvdw© Respond to of 219679

There are points at which that aspect of the game, control of flows in the markets, is made irrelevant... In our big picture, the issue is that tied to the mass of the base and the velocity of money... where the short term view poses particular risks... Velocity of money, long moribund but with accumulation of a large stagnant base, could cause huge changes with only minor alterations in the flows. No one now, it seems, thinks inflation can be avoided... mostly as the path to avoiding it seems it is obviously much the worse path. So the Youtube videos of perennial silver touts are all competing now to stake out the higher limits to which the value of silver might soon soar... only failing to mention the context... and how it limits the real meaning of the number... using inflated dollars. Not wrong, still... that there are huge value shifts that will occur... when expectations change this way... So, while the future value of silver in dollars will not be defined in current dollar terms... silver is already greatly undervalued in current dollar terms... due to the success of prior efforts "suppressing inflation" (ie., imposing deflation)... that success obviating the need to hold a long term physical hedge against inflation... that does not depend on an IOU, and doesn't ever expire. The LACK of the velocity of money... as we've seen over the last few years... enabled the creation of endless QE and the attendant success in the transfers to and concentration of wealth by the recipients of freshly printed dollars (and other currencies only more)... Much of this would be obvious, perhaps, if you asked the question as "how can we print a whole lot money for ourselves, without sharing it, and without generating inflation" ? Now, there is a parallel need to sustain the prior pace of "printing"... required as an element in the design of the currency system that uses debt as money... ensuring balances in control never shift... as all money is balanced by a debt held... That is now paired with a new set of imperatives... to direct some portion of the flow of new money in ways that don't obviously sustain those prior transfers, as the natives have become restless... demanding some flows be directed into economic uses that are not velocity free... That isn't exactly a creation of "new" money printing in isolation... on a larger scale... only a redirection in small part... still paired with a refusal to terminate the flows into zero velocity accounts... owning control. I pointed out an uncomfortable reality or two about that last year, January/February... as the debate continued about what it meant that the Fed was telling us "its all under control" as "QE ended"... but then kept having to shovel money out the backdoor late at night when no one was looking... noting "its not QE"... The issue then was a miscalculation in the controls determined by using U.S. economic data to manage the dollar balances in trade and thus to meter the printing press throughput... when the dollar is not "the U.S. currency" but "the global currency"... so the "miscalculation" of the economic base generated simple math errors. The impact at the time... drove the dollar constantly higher as excessively tight policy dictated (by the maths "error")... when the only way to avoid a global depression... was to reduce the excessively tight monetary policy... at the cost of a less strong dollar... See the parallels in the "milk shake theory of the dollar" arguments made at the time. Note the bait and switch practiced... as "excessive money printing"... is in fact starving the world of liquidity? The error, in the assumption that money printing is "inflationary"... when the proof of the policy in result is in its deflationary impacts ? The questions are ones of bias and balance... as well as getting the math right by choosing the right basis. Inflation is not only a product of money flow... as printing... but also of the use made of money... as velocity... and the variable in relative value in the ROI on dollars employed to effect. But, deflation is not a product only of tight money generating a lack of velocity through a lack of money present in the market... but also of "dead money" that doesn't move... or of other non-monetary restraints on economic activity that limits economic activity just the same as if there were no money to drive it. Dropping money from helicopters won't generate inflation if people pick up the money and don't use it. Removing money from the economy won't cause deflation... if people don't accept the lack of externally supplied money as a reason to curtail their efforts... and just trust the IOU's of their friends as good enough as real money... and trade IOU's as real money... or barter etc., or create their own currency, as, when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary... The problem with mercantilism... monopoly imposed in structured trade... as in other forms of economic suppression of competition... is both the disparate impact of forced imbalances... along with the general suppression. It is inherently deflationary... even if the imbalances imposed have some suffer its impacts more than others. And, of course, the trade regime is not independent of the origins of the money facilitating the trade... and the system of suppression... including the focus of imbalances in impacts. Systems and the balances they've imposed... can change... The lack of liquidity... is imposed as a choice. The lack of velocity... is a proof we've been in a deflationary depression for a long time already... with multiple influences, not just "errors" in maths re suppression and mis-direction of the money supply causing the deflation... but also effort made restricting economic activity generally, and imposing imbalances in where those influences are most keenly felt. Removing artificial restraints on activity... including removing artificial restraints misdirecting flows of money and trade, while inhibiting the creation of, liquidity of, and velocity of money as part of imposing control... will solve the problems of monetary deflation (or inflation) and non-monetary suppression of activity (or its redirection)... where it is the control that is the problem, and not the solution. But, altering the restraints... when there is a lot of "dead" money that's out there already, not being used... may be akin to solving the problem of a drought induced by officials shutting off the irrigation system, and keeping all the water behind the dam... by blowing up the dam... If they won't stop imposing crazy "controls" that work to prevent economic activity... while metering the trickle of irrigation water allowed to flow, to have it flow only to their friends, while sustaining a systemic deficit... when does logic begin to have it make sense to blow up the dam ? That's not ever an issue... when there are crops in the field... if there are flows sufficient to sustain the crops in all the fields. But, when the crops are already dead... as future controls are being asserted that will be even more onerous... and the issue is next years crop certainly failing even worse under the same regime causing the problem... ? Then the course of human events often tends to take sharp turns... Would bitcoin exist... in a world that had enough money available... to focus the world on free markets fostering fair exchange... with no fraud, no monopoly, and no barriers to participation... rather than limiting markets... or where there were no obvious problems emanating from the control of money, imposing control over everything derivative from it that is being controlled by it now ? Inflation is not the enemy... deflation is not the enemy... they are just the tools used as threats enabling control... reinforcing the "need" for it... by the creation of risks and their realization. Bitcoin... seeks to obviate the need to blow up the dam... by making it rain. But, it starts out trying to make it rain on fellow crony's farms only... which looks a lot like "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"... Inflation is coming... get ready for it... It may happen faster than expected. The alternative to simply sustaining more inflation is the "crack-up boom"... in which the problem of inflation is not obviated... and the risks to fiat currencies only grow, still requiring demand for alternatives to them only grows ? Silver may not go "to da moon"... but the suppression cannot be sustained... and it won't be... as the evidence of accelerating inflation arrives and overwhelms it. In the past, the suppression effort has surrendered... as you saw in gamestop... not because of a "short squeeze"... but because of a decision to reverse the trade... run it up to an unsustainable high... from which the effort in suppression can be easily and profitably re-established... exactly as you saw occur in 2011... only after more than a year of sustained but failing effort to contain it... Don't mistake that element of a reset of position on the field... as ending the game... ? The pop in 2011... and the trading into a peak... did not end the suppression of gold and silver... but was a part of the continuation of it ? Et tu, bitcoin ? Imposed imbalances... are the game... not the endgame.