And the goldbugs aren’t talking twilight zone? If ay person had listened to them they would be broke and most are.

Please. They refuse to accept that the world they crave, one of medieval kings and queens and magna carta freedoms, is gone and the new currency is Apple and Google Pay.

In less than 5 years cash won;t even be around as governments attack it and promote E-Money payment systems.

Where is gold in that?
It is nothing but a hedge against governments as Armstrong says. He was the ONLY ONE! who talked crash in 2011 gold prices.

All of you were talking 30,000… Remember those days? I do.

I sold all my Silver at 48 bucks. Darn glad I did as most pumpers were talking 300 buck silver.

The scam is gold and silver pumpers. Lets call this correctly and that my friend is proven by the last 4 years.

Do you remember the episode on The Twilight Zone where the flying saucer lands and the astronauts leave only to find a spaceship that looks like the one they just left so they board it and find their own dead and lifeless bodies. DT

Ken are you familiar with David Gurwitz at Charles Nenner Research? He was very accurate around the 2011 time period and through most of the downleg in Gold the last few years.

http://charlesnenner.com

There was also good old Jon Nadler who was a PM bear and featured prominently on Kitco in 2010 – 2012 and was hated and mocked for his stance, but he was correct.

Avi Gilburt was fairly accurate in the 2010-2014 period as well and saw things reverse and start heading down.

While Martin Armstrong is very brilliant along with his forecasting system, he is not the only one and has also made his fair share of bad calls like any good forecaster. His style and story tends to attract a strange cult following chasing the idea of his special “algorhythm” for his system, and the movie hype an all that.

I am a goldbug who happens to be a gold bull. The term “goldbug” was invented and promoted by the paper-pushing socialists and their shills in an attempt to diminish those who understand the paper ponzi scheme that is our debt-based monetary system. We see similar attempts with the use of labels like “conspiracy theorist” or “(fill in blank) denier.”

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” —Joseph Goebbels

I believe there are many differences between gold bulls and gold bugs.
Gold bug: believe gold can solve all ills of the society; want to return to gold standard; want to return to using gold as currency; accumulate gold but never sell; emotionally attached to gold.
Gold bull: believe inflation is occurring and gold will benefit; believe gold will benefit from financial crisis and sovereign default; buy or sell gold depending on circumstances.

However, one could be partial y gold bull and patially gold bug. nothing is black and white.

Two very good explanations, Matthew.
I was unaware of the goldbug term and it’s origin.

Too me, a gold bug is one who understands the benefits of sound money and promotes the return to it (this includes simply letting the market decide rather than some central authority).
It is the ignoramus, not the gold bug, who believe that sound money will solve all of societies ills. However, those who are proud to say that they are not gold bugs are likely to be ignorant of the fact that many of the most pressing problems today can be traced back to the corruption of the money. They are also likely to believe much of the anti gold propaganda that mainstream professors, bankers and politicians have been spewing for decades.

Professor Mathew…….is always spot on …………. J OOTB………

I agree Matthew. I just happen to believe that it is no longer doable to go back to gold standard or going back to gold standard will create another set of problems. I am for a partial gold standard though. Trading with gold coins or silver coins are no longer viable solution for today’s commerce.

They had pieces of paper with the words…..”redeemable in gold”……….check out some old currency bills as late as 1934……… I happen to have a GOLD CERTIFICATE NOTE THAT SAYS ……..REDEEMABLE FOR $10,000 dollars in GOLD…… So, commerce could certainly be transacted by a gold backing currency, fully redeemable in hard gold …………………JMHO……..OOTB

JUST a blast from the past…………….. 🙂

Lawrence, a free market or fully gold backed currency is always doable. Whether or not it’s likely is another matter.

Very good discussion Lawrence, Matthew, and Frank….the Boot.

I would say into todays idiom, that some of the meaning and memes around gold positions changed from 1999-2007, versus 2008-2011, and the proceeding 2011-2015 period. Due to over-hype, inflation narratives, dollar destruction narratives, 2012 warnings, and a wild Arab spring with Egypt, Libya, Syria, and then the Russian Crimea situation, and the ongoing saga from Greece, the ECB, the future of the Euro, that that Gold investors of different stripes emerged.

There are of course Gold PermaBulls (always pumping, always long, and feel any downturn is manipulations = Bo Polony types). Next there is the Goldbug, that sees the longer term store of value of Gold, and wants to return to a Gold or partial gold backed currency and free marketplace, and they like accumulating gold coins/bars/bullion but rarely sell any back (even at a peaks). There there is the investor that uses a 10% weighting in their overall portfolio in gold as hedge against the rest of their position, (but adjusts by buying or selling the gold to keep the ratio at 10%). This means when it gets cheap they add, and when it gets expensive they sell. Then there is the short to long term Gold Bull or Gold Bear technical trader, which places a stance on Gold based on technical indicators only (minus all the money theory, ignoring inflation or deflation projections, and oblivious to supply projections) – they just use charts and place short or longer-term bets on the price directions.

Really, the lines of demarcation are never that simple as someone can turn from a Gold Bear to a Gold Bull on technicals, but have an underlying Goldbug disposition. Someone can have an underlying Goldhumbug bearish disposition, but become technically bullish on a short or mid-term period. When you get into the mining stocks, you can get people with some of the qualities above, but more focused on commodities or sectors, or a stock-picker drilling down to individual companies. Within in the stock-picker in mining, there are some that only invest or trade in the more liquid Majors and maybe a few mid-tiers, there are some that like Mid-tiers to smaller producers, and then their are the Jr explorers and project generators with multiple JVs, and then the Streaming companies and ETFS. Some investors only use ETFs exclusively now.

There are many shades and varieties of Gold investing, with different philosophies, different technical strategies, different time-horizons or risk levels, different ways of holding/accumulating exposure, and different micro-environments that are focused on. That’s what makes it such an interesting market to be involved in, and why it is so difficult to track it all.

Mathew, I just feel that 5-10% physical is the appropriate amount to own.
A good example was the peak in gold when property values decreased.
In Calgary, property values decreased about 20% – 40% depending, gold at 10% retained the overall net worth of a portfolio.
I find gold an other assets work like a teeter totter or gold as insurance maybe.
I look at it as insurance for the entire portfolio I guess.
Not sure I am explaining myself well, but I find 5-10% of investible income to physical protects the entire portfolio.
Maybe that’s only because of my level of net worth? But I can theroretically see it working for billionares too.
Hope I answered well enough.

Thanks, BB. So, assuming that one has no income but is worth $1 million, they should have $50,000 to $100,000 in gold. Is this accurate?

I guess so Mathew, but ya gotta remember that a person has another 90% to invest.
The calculation I give really only covers a bit of the “sting” when (in that case) property values decreased, but remember, some of that other 90% could very well have been in gold shares, which went up by what %? some of mine, (a lot of them actually) went up 100s of %.
I would think if a person was relying only on physical the % of ownership would be greater.

Maybe that’s a good idea? They say,”the person that owns 3000 onces of gold will never be poor”

Even guys like Peter Schiff don’t recommend more than 10%, so you’re not exactly taking a radical approach. I personally think that 15% should be the bare minimum for most people (those who have nothing but stocks and bonds).

Mathew, recently (other than Maloney) I have been noticing more writers recommending more than 10%. Funny, yesterday I read a guy saying 15%, today you are.
But opinions are from anywhere between 5-100% if we include Maloney.
I don’t know but I find 5-10% and its nothing to lose sleep over whatever happens to price.

15% of networth or liquid asset? Quite different concepts.

I think Peter Schiff has 60% of his liquid asset in PM and PM shares.

Lawrence, what asset would have no liquidity?

I think liquid asset means that the wealth one has beyond his basic living and pension. So you deduct house, your business and your RRSP from all the wealth you get liquid asset. It is the asset you can invest freely.

Lawrence, when I say net worth I exclude only the primary residence.

BB, I’ve been saying 15% for many years but have considered it a bare minimum since 2000.
Ibbotson Associates did an interesting study for BMG in 2005 in which a 15.7% allocation was indicated as a maximum. One year later, Ibbotson Associates prepared another, similar study for Van Eck Global. Well what a difference a year makes because in that one, 25% was considered the maximum for the “aggressive (i.e., all equity) investor.”
Both reports are very good. Here’s the latter one:
http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/docs/pdf/IbbotsonStudy.pdf

Rob Kirby had some things to say about the first IA study:
http://www.safehaven.com/article/5690/the-ibbotson-report-revisited

I recall a change in thinking like that.
Rickards I believe has been saying for some time now 20% physical gold for an aggressive investor.