• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Price of gold declines 30% in 1st half of 2013

Food yes, but no to clothing and fuel. I sell clothing, and we have actually lowered our prices, as have the manufacturers that we purchase from. the cost of a gallon of gas is cheaper today than it was 5 years ago (seriously, look it up). Other than the stock market and food, I really can't think of much that has significantly increased in price during recent years. I do hear that real estate is going back up though.

I believe that the inflation rate that the guberment presents is very accurate.

Depending on where you shop for clothing, prices have increased, and in some instances, quality has gone down.

Fuel prices may have spiked 5 years ago, but have not remained at a sustained high as they have done, as shown here....
Historical Gas Price Charts - GasBuddy.com Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=96&units=us

Have you examined what is contained in their 'inflation rate'? It includes large/durable goods, which as I stated before, have remained the same and/or gone down in price, which lowers the overall effective rate of inflation. Not that the g'ment would EVER try to paint something a cheerful color..... :wink:
 
Ya

Quantitative Easing IS inflation, massive inflation. The only reason it hasn't hit us yet is because interest rates are so low. Once interest starts to rise and capital begins to be pulled out of the system, the level of inflation will become painfully clear very quickly..

No, the reason inflation is zilch is because inflation is zilch. And the reason for that is the deflationary pressure of the Bush Meltdown. Even with all the increases in money supply, we still hardly have any inflation. That means that without QE, we'd be in a deflationary spiral of Depression era proportions. Thank God Obama and Bernanke understand basic economics and didn't listen to the austerity freaks.
 
No, the reason inflation is zilch is because inflation is zilch. And the reason for that is the deflationary pressure of the Bush Meltdown. Even with all the increases in money supply, we still hardly have any inflation. That means that without QE, we'd be in a deflationary spiral of Depression era proportions. Thank God Obama and Bernanke understand basic economics and didn't listen to the austerity freaks.
With a debt based currency like we have, you cannot surpass growth in GDP with growth in debt. You can't do this without inflation.(devaluing the currency) It isn't necessarily an immediate action/reaction scenario but over the long term the two will have to balance at some point. It is inevitable.
 
With a debt based currency like we have, you cannot surpass growth in GDP with growth in debt. You can't do this without inflation.(devaluing the currency) It isn't necessarily an immediate action/reaction scenario but over the long term the two will have to balance at some point. It is inevitable.

Since a growing economy (as opposed to the collapsing one Bush left us) results in increased revenues, and since we have the largest economy on the planet, where even a little growth adds up to big revenues, you're wrong.

The UK followed your debt fetishism. They're in a double dip recession (may go triple dip) and are basically screwed for a decade.
 
Big whoop, and big shock. You want to know when something's about to go down in value? Watch television and pay attention to commercials. When tons of places tell you to "invest/buy/sell gold", get out of gold. Now. Right now.

This was obviously predictable. Available supply is being flooded and outpaces "used" gold (in manufacturing and such-and-such). Also since the USD is recovering, the fact that gold values are going down is...well, the word "duh" comes to mind.
 
Since a growing economy (as opposed to the collapsing one Bush left us) results in increased revenues, and since we have the largest economy on the planet, where even a little growth adds up to big revenues, you're wrong.

The UK followed your debt fetishism. They're in a double dip recession (may go triple dip) and are basically screwed for a decade.
I am not wrong.

When you have a currency that is debt based, that currency is joined at the hip to GDP. If debt continues to rise faster than GDP there is going to be a devaluation of the currency. It is inevitable.
 
I am not wrong.

When you have a currency that is debt based, that currency is joined at the hip to GDP. If debt continues to rise faster than GDP there is going to be a devaluation of the currency. It is inevitable.

No such economic law exists, but even if it did, who cares? The longterm effects of the macroeconomic events like the Bush Meltdown are more devastating than inflation if not dealt with. The way to deal with them is increasing money supply and government spending. It worked. Your theory lost. See the UK for the alternative.
 
No such economic law exists, but even if it did, who cares? The longterm effects of the macroeconomic events like the Bush Meltdown are more devastating than inflation if not dealt with. The way to deal with them is increasing money supply and government spending. It worked. Your theory lost. See the UK for the alternative.
It is quite hilarious when someone's own words demonstrate that they have no real understanding of the topic -as your words clearly demonstrate- but they continue to argue in spite of it. Austerity and the "Bush" meltdown have nothing to do with the long term inflation/deflation realities of a debt based currency.

Start with that and get back to us when you're up to speed.
 
No, the reason inflation is zilch is because inflation is zilch. And the reason for that is the deflationary pressure of the Bush Meltdown.

At last he says Bush did something positive.
 
It's simple - gold/silver do well when there is monetary instability and/or inflationary concerns.

They are way down because people believe that the economy is fundamentally getting better - plus it helps BIG TIME that the government deliberately lowers the CPI by changing the measurement formula (like they did recently by going to the C-CPI-U measurement).

If these people are right and the economy continues to get better and eventually it improves enough that the Fed ends it's various stimuli AND the markets continue to grow - then the long term precious metals bull market is over.

If they are wrong and the economy is being propped up by the Fed/debt and has lousy fundamentals AND will eventually collapse when the Fed shoots it's last bullet and/or people lose faith in QE's and then the US dollar loses strength...then gold will (probably) rocket upwards.


In the short term - I personally do not see how gold/silver can go up much/not go down more since SO many people are convinced things are getting better.

In the medium/long term - I personally do not see how gold/silver cannot both pass their all time highs.


We shall see.
 
What economics are you studying? It sure isn't any school I've ever heard of.

We should explain how QE removes the interest earned on bonds from the US economy. If anything QE is deflationary.
 
We should explain how QE removes the interest earned on bonds from the US economy. If anything QE is deflationary.
I would assume its effect on interest rates would be more inflationary than deflationary, but I can see your point.

Still, for him to claim low interest rates are deflationary and money being taken out of the system is inflationary... I may not be an expert, but I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've heard that.
 
I am not wrong.

When you have a currency that is debt based, that currency is joined at the hip to GDP. If debt continues to rise faster than GDP there is going to be a devaluation of the currency. It is inevitable.

Can you explain why?
 
I am not wrong.

When you have a currency that is debt based, that currency is joined at the hip to GDP. If debt continues to rise faster than GDP there is going to be a devaluation of the currency. It is inevitable.

I don't believe it's inevitable per se. Firstly, our GDP is a fair amount below its potential, so the unused capital will first go to boost yield. Secondly, businesses with competition don't raise their prices just because people have more money. There would have to be a scarcity problem, and most industries here haven't had that since WWII--Besides, I don't believe all the people with capital to spare in this country are suddenly going to be buying three times more of everything when the economy improves. Thirdly, the Fed has several tools to pull deflationary brakes on the economy, and as most of them are aimed full tilt at inflation right now, they have a ways to go in the other direction.

But that aside, your argument would imply you favor a currency that's not based on debt, and that I'd certainly agree with.
 
Can you explain why?
The "value" of the dollar is based on nothing other than the promise of the government. When the economy expands, you can put more money into circulation within proportion. Too little and the value increases. To much and the value decreases. Our economy has not expanded NEARLY enough to cover the additional currency in circulation.(debt)

A correction WILL happen sooner or later unless the economy suddenly takes off like a rocket. It is a mathematical certainty.



That's the condensed version...
 
Not on a government promise.

It's value is based on the fact that the citizens of the largest consumer market in the world are legally bound to use it as currency.

That's the ONLY reason those green pieces of paper hold ANY value at all.


On a side note, in 10-20 years, paper money in this country will be a relic of the past. All the major companies (the big employers) are slowly but surely going paperless. Meaning, all employees will be required to get either a card on which that weeks pay goes, or direct deposit. No more checks. Stubs will be online only.


It's the new bit coin.
 
The "value" of the dollar is based on nothing other than the promise of the government. When the economy expands, you can put more money into circulation within proportion. Too little and the value increases. To much and the value decreases. Our economy has not expanded NEARLY enough to cover the additional currency in circulation.(debt)

A correction WILL happen sooner or later unless the economy suddenly takes off like a rocket. It is a mathematical certainty.



That's the condensed version...


Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. Don't concentrate on the "too much money" part very much, that part is relative, what you should concentrate on is "chasing" and "too few goods".

the vast majority of the increase in money supply that we have had since the beggining of the recession is not in active circulation. Thats why we aren't having excessive inflation.

the federal reserve can increase our money supply, but it has no power to distribute money to consumers, other than indirectly through lending, and even then banks are generally on the hook for any defaults from consumers (assuming that we don't have massive bailouts), so consumer banks act as buffers, and generally do their best in selecting loan customers who are highly likely not to default.

Anyhow, the increase in money supply which was created by the fed can't really cause inflation. Not even when they lend to consumers, and certainly not during a period of time that we have unemployment north of 7%. When a consumer gets a loan from a bank, generally it's for a big ticket item. So say I get a loan for a new truck, then that increases demand and creates an inflationary pressure right? Nope, not really. The truck company simply makes another one.

The only way that such lending would be inflationary, is if the truck manufacturing company had some sort of restriction in the number of trucks that it can make. In our economy, with a very high unemployment rate, and keeping in mind that we are in a global economy, where we can purchase goods and even services from people all over the world, we have no current limitations on how much we can produce. And even if there was a restriction on one particular type of goods, we have the largest variety of substitution goods that have ever existed. So maybe that truck that I wanted to purchase was a Chevy, and maybe GM had some sort of issue that prevented them from making any more trucks, I'm quite sure that another truck company, maybe even a foreign one, would be glad to make a truck for me.

Hyper inflation has never existed in history, except when it is accompanied by some sort of restriction in the production of goods. Even the high inflation rate that we had during the early '80's was the result of restrictions in oil (and thus higher prices) placed upon us by OPEC.

Also, there is an automatic system to reduce any excess money in our economy if inflation did start to become excessive. The fed could stop lending, and as debts to the fed were repaid, the money disappear exactly like it was "appeared" to begin with.

And yes, "sooner or later" bad things may happen. Hyperinflation nuts have been saying that forever. I'm still waiting, tick tock tic tock.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom