/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>30177651

>>29714643

This is now a penny-silver-stock-chad thread

>>29690124

>If stocks crash there is going to be either a banking crisis

meant to say

If stocks crash there is going to be either a banking crisis or parabolic Q. E.*

>>29687608
Not if you buy value (silver stocks).

>>29685631

>Your projections >>29683810 , are these prices in 'real terms' or spot?

Real terms. BHS will go 100x in terms of purchasing power when silver goes to $60 in real terms (or doubles from here in real terms).

>also do you stand by your comments about the COMEX defaulting or breaking in March ?

Never said it would necessarily would, simply that it's imminent and that it is very possibly would happen in March. If it doesn't happen in March it will happen soon. The whole system is on the verge of breaking. We have drained almost two thirds of the COMEX.

>Feel free to provide a source for another chart of silver at $960 in 1980

ShadowStats or simply calculate DGR 1:1 and GSR 1:14

>>29682902

THIS is how you zoom out of Bayhorse. You're asking to lose money if you _don't_ have silver exposure.

>>25222084

>Tell me why again btc goes to zero after fiat dollar dies? Where is this logical leap coming from?

Chiefly because, as I say, "Asian nations will demand gold after the reset." I could talk about how worthless BTC is as a currency or a technology,--the fact that it can't serve even 0.1% of mankind, even on the LN--the fact that we can already do everything that BTC can do and more with gold-backed cryptos, like Kinesis. But what it comes to in the end is, essentially, "Will productive nations accept BTC as money, or won't they?". And if the answer is no, then BTC serves no purpose in a post-fiat world. It is only propped up by the illusion that it might replace the dollar. Russia, China, and the other Asian nations have been feverishly hoarding gold during the past ten years, and are now able to issue gold-backed currencies, so it is certain that they will be demanding gold in future. It is in their economic interest to do so. When you store gold you store real wealth--something of economic value. BTC stores no economic value.

>>25223847

False comparison. BTC is speculative, gold is a safe haven. You don't buy gold to make money, you buy it to preserve wealth, to realize your gains. You buy _mining stocks_ to make money. Newmont, the largest gold miner on earth, has an mcap only _1/10th_ that of BTC. BTC has so little upside potential at this point. It's so boring. Whereas silver juniors went 150x merely when silver _doubled_, and silver has to go not merely double but _30x_ to reach its inflation-adjusted ATH of $800. So why on earth would you buy Bitcoin now instead of Impact and Dolly Varden, Mountain Boy Minerals and Blue Lagoon, Eloro and Fireweed Zinc.

>>25206748

Schiff did extremely well from 2001-2011. The index of all miners alone went up 1700%, and that includes the large-caps and horrible mining stocks. He was telling people to buy gold at $200, he kept people out of the Housing Bubble and Dotcom Bubble. His fund didn't do well after 2011 because he never imagined that the Fed would be so insane as actually to destroy the dollar and the U. S. economy, simply to give the bubble economy nine more years of life. But Q. E. has caused real yields on ten-year treasuries to become really negative, and 2018 proves that they can never go up again without crashing the system, so this really is the end now.

>>25206678

In 2001-2011 a lot of silver juniors went 150x. First Majestic Silver was one of them, can be verified on Google. In 1962-1968 the 150x gains were real in terms of purchasing power, so no reason why they shouldn't be so this time also. Especially since silver has to get to $800 to reach its inflation-adjusted ATH, which is not merely double of what it is now but 30x. Which means that this is going to be the greatest silver-miner bull market in history.

>>25206731

Thank you.

>>24231998

Barrick Gold is currently the same price as it was in February, when gold was $1500 an ounce. P. E. ratio is 13 and dividend is 0.70%. Not saying that I even like Barrick Gold, simply making a point of how undervalued these mining stocks are right now. Tesla PE ratio just reached 1,100.

>>21775711
>"gold will moon to $3-4-5k" thesis?
That's already going to happen and you're delusional and historically illiterate if you think otherwise.

Where are all the Gold Silver Ratio FUDDERS lately? Fuckin idiots missed out on leveraged gains 'cause they can't read a chart. It's not too late, you'll just get 4 baggers to our 10 baggers...

>>20882333

No worries. There's a pretty decent chance that it will double within a year, depending on the holdings and your risk tolerance. The best time to get into PMs was probably March, next best time would be now, or after the next major pullback. You're early compared to 95% of people who don't understand boomer rocks yet. But they will soon enough.

>>20712972
I'm getting annoyed too. That plus all the jew, black, politics talk, I'm going back to just lurking again. There's so much great information in the previous threads and on youtube and google, but people seem to want the answers given to them instead of doing a minimum bit of work first.

>Are miners good?
Is a google and youtube search.
>Is x company going to be economical at $24 silver?
Is a good question for discussion and everyone can benefit from

>>20568655