[quote=sofistek]In a world that will probably see collapse or some stages of collapse in the lifetimes of everyone here, I don’t see the benefit of holding a largely useless material simply in the hope that it will enable its holders to think they are wealthy as society collapses around them.
[/quote]
Let’s look at the situation from a little different perspective. I can’t recall members of various collapsed civilizations or declining empires or countries being conquered or countries experiencing currency destruction or persecuted populations including Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Israelites, Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, Ottomans, Mongols, Dutch, French, English, Russians, Vietnamese, etc., etc. ever abandoning their gold because it was a useless substance. But suddenly, this time it’s different and gold will become completely useless and valueless in every way, shape, and form?
I think not.
[quote=ao]Let’s look at the situation from a little different perspective. I can’t recall members of various collapsed civilizations or declining empires or countries being conquered or countries experiencing currency destruction or persecuted populations including Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Israelites, Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, Ottomans, Mongols, Dutch, French, English, Russians, Vietnamese, etc., etc. ever abandoning their gold because it was a useless substance. But suddenly, this time it’s different and gold will become completely useless and valueless in every way, shape, and form?[/quote]So you believe that the use of gold as a means of exchange was widespread among the members of those collapsed civilisations? I think that’s the prevalent view here but I’ve read equally strong views that it was not widespread, that it’s a myth. No one said that gold was ever completely abandoned - we wouldn’t be considering it now as a means of exchange if it had been. But I think it is wishful thinking to suppose that during or after collapse, the few with gold will be any, or much, better off than the majority without. Those with skills and those in resilient close-knit communities will do far, far better than those who simply have a lot of gold stashed away.It’s possible that gold and silver will be able to be used in limited ways during and after collapse but it may take the rise of the next unsustainable civilisation before the gold hoarders (or their great descendants) will be able to start being able to use gold and silver freely for whatever their bodies need or whatever their hearts desire.
Unfortunately, articles like this from Chris, will probably get a lot of people thinking they could make a killing (what with notions of an ounce of gold being potentially worth $65,000 or more). I think it has no longer become a means of maintaining wealth in order to better prepare but rather a business as usual investment, with the hopes of riches to come. I’d like to see Chris’s take on some of the counter points raised here but, sadly, he doesn’t usually involve himself in these types of discussions.
Tony
[quote=sofistek][quote=ao]Let’s look at the situation from a little different perspective. I can’t recall members of various collapsed civilizations or declining empires or countries being conquered or countries experiencing currency destruction or persecuted populations including Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Israelites, Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, Ottomans, Mongols, Dutch, French, English, Russians, Vietnamese, etc., etc. ever abandoning their gold because it was a useless substance. But suddenly, this time it’s different and gold will become completely useless and valueless in every way, shape, and form?[/quote]So you believe that the use of gold as a means of exchange was widespread among the members of those collapsed civilisations? I think that’s the prevalent view here but I’ve read equally strong views that it was not widespread, that it’s a myth. No one said that gold was ever completely abandoned - we wouldn’t be considering it now as a means of exchange if it had been. But I think it is wishful thinking to suppose that during or after collapse, the few with gold will be any, or much, better off than the majority without. Those with skills and those in resilient close-knit communities will do far, far better than those who simply have a lot of gold stashed away.
It’s possible that gold and silver will be able to be used in limited ways during and after collapse but it may take the rise of the next unsustainable civilisation before the gold hoarders (or their great descendants) will be able to start being able to use gold and silver freely for whatever their bodies need or whatever their hearts desire.
Unfortunately, articles like this from Chris, will probably get a lot of people thinking they could make a killing (what with notions of an ounce of gold being potentially worth $65,000 or more). I think it has no longer become a means of maintaining wealth in order to better prepare but rather a business as usual investment, with the hopes of riches to come. I’d like to see Chris’s take on some of the counter points raised here but, sadly, he doesn’t usually involve himself in these types of discussions.
Tony
[/quote]
If you can cite me some historical instances of citizens with gold being worse off than those without, I’d be interested in hearing about them. I don’t know why but you seem to perseverate in this notion that having gold precludes having skills. Also, I haven’t seen anyone say they think their gold is going to be worth $65K/oz. In addition, you seem fixated on gold as a medium of exchange or as an investment. I think most folks here would use silver as a medium of exchange or an investment or some other goods or services for exchange. I think more than anything else, most think of gold as a store of wealth. Here’s why:
Attributes of gold
Rarity
Stable supply
Chemically inert
Durability
Divisibilitiy
Easily stored
Portability
Universal recognition
Liquidity
Not only a commodity but also a currency
Not someone else’s liability
Can be wholly owned
Consider that one of the most important assets in a collapse is flexibility of thought and action. How flexible are you? How married are you to not having gold? Personally, I’d consider it financial suicide not to hold some wealth in PMs in our present economic climate but that’s just me.
That people might be worse off with gold was an opinion, I have no historical evidence, so feel free to dismiss it, as you obviously have. It was an opinion expressed earlier only insofar as those seen trying to only buy their survival instead of chipping in might be ostracised in their community. It’s just an opinion so don’t rail at it too hard.I don’t think buying gold precludes gaining skills and have never said so. All I’ve said is that gold shouldn’t be thought of as an alternative to preparations, in any way, unless one is physically incapable of preparing.
If you have spare cash that you can’t use in preparations, then buying gold is as good as anything else. Or if your preparations may take a few years, then gold may be a good way of preserving your wealth during that time.
Financial suicide not to hold PMs? Nah. Only if you plan to prepare over a period of time does it make sense to me to hold gold. It can’t easily be exchanged for goods and services now and so you would have to sell it in order to extract its value for your preparations. Most people actually don’t have PMs (in any significant amount) so by your reckoning almost everyone is comitting financial suicide. You could hold cash instead - yes, it’s value is eroding but, so far, inflation is not so onerous that its value will be gone before you can make good use of it, and most countries have some form of insurance against banks holding your savings going bust, though spreading it around is probably wise. Cash is always immediately available and accepted by everyone as a means of exchange, now. Maybe you’re right but I’m dismayed that Chris’s blog seems to be becoming a gold selling forum; his last three blog entries are all about gold and PMs. You’d think things weren’t going to change that drastically - just buy gold and you’ll be all set.
[quote=sofistek]That people might be worse off with gold was an opinion, I have no historical evidence, so feel free to dismiss it, as you obviously have.
[/quote]
Indeed, there is ZERO historical evidence.
But your statements implied this. And, as far as I know, I don’t think there’s a single post on this forum that ever said or implied that gold was an alternative to preparations.
There are very few where preparations will take less than a few years.
So how exactly do you plan to hold onto wealth in a hyperinflationary environment?
When everone is doing something investment wise, that’s exactly the time I don’t want to be doing what they’re doing. Compare the returns for individuals who started holding PMs in 2001 versus those holding stocks, bonds, or cash. If the returns on the latter 3 asset classes compared to the returns on PMs aren’t a form of financial suicide, I don’t know what is.
On PMs as currency- “I think that’s the prevalent view here but I’ve read equally strong views that it was not widespread, that it’s a myth.”
I’d like to see some sources on that. I’m a bit of a history buff, and the use of gold and silver as currency in multiple, long-lived civilizations is well-documented. In fact, many of the coins minted still exist in museums and private collections. Additionally, even when it was not used as currency, it was always highly valued. I can find no instances where civilized peoples considered gold to be of low value.
As a store of wealth, PMs enable those with wealth to remain wealthy after a catastrophic collapse. The concept that the wealthy will fair no better than the average man under such conditions is also without historic precedent. Even in countries experiencing violent revolution AGAINST the rich (for example Cuba), money gives an escape route not available to those without it.
So far, all the arguments I’ve seen against gold involve a view of the future without precedent and in contradiction to human nature. The “Mad Max” scenario is simply fiction, humans never remain in a state of anarchy for any extended period, they group up and begin forming rules to live by, and mediums of trade. We inherently seek order and social structure.
[quote=tictac1]On PMs as currency- “I think that’s the prevalent view here but I’ve read equally strong views that it was not widespread, that it’s a myth.”
I’d like to see some sources on that. I’m a bit of a history buff, and the use of gold and silver as currency in multiple, long-lived civilizations is well-documented. In fact, many of the coins minted still exist in museums and private collections. Additionally, even when it was not used as currency, it was always highly valued. I can find no instances where civilized peoples considered gold to be of low value.
As a store of wealth, PMs enable those with wealth to remain wealthy after a catastrophic collapse. The concept that the wealthy will fair no better than the average man under such conditions is also without historic precedent. Even in countries experiencing violent revolution AGAINST the rich (for example Cuba), money gives an escape route not available to those without it.
So far, all the arguments I’ve seen against gold involve a view of the future without precedent and in contradiction to human nature. The “Mad Max” scenario is simply fiction, humans never remain in a state of anarchy for any extended period, they group up and begin forming rules to live by, and mediums of trade. We inherently seek order and social structure.
[/quote]
This reinforces what I’ve concluded, also. A question for you, however, regarding the “Mad Max” scenario. While I agree that humans are unlikely to remain in a state of anarchy, isn’t it possible or maybe even likely that we would pass through that stage en route to a more stable society? And wouldn’t it be prudent to prepare for that scenario however unlikely it may be?
Before I prepared for it, I’d like to see historical precendent for it, so that I’d have at least a vague idea of what it might look like. I’m open to suggestions on periods of history that might resemble this.However, you can’t REALLY prepare for the mad max world. After all, it’s essentially a “might makes right” scenario, which means to “prepare” is to be able to resist another’s use of force. Gun nuts like to fantisize about scenarios where they single-handedly fend off maruading groups, like a western frontiersman fighting the “indians”. The reality, however, is that people group up so quickly it’s unlikely you will NOT be part of a group of people, unless you purposesly choose not to, which is suicide.
We already have groups of people that are essentially prepared to fill any power vacuum left. MS-13, LA Crips, etc. In CA, these are the folks you will either align with, resist, or be victimized by. Witness Mexico. Of course, I have no doubt various militias would pop up to combat these, ala the colonies of America immmediately after the revolution.
Another possibility of collapse is that former LE agents will become mafia, like the USSR after their collapse. Unemployed government workers with few skills could easily turn to crime, as seen in the former Soviet Union. Some might argue they already are a criminal enterprise.
In any of these scenarios, having wealth can both make you a target, and provide a means of escape/survival.
A well-off homestead or farm, located remotely, is a very attractive target for groups of murderers/thieves. Look at South Africa.
The best defense is to proactively create close-knit communities, like Mr. Martenson says. Look at the Amish and Mennonite communities, if they did not have to pay exorbitant taxes on their land, they would not need the “english” at all. They will ride out any financial upheaval far less scathed than the rest of us, by virtue of community and practical skills.
[quote=ao]Indeed, there is ZERO historical evidence.[/quote]Well, I doubt you know that for certain so my opinion is as valid as yours.[quote=ao]But your statements implied this [that gold is an alternative to preparations]. And, as far as I know, I don’t think there’s a single post on this forum that ever said or implied that gold was an alternative to preparations.[/quote]Well, that’s your opinion. When the articles don’t explicitly give the conditions under which gold might be a reasonable investment to make, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it’s an alternative to preparations or, at least, a reason to delay preparations. If the articles stated that before making a long term investment in PMs make sure that you have sufficient liquidity to complete your preparations, then that would be fine. Alternatively, if they stated that those who cannot make their preparations for some time would be wise to place some of their wealth in PMs, to extract when they can make their preparations, then that would be fine too. I just don’t see that but apologies to Chris if he does make this point often.
[quote=ao]There are very few where preparations will take less than a few years.[/quote]Just to be clear, I meant that the investment for preparations may take a few years. The physical labour and land preparations may take many years, but the investment in tools and skills may largely take place over a shorter time period - and perhaps should; there is no knowing when the facilities to make those investments in preparations will not be available, or easily available.
[quote=ao]So how exactly do you plan to hold onto wealth in a hyperinflationary environment?[/quote]Well, it’s not clear that there will be such an environment and Chris has been in two minds about this, though currently appears to favour an inflationary environment (though I’m not sure about hyperinflationary). Of course, if we see inflation creep near or into double figures, that might be a signal to do something different, or complete preparations ASAP. Almost no-one else will be holding significant quantities of PMs so, at least, you won’t be any worse off that most people, if you can’t make those PM purchases.
[quote=ao]When everone is doing something investment wise, that’s exactly the time I don’t want to be doing what they’re doing.[/quote]But that really misses my point. If you’re looking to make a financial killing then I’d agree. The fact that you then compare returns between PMs and stocks/bonds/cash shows that you’re viewing it as a “normal” investment vehicle, rather than a means to maintain wealth. In that case, you’re right and good luck to you. But that’s not akin to suicide. Though people are generally becoming worse off, suicide is not the right word to use. Maybe stupid? But if I can meet my preparation requirements with what I have, then I’m not going to wait around for many years, in an attempt to get a good return from PMs so that I can complete my preparations. Who knows how this will pan out and what the time scale will be. I get mixed messages from Chris; a couple of his posts this year have urged the need to complete preparations but then we get a series of entries on the investment potential of gold.
[quote=tictac1]I’d like to see some sources on that. I’m a bit of a history buff, and the use of gold and silver as currency in multiple, long-lived civilizations is well-documented.[/quote]As a common means of exchange? I don’t have sources off-hand but some of these ideas (that gold will immediately take over from fiat money after collapse) come from The Automatic Earth blog. This isn’t to say that gold will lose its value. Among those who can use it as a means of exchange, it will remain valuable but it makes sense to me that, given most people won’t have any or much PMs, PMs won’t be a widespread means of exchange for a long time. So if you have some, you might well need to hold onto it for quite a long time before being able to realise its agreed value.[quote=tictac1]As a store of wealth, PMs enable those with wealth to remain wealthy after a catastrophic collapse.[/quote]Well yes, at least nominally, though, as I say, they may need to hold onto their PMs for a while before being able to use that wealth. However, I’ve really gone off the notion of wealth inequality, so I can’t say that that would be a convincing reason for me.
[quote=tictac1]So far, all the arguments I’ve seen against gold involve a view of the future without precedent and in contradiction to human nature.[/quote]And I think the view of the future held by the pro-PM movement is a very rosy view and, IMHO, unlikely to be borne out, at least for quite some time. However, there may be patchy regions, as collapse progresses, where the gamble pays off. I remain unconvinced, but I’d say that one should buy one’s gold and silver in as small amounts as possible (small coins, maybe, or 1 gram ingots), since I don’t think many traders will want to, or be in a position to, give change, if they do accept gold/silver (and are confident it actually is gold or silver).
[quote=sofistek][quote=ao]Indeed, there is ZERO historical evidence.[/quote]Well, I doubt you know that for certain so my opinion is as valid as yours.
[quote=ao]But your statements implied this [that gold is an alternative to preparations]. And, as far as I know, I don’t think there’s a single post on this forum that ever said or implied that gold was an alternative to preparations.[/quote]Well, that’s your opinion. When the articles don’t explicitly give the conditions under which gold might be a reasonable investment to make, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it’s an alternative to preparations or, at least, a reason to delay preparations. If the articles stated that before making a long term investment in PMs make sure that you have sufficient liquidity to complete your preparations, then that would be fine. Alternatively, if they stated that those who cannot make their preparations for some time would be wise to place some of their wealth in PMs, to extract when they can make their preparations, then that would be fine too. I just don’t see that but apologies to Chris if he does make this point often.
[quote=ao]There are very few where preparations will take less than a few years.[/quote]Just to be clear, I meant that the investment for preparations may take a few years. The physical labour and land preparations may take many years, but the investment in tools and skills may largely take place over a shorter time period - and perhaps should; there is no knowing when the facilities to make those investments in preparations will not be available, or easily available.
[quote=ao]So how exactly do you plan to hold onto wealth in a hyperinflationary environment?[/quote]Well, it’s not clear that there will be such an environment and Chris has been in two minds about this, though currently appears to favour an inflationary environment (though I’m not sure about hyperinflationary). Of course, if we see inflation creep near or into double figures, that might be a signal to do something different, or complete preparations ASAP. Almost no-one else will be holding significant quantities of PMs so, at least, you won’t be any worse off that most people, if you can’t make those PM purchases.
[quote=ao]When everone is doing something investment wise, that’s exactly the time I don’t want to be doing what they’re doing.[/quote]But that really misses my point. If you’re looking to make a financial killing then I’d agree. The fact that you then compare returns between PMs and stocks/bonds/cash shows that you’re viewing it as a “normal” investment vehicle, rather than a means to maintain wealth. In that case, you’re right and good luck to you. But that’s not akin to suicide. Though people are generally becoming worse off, suicide is not the right word to use. Maybe stupid? But if I can meet my preparation requirements with what I have, then I’m not going to wait around for many years, in an attempt to get a good return from PMs so that I can complete my preparations. Who knows how this will pan out and what the time scale will be. I get mixed messages from Chris; a couple of his posts this year have urged the need to complete preparations but then we get a series of entries on the investment potential of gold.
[/quote]
ROTFLMAO. A vision enters my head of you standing on the sloping deck of the Titanic, resolutely lecturing the passengers about the rashness of abandoning ship as the sea water begins to lap at your feet. Thank you for the entertaining exchange.
BTW, gold’s just gone up about 7% in 2 weeks and silver over 15%. How’s that cash doing?
[quote=ao]BTW, gold’s just gone up about 7% in 2 weeks and silver over 15%. How’s that cash doing?[/quote]Well, this is a pretty clear illustration of the difference between your view and mine. I’m not interested in making a fast buck. I’m not interested in getting as wealthy as I can (in financial terms) as quickly as possible. My cash, actually, is doing better than inflation, just. And that’s fine with me.
Look, I’ve never said I’m against gold but that I find the arguments for holding it either unconvincing or morally unsound. But your ethics may vary. However, I’m still considering gold and could probably afford 10-15 ounces, quite easily, but the only reason I see for doing so would be for a short term hedge against the banks that hold most of my money going bust. In the short term, I don’t think that’s likely, at least for the banks I’m using. I think it is just as likely that gold will plummet in price in the short term (I think Chris said this in his article). I see no benefit in holding it for the long haul, partly because it will likely have to be a very long haul, since it’s unlikely to be a widespread means of exchange for a very long time, and partly because I see no benefit in being wealthy in a land of financial paupers, unless I am physically and mentally incapable of acquiring skills and tools that will be far more useful to my, and my family’s, survival than a few ounces of some inert metal.
Most of Chris’s messages here are spot on but he seems to have a fixation for gold, perhaps driven by the vision of untold riches (though I know he ditched the wealthy lifestyle many years ago). I think that vision is what has driven many gold followers here, demonstrated by the quote from you above.
Well, this is a pretty clear illustration of the difference between your view and mine. I’m not interested in making a fast buck. I’m not interested in getting as wealthy as I can (in financial terms) as quickly as possible. My cash, actually, is doing better than inflation, just. And that’s fine with me.
Look, I’ve never said I’m against gold but that I find the arguments for holding it either unconvincing or morally unsound. But your ethics may vary. However, I’m still considering gold and could probably afford 10-15 ounces, quite easily, but the only reason I see for doing so would be for a short term hedge against the banks that hold most of my money going bust. In the short term, I don’t think that’s likely, at least for the banks I’m using. I think it is just as likely that gold will plummet in price in the short term (I think Chris said this in his article). I see no benefit in holding it for the long haul, partly because it will likely have to be a very long haul, since it’s unlikely to be a widespread means of exchange for a very long time, and partly because I see no benefit in being wealthy in a land of financial paupers, unless I am physically and mentally incapable of acquiring skills and tools that will be far more useful to my, and my family’s, survival than a few ounces of some inert metal.
Most of Chris’s messages here are spot on but he seems to have a fixation for gold, perhaps driven by the vision of untold riches (though I know he ditched the wealthy lifestyle many years ago). I think that vision is what has driven many gold followers here, demonstrated by the quote from you above.
[/quote]
Omigosh, this is just too funny!!! So if suddenly, the return on gold fell relative to the return on cash, would you then dump your cash for gold because you’d be getting wealthy too fast? Do you think there’s an morality associated with poverty or with getting rich slowly and an immorality associated with getting rich more quickly? Because if you do, you can assuage your guilt even more by giving your remaining cash away before it’s inflated away to nothingness. Come to think of it, applying your point of view, it’s morally wrong to hold any cash. It’s hoarding. I think you should distribute it all to those needy individuals in your community. You’re making a fast buck on it relative to those who’ve lost their money.
And sorry but I sincerely doubt that your cash is outpacing inflation unless you believe some of the imaginary inflation figures generated by governments.
Actually I think you’re far more fixated on Chris discussing gold than Chris is fixated on gold (and I don’t think he’s fixated at all). You’ve perseverated on that issue with every single post.
I don’t see why there has to be this sort of back-and-forth about varying mileages. On the one hand, let’s say I recently became aware that I should be preparing for an uncertain future. Should my priority be preserving my wealth, or investing in things that would make living self-sustaining? Let’s say, I choose to buy gold, and years later I’m living in an apartment and buying cartons of tomatoes with my gold eagles. Is this sustainable? Would it not have been better to invest in some land and grow the tomatoes myself? Or let’s say, I invested in land, now should I invest in aquaponics or gold? Is that a no-brainer question?
On the other hand, if you have land and are, or on the way to being, self-sustaining, why not own gold to pay for taxes, etc.? I can’t argue with that. And for those who can do both, you are not as many as you think 
I don’t see why there has to be this sort of back-and-forth about varying mileages. On the one hand, let’s say I recently became aware that I should be preparing for an uncertain future. Should my priority be preserving my wealth, or investing in things that would make living self-sustaining? Let’s say, I choose to buy gold, and years later I’m living in an apartment and buying cartons of tomatoes with my gold eagles. Is this sustainable? Would it not have been better to invest in some land and grow the tomatoes myself? Or let’s say, I invested in land, now should I invest in aquaponics or gold? Is that a no-brainer question?
[/quote]
???
I think I’d to buy some land with a 100% down ARM, plant some gold, throw the tomatoes out, and use my cash as mulch.
r, go back, read the exchange carefully, and note the subtext. I realize some things are lost on the intraweb.;-)
[quote=ao]
???
I think I'd to buy some land with a 100% down ARM, plant some gold, throw the tomatoes out, and use my cash as mulch.
r, go back, read the exchange carefully, and note the subtext. I realize some things are lost on the intraweb.;-) [/quote]
I think I made a valid point about the priorities of those with more limited means. You don't have to make light of it, and I really don't care about the lines between the lines.
[quote=ao]Omigosh, this is just too funny!!! So if suddenly, the return on gold fell relative to the return on cash, would you then dump your cash for gold because you’d be getting wealthy too fast?[/quote]Thanks for another example. Chris has usually emphasised the “retaining wealth” aspect of PMs, not the “getting wealthy” aspect. It seems that you are too into wealth to ever see another point of view.
[quote=ao]And sorry but I sincerely doubt that your cash is outpacing inflation[/quote]You can doubt it all you like, it doesn’t bother me. Most of my cash is on term deposit, getting between 4% and 5% interest. Inflation, here in New Zealand, is about 4.5%. Up until the last month, I was getting 5%-5.5%. That’s fine with me. I don’t mind if it falls a little below inflation, that’s life. I’ve got more important things to worry about, unless inflation starts ratcheting up to double figures. Also, interest rates are expected to rise before too long, as the official economy is apparently doing quite well over here. Yes, the figures are probably wrong (though not as wrong as the US figures) but I’m doing OK.
[quote=ao]Actually I think you’re far more fixated on Chris discussing gold than Chris is fixated on gold[/quote]Hmm. The last 4 entries on his blog, removing the advert for the German version of the Crash Course, are heavily into PMs. I think that demonstrates where his current thoughts are centered. I’m not fixated on discussing gold but it does concern me that this site, which started so well with the crash course and preparations, seems so heavily weighted towards buying gold and silver. Yes, mention it occasionally, even have an in depth report on it once or twice a year, but to have four blog entries in a row (apart from the advert) on it seems a bit over the top.
Quite right, r.
This is pretty much what I’ve been saying. Preparations first. Any spare after that, by all means buy gold and silver. Also, gambling on gold and silver in the short term as a means of possibly retaining wealth as you prepare (selling as needed to prepare), is fine too. Personally, I’m not convinced of the short term gamble and long term has no end, plus your gold is of no worth until you spend it, if you can spend it.
[quote=r]
Actually, as far as I can see, there was no mention of those with more limited means. That wasn’t the discussion here.
Also, right now, land is significantly more expensive than gold or silver.
http://cherokeetribune.com/view/full_story/14721613/article-Investors-see-big-potential-down-on-the-farm?instance=special%20_coverage_right_column
It’s pretty hard to buy arable land in sizes smaller than an acre and good arable land is going for significantly more than an ounce of gold per acre. So I’m not sure how valid your argument is.
Sorry you don’t seem to have a sense of humor but I tend to make light of almost everything. My father was joking as he was dying. I have those same genes. If it offends you, sorry … you can always choose not to read my posts.
Actually, Sofistek, you seem to be more into me being into wealth than I am. So are you saying you’re opposed to increasing your wealth? If so, do you think it’s immoral and if so, why? Certainly if you’re opposed to wealth, why not give yours away to charity. Why are you saving your money and getting interest? That sounds hypocritical to me. But if you think I’m into wealth, that’s fine. I certainly am into increasing my wealth but it’s not my sole pre-occupation, just one of many things that I do. If I have the option of decreasing it, keeping it the same, or increasing it, I’d be a fool not to increase it. If increasing it is anathema to you, however, why not invest it in something where you lose money? That’ll take care of that distasteful issue of increasing your wealth.
And since you stated your interest rate on your term deposits, I’m sure you realize that the TRUE rate of inflation in NZ is higher than your return. Or maybe you don’t? Also, from what I’ve seen, the NZ economy figures are questionable in several ways. The government statistics office in Christchurch was destroyed. Also, I’m sure you’ve heard of something called “disaster economy” … not something you want as a long term economic engine.
Also, if Chris’s blogs about PMs are disturbing to you, I would elect not to read them. Better not to read them than be distressed. Attitude and stress control will become increasingly important in times to come. Unlike you, however, I think most folks here find them valuable.