HawkHybrid

41 minutes ago, HawkHybrid said:

how about crowdfunding for items that don't exist yet. how can the inventor secure crowdfunding for x units at y price

if the product doesn't even exist? how do they determine what price to ask for/settle at?

@HerefordBullyun explain this if physical delivery is everything in determining current pricing?

the correct price of something is which you can get buyers and sellers for all of the current stock available?

currently 1 billion toz sellers and buyers are agreeing to make the trade in silver at the current prices($22).

as I've asked @Minimalist many times without an answer, I don't know how many people currently

willing to spend £30/toz for bullion silver but it's not 1 billion toz worth of buyers. this means £30/toz

is currently too much to be able to find buyers for all of the current 1 billion toz ready to be sold and

delivered. anyone who claim that currently silver should be priced at £30/toz or more is simply wrong.

HH

5 hours ago, HerefordBullyun said:

How can it be honoured i.e if there is more paper than silver? It's the paper that's killing the real intrinsic value and price of your commodity.  

markets are about price discovery and is not about physical delivery.

let me ask the question a different way:

why does the contract for 1 toz vaulted silver have vaulting costs(duh) and a silver contract for 1 toz does not?

what is the difference between the deeds to a house(physical ownership) and a 100% mortgage contract on that

same house? (who is responsible for repairs etc., the owner of the deeds or the collector of mortgage payments?)

think of insurance for a 2nd driver, how does that work? do both of you own the same car at the same time?

or are you both insured to the value of the car should the need arise?

the value of something is different to the ownership of something.

few own 1917 london mint sovereigns. how can numerous experts(many times over the number of those sovereigns)

have price discovery negotiations on what the current value of that sovereign should be priced at if it came up for sale?

is it because at the price they are quoting they are confident of finding both a buyer and a seller to make the sale

happen?

how about crowdfunding for items that don't exist yet. how can the inventor secure crowdfunding for x units at y price

if the product doesn't even exist? how do they determine what price to ask for/settle at?

HH

1 hour ago, HerefordBullyun said:

A silver contract is you are buying a piece of vaulted silver and the guarantee is that silver is accounted, audited for and physically exists.

what is the difference between 1 toz of vaulted silver and a silver contract for 1 toz?

(think of the difference between owning a car versus having insurance on a car or, owning the deeds to a house

versus collecting mortgage payments on a house)

HH

Just now, Minimalist said:

Hows it rubbish when that was traded yesterday? Are you making the attempt to deny that reality as well?

it's rubbish because it's irrelevant and purposely there to add complication.

stop beating about the bush and come up with buyers for £30/toz bullion silver.

HH

1 hour ago, Minimalist said:

As @sixgun stated through the Siris source, "45% of annual production of physical silver was sold in the futures market yesterday". Show me and Six 45% of a years worth of supply right this second, right now. C'mon, its supply and demand as you said. Get it up right now.

I don't care about the irrelevant rubbish that @sixgun like to go off topic about.

finding a buyer for pete at £30/toz bullion silver not real world enough for you?

talk is cheap. make belief demand is cheap.

last I heard, pete is ready to sell to a buyer at £30/toz. where's the buyer?

if you can't even find a buyer at £30/toz then talk of pricing silver above that is nonsense.

HH

1 hour ago, Minimalist said:

My own eyes see that their is a Paper:Silver ratio at 188:1 (which equates to $3,000 per ounce - ponzi scheme). Yet, the price is close to $17. Tell me how that isnt deception/manipulation?

bottom line is supply and demand determine price.

market pricing is not about talking big, but about matching genuine buyers and sellers.

forget $3,000, if you can find someone currently willing to pay £30/toz silver bullion then please forward the details to

@Pete, as to my knowledge he's been looking for a buyer at £30/toz since 2011.

all this talk about what silver should be priced at is nonsense when you can't even find genuine buyers at lower prices.

HH

20 minutes ago, Minimalist said:

Thats marked up/set to profitability. The cartel sets the price, its undeniable, I dont know why you are producing the AISC.

it costs $16 in real life energy, labour etc. to produce each ounce. it's not a random figure miners picked out of a hat whenever

they feel like it.

HH

2 minutes ago, Minimalist said:

Thats because the Cartel control the price. 

read the miners annual accounts. aisc cost to mine is ~$16/toz. this is for silver as the primary metal(not by product).

how does the cartel control the price to mine something?

have you read any silver miners annual accounts detailing the costs of energy and labour?

HH

23 minutes ago, Minimalist said:

Are you insinuating that hes wrong?

10 hours ago, Paul said:

Andrew Maguire has been like a stuck record on replay since I heard him first on king world news way back in 2010. He will be right one day but a stopped clock is right twice a day and that's a better track records than him

maybe andrew maguire could be helpful next time and give you a heads up before the silver price is about to drop 4%?

(instead of claiming manipulation after the drops have happened.)

23 minutes ago, Minimalist said:

My own eyes see that their is a Paper:Silver ratio at 188:1 (which equates to $3,000 per ounce - ponzi scheme). Yet, the price is close to $17. Tell me how that isnt deception/manipulation?

but it doesn't see that miners extract silver at ~$16/toz(aisc supply) and the market is currently pricing silver at ~$22/toz(the demand side).

markets are about demand and supply.

expecting something that costs $16 to produce to be sold for $3,000 - who is the one that is doing the rip off deception/manipulation?

name anyone who is currently willing to pay $3,000/toz for bullion silver?

HH

14 hours ago, Minimalist said:

 

no one cares what andrew maguire says.

I'm asking you that if the physical silver prices(with stock for delivery) goes up and down in rhythm

with the up and down movements in the spot price(supposedly manipulated), is it a disconnect between

the over supply of silver on the futures market versus the physical market?

you'd rather believe random vague rantings from the likes of andrew maguire(who profit from pumping

the prices of the metals) rather than what you see with your own eyes? what happened to 'what I see

on my shopping bill don't match with the official inflation figures'? I guess it's double standards as to

if you believe what you see with your own eyes.

https://www.thesilverforum.com/topic/53763-why-dont-they-sell-and-buy-like-before/

a thread about the weak demand made before yesterdays drop.

https://www.thesilverforum.com/topic/53463-please-help-to-keep-the-trade-section-tidy-use-of-emojiscapital-letterspunctuation-in-topic-titles/?tab=comments#comment-548097

the excessive use of capitals by forum sellers as a means to advertise their metal, is becoming a problem.

(also made before yesterdays drop). looks to me like a good bit of physical metal was not shifting at

pre drop prices(hence the trend for some sales thread to try to look more appealing).

the early warning signs are there for people interested in looking. hardly what I'd consider manipulated

manoeuvre with no real world backing.

are you listening to andrew maguire because he did such a great job giving you the heads up about

yesterdays 4% drop on paper for your bullion silver holdings? or are you any closer to taking off the

metals pumpers blindfold?

you see the forum members who tried to warn you of short term over supply that are likely to lead to

short term lower price, they are defined as 'in league with the evil bankers'. how dare they claim that

down movements in the silver price are a normal market price discovery behaviour. potential buyers

need to counter offer with higher prices when haggling for physical silver.(yes, I am mocking how

absurd it would be for silver prices to go up in a straight line)

HH

3 hours ago, Minimalist said:

No point in repeating this reality. People will refuse to believe it. Metals are being hammered.

people refuse to believe it because it's simply not true.

https://www.thesilverforum.com/topic/53821-2021-silver-brits-£550-posted/

physical silver britannias with stock on sale at £22/toz posted. maybe the lowest it's been in months.

you said something about buying all the physical metal I have at pre drop prices, there's good news,

you can likely buy more physical metal than I have at lower than pre drop prices.

who needs to recognise proof when you can keep on kidding yourself that the futures paper market

has no bearing on the current physical market?

HH

1 minute ago, sixgun said:

This is the point

this is the point.

1. last data figures shows there is a higher level of inflation than the 2% inflation target of the fed

2. the fed was asked why is this the case and the response was that it is transitory.

3. the fed expects inflation to get back down to it's 2% target.

4. at 2% it means prices should rise each year by 2%, and that is considered normal and the end to the transitory period of high inflation.

if prices get back to rising by close to 2% (fed figures) in a relatively small time frame then they are correct in claiming it's transitory.

people who don't understand this and take any positive inflation in a fiat currency system as the worse thing ever, needs to read more.

furthermore big price rises in isolated locations/sectors etc. due to supply/regulation etc. don't necessarily count as inflation.

(eg when cardboard prices went up by 300% does not mean inflation was 300% in the same time frame)

HH

1 hour ago, sixgun said:

We will see @Kman - clearly all the prices at my supermarket will be going down and if not i will get you to tell them to put the prices down.

whilst you're doing your accounts for judgement calls,

where do all of the people who got duped by the wss silver squeeze scam go to for compensation?

is it you for promoting that silver was a short squeeze when it's price was over $26?

for one that doesn't supply figures and time frames you can talk about others future predictions.

and on the odd occasion that you do give a time frame,

https://www.thesilverforum.com/topic/51532-solar-wake-up-call/?tab=comments#comment-531502

just make up an excuse explanation,

just reading that sentence shows how ignorant you are about the feds claim of transitory higher inflation.

HH

1 hour ago, sixgun said:

World reserve currencies last various times. We must remember many of these periods had partial backing of currencies with gold. Today we have the full fiat system. Monopoly money.

random, irrelevant and vague rubbish as usual.

it's not like we don't have figures for since 1971 bretton woods or 1947 last date for british silver coin minted.

what's wrong, can't bring yourself to say that it's been 50 years since bretton woods as that would put a time

perspective into how silly it would be to expect a complete failure of the american $ within the next few years?

3 hours ago, HawkHybrid said:

the £ has taken over 70 years to fail(I'm counting from 1947), and counting...

HH

2 hours ago, Minimalist said:

Im not playing any game. I use metals as protection.

always dodging the essence of the question. (people don't take you seriously because you are acting childish when confronted

with a serious question)

you are either holding metals long term like china and russia, which you should not expect high short term gains(moon shots)

alternatively, you are expecting high short term gains, in which case don't use china and russia's long term positioning in metal

as a way to defend your short term positioning. long term and short term positioning are very different things.

HH

4 minutes ago, Minimalist said:

Once Russia and China call it, you know and I know that its curtains.

once china and russia call it in decades time because they both play the decades long game.

@Minimalist question is, are you playing the decades long game that china and russia are playing?

timing is everything?

HH

6 minutes ago, Minimalist said:

Russia, China and myself are all wrong and in denial. Got you.

china and russia are playing the long game. decades long game.

HH

13 minutes ago, Minimalist said:

It comes down to the threat of force.

As it stands, the United States is now got its tail inbetween its legs. Its coming. The attempts made by the World Economic Forum and other globalist entities is an act of desperation to maintain the central banking cartel. The last act is the "green energy" delusion. The cartel want to print/credit $5trillion. Its over. Finished.

so basically you are saying 'its different this time because...'

the £ has taken over 70 years to fail(I'm counting from 1947), and counting...

if history rhymes/repeats then should the american $ be expected to take over 70 years to fail?

HH

49 minutes ago, Minimalist said:

See if you bring the average keynesians attention to history and explain no fiat system has ever survived the denial, the outright refusal to acknowledge this fact is so prevalent that you are met with "its different this time because…"

no one here is denying that fiat currencies will all fail.

historically, how long has it taken for a world reserve currency to fail?

the £ has seen decades of failing and each £ is still trading above each $(current world reserve currency).

people are claiming that there is going to be more of the same for many years to come.

you might find that it is you who is in denial with 'its different this time because...'

HH

13 hours ago, sixgun said:

Knowing mining production means you know most of the supply side (which i don't believe anyone was actually disputing until you decided to make a strawman argument out of it). BUT it doesn't mean you understand an important part of the supply side.

more contradiction of terms. supply is about numbers.

when someone has the lion share of supplying the market, they are the most important part of supply.

if the miners average 80%+ share of each years mining supply is not the most important part of supply,

then you really need to state with figures what is?

'an important part of supply' sounds like keith neumeyer is claiming that he is important because the

figures are obviously not highlighting how important he is.

talk is cheap. stump up the figures if you want to be taken seriously.

HH

41 minutes ago, sixgun said:

He is not disputing those numbers with the Silver Institute but after than he says they cannot know the numbers b/c that information isn't known. 

how convenient he is not disputing the numbers that have annual production accounts to back them up.

but he's vague about which numbers he's does think they are making up.

(he can't be wrong then can he, ... it's not those numbers either, so keep on guessing)

sounds like he's full of ****.

and you openly dismiss thesilverinstitutes figures knowing that at least their mining production

figures are close enough to being correct. and you base this on a keith neumeyers word?

his word that is so vague it cannot be verified either way?

(doesn't knowing the mining production mean that you know most of the supply side of things?

there's only two sides to the equation, demand and supply. and you already know most of the

supply side.)

HH

4 hours ago, sixgun said:

When two people come up with the same number one or other could be making that number up - they could both be making it up.

this is a real problem if one of them happen to be keith neumeyer talking about silver demand.

let me spell it out what I'm thinking so it's clearer.

keith neumeyer has no honour as,

he is bad mouthing thesilverinstitute to have untrustworthy figures,

figures which are identical to his own.

all of which I can''t prove.

you can look up the data but I tallied the figures for one of the years of all of the significant silver mining

production(official annual report figures). the total came close enough (%) to the number shown by

thesilverinstitute for that year. feel free to do the maths yourself if you don't believe me.

I expect the 1 billion toz figure is correct or close enough.

anyone can prove or disprove this but nobody here seems to be willing to spend the time to do the maths.

but then again people here are full of talk. unwilling to do the maths. first to dismiss the findings of someone

who has done some of the maths, purely on the basis that it's result doesn't fit the prejudice.

HH

2 hours ago, Minimalist said:

How the f*ck can it be wrong when the existance of "securities" creates more claims on gold than there is actual gold. How is that a conspiracy theory?

Tell me, right, what happens when all the claims on gold, at the same time, or near a short period of time, ask for delivery? What happens to the price?

Tell me how, right now, how that isnt a ponzi scheme.

there is a time and a place for everything.

nothing goes up in a straight line.

for metals to correct might take years/decades.

consider this, it's been decades since the height of the british empire. yet each £ is still worth

more than $1. currently the top economy in the world yet each $ can't buy a £. how is that logical?

answer is it's not. but it takes time. the decades that have past is not yet enough time.

unless an emergency, in the night, if you run out of milk, it can wait till the morning.

there is a time and a place for everything.

(just so that you know that I'm not having a go at you personally. we've all been known to only

hold rock, come hell or high water. there is no shame in holding rock, everyone has done it. once

you've learnt to hold rock, you can use it as a stepping stone to discover more.)

there is a time when it's favourable to hold physical silver. but the charts say that that time is not

here yet. I never heard any forum 'price suppression' objections a few years ago when I said it was

favourable to hold gold for at least a few months or more. why do all these objections suddenly

appear when I say the price is likely to (overall)fall over the next 6 months or so?

for the trading of gold, a century amounts to next to nothing. for a person waiting, a century is a

lifetime wasted.

HH

18 minutes ago, sixgun said:

We hear from a Silver Institute sponsor Keith Neumeyer who is on the inside track that the Silver Institute is making numbers up.

keith neumeyer must be right,

but you can't explain to me why his figure of 1 billion toz in demand is correct when the same 1 billion toz in demand

claimed by the thesilverinstitute is made up?

and yet you insist on taking his word as if it were gospel?

Quote

Their report is virtually worthless.

you know what is actually virtually worthless?...

HH

9 minutes ago, Minimalist said:

here's the truth, in 2014 when I first got into metals I had all the same thoughts about the fed, printing etc that

you have now.(I've been there and have the coin dated physical silver to prove it) so don't make it out like it's

a revelation. the difference is I cross examined the figures that I can work out to be credible and they don't

match with information(which I now understand to be conspiracy theories). either all the figures from all the

different sources are wrong or the theories are wrong. so voicing to not buy silver at the highs hasn't done my

forum rep any good but have saved me from larger paper losses.

you can make progress(scissors and paper also exists) or,

you can take rock every time?

HH