Bratnia

8 minutes ago, Gruff said:

Sorry, I don't buy that at all. What are they basing that on? Their basket of carefully chosen items? 

It's the April inflation figure that many pensions/wage etc. increases will be based upon government figure.

2 minutes ago, bobski said:

Current Price

£1,872.89

Live Change

0.06% £+0.97

Live high £1,873.07

 

Live low £1,871.81

Is the forums top left gold price indicator a lagged figure as you're often seem to be a few pence higher?

Can you see the woman in this image?

.

.

.

She has her nose sniffing the goats butt

3 hours ago, theman73 said:

Come her, come to the Paradise 

 

Are the ghosts friendly then?

1 hour ago, HonestMoneyGoldSilver said:

I'm a big fan of Sikhs, great people. Sikhs, Gurkhas, Japanese, Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, even Chinese. All good as gold. (you can infer who doesn't make the gold list by those I haven't mentioned). I saw stats today that 75% of burglaries aren't attended by the police in England - that's not 75% of crimes going unsolved that 75% of cases when the police don't even bother to show up! You can take a wild guess who the criminals are breaking into 500+ houses a day with zero repercussions. So if you're keeping your gold at home make triple sure to make the thieves think twice. Stick up a few 2A placards with American flags if you have to

And advise that when a group of gunmen walk around shooting fish in a barrel (people) is for those fish to 'hide'. I'm all for the US way of the right to bear arms/defend oneself/family. 4 gunmen walking into a Texan gathering and pulling guns inclined to have 100+ guns pulled and pointed back. When the UK police force (had to be at least 6 feet tall) transition to a police service (rainbow) and that service is poor, don't even after attend a burglary let alone arrive in time in force to capture the burglars, that betrays the population.

BoE leave interest rates as-is, inflation has now declined to pretty much the 2% target rate, so increasingly more positive real yields, and gold is ... up (1870). Go figure!

33 minutes ago, Thelonerangershorse said:

10011000111100010101010101100011000100100010001110101001111000110100011000111100011000111000110000111100011010101010001010101001110001100111000111110001101010100011000110101011010110101010101001101010101010101101001010101110011010101010101010101010101010101010101100110101010101010111001110110101010101010101011010101011110100011001010100110001111000101010101011000110001001000100011101010011110001101000110001111000110001110001100001111000110101010100010101010011100011001110001111100011010101000110001101010110101101010101010011010101010101011010010101011100110101010101010101010101010101010101011001101010101010101110011101101010101010101010110101010111101000110010101001100011110001010101010110001100010010001000111010100111100011010001100011110001100011100011000011110001101010101000101010100111000110011100011111000110101010001100011010101101011010101010100110101010101010110100101010111001101010101010101010101010101010101010110011010101010101011100111011010101010101010101101010101111010001100101010011000111100010101010101100011000100100010001110101001111000110100011000111100011000111000110000111100011010101010001010101001110001100111000111110001101010100011000110101011010110101010101001101010101010101101001010101110011010101010101010101010101010101010101100110101010101010111001110110101010101010101011010101011110100011001010011000100

Looks like you dropped 1

2 hours ago, HerefordBullyun said:

If you want photos they are 4 ozs of brits...

DM me if interested.

When moon for gold

Are 2020's Britannia's OK?

4 hours ago, ZRPMs said:

My Brother came round again last night and has been ramming his belief that Gold will be £3,000 an ounce in 12 months and silver is going to be £30 to £40. He seems to be looking at the precious metals as some sort of get rich quick scheme. I did tell him that I thought the reason for Gold was more as a preservation of wealth. I know things are going to hell in a hand cart but what's the general consensus out there. What do you think the price will be for an ounce of gold in 12 months measured in GBP?

Peter Seller thinks the price may decline, Punter Emptor thinks the price will rise. Personally I expect that Labour will win the next General Election and when you have a government formed by the majority poor deciding where taxpayers money should be spent there's a tendency for the Pound to decline in value, which in turn is a positive side push for the price of gold. That said the Tories have done an awful job. Can't recall having read their manifesto but suspect it may have been along the lines of

Vote Tory for ...

Musical chair gameplay cabinet/PM
Highest taxes since WW2
Extreme wasteful/lost spending of the public purse (we're talking 100's billions)
Few GP appointments
Repeated delays/cancellations of critical NHS treatment
Increased migration
Poor roads and infrastructure
Fewer availability of council houses (allocation to migrants instead)
Islamic biased/favouring Police
Word play target delivery (40 new hospitals = 40 old hospitals given a lick of paint and declared to be as good as new)
Crime does pay - shops expected to donate up to £100 freely to anyone who so claims their entitlement.
 

... in which case Labour might actually do better and see the Pound rise (gold price decline).

Trick is - not to care. Buy in 67/33 stock/gold proportions, averaging in and out over many years, and just sit back and enjoy the ride. If your brother wants to speculate then there are horse track, casino and other such options that are more instant.

2 hours ago, ArgentSmith said:

If only there were a secure, trustless, decrentralised ledger where all holdings could be verified and audited 😁

Show me the bitcoins, I don't believe they exist. And where a single software bug, as always periodically occur, could see some kid in a garage with a laptop nick it all for a laugh. Decentralised ledgers assume majority based rules. Get the majority to flip to mining something else (made more rewarding) and the smaller number left could be out-voted by a state sponsored super-computer system/network. Duplicated centralised (bank) ledgers are secured with physical security.

40 minutes ago, Thelonerangershorse said:

2 hours ago, FriedrichVonHayek said:

Governments are degenerate liars with a massive spending addiction,  so why would anybody believe the US has 8000 tonnes of Gold.

Wouldn't matter if even there was no gold, in 1971 the US left the gold standard, the dollar isn't any longer backed by gold. But as many Fed chairs have said when the dollar falls too far out of alignment with gold bad things tend to happen, so Fed decisions are still made with one eye on gold.

1 hour ago, Happypanda88 said:

Who knows!  It's a club and you and I are not in it. 😒

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." - Groucho Marx

1 hour ago, bobski said:

So, did he do it to try and adopt the euro? Or to line the pockets of his mates?

To help kickstart the new Euro. In fairness the money to buy Euros had to come from somewhere and he likely opined that as gold had gone nowhere for a couple of decades, declined in both nominal and real terms, expected that to perhaps continue. Rules being rules perhaps dictated the daft manner in which that gold was sold. Central Banks aren't free to just dump gold into the markets - there are rules that have to be adhered to. Once the 2000's gold rise occurred only then did the apparent good choice flip to having been a poor choice. Easy with hindsight to highlight what alternative could have been used instead to far greater benefit/effect, pretty much impossible at the time to have such foresight.

27 minutes ago, HerefordBullyun said:

Regardless I dont believe theres 8000 tonnes of gold in the US as it's never been shown or made public...

I call bollox

The President appoints the Treasury secretary as their principal advisor. Who in turn report such matters as amount of gold ...etc. It would be a political win for a new/inbound President to highlight the lies of the former President, especially if a flip between Democrats/Republican. To opine that consecutive Treasury secretaries perpetuate a big lie is misguided IMO.

As ever things aren't just simple. The Fed increase/decrease special drawing rights (SDR's) which is a form of weighted basket of multiple currencies, which is somewhat like buying/selling gold. 2020 to 2021 and the Fed more than tripled the value of their SDR holdings. Iceland 2009 for instance and in terms of Krona (domestic currency) the price of gold soared during the financial crisis. As did the Euro. In terms of Euro's the price of gold remained relatively flat. Gold or Euro's would have served a Icelander as equally as well as a hedge against the collapse of their domestic currency.

Just now, FriedrichVonHayek said:

Governments are degenerate liars so why would anybody believe the US has 8000 tonnes of Gold.

Or ever landed on the moon

14 minutes ago, HerefordBullyun said:

Alan Greenspan disagrees former fed chair... heres the proof...

As the Fed guys said, the Fed doesn't own the gold, it was given to the Treasury for gold certificates (that as indicated are at a $42/ounce rate). The question put was does the Fed use the gold it owns to trade swaps/derivatives, the Fed responded with the correct answer, no - highlighting that it doesn't own the gold. The question wasn't extended to ask whether the Fed use gold certificates to trade swaps/derivatives - which would have been interesting to see the Fed's response. The US Treasury remain the official 'owners' of the gold. A concern the Fed/Treasury have is that whilst the setup is relatively easy to grasp many don't get it and the primary concern is that such misunderstanding can 'spoof the markets' and as such is better left being opaque/unquestioned.

15 minutes ago, bobski said:

Wow. You read a lot into my comment lol

I’m not going to comment here on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. 
 

The point is that we’re upsetting the bear and it’s becoming obvious. The fear is that once Russia removes diplomats from the UK, that hints at an imminent attack 

If he does that's the same as raining 1000's of nukes down onto his own (70%+ of Russian's live within continental Europe) that NATO/US have upgraded and increased since Ukraine. In a sense we should be grateful that its Putin, there are others within Russia who are screaming to press the big red button. And once you're past 200 odd nukes it becomes a global factor (nuclear winter starvation, global radiation levels etc.). Good for gold? Maybe. Perhaps not (food/water/ammo/medical more preferred).

32 minutes ago, Gruff said:

On the other point, I can't see that they would divide by 123, yes that's the over-subscription that we know about so, lets divide it all, but why not increase the value by 123 times? Oh yes, because that would disproportionately help peasants like us be wealthier.  

Doesn't matter what the scale factor, all washes, is just a number. 1850 / 4.24 = 436 factor if you prefer, current price of gold / former on-gold-standard price of gold. Or multiply by 1000, or 123 or whatever. I very much suspect that if the plan was to scale by 123 that first gold holding/trading would be suspended/prohibited or compulsory purchased as per US 1933. But those lessons have been learnt, so unlikely to be repeated IMO. As-is works (in the sense of being better than the alternatives). Were a better method identified it would be inclined to be adopted. Each method has both upside benefit and downside risks/costs. Anticipating a ending of the as-is - is a expectation of bad things such as a scorched earth.

Personally I like the former British based gold standard, broadly no inflation, borrowers had to pay a real rate of return in order to borrow (those that saved were pretty much guaranteed a decent real return on their savings) etc. The US/fiat system reduced the cost for states to borrow to near zero, deposit cash in a savings account and after tax and inflation you'll be lucky if that even offsets inflation (currency debasement), not good for those that have saved who instead have to take risks in order to potentially achieve a real rate of return.

11 minutes ago, arphethean said:

I'm sure the Royal Mint will commemorate the event with a 5 coin series in 3 carat gold

No coin, but maybe a commemorative 

37 minutes ago, Happypanda88 said:

It was extremely dumb, totally incompetent and utterly stupid. 

It was a fire sale of a nation's gold at rock bottom prices, a wealth transfer to special interests.

In fact, it was too stupid for it not to be the plan.

Swapping gold for Euro's along with decades of the UK paying to uplift the EU (net contributor) and then be expected to pay again to leave, is more a reflection of general UK Parliament incompetence, is more often a liability rather than a asset. As was opening up the voting system for those MP's to one and all, when the majority poorer get to decide where money should be spent that's just a leveling down exercise. Nice for a brief period when everyone gets a few quid more, mid to longer term - a disaster.

2 hours ago, bobski said:

Russia calls meeting with UK ambassador after Lord Cameron says Ukraine 'has right' to strike inside Russia with UK weapons.

Russia is using Iranian/N Korean/China weapons in its war with Ukraine, only reasonable that Ukraine might in turn use other countries weapons in that war. A war where one side only was allowed to attack the others territory isn't a war - is just the way that Putin would prefer things to work.

36 minutes ago, Gruff said:

If so, then why when Germany asked to repatriate it's gold, was it told it would take up to 7 years to get it back from the US and when the first shipment arrived the serial numbers didn't match anything on Germany's manifest sheet of serial numbered bars? 
I'm genuinely interested to know, I like @HerefordBullyun don't believe for a minute that the US has the gold it says it has, be that for themselves or others. It's been sold off or leant out to to other countries so many times, that's it's in effect gone.

It's why the UK goes to the high courts to stop smaller countries repatriating their gold. They don't have it, or only have a portion of it and when the bluff is called and all countries ask for it back, then the king with no clothes will be revealed.

When generally there's 123 times more paper-gold than physical gold if everyone suddenly wanted 'their gold' back, then a large number are going to be disappointed. The financial system collapses/wars etc. The holder of the gold has a large factor in saying who might get their gold, who might be disappointed. So rather than drive towards that WW3 event the US retains the 8000 tonnes of gold in-hand itself. As does the UK the second largest - holding 5000 tonnes. Who actually owns that/how it might be shared out against claims in the event of all gold being being demanded to be repatriated is a nuclear WW3 pathway that other central banks accept is best avoided. The exception might be if the debt clock https://www.usdebtclock.org/ were agreed to be stopped and all figures within that scaled down (divided) by a 123 (i.e. paper-gold ratio) factor, your £1,230,000 house becomes worth £10,000, your £123,000/year wage is reduced to £1000. The £12,300/year tax you were paying is reduced to £100/year etc. Or somewhat along those lines, a return to a gold standard, where international trades are again settled via the transfer of gold, and where each claimant to their gold gets 1/123 (0.8%) of 'their gold' returned to them. Even if that was peacefully agreed wars will soon break out as some nations spend all of their gold (run with a international trade deficit for a number of years and are left with no other option other than invading another for their gold).

So in one context yes they don't have (all of) it (but that is debatable/subjective as they could say they do, just serve themselves first, everyone else/most lost theirs), or in the situation of a nuclear scorched earth. In more usual calm /civilised times it might be considered more proper to say they 'hold' that gold rather than stating a 'own' claim. So yes Fort Knox/others combined more likely do hold 8000 tonnes in total, as does the Band of England hold 5000 tonnes (or thereabouts).

1 hour ago, SidS said:

By alignment are you suggesting pegged? If so, I'm not sure that's been the case since 1971.

Broadly flat, periodic revisions (steps) has been golds pattern for centuries. 1970's - 1979 was a step, 1980/1990's broadly flat(ish), 2000's step, 2010-recent flat(ish). Which aligns with having to revise the 'peg' price (channel). The tendency from that motion is that for some periods, a low to a high, will see gold having vastly outpaced inflation, whilst over other periods, high to low, have considerably lagged inflation. When you have to assets that broadly pace inflation, one consistently (reasonably) aligned, the other in a very volatile manner, you broadly achieve better rewards if you hold 50/50 of both and periodically rebalance back to 50/50 weightings.

All to help the newly (then) started Euro - that we got no thanks for. And the sale auctions totally incompetently managed, pre-informing the markets of the amounts/times. Perhaps that's Scots/Labour for you, alongside other greats such as Sturgeon (do more harm than good). Oh look, they've just reappointed yet another failure (Sweeney).