Bratnia

Janker? ... Proficient in cleaning floors with a toothbrush, or painting coal white, alongside peeling spuds 

For Americans, 1st January 1980 to 31st March 2001 gold lost -82% of its purchase power. Something that cost 1 ounce of gold in 1980 required 5.5 ounces of gold to buy the same thing in 2001.
Over the same period 50/50 stock/gold yearly rebalanced gained +30% purchase power (imagine how much more ounces of gold were being held - tendency to sell some stock shares to buy more ounces of gold at relatively cheaper gold prices. In other periods that swings completely around - selling some ounces of gold that have performed well to buy more relatively cheaper stock shares).
Gold in itself is not a reliable/consistent inflation hedge and shouldn't be solely relied upon as such.

Surprised no ones past the chefs course, is the required body count really that high? Would imagine that some cooks would have achieved relatively high numbers.

I wasnt army catering corps anyway its the hardest course in the army harder than SAS selection as no one has passed the chefs course!

Finland and Sweden only joined after Putin invaded Ukraine, as he had been doing for many years by allocating Russians to live within the Ukraine Donbas region until it had been invaded/conquered via the back door (migration - transitioning the local schools to teach Russian doctrine etc.).
The population of Western Europe is 3x the population of Russia, as is its GDP multiples that of Russian GDP, and that's before adding in the US/others. I suspect Putin would not favour his chances of being a David in a Goliath contest. 90% of the Russian army is already within Ukraine and struggling against comparatively small numbers/resources - Ukraine has been fighting largely with one arm tied behind its back, has caused the Russian navy much damage despite not even having a navy of its own ...etc.

Markets are currently predicting a US cut in September to 5%-5.25% range. Some are anticipating that US rates could even be left as-is or even increased. Gold down in US$ terms, but up in Euro terms.

The 2008/9 financial crisis pretty well transitioned bail out of banks who speculated to where states/countries took on that role. Insider trading and counterfeiting are of course perfectly legal for some. As is protection money, hostage taking etc.

Markets are currently predicting a US cut in September to 5%-5.25% range. Some are anticipating that US rates could even be left as-is or even increased. Gold down in US$ terms, but up in Euro terms.

Closer to 50 but Continue..

What, like eBay? Silly bids/sale price(s) for useless things.

Does require faith/understanding/patience that many don't have. Year end gold prices in GB Pounds
1968    17.6
1969    14.7
1970    15.6
1971    17.1
1972    27.7
1973    48.3
1974    79.3
1975    69.3
1976    79.0
1977    86.0
1978    111
1979    229
1980    246
1981    209
1982    282
1983    264
1984    265
1985    227
1986    265
1987    261
1988    229
1989    248
1990    201
1991    189
1992    220
1993    265
1994    246
1995    249
1996    218
1997    175
1998    172
1999    180
2000    184
2001    191
2002    216
2003    234
2004    227
2005    298
2006    323
2007    418
2008    600
2009    683
2010    910
2011    993
2012    1027
2013    730
2014    775
2015    715
2016    937
2017    960
2018    1008
2019    1153
2020    1387
2021    1347
2022    1505
 
Alone and ... not good, more so when you also factor in inflation. 50/50 stock/gold yearly rebalanced and for instance 1980 to 1999 saw multiples more ounces of gold in your safe without having added a single additional penny.
Across history the tendency has been more towards the price of gold following a plateau/step type motion, with long intervals between steps. Providing you're in it for the longer term, average in over many years, average out over many years (retirement), average down the average price/ounce (stock/gold blend) then things are inclined to work out well.

 

Does require faith/understanding/patience that many don't have. Year end gold prices in GB Pounds
1968    17.6
1969    14.7
1970    15.6
1971    17.1
1972    27.7
1973    48.3
1974    79.3
1975    69.3
1976    79.0
1977    86.0
1978    111
1979    229
1980    246
1981    209
1982    282
1983    264
1984    265
1985    227
1986    265
1987    261
1988    229
1989    248
1990    201
1991    189
1992    220
1993    265
1994    246
1995    249
1996    218
1997    175
1998    172
1999    180
2000    184
2001    191
2002    216
2003    234
2004    227
2005    298
2006    323
2007    418
2008    600
2009    683
2010    910
2011    993
2012    1027
2013    730
2014    775
2015    715
2016    937
2017    960
2018    1008
2019    1153
2020    1387
2021    1347
2022    1505
 
Alone and ... not good, more so when you also factor in inflation. 50/50 stock/gold yearly rebalanced and for instance 1980 to 1999 saw multiples more ounces of gold in your safe without having added a single additional penny.
Across history the tendency has been more towards the price of gold following a plateau/step type motion, with long intervals between steps. Providing you're in it for the longer term, average in over many years, average out over many years (retirement), average down the average price/ounce (stock/gold blend) then things are inclined to work out well.

 

For physical perhaps go with Britannia one ounce coins and phone around dealers for the best bulk purchase (or sale) deal they might offer. Should be able to buy for 2% above spot, sell for spot that way. For convenience however I'm more inclined to go with a gold ETF to buy, and then migrate that to physical as/when good deals are apparent (piecemeal) costs more overall, but frankly after a few years I can't remember what I paid for things anyway, the higher costs at the time are lost from memory and tend to be relatively small in the scale of things.

UK Stock (FT All Share) / gold ratio has moved from a high 1999 peak down, UK stocks seem relatively good value at recently levels (US stocks/dollar seems relatively high/expensive, but bear in mind what seems expensive (cheap) today can become even more expensive (cheap) tomorrow. House / gold ratio follows a similar line/motion i.e. stocks and house values are somewhat interchangeable and appear to be marginally better value than gold recently. I'd go with 50/50 stock/gold rather than just stock or just gold alone, as that way you wont be fully wrong (but neither fully right).
Might, might not. A round trip sell and purchase house cost is relatively high and if whatever you sold to swap for does worse then you've compounded that loss. Real assets such as house/gold etc. tend to do OK across periods of high inflation, but can take a few years to see that iron out. A added benefit of owning a house is that you don't have to find/pay rent to others.
A good asset allocation IMO is a third each in a home, stocks, gold, leave the home value as-is, rebalance the stock/gold once yearly back to 50/50 each, and just let that run. At some point the stock (or gold) value might be much more (or less) than the home value, which only then is a indicator of a reasonable time to upsize/downsize to realign the home value back to around a third. If you go all-in on just one of the assets then that's more of a speculation, could work out well, might not.
With £500K and assuming you're relatively young/working/saving then you might opt for leverage, perhaps £220K mortgage to downsize to a £240K house value, along with £240K in a stock index fund and £240K in gold. Or suchlike. One of those will turn out to have been the best, another the worst, neither fully right nor wrong. If the best is the house value then in your case that is the outcome that would likely cause the most pain/discomfort. If stocks or gold were the best then you could pat yourself on the back for having been clever.

Does require faith/understanding/patience that many don't have. Year end gold prices in GB Pounds
1968    17.6
1969    14.7
1970    15.6
1971    17.1
1972    27.7
1973    48.3
1974    79.3
1975    69.3
1976    79.0
1977    86.0
1978    111
1979    229
1980    246
1981    209
1982    282
1983    264
1984    265
1985    227
1986    265
1987    261
1988    229
1989    248
1990    201
1991    189
1992    220
1993    265
1994    246
1995    249
1996    218
1997    175
1998    172
1999    180
2000    184
2001    191
2002    216
2003    234
2004    227
2005    298
2006    323
2007    418
2008    600
2009    683
2010    910
2011    993
2012    1027
2013    730
2014    775
2015    715
2016    937
2017    960
2018    1008
2019    1153
2020    1387
2021    1347
2022    1505
 
Alone and ... not good, more so when you also factor in inflation. 50/50 stock/gold yearly rebalanced and for instance 1980 to 1999 saw multiples more ounces of gold in your safe without having added a single additional penny.
Across history the tendency has been more towards the price of gold following a plateau/step type motion, with long intervals between steps. Providing you're in it for the longer term, average in over many years, average out over many years (retirement), average down the average price/ounce (stock/gold blend) then things are inclined to work out well.

 

To me it looks like he stores it under a in-sole within his left shoe.

To me it looks like he stores it under a in-sole within his left shoe.

To me it looks like he stores it under a in-sole within his left shoe.

To me it looks like he stores it under a in-sole within his left shoe.

The perception of Russia being a massive country is often misinterpreted due to how maps of the world are imaged. Yes it still vast/large, however this neat animation by Neil Kaye, a climate data scientist at the Met Office - the United Kingdom's national weather service - shows what the Mercator Projection would look like if it depicted the true size of each country in relation to others. Where we see countries like the United States, Canada and Russia shrink, while the giant landmasses of Africa and South America remain more or less the same.

As did the Spanish empire plunder South American gold. As did the Ottoman empire enslave whites. etc. etc.
The Spanish empire collapse was primarily down to running out of gold to plunder and being left with little/no domestic skills/resources due to over-importing such skills/resources (paid for in gold).
And what did the Roman's do for us?

History is riddled with sadness. What about WW1 when boys/young men were railed into wet/muddy trenches and then at a blow of a whistle had to climb out and run towards cross firing machine guns, or otherwise be shot.

The general narrative is the UK used its profits to reduce taxes and pay for public services (I ain't buying that FWIW). Norway uses her profits to invest in global assets and has done quite well. Norway has about $250K per citizen but only releases a maximum of 3% of that annually, putting the rest aside for a rainy day
The UK makes its own warheads (fitted to US Tridents from the US Navy pool (Polaris Sales Agreement)) and controls her own nuclear destiny. Sellafield has more plutonium than anywhere on earth, it's not like we're short of nuclear material. Sellafield makes a prime target for aggressors or terrorists. Sellafield was built where it is due to the prevailing winds generally blowing over NI and ROI as opposed to somewhere important like England or Scotland 🤷‍♂️
I say it regularly. Everything you see on the roads and on railways was built by Britain courtesy of the steam and internal combustion engines. The entirety of modern medical science is a British invention including antibiotics and vaccines. The wokies complaining about the UK pillaging the world literally wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the British. Take Pakistan, which has been independent for 75+ years. The best thing in that country - the railway - was built by the British. Same in India, the heart of Indian power like New Delhi was built by the British (the only Imperial City ever built by the British)
Probably the top 0.0001%. The studies on India aren't as straight forward as they appear. They don't claim the British stole $30 trillion from India, they claim the actions of the British cost India $30 trillion, which are two different things. They ignore what the British invested within India itself (Indian subcontinent), like the railways, ports, cities, governance, etc, etc. See above though, the Indian studies are highly questionable as the authors probably wouldn't be alive without British inventions
The studies count the century before the British Raj (1858-1947) when India was ruled by the British EIC (1757-1857, Sepoy Mutiny), so effectively they are counting over 200 years. The studies neglect to mention the improvements that took place under the BEIC and the Raj compared with the Dutch EIC and other powers. As with the rest of the globe, if it wasn't going to be ruled by the British then it would have been ruled by another great European power. History proves the British were by far the best outcome for all of the dominions, including India and Africa (we can compare directly with the outcomes for countries ruled by the Germans, Belgians, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Italians). The British control of India made the Russians and Chinese shake in their boots - they both had eyes on India but wouldn't dare challenge the Royal Navy or British Empire, which led to centuries of zero wars between them - Pax Britannica (1815-1914) and prior
I'm not trying to excuse atrocities committed by the British, and there were plenty, but objectively the British were and still are the best people to be governed by in the world. That's fast becoming an anachronism though, which is the saddest thing for the British people. 
A big part of this anti-British narrative is the considerable hypocrisy of people born and living in the UK, who claim the UK owes them reparations or white people owe them something. When we examine this closely we see those people are sucking on the same teets that the rest of us are suckling on. They were born in the UK and they take every advantage of the privileges associated with that, just like most of us do. They will not, however, accept any responsibility for the British Empire despite being British citizens. All of the blame is put on the rest of us despite us having as much to do with the British Empire as the woke reparations crew. Ultimately the reparations narrative and wokeness generally is not about justice or responsibility, rather it's a transfer of hate and spite towards all white people - it's only white British citizens, who weren't alive during the Empire, who are responsible for the Empire, while the non-whites absolve themselves completely. It is blatantly racist and bigoted against white people, a philosophy we imported from the United States. This whole question about reparations and the British Empire is a smokescreen to justify racism, hate, bigotry and a supremacist movement by non-white persons. We see it playing out on our streets, in our corporations and media. They believe it's impossible to be racist against a white person so we are the global punching bags. They are allowed to say things on social media and the mainstream media that would result in prison sentences if you changed the word "white" to any other descriptor
All of this global volatility and erosion of western culture and western values does of course factor into the gold price. Gold is an impartial and dispassionate arbiter. As a wise person said above, the global average is roughly 1oz per person (Australia is the richest country on earth on gold per capita in terms of above and below ground reserves). Another wise person was discussing the repatriation of gold to India and elsewhere from London. This is a political stunt as the best place to keep your gold for global remittance and settlement is London. It has always been London and even after Brexit and the fall of the UK, most historians and analysts conclude that London will remain the centre of European finance at least for the remainder of the 21st Century. So on the plus side for stackers in the UK, there is unlikely to be a shortage of physical gold for us to buy, at least for the foreseeable future.

The perception of Russia being a massive country is often misinterpreted due to how maps of the world are imaged. Yes it still vast/large, however this neat animation by Neil Kaye, a climate data scientist at the Met Office - the United Kingdom's national weather service - shows what the Mercator Projection would look like if it depicted the true size of each country in relation to others. Where we see countries like the United States, Canada and Russia shrink, while the giant landmasses of Africa and South America remain more or less the same.

The perception of Russia being a massive country is often misinterpreted due to how maps of the world are imaged. Yes it still vast/large, however this neat animation by Neil Kaye, a climate data scientist at the Met Office - the United Kingdom's national weather service - shows what the Mercator Projection would look like if it depicted the true size of each country in relation to others. Where we see countries like the United States, Canada and Russia shrink, while the giant landmasses of Africa and South America remain more or less the same.

70% of the Russian population live within the continental Europe western strip, alone the UK response would wipe out that population and a high probability much if not all of the rest of the global population along with it.
Even 100 tons of gold as a backstop, assayed/audited and already in place in the primary gold market place could make a significant difference at points in time. A difference between having defaulted and not and where defaults are subsequently very expensive/detrimental. Fundamentally relatively inexpensive insurance to leave it in London.
All countries sooner or later endure down to the wire conditions (even the US), settle by midday tomorrow or else have defaulted, and a promise of sending gold from India to London, have it assayed and delivered etc. for logistic reasons alone just ain't going to happen. Especially when other central banks are likely to benefit from such a default.