patrick.net

Misc says

The price of silver has gone up about 3.3% per year since 1913.

If a person had put that money in an interest bearing account, he would have ended up with about the same purchasing power as holding physical silver.

No one just holds silver. You swap for gold and vis-versa as the ratio changes over time. If I bough $100 of silver in 1913, at about 50 cents an ounce, I would have 200 ounces. If I exchanged around the first low in the 20's, let's say at 20 rather than 17, I would have 10 ounces of gold. So on until now, I would end up with 6,750 ounces of silver, with a value of nearly $169,000 dollars.
https://sdbullion.com/silver-price-history
https://www.macrotrends.net/1441/gold-to-silver-ratio

I did not use the tops or bottoms, but only near, as most people never hit it on the head. Now as you correctly stated, the real value of silver has changed very little over time. The amount above really reflects how much value the fiat dollar has lost.

Misc says

Subtract out storage fees (unless you want to risk robbery) for the physical silver and things even out again.

If you're paying storage fees, you should be rich enough to store it yourself. Small amounts most people hold don't require anything more than a good hiding place. But robbery, good point. What if your savings was held at any of the MANY MANY institutions that went belly up over the past century, leaving their depositors peniless? Home robberies are not very common, percentage wise, the risk again, is with the corrupt fiat banks due to how many people they take down every time a bank goes under/fails.

Historically, there are over 300 fiat currencies that have failed. Eventually, ours will as well.

For quite a few years now, the world's central banks, along with governments such as China and Russia, have been stockpiling gold and silver. Why do you think they are doing that?

The 9000 banks that failed during the Great Depression did so when the dollar was convertible to gold.

The creation of fiat currencies is one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in world history.

Misc says

Subtract out storage fees (unless you want to risk robbery) for the physical silver and things even out again.

No. Nobody here knows where I live or ever will. I can talk openly with you with minimal risk.

Nobody should know what you've got. I look and live "poor". I'm not materialistic, I don't flaunt my wealth. Stupid people do that.

NuttBoxer says

RWSGFY says

but how do you check the silver content in a typical retail situation?

Weight, and knowledge of common silver coins. It would become second nature eventually. That's why gold and silver work, the weights are very precise.

I's wager that with modern metallurgy it won't be hard to create a silver-plated coin which will weight exactly the same as the real one and be cheaper to make. Besides, isn't there a natural variation in the weight of old coins due to wear?

Things that used to be hard to replicate are not that hard anymore. For example the battle scenes engraved on the cylinders of black powder Colt revolvers are there to make the real thing to stand out from fakes. It was reasonably hard to replicate for some time but was dropped once the technollogy became widely accessible and cheaper.

All the great religious Books have detailed that charging interest leads to the impoverishment of the people along with the slavery that ensues.

With fiat currencies, interest can be charged as there is no limit to the amount that can be printed.

Misc says

All the great religious Books have detailed that charging interest leads to the impoverishment of the people along with the slavery that ensues.

With fiat currencies, interest can be charged as there is no limit to the amount that can be printed.

And yet, if we compare ourselves with our fathers, grandfathers and grand grand fathers are most of us really impoverished compared to them?

Misc says

The 9000 banks that failed during the Great Depression did so when the dollar was convertible to gold.

What caused the failure of banks was the fractional reserve banking system, whereby, a very high percentage of actual money that is being held by the bank, is actually loaned out. This system can only operate successfully as long as the demand for withdrawals do not exceed the cash on hand at the bank needed to meet those withdrawals. Once the public catches on that their money isn't actually being 'held by the bank,' bank runs occur, which eventually lead to bank failures.

The 'roaring 20s' saw a massive amount of credit being extended all over the world, including to individuals that wanted to speculate in stock markets. Once the markets began to show signs of instability, the selling ensued which in turn caused the banks to 'call in their margin loans,' which furthered the selling panic.

We have something going on right now that is FAR WORSE than the situation in the 1920s, and that is the derivative market, whereby, loans that are being held are counted as an ASSET rather than a DEBT, allowing the bank to create money to be loaned out digitally. This process is repeated over and over and over again and every LOAN that is derived from another is considered to be an ASSET. All of this is obviously dependent upon an ever expanding economy, precisely why the Fed continues to create money (for the Treasury), in order to keep the entire Ponzi scheme going for as long as possible. It really is a classic house of cards.

That's why when the collapse hits, it will be a financial catastrophe beyond anything ever seen in world history.

America's so called 'prosperity' has been made available by a mountain of debt.

I'm old enough to recall 'mortgage burning parties,' which were, when I was a very young boy, quite common. Once the borrower paid off their home, they would celebrate with their family and friends by burning the mortgage.

A bit of history ...

Prior to the Great Depression, a very high percentage of 'homeowners' actually had their home paid off. Part of the reason for that was that home mortgages were amortized for a period of 7 years, which of course meant that if you made all of your payments for those 7 years, your home would be free and clear of all debt. You actually OWNED your home.

Property taxes are always the first lien, then the mortgage. If things really get ugly financially, people with mortgages that they are not able to pay off are going to find out real quick who actually 'owns' their home.

Misc says

With fiat currencies, interest can be charged as there is no limit to the amount that can be printed.

The banksters also successfully lobbied to have the 'Usury Laws' removed, which in turn allowed the banks to charge exorbitant, punitive rates on credit cards.

Jefferson was right when he warned us that 'bankers are to be more feared than standing armies.'

Still today, a large percentage of people have their houses paid off. It is about 40%. It is about 33% of homeowners with no mortgage in California.

The troubling trend especially in the Blue States/Cities is that the homeownership rate is plummeting. Overall in the US the homeownership rate is about 66%. In California it is about 55%. This trend of lower homeownership seems to be spreading.

Misc says

Still today, a large percentage of people have their houses paid off. It is about 40%. It is about 33% of homeowners with no mortgage in California.

In the 80's, 50% of the homes in America were mortgage free. It should be be the goal to have a mortgage only on your initial house, with the idea of being mortgage free by age 45. Likewise, only the first car should have a loan.

RayAmerica says

Prior to the Great Depression, a very high percentage of 'homeowners' actually had their home paid off. Part of the reason for that was that home mortgages were amortized for a period of 7 years, which of course meant that if you made all of your payments for those 7 years, your home would be free and clear of all debt. You actually OWNED your home.

i remember when i was a young man, a girl asked me at a party if it was true that I owned my house. I said NO, the bank owns it, i just make payments on it..she walked away. LOL...i dodged a bullet

Misc says

The 9000 banks that failed during the Great Depression did so when the dollar was convertible to gold.

Funny thing, they were flourishing prior to 1913. If trend had continued without a new central bank, the NY banks would have gone out of business. The Great Depression was caused by government policies, NOT the stock crash as people who don't study history claim. Of course this all benefited the central bank, and it's NY owners. But forget about all of that, and try blaming gold right?

RWSGFY says

I's wager that with modern metallurgy it won't be hard to create a silver-plated coin which will weight exactly the same as the real one and be cheaper to make. Besides, isn't there a natural variation in the weight of old coins due to wear?

Alchemists have tried for centuries. If it's so easy, I'm sure you can find many examples. If not, may want to read up on that subject a little more. Interestingly, alchemy has always had very close ties with Satanism...

RWSGFY says

And yet, if we compare ourselves with our fathers, grandfathers and grand grand fathers are most of us really impoverished compared to them?

Most of them grew their own food, had farms, owned land. And when it comes to health, not even comparable unless you go back to the Dark Ages. In quantity, and quality of life, we are losing. But maybe some of you are more Bread and circus's types? As long as your entertained, you will continue to Eat Ze Bugs.

Misc says

Still today, a large percentage of people have their houses paid off. It is about 40%. It is about 33% of homeowners with no mortgage in California.

You never provide sources for any of your stats, guessing because they all come from government websites? You definitely haven't accounted for people who borrow against the value their home after paying off, which really means, they return to being debtors, not owners. I can see many examples where I live outside the city. People who have multiple cars, toys, etc sitting outside their homes, where they've lived for at least 20 years. This isn't a wealthy area. They just bought when no one was here, and have borrowed against inflationary home values, thinking things won't change. When they do, they'll lose everything. If the average American has no savings, lives check to check, and has debt, how the FUCK would they all have their homes paid off!?

NuttBoxer says

Misc says

The 9000 banks that failed during the Great Depression did so when the dollar was convertible to gold.

Funny thing, they were flourishing prior to 1913. If trend had continued without a new central bank, the NY banks would have gone out of business. The Great Depression was caused by government policies, NOT the stock crash as people who don't study history claim. Of course this all benefited the central bank, and it's NY owners. But forget about all of that, and try blaming gold right?

They were not flourishing. They were going through their boom and bust cycles. There was a time when the banks went bust, they hung the bankers.

Here's a bust you can read up on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

NuttBoxer says

Misc says

Still today, a large percentage of people have their houses paid off. It is about 40%. It is about 33% of homeowners with no mortgage in California.

You never provide sources for any of your stats, guessing because they all come from government websites? You definitely haven't accounted for people who borrow against the value their home after paying off, which really means, they return to being debtors, not owners. I can see many examples where I live outside the city. People who have multiple cars, toys, etc sitting outside their homes, where they've lived for at least 20 years. This isn't a wealthy area. They just bought when no one was here, and have borrowed against inflationary home values, thinking things won't change. When they do, they'll lose everything. If the average American has no savings, lives check to check, and has debt, how the FUCK would they al...

It takes less than 15 seconds to run a check. Here is a google search that lists many sources.

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+homeowners+have+no+mortgage&sxsrf=AJOqlzWdLUMcixrS9VZXv_j7b60rJd2C7g%3A1677015056225&source=hp&ei=EDj1Y8e3C8e7kPIPysmhEA&iflsig=AK50M_UAAAAAY_VGIAcadkjD-tyAa2dERWera-zQIGuF&oq=what+percentage+of+home&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYAzIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQ6BwgjEOoCECc6BAgjECc6BQgAEJECOgsIABCABBCxAxCDAToOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQ0QM6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBENEDOgQIABBDOggIABCxAxCDAToNCAAQgAQQsQMQgwEQCjoHCAAQgAQQCjoKCAAQgAQQRhD7AVDkE1i_emC3jgFoAXAAeACAAV-IAb8MkgECMjOYAQCgAQGwAQo&sclient=gws-wiz

NuttBoxer says

Misc says

Still today, a large percentage of people have their houses paid off. It is about 40%. It is about 33% of homeowners with no mortgage in California.

You never provide sources for any of your stats, guessing because they all come from government websites? You definitely haven't accounted for people who borrow against the value their home after paying off, which really means, they return to being debtors, not owners. I can see many examples where I live outside the city. People who have multiple cars, toys, etc sitting outside their homes, where they've lived for at least 20 years. This isn't a wealthy area. They just bought when no one was here, and have borrowed against inflationary home values, thinking things won't change. When they do, they'll lose everything. If the average American has no savings, lives check to check, and has debt, how the FUCK would they al...

You have been reading the mainstream propaganda about Americans finances. While it is true that the vast majority of renters have little financial assets. Homeowners have put about $15 trillion dollars set aside in cash (not stocks or bonds or bitcoin ---- cash). They have the other financial assets as well. Yes, with a lot of them having a mortgage free home.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-30/americans-added-4-2-trillion-in-pandemic-savings-skewed-to-rich

NuttBoxer says

RWSGFY says

And yet, if we compare ourselves with our fathers, grandfathers and grand grand fathers are most of us really impoverished compared to them?

Most of them grew their own food, had farms, owned land. And when it comes to health, not even comparable unless you go back to the Dark Ages. In quantity, and quality of life, we are losing. But maybe some of you are more Bread and circus's types? As long as your entertained, you will continue to Eat Ze Bugs.

They also were tied to their land and never ventured farther away from it than next regional town, if that. I do have farmers in family on the father's side so I know what I'm talking about. As for health: I don't perceive much difference between my health and my father's health at my age (except he went through a bout of TB 10 years prior and I hand't). One generation before that TB would've been a death sentence, BTW, so don't really have to venture into "ze dark ages" to feel some positive difference.

Can't comment on the health of grandfathers - both were professional army officers and KIA at younger age that I'm now - but from the wealth POV I'm definitely head and shoulders above what they had at the same age.

Then there's the issue of child mortality 3-4 generations ago... How many kids tge average rural family had and how many made it to adulthood. The ratio is not 1:1, far from it.

Misc says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

Yeah, that happened when we moved off the silver standard. Contrary to popular belief, silver is what matters most, as that's what's used for every day transactions, not gold.
On the banks busting, you are lying, or ignorant of history yet again:
"In 1910, the number of banks in the United States was growing at a phenomenal rate. In fact, it had more than doubled to over twenty thousand in just the previous ten years. Furthermore, most of them were springing up in the South and West, causing the New York banks to suffer a steady decline in market share. Almost all banks in the 1880s were national banks, which means they were chartered by the federal government. Generally, they were located in the big cities, and were allowed by law to issue their own currency in the form of bank notes. Even as early as 1896, however, the number of non-national banks had grown to sixty-one per cent, and they already held fifty-four per cent of the country's total banking deposits. by 1913, when the Federal Resrve Act was passed, those number were seventy-one per cent non-national banks holding fifty-seven per cent of the deposits. In the eyes of those duck hunters from New York, this was a trend that simply had to be reversed."
(Griffin pg12, citation for Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism p140).

Misc says

It takes less than 15 seconds to run a check. Here is a google search that lists many sources.

Ahh, google. Your self-imposed blinders are coming to light. What I see is not an increase in ownership, but in debt. The fact that your search equates home-owners with mortgage payers shows how convoluted this concept has become under central banking. If you look here, this person also cites a high percentage of ownership, but when you scroll down, he clearly attributes the rise to the invention of the 30 year mortgage, i.e. allowing people to take on more debt, not more ownership:
https://dqydj.com/historical-homeownership-rate-united-states/

So using 40% as a baseline, and attributing the 20% increase to debt, you can see ownership at best has remained steady for 100 years, but in all likelihood has significantly decreased, along with the size of the land owned by individuals. Even google will tell you we have record debt at all levels of society. Yet you continue to persist in the face of these facts that somehow we only have debt in other areas of our lives, not in housing...

Read the articles. They clearly state the percent of homeowners without a mortgage is about 40%. It varies a little from source to source. I believe there were over 20 different sources.

RWSGFY says

They also were tied to their land and never ventured farther away from it than next regional town, if that.

And their family lived close by, and they knew their neighbors, and they had little debt. I've been to cemetaries and seen people routinely live to the same age they do now, in the 19th century.

RWSGFY says

One generation before that TB would've been a death sentence, BTW, so don't really have to venture into "ze dark ages" to feel some positive difference.

Now it's cancer, diabetes, alzeimers, pills, doctors, repeat. Not disputing the improvements in waste disposal in cities, where these epidemics occurred. Just saying at best we live to the same age, but when you factor in quality, we may as well have died 10 years prior.

RWSGFY says

Then there's the issue of child mortality 3-4 generations ago... How many kids tge average rural family had and how many made it to adulthood. The ratio is not 1:1, far from it.

I have an uncle who died at birth, or shortly after. But what they didn't have back then, was rampant autism. And child mortality, especially if you birth in a hospital, has dramatically increased in this country. We have one of the worst rates in the known world.

Like you, I'm doing better than my ancestors I'm familiar with, but the downhill trend started in their lifetime, with the mass introduction of poisons, and industrial food in the 20th century. I'm ok with the reality that things were better before, and are worse now. But that's because I'm working to change that in my own family. Accepting reality isn't giving up, it's the first step to making a change for the better.

Misc says

Read the articles. They clearly state the percent of homeowners without a mortgage is about 40%. It varies a little from source to source. I believe there were over 20 different sources.

NuttBoxer says

So using 40% as a baseline, and attributing the 20% increase to debt, you can see ownership at best has remained steady for 100 years, but in all likelihood has significantly decreased, along with the size of the land owned by individuals. Even google will tell you we have record debt at all levels of society. Yet you continue to persist in the face of these facts that somehow we only have debt in other areas of our lives, not in housing...

Yes, we have the highest amount of mortgage debt on record. It is mostly fixed rate with the majority about 3%. With the inflation rate above that level, wage increases increase the affordability.

We also have the highest number of houses without a mortgage. Something you have been denying.

You seem to think that Americans are in financial straights, but American households have near record amounts of cash, and other financial assets.

The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/average-net-worth-by-age

cisTits says

Misc says

The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.

What? In cash or t-bills?

R/E is only worth what it can be liquidated for. Stocks are far more liquid.

All assets less all liabilities.

US households are waiting for government fuckery that's why they hold $15 trillion in cash --- not stock or bonds or bitcoin ---- cash

As far as those Central bankers trying to enslave everyone, they are going about it in government fashion. The largest holders of those sub 3% mortgages is the Federal Reserve. SO with inflation running about 8% and wages going up about 7% they are taking a loss on those holdings of mortgages, and treasuries each and every year.

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/18/fed-mortgage-portfolio

Misc says

As far as those Central bankers trying to enslave everyone, they are going about it in government fashion. The largest holders of those sub 3% mortgages is the Federal Reserve. SO with inflation running about 8% and wages going up about 7% they are taking a loss on those holdings of mortgages, and treasuries each and every year.

The Fed is collecting interest on money that THEY created out of thin air. When the economy collapses, and massive numbers of people (even more than in 2007/2008) losing their homes, who do you think will own those properties? Maybe that's the plan all along and what's meant by the WEF's claim that you will own nothing, and be happy?

The Fed also charges fees to the Treasury on all the money that is created, precisely why the Fed loves deficit spending. The more the Government increases the national debt, the more money made by the Fed.

Also, for years, all of the central banks of the world have been buying huge amounts of gold and silver ... all with the fake money that they have created. While over 300 currencies have failed in history, gold and silver has never been worthless. The bankers know this, and that's why they are hoarding these ancient metals.

Misc says

The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.

Your source?

RayAmerica says

Misc says

The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.

Your source?

Listed in comment #64

Misc says

The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.

'Averages' are EXTREMELY misleading. Here's why:

Let's say you have the following statistics derived from a group regarding their net wealth:

1. 82,000
2. 125,000
3. 98,000
4. 32,000
5. - 240,000
6. 875,000
7. 4,500,000
8. 1,250,000
9. 3,000,000

In the above scenario, the AVERAGE net worth of this group would be $1,080,000 ... a VERY misleading statistic.

One more thing; 'Nerdwallet' is hardly a source that I would go to if I wanted accurate statistics.

cisTits says

Misc says

The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.

What? In cash or t-bills?

R/E is only worth what it can be liquidated for. Stocks are far more liquid.

cisTits says

Misc says

The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.

What? In cash or t-bills?

R/E is only worth what it can be liquidated for. Stocks are far more liquid.

39 and I have $1M in liquid assets. Real estate puts me higher and not included in that number.

You're either a have or have not. People can be angry about the people that made it. NOTHING prevented anyone in this country from making it. Nothing is preventing me from losing it all. So much excuse making from people that didn't make it though. Excuses about the financial system. Learn the damn game. The road map is out there for anyone with a working brain.

So sick of people pointing the finger at other people that figured it out. It's sales and business. That's our economy. If you can't do either you WILL be a middle of the road person and potentially a loser. I have people I consider friends that are in this conundrum of inadequacy and they just blame others or make shit up. Your thumb exists. Maybe point it back at yourself.

Put our head on the pillow and ask what didn't I do. Not what someone else did or didn't do. What did I DO!

RayAmerica says

Misc says

The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.

'Averages' are EXTREMELY misleading. Here's why:

Let's say you have the following statistics derived from a group regarding their net wealth:

1. 82,000
2. 125,000
3. 98,000
4. 32,000
5. - 240,000
6. 875,000
7. 4,500,000
8. 1,250,000
9. 3,000,000

In the above scenario, the AVERAGE net worth of this group would be $1,080,000 ... a VERY misleading statistic.

One more thing; 'Nerdwallet' is hardly a source that I would go to if I wanted accurate statistics.

Yes, it's misleading because it takes into account the 21.3% of the population on government social services that have nothing. Real Americans that worked their 45 years, bought a home and saved a little are way above the $1 million, and this doesn't include any pensions they may have. Regular folks end up quite well off.

Misc says

it's misleading because it takes into account the 21.3% of the population on government social services that have nothing.

This is what CNBC recently reported: "63% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck — including nearly half of six-figure earners. With persistent inflation eroding wage gains, the number of Americans living paycheck to paycheck is near a historic high, according to a recent report.Oct 24, 2022"

Wolf Street website reported about credit card balances and delinquencies are increasing. The times are tough for most who are not as fortunate as the "Regular folks end up quite well" with +$500,000 equity in a home, a pension, etc.. Walmart just warned 2023 is going to be a tough year.

.

Walmart warned that 2023 is going to be a tough year because the extra free money given to those on social benefits just ended. With Covid, those families on food stamps (now known as SNAP) got an extra $95 per month per household. With 21.3% of households on social benefits that gave Walmart (yes, the Waltons are the richest family in America) record profits because Walmart is the largest grocer in America.

Yes, much of Covid aid was just free money to the rich.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/temporary-pandemic-snap-benefits-will-end-in-remaining-35-states-in-march

Those on Medicaid were not dropped from the program even if their income rose above the threshhold because of Covid. This extra source of free money to the healthcare industry is likewise ending over the course of this year.

The end of these free money giveaways should help bring down inflation for the regular folk.

Misc says

The end of these free money giveaways should help bring down inflation for the regular folk.

I hope so, and the economy increases productivity and innovation such as get rid of the dead weight workers like the blue hairs.

.........

Misc says

record profits because Walmart is the largest grocer in America

I looked at Walmart's stock chart and its real gain is nearly 0% since February 2020 based on about 18% inflation from February 2020 to present day. Net income was $6.7 billion in 2019 and $13.7 billion in 2022 :-/