No. of Recommendations: 12
Basel III and Gold

The most significant change is moving gold from its tier 3 status to tier 1 capital as 100% loan-backing reserves, the same as cash and bonds. For the first time in 42 years, gold is being brought back into our financial system as money. All the world's banks are now storing this metal, not as some 3rd rate "asset," but as all the world's working capital - its money. So it's not just any voice, it is the ultimate voice on what is money that has spoken. Gold was removed from our system by Nixon in 1971, when he took us off the gold standard by disallowing foreign governments to exchange their dollar reserves for US-held gold. Ironically, they were doing this in great volume because of Washington's lack of fiscal discipline. Now, as gold has appreciated from $35 to $1700 in the unofficial gold standard interim, Washington's lack of fiscal discipline is again an issue, and we are now being forced to recognize gold as official money again.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1016161-basel-iii-and-gold?s...

Adenovir
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Gold goes up and goes down. But it isn't the base of currency anywhere significant. This is conspiracy theory table talk.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Gold goes up and goes down. But it isn't the base of currency anywhere significant. This is conspiracy theory table talk.

I'm no gold bug, but it seems to me that gold's elevation from tier 3 to tier 1 capital is a significant change in policy and will probably have an effect on the importance of gold in the near future.

Adenovir
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm no gold bug, but it seems to me that gold's elevation from tier 3 to tier 1 capital is a significant change in policy and will probably have an effect on the importance of gold in the near future.

Adenovir



Discussion on the subject on Canuck business news was that many of the banks were already holding or storing some gold anyway and that this change would allow them to hold less capital? Sort of any port in a storm thingy when people are insisting you increase your capital.


Tim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Discussion on the subject on Canuck business news was that many of the banks were already holding or storing some gold anyway and that this change would allow them to hold less capital?

Yet in Europe...

European banks have asked the European Commission to postpone the introduction of tougher global bank capital rules by a year to 2014 after U.S. regulators delayed application of the new requirements.

The new rules, known as Basel III, are the world's regulatory response to the 2007-09 financial crisis and would force banks to triple the amount of basic capital they hold in a bid to avoid future taxpayer bailouts.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/49947761

Of course this is mostly because their USian competition is not on the same schedule as they are.

Adenovir
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course this is mostly because their USian competition is not on the same schedule as they are.

Adenovir



Yeah Mark is not pleased, our banks squeaked a bit to the boss and were promptly put in their proper place. }};-D

In truth most of them were already at or near the requirement but were looking for a bit of sympathy.

Tim



http://www.bobsguide.com/guide/news/2012/Nov/6/fsb-basel-iii...

FSB: Basel III reforms falling behind schedule

6 November 2012

Worldwide banking reforms are unlikely to be completed on time, a new report has indicated.

The Basel III regulations have been designed in order to prevent any repeat of the recent financial crisis whereby many lenders required state-funded bailouts by compelling companies to boost their reserve capital ratios.

These changes are scheduled to come into effect as of the beginning of next year, but analysis conducted by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has revealed that "uneven headway" is being made in the implementation of these plans, the Financial Times reports.

...

Mark Carney, chair of the body, commented: "The tasks ahead remain considerable ... it is crucial that all jurisdictions redouble their efforts to pass legislation that is consistent with the Basel III framework."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Gold goes up and goes down. But it isn't the base of currency anywhere significant. This is conspiracy theory table talk.

Au contraire monsieur paper bug!

The price of gold does not go up and down it is the numbers on the pieces of paper required to buy a set amount of gold that goes up and down.

In 1911 you could buy a new M-1911 Colt .45 automatic pistol with a one ounce gold coin. Today in 2012 you can buy a new Colt M-1911A1 automatic pistol with a one ounce gold coin. (Nowadays there is a dizzying array of Colt automatic pistols and imitation Colt M-1911 automatic pistols so you can spend a little less or a lot more.
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/199/Guns/Pistols/...

Today when I checked an ounce of gold cost 1,752.00
http://www.monex.com/liveprices

Today when I checked a Colt .45 cost $1,175.00
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/199/Guns/Pistols/...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
In 1911 you could buy a new M-1911 Colt .45 automatic pistol with a one ounce gold coin. Today in 2012 you can buy a new Colt M-1911A1 automatic pistol with a one ounce gold coin.

Thanks for that illustration!
(This is a good thing, since those of us who keep a supply of gold around also tend to like Colt pistols.)



jz
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In 1911 you could buy a new M-1911 Colt .45 automatic pistol with a one ounce gold coin. Today in 2012 you can buy a new Colt M-1911A1 automatic pistol with a one ounce gold coin.


jz

So pistol technology hasn't improved in over 100 years?

In our military pistols were issued to officers and military police, the rest of us got real weapons. }};-D

I suspect that the officers were given them as it was easier to shoot yourself if you screwed up really badly. ;-D

When we were flying security for the sailing part of the Montreal Olympics in 1976 (they were actually held in Kingston on Lake Ontario as Montreal only had a river) I was given an automatic rifle with 30 round mags while the three officers on the crew had 9mm pistols. I let them keep their pistols but held on to the clips as the pistols were useless but could have put some inconvenient holes in our helo.


Tim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
In 1911 you could buy a new M-1911 Colt .45 automatic pistol with a one ounce gold coin. Today in 2012 you can buy a new Colt M-1911A1 automatic pistol with a one ounce gold coin.

So pistol technology hasn't improved in over 100 years?


Well, actually, no it hasn't.

US Navy SEALs, US police SWAT and Tactical teams* tend to favor the .45 ACP caliber Colt M1911A1 (in its many variations) over those 9mm toys people who don't actually USE guns get issued.

The US switched its military from the venerable Colt M1911A1 .45 ACP pistol to Beretta M9 9mm in a show of brotherly love with NATO, but the parts of the military where pistols were actually likely to be USED kept their forty-fives.

The USMC never did much like the Beretta M9 in 9×19mm Parabellum and has its own pistol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEU(SOC)_pistol
as you can see from the picture it's a modified M1911A1 in .45 ACP of course.

*Some police departments issue .40 caliber pistols as a compromise between 9mm and .45 ACP the theory being that more 9mm or .40 cal. misses will somehow make up for less hits. The correct answer, of course, would be more and better training. But that costs more money.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
US Navy SEALs, US police SWAT and Tactical teams* tend to favor the .45 ACP caliber Colt M1911A1 (in its many variations) over those 9mm toys people who don't actually USE guns get issued.


How odd, I always assumed they carried real weapons?



http://realityviews.blogspot.ca/2011/05/know-about-weapons-a...

Following is the list of weapons which Navy Seal Team 6 uses as per the need of the mission.

1. M4A1 Carbine

2. Handguns – MK23 Mod 0 .45 cal SOCOM Offensive Handgun,,M11 Sig Sauer P228 (9mm)

3. Assault Rifles - M4A1 with SOPMOD Accessory Kit (5.56mm)

4. Sniper Rifles – M14 Sniper Rifle (7.62mm),, MK11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System (7.62mm),, M82A1 Heavy Sniper Rifle (.50 cal)

5. Submachine Guns - HK MP5 Submachine Gun (9mm)

6. Machine Guns – M60E3 Machine Gun and MK43 Mod 0 (7.62mm) and M240 (7.62mm)

7. Combat Shotguns -Benelli M4 Super 90 Shotgun

8. Grenade Launchers - M203 Grenade Launcher (40mm)

9. Mortars - M224 Mortar (60mm)

10. Anti-Tank Rockets - M136 AT4 Light Anti-Tank Rocket
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
... Navy Seal Team 6 uses ... ,,M11 Sig Sauer P228 (9mm)

With smaller bullets y'all need more hits.
"It is essentially the same basic design of the SIG P220, but developed to use higher capacity, staggered-column magazines in place of the single-column magazines of the P220."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P226

The first pistol listed (MK23 Mod 0 .45 cal SOCOM Offensive Handgun) is, of course, chambered in .45 ACP.

Item number eight: "Grenade Launchers - M203 Grenade Launcher (40mm)" is at best a misnomer because the SEALs cut off the stock about five inches behind the rear of the trigger guard and cut off the barrel about 10 inches forward of it. The resulting weapon looks very much like a very large caliber old fashioned single shot pistol. The SEALs call it a "Pirate Gun". There is a picture of one of the Pirate guns in No Easy Day by Mark Owen.
http://www.amazon.com/No-Easy-Day-Firsthand-Account/dp/05259...
on the second (unnumbered) picture page in the book.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Matt Bissonnette AKA Mark Owen also mentions the "Pirate Gun" in an interview: 18 Things Navy SEALs Won't Leave Home Without

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-18-things-navy-seal...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
With smaller bullets y'all need more hits.


DD

Are you by chance completely ignoring 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 so you can focus on 2? }};-D


I was infantry for 5.5 years before re-mustering to aircrew training. In that time I had assault rifles, automatic rifles, submachineguns (Stirling), machineguns (.30 medium), sniper rifles (.303 and 7.62), 3.5 inch rocket launcher, 3.2 in Hellyer rocket launcher, Karl Gustav 84MM AT guns, M72 LAW (light anti-tank weapon). I used heavy MGs (.50 cal), 106MM AT guns, mortars (81mm medium and 4.2 inch heavy) and probably a few others I don't recall. Not once did my bosses or I feel I needed a pistol to do my job.

They do look rather cute when the generals wear them in a shoulder holster for a photo op though?


Tim <no bloody wonder I'm deaf> 443
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They do look rather cute when the generals wear them in a shoulder holster for a photo op though?

Not as cute as Patton's pearl handled revolver.

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/george-...

'course MacArthur had his oversized corncob pipes

http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2010/11/macarthur...

Eisenhower had been an underling of MacAurthur's before the war. Ike said he spent those years "studying dramatics"

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Not once did my bosses or I feel I needed a pistol to do my job.

Pistols, as you should know, are personal defense weapons issued to people like machine gunners so they'll have a weapon of last defense. I was issued a (very old) M1911A1 it got me recruited onto the pistol team when I qualified high expert while qualifying with it as part of my being an XM79 (later redesignated the M 79)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M79_grenade_launcher
grenader in an armored infantry unit.

The M 79 was later morphed into the M 203 and mounted under rifles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M203_grenade_launcher

Aside from being issued to the enlisted ranks pistols have replaced swords as the (mostly symbolic) weapon carried by officers. Although with the officers who are actually IN the fighting you'll often find they have long guns as well.

The most fun I ever had with .45 ACP ammo was while I was on my second pistol team. We were practicing on the range one day when some Border Patrol agents began firing M3 submachine guns at the range next door.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun

We went over and asked if we could shoot their sub guns. The response was yes, but we'd have to provide our own ammo.

No Problem! We had thousands of rounds of (expensive) National Match grade .45 ACP ammo. We burned through it all in about half an hour. We'd have run out of ammo sooner, but it took time for us to load the 30 round magazines.

The BP had the airborne variant of the M3 which had only a tiny stub of barrel sticking out beyond the cowling and we were shooting at a sand bag about 100 yards (the gun's maximum range) away.

Of course we all shot full magazines full auto from the hip "Hollywood" style every time we took a turn on one of the guns. I doubt we made many hits on the sand bag but I'm sure we scared the hell out of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pistols, as you should know, are personal defense weapons issued to people like machine gunners so they'll have a weapon of last defense.

Each to their own but IMO nothing like 30 rounds of accurate 9mm to really discourage someone?

I'm sure you will be shocked to learn that the M3 was developed because of a bit of envy of the British Sten?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten


A vastly improved version the Stirling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_submachine_gun

which we modified into the very good C1 was what we issued to drivers, tank crews, radio guys and just about anyone else who needed about 100 yards of very effective defensive fire power.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/smgs/c1smg.htm

https://www.google.ca/search?q=canadian+c1+sterling&hl=e...

They were also good for patrolling as unlike the old Thomson they didn't rattle when you walked. We had a little fun thing of putting a 1" block behind the spring that about doubled the already impressive rate of fire.

They came with three 30 round mags and one 'short' 10 round mag that allowed them to fit in a holding bracket, but you could always scrounge more mags if you thought you would need them.

The US guys who saw them would go gaga on us. }};-D


Tim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm sure you will be shocked to learn that the M3 was developed because of a bit of envy of the British Sten?

iirc, the US adopted the M3 because it cost about $15 to make, vs something like $300-$400 in 1940 bux for a Thompson. To put that price in perspective, a 1940 Ford 3 window coupe cost $660 new.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
iirc, the US adopted the M3 because it cost about $15 to make, vs something like $300-$400 in 1940 bux for a Thompson. To put that price in perspective, a 1940 Ford 3 window coupe cost $660 new.

Steve


You can find almost anything on the internet these days. }};-D

The Thompson was heavy, noisy and the .45 was a really short range bullet. Of course the M3 was lighter and cheaper but still had the .45 which was a bit too unique for most foreign nations. The STEN was very cheap but limited as well (smooth bore and suffered reliability issues) so the Stirling was a massive improvement.

STEN wasn't originally intended for formal military use but rather was intended to be mass produced and dropped to partisans. The military had a need for SMGs and adopted the only thing available at the time.

Tim

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_thompson_submac...

However, more was to come. The finely machined Lyman sight was removed and replaced by a simple L-shaped battle sight, later protected by 'ears' to stop it snagging on soldiers' cloths and equipment. Then, the fancy checkering on the Fire Selector and Safety switches and the Actuator knob was removed, as were the finely finished barrel fins. Savage however, went even further. They took out the Blish lock (which incidentally, had proven to be unnecessary in a sub-machinegun) and converted it to a straight blowback design. This removed the need for the separate Actuator and 'H' piece, and allowed the cocking handle to be mounted directly on the bolt, moving from the top of the weapon to the right-hand side. Other changes were made that meant the butt stock was permanently attached to the receiver, both the 50-round and 100-round drum magazines could no longer be used and the Cutt's compensator was removed. The new weapon was designated the Submachine Gun, Caliber .45, M1 in April 1942. In October 1942, even this version was simplified again, with the M1A1 having the firing pin and hammer removed and in its place, a fixed firing pin was machined into the face of the bolt. To replace the 50-round drum magazine, a 30-round box magazine was introduced. As a measure of these changes, the M1A1 could be produced in half the time of an M1928A1 and at almost a quarter of the cost. The M1928A1 cost $209 each, the M1 cost $70 while the M1A1 cost $45. The weapon that supplanted it, the M3, cost even less.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The M1928A1 cost $209 each, the M1 cost $70 while the M1A1 cost $45.

The Wiki article upholds the cost as about half of a new Ford, in their case in the early 20s.

The Thompson first entered production as the M1921. It was available to civilians, though its high price resulted in few sales. (A Thompson with one Type XX 20 shot "stick" magazine was priced at $200.00, at a time when a Ford automobile sold for $400.00.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun

The STEN was very cheap but limited as well (smooth bore and suffered reliability issues)

The STEN picked some terrible times to not work.

Reinhard Heydrich

The intersection, in the Prague suburb of Liben, was well-suited for the attack because Heydrich's car would have to slow for a hairpin turn. As the car slowed, Gabcík took aim with a Sten sub-machine gun, but it jammed and failed to fire. Instead of ordering his driver to speed away, Heydrich called his car to a halt and attempted to take on the attackers. Kubiš then threw a bomb (a converted anti-tank mine) at the rear of the car as it stopped. The explosion wounded Heydrich and Kubiš.[97]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich#Death_in_Prag...

and the .45 was a really short range bullet.

The .45ACP is so gimpy that it couldn't even reliably penetrate auto body sheet metal in the 30s, particularly Fords. For this reason Clyde Barrow raided a National Guard armory and procured some BARs.

http://texashideout.tripod.com/guns.html

Some of the members of the posse that disposed of Barrow and Parker used BARs for the same reason.

The US military made the same discovery in the Pacific Theatre

The Thompson was soon found to have limited effect in heavy jungle cover, where the low-velocity .45 bullet would not penetrate most small-diameter trees, or protective armor vests. (In 1923, the Army had rejected the .45 Remington-Thompson, which had twice the energy of the .45 ACP).[29] In the U.S. Army, many Pacific War jungle patrols were originally equipped with Thompsons in the early phases of the New Guinea and Guadalcanal campaigns, but soon began employing the BAR in its place, especially at front (point) and rear (trail) positions, as a point defense weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Eisenhower had been an underling of MacAurthur's before the war. Ike said he spent those years "studying dramatics"

Steve, I agree with Ike. Douglas MacArthur was a politician hiding in military uniform. Of course I'd have to give the award for biggest prig of that era to General Bernard Montgomery.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Of course I'd have to give the award for biggest prig of that era to General Bernard Montgomery.

Great line in "Patton": "he (Montgomery) and I are both primadonnas. The difference is I admit it"

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pistols, as you should know, are personal defense weapons issued to people like machine gunners so they'll have a weapon of last defense.

Each to their own but IMO nothing like 30 rounds of accurate 9mm to really discourage someone?


Thirty rounds of any caliber coming in their general direction would be discouraging to anyone. But that's not the point.

A holstered pistol is always with you. Your 9mm 30 round subgun would have to be hung by a strap or carried in the hands. Either way it's a pain in the ass to carry around all the time. I carry a pistol whenever I go out -- effortlessly.

The last thing a soldier lugging an M1919 30 caliber medium machine gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1919_Browning_machine_gun
(which I found fun to fire but wouldn't want to have to carry around) needs or wants is a rifle, subgun or carbine for personal protection when away from the gun.

I'm sure you will be shocked to learn that the M3 was developed because of a bit of envy of the British Sten?

Yes, I would be shocked since it ain't so:

"The Sten emerged while Britain was engaged in the Battle of Britain, facing invasion by Germany. The army was forced to replace weapons lost during the evacuation from Dunkirk while expanding at the same time. Prior to 1941 (and even later) the British were purchasing all the Thompson submachine guns they could from the United States, but these did not begin to meet demand. The American entry into the war at the end of 1941 placed an even bigger demand on the facilities making Thompsons. In order to rapidly equip a sufficient fighting force to counter the Axis threat, the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, was commissioned to produce an alternative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten

The M3 was designed (by the US) from the outset as a more cost-effective alternative to the Thompson, optimized for mass production.
http://www.ima-usa.com/nation/u-s-militaria/u-s-machine-guns... (among other websites)

The Brits had an annoying habit of placing the magazines on their weapons in odd places: on the side (Sten) and cantilevered (Bren) we conservative Americans placed the magazines on the bottom of our weapons where they belong.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You can find almost anything on the internet these days.

Yeah, including guys who claim the US envied the British Sten:
http://boards.fool.com/pistols-as-you-should-know-are-person...

When it didn't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Basel III and Gold

The most significant change is moving gold from its tier 3 status to tier 1 capital as 100% loan-backing reserves, the same as cash and bonds. For the first time in 42 years, gold is being brought back into our financial system as money. All the world's banks are now storing this metal, not as some 3rd rate "asset," but as all the world's working capital - its money. So it's not just any voice, it is the ultimate voice on what is money that has spoken. Gold was removed from our system by Nixon in 1971, when he took us off the gold standard by disallowing foreign governments to exchange their dollar reserves for US-held gold. Ironically, they were doing this in great volume because of Washington's lack of fiscal discipline. Now, as gold has appreciated from $35 to $1700 in the unofficial gold standard interim, Washington's lack of fiscal discipline is again an issue, and we are now being forced to recognize gold as official money again.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1016161-basel-iii-and-gold?s......

Adenovir


This is a very curious move, and I would argue quite stupid. I would think that Tier 1 capital should have very low risk that it will drop in value, a quality that gold no longer has since the link between currencies and gold was cut.

What next? Making oil futures as Tier 1 capital?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Brits had an annoying habit of placing the magazines on their weapons in odd places: on the side (Sten) and cantilevered (Bren) we conservative Americans placed the magazines on the bottom of our weapons where they belong.


I agree, y'all should be forced to stick your head up into the field of fire where you can get it blown off while we Canucks like to keep it low just in case one of you gets lucky. }};-D


Incidentally Gunny doesn't agree with you. I've fired both and found the Bren a much nicer piece of machinery. The worst part about the Bren was those rather awkward to carry and store curved Mags.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ4nM48b9SU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yeah, including guys who claim the US envied the British Sten:
http://boards.fool.com/pistols-as-you-should-know-are-person......

When it didn't:


Sigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun#History

In 1941 the U.S. Army Ordnance Board observed the effectiveness of submachine guns employed in Western Europe, particularly the German 9mm MP 40 and British Sten guns, and initiated a study to develop its own Sten-type submachine gun in October 1942
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Brits had an annoying habit of placing the magazines on their weapons in odd places: on the side (Sten) and cantilevered (Bren) we conservative Americans placed the magazines on the bottom of our weapons where they belong.

I agree, y'all should be forced to stick your head up into the field of fire where you can get it blown off while we Canucks like to keep it low just in case one of you gets lucky.


Didn't you watch the clip you linked to?

As can be plainly seen in the clip you provided
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ4nM48b9SU
the muzzles of both the Bren and Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) are at the same height when on the ground with their bipod's extended.

And, as any soldier will tell you, folding the bipod and firing the Bren with the gun on the ground would kick up a cloud of dust that would not only give away the Bren gunner's position, but also blind him with dust thrown up by his own gun.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
DD

Discussing with you or Harmy is like arguing with my bladder at 5:45 AM in a nice warm bed.

I might just as well get up and empty it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, it does appear you were wetting yourself.

Glad I could clear that up for you. :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I would think that Tier 1 capital should have very low risk that it will drop in value, a quality that gold no longer has since the link between currencies and gold was cut.

What next? Making oil futures as Tier 1 capital?


Seems to me that gold is an international currency-equivalent and very reasonable to make it part of Tier 1 capital. Oil is not currency. It's more affected by supply and demand. They are not equivalent.

Adenovir
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Seems to me that gold is an international currency-equivalent and very reasonable to make it part of Tier 1 capital. Oil is not currency. It's more affected by supply and demand. They are not equivalent.

A while back I did some investigation and calculation. If all gold mining were to abruptly cease and be permanently unable to resume, our current stockpiles of gold would cover all current industrial use for something like 400 years. This is with no allowance for recycling, but quite a lot of industrial gold can be recovered and recycled.

And gold actually can be stored for 400 - or 4,000 - years, pretty easily. (Securing it so it doesn't get stolen is a bit more complex; but it doesn't just evaporate on its own, or decay into a non-usable form.)

Current production of gold is pretty much irrelevant to the price of gold.

How long would our existing stockpiles of oil last, if new production were shut down? What would happen to the price? How much of our oil consumption could be recycled? How storeable is it? I know gasoline and diesel fuel need special chemical treatment if they are going to stay in a small tank for a year...

THAT is why gold may be a suitable Tier 1 capital, and oil definitely is not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I would think that Tier 1 capital should have very low risk that it will drop in value, a quality that gold no longer has since the link between currencies and gold was cut.

What next? Making oil futures as Tier 1 capital?


Seems to me that gold is an international currency-equivalent and very reasonable to make it part of Tier 1 capital. Oil is not currency. It's more affected by supply and demand. They are not equivalent.

Adenovir


It seems to me that gold is extremely affected by supply and demand, especially demand, which accounts for its volatility. It also seems to me that something so volatile should not be included with the safest forms of capital.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
warrl

Good analysis, but I would point out that you may be underestimating the impact of central bank & other investment demand by saying:

Current production of gold is pretty much irrelevant to the price of gold.

From the end of the last gold bull until the beginning of the current one, central banks were selling their gold which, when added to the production overwhelmed the then current demand and served to drive down prices for an extended period (20 years).

Now the pendulum is swinging back and investment demand plus industrial demand plus renewed central bank buying is overwhelming production thus the current 12 year bull market.

New discoveries of gold, even after at least a decade of increased exploration is not keeping up with the increased demand as the grades of the newer finds are not as rich and demand is increasing.

Poz
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've watched the "Gold Rush "show on Discovery TV. That doesn't make me an expert in gold for sure, but one thing I get out of it is the expensive enormous diesel guzzling machines used for months to get less than a mason jar worth of gold.

Since people have been looking for gold for thousands of years there's nothing left except low grade deposits. Production appears to be steady since 1998 despite the huge run up in prices.

http://www.numbersleuth.org/worlds-gold/ all sorts of facts about gold.
If you take all the gold in the world and divided it equally among the global population ,how much would each person have? About 3/4 of an ounce.

So production is fixed, and will fall if prices fall. Demand is the key.
Jewelry is the biggest factor in demand.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I know gasoline and diesel fuel need special chemical treatment if they are going to stay in a small tank for a year...

Gasoline yes. Diesel no.

Diesel's long storage life (decades) is one of the reasons survivalists choose it over gasoline.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think that that is temperature dependent (maybe only for the bio-diesel) and you'd best watch for collected condensation water in the bottom of your storage container...

Last was always a problem on the ships I was on.

ciao
BJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think that that is temperature dependent (maybe only for the bio-diesel) and you'd best watch for collected condensation water in the bottom of your storage container...

Yes, bio-diesel is a whole different animal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

ou'd best watch for collected condensation water in the bottom of your storage container...

Last was always a problem on the ships I was on.

ciao
BJ



The JP5 jetfuel we carried on ships (not a whole lot different than diesel) had to be "circed" (Recirculated) through the filters daily to remove water and prevent potential microbe growth that could clog up fuel lines and filters. It drove the sailors crazy because the whole interior of the ship would be out of bounds for smoking for about four hours during the 'circ'. They could smoke on the after deck but a lot of the engineer dept types hated the upper decks at sea.

JP5 had another interesting characteristic not shared with JP4 (normal jetfuel) it left a smoke trail when it burned which used to cause occasional excitement by flight crews or air traffic towers that weren't used to it. The advantage of JP5 was the much higher ignition temp making it safer to carry on warships.

Tim <not really a boat people> 443
Print the post Back To Top