Would it be wise to invest into silver even though one might not have much to invest with? Thanks in advance.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
No, those are not the old rules and nothing changed.
Cash/fiat: Depreciates because it's toilet paper
PMs/Large funds: Appreciate, slowly
Stocks/BTC: Risk of default but massive appreciation
The younger you are the more risk you can take. Never keep more cash than necessary for expenses and emergencies.
You are welcome to believe what you wish. Those rules exist purely because of how the markets have been manipulated for the past 150 years. The largest manipulation has been in Ag/Au.
Look at the Ag/Au ratio over the past 5000 years. It remained perfectly stable until the early 1870's (around the time of the Act of 1871) when the Luciferians took over D.C.. It became much worse after 1913 when the Luciferians created the Fed and took over our currency completely. After 1933, and all the economic changes they put in after their forced market crash in 1929 the Ag/Au ratio really took off. It has been between 1:50 and 1:100 ever since.
Silver is MASSIVELY undervalued. If we win, that manipulation will end and silver will rebalance. But it isn't just silver that's been manipulated. They have also manipulated Ag to suppress the inflation that their money printing would have otherwise forced to increase.
Trust me or don't, but I promise, if we win, Ag will go to its market value (at least 1/10 of whatever Au adjusts to).
"gold and silver are an incredible investment right now"
Commodities are not "investments" at all, at any time, because investments offer a rate of return. I.e., you don't "invest" in a silver dollar in expectation of waking up to 1.04 silver dollars.
What they are, are stores of value (i.e., inflation hedges, and, in the case of PMs, portable wealth AKA "money").
Pedantic given the vernacular, nevertheless your definition is more accurate.
Words mean things.
It is "valued" exactly as the market is willing to pay for it.
Claiming it's "undervalued" simply tells me that the claimant is speculating "long" in whatever the claim is being made of. I.e., he's "talking his book", as the expression goes. If you don't understand this (or worse, deny it), then you're the person at the poker table who doesn't know who the "mark" is.