Well a lot of people seem to think we'll see silver hit AT LEAST $5K an ounce, since that's the actual value of silver if you account for all of the price fixing and manipulation done through various methods and look at how much physical silver there is in existence.
But there's been quite a few people on various threads and articles I've seen talk about how with FOMO (like in the 80's silver squeeze with the Hunt Brothers incident) and other factors involved, it's not impossible to see silver hit $50-60K an ounce for a moderately short period of time. Which while amazing, isn't that big of a deal when you consider the amount of ounces most people own.
If I remember correctly, the figures go something like this. 20% of stackers have 50 ounces or more ($3 Million at the $60K an ounce figure), 5% of stackers have 150 ounces or more ($9 Million at $60K an ounce), and the top 1% of stackers have 500 ounces or more ($30 Million at $60K an ounce). Everyone else (consisting of 80% of people who own silver), own less than 50 ounces.
And keep in mind, that's assuming they sell at the absolute peak number I've seen thrown around, which most won't. This is basically gonna be like that first bit coin rally in 2017 and 2018 where people that had bitcoin and sold at NEAR the high, but not quite at the high, came out rich, while everyone else held out because they bought near the top and got crapped on as a result.
Well I'm not IN Jersey. I just remember it being mentioned in a few guntuber videos before. This isn't the first attempt at a "smart gun" and every time a new one comes out, the politicians in Jersey start foaming at the mouth and everyone on youtube starts running around like chickens over it.
Welp, guess New Jersey's screwed for at least a few months. They have a law passed during the 90s that says the moment a "smart gun" comes out, all other types of handguns are banned in the state and people are only allowed to own smartguns.
I mean, we all know that'll be struck down in court, but it always takes at least a few months for it to work it way through the system.
The headline for original article is kind of misleading. This is only really on the rise in Georgia specifically. And that's only because it's pretty much the only state in the union that doesn't require notarization of things like quit claim deeds and warranty deeds.
So literally anyone can print off a deed that they obtained from a public database, forge the appropriate names, and then have the property "transferred" into their "ownership".
Then they can get a mortgage on it and just not pay it, sell it out from under someone, etc. etc.
I also looked into this SPECIFIC story more as well, because it seemed a little bizarre to me that it escalated to this point because usually mortgage fraud/wrongful forclosure cases are ridiculously easy to win if you're in the right when forged documents are involved.
A decent lawyer and a notary expert are all it needs, and you don't even half to pay for it since 99% of the time the courts will put all the expenses on the other party since they're the ones at fault.
So what happened in this specific case, was that these old people kept getting mail talking about missing mortgage payments, and their house being foreclosed on, but ignored it and threw it away without looking into it. Then refused to leave when they actually got foreclosed on after never taking any action.
If they had just reported the mortgage fraud after the first letter, everything would have been fixed within a week or two max at no cost to them. So while this IS horrible, I can't say they're completely not at fault since they took zero action to fix the situation.
This totally ignores third party "outside" factors, like the giant push by cabal stooges to normalize homosexuality, transsexuality, emasculate men, push for food additives and water chemicals that lower fertility, and let's not forget the greatest factor here.
Going off the gold standard and allowing for inflation to happen. Look at the monetary value of the dollar before the federal reserve, it basically had ZERO inflation. Sometimes, it actually had deflation, which means the money become more valuable.
Get rid of all these external factors, and we'd probably be living like the jetsons right now, minus the flying cars and robot butlers.
So no, capitalism doesn't "promote societal suicide". It's corruption and propaganda from the cabal that promotes it.
That's kind of the point. The Wallstreet landlords DO have the cash, hence why they're able to buy up entire neighborhoods at once. Then they refinance it to get their money back out. Rinse and repeat.
But in doing so they're perpetually taking on massive amounts of debt in a bloated value market. So when the house of cards crashes, they're gonna go belly up.
You do realize that by the time this all goes down, Trump will be back in control and mass deportations will start right?
Need to preface this so I don't get burned at the stake. I DO NOT support corporate Single Family Landlords. I firmly believe single family homes should either be owned, or be the realm of small and medium scale family owned LLC landlords. The largest one of those I've EVER seen was about 15K houses, and it wasn't in a single metro. It was spread over 17 states. and 24 metros. And that was a large exception, rather than the norm.
Now with that out of the way. This isn't as big a problem as people think it is. Yeah it sucks in the short term, but medium/long term, this isn't a big deal.
https://s28.q4cdn.com/264003623/files/doc_financials/2022/ar/invh_2022_ar_web_bmk.pdf
There's the 2022 Annual report for Invitation Homes (2023 Annual report isn't available yet), the largest Single Family REIT in North America that owns over 80K Single Family homes in the USA and Canada.
If you look inside of it you'll notice a very important detail. They own about $17 Billion worth of property, but have just under $9.5 Billion in Debt. That means they're using 56%~ leverage.
Now why is the important? Because from what I can tell they use a very basic real estate investment strategy that a lot of normal people use, just scaled to infinity. BRR (Buy, Refinance, Rent). It's one of the simplest strategies. You buy a house in all cash, to simplify the process and lure in the seller with a quick sell, then you just simply refinance the house after it's legally yours to get your money back while renting it to pay off the mortgage and pocket the difference as your income.
It's literally the most simple Real Estate Investment Strategy. Looking back, I'd say that the 56% debt ratio is probably only because they chose to wait until the end of the new year to refinance their properties to further invest. Most of these types of companies will typically use at least 75% leverage to maximize profits.
Now why is all this important? Because in the medium-long term, they're gonna lose their shirt on those houses. It's no secret that real estate is INCREDIBLY overpriced. We're due for more than just a correction. We're probably looking at a crash on the scale of the great depression or worse. Most people worth listening too are saying AT LEAST 70% drop in value, up to 90%.
So yeah, these guys are gonna lose their shirts on these houses, and then they're gonna flood the market, and further drive down home prices. Which will make the entire market infinitely more affordable to the common man.
Eh I wouldn't worry about it. Be kind of hard to pass something like that if the entire government is collapsed because of everything else going on. It's pretty accepted from what Q hinted at/outright said, that when the crap hits the fan, IT WILL ALL HIT THE FAN.
So when the banks collapse, leading to a giant silver/gold rally since there will no longer be any suppression on their value, the government is gonna collapse too, continuity of government will happen, etc. etc.
Basically, it'll be impossible for them to try and do something like that if there's no congress to right up or pass such a bill.
Personally I'm betting we'll see a $5k an oz minimum for silver. Here's an example why.
https://munknee.com/case-5000-silver-yes-5000-silver/
But even considering that, It'll probably be at WAY over $5K for a month or two, I'm predicating $15-25K an ounce fora while. Reason being that FOMO will create a mini bubble like it has in every other instance of an asset quickly appreciating.
People will see it's going up, want to get "their piece of the pie", and then drive the price up above it's actual value by a factor of 3X-5X, before people stop buying it because it's too expensive for their blood, and then the market will crash back down to roughly $5K.
The literally didn't say that? They said if it's not stayed he MIGHT be forced to sell properties which would cause irreparable harm to the Trump Org.
Basically, they're just outlining why there should be a stay, but even IF the appellate court doesn't side with Trump, he still has options beyond selling.
Cash out refinance Loans come to mind, but the most likely will be just taking out a loan or putting up DWAC stock as the collateral since Trumps cut is projected to be $4 Billion and while he can't sell it for six months after all is said and done, he can still take loans out against it or use it as collateral.
While I'm sure there's nefarious reasons behind this, I'd assume the "official" reason, is that they move/have assets under management similar to some large regional banks.
As I write this he has a net worth just shy of 128 Billion. Going by this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks_in_the_United_States
That would make cascade investments (His family office) and the gates foundation (which combine manage ever dime of his money), the 34th largest bank in the united states, just under discover bank and even larger than the infamous Deutsche Bank by the tune of 17 Billion dollars.
I can't quite remember where I heard it before, but I believe I watched a video on family offices once that explained that all these ultra wealthy .01% types basically have to run their money like a bank would so they get clearances and approval to do just that from the various oversight organizations.
That's also why they tend to hire former bank executives to run their money for them, because they have so much money, they're basically a one person bank.
Not saying I AGREE with this considering I hate the ground gates walks on, but if you look at from a purely financial and logistical perspective, it makes sense.
Normally I'd be all against the liberal whale judge, but in this case I hate Wayne "slightly" more. Not entirely sure what sort of corruption he's being charged with here, but he probably actually did it, and a lot more.
He's the douchebag constantly making backroom deals that allowed our second amendment rights to be gradually chipped at while refusing to do any actual defending beyond the usual saber rattling.
So in this case, I quite literally couldn't care less if the NRA and Wayne get screwed, they're both hollowed out shells of what they used to be.
If you have any pictures try reverse image searching and then dredge for meta data to get pictures of him with people he seems comfortable/affectionate with.
Then you can use one of those facial identification websites on the other people in the photos to get more info on them.
Rinse and repeat.
Beyond that, try genealogy databases, data dredging websites that let you use key words to dredge the internet, etc. etc.
I'd be careful though and would use a good adblocker and pop up blocker since a lot of the sites that you'll find doing this kind of thing are kind of skeevy and filled with pop up ads or data mining ads.
Meh, don't believe it. Like u/Fatality pointed out with the screenshot, most of these kids are only saying this to be accepted. The overwhelming majority of them are young girls identifying as bi, pan, or "masc" if they're a tomboy, or some other stupid sexual identity that basically let's them be be straight without being straight.
Every single one of the "sexualities" mentioned basically revolves around liking both genders or trying to be trans without being trans. Essentially, it lets them continue to be straight, because they actually don't find other women attractive and literally never date other women, while "officially" being a member of the rainbow brigade.
It's all about attention and acceptance. Once this stuff is demonized again post cabal, they'll all drop it over night.
Meh I'm not worried about it. Not being sexist, but "young women", and really women in general, are generally much more likely to cave into peer pressure. As such they tend to go with "the current thing" more than men.
Case in point, social media, MSM, and basically every other institution of power is dead set on spewing nothing but liberal propaganda 24/7. More women than men are on these platforms most of the time, and they certainly use it far more on an hourly basis.
Ergo, to most women, the majority of the world is "lefist/liberal", and so to fit in with "the majority" they adapt that mindset to their own personalities. But even then like u/cringerepublic pointed out, most of the time they're super mild about it.
Think about those morons you see in "social experiment" videos where you'll ask them a question about something stupid. Let's say peanut butter. And they'll go on a rant about how peanut butter is racist because of slavery and all this other bull crap, and then the moment you mention that peanut butter was invented by a black guy they IMMEDIATELY back pedal because they realize it violates what's "socially acceptable".
Things like that is what I'm talking about. So once the globohomo media apparatus is done away with, and the fact that people are NOT overwhelmingly liberal, but rather are either middle of the road or conservative leaning for the most part, becomes a known fact of life, especially on social media, then most of the women will do a complete 180 on their opinions and entire life view in order to "fit in with the majority" again.
To be fair, US steel isn't exactly top dog anymore. Nucor is the new top dog in North American Steel production. If I remember correctly, they produce either double or triple what US steel does in a year. So yeah, kind of a big fall, but not exactly the end of the world as far as US Steel production goes.
.......Alright, you're an actual idiot. You ignored half of what I said, changed your target argument because I called you on your crap, and apparently want everyone alive to live in half acre lots while also spouting bull crap about pollution and calling for depopulation to 1950s level.
You're either actually stupid, or a troll. So I'm ending this argument chain. No sense in arguing with someone who ignores everything they're told because it doesn't fit their world view and just outright lies about things while calling for depopulation.
Assuming I'm wrong, might want to do a bit of introspection, since you sound eerily like a WEF stooge calling for everyone to be required to live in half acre houses with no choice over where they actually get to live and also calling for us to depopulate to the tune of 171 Million people (the difference between todays population and the population in 1950), "in the name of pollution and resource demand."
You literally sound like klaus schwab at this point, so if you're being serious, then I have no choice bit to label you a troll/glowie.
Nice necro posting three days after a post was basically dead and no one is here to respond to you but me. But you didn't refute a single one of my points.
First of all, you're conflating apartment buildings (specifically low income apartment buildings) with all non-owner occupied housing. That's like taking a statistic about pitbulls and saying "see, all dogs eat babies!" It's inaccurate to the whole picture and dishonest to try and paint the situation in that manner.
Even in the 50s and 60s, when the economy was in it's prime, young people still typically rented for the first few years after college/leaving their parents house. Furthermore, the reason it's the number one path to wealth is because ANYONE can do it moron.
Anyone can go out and buy a house if they have enough money. It's not a groundbreaking idea. It doesn't require anything other than basic financial knowledge. Most people who own a rental, don't own an apartment building, they own a few actual houses, a lot of which are vacation rentals (Cabins, lakeside, ocean front, etc.). which are in gated communities. Further disproving you're apparent "point".
Finally, let's ASSUME you actually manage to pass such a law how do you enforce it or deal with the fallout? You seem to have a gripe with apartments specifically, so let's address that.
Apartment buildings, typically are self metered, meaning every individual unit does NOT have it's own meter to read power consumption, water consumption, etc. etc. The owner just assumes a standard rate based on average consumption and adds it into the rent.
So if every single apartment building in the country suddenly had to be converted into single unit condos, meaning the entire building would need to be overhauled to allow for such upgrades, who would pay for it? The current owner certainly wouldn't, and you're entire defense is that people don't have money to own a home, so the people wanting to buy certainly don't.
Who pays for those upgrades? You're talking hundreds of billions of dollars in upgrades. And that's just for metering. Multifamily is zoned different because building standards are different. You'd also have to upgrade the fire systems, electrical systems, etc. etc.
Who pays for that?
And I can almost guarantee you'll just say to tear them down and build single family homes. In which case I ask you, do you hate farmland and forests? Let's use NYC for example. If every single apartment building in NYC was demolished and replaced with single family homes, the urban sprawl required to replace all those housing units would take up the entirety of New York State, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and part of Pennsylvania. And that's not accounting for the other major cities in the NY Metro that have their own multi family housing buildings. Just NYC.
At that point you also run into problems like having a house that's literally 5 hours away from where you work because of traffic.
So yeah, you're grand design of having no more multi family housing and having nothing but single family homes and/or condos is a fantasy that is neither feasible, nor possible.
I read that assuming they meant 10 Equal "sell off value" minimums over a decade, but I suppose you make a good point. Legal semantics like that are the difference between being technically legal or illegal.
Alright, you're an idiot or a troll. I'm not sure which, but you obviously read neither the original post, nor the bills, nor my own comments, and are just spouting random bull crap to get a reaction.
This is the last time I'm responding, as I have a "final post" rule when it comes to an identified troll/dumbass, but I'll break down one last time why you're wrong on basically every point.
First of all, blackrock is NOT a subsidiary of the federal reserve. Blackrock is an investment fund/wealth management company. They're publicly traded, and you can literally see a list of who owns more than 5% of blackrocks stock. The federal reserve is nowhere on that list.
Second of all, blackrock gets fined all the time, and they pay those fines. A quick google search would tell you that much, but apparently that's asking too much of you to just look something up before spouting your inane nonsense.
Blackrock, like most large companies, considered fines a part of life. There is not a single large business on planet earth that doesn't account for fines in their expenses budget every year. But a 50% of MARKET VALUE fine, is bankrupting for any business.
Third of all, as the original post pointed out, this only applies to hedge funds and other large, institutional investors. The literal, legal definition of an institutional investor is an organization that invests on behalf of a group of people (Some definitions put a dollar amount limit requiring they manage at least $50-100 Million of investor money on the behalf of others as well). Ergo, a retired couple who owns their own portfolio of 10-20 houses (Which at the US average of $400K would only be worth $4-8 Million and not be owned on behalf of another) with no middle man, would not be have this applied to them. Nullifying your supposed "point" about retired boomers.
So no, the Ma and Pop landlords aren't going anywhere....Especially when you consider 70% of "small rental units", meaning single family to quadraplex, are owned and managed by ma and pop landlords
Likewise, Blackrock, does NOT, repeat after me, NOT, own the majority of single family rentals, Heck, institutional investors in general only own 0.7% of all single family homes in the united states.
Let's do some math real quick.
https://www.statista.com/topics/5144/single-family-homes-in-the-us/#topicOverview
There are 82 Million single family homes in the United States.
Every single institutional investor combined owns a collective 574,000 Single family homes. (Blackrock themselves own 24,600 for the record as their own website states they own .03% of all single family homes in the US.)
Now then, what is 574,000 / 82,000,000?
.007 or when converted to percent 0.7% of all single family homes. Compare that with the 15,939,000 single family rental homes owned by Mom and Pop Landlords. (You can achieve this number by using the nar.realtor link above, but the math is 49.5 Million *0.7= 22.77 Million which you then multiply by 0.7 again for 15.939 Million. For context, there are 49.5 Million rental units in the US, of which 70% are 1-4 units, of which 70% are owned and managed by Mom and Pop Landlords).
So let's see here Mom and Pop landlord own 27.77 times more houses than Blackrock and every other institutional investor combined. So let's see, for your bizarre fantasy of blackrock buying out every single one of those Mom and Pop land Lords, at the US average of $400K per single family home, they'd need $6,375,600,000,000. That's over $6 Trillion for the record, if you can't see all the commas. They have just over $10 Trillion in total assets, meaning they'd have to liquidate over 60% of their total assets in order to achieve this outlandish goal, and they'd have to shutter countless funds, which would bring all the wrong kinds of attention. But most importantly, it's literally impossible to do.
Blackrock invests in EVERYTHING. Stocks, derivatives, bonds, real estate, private equity, venture capital. If it makes money, they'll try it. The only thing in that list that can be easily, and quickly liquidated would be stocks, bonds, and some types of derivatives. And if you tried to liquidate over $6 Trillion in assets over.....well any amount of time really, you'd tank whatever markets you're selling in. For comparison, the Lehman Brothers (the big bank that went under in 2008), had $600 BILLION in total assets, they're STILL being liquidated in bankruptcy court to this day, 15 years late because doing it any faster would tank multiple markets.
And I know exactly what you're going to say. "Oh they'll just print it, they won't sell anything, dur hur!"
Well let me burst that bubble for you. There are currently $2.26 Trillion actual total USD in circulation
So they would have print nearly triple, the total dollar amount currently in existence, to achieve this magical plan.
Remember what happened in 2020 when they printed something like 80% of all dollars in circulation currently? Now imagine the hyper inflation that would occur if instead of an 80% increase in dollar supply, the dollar supply suddenly tripled on top of that 80% increase.
Venezuela? Nah, Weimar Germany would probably be closer. They had a literal 100 Trillion Mark (Their currency). For comparison, the exchange rate for dollars at this point in time (1923) was $1USD for 4,210,500,000,000 Marks. So hyperinflation doesn't even begin to cover what would happen if they "printed" the money needed to buy up all the single family rental homes.
Here's two links for the information about Weimar Marks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papiermark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
And we haven't even covered the other 40+ Million NON rental single family homes in the United States.
So as you can see, every single argument you're attempting to make falls flat in the face of actual facts.
I'm not saying black rock isn't evil, they are. But you have literally no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this specific topic.
Assuming I'm wrong and you're not a troll trying to bait people, then please, for the love of all that is Holy. Just do a freaking google search or two before you make baseless claims that anyone on the internet can debunk and disprove in five minutes with less than 10 google searches of their own.
......That is....I don't actually know how I should put it, but it's just wrong. Not EVERYONE who owns a rental property is a cabal stooge. You do realize that right? A lot of people's grandparents or parents have a small property portfolio of 10-20 houses that they rent out for extra retirement income.
Is every well off boomer now a member of the rothschild family? Because that's what you're implying with you're bizarre logic.
I don't even know what to say, since your rebuttal was actually retarded. And I'm not trying to be mean, I just legit don't know how else to describe such a one dimensional, childish response.
"Everyone who owns a rental property is part of the cabal!"
Do you realize how insane that sounds?
Not to be rude, but there's multiple problems with that. As pointed out in the post, they want a 50%, not 20% tax.
That is neither sustainable, nor legal, in many places. Quite a few of the biggest markets in the country (California and New York for example), have rent control that prevent landlords from raising rents more than the inflation rate+2-5% a year.
So a 50% cut would be bankrupting once you account for all the costs involved with owning and upkeeping a rental.
Likewise, yes, quite often these properties are purchased with cash. But then they immediately go out and put a massive 80/20 mortgage on them by doing what's called a cash out refinance (where you get a mortgage on a property you own to free up cash for further investment).
Which means that 50% tax would make literally every one of these investments less that worthless, since they'd have vastly more debt than income.
Believe me, I LOATHE agreeing with any liberal, but for once, I actually do agree with this, and I do believe it would work.
Now having said that, I also believe it won't go anywhere, since this is exactly what the deep state wants.
But I do believe these bills, or something similar SHOULD be done at some point to prevent hedge funds from commercializing people's homes. This isn't how it's meant to be. Normal people are supposed to own their own home, buy a handful of rental houses themselves that they rent out to students, young people, vacation goers, etc. And then gradually sell and move up until they're into commercial real estate territory.
That's how literally 90% of wealthy people made their money. It's a slow, gradual process, where you buy and/or sell properties every few years, thus keeping supply and demand in relative equilibrium, which keeps prices down overall.
Institutionalizing the basic building block, single family homes, messes with the entire process and pushes normal people out of both home ownership, and wealth building.
To be fair, I think $5-15K would probably be the maximum I can see anyone paying personally (Or at least the maximum I would personally consider), especially since $5K an ounce is the actual value of silver without manipulation (Which has been known by people into silver stacking for quite a few years now), but I won't be super surprised if we see numbers above that.
I hesitate to say $60K an ounce is likely, but It's also not impossible. I look at it like this. Normies have been A LOT more financially savvy the last decade. Well I say savvy, but more like they're literal apes who jump on any chance to "get rich quick". Look at bitcoin and other crypto currencies. I'm not gonna start hating on them in this thread, but people are currently paying nearly $67K a bitcoin as I write this.
And yes I know you can buy bitcoin in portions so not everyone is buying a whole coin, but the same is true of silver. You can get everything from a 1/10 (0.1) oz silver round, to a 10 kg bar.
If you consider FOMO, people panic buying because they think the world is ending, etc. etc. It's not unreasonable to think that Silver (And gold) will temporarily see a sort of "hyper inflated value" where we go from a period of extreme undervalue (what we currently have) to a short period of extreme overvalue.
I'll use pretty much the only real world example we have that's comparable to our current situation. The Hunt Brothers scheme. Just in case anyone reading doesn't know, I'll give a quick synopsis. In the late 70s and early 80s, the Hunt Brothers (a group of Texas Oil tycoon heirs) decided to try and corner the silver market by buying up a majority of the worlds silver. They bought up roughly 9% of the worlds silver supply by using massive amounts of borrowed money.
In doing so, they created a "FOMO" effect among normal people who noticed silver was going up. People started buying into it, hoping that they could get in on the quick rise in silver prices. As a result, supply was greatly constrained while demand kept rising for several months in 1979 leading into 1980.
The end result: Silver jumped from $6 an ounce, to nearly $50 an ounce in less than a year (Just a few months really). More than an 8.3X return.
Now apply that same situation, but also allow for silver to be fully realized in value without the market manipulation of banks and other big institutional investors.
$5K X 8.3= Just under $42K an ounce.
So not quite the $60K number I've seen a few people throw around but still life changing money for silver stackers. Of course most won't hold out until the absolute peak, most big stackers will probably sell at $10-15K or lower, a few greedy ones will hold out to near the absolute peak, and others will crap the bed and lose out entirely.
Of course I'm not saying any of this is absolutely certain to happen. I'm basically counting on silver's REAL value to be realized at roughly $5K an ounce at some point after the cabal is overthrown or a little beforehand. But even then I'm not doing anything life altering like taking out a loan to buy silver nor would I recommend such behavior
I'm just pointing out similar historic context, and applying all the facts as we know for our current situation to make an educated guess of what will happen.
The way I look at it, in an "end of the world" scenario" someone, somewhere, will be dumb enough to buy silver at pretty much any price. No matter how over valued it is, simply because they think it'll be the only currency acceptable in the mad max world, or because they think they can get on the hype train and get rich quick.
It's the same thing that happened with bitcoin, it's the same thing that happened with Tesla, with basically every meme stock and "shit coin", and as I pointed out, it's happened with silver before as well.
Best advice I can give. Buy within your means now while it's low, and when the crap hits the fan, pray to the Lord for guidance on when to sell and go with the gut feeling he provide you with. If things work out, silver stackers could end up rather wealthy, if not just have enough for like a new house or something.