Did I Miss Anything?

Thatd be 1 option for them to buy more.

More than likely either they or the other countries with investments there will make it very clear to who ever wants a physical delivery that it is not in their best interest to demand delivery of it whether it be for their own reasons or to prevent retaliation from others. The big players all keep each other inline, they wont let a country or two blow up the system.

For all we know their contracts with the bank prevent physical delivery from happening or only allow it under certain circumstances.

If a bank owes someone gold that they are holding on deposit, they HAVE to come up with it from somewhere. Yes, my guess would be that they have to go into the public marketplace and buy gold until they can satisfy those to whom they owe gold, if they cannot simply get it from their own vaults.

This happens in the silver market as well. When Eric Sprott placed a LARGE order for silver bars, it took 3-4 months before all of it was delivered. All of the bars that he received were brand new and did not come from any bar hoard that was being held in a vault somewhere. Stories like this make me wonder whether or not there are any unallocated bars in any of these so-called repositories. When a big order is made it sure seems to take time to fill it and not with old bars but with new ones. It is pretty obvious that big orders cannot be filled from vaults but are being produced and bought ASAP.

We see pictures of piles and piles of gold and silver bars from time to time but I wonder if these PM bars really exist. Perhaps they do but are so encumbered via hypothecation that they have almost no value remaining. If so, then this could be why any large orders have to be made on the spot and why it takes months to fill them.



It sure looks like a huge mess to me. It also looks as if we are in the early innings of the final game of the fiat paradigm. Countries and their central banks are now aware that the whole fiat scheme is unraveling, so are now interested in getting ALL of their real wealth in their own hands before paper becomes known far and wide as having little to no real value. They seem to know that those who get their gold (and perhaps silver) first will be the ones who actually get what is owed to them or at least a good share of it. Those who come later may get little to none of their PMs returned.

When Chavez demanded and got most of Venezuela's gold returned to them, a lot of people thought that he was just being a PITA. While he may be that, he is not a stupid PITA! As paper collapses, anyone and everyone will be scrambling for gold and silver and they may not be too particular as to actual ownership. That will not be a good time to be a member of the group that has no PMs but is trying to get some.

I wish I could go money orders sn cash still as I hate banks so- but with this fragile collapse any second technical world we are all at their mercy. No way I could function on ebay minus pay pal an bank connection.

Ed_B, you crack me up. The issue seems to be gaining some traction and I don't envy those who have to deal with the issue. It seems reasonable that we would see some sort of bailout/legislation before things would be allowed to really fly off the handle. (Sorry gold bugs)

Fiat isn't the problem, bloated government is. We had it the same problem in the 1800s with gold and silver money and even the Romans had it. The same things happened under PM backed currencies and will continue to happen under any currency whenever governments get to big or people realize they can vote them self free stuff.

Completely agree that all currencies will at some point fail and that includes gold and silver currencies as well. Roman coins while very cool cannot be spent anywhere and they had massive debt problems despite a gold and silver based currency.

The PM currency doesn't limit government spending anymore than Fiat encourages it. If you run out of gold or silver you put less into money, borrow it or just straight up default on your bills. This has happened before in the US when we were still on the gold standard. The difference now is that in the past the government was small enough that private wealth could bail it out like JP Morgan did as one example. Now the government is so bloated the Buffets and Rockefellars and Gates could put all their money together and not even be able to bail it out. Fiat is really the only option under such circumstances since the county going bankrupt would be far worse.

The issue isn't the type of money its whose in charge. Gold and silver or fiat will have the exact same result with big government leadership who spend their way into reelection. Inflation isn't ideal but I'm sure the people of Zimbabwe would be much more concerned about corruption and death sqauds then money which the tribes probably dont even use anyway. In the end theres a finite amount of government that any society can support and weve passed that point. No type of currency will change that as both can be manipulated you just do it in different ways. The more important factor to a currencies succes is whose running the show

The Romans debased their own silver and gold coins with base metals so that their available gold and silver supplies could make more coins. This is analogous to printing more un-backed paper money. The bottom line is that their money became cheaper and cheaper, as ours is doing.



I disagree with this. When one runs out of money, one stops spending. Fiat NEVER runs out because any amount can be printed off at any time. Gold and silver, being finite, can run out and when they do, spending stops. The fact that government may be able to borrow large sums of money to spend via selling debt obligations does not reduce the value of gold and silver as money. It is not the gold and silver that are at fault but those who borrow excessively. Excessive borrowing is usually controlled via the bond market. If a government spends too much, creditors will ask for higher interest rates to compensate them for the extra risk inherent in government overspending. We see this in the US, UK, EU, and Japan these days.

Actually, fiat DOES encourage excessive spending because it is so easy to do and, as we all know, that which is easy tends to be done and often to excess.



Which very strongly implies a nation of men and not of laws, since national economic results depend upon individuals and not the legal framework extant at the time. This is why dictatorship is bad. One can have the world's most benevolent dictator who runs everything extremely well but s/he does not live forever and the one to follow may be absolutely terrible. Rome had quite a series of "emperors", many of which weren't too bad for the average Roman but, man, the few who were bad were horrible.

If the government's strategy is badly enough botched, nothing else will matter and that country is in serious jeopardy, not only of financial failure but utter destruction.



Or, one could look at what is being spent as they go along and then say, "Holy cow! We're spending too much. We HAVE to raise taxes, cut spending, or both. Most, if not all, state governments have a balanced budget clause in their state constitutions, so MUST balance their budgets. Yes, they get out of line from time to time but they then must bring their spending in line with their revenues. The federal gov COULD do the same thing but simply refuses to do so.



Can we not get past this by acknowledging that we are both wanting SENSIBLE government spending and not willy-nilly caution-to-the-winds, let's blow it as fast as we can, spending? Our politicians seem to favor the unsustainable latter and not the sustainable former.



Indeed so. Which is why the office of president is limited to 2 four-year terms. They did not want a de facto king via a president with unlimited re-election ability.

Pity that something similar is not also allowed for Congress. While brilliant men, the Founding Fathers never envisioned anyone actually wanting to make a career out of politics. If they had, they would have set it up such that this would be a lot more difficult to do and we would not be stuck with corrupt people making a very nicely feathered and comfy nest for themselves at great public expense.