/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>27443587
>>27443998

The other side of the coin on Silver is that it has a much larger industrial footprint than Gold does. Keeping its price low artificially also helps the electronics, and many other industries as you were already discussing, so I can absolutely see a big push by some of the top electronics manufacturers to side with the banks on this. They both win. Notice how Elon Musk tweeted out every single meme stock or PND last week but hasn't said a word about the Silver squeeze. I don't blame him as a businessman, but it's telling.

Gold isn't as manipulated, I agree with you, but I still think there's plenty of suppression in the paper markets because, again, people would want to move their fiat currency into Gold if it appreciated according to the macroeconomics.

I don't agree with the purchasing power of Gold being more or less the same though. I don't have the source now, I think it's in one of Mike Maloney's videos where he talks about the number of ounces of gold required to buy an average house in the 20s or 30s, versus what it is today. The average price of a new home is something around $260,000 - 130oz of Gold as of today.

The issue with going back before 1971 is that Gold had a fixed exchange rate of $35. So obviously the number of ounces of Gold will be at a fixed exchange rate for dollars, so it's difficult to infer from that. You can see the trend reverses very quickly after that, once the real price of Gold was set free.