/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>30287455
>michael saylor is undoubtedly a hack but his willingness to go balls deep and show his face will reward him with riches
You mean like the people who were on TV every day saying to buy the top of the Dotcom Bubble

>>30202343
Historically speaking, gold has actually risen with bond yields (see Dave Kranzler) because rising bond-yields are a symptom of inflation. Algos and predatory banks are making gold, silver, and PM-related assets correlate with everything else going down from rising yields in the short-term, but it's all predicted on the COMEX not breaking--if that breaks (as it almost did in March 2020), everything changes in an instant. But yes, if we get an announcement of YCC to put a floor under this market then PMs and miners are immediately going to soar to the moon also. I think that Powell will have to announce YCC a lot sooner than most people think, because if he doesn't then the over-leveraged banks will simply collapse and we'll get a banking crisis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TSWnSzSES0); and that would require even more money-printing to bail out than implementing YCC (I'd estimate tens of trillions in either case).

By the way, some people are repeating in /pmg/ lately what Mannarino claims that the Fed is already implementing YCC. This is misinformation and he has been claiming this since bond yields were only 0.5%. As they're getting close to 1.5% now he was clearly wrong.

>>30177074

>>29748762

Yes, it is. And you can see it most clearly in the case of a company like Tesla which has a 2000 PE ratio (15 is normal, 30 is expensive) and which is basically a complete scam (www.tesladeaths.com). Meanwhile even a large producer like Kinross Gold has a large dividend and a PE ratio of 8. That's why mining stocks are utterly going to soar when "the turn" comes and people rush out of the overvalued into the undervalued.

>>29748015
That's my idea. If miners dump then I'm going all in at the bottom. Although that's not a certainty.

>>24232189

>>24212533

>tech is the future

This is very nebulous. What do you mean by "tech"? All "tech"? The only reason why the NASDAQ keeps going up is Q. E. Tesla has a 1000 P. E. ratio, the valuations of the tech companies are absurd. When the dollar collapses, they will collapse also, and lose 99% of their value or go bankrupt. BTC is simply pumped in a different way (via tether). Unless you think that fiat money is the future, then "tech" in the aggregate is not the future.

Or do you mean a particular kind of "tech?" "Good" tech? BTC is inferior to gold as a currency, >>24211436 so if you mean that "better technology is the future," then gold is the future.

"Tech is the future" was the justification for the Dotcom bubble in 2001. If you can't fundamentally justify the valuation of an asset, it will collapse and meet with reality. Unless you can show why Russia and China, in a post-fiat world, will dig commodities out of the ground, and manufacture goods, in exchange for BTC, then BTC is going to zero.

>Gold lost its narrative when it crashes alongside stocks, then underperforms even when stocks pump

Are you aware of how the gold price is determined? Not by buying and selling real gold, but by trading derivatives on futures exchanges. On these exchanges, the bankers are able to dump ten years of the annual investable supply of silver on the market in a single day. The gold price is the most manipulated thing in the world, because a rising gold price poses an existential threat to the dollar. BTC on the contrary is actually pumped by printing billions of fake dollars in tethers.

>>24212646

If BTC needs to back another crypto in order to function as a currency, it is self-evidently inferior to gold. Because they achieve the same purpose, except that a gold-backed crypto stores intrinsic value. A gold-backed crypto also allows you to cash out and transact in perfect privacy with coins, whereas BTC permanently tracks you on a ledger, or through second layers.

>>23841637

We have inflation, not deflation, according to the Austrian definition of the term inflation as an expansion of the money supply; after all, the Fed is still doing more than $1 trillion a year in Q. E. But nevertheless, metals and miners have always done well in what people mistakenly call "deflationary" situations, i. e. when the price of assets goes down. The Fed doesn't even need to turn on the money-printer again for metals and miners to do well. Homestake Mining went up 6x during the Great Depression, and gold more than doubled. Modern stock market crashes have caused liquidity crises, which force the price of paper gold and silver down temporarily; but if such a thing happened again, it would be extremely short-lived. The COMEX nearly collapsed in the middle of March, and the real-world pressure of rich people trying to exit the financial ponzi scheme, has only grown since then. If silver went down to some silly price again the COMEX would simply go bankrupt, and then it would attain true price-discovery forevermore.