Loading ...23:06 on 3 August was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Some of the things I listed are not properly labelled as “environmental risks”, such as flooding or forest fires which are processes that occur repeatedly, often as natural processes, even if sometimes human-caused. Anyway, I am glad to add goldielocks’ suggestion of adding another to the list, namely the idea of missile-borne electromagnetic pulses.
For me the one upside of all these “concerns” is that it takes my mind off the disgust I have with the perennial parade of PM-positive analysts on sites like King World News, SGT Reports, X-22, Zerohedge etc. etc. The parade of commentators (you know all their names) seem to fall into two general camps: – those that say they didnt think the powers that be could suppress silver and gold prices as long as they have, but that price suppression is “nearly over”; and those that say precious metals when priced in fiat per ounce are going ‘to be explosive upwards’ but maybe not before they ‘first go down one more time’. I think a fair number of these big-name PM commentators live in their world of investing in PM vehicles via private placements or insider trading on a substantial scale. Their scale of investing is totally out of line with my limited retail investing involvement. But I continue to listen to what they have to say. And then I wait for something positive to happen in the fiat pricing of ounces of silver and gold. And then I wait some more.
I think Buygold may have a good point at 18:51, namely that the ‘nuke’ and ‘war. and ‘environmental’ hype is meant in part to simply keep our attention diverted away from the economic and debt mess. Cheers, all. Equiz