ditto

Petty much what we do, Mr Irish.

Slowly but surely Mr Irish and Box!

That is good to hear Big Al.

BTW…Where’s mark ?

BEHAVING……….. 🙂

I think , I would agree……….on Carson as VP.

All have sinned, ……..and none are good………

“all” have fallen short……….

Cruz and Carson……..are the closest to be good men. But, if , you do some background checks on these , they might have some cracks which give them some faults. I have listened to CRUZ’S dad,……..and I believe he is preaching a good message, concerning the constitution and WE THE PEOPLE, GIVE AUTHORITY TO THE GOVT. NOT THE OTHER WAY, ….that the Govt. thinks it is……..I will be digging deeper on the remain people, but, it is for sure………..WE DO NOT NEED BILLY AND HILLY

Cruz, has some explaining to do, concerning…..GOLDMAN and his wife on her actions under the Bush Adm.

THE ENTIRE CREW………both sides are a JOKE……….there is no one.

btw, I have no problems with TWEETY….. , as long as he plays fair……. 🙂

Farmer , Bird , or whoever you are…nice to hear from you again. But chill & stop ruffling feathers………Good health to you.

They have farmers in Canada? I thought yall only assembled cars and brewed beer?

We got a few centimeters of good soil up where I live in the Northern Prairies. Its sitting on top of a gravel bed that stretches for hundreds of miles. But it grows good wheat if Mother Nature is smiling on us. When the Ground Squirrels get busy digging a den in spring we get little piles of rocks appearing outside their holes. Wish I could just sell sand and gravel for a living.

What about ‘mutant dwarf wheat’? Any mutants running around your house Birdman?

(I hadn’t twigged that you had changed your handle either – but now it all makes sense 🙂 )

” Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet”

Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet

What matters is what something is, not what it is called, Bob.

I believe Tullow has done a good job of consolidating a number of assets in Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, Norway and French Guiana, and they have focused in some jurisdictions that are non-traditional compared to many of the US and Canadian companies. When I have about a dozen Oil companies, I’ll want them in the mix just to spread around the geographic jurisdictions.

Thanks Excelsior. I am not sure we will see Tullow back down at its 2016 lows again to be perfectly honest – unless we see a major drop in the oil price.

Now look at the last month with the same group as above.

PLG – Platinum Group Metals was up 164.35% in the last month!!

Wowzers…… (that is also why I trimmed back a great deal of the position last week, but left some position in place for a potential further ride).

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PLG,USAPF,SVMLF,IPT.V,AXU,GPL,SILJ,PALL&p=1&O=111000

Wrong again CFS.

To stop bank runs there needs to be capital controls which prevents people from closing their accounts and also severely limiting the amount one can withdraw, whether it is by writing checks, using an ATM, making electronic transfers etc… Simply by going cashless will not do that.

Did you read my reply to you about negative yields from the John Rubino interview?

Farmer in Canada,

Did I say anything about why a bank would be forced to close it’s doors?

I am talking about what a bank run is and how being in a cashless society will not prevent a bank run. That is all. If all or many bank customers withdraw their deposits in a short period of time because they have concerns about the bank, it a bank run by definition. Period. Now will simply being in a cashless society prevent customers of a bank from withdrawing their deposits by closing their accounts or from withdrawing large amounts of money in a short period of time? The answer is no. There would still be several methods to accomplish this in a cashless society. One method however would not be available and that is getting it in physical cash. And that is all that I am saying contraire to what many in the ALT media are saying.

You said, “Keep in mind the whole point of a run is that customers doubt the integrity of the institution and thus demand their savings be returned due to a lack of confidence in the company”.

That is true. So do you believe that simply being in a cashless society, that depositors can’t have concerns about their bank’s solvency and they can’t rush to try get their deposits out by closing their accounts or by using electronic transfers?

So you would have no problem with settlement of part of your savings account in the form a cashiers cheque or electronic transfer to the institution of your choice during a bank failure?

Good to know. That would qualify you as an early adopter. Not everyone feels that way obviously or we would not be regaled by long lines outside banks as savers attempted to withdraw actual cash.

The whole point here in any case is to break the link between what you own and how it is represented in three dimensional form. Obviously it is easier for authorities to provide essential liquidity via electronic means rather than to muster the forces needed to meet demands for actual paper currency.

In either case it does not assure you will get back a 100% of your deposits or savings. That is another subject altogether.

On the point of what is a bank run, I hope you appreciate that what creates the panic in the first place is the belief that a genuine shortage of capital is available to be dispensed to the public.

Liquidity interventions electronically assures there can be no shortages over the short term. Even if there is a shortage the aspect of settlement via electronic means assures that everyone will be treated equally. Instead we will get a bank holiday and read the rules of engagement in the local paper (internet version of course).

Thus there is not a need to line up and be “first” and therefore no panic in the classic sense can ensue. As I pointed out before, you cannot explain away the photos of Greek pensioners desperately trying to get Euros out of ATM’s that are empty.

That is the point. Bank runs still exist even if you don’t believe they are real anymore.

Farmer in Canada,

You seem like you do not want to come right out and admit that I am right about it being possible to still have bank runs even in a cashless society. It is really capital controls that can prevent bank runs, not going to a cashless society. You did not answer my question that I asked in my last post. Instead you keep bring up things that I am not even talking about. Some of which I do agree with.

You asked, “So you would have no problem with settlement of part of your savings account in the form a cashiers cheque or electronic transfer to the institution of your choice during a bank failure?”

Well if the bank has already failed you really do not have a choice. In the U.S. the FDIC would have been appointed receiver of the failed bank and your deposits would be transfer to the acquiring bank. In the rare event that there is no acquiring bank then the FDIC mails you a check in the amount of your insured deposit. And no the check is not going to bounce.

Now may be you meant to ask, would I have a problem with receiving a cashier’s check, instead of cash, if I closed out my bank account or electronically transfer my savings to another financial institution because I was concerned that my bank might soon become insolvent. The answer would be no. I would have no problem. I sure would not expect them to give me $50,000 in cash. Of course part of the reason why I would not have a problem is because I check my bank’s financial reports each month and I have a good amount of knowledge about certain areas of the financial services industry unlike most people. But I sure can see how people who are not knowledgeable would be in fear and run to their bank if they thought that it might be in financial trouble especially if they have uninsured deposits. Even in a cashless society.

Correct JMiller, I don’t agree with you. Bank runs are improbable under a cashless system. So its not possible for me to agree that you are right that they would still take place. Maybe we need to define the term “bank run” first before we can discuss this further. As you know I am referring to legions of people lining up for hours or even days to get access to what they believe is a limited resource. It is a shortage that propels the crowd in such a case. Nullify that and there is no run. The public would instead just sit in their living rooms and await word on what percentage of total surviving assets might be available for distribution. You may be better equipped with information on banking than most however the typical person has little knowledge or understanding that cash itself is actually a fairly rare commodity. There is never going to be enough to satisfy all the demands that might arise in an emergency. Those who do get the cash first will most likely hoard it and in the process put tremendous pressure on all other banks that are not facing trouble. The solution is to simply change the model. No cash is what everyone gets if a bank fails. And if that;s the case then why not go that one last step. Cash itself is perhaps no longer necessary or needed.

Definition of a bank run: A bank run is a situation that occurs when a large number of bank customers withdraw their deposits in a short period of time due to concerns about the bank’s solvency.

Question: Can a large number of people who are concerned about their bank, withdrawal their deposits and move them from one bank to another within a short period of time in a cashless society. The answer is yes. Then you could still have bank runs. And even you agree FIC that it is possible since you said that it is improbable. Now if you want to believe that a bank run in a cashless society is very unlikely, for the reasons you gave, I have no problem with accepting your opinion. But it sure is not impossible. Personally I think it the odds of a bank run is about the same whether your in a cashless society or not because I do not think people would just sit at home and do nothing if they can still withdrawal their deposits while the bank has assets. They do not have to have it in physical cash to do that. This is why I think capital controls would still be needed. But that is just my opinion.

Interesting discussion on bank runs and the potential of a cashless society. Good thoughts.

Ya, good discussion.

Real “food for thought” from both.

Keep stacking bb! And make it silver, not gold.

We are marching headlong into a cashless society GH so your objections amount to trying to close the barn door after the horse has already fled. It is not as though what I am discussing is hypothetical or some wild eyed theorizing.

We are there now. It is a virtual fact in most Western developed nations already.

Cash transactions continue to decline with each passing year. Even cheque use is falling in the wake of so many other convenient payment methods. So we will inexorably evolve our entire financial system away from the use of cash unless steps are deliberately taken now to preserve its use.

But I doubt that will happen. The reason is that each of us have collectively made our choice and the facts say that we have chosen to embrace new payment technologies over physical paper money. Those newer methods now account for trillions of dollars annually of financial activity.

So whats the big deal in taking that last step into a paper-free system?

All that really remains is the discussion about what ramifications a cashless society holds for the future. And so I have commented more generally on how going entirely cashless will put a noose around organized crime and the parasitic criminal class that creates mayhem across the country.

Let me give you one good example of what I am talking about. Over in England there was a recent case of immigrant women being held captive and exploited as sex slaves by a group of Nigerian men (might have been in the US actually. Sorry if I am a little vague on the details).

Anyway part of proving the crime involves a paper trail and evidence that money was exchanged in the process of this heinous activity. So here is a case where these guys could not have easily profited or been in this kind of hidden business if physical cash did not exist.

This is just one example of an activity that none of us should accept or tolerate. It is a disgusting crime and one that merits the stiffest of penalties in my opinion. It is also one that can be investigated easily if the transactions are done electronically instead of with wads of dirty paper.

Others have already written volumes on the topic of a potential loss of freedom from invasive agencies and government who may take advantage of our transaction histories and thus abuse power. And that is a valid concern that needs more discussion.

But I want to point out that there are clear benefits from a law and order perspective and in my opinion a cashless world holds out the possibility that the most egregious disgusting crimes like that noted above can be stamped out and the criminal activities they engage in are crippled. Being cashless means we will have the tools to collect the evidence to lock these creeps up for good.

The argument in favour of going cashless to close the noose on organized criminals is compelling enough that I think it also deserves a serious discussion. What is really interesting is that just a tiny fraction of all people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. Depriving that minority group of the means to earn a living by using untrackable cash would be a huge step along the road to cleaning up the worst offenders in society.

And what is wrong with that?

Let me add a few other examples to make my case.

1) How might ransoms be paid following a kidnapping if there was not cash?
2) How would those who extort for a living gain a benefit without cash?
3) What would the mob rackets operating in most big cities do to earn a buck?
4) Can corrupt officials skim without getting caught red handed?
5) How about money laundering? That will end in a heartbeat.
6) Bank robberies would become a thing of the past.
7) Armed robberies of business would also come to a screeching halt.
8) The illicit trade in guns and drugs would instantly be exposed
9) Paid contract killings would become a thing of the past.
10) The trade in ivory, endangered species and poaching would be seriously curtailed.

The list goes on and on. So my question to you is this;

Would you not agree that an end to cash is actually extremely beneficial for all of us where crime is concerned and could you not support an end to physical cash based on the merits of the argument I am putting forward?

+1 GH

Minus 10 Matthew.

Come on Farmer, be a big boy now.

No Bird Farmer, I absolutely would not agree.

The worst criminals amongst us are above the law. Take country-destroying Hillary, or Dickhead Cheney as two examples. And those who are and will continue to be above the law will become worse criminals as their power approaches the absolute.

There have been many examples of societies with exceedingly low crime that did not have to surrender all privacy and individual power to achieve it.

You’re preaching a Brave New World. Good for you if you’re well-adjusted to what, as I think you rightly point out, may be inevitable.

But as for me, I say Bollocks.

You’re a smart guy, so you probably understand this, but the kind of crime you are talking about it peanuts, and the control imposed by removing cash is easily circumvented.

For instance, while it may be the case that briefcases of cash still change hands in DC (I have talked to someone who witnessed this, but 40 years ago), probably a much larger portion of bribery is less direct and perfectly legal. I.e. the revolving door between gov’t and corporate America, speaking fees for the likes of the Clintons, etc.

That you think removing cash will eliminate criminality from the human experience is, to me, laughable.

And what kinds of crimes are not peanuts? For Americans, perhaps the worst is the ‘medical industrial complex’ which has cut tens of millions of lives short for profit over the past several decades. E.g. the huge fraud of discouraging saturated fat and pushing hydrogenated industrially produced oil in it’s place; statins and antidepressants for a significant portion of the populace; other psychoactive drugs for a substantial portion of children; absolute mis-treatment of diseases like osteoporosis, arthritis, and thyroid conditions; willful ignorance on the part of the medical industry about nutrition; suppression of superior cancer treatments; etc.

Your cashless society will do nothing for that. Rather, it will entrench it all the further, as it meshes with obligatory participation in BS ‘health’ systems, ‘education’ systems, etc.

I hear you GH. I also understand your points. We are talking about different things though I suspect. Maybe its what we define as criminal where there is going to be disagreement. Where people in power are concerned this is usually a very subjective and personal point of view so I can’t engage with those comments of yours.

Obviously my reference is about those people we can all agree are involved in the most serious and overt criminal behavior. Anyway all I am doing is a having a thought experiment in what a cashless society might look like and what parts of the economy would be impacted most. The black market and money laundering look to top the list. None of that is peanuts.

I am not preaching incidentally. I am an observer just like you and both of us can surely see that the economy based around cash is rapidly disappearing. The last of it seems to be what primarily supports organized crime, drugs and a wide range of serious offenses. Without access to fiat these would all see a decline in the number of incidents.

Have you noticed though that there is hardly any discussion on this subject other than the regular fear-based commentary produced by the usual newsletter writers. The public is not engaged at all. There are virtually no advocates at all for retaining paper money. Even on this site hardly a word of objection has been written other than your posts.

What does that tell us except nobody really cares or they just don’t believe it likely.

But a cashless world is coming whether we like it or not. We are past the tipping point and cannot go back to where we were anymore. I suspect what would take the place of transactions done in fiat paper would be a barter system. Human ingenuity knows no bounds and I would agree criminals will probably find creative ways to skirt the advent of a fully electronic system.

Precious metals will surely play a role. This in itself will provide more propellant than almost any other factor in the steep rise in the price of gold that I believe must come as paper currency is finally phased out.

But a barter economy would be expected to include much more than just metals. Other foreign currencies would come into use as well. For example, if the US went cashless the drug trade would probably start using Canadian dollars as the next best option. Even Yen, Yuan and Mexican Pesos might circulate freely.

This obviously adds an element of complication for criminals though. They would still need a means to convert to local money and I suspect it would not be so easy. At some point they will have to move their illegal gains into the normal economy and it is then they will be tripped up.

So the lack of cash creates a restraint or a brake on certain underground activities. I don’t see that as a bad thing at all. And that’s why I am addressing the idea. I have not seen this aspect of a cashless economy discussed anywhere else except in the most vague way.

No, he was talking to Ronny, Birdman. Notice that his comment was posted five hours before mine? In addition, I, not you, decide what I agree with (duh). So +1 back at Jason.

Five hours eh? How prophetic!

By the way I got a great laugh when you wrote “DUH”

I can picture you so perfectly as a toothless Hill-billy. 🙂

Are you still an Anarchist btw?

I have a brain, so of course I’m an anarchist. The most primitive views are those of the collectivists whether D or R.
Ignorance and the belief in the goodness of the state are extremely highly correlated.

That’s true but those who think Obama or Trudeau are any better need to learn economics as well as right from wrong.

🙂

Starcore International is another small Gold Silver Base metal producer like that.

Maya Gold and Silver is another small producer with both.

Sabina Gold & Silver and Paramount Gold both are interesting development companies with nice Gold/Silver mixes.

Also the project generator companies often have exposure to Gold, Silver, and Base metals:

Strategic Metals, Eurasian Minerals, Millrock Resources, First Mining Finance, Idaho North, and Transition Metals are a few that come to mind.

Lastly what about the Streamers (They’re all polymetallic now).