GMONEY1 Bronze ✭✭✭
- Last Active
Generally speaking, we were speaking about "the economy" as the production and consumption of goods and services; and the net wealth, resources, and management of resources that make up that machine. Our scope was the global economy with an emphasis on the U.S.
My argument was coming from "real" terms. And it appeared that the other side of the argument was heavily skewed to "nominal" terms.
So, I guess I could/should clarify the question(s):
- in real terms, is the production and consumption of goods and services net of debt truly doing well?
- in real terms, is the management of resources doing well?
- in real terms, is productivity yielding increased wealth net of debt? (wealth being plentiful resources and valuable assets either tangible or intangible.... and fiat currency being sovereign debt)
I had an interesting conversation with a Wharton grad private-equity/investment-advisor guy this weekend about cryptos, monetary policy, inflation/deflation, and the economy.
We agreed on cryptos being a new, small market cap, volatile, unregulated, wild-west space, in which a bigger player could come in (if they aren't there already) and move the nominal price around however they want. (Esp now with options, dark pools, secondary markets, margin/leveraged trading etc).
We disagreed on the following statement that he made:
"It is hard to dispute the economy is doing well".
My argument was basically the marginal slow growth has been financed with more and more debt (including central bank money printing and diluting consumers' purchasing power). But then we got into inflation; based on recent data there hasn't been much inflation (partially due to advancements in tech being naturally deflationary....ok true) but we see it in healthcare, education, rent, and asset bubbles like the stock market.
And also the "economy" is not equal to "financial markets" or assets that are being propped up by reckless monetary policy and credit expansion.
So needless to say, it was an intense discussion. Am I missing something though?!
Is the economy truly "doing well"? Why are systemic risks being overlooked (again)?
Only if he/she signs up for an account.
It used to be that the recipient was required to set up a verified account within like a day or so, but I haven't tried since the new holding. It seems like there has been a shift away from "giving gold". It seems like the limiting factor is/was regulations (both parties need to be known vis a vis KYC regs).
@d_d from my experience you can't "combine" them for single sign in, but you can "link" a transfer from personal to the wealth/holding through 'redemptions'. Goldmoney recently announced that new customers will only be able to open new (former wealth) holdings, but for now you can still use your personal and the wealth accounts. If you want everything under one account then transfer all of your vaulted gold on personal to wealth (for free), then you only have to access through wealth.
That said, be sure that you understand the differences to the two accounts and read the new terms and conditions and fee structures. There are some benefits/tradeoffs to keeping two accounts, but I guess that depends on your priorities. You'd have to compare a single login vs say having some free storage on personal for the time being. To each his/her own.
(Just FYI, I'm still logging into and using both, and don't mind doing so, as there are benefits to both accts)
Imo there is insufficient evidence or data available to the public for that conclusion @Pinkdog ; analysis on account breakdown and flows would be sufficient, but not a few posts in the community.
I also think silver is a favorable draw toward the new holding, but even that is speculation. With a relatively low nominal price of silver and a historically high gold/silver ratio I would imagine that there would be demand to establish a holding of silver (It'd be nice to see some data to support or reject that hypothesis).