GoldFinger1969

The quality of U.S. earnings is very solid. You can state that earnings will collapse, but the quality is A-1. Leverage in U.S. corporations is very modest compared to past cycles. Banks, for an example, were levered at about 25:1 before 2008. Today, they are leveraged about 10x. Capital ratios across the spectrum are 2-4x HIGHER than 2008's. It's like comparing a straw house to a brick house with the economy the Big Bad Wolf. Check out the JP Morgan Guide Book I listed above for more household and corporate data points.

DXY dollar index at multi-year highs; dollar at 24-year highs vs. Japanese Yen. Remember when everyone said Japan and their managed economy was the wave of the future, circa 1980 ? They've been stuck in quicksand for 30 years now. I agree we (probably) can't go lower unless we're going to have negative interest rates, something the Fed doesn't want (banks, money market funds, pension funds, etc.). But the circumstances that led long-term Treasuries to go from 2% in April 1946 to 15% in September 1981 are not present today. You had: trade barriers (Cold War, China/India closed).....currency problems (leading to floating rates in 1973)....Treasury vs. Fed conflicts (largely addressed in 1951 Accord) that persisted with control of dollar vs. open market operations.....inflation going from 2% to 5% to 12%. These are NOT likely to persist for years or decades. A single-minded focus on debt is misguided, IMO. As I have said before, it took Greece -- a 3rd-rate, tourist-dependent Socialist economy -- nearly 30 years to implode. A global financial superpower which is the best debt-laden house in a debt neighborhood is not likely to have the problems you believe. Doom & Gloom work for a short period of time -- but not in the long run, WC !!

Check out Pages 4, 5, and 10 among others: https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/adv/insights/market-insights/guide-to-the-markets/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw39uYBhCLARIsAD_SzMT2f3J3fqg0zxdCboA2QMT1RY8tMpzKum2Wfv3EGKLhyrjBhmS_Lz8aAqCvEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds The big problem is that growth stocks are expensive and they comprise the bulk of the S&P 500 and the Top 50 stocks by market capitalization.

The key is 50 years.....and the returns in recent years/decades are certainly LESS than what you gained in the 1970's alone. Right ?

One more thing.....I'm wondering if the slaves were treated well by this guy Butler, why he didn't free them ? Also.....if he gave them money...and then they were sold....wouldn't that money revert to the buyer of the slaves ? I doubt slaves could have money or any property. The Dred Scott decision had come out 2 years earlier but maybe there was still confusion about what the SCOTUS ruling meant.

If he took in that much, then $436 isn't much, I agree. But if most of that $300,000 went to creditors, for all we know he may have dipped in to his own pocket for the $$$. Even if he cleared $10,000 -- $436 is a nice chunk. The number of slaves seems to have dropped over that time (1,000 to 436). Maybe that was just adults ? With children and expansion (cotton and other crops), you would think it would go UP over time. But the guy was a lousy absentee owner so I guess that explains why the plantation and slaves were not run as "efficiently" as others in the South. I would be interested in knowing about the authors of the articles and the newspapers -- were they pro or anti-abolition, Copperheads, Whig, or GOP. Not necessarily in this forum, since we're about coins, but it would be interesting to know, especially since the articles were written in 1859 -- right on the cusp of The Civil War. Times were VERY different back then -- The New York Times was sympathetic to slavery during it's early existence.

Sure, but just as amputations and leeches were used to treat illness, so did primitive bartering systems and mercantilist societies have inefficient and what we may consider today to be antiquated or offensive policies. "Monetary policies" back then meant going to war or stealing someone's gold....increasing the money supply....and leading to GDP growth. Not exactly like today's open market operations involving the Fed ! What I mean is, I wouldn't want to be judged by someone 150 years from now. The Constitution speaks of being judged by one's peers. To me, that means contemporary standards. That's what I mean. Most people were paid subsistence wages if they weren't subsistence farmers.

Nothing there should be offensive to anyone. It's history. Interesting stuff.....but par for the era. There were far worse countries to be a slave or an indentured servant or immigrant or impoverished family in. I'm not sure how much of the $300,000 he got to keep. It may have ALL gone to creditors. I know very few plantation owners would have given slaves anything -- or factory owners their workers for that matter (pensions, healthcare, etc.). Most people were subsistence farmers of that era. I think it was sometime in the 1900's when the number of people making a living from OTHER than farming exceeded the number of those earning a living from farming (maybe 1900 or 1920 ?). Different era.

Not up on current designs, but I'd give the United States top honors for coin designs going back before currencies began to float (c. 1973). I'm biased to larger precious metal coins, I admit. I think Saint-Gaudens, Liberty DEs, and Morgans are really beautiful. I'm sure other countries had interesting coins -- thanks to QA for informing me of the unique appeal of Roosters.

On many threads -- thankfully this one -- the most recent posts are totally divorced from drivel at the beginning.

Without taking any risk, it's not bad. 10-year Treasury today is at 3.33%.....that means you'll get close to 40% over 10 years with NO RISK. Good investments for some -- not ALL -- of one's portfolio.

Over time, REAL financial assets are the only assets capable of generating positive, inflation-adjusted returns over long measuring periods. Tangible assets, collectibles, and commodities have their years or decades...but then they get too high...correct...don't pay dividends or income....and you go 10-15 years making nothing. That is NOT the case with stocks or bonds.

Baseball cards are held in plastic holders or lucite slabs. They were being encapsulated years before coins...it's the grading that has just recently taken off.

The internet is your legs to the outside world !!

Everyone has to do their own DD. The 2-year Treasury bill finished Friday @ 3.40%. Getting 7% over 2 years isn't great, but it's about 10x what the 2-year paid 12 months ago. That's not bad for a classic risk-free investment.

It's just someone who will offer investment products/securities (likely mutual funds) to more savvy bank depositors fed up with low rates.

Collectible....tangible asset....like art. Nobody who can legitimately afford a 1952 MM needs it to make money as an investment because they probably (certainly) have 8 or 9 or 10 figures in liquid financial assets.

Let me give you all some free advice on markets: they will NOT do as you expect, as textbooks state they should, or as you want them to go. They are resilient on the downside and will overshoot on the upside. Staying long equities absent margin is the best long-term strategy to make $$$ and sleep at night. That's what they were saying about Greenspan and Bernanke during the 1990's and 2000's. Didn't turn out that way....

Gold was key in the James Webb Space Telescope. If you mean no comparison to gold, I agree.

For the record, I don't consider baseball cards "investments" but collectibles like art. Or Hummels.

As a metal, it has value in certain mechanical and other instruments.

As with coins, you have to go UP in quality to separate price/value. Stars from the 1950's and 1960's are popular: Sandy Koufax, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente, Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan. For some reason, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron aren't -- maybe because they didn't have the number of die-hard followers once their teams moved from NYC and Milwaukee, respectively. Ditto Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams cards -- not enough, not enough in mint condition, not enough cards covering most of their early/best years. Those cards were never the "hot" cards at shows or in sales auctions even though the players were among the best ever. When I was collecting and going to card shows, the Nolan Ryan Rookie card (with fellow Met Jerry Koosman) was the #2 card behind the Mickey Mantles from Tops and Bowman. No doubt because of the twin records for K's and No-Hitters. I think the Honus Wagner would be more sought-after in all grades IF more collectors knew who he was and/or had seen him play. Wagner, Nap Lajoie, Christy Matthewson, Walter Johnson, even Babe Ruth -- nobody saw them play when cards got popular (well, very few if any)....AND....there weren't enough cards in sequence to make their cards attractive (i.e., Rookie card, 2nd Year Card, 3rd Year Card, etc.). You had very few of their cards survive in Mint Condition and not from historic years (i.e. Babe Ruth in 1927 when he hit 60 HR). I grew up reading about these players from 1900 - 1960 when I was a kid flipping and collecting cards in the 1970's. I don't think the younger generation like my young cousins (b. 1976) did. They knew who Ruth was, but if not for the T-206, they'd never know who Honus Wagner was...or Pie Traynor....Walter Johnson....Christy Matthewson. You might as well talk about players from the 1880's when the rules for baseball weren't like today. Even players from the 1930's (i.e., Dizzy Dean) and beyond -- no knowledge and not enough cards.

Single out silver and gold coins for starters.

I might want to spend speculative $$$ on a rare baseball card as opposed to Bitcoin or cryptos !

Why would the press strike and create clash marks without the planchet inserted ? You would think if there wasn't a blank that the process would stop, no ? Applause for a great explanation of die breaks and clash marks, Sandon.