site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   1750 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 1, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is right now (after a historic crash) a good time to buy in on silver and gold? The underlying logic still seems sound (needed for electronics, inflation/weakening USD, increased international drama)

Periodically when I have the extra cash in the bank and the extra room on my credit card, I buy an ounce of gold at Costco on my way out. I wouldn't want to buy gold futures, as the value of the gold to me as an inflation/TEOTWAWKI hedge is minimized by having intermediaries between me and the gold.

If you have significantly higher value assets than I do, that probably becomes impractical for storage reasons.

I'm not sure what's the point of buying Costco gold tbh. It's overpriced (usually not by a lot, but noticeably), if you'd want to sell it you will inevitably pay a commission, you need to store it somewhere in secure place and not lose it, and frankly excluding the scenario where the civilization collapses, I do not see any advantage over holding gold-linked assets. At least I don't run a risk of losing those if I move...

Am I missing something important here?

I use my costco rewards credit card for 2% cash back, and my costco membership gives me 2% cash back. The markup over spot is typically 1%, and I typically just don't buy it when the markup is higher, but the highest I've seen is 4% over spot which is effectively nothing with the cash back and membership.

Frankly, I don't see the point of gold-linked assets outside of short term gambling. Half the point of goldbugging is what if civilization collapses. I want to have my gold, not a piece of paper that tells someone else that I have the rights to a piece of gold, in that case I'd rather have other assets anyway. My safe is protected from fraud, embezzlement, mismanagement on the part of the asset managers. It is protected from a hostile banking system or government entity freezing my access to it. It is fairly opaque to outsiders how much I have at any given time, it can quite easily be given to someone or spirited away with minimal paper trail.

There are, obviously, risks. Theft, fire, loss. These can be minimized but never eliminated. What I think still makes physical gold appealing is that those risks are uncorrelated with the risks tied to other assets, other than I guess a fire at the property. I'm not advocating for keeping all your assets in your home or office, but I find it gives me peace of mind knowing that I have negotiable assets on hand that don't depend on a financial system that is rapidly turning into a cross between a casino and a social credit panopticon. Much like with crypto, if you don't have the wallet it's not really yours.

Frankly, I don't see the point of gold-linked assets outside of short term gambling.

As I noted in other comment, my gold investment produced a solid 11%/y over the last 10 years. No civilization collapse, no drama, just buy and hodl. I don't think embezzlement and fraud will be an issue for funds like GLD. But if you feel touching physical gold makes you feel better, sure, why not.

Much like with crypto, if you don't have the wallet it's not really yours.

I'd argue it's not like crypto. In crypto, math is the only thing you can rely on. In traditional assets, the legal system is the thing you rely on - if, say, Fidelity suddenly decides to zero-out my account, I rely on US legal system to make me whole. If US legal system collapses to the point bank accounts are irrecoverable, then we're in the prepper scenario, which is properly served only by a bunker with multi-year stock of basic vital supplies. Having couple of bars of gold won't do - you will just get bonked over the head (in the best case) and relieved of it at the first opportunity.

I find de-banking to be a significant enough risk to outweigh the downsides of physical gold. Not enough to build a bunker, or to put my entire net worth in physical gold, but enough to have a few thousand dollars in solid assets that can't be frozen or confiscated with a few keystrokes. The functioning US legal system is the risk that physical gold hedges against, it could be targeted against you for a variety of reasons.

I do find it funny when my father asks how we would prove his stocks belonged to him if Fidelity's "computers crashed." Dude, if Fidelity suddenly and irrecoverably lost all its data, a little stock certificate isn't going to save you, ammunition will be the new currency.

FWIW: I think a big part of this disagreement likely goes back to living situation. If I lived in an apartment and worked in an office building I would probably feel differently.

... ammunition will be the new currency

It seems like in any event where physical gold is more valuable than paper gold, ammunition (and food/tools/etc) will be more valuable than gold.

I highly doubt this. Gold has always had value, and in any future primitive society would retain that value.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats