The current gold:silver ratio is like 50:1. So if you are arguing for a 22:1 ratio then silver needs to about double in price while gold holds still. So I don't follow your logic.OLD1953 wrote:Silver. Comstock Lode. 16 to 1. No reply, so I'll amplify.
The traditional ratio of silver to gold went to the devil when the actual material ratio went through the roof while the Comstock Lode was mined out. For silver to return to a 16 to 1 ratio would require a decline in existing silver of large proportions. Given that photography is no longer a major sink (sans xray records, and THEY are rapidly being replaced by CAT scans) as it was, and silver would seem unlikely to ever return to 16 to 1. At 22 to 1, silver is overpriced or gold is cheap - and I'd wager on the former at this time.
I think the world is sort of in the process of realizing it needs an honest money to keep track of trade balances etc. By using dollars it lets the US print a trillion dollars per year and put all of the benefit inside the US and the painful inflation outside the US. This is a bad deal for the rest of the world. Gold is good if people are using paper money and central banks are holding gold in vaults. But for real coins that people can hold in their hands, silver is a better money. I think what is going on is that silver is becoming money again. If this is accurate, then industrial uses are not the real issue.
Because silver has been used up over the last 30 years, there is actually very little stockpile. There is much more gold sitting around than silver.