This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

South American Silver Plummets As Bolivia Announces It Will Nationalize One Of World's Largest Silver Deposits

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Anyone long silver miner South American Silver Corp today is not happy, because while the precious metal responsible for the company top and bottom line has risen significantly, it is our old nationalizing friend, Bolivian President Evo Morales (who last year caused substantial moves higher in silver with threats to nationalize various silver mines in his resource rich if everything else poor country) who has stolen the spotlight, with his latest announcement that he is on his way to nationalize SAC.TO's Malku Khota property, which the company describes as "one of the world's largest undeveloped silver, indium and gallium deposits" and which El Pais adds "is considered one of the largest undeveloped silver deposits, with reserves estimated at 230 million ounces, and at least 2,000 tons of indium, gallium and gold as well." Of course, while this is good news for the actual precious metals as it means much more supply is coming offline, it is very bad for mining and extraction companies such as South American Silver, which stand to lose one after another property to a repeat of last year's wave of nationalization. Indeed, at last check SAC.TO was down 27% today alone and plunging.

This is how Reuters covered the development overnight:

Bolivia will consider nationalizing Canadian miner South American Silver Corp's silver property, President Evo Morales said on Sunday, following violent indigenous protests against the mining project.

 

Leftist Morales, who last month took control of global commodities giant Glencore's tin and zinc mine in the Andean country, said he hadn't taken a final decision on whether to revoke the Canadian miner's concession.

 

"Nationalization is our obligation, I already raised the issue of nationalizing (the Malku Khota project) last year, and I told (local residents) to reach an agreement, because when they want we're going to nationalize," Morales told a farmers' gathering.

 

Exploration work, in which South American Silver plans to invest some $50 million, is expected to end within three years. The company describes it as "one of the world's largest undeveloped silver, indium and gallium deposits."

Then, El Pais provided the following update:

Morales announced that he will nationalize major silver deposits

 

The Bolivian government withdraw the mining concessions awarded to the South American Silver Canadian company for the exploitation of silver deposits, indium and gallium Mallku Khota the hill, as agreed between government authorities and indigenous communities north of Potosi.

 

Agreement is reached, local communities agreed to free two engineers of the Canadian mining company and a police officer who had held for several days in order to pressure the government to listen to their demands to break the contract with South American Silver.

 

The Labor Minister Daniel Santalla, explained that the President Evo Morales is predisposed to reverse the mining concessions but that the decree will take several days due to legal and technical process should be launched for that purpose.

 

"Nationalize it is our obligation," said Morales in the city itself Colomi in the department of Cochabamba (center), barely a few kilometers from the mine site in question.

Finally, this is what the company itself had to say:

On Sunday the Bolivian Labor Minister, Daniel Santalla, signed an agreement to secure the release of the final three detained individuals with the indigenous opponents to the project. As part of this agreement the opponents were seeking cancellation of the mining concession, however, the government minister acknowledged that this could be difficult due to the original decree giving South American Silver the rights to the project.

 

Also on Sunday, President Evo Morales and the Government Minister Carlos Romero agreed that a "prior consultation” among all indigenous communities in the project area would be needed to proceed to determine the direction of the project based on the consensus view of all communities.

 

At this time there has been no change in the status of the project concession. The Company is continuing to work with the government at all levels and with the local communities to agree on an approach to development that is inclusive of all communities in the project area and allows development of the Malku Khota project to its fullest potential.

 

As noted in earlier updates, Bolivian government authorities have previously stated that there will be a period of constitutionally mandated consultation with local indigenous communities before the project enters the extraction phase.

 

On May 28 the Mining Minister Mario Virreyra signed an accord with 43 out of 46 indigenous communities in the project area specifying that the state will not reverse the mining concession and stating that the company should continue exploration activities and that Bolivian authorities should provide increased police security in the region.

 

The vast majority of the indigenous groups in the project area have formally demonstrated their support for the project and understand the social and economic benefits to their communities that the development of a world class, modern mine at Malku Khota will bring and which will create with thousands of well-paying local jobs.

 

By contrast, the artisanal mining that has been centered near one of three villages in opposition to the project would provide little economic benefit to the 43 other indigenous communities in the project area and has been cited by the Bolivian Mines Minister as causing local environmental damage.

 

South American Silver has worked closely with the local indigenous communities over the past several years providing significant direct employment on project related jobs, as well as jointly developing programs with the communities to facilitate job training, education, agricultural enhancement and water management for long-term sustainable development.

In conclusion, if before there was any doubt as to why miners trade at such notable discounts to the underlying precious metal, we hope that incidents such as this one give a good glimpse into the real ugly underbelly of what very well may happen to offshore projects if and when destitute countries decide to follow in the path of Argentina and Bolivia.

Finally, for those curious, here is a slideshow of the world's biggest silver mines.

Argentum Emptor.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:13 | Link to Comment Its_the_economy...
Its_the_economy_stupid's picture

Priced in. Or should have been. Does this actually surprise any stackers?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:16 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Just any who believe the conventional wisdom concerning owning mine companies in troubled times.

With the exception of a privileged few (kept alive for appearances, and use as a weapon) no miner will escape this outcome, as the legal systems will require this wealth in order to remain functional another day.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:45 | Link to Comment Divided States ...
Divided States of America's picture

In the grand scheme of things, this is nothing compared to the hi-hacking or 'nationalization' of our liberties and freedom in this, our very own, country.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:00 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

@ NotAp

+ 1

Yes, correct.  As PM prices go up, the socialist countries will take the mines.  It is MUCH better to own the PMs themselves.

If we get FOFOA-like numbers, the local .govs will tax or nationalize the mines.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:40 | Link to Comment Ookspay
Ookspay's picture

Socialism viewing wealth as something to be seized always leads to wealth destruction.

Francisco D'Anconia learned this in Atlas Shrugged. Let the shrugging begin...

Oh, and keep on Stackin' Bitchez!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:03 | Link to Comment spencer
spencer's picture

I am surprised.

This is an 80M stock.

Who cares????? WTF??

 

 

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 18:55 | Link to Comment VegasRage
VegasRage's picture

...but, but I thought gold and silver were just commodities? That's what all the super-genius Keynsian economists keep saying. They must have nationalized the silver mines as matter of tradition, like the FED holds gold.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 20:16 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Stack it, don't worry about the hole in ground when you have a box at the Mint waiting for you.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:13 | Link to Comment Comay Mierda
Comay Mierda's picture

got phys?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:18 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Buy silver and take back the money supply!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:33 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Here we go again.

Have you learned nothing?

Silver is an expensive industrial metal like platinum, neodymium, etc.; with a history of being used for money.  Gold has only been used for money (occasionally wearable money).

Silver is for speculating.

GOLD is for saving.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:34 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

So silver is an industrial metal and has a history as being used for money.

Sounds like a great case for bulls.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:41 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Sure, under NORMAL circumstances, it would be. 

Except that current circumstances are so far from normal, it's hard for most sheeple to imagine.

The central banks of the world are buying GOLD, not silver, which means they are going to use gold as money (more likely as reserves) again.  This means GOLD will be revalued upwards (since they own it, and can offer to buy all gold at $xxx,xxx.00), but not silver (because they no longer own any, and it would not be in their interest to put a bid in for silver at $x,xxx.00).

Miners will work silver deposits to get the gold, and throw the silver away.

Silver is SPECULATIVE.  But if your risk tolerance fits it, sure, buy some.

But if you are looking to preserve capital, gold is the far safer bet.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:46 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

You are appealing to authority.  Just because Central Bankers do something does not mean it is the be all and end all of investing.  The CBs say fiat is the monetary standard.  So I should sell everything and invest in dollars if I want money?  No.  Money by definition needs to hold its value, and precious metals do this at the molecular level. 

Your fallacious arguement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:58 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Lol.  Appeal to Authority.  As if.

YOU are engaging in the Straw Man fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man , by conflating Argument from Authority with my pointing out the ACTIONS of central banks.

In addition, you are engaging in Wishful Thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking and Group think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink .

If you think there will be a complete and total breakdown in society that eliminates central banking, then by all means, buy silver.  And make sure you buy lots of ammunition, as well.

You bla bla bla a lot about "take back our money, buy silver!" "silver is money!" "silver's historical ratio to gold is way high!" bla bla bla-bla bla...

BUT YOU HAVE YET TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT SILVER IS LESS SPECULATIVE THAN GOLD.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:02 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Group think?  You just said that the "group" (CBs) are against silver because they do not hold it as a reserve.

Make up your mind what arguement you want to have.

And in no way is my arguement for showing your arguement that you are appealing to authority is a strawman, when your point is that since CBs hold no silver silver is not a fair investment compared to what they do hold, gold.

Nowhere here have I discussed the GSR.  Now you are just making shit up, Strawman.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:07 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

You made the GSR argument in a previous exchange, asshole.

Still waiting for you to make the argument that silver is less speculative than gold...

Quit dodging the question, bitch.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:23 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

It's all speculation. There is no investing, there is only gambling.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:04 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Then which is safer, gold or silver?  Be specific.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:21 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

What a strange question.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:39 | Link to Comment moonstears
moonstears's picture

Well, I have some FB, and some NTFLX, and I think maybe you work for the banks who WILL have the powers that be confiscate gold, so I guess silver's safer, as being a non asset class, and not tier 1 like gold will soon be, but it's GOOG for me. p.s. Gold re-valued once J6P cannot own it, sure it'll be. So to sum it up, I pick "B", LP, silver's "safer" of these two barbarous relics, 'cause you're correct in it being less likely to be confiscated.(but they're both awful "purdy")

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:44 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

You may want to review the actual proceedings of gold confiscation in the USA under Roosevelt.  It's on Wikipedia.

I hazard that may find it's not quite what you thought...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 18:19 | Link to Comment moonstears
moonstears's picture

I realize they confiscated silver too, it was also still a monetary metal (ever see a dime, quarter or dollar from the thirties?). Ever see one today? Copper-nickel. Silver's safer based on YOUR arguments, thanks for sharing.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 20:17 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Irrelevant.

47 silver or one gold today. Matters not.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 23:25 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Fookin' A !  Damned straight.

Its all a big gamble.

The only sure thing is that the system is run by criminals.

Best speculator/gamblers question before placing your bet :

"Now what would these crooks likely do to shaft everyone else?"

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:02 | Link to Comment TheCanadianAustrian
TheCanadianAustrian's picture

Sure, silver is more speculative than gold. That has nothing to do with whether it's grossly undervalued or not.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:07 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Thank you!

The really interesting question to me is:  WHY are so many people advocating silver ownership over gold..?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:10 | Link to Comment TheCanadianAustrian
TheCanadianAustrian's picture

Because the silver-to-gold price ratio is much lower than its historical norm.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:13 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

The above ground supply of silver = the above supply of gold.  Yet the price diference is 60:1.  Let's speculate ;) and say demand for gold was equal to demand for silver bullion (it is, if not in silver's favor considering coins).  Why wouldn't the ratio be 1:1?

Now this is speculation, but what is not speculation is that owning silver bullion has no counterparty risk and it defines money as its molecular structure maintains itself longer than anything, it is divisable, and it is a means of exchange, and has been for thousands of years.

Just because Bernanke does not agree, he who didn't know if he had any gold on his balance sheet (he does), doesn't change the facts about silver as money.  If anything it means that there is a greater upside to silver, for if a Central bank did remonetize its debt via silver.....

Also, one point about all of this, there are Major Banking Houses that do own silver and use it as an asset.  Barclays through their iShares, JPM through their ownership of iShares, and many other banks hold silver and use it as a reserve and asset to balance their books.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:21 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Amazing to me it took so much goading to get you to actually offer an argument.  But thanks for finally doing so!  And thanks for using the GSR as an argument, that's pretty funny, considering what you wrote earlier.

But anyway, refute THIS:

If you think silver will be used as MONEY, which means you will be using it in exchange for goods and services, then your argument works.

But if you think people (99% of which hold NO precious metals, gold or silver) will be using FIAT to exchange for goods and services, your argument is invalid.

If you think central banks (which hold GOLD and not silver), will revalue gold upwards to fix their balance sheets, then your argument that silver is less speculative is invalid, and financially suicidal.

 

The more people who hold a type of money, the less speculative it is.  More people hold USD, making it the least speculative fiat currency.

More people hold GOLD instead of silver, making it the least speculative precious metal.

Therefore, gold is less speculative than silver.


Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:24 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Being less speculative is like being less pregnant.  I'm sure you mean that YOU think there is less RISK in owning gold.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:46 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Pregnancy is an either/or.  That is hardly the case here.

Clearly, holding ammunition is less speculative than gold.  Clearly gold is less speculative than fine art, or commercial real estate.

Question is (that nobody seems to want to honestly argue), is silver less speculative than gold?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:59 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

No, you are comparing apples and oranges now.  Most people buy ammunition to shoot it, or to have it for destructive use later.  If you have it for later sale should the price go up, then you are speculating, PERIOD.

People buy fine art because it is beautiful, and commercial real estate for a return.  Neither is speculative, unless they are planning to sell it for more later.

Read the definition of speculation and stop trying to make stupid claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:02 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

You are being argumentative.

Explain which is safer, gold or silver.  Be specific.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:14 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

No, I am not being argumentative, I am pointing out the flaws in your thinking, of which there are many.

Define "safe".  From my perspective, they are both equally safe, as I would buy one and never trade it for dollars.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:22 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Do you have an opinion on which is a better store of value, or don't you?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:40 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Which is better as an exclusive diet, steaks or oranges?

The fault here does not lie in the answers which do not satisfy you, they lie in the false assumption(s) inherent in your question itself.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:42 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Do you have an opinion on which is a better store of value, or don't you?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:58 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

"Better" is inapplicable here. 

Both gold AND silver are stores of value, the possible machinations of failing world central banks being largely irrelevant to the matter. 

You implicitly put your trust in the actions of governmental central planning agencies to determine the value of gold, whereas I trust that the actions of individuals in the free market will eventually prevail in that determination.  It is your wrongheaded assumptions that mislead you here, and which are generating so much backlash from others here who are not of the pro-central banking, pro-fiat currency, pro-government mindset that you apparently hold.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 18:56 | Link to Comment walküre
walküre's picture

Gold is safer. I tell you why. It is safer to store and transport thousands of Dollars in gold as opposed to silver. The chances of escaping and carrying as much of the metal as possible when you're on the run are higher.

Duh!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:50 | Link to Comment runlevel
runlevel's picture

Because unlike you... they are using their brains. If gold goes to 50,000/oz ... do you really think silver will stay at 26$... or even 70$.... ??? 

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:06 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

What if gold goes to $50,000, but silver goes to $500?

Which is safer, gold or silver?  Be specific.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:15 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

What if elephants could fly?  Would they be safe?

Be specific.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:01 | Link to Comment Rahm
Rahm's picture

LowProfile, who at JP Morgan is your boss?

Be specific.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:25 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Amazing that neither of you offers an opinion on the actual question.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 21:38 | Link to Comment jumbo maverick
jumbo maverick's picture

I've listened to you parrot long enough. Whatever I have in my pocket- gold, silver is safest. Why because I have it. It's a stupid riddle you make which is safer gold or silver ? Be specific. Whatever I got on me is the safest. Why? Because I have it in my possession.

When someone comes to me and tries to take it I have an answer for that too.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:23 | Link to Comment runlevel
runlevel's picture

I could be wrong here but i do not know of any other significant point in history that gold moved and silver didnt follow it somewhat closely (the GSR that is). Is there any other period of time when gold was revalued dramatically and silver stayed at its then high GSR? Its possible silver stays at a 50:1 ratio after gold revalues to $50,000.. just not sure how probable that is. I believe both gold and silver are safe especially if no one has the forethought to own iether and you own a lot of both. BUT then again were talking the current paper price of silver/gold. 

Can you name me a time when the G/S ratio stayed at such a high divergence after a global fiat currency implosion? BE SPECIFIC!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:42 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

There was a similar precedence, I'll see if I can bring find it (think it was pre 1800's).

But as far as an EXACT historical precedence to the current situation, there isn't one...

WHICH IS CENTRAL TO MY ARGUMENT, and which nobody is addressing..! XD

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:05 | Link to Comment Paul Atreides
Paul Atreides's picture

We don't speculate we buy physical and we don't care which is less or more speculative because we are buying both and we are holding to protect our wealth. Do you not even look at the downvotes your recieving? Your argument is weak just like your mind.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:06 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Still waiting for you to make the argument that silver is less speculative than gold...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:09 | Link to Comment Paul Atreides
Paul Atreides's picture

Your original post stated:

Silver is for speculating.

GOLD is for saving.

The counter argument from every post other then your own is that Silver is for saving as much so as gold not on if one is more speculative then another. Get a brain for christs sake...

 

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:13 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Stating something is so because someone stated it is so is circular reasoning.

That is not an argument that silver is less speculative than gold.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 23:39 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

I have no crystal ball and havent a clue which of the metals will be safer in the future. I buy both in equal dollar terms on a regular schedule basis.

I know many of the arguments for one metal over the other one. To me, the opinon of the late, great former Wall Street broker Bob Chapman made perfect sense. - - We cannot predict the future, because the system is run by criminals and there's no way of knowing what theyll do in the future.

Ya place your bets, and take your chances. And adjust as appropriate.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:12 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

You are incorrectly using all three of those definitions, FYI.

You pointed out the actions of central bankers, and claimed that only a fool would do something other than what they do.  Pointing out that this is an appeal to authority is in no possible universe a straw man.

Wishful thinking is formulating a prediction of the future based off of what feels good, rather than reality.  I don't think you understand what kind of Hell the silver reset will represent.  Further, one person can't groupthink.  You are talking to one person.  Just because there are others with the same position doesn't make his thought process fallacious.  If that were the case, almost any thought could be called out as such, making the accusation lose all relevence.

Holding silver is not more or less speculative than gold.  It is EXACTLY as speculative as gold.  They are both lumps of metal, the only difference is how an individual views them.  If you buy it htinking it will go up in terms of paper currency, then you are speculating.  Period.  That is what you are doing with gold, and that is what we are doing with silver.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:23 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

The more people who hold a type of money, the less speculative it is.  More people hold USD, making it the least speculative fiat currency.

More people hold GOLD instead of silver, making it the least speculative precious metal.

Therefore, gold is less speculative than silver.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:27 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

No, now you are talking about volatility, not "speculativity", a concept which makes no sense at all.

Either something is spculative, or it isn't, and something that is speculative for one person might not be speculative for another, even if they are doing the exact same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:43 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

So which metal is less speculative, and why?

Be specific!!!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:01 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

You are a fucking idiot.  What part of binary don't you understand?  It either is, or it isn't, AND it varies from person to person.  

You don't have any idea what the fuck you are talking about, and you seem to take pride in that fact.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:09 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

So which metal is less speculative, and why?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:16 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Which is more binary, zero or one?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:26 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Still can't answer, the question, eh?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:33 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

Even I can join in this argument:

More people hold Steel instead of Gold, making it the least speculative essential metal.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:46 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Really?

More people are holding ingots of steel than gold?

We aren't talking total amount of steel now, we are talking number of people.

How many banks own ingots of steel?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 18:27 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

In how many ways can you endlessly perpetuate your simplistic, shallow and implicitly pro-central banker anti-silver thesis?

Tue, 07/10/2012 - 00:22 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

<delete>

The statements regading 'more speculative' are so stupid as to be unworthy of comment.

Having an avatar featuring a figure with a hole in its head seems very appropriate.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 20:39 | Link to Comment mbutler101
mbutler101's picture

Since most 'gold' is actually tungsten, silver is less speculative than gold ;)

Like Andy Dufresne, mine up and vanished like a fart in the wind! Nothing left but some damn rocks on the windowsill. And that cupcake on the wall! Let's ask her, maybe she knows.

Asking Raquel Welch poster: What say you? What is less speculative?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:50 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

This means GOLD will be revalued upwards

Yup... then expropriated.

Remember: When gold is outlawed only outlaws will own gold.

So are you with your government or against it son?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:59 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Lost all my gold in a boating accident sir.

Makes me feel all the worse that I couldn't do my part for our country!!!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:05 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:50 | Link to Comment Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

Where do you start with this? They will "throw silver away"?

LOL...can you believe shit like this on ZH? Maybe a YAHOO board. Beyond stupid.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:05 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Still waiting for you to make the argument that silver is less speculative than gold...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:32 | Link to Comment oddjob
oddjob's picture

Taking physical delivery of either is saving not speculating.

 

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:10 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

So which is the superior form of saving, and why?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:19 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Again, who says that one is necessarily "superior" to the other in the first place?

(Oh, that's right: FOFOA and his pro-Euro Freegold cultists.)

I can claim that eating steaks is "superior" to eating oranges --- is that therefore a logical argument in favor of never eating oranges, or indulging in a monotonous and unbalanced diet of steaks?

The holes in your arguments are large enough to drive an armored car full of silver through.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:27 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

So you are willing to take the risk that the CBs won't take the easy way out to save themselves (by revaluing gold upwards)?  Instead of buying gold, you will buy silver.

Good luck.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:46 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

I trust the market to eventually revalue each metal appropriately, NOT the whims and edicts of failed oligarchic central planning agencies and banks.

Rethink your assumptions (which are legion).

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:47 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

If you really believe that, then you better be holding lots of ammo, food, medicine and porn as well.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 18:44 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Because the death of the current fiat currency monetary paradigm is automatically going to mean the end of civilization if not the end of the world itself, is that it?

Spoken like a true central banker and/or one of their lackeys.

I am beginning to reassess my former evaluation of you as merely a Freegold cultist --- in your monomaniacal anti-silver trolling here, you are coming across much more as a paid shill and disinformation agent of TPTB, whether that is your intention or not.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:30 | Link to Comment Rasna
Rasna's picture

Blythe, errrrrrrrrrrr, LowProfile... Is that you???

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:48 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Low says buy more physical gold than silver.

Still think I'm Blythe, motherfucker?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 19:56 | Link to Comment Rasna
Rasna's picture

Whoa...

Dude... chill, you're gonna blow an O ring!

And yes... I still think you're Blythe.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:07 | Link to Comment TheCanadianAustrian
TheCanadianAustrian's picture

So, because the central banks will never back their currency by silver, silver will be garbage, thrown away by anyone unfortunate enough to be inconvenienced by its presence?

I don't think central banks will ever back their currency with Justin Bieber CDs either. Does that mean that we're going to throw him away as well? Come to think of it, I like your philosophy a lot!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:11 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

My point was that silver relative to gold will be so inexpensive, the price will plummet relative to POG.  Silver will be a byproduct of gold mining, not worthless, but nearly so relative to gold.

GSR has been awfully high in the past, and current circumstance argue for it to resume those lofty heights.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:54 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Strategically important industrial metal.

Over half of global production is a by-product of primary lead, copper, zinc mining. If a global economic contraction occurs then market supply will accordingly will be decreased.

And since it's consumed unlike gold... If worse shit happens there is only a small physical inventory to fight over.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:04 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Still waiting for you to make the argument that silver is less speculative than gold...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:10 | Link to Comment Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

I'm not going to make that arguement I was replying to your original post, I have no opinion on whether silver is any more or less speculative than gold.  If I had capital I'd want a big chunk of it stored away in silver AND gold...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:14 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Pick the worst possible future scenario and hedge against it is a good policy in uncertain times. Financial speculators will eventually loose everything.

If Israel/US v. Iran gets hot, oil goes way up (as does the cost to extract all metals) while the global economy tanks and the servicing all those debts gets worse by an order of magnetude. It's just too tough to make change for a Kruggerand in a financial systemic collapse situation.

(You are talking to a real nutter here! :)

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:24 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

It's funny, because people seem to assume I'm advocating buying ONLY gold.  Yeah, a few rolls of silver dimes, absolutely.  Boxes of US nickles as well.  Also ammo, food, medicine, etc.  But after your survival needs are taken care of, IMO the rest should be in gold.

If you are buying silver in outsized proportion to gold, you are taking a risk that the central banks WON'T use gold to recapitalize the system, which is foolish.  It's one of the few things they could do to preserve their existence.

Why would someone think they wouldn't do everything they could do to save their sorry ass jobs?

 

edit:  So the FOUR down arrows indicate FOUR people here disagree with holding gold, silver, nickles, ammo food and medicine?  LOLOLOLOL

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:27 | Link to Comment viahj
viahj's picture

i reckon that the down arrosw for this post is simply because you've been an argumentative d-bag.

but i do agree with your statement of hording gold, ammo, food, medicine and SILVER so i will give you a greenie since you seem to be tracking such things.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:29 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

I'm trying to argue a point, but nobody wants to argue.

Best to make up your own mind if you want to be that the CBs won't try and save their skin by revaluing gold.

If they do, silver holders only hope is for a complete breakdown, in which case they better hold a lot of the other things we both mentioned...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:36 | Link to Comment cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

Soory Bud, Silver had been money longer than gold has,

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:44 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Based on that logic, bronze should be money as well.

CD, look at my argument above.  Do you really want to bet against central banks by buying silver over gold?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:58 | Link to Comment cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

Yes as a matter of fact I do and am. Now run along and buy yourself some facebook.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:03 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

I wouldn't if I could, and unfortunately lost all my gold in a boating accident.

Still waiting for you to make the argument that silver is less speculative than gold...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:12 | Link to Comment cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

I never said anything about speculation you did. I am comfortable with speculation. Besides I never said I did not own gold I probably have more than you as I have been at this gig since the eighties, A small clue would be my avatar. Chicks in gold and silver bikinis. Silver is just a way better investment right now in my opinion and I have done 2 years research from all angles.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:20 | Link to Comment Poetic injustice
Poetic injustice's picture

Lowprofile.

You are low quality troll, take few more lessons from MDB or Robotrader.

Don't forget to pay in silver.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:28 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

I'm a troll?  Who advocates buying gold?  LOLOL!

Lol, like MDB or RT advocate saving in gold.

 

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:09 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Actually, when discussing cognitive infiltration before, it was widely predicted that when it was found that arguments for "conventional" investments or savings vehicles failed, the trolls would attempt to shift people away from silver and into gold.  This was years ago, mind you.

Not commenting on whether or not you are a troll.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:28 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Interesting.  I've been here for years, and never saw that (not saying it didn't happen).

IMO, when herding people into conventional investments fails, I personally think they will herd them into silver, then yank the rug out by only monetizing gold.

You may want to check my premise by noting how many here have actually attempted to reason with me - as opposed to how many used debating tactics (or out and out ad hominem).

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:40 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Right, sure, "they" are trying to herd them "into" silver.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, in the light of the amazing and consistent effort to drive people OUT of silver.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:49 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Plenty of newly minted ZH users here sure are.

Check their incep dates.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 19:24 | Link to Comment Bohm Squad
Bohm Squad's picture

...speaking of ad hominem...!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:52 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Silver used to be used in coinage but then it got too precious.

Copper and nickel used to be used in coinage but then it too...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:02 | Link to Comment oddjob
oddjob's picture

Pitting Silver against Gold reeks of desperation.

 

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:04 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Great summation.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:21 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Bronze as currency is several hundred years younger than silver, actually.  It has NEVER been widespread, as have silver and gold.

Do you really want to bet against central banks?  Absolutely.  Anyone who did so in 2000 was and is a CHAMP.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 22:36 | Link to Comment NOTfromSanFrancisco
NOTfromSanFrancisco's picture

 

 

So you see LP, prior to my boating accident, I was one of those foolish folk who had 75% PM in silver and 25% in gold. My own reasons were because both had value when I began aquiring them many years prior to my boating accident and my thinking was that in the event of some catastrophic economic event, most of the things I would need to live off of would not have cost me an ounce of gold to aquire. Most of the things I would need to survive in a semi-bartering system would probably cost me ounces of silver rather than an ounce or even a quarter ounce of gold. Using todays buying power of both metals, gold is definitely more portable, but if you are not running, silver would be much, much easier to conduct business with for most daily purchases. I get your argument about the banks revaluing gold, but silver has never, ever been left out of the equation. Where gold goes, silver goes to some degree or another. On a farm, would I rather have a good milk cow or 40 good laying hens? I want both. I can trade some of my hens for other necessities pretty easily. With my cow, not so easy. You get a little milk, you get the whole cow, or you get nothing. My 75-25 ratio was absolutely perfect for my emotional stability, prior to my boating accident. Now I am emotionally unstable.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:07 | Link to Comment augustusgloop
augustusgloop's picture

right- gold and silver were both coin of the realm in rome. except, silver coin was debased and used to pay soldiers, gold (the actual coin) held its value (per Collapse of Complex Societies, Tainter). 

silver and gold are always money. silver will not be outlawed. you can always sell the family silver, as it were, to settle debts, etc. even if gold were outlawed, those with gold coin can use it in the black market. 

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:40 | Link to Comment Paul Atreides
Paul Atreides's picture

Silver has been used as money the same as gold since the dawn of human history...get your shit together.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:45 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Trying to herd the sheeple into silver ahead of "The Great Reset", eh?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:50 | Link to Comment SheepRevolution
SheepRevolution's picture

I, Sheep, do buy silver. So fuck you.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:02 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Still waiting for you to make the argument that silver is less speculative than gold...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:54 | Link to Comment Paul Atreides
Paul Atreides's picture

Trying to prevent the sheeple from acquiring the only honest money outside of centrak bank control before "The Great Reset", eh?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:01 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Still waiting for you to make the argument that silver is less specualtive than gold...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:20 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

For the 100th time, your specious and endlessly repititious question is nothing but a strawman argument, as well as the sign of a very weak intellect.

Who here has argued that silver is necessarily LESS speculative than gold?  And even if they had, so the fuck what?

Why isn't silver JUST as "speculative" as gold, nor more and no less, in the present economic climate of depreciating (and soon to collapse) fiat currencies?

Your anti-silver diatribes and drumbeating reek of a pro-central bank, pro-estabishment bias.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:33 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

It's funny, because people seem to assume I'm advocating buying ONLY gold.  Yeah, a few rolls of silver dimes, absolutely.  Boxes of US nickles as well.  Also ammo, food, medicine, etc.  But after your survival needs are taken care of, IMO the rest should be in gold.

Who here has argued that silver is necessarily LESS speculative than gold?  And even if they had, so the fuck what?

Here's "the fuck what?":

If you are buying silver in outsized proportion to gold, you are taking a risk that the central banks WON'T use gold to recapitalize the system, which is foolish. 

It's one of the few things they could do to preserve their existence.

Why would someone think they wouldn't do everything they could do to save their sorry ass jobs?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:39 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

There have been times when there was a gold standard when silver was not monetized.  Why don't you tell us all what the price of silver in terms of gold was during that time (here's a hint: it wasn't 100:1, or 50:1, or even 30:1).

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:41 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

You may want to brush up on world history.  At various times both, or one, or the other has been monetized!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:03 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Now you don't know how to read, I guess.  Doing your damnedest to avoid having to answer the question.

When we had a GOLD standard, and silver was NOT monetized, the GSR ratio was between 1:12 and 1:20.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:40 | Link to Comment MARGINKARLANDTH...
MARGINKARLANDTHEBROKEBITCHEZ's picture

HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING?  PUT ON YOUR CLOWN SUIT COMPLETE WITH YOUR COLORED WIG AND RED NOSE AND DONT FORGET YOUR BIG FLOPPY SHOES AND GO OUTSIDE AND ENTERTAIN THE KIDS WITH SOME ANIMAL BALLOONS YOU CLOWN!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:45 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Trying to herd the sheeple into silver ahead of "The Great Reset", eh?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:47 | Link to Comment Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

"Like the Egyptians, Croesus (approx 660 BC) set the ratio of gold to silver at 10:1 as a matter of convenience...Croesus has established the first imperial currency in the history of the world.  His beautiful coins of gold AND silver were immediately accepted-and indeed demanded throughout Asia Minor and were circulated in Greece on the Western side of the Aegean as well"

from The Power of Gold by Peter L. Bernstein.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:47 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Interesting how the ruler of that age ARBITRARILY SET THE RATIO AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE.

Now...  I wonder what will be MOST CONVENIENT FOR CENTRAL BANKS, WHICH ONLY HOLD GOLD.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:56 | Link to Comment Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

think about those words "matter of convenience"...how the hell do you think I'm going to pay for a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread or some bourbon with gold?  Watch the film The Outlaw Josey Wales and you'll see how he buys some whiskey and beef jerkey at the trading post...with silver coins as a matter of convenience I suppose?

edit: 99% of people don't own any physical gold or silver save for some jewellery in a SHTF situation I don't know what the accepted ratio or forced ratio will be, its not my point, the point is silver has been accepted as money since the dawn of civilization even if not nearly as valuable as gold for equal weight.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:02 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Still waiting for you to make the argument that silver is less speculative than gold...

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:27 | Link to Comment Mark Carney
Mark Carney's picture

He just did fuck face.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:33 | Link to Comment elvinodiablo
elvinodiablo's picture

Will someone reset this algo

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:40 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Cmon fuck face, I'll fight you too!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/south-american-silver-plummets-bolivia-ann...

But you better bring your "A" game.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:22 | Link to Comment TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Hey LP, Let me ask you a question that is just as important, 'Which is softer, Charmin or Whitecloud'?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:32 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Just don't bother asking AnAnonymous that question -- he will be equally unfamiliar with either (or any similar product).

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:16 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Just want to toss this out there, but how do you know central banks hold gold? If they have any at all- could it already be leased and gone from their posession? If the gold is leveraged at 100 to 1, as most suspect, would not the central bank gold be used to cover claims? 

Finally, if this line of reasoning is even partially correct, why would central banks value gold AT ALL? Would it not behoove them to remove gold and silver from the playing field and go to a different system of value alltogether?

Every thing is speculative, because we have no idea what is going on. We have no power to make demands. We have no political leverage to force the banker's hands. Governments are seizing assets and setting capital controls. In the end, if they want something, you don't think they can come up with a confiscation or windfall tax scheme to eliminate profit opportunities? 

There are no sure things. Not even close.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:39 | Link to Comment LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

If the CBs hold no gold, you better be well supplied with ammunition.

And what the they will do?  They will put a bid under gold at some high price, let's say $55,000.00/oz.  They put an offer out there to buy ALL gold at $55k.

Then if they don't have enough they simply print enough to buy it.

So it doesn't matter if they hold it, or don't, or it's levered 100:1.

To quote Kyle Bass quoting a muckity-muck on the COMEX: "What if more than 4% of contract holders take delivery?"  "Well then, price will solve everything".

...But when the water goes out, we will see which CBs are swimming without a suit!  LOLOLOL

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:50 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Oh, OK, NOW it all makes sense --- you are a devotee of the Church of Freegold, and the one true prophet, FOFOA, $55,000 gold blessings be upon him.

 

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:07 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

lol, looks like it.  FOFOA is pretty smart even if freegold is delusional.  His followers, on the other hand, are so thoroughly baffled with bullshit that they can't count the number of fingers on their hand, much less comment intelligently on PMs (aside from parroting, often poorly). 

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 17:06 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

In Zimbabwe, you couldn't buy gold or silver at any price. You obviously have forgotten Gresham's law. 

Price is not the answer. I'm not going to sell gold at 55,000 or any other price. At that point, I'm sitting on it.

Ammunition? Why would that be an issue? Most people could care less about gold and silver, definitely not enough to go Rambo. 

Why would they need to buy it, if they intend to run the system without it?

How does it feel to not have an answer? 

We all DEPEND on a certain degree of normalcy when rating risk. Unfortunately, there are no certainties.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:16 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Can you name any other reasons for owning gold over silver aside from central bank buying?

You know, as in, you should think for yourself, rather than followiing Gordon Brown into bankruptcy.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:54 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

If you buy gold, you are still speculating.  Semantics don't effect reality.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:59 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

If you hold dollars you are speculating.  Everything is speculation on a needs basis.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 18:27 | Link to Comment Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

If the central bank revalues fiat based upon gold increasing in value and your only holding fiat, then you got speculated a new arsehole.

If your holding silver, at least somebody out in the real world will be willing to purchase your silver for fiat.

Aint nobody gonna be willing to buy your paper, unless its Charmin.

On the reverse side of the coin, the CB could also revalue gold downward, and if your only holding gold bought at a previously inflated price, you're also screwed.

As Mr. Hendrix said, "its all speculating", cause nobody can predict the future.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 22:41 | Link to Comment NOTfromSanFrancisco
NOTfromSanFrancisco's picture

 

 

So you see LP, prior to my boating accident, I was one of those foolish folk who had 75% PM in silver and 25% in gold. My own reasons were because both had value when I began aquiring them many years prior to my boating accident and my thinking was that in the event of some catastrophic economic event, most of the things I would need to live off of would not have cost me an ounce of gold to aquire. Most of the things I would need to survive in a semi-bartering system would probably cost me ounces of silver rather than an ounce or even a quarter ounce of gold. Using todays buying power of both metals, gold is definitely more portable, but if you are not running, silver would be much, much easier to conduct business with for most daily purchases. I get your argument about the banks revaluing gold, but silver has never, ever been left out of the equation. Where gold goes, silver goes to some degree or another. On a farm, would I rather have a good milk cow or 40 good laying hens? I want both. I can trade some of my hens for other necessities pretty easily. With my cow, not so easy. You get a little milk, you get the whole cow, or you get nothing. My 75-25 ratio was absolutely perfect for my emotional stability, prior to my boating accident. Now I am emotionally unstable.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 22:47 | Link to Comment NOTfromSanFrancisco
NOTfromSanFrancisco's picture

 

 

!

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:13 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

You listening, Doug Casey? Tell me about all of the miners you want, but you'll never eliminate this EVER-INCREASING risk.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Gringo Viejo
Gringo Viejo's picture

Now this is really going to make the COMEX paper rig job interesting.

How many more rabbits can possibly be in that hat?

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:19 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

With the loss of every legitimate player in the space, the job of the fixers gets that much easier. Less to control.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:14 | Link to Comment zero19451945
zero19451945's picture

The same dynamic is in play for oil companies. They rely on these crackpot governments for contracts.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:15 | Link to Comment midgetrannyporn
midgetrannyporn's picture

Viva Morales.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:28 | Link to Comment Negro Primero
Negro Primero's picture

...y Hugo.

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 14:51 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

...y Castro

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 15:11 | Link to Comment augustusgloop
augustusgloop's picture

y Fernandez de Kirchner

y Humala. 

 

I don't think the Mexicans are amused


¡Mexicanos!
¡Vivan los héroes que nos dieron patria!
¡Víva Hidalgo!
¡Viva Morelos!
¡Viva Josefa Ortiz de Domínguez!
¡Viva Allende!
¡Viva Aldama y Matamoros!
¡Viva la independencia nacional!
¡Viva México! ¡Viva México! ¡Viva México!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!