Did Silver Soar?

In reason's June 1978 financial issue, Charles R. Stahl boldly proclaimed silver "the superinvestment of the decade ahead."


Public Domain

In reason's June 1978 financial issue, Charles R. Stahl boldly proclaimed silver "the superinvestment of the decade ahead."

Citing both dwindling global reserves and an expected growth in demand-driven in part by the use of silver in new technologies-Stahl predicted that there would be a "period of actual silver shortage" sometime in the early 1980s. Silver-iron batteries were coming to market, with new uses emerging in the telecom industry and several possible military applications. Even silver coins were coming back in fashion. "In the years to come," Stahl wrote, "we will probably see a growing need for silver by current users, and new uses are likely to find worldwide acceptance."

Noting the time it would take to bring new mining projects into production, Stahl predicted a significant increase in the price of silver, with a possible height of $16 per ounce by 1985.

Whether for the reasons Stahl laid out or just sheer luck-or some combination of the two-silver prices rose rapidly over the next two years. By the beginning of 1980, the price of silver had far exceeded Stahl's expectations, reaching an all-time high of almost $50 per ounce ($102 in 2012 dollars).

But Stahl was not merely predicting a temporary jump in the price of silver. He viewed the metal as a sound investment for the long term, saying that "those who buy silver outright and hold bullion for a number of years should reap substantial profits irrespective of temporary fluctuations."

Unfortunately for readers who took this advice, Stahl's long-term predictions proved dreadful. Far from being the "superinvestment of the decade ahead," silver prices crashed as quickly as they had risen, and they remained low long after the boom was a distant memory. It wasn't until 20 years later, in February 2008, that silver reached the same inflation-adjusted value that it had held at the time Stahl's piece was published.

With hindsight, it's clear that Stahl's recommendation came at the beginning of a financial bubble. His predictions ought to serve as a warning for readers considering the advice of financial commentators bearing bold predictions.

NEXT: U.S. Abortion Rate Reaches Lowest Level Since Early '70s

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. With hindsight, it’s clear that Stahl’s recommendation came at the beginning of a financial bubble. His predictions ought to serve as a warning for readers considering the advice of financial commentators bearing bold predictions.

    I initially read that as “bearing gold predictions.”

    1. Stupid goldbugs! US Dollar is most sound investment Evar!1!


    2. Silver and gold,
      Silver and gold,
      Makes more sense when I see
      Silver and gold decorations
      On every Christmas tree.

  2. Catfight: Whoopi Goldberg v. Rosie O’Donnell


    1. Can they both lose?

    2. Can they both lose?

        1. First time it’s ever happened to me.

      1. Sure … the show could be canceled.

        I’ve only watched the show a few times for a total of 15 minutes. I cannot understand how anybody would find this show entertaining or regard it as reliably informative.

  3. It’s not a bubble if it’s rational-cheap money and high inflation made gold and silver good hedges until Volker started tightening the hell out of the money supply. The gold price has been increasing for a reason for the 21st century.

    1. Technically every bubble is “rational”. It was rational that housing prices did what they did over the last couple of decades when the government was wind-machining money at people wanting to buy homes, while at the same time local municipalities create ever-tightening land-use restrictions, while ANOTHER group create a set of oddball financial instruments (MBSs) and ferociously trade them– then are forced by law to sell all of them the second they’re no longer rated at triple-smiley-face.

      1. Similarly, Ambrose in the intro to “Band of Brothers” makes some silly comment about the ‘false prosperity’ of the 1920s.
        Well, if it was false, a lot of people lived very well on that fantasy.

        1. I’d love to live well on false prosperity.

  4. Ah, Oxford! Where dons and students walk along the ancient quadrangles quoting Homer, Tacitus and John Crysostom and debating the urgent issues of the day…

    [record scratch sound effect]

    OR…closing off scheduled debates with rhetoric like this: “It is absurd to think we should be listening to two cisgender men debate about what people with uteruses should be doing with their bodies.”

    The university of Duns Scotus, T. S. Eliot, J. R. R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis, ladies and gentlemen!


    1. Ah, Oxford! Where dons and students walk along the ancient quadrangles quoting Homer, Tacitus and John Crysostom and debating the urgent issues of the day…

      I’m not really sure Homer Simpson fits here.

      1. Sing, O muse, of the food of the gods, chocolate-covered donuts…

    2. “Tim Stanley, one of the debaters, writes that the authoritarian Left has become everything it claims to hate.”

      What? Who was stupid enough to think that the authoritarian left was anything but what we see here?
      I guess the same people who thought BO was ‘a good man’ and would usher in a post racial America.

  5. I’m still ahead on price for my physical gold. I “overpaid” for my physical silver.

    And I don’t care. I don’t hold physical for investment purposes. In fact, the gold and silver markets are so thoroughly gamed and manipulated I won’t “invest” in precious metals.

    I hold physical as deep savings, a store of value, etc. Its a hedge against currency collapse, if you want to throw some syllables at it. I hope its still gathering dust in my safe when I die, because the circumstances under which I would be spending specie would be pretty effing dire, and I hope I never see it.

    1. If it’s “gathering dust” in your safe, you might want to get a new safe… one without a big hole in the top.

    2. When you say physical, you mean buying the actual silver or gold through a dealer?

      I’m looking to get into it – strictly for diversification purposes – but I’m wary of the manipulation as you point out.

      1. This is what crypto-currency is for. Not as ‘deep’ a form of savings as gold (yet) but you can actually spend it.

        1. a Crypto-currency is for proving that a sucker is born every minute. The only thing Bitcoin will do is bring out every possible scam know to man.

          I get a kick of of the naive fools who have lost their bitcoin when one of these exchanges shuts down crying about how they want the government to track down the thieves and makes them whole and to top it off do so at the 1200 dollar maximum price even though they paid nothing or pennies for theirs.

          I even remember one moron thinking he had a sure fire way to make money using arbitrage. He could buy Bitcoin from one exchange for X dollars and sell it to another for X+Y dollars and pocket the difference. Now imagine that both exchanges are created by the same team of scammers. It’s like a roach motel for money. You can buy all the bitcoin you want but there will be a million excuses why you can’t get your money today.

          1. Sometimes banks fail, yet I doubt you’d claim these failures invalidate fiat money like you claim exchange failure invalidates BTC. The exchanges are getting more and more secure. The sledding will get tougher and tougher for people like you.

            1. What do I need a crypto-currency for? I have a Visa and a Discover card. Everybody rakes them and if I get cheated they go after them and cover me for anything above 50 dollars.

      2. Yeah, I mean gold and silver coins that I have actual possession of.

        I’ve had good recommendations for, and good experience with, Camino Coin, if you’re not going to buy local.

        Basically, if you have the same reason for doing it that I do, I wouldn’t hesitate to stock up now. Prices are better than they have been, so why not? I’d be buying now, except I already have what I want for the time being (around 8% of net worth).

        1. You can have actual possession of crypto currency, and even spend it.

      3. Gold and silver cannot be investments because they can never create an income stream. Still, they have their place in an investment portfolio as a hedge.

        The guy who saved his silver quarters in a shoebox back in the late ’60s has actually done pretty well. Since 1968, the S&P has gone up 17x. The silver quarters in a shoebox have gone up about 13x.

      4. Do not ever get conned into one of those scams where they hold the gold for you and give you a certificate that you can trade just like money. One of the goldbugs of the 80s found out about this scam the hard way – Howard Ruff.

    3. See, that’s what I have guns and ammo for. Because after Paul’s mom destroys the world, gold and silver won’t be worth shit.

  6. I think this piece should have mentioned the Hunt brothers attempt to corner the silver market back then. (Which coincided with the disappearance of the old silver coins that you sometimes still found in your change.) One lesson that taught is that if silver goes high enough, there’s enough of it sitting around that it gets back into the market: people started melting down old silverware, etc. So it was dumb to try to corner the silver market. Gold, though, is different because there is so much less of it around.

    1. Yeah, silver is about as hard to come by as sand. There are oodles and oodles of deposits that aren’t mined because you just can’t make it pay.

      OT: My wife loves fantasy / Sci-Fi. She was watching me cast bullets one day and asked if I would make her some silver bullets, so I did. I made a couple dozen for the .38. They look cool but are totally worthless. There is no point here, just a useless bit of trivia.

      1. At least you’ll be prepared if werewolves attack. I assume your wife watches Teen Wolf.

        1. Yes, that was why she joked I should make her some.

          She watches all kinds of shows like that. I block it out so I don’t know which ones they are.

          I put 5 grains of Bullseye in them thinking surely that would make them go….but alas….only a firecracker-like pop and they penetrate about an inch in dirt. They shatter on oak firewood. Still, cool novelty.

          1. You should just make them just silver-tipped. Still technically a werewolf killer, and you’ll have the necessary mass for ballistic performance.

            I watch Teen Wolf myself. It’s kind of fun. Stupid, but fun.

            1. I guess I would except that I don’t actually expect any werewolves. They have been completely decimated in my part of the country.

              1. You never know when there will be a werewolf outbreak. Haven’t you seen Silver Bullet?!?

                1. Heh. Yes I have.

                  Now where is that silver wire I used before……

                  *Fires up burner, dusts off molds*

            2. Full Silver Jacket.

      2. I know absolutely nothing about guns (sorry, I’ll turn in my libertarian card at the door) so can you even fire a silver bullet? If so, would it damage the gun? Or would it not shoot right due to the difference in weight?

        1. You are correct. They are very light and offer little resistance to the expanding gasses so they don’t pack much punch.

          Gunpowder burns more rapidly under pressure. If the bullet has too little inertia then the powder isn’t effective. The bullet is pushed out of the barrel before it can all burn.

          1. I used Bullseye because it is a very fast burning powder. Never-the-less I got a large fireball ( powder burning after the bullet exited the barrel) and little velocity with the bullet.

          2. Strange they’re so light, given their density (10.5 g/cc for silver, 11.34 g/cc lead, 8.93 g/cc copper). Barnes doesn’t seem to have trouble getting their copper bullets to perform. Is it that silver won’t obturate—seal the bore—as effectively as lead? Would putting a gas check on the back of the bullets help? You’re certainly not finding a faster burning powder than Bullseye.

            I always thought the problem with silver was that you could never get a uniform density throughout the slug, and therefore they were a bitch to stabilize in flight. Never thought they’d shatter like you describe.

            1. Gold bullets would be really something, with a density of 19.3 g/cc. But at that point, why not just go DU, which has about the same density?

              1. Tungsten has same density as Au, but casting the bullets might be a problem.

                1. I guess you could sinter them. I’d imagine as hard as W is, they’d jack up your rifling something fierce though. Swage a driving band on them?

                2. The Phalanx anti-missile Gatling gun on warships use tungsten bullets surrounded by plastic sabots to seal the barrel. In addition it makes for a lighter projectile and they can fill the case up with power for very high velocities. The front of the bullet has a tip like a screwdriver and the high rotational speed makes it drill right through the missiles.

      3. Yeah, silver is about as hard to come by as sand. There are oodles and oodles of deposits that aren’t mined because you just can’t make it pay.

        Eh? I don’t doubt there’s known deposits that can’t be mined at current rates.

        But silver is hardly plentiful. Silver deposits are less than 20:1 to gold.

        Further, a drastic rise in price can’t bring vast quantities onto the market. Unlike gold, which is horded, 90% of silver is used industrially (x-rays e.g.) and is not recoverable at any price under orders of magnitude over current rates. The amount of above-ground sliver is about the same as that of gold.

        If silver prices rise, there is no way for increased supply to push them down again.

        1. The amount of above-ground silver is about the same as that of gold.

          Really? Lots of people have silver tableware, jewelry, objects, old coins, etc. I think far fewer people have a lot of gold lying around.

          1. Gold is hoarded, both as bullion and jewelry. Keep in mind gold is twice as heavy as silver. And while there still may be more tons of sterling tea services than gold broaches and earrings, there isn’t a Ft. Knox of silver or a Federal Reserve Bank of NY Silver vault.

            Unlike gold, silver is almost never thrown away. I’ve seen Chinese salvage operations where they reclaim the gold plating off electrodes.

            1. The lack of a Federal Reserve Silver Vault just supports one of my points: that attempts to corner or even manipulate the gold or silver markets are different. The limited supply of gold, and the fact that so much is locked up in vaults, means that there’s less floating around to easily compensate for manipulations. OTOH, there are lots of silver tea services sitting in cabinets, so if the price of silver spikes, a lot of those come out. That’s why the Hunt brothers failed.

              1. The limited supply of gold, and the fact that so much is locked up in vaults, means that there’s less floating around to easily compensate for manipulations.

                It could be even worse than that, if the zero-hedge conspiracy theorists are right and there’s far more paper gold being traded than physical gold in existence.

                I don’t usually go in for that stuff, but the way the U.S. hemmed and hawed about Germany’s gold makes me suspicious. Yesterday it came out that the Dutch have reclaimed 100+ tons of their gold from the New York Fed, so I guess we’ll find out if the vaults are empty when Germany, Switzerland, et al decide to pressure the US to return their gold.

              2. Having a lot of it floating around is not the same as having it available in the COMEX vaults for delivery. From what I have been told all the junk from the coin shops would be melted, assayed and marked with it’s actual weight before it is registered in a COMEX vault.

                I bought a 1000 ounce contract from a small commodity exchange and my bar was 987.5 ounces. I stupidly listened to the brokers and never took delivery and sold it later after paying storage fees and other BS so that my profit was only 400 dollars.

                There really isn’t that much available for delivery at any one time and wouldn’t be with such a quick run up in price.

                1. By not taking delivery I mean I never sent it to my house. I took delivery of the contract but they convinced me to hold the bar in a registered vault and I paid storage fees.

                  I was told that if I took it I would need to have it assayed again to put it back in a registered vault and be available to write a contract against it on the exchange.

                  However coin shops will buy them but when silver was 18 dollar recently the best price was for one ounce rounds and 100 ounce bars. Everything else had a bigger hit including 1000 ounce bars.

              3. That’s why the Hunt brothers failed.

                COMEX changed their margin requirements in response to the Hunt Brothers largely succeeding in cornering the silver market.

                I’m not suggesting the silver market can be cornered or manipulated. Only that if demand rises, supply can not possibly rise to meet it. There really aren’t that many loving cups and 25th anniversary gifts lying around.

                1. Oh, I don’t know. Do you realize how much silver is used in jewelry all over the world? Especially in Asia? It’s not unusual for Asian women to wear pounds of it at a time. Indian brides can make Mr. T. look restrained. I know someone who used to deal in silver jewelry, and the quantities out there are just amazingly vast. She’s got maybe 40 pounds of just silver scrap, waiting for the price to go up.

                2. As the prices rise a lot of people will short the market. That is they will write a contract promising to deliver the silver and they do not have it. They hope that there will be a drop in the price and they will cover their short and never have to make delivery. The profit is enormous. I believe I only needed about 400 dollars of margin for each 1000 ounces on contract. So you put 2000 dollars in an account and have a 5000 ounce COMEX short and the price drops 50 cents, you have made 2500 dollars.

                  There is much more of this activity than there is somebody taking delivery.

                  The Hunts were in a position to force people to cover when the vaults are basically empty of available silver.

                  The Hunts didn’t have to own all the silver only force people to pay any price to get out of their contracts.
                  The short is also subject to margin requirements. Once the price has reached a point that the broker is on the hook, the broker will close out the position of the short and he will be wiped out unless he dumps more money into his account.

                  The amount of silver in storage is not that much. It can be manipulated and cornered given a cartel of enough rich people all colluding and making the same trade and screwing the shorts for all they are worth – if you had a truly free market.

        2. Last I knew most commercial silver is a byproduct of gold mining. Silver can’t pay its own way.

          Seems that is still true;


          Second section entitled ‘Production by Country/Trends’.

          1. I think that’s more a function of silver and gold usually being found in the same place, because they come from the same source (meteorites). Earth’s native gold and silver is entirely within the core and thus unobtainable.

            1. Gold and silver are usually found in igneous inclusions or placer deposits that are eroded from igneous inclusions.

              That’s the shit that came from the Earth’s core.

              So, no, you’er not only wrong, your 180 degrees wrong.

              1. *you’re x 2

            2. Also, Hi Tulpa!

            3. Uh…ok. Whatever you say Tex. You are the man.

          2. Fun story: the Comstock load was originally a gold mine, and they had a lot of trouble getting the gold out of all the funny blue dirt before somebody pointed out that they had been throwing away silver ore. It needed up producing more value in silver than gold.

    2. From what I have read that isn’t what killed them. Silver on the COMEX has to be in the standard 1000 ounce bars. It takes some time for the stuff collected from coin shops to be available for storage at the COMEX vaults.

      The Hunts had contracts and intended to take delivery. Most traders never hold for delivery they close out their positions and take their gain or loss usually well before the time that the money or commodity has to be in the account or storage facility. The Hunts wanted the silver – silver which was not in the possession of the shorts. The shorts have to find that silver at any price and there would be a squeeze. The rules were changed.


  7. Britain outlaws sex selective abortion.

    I have two thoughts:

    1. How on Earth is this enforceable? All someone has to do is go to the doctor and say ‘we want this abortion because we’re not financially stable enough for a baby’ and she’ll be able to get an abortion. A law against this assumes that no one will ever lie about their motives.

    2. What rationale is there for outlawing abortion based on the baby’s gender? After all, if you believe in a woman’s right to choose, then they should be allowed to exercise that right for any reason whatsoever. What progs are basically arguing here is that ‘you have a right to choose – unless you choose for reasons we disapprove of.’

    Principles and logic – what the fuck are those?

    1. What progs are basically arguing here is that ‘you have a right to choose – unless you choose for reasons we disapprove of

      Isn’t that their fundamental argument for everything?

      1. Actually both of of my points are how progs deal with everything. Half the laws they pass are totally unenforceable and just put burdens on people without achieving the goal.

        1. I don’t think you understand the goal.

          “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

    2. What rationale is there for outlawing abortion based on the baby’s gender?

      If the selection averaged out as 50/50, none. But unfortunately, it’s mostly used to abort girls, leading to a situation like China, which has an excess of men. This is very socially destabilizing, and the traditional remedy is war.

      1. If the selection averaged out as 50/50, none. But unfortunately, it’s mostly used to abort girls, leading to a situation like China, which has an excess of men. This is very socially destabilizing, and the traditional remedy is war.

        This is a bit of a flawed argument for a few reasons.

        1. This isn’t why the British Parliament banned sex selective abortion. They banned it because of feminist beliefs about sexism.

        2. The only people in Britain who would practice sex selective abortion are SUPER fundamentalist Muslims. They’re a small percentage of the population, so their decision to sex select would not result in much of a skewing of Britain’s overall gender makeup.

        1. You asked for a rationale. That’s one, but there are others. And the Chinese who do it aren’t all Muslim. Whether Chinese in the UK do it, I don’t know.

        2. Abortion is expressly forbidden in Islam.

          1. Actually early Islamic theologians argued that abortion was allowed anywhere from six weeks to four months. This was based on some hadith literature that discusses when the ‘soul’ enters a fetus. Now, there’s other Islamic scholars who point to texts in the Quran about treatment of children and life in general that argue for a more anti-abortion position, but I’ve yet to see anything that expresses and clearly prohibits it.

          2. Unless the chosen method is to cut off the mothers head.

      2. This is very socially destabilizing, and the traditional remedy is war.

        [citation required]

        1. Ha ha ha good luck with that.

        2. According to sociologists, young adult men with no stake in society — of the lowest socioeconomic classes and with little chance of forming families of their own — are much more prone to attempt to improve their situation through violent and criminal behavior in a strategy of coalitional aggression with other bare branches.

          Historically, governments facing a growing population of bare branches find themselves caught in a dilemma. They must decrease the threat to society posed by these young men but at the same time may find the cost of doing so is heavy. Increased authoritarianism in an effort to crack down on crime, gangs, smuggling and so forth can be one result.

          At some point, governments consider how they can export their problem, either by encouraging emigration of young adult men or harnessing their energies in martial adventures abroad. There are very few good options for governments that find that their greatest threat emanates not from an external source but from an internal one.

          1. Encouraging male homosexuality should help. Make santorum, not war.

            1. That only works for the small percentage of men interested. It’s not like switching from steaks to chicken.

          2. This does not prove that a gender imbalance will lead to war and violence. Skimmed the article seems to be a lot of correlation not causation.

    3. How on Earth is this enforceable?

      Selectively at the whim of a prosecutor.

      1. If you have four kids of all the same gender, we’re going to start asking questions.

        1. The odds against that are so infinitesimally small that we should just shoot the parents and throw them in a ditch.

    4. So they won’t be able to prosecute everyone who commits sex-selective abortion.

      It’s also tough to prosecute honor killings, given the reluctance of those involved to testify – or testify truthfully. Are we to legalize honor killings?

      But if someone comes into the police station with a stack of affidavits and says “this proves I committed sex-selective abortion/honor killing,” don’t you want a law that lets them be arrested and tried?

      As for the choicer inconsistency, yes, that’s true. But the fact that sometimes prochoice logic is too much for the choicers themselves show the problems with their position.

      1. Eddie, I’m not arguing in favor of or against abortion here, just pointing out the idiotic inconsistency.

        But if someone comes into the police station with a stack of affidavits and says “this proves I committed sex-selective abortion/honor killing,” don’t you want a law that lets them be arrested and tried?

        Yes, if someone comes in and admits to murder they should be punished. The point here is that pro-choice people don’t think abortion is murder, and therefore have no rational basis to ban it in the case of sex-selection.

        If abortion isn’t murder and it’s okay in all situations, then there can be no justification for banning it in the case of sex-selection.

        1. So unless you think firing a person is immoral, you can’t think that firing a person due to their race is immoral?

          1. You don’t seem to know the difference between a moral argument and a law.

            I can be opposed to people having sex selective abortions, but if I believe a woman has the right to choose, I have no rational basis for making it ILLEGAL.

            Jesus, this is the same argument you’re making with colleges. Moral beliefs =/= law. The issue here is that they banned sex selective abortions despite claiming for 40 years that women have the right to choose. Well if women have the right to choose, then even if you disapprove of their choice, you can’t ban sex selective abortion.

            Again, being morally opposed to something does not mean you should ban it. All of your arguments in this thread seem to make that same mistake.

            1. You can think they have the right to choose but not to base their choice on disgusting reasons. Same as with firing someone.

              1. Not being logically consistent you can’t. Sorry, but if you say you believe in the first amendment but also in campaign finance restrictions you are a hypocrite. The same is true here: you either believe a woman has a right to choose or you believe that she doesn’t. Aesthetics DON’T enter in to it. And since when has the left had an issue with killing unborn children? Oh, now that we are aware that they are overwhelmingly female. The left doesn’t have a problem with it when they are black, though. No, they love that. Citation: Kermit Gosnell.

              2. That’s entirely subjective. You can’t have Objective Law that way.

          2. So unless you think firing a person is immoral, you can’t think that firing a person due to their race is immoral?

            Precisely. If you claim that firing a person due to their race is immoral, then you’re explicitly claiming that firing a person isn’t always moral.

            Abortion advocates haven’t exactly been making a complex, nuanced case about the rightness or wrongness of abortions, depending on the circumstances. If an unborn baby doesn’t count as a person, how can one be sexist towards it?

        2. OK, I’m saying that if an alliance with confused prochoicers will protect more babies, so be it, and maybe it will get them to reflect further on the overall abortion issue.

          The choicer position is *inherently* confused and irrational. They would be just as confused and irrational if they wanted sex-selective abortion to be legal, since they would be legalzing femicide in the name of supporting “Rights for Women!”

          1. Seriously, find me a choicer whose position *doesn’t* involve contradictions and fallacies of all sorts. Don’t single out the choicers who for once try to do something right.

            1. Right here. We’re not the ones seriously arguing for endowing something with rights because it has 46 chromosomes and almost as much sentience as my dog.

              1. So you’d be OK with killing infants and retarded people.

              2. OK, cyto, but you’d legalize the killing of born infants, wouldn’t you?

                1. Under select circumstances, yes. Retarded people, not necessarily. They could be real people on the inside, or fixable. Babies have not become real people yet.

                  1. Please do humankind a favor and make a habit of announcing this position on all of your first dates.

                    1. +1 for lap83

                  2. They could be real people on the inside, or fixable.

                    You had me going for a long time, but now I’m certain that we’re being fucked with. Well played.

                    1. You had me going for a long time, but now I’m certain that we’re being fucked with. Well played.

                      I don’t think he’s having a go, Cyto really is psychopathic.

                  3. Retarded people, not necessarily. They could be real people on the inside, or fixable.

                    But once top men? have made that determination it’s ok to kill the ones that aren’t ‘fixable’. Right?

        3. pro-choice people don’t think abortion is murder, and therefore have no rational basis to ban it in the case of sex-selection.

          Somehow I don’t think that they’d be so concerned about sex-selective abortion if it was boys who were being aborted in preference for girls.

          But maybe that’s me taking my cynicism a little too far.

          1. They’re torn (no pun intended). If they say sex-selective abortion should be legal, they challenge their self-image as champions of the female sex, and open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy. If they say sex-selective abortion should be a crime, while other abortions remain legal, they open themselves up to charges of illogic and double standards.

            Sometimes it’s hard to be a feminist
            Giving all your derp to just one cause

    5. 1. How on Earth is this enforceable?

      Simple: Ban all abortions of girls by Indians, Muslims and Chinese.

      1. Now here’s a man with a future in politics!

  8. So, an article about precious metal predictions and speculation without mentioning the cause of the silver bubble in ’79-’80?

    The Hunt Brothers.

    WTF, reason?

    1. No kidding. Although my main beef is the lack of a price chart for the period in question. FFS, you can’t talk sensibly about investment performance without a chart!

      1. “The ants are working animals”

        Jesus. Insect Proletariats!?

        But but but…. they’re a Matriarchical Monarchy? Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses; not some farcical genetic coincidence that grants only the elite an ability to reproduce?

        trivia = The original “Gamergate” was in fact a rogue worker ant that develops the ability to breed.

        Any resemblances to Anita Sarkesian, or parallels with Feminist-Socialist desire to emasculate and rule over a brood of workers is entirely conincidental

        “Gamergate females differ from their fellow workers by a combination of elevated fecundity and aggression-related mutilation of competitors’ secondary sexual characteristics. Subsequent to their first mating event, however, aggression is no longer needed as females secrete chemical signals that lead the workers to accept their role as reproducers for the colony.”

        1. erm, yeah, that was supposed to go below where the ants were being murdered by the artist

  9. Hot hunter tells anti-hunters to go fuck themselves.

    Question: Why is it always attractive young women who get all this shit for engaging in legal hunting? Do I sense a bit of sexism among idiot anti-hunters?

    1. I had no idea they had bears that big in NC. A 510 pound black bear is frickin’ HUGE!

    2. Attractive chicks doing stuff usually results in people being positively interested in that stuff, because straight guys are straight guys. The idiot anti-hunters are incredibly stupid, but they’re not so stupid they can’t understand that bit of marketing. So they get extra venomous, because they see that and hate it.

      1. Did I show you this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGJ2jMZ-gaIk

        It’s a dude who makes a statue by pouring molten aluminum into an ant hill and then digging the ant hill out of the ground.

        The comments became infested with people who were super pissed – because he was mean to an invasive species of fire ant.

        Killing ants is an art for you? This video is interesting but stop doing that! The ants are working animals and should not be destroyed for art.?

        Ants have helped humans solve some the of the most complex logistical calculations. You’re not nice. Ants are amazing creatures, they are the epitome of a highly evolved land-based species. I hope you at least donate some of these to institutions that wish to study them. Ants have been around for over 100 million years, they’ve outlived the dinosaurs (and multiple world wide mass extinctions)… in many ways, ants are superior to humans. Through the humane study of living ants and the manner in which they organize and operate, they have helped solve multiple problems for human kind, many incredibly complex logistical calculations. Just search the correlation between the “Traveling Sales Man” problem and “Ants” on Google.?

        1. I, for one, welcome our new ant overlords. And that guy isn’t an attractive chick. VIDEO FAIL.

        2. What about making a sculpture of yourself with molten aluminium? I’m sure you’ll find that artistic if not extremely painful.
          Sometimes when I see this kind of people I feel ashamed of being human.?

          What a filthy cunt, to do this. What next? Doing the same to a dog and labelling the new “art” as Tin Tin or something? What an absolutely horrible person to do this… twat-face.

          pretty sure you shouldn’t be screwing with the ecosystem for you’re enjoyment.how bout we put you in a bunker and pour liquid metal on you and see how you like it duchebag?

          Again: They’re fucking invasive fire ants. These things eat birds alive, but we’re supposed to be super sad that they got killed.

          1. Doing the same to a dog and labelling the new “art” as Tin Tin or something?

            This guy’s an artistic genius and doesn’t even know it.

            1. “Tin Tin”? I thought it was aluminum?

              /goes back to frying ants with a magnifying glass

              1. I thought Rin Tin Tin was the dog?

          2. “pretty sure you shouldn’t be screwing with the ecosystem for you’re enjoyment.how bout we put you in a bunker and pour liquid metal on you and see how you like it duchebag?”

            Wonder if this guy ever had termites in his abode?

            1. pretty sure you shouldn’t be screwing with the ecosystem



              ecosystem, which ends at the boundary of every flesh-encapsulated human soul.

          3. People have gone batshit crazy.

            They are fucking ants. An invasive species of ants. Farmers pour gas on them and burn them to get rid of them.


            1. Dehumanizing your “enemies” is the first step toward totalitarianism.

            2. Tom Clancy had a point in his subtle-as-a-bomb works, with the ending of Rainbow Six. Who wouldn’t like the idea of many of these self-titled “environmentalists” being dropped naked in the middle of the Amazon and told to go ahead and get one with Nature?

          4. I don’t even

        3. in many ways, ants are superior to humans

          lol who’s pouring molten metal into who’s home?

          1. Ant PWND

          2. By that logic, cops who break into people’s houses in the middile of the night and incinerate their infants and shoot their dogs are superior to those people.

            Barbarity and cruelty do not imply superiority.

        4. “You’re not nice.”

          There it is…the ‘mean people suck’ idiocy. Holy shit that is one dumb motherfucker.

          1. Forget it Jake, its YouTube

            You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and derpitude than youtube comments. It is close to a force of nature… as ‘absolute zero’ is to the movement of atomic particles… YouTube comments sections are a Black Hole of intelligence from which nothing can ever escape underpified.

        5. Ants have helped humans solve some the of the most complex logistical calculations.

          Except ants ALWAYS have ulterior motives. Just wait for one of the other five feet to drop.

        6. I, for one, think this guy is doing great work.

          I quit hunting years ago because I really don’t enjoy killing animals. That is, any animal other than mosquitos or fire ants. Especially fire ants.

          When I kill fire ants, I usually use chemical warfare to starve them to death slowly by interfering with their oxidative phosphorylation. This guy was really quite humane to kill them with molten aluminum.

    3. Sexism is exactly what it is. Its the same treatment black conservatives or libertarians get. They are off of the plantation, release the dogs!

    4. Do I sense a bit of sexism among idiot anti-hunters?

      Yeah the crippling inadequacy of the pajama boy types manifests itself in ugly ways when confronted with women who can outride, outrope, outshoot, and outrun them. Probably outlift them too.

      Just look at the Sarah Palin stuff. Pure cultural snobbery. She hunts. Sher played college hoops. She wears jeans which cost less than 50 bucks a pair. She has more than two kids.

    5. “Why is it always attractive young women who get all this shit for engaging in legal hunting?”

      It threatens all the typical urban-elitist biases about how hunters must all be fat dumb country-bumpkin males; consequently they need to tear her to shreds so that a message is sent to all other young females = DO NOT BE DIFFERENT OR WE WILL DESTROY YOU.

    6. I think the reason they lay off men who hunt is that they are worried they might get punched in the face if they go after them.

      With women, they feel a bit more brave.

      By the way, I am always suspicious of hunting pictures where the hunter looks so good. All my pictures of me with dead animals do not highlight my rugged good looks. Instead I look goofy with my hair sticking up everywhere and wearing my ratty good luck sweat shirt.

    7. She reminds me of a girl I want to have sex with.

    1. I wonder if you can eat them, like you can the similar Monkfish? Monkfish tails are great.

  10. Man at Colorado University – Boulder sues the school for suspending him three months for what he says was a false rape accusation.

    With lawsuits and investigations spreading across college campuses nationwide, schools are struggling to strike the difficult balance between supporting sexual assault victims and punishing their assailants, and protecting the rights of accused students.

    Hey, do you know how you strike the ‘difficult balance?’ By not having the school get involved with fucking rape accusations. Report them to the cops and STAY OUT OF IT.

    There. Balance struck.

    1. That is crazy talk. How could such a simple approach possibly work?

    2. Remember, the White House has forced these schools to adopt these practices.

      Progressive ideas are dumb. Count on Obumbles to double down on the worst of them.

      Is it really possible for someone to be as moronic as this guy is? I mean, he is slick as hell, but aside from scheming and conniving he can’t get anything right. It is getting to the point where I think the conspiracy theorists might be right. He is fucking up everything on purpose.

    3. Report them to the cops and STAY OUT OF IT.

      The cops and the courts have rules. The kangaroo courts the universities set up for this have no rules. The lack of due process, rules of evidence, and presumption of innocence that is present in these tribunals is a feature, not a bug.

      I get the email alerts from a local university because I used to work there. Got one a couple days ago. Girl reported a sexual assault in a dorm room three weeks after the fact, assailant known to her. Assuming she’s telling the truth, it’s still going to be nearly impossible to convict, because three weeks later there’s probably no evidence and very few witnesses.

    4. So if I fire an employee who I believe is stealing from the cash register but don’t report it to the cops, I’ve done something wrong? Because I didn’t use formal due process in my internal decisions of whom to associate with?

      1. So if I fire an employee who I believe is stealing from the cash register but don’t report it to the cops, I’ve done something wrong?

        If you’re a public this-or-that you have, T. A public school purports to belong to the student, and he’s being deprived of his property when it shuts him out without due process.

        1. Strong disagreement is mine. Are students whose applications are rejected by public unis “deprived of their property”?

          1. Yeah, they kind of are. That’s the problem with public anything. By definition, you are forcing the many to subsidize the preferences of the few.

            If you want to spend 150,000 to get a piece of paper attesting to your mastery of Underwater Basket Weaving, have at it. But when you dip into my pocket to do so, I get a little pissed off.

          2. Are students whose applications are rejected by public unis “deprived of their property”?


            Problem being that public property doesn’t exist in the real world. It’s state property to be administered as the state sees fit, with all the democracy bs used as transparent justification.

            1. Great, so your dogma has destroyed the possibility of having any public institutions that can’t handle all comers. Not practical my acquaintence, not practical at all.

              1. Yes, T, because I support due process for a person being denied his property I am a wrecker and kulak.

      2. A private organization firing someone is different than a public university ruining a person’s life based on unproven rape allegations.

        You also need to consider that a lot of these rules are active state policy, particular in California. The Obama Administration Justice Department has been pushing this stuff for years.

        It therefore isn’t equivalent to a private organization exercising their right to freedom of association, it’s a government institution enacting active state policy. That means due process must be observed.

        1. People who suck at the public teat and have their education subsidized get more rights than people who pay fully for their own schooling? Is that fair?

          1. People who suck at the public teat and have their education subsidized get more rights than people who pay fully for their own schooling? Is that fair?

            I don’t know what on Earth you’re talking about here. When pretty much all colleges are in bed with the government and the government is forcing policies upon those colleges which abrogate their students’ rights, this has nothing to do with some illusory ‘private’ college which no longer exists in America.

            How many colleges aren’t basically subsidiaries of the government? Hillsdale? Any others?

            Not only that, but I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that people who don’t have their college subsidized don’t get these rights. The point is that the government IS FORCING colleges to adopt these policies and are using their funding of these colleges as a cudgel.

            You cannot compare active state policy which coerces colleges into destroying due process rights to the freedom of association we should grant private institutions. There is no comparison.

            1. So because Walmart accepts EBT cards, they’re a subsidiary of the govt? BS. BS. BS.

              1. You don’t seem to be listening to my argument. The colleges are being FORCED INTO this policy by the government. If the government started saying ‘Walmart, you’re no longer allowed to sell food to black people’ it would be fucking stupid to argue that Walmart is engaging in freedom of association.

                Colleges are being coerced into this, which means this has nothing to do with private institutions.

                Furthermore, you do realize we’re allowed to criticize things without thinking the government should outlaw them, correct? If a photographer doesn’t want to work at a gay wedding because he doesn’t like gay people being allowed to get married, I can simultaneously think that this is his right, while still arguing that he’s morally wrong to do so.

                They aren’t mutually exclusive. It can therefore be the college’s right to kick someone out, and I can still think it’s immoral and wrong for them to do so.

            2. Hillsdale? Any others?

              Grove City I think (not your main point I know but just trying to be helpful).

        2. Depending on the circumstances, firing someone can be just as ruinous as expelling someone.

    5. “Report them to the cops and STAY OUT OF IT.”

      I approve, with this reservation – if the case goes to trial it will be fairer than a trial in a sandbox campus “court.” But there will be pressure to plea-bargain – it’s part of the system. I’m not saying I have an immediate answer to this – well, reducing the number of victimless crimes would be a start so the court dockets are clear for violent crimes – but I’m not going to automatically hymn the praises of the real-world courts.

      Hopefully the student’s family will be rich enough to fight the case to the end – if he’s innocent.

  11. From an article about “black seadevil” sightings, which are uglier than Sandra Fluke the night before her insurance check comes in:

    Little is known about the fish. Male black seadevils have a much shorter life span than females and are much tinier in comparison. Their sole purpose is to attach themself to a female, living as a parasite.

    There’s probably a wry joke there, but my problem is the use of “themself”. I know people like to abuse “they” as a gender neutral pronoun, but you’re expicitly talking about males here! Why?!

    1. ‘Itself’ is also applicable, but insulting I guess?

      1. “Himself” would be perfectly fine.

    2. I’m more annoyed by the fact that one of those words is plural and the other is singular.

      If ‘they’ are attaching, then they would attach ‘themselves’ not ‘themself.’

      The pronouns need to agree with each other, dammit!

      1. Preach it sibling!

  12. Cal vs Stanford at 1PM Pacific. Fuck Stanford!

    1. Do you have an anti-Stanford hate song? It’s not a rivalry without a hate song.



  13. Beat the pre-grand jury rush – start rioting season early!

    (from National Review)


    1. Can I just hate everyone involved in this situation? The only people who have my sympathy are the innocent people in Ferguson who aren’t taking part and are having their property destroyed.

      The protesters themselves and the FPD have all shown themselves to be scum.

  14. Femprog responds to abortion debate flap:


    Says that abortion & other questions should be “closed” to debate.

    Warning: weapons grade derp

    1. How in the world do you find so many idiots on the Internet of all places?

      1. I have a gift.

        Here, have some Piers Morgan raving at some pro-gun folks:


        1. Haven’t we deported that retarded limey yet?

          You know what?, all the illegal Mexicans can stay, but this motherfucker has to go.

        2. It’s great that Morgan repeatedly claims an AR-15 was used in the Navy Yard shooting, even though the video clearly shows it was a shot gun.

          And as for the Aurora shooting, his AR-15 jammed because of its drum mag. He then switched to his shotgun.

          And yet, I have heard no calls for banning shotguns.

          1. That’s because the current vice president advocates shooting a shotgun aimlessly off your balcony and through closed doors.

              1. Why, oh why, oh why did we not get a president Biden?
                Goddamn, it would be a laugh a minute.

      2. Funny. But this idiot was studying at Oxford.

        1. (Reply to backwards Barney Frank)

        2. Knowing fundamentalist Christianity as I do, I believe that progressive talking points are fundamentally a secular religion. They may have lost socialism a while back, but at least they can still worship technocracy.

          Virtually all prog/fundie idiocy is due to cultural and psychological priors, which is why we have so many high-IQ people in either group who believe patently crazy things. See Gary North on the one hand & any top university on the other. It’s just that proggies are massively more dangerous to our future than fundamentalism.

          1. (and it’s probably not fair of me to call this person an idiot for what amounts to a cultural divide. Asshole is a far better fit. Idiots are made genetically, assholes by culture and choice.)

          2. Progs are a cult. They demand a strong messianic type leader to rule with an iron first and who will tell them what to believe and they will hold those beliefs with a religious type fervor, and they cannot be reasoned with any way.

            Someone tell me how progs are not a cult, because I can’t tell the difference.

            1. “Someone tell me how progs are not a cult, because I can’t tell the difference.”

              Depends on the prog. I know some sane ones (sane for progs), and some nuts who are nevertheless suspicious of authority, in their own selective way.

            2. Progs aren’t so much about the leader as the conformity and social signalling required to get their. The leader is ancillary. The Collective comes before all.

              1. I don’t agree, the leader is all important. They need the all powerful leader to enforce the collective. Otherwise I don’t see how in America anyone can say ‘you didn’t build that’ to business owners and get elected again. And also I don’t know how you can have a certifiable nut case like Lizzie Warren holding events and a masses of mindless screeching harpies jumping up and down and screaming ‘Run Lizzie, Run!’. Cultists.

                1. Social signalling enforces the collective. The leader comes afterward. Having dunce opponents nominate Romney also helps.

                2. They chatter about the collective, but since collectives don’t actually have wills of their own, seeing as how they don’t exist outside of language, this is mainly a talking point.

                  All collectivist movements have at their center strong men of vision, as without these figures society would be revealed to lack the telos they crave.

                  And because these asses can’t just go to church or meditate like any decent neoplatonist would–too much work!–they have to try to foist their idiotic hero-worshiping secular religion on the rest of us.

          3. There is a great line in the novel “The Ugly American” where a Catholic priest is talking to WW2 marines before an attack. One of marines is a communist and chastises the priest for not caring about the Russians.

            Father Finian had never forgotten that incident. He had recognized that the zeal in the boy’s eyes and the dedication in his face were what made saints of men. Yet this boy was dedicated to something evil.

            linky poo

            1. What happened to “knock, and it shall be opened?” The link doesn’t work.

              1. linky poo failed its mission. Its replacement, linky, is fully operational.

                You can also try googling “the ugly american communist marine”. It will show up in google books.

                1. I ordered it through the library.

                  I’ve already seen the movie but I don’t remember a Catholic chaplain.

    2. Ahem


      Apparently she wants to close off the choicer, pro-free-expression Brendan O’Neill from supporting free expression.

      Just to be clear, Oxford has had episodes of Official Doctrine Which Could Not Be Challenged. I suppose they’re returning to their roots, only in a much more insane way.

    3. Kim Jong Un and ISIS are pretty rational compared to that psycho cunt.

  15. Wow, I didn’t realize Reason was around in 1978. I think that’s the year that I sold all of my silver coins for 50:1 face value. It was either 78 or 79, when it was at it’s peak market value.

      1. Ok, thanks. That makes sense, and I just checked, you’re right.

        I walked into a place buying silver with visions of getting 50:1 for my cache of coins and the guy tells me we’ll give you $35, top, depending on how much you have’. I told him how much I had and he went into the back room to apparently consult with someone, came back and told me ‘ok, $40’. Keep in mind, I was 19 years old, with shoulder length hair, wearing jeans and a t-shirt and this guy I’m sure thought I was full of shit. I said no and started to leave. I got about 20 ft down the sidewalk when the guy came out and said ‘wait, come back, let’s talk!’. I got the $50 to 1.

        I can’t even remember how much later it was that the market dropped, or how fast it was. I wonder how many people got screwed? I was still buying the stuff and selling it a couple of years later, but it seems like the price was down by half.

        I went into silver again in the early 90s and got out again for good, selling out when the market started to really crash.

    1. Reason came into being in ’68. Only reason I remember that is because that was the year Objectivism cracked up, which makes it particularly hilarious that a magazine with such an obviously Objectivist name quickly morphed into a mainstreamish libertarian publication.

      Re: pm prices, the Simon/Ehrlich bet has something to say to goldbugs as well. Gold is a good store and stabilizer of value and will be until asteroid mining gets off the ground, but anyone buying it as an investment needs to think again.

  16. Wow, I didn’t realize Reason was around in 1978

    Oldest reference: https://reason.com/issues/june-1968

    Oldest cover shot: http://cloudfront-assets.reaso…..c1444a.jpg

    1. I didn’t even realize that there was a such a thing as a libertarian until 2007.

  17. Derpy’s book picks:

    If you like communist satire, there is a great novel called “The Little World of Don Camillo”. It’s about a Catholic priest who poses as a communist to visit the USSR.

    1. Satire *by* communists or satire *about* communists?

    2. Not a satire, but The Power and the Glory is powerful if a tad too religious for many libertarians.

    3. If you like Communist Satire, you should read “The Master and Margarita

      one of the best books of the 20th century IMO

      1. “Satire *by* communists or satire *about* communists?”


        ” Many critics consider it to be one of the best novels of the 20th century, as well as the foremost of Soviet satires. In part, it is angled against a suffocatingly bureaucratic social order.

        Bulgakov started writing the novel in 1928. He burned the first manuscript of the novel in 1930, seeing no future as a writer in the Soviet Union.[1] The work was restarted in 1931. Bulgakov stopped writing four weeks before his death in 1940, leaving the novel with some unfinished sentences and loose ends. A censored version, with about 12 percent of the text removed and still more changed, was first published in Moscow magazine (no. 11, 1966 and no. 1, 1967).In the Soviet Union, the first complete version, prepared by Anna Saakyants, was published by Khudozhestvennaya Literatura in 1973, based on the version completed at the beginning of 1940, as proofread by the publisher. This version remained the canonical edition until 1989, when the last version, based on all available manuscripts, was prepared by Lidiya Yanovskaya.”

        It wasn’t really widely read in the West until the 1990s (although there were some translations floating around prior to that)

    4. It’s been a very long time since I read it but I recall “The Devil’s Advocate” by Taylor Caldwell was a good read about infiltrating a leftist society.

      … Hobbit

  18. my friend’s step-sister makes $70 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 8 months but last month her paycheck was $18402 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Visit this website….

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  19. ????????? ONLINE JOBS ??????????
    You make $27 per hour good for you! I make up to $85 per hour working from home. My story is that I quit working at shop rite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 per hour to $85 per hour heres a good example of what I’m doing more detail here….
    ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.