...economy would collapse, not because tiny silver content in "everyday" products, but it would collapse in two steps: first, it would collapse "too big to fail" banks, with their massive naked shorts in paper silver markets, and step two, aftershocks of that, would shut down financial markets. So yes, Ponzi economy would collapse, most probably - which is what will happen eventually anyway. The sooner the better, because the longer the wait, the bigger the crash.
so if silver does become more expensive, wouldn't the price of everything it's in go up as well? And make things unaffordable for the masses?
yet another thing: one must simply love this kind of misconceptions, that were infected on people's brains by the government central planners: "if we do not intervene in the X, Y, or Z market, than most of the consumers would be priced out of the market! OMG, that would be such a disaster, we simply cannot afford it to happen, we MUST intervene! Here, have some government backings for mortgages, or student loans, or car sales! Here, have some zero-interest ratest, just PLEASE, keep speculating with that free money! Here, have your "government"-sponsored iPad subsidy (sarcasm), to keep our hi-tech industry going!". Why, it all worked SO WELL so far, didn't it?
...what ...a ....pile.. of bovine :doodoo: !!!!! Consumers + Suppliers ARE the markets, you cannot have suppliers selling in the vacuum with consumers being "priced out of the marked", so if some/many consumers would be priced out of the markets, than SOMEBODY, some Bill Gates or another Henry Ford, would find a way, to supply them WITH STUFF THAT THEY NEED, AT THE PRICE THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY. Of course, that is assuming free markets, free society, and no government-imposed restrictions, regulations and undeserved gifts & hand overs on everything, denying people the right of making their own sovereign choices at every step, and freeing them from personal responsibility, BTW.
Additionally, let's assume that it is true, and silver price needs to be suppressed, to sustain our today's Ponzi economy.... Fair enough (because in fact, it does need to be suppressed, for the reasons given at the beginning of my post). But
HOW you do that, how you suppress things in the free markets? You need to divert some capital, that would otherwise be used in a different way (and possibly - in a productive way), to fight the market forces. Can it be "net economically positive", ever? The physics of the real world tells us, it cannot. Some of the "energy" will be lost in the process, and it will be lost at the expense of the input or output - and NOT the middleman (financial institutions). They always get their cut, anyway. So the "energy lost in process", can only come from two places: increased input (=people's pockets), or decreased output (=shrinking economy).
Every intervention, like artificial price reduction in one place (that did not come from the increase in productivity), comes at the expense, that something has to go up in price (=fees, taxes, increased borrowing, etc.) in some other place, with some of the money lost in the process of forcing the funds from one place to another. The harder it is to direct the money in the places, that it doesn't want to go on its own, the more money will be wasted to force that artificial flow of capital. Eventually,
all the efforts would go to waste, and the capital won't be flowing in the desired direction anyway. Simple thermodynamics
