Fekete Questions Me, & Why Banning Usury Won't Work
(Fekete vs. Hommel on Basis vs. Usury)
Silver Stock Report
by Jason Hommel, June 14th, 2008
Antal Fekete was kind enough to respond to my last email, "Silver Shorts are
so Naked, they've "Gone Wild", which was actually a response to his
article, which was a response to my claims and Ted Butler's claims
and others claims that many or most people who have promised silver
for delivery probably don't have the silver to deliver.
Fekete's direct response has enough good questions for a solid
interview or debate. For the sake of clarity, below is the full text
of his email. Below that, I will publish his email again, with my
responses in between, in italics, starting with "Jason: " Finally,
at the end, I have an essay that I had not previously published, that is
important to publish at this time, called:
"Why Banning Usury Won't
Work".
=======
To: Jason Hommel
Re: Primer on Usury,
Silver Stock Report, June 12, 2008.
Date: June 14, 2008.
Dear Jason,
Thank you for your civil rejoinder to my piece Putting Loin-Cloth on
the Naked Bogeyman. I welcome this opportunity for a high level discussion
on the basis. Please consider this as my acceptance of your challenge. I
am looking forward to this debate and I am willing to abide by the verdict
of an informed public opinion beforehand, even if it rules against my
position. But before a debate, it seems to me, some clarification of your
position will be necessary.
You condemn silver basis trading as
„usury” in no uncertain terms. It would logically follow that trading the
corn basis is also „usury”. And so is selling corn futures contracts with
the intention of liquidating the commitment before expiry by purchasing an
offsetting futures contract. Furthermore, lending silver at any other than
zero interest is usury. Would you agree?
The meaning of the word
„usury” has gone through many a significant change since Biblical times.
To a large extent, Protestantism has triumphed over the Catholic Church in
the 16th century thanks to its relaxed view of usury. Even the
arch-conservatives of the Church reversed themselves, somewhat belatedly,
in the 19th century, when they instructed confessors not to disturb
penitents who admit to charging or paying ”reasonable” interest. Earlier,
the scholastic fathers were way ahead of their contemporaries when they
deemed discount on commercial bills of exchange as conceptually very
different from interest and, as such, admissible. Foreign exchange trading
was generally exempted from charges of usury, and provided a handy
loophole to people wanting to escape from the clutches of the Inquisition.
A clever way to get around canonical and secular prohibition of mortgage
interest in the Middle Ages was the „rent charge contract”, under which
the right to rental income from land holdings and buildings could be
bought and sold without disturbing ownership. Religious orders prospered
through trading rent charges.
There are other grey areas. For
example, if silver is used in a profitable enterprise, but is withdrawn by
the owner in order to lend it to a friend in need, there is an opportunity
loss. Is the asking for compensation an instance of usury? Or another: is
it usury if a doctor charges his patient for therapy involving
silver?
Another area also needs clarification. Obviously, you are
very vocal in your criticism of the short interest in the futures markets,
while your criticism of the long interest is muted or non-existent. As you
know, a debate is raging in Washington about the immorality of the long
positions in energy and food-related futures contracts (see Reference
below). Your wholesale condemnation of the futures markets will not solve
the problem. Although it would put you in the same boat with Senator
Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, but don't forget, he may next propose
legislation to check the activities of people who own more than, say, 100
ounces of silver. He could blame silver investors for the collapse of the
dollar and, as such, silver hoarding could be declared against public
policy.
Finally, I have just been reading an interesting news
item in a British daily, reporting that European airlines could weather
the supply-shock of aviation fuel better than their American counterparts,
because they have been trading the oil basis. The article mentions
Lufthansa by name as one airline which has put on hedges covering 80
percent of its fuel needs, and right now is flying its planes on oil
costing only $70 per barrel, or about one half of the going price. In
comparison, American airlines have hedged an average of 20 percent of
their needs only. Question: is Lufthansa guilty of usury?
I am
respectfully asking you to post this letter on your Silver Stock Report.
Thank you for your cheerful cooperation. With friendly
greetings,
Yours very sincerely,
Antal E. Fekete
Gold Standard University Live
Reference. A Bull Market Sees the Worst in Speculators, by Diana B.
Henriques, NYT June 12, 2008.
=======
To: Jason
Hommel
Re: Primer on Usury, Silver Stock Report, June 12,
2008.
Date: June 14, 2008.
Dear Jason,
Fekete: Thank you for your civil rejoinder to my piece Putting
Loin-Cloth on the Naked Bogeyman.
Jason: Thank you for
responding!
Fekete: I welcome this
opportunity for a high level discussion on the
basis.
Jason: I also welcome the opportunity to discuss
usury and basis. But let's remember that the original topic was
whether the silver shorts are naked, or not. And you
did not address this issue in your reply. I, and a few
others, are wondering whether you have been convinced on this point.
Specifically, do you have any industry information that shows that
the shorts are not naked, other than
theory?
Fekete: Please consider this as my
acceptance of your challenge. I am looking forward to this debate and I am
willing to abide by the verdict of an informed public opinion beforehand,
even if it rules against my position. But before a debate, it seems to me,
some clarification of your position will be necessary.
You
condemn silver basis trading as „usury” in no uncertain
terms.
Jason: Condemn? Yes, I have.
I identify silver basis trading as usury. Yes, I advice
against it, perhaps, would be a better way to put it, than
"condemn". I think I point out more risks than you do, specifically,
that trusting future promises can be dangerous if they result in
default if the silver shorts are naked. There are many other
problems and risks that I have identified in my essays,
here:
I Don't Trade Futures April 4, 2008
The Moral Failures of the Paper Longs
Jan 22, 2003
Fekete: It would logically
follow that trading the corn basis is also „usury”.
Jason: I think so, yes.
Fekete:
And so is selling corn futures contracts with the intention of liquidating
the commitment before expiry by purchasing an offsetting futures contract.
Jason: I think so, yes.
Fekete:
Furthermore, lending silver at any other than zero interest is usury.
Would you agree?
Jason: I think so, yes.
People who fail to understand freedom fail to understand that if
lending ought to be at 0 interest, lenders have the freedom to
not lend at all, if they so choose. Or to make investments, instead
of lending, if they choose. About half of my portfolio is in silver
stocks, for example. And I typically sell companies if they start
borrowing and hedging production.
Fekete: The
meaning of the word „usury” has gone through many a significant change
since Biblical times.
Jason: Yes, I agree men have
distorted the word, but that the Bible is clear about what the word means,
since it defines its own usage of it quite clearly. Usury includes
any interest at all, any increase on a loan.
Leviticus 25:36, "Take
thou no usury of him, or increase:…" (KJV)
Fekete: To a
large extent, Protestantism has triumphed over the Catholic Church in the
16th century thanks to its relaxed view of usury. Even the
arch-conservatives of the Church reversed themselves, somewhat belatedly,
in the 19th century, when they instructed confessors not to disturb
penitents who admit to charging or paying ”reasonable” interest. Earlier,
the scholastic fathers were way ahead of their contemporaries when they
deemed discount on commercial bills of exchange as conceptually very
different from interest and, as such, admissible. Foreign exchange trading
was generally exempted from charges of usury, and provided a handy
loophole to people wanting to escape from the clutches of the Inquisition.
A clever way to get around canonical and secular prohibition of mortgage
interest in the Middle Ages was the „rent charge contract”, under which
the right to rental income from land holdings and buildings could be
bought and sold without disturbing ownership. Religious orders prospered
through trading rent charges.
Jason: I've written an
essay that I've only published to my paying subscribers, called "Why
banning usury won't work." While I condemn usury, I would
never advocate for banning it. People need to choose,
voluntarily, to not be deceived by it, in my opinion, through proper
understanding of what it is, and its nature, in order to understand
that there are rewards and incentives if we obey the call
in Revelation 18:4, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." I
note it does not say to destroy the harlot, nor does it say to gain the
power of the law to ban the practice of the harlot; instead it says
to not imitate the harlot, to not do what she does. It also
takes a certain degree of Biblical scholarship and discernment to
understand that the harlot practices usury--this is not a universally held
viewpoint, although many do share
it.
Fekete: There are other grey
areas. For example, if silver is used in a profitable enterprise, but is
withdrawn by the owner in order to lend it to a friend in need, there is
an opportunity loss. Is the asking for compensation an instance of
usury?
Jason: Absolutely, yes. The Bible is very
clear that lending to poor people, for the purpose of extracting usury, is
not allowed by God.
Leviticus 25:35 And if thy brother be
waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him:
yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.
36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy
brother may live with thee.
37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
Fekete: Or another: is it usury if a doctor charges
his patient for therapy involving silver?
Jason: I don't
see how that would be usury. Paying for a service, or paying once,
more than the value of the silver, for a certain form of silver, is
not usury. That's a purchase, a trade. I don't even see
any similarities here to usury, so I'm really blind as to why you would
ask this.
Fekete: Another area also
needs clarification. Obviously, you are very vocal in your criticism of
the short interest in the futures markets, while your criticism of the
long interest is muted or non-existent.
Jason: I'm sorry
I've been neglectful of that, in your view. Obviously, you are
reading my work. I've tried very hard to tell people to not play the
futures markets, and I do criticize the paper longs rather consistently,
in my own view. I criticize anyone who trusts any form of paper
promise of silver, and I always advocate that people get physical silver
and take delivery of real silver. I thought I was rather consistent
on this, and I'm sorry if my message has not been clear.
I suppose
you were not getting my message, because in my head, it's the same
thing. If I warn that the shorts cannot deliver because they don't
have the silver, then it logically follows that it's to the longs that
they cannot deliver, and it's the longs that are being deceived. I
thought I was quite clear even in my last essay on why I would not go long
in the futures contracts for silver, and not even buy options, no matter
how much leverage there is, no matter how much the paper gain could be,
because I don't trust that they have the silver to deliver.
As
you know, a debate is raging in Washington about the immorality of the
long positions in energy and food-related futures contracts (see Reference
below).
Jason: It is, indeed, a very interesting
debate. People are now trying to make money in grain, by buying
grain, to protect themselves from inflation. Thus, paper inflation
is starving the world, as a "by-product", and yes, that is, indeed, a
moral issue. The beauty of silver and gold, of course, is that you
cannot eat them. Thus, if their prices go up, nobody starves.
In fact, if silver and gold are money, and if their prices go up, then by
definition, the price of everything else is going down.
Would it be better to kick the speculators out of the grain
markets, and thereby, tell them that only gold and silver are the best
places to speculate? I don't think so. Higher prices for
grains are the only thing that can create the economic incentives for more
planting and farming. And the world's grain stocks are precariously
low. Things could get much worse. But I think the root cause
is paper money, and futures contracts which tend to suppress the prices of
the underlying commodities.
Our paper money economy
creates very odd misallocations of wealth; as you know that's the problem
with inflation, it creates a false boom, and people invest in the wrong
things, like perhaps not enough farming! The problem with paper
money is that it creates too much false buying power, and thus, if some
people are bidding up grain prices too high, maybe that does need to be
stopped? The difficulty is in determining a "just" price; only the
free market, the spot market, can do that, and only in a world without
paper money, since paper money is fraud, and not compatible with free
market principles.
Silver and gold should be traded for grain
directly, and only at spot exchanges, physical metal for physical
grain; that would be the free market in action, with much less monetary
fraud.
The Bible does say that both silver and grain are
money, and also, that hoarding grain for monetary gain is wrong, on a
moral basis.
Proverbs 11:26 He that withholdeth corn, the
people shall curse him: but blessing shall be upon the head of him that
selleth it.
Fekete: Your wholesale condemnation of the
futures markets will not solve the problem.
Jason: I
think it's the only thing that can even come close. If people
stop trusting false paper money promises, and start buying real silver and
gold as money, it will actually balance out the many imbalances in the
world economy. Only the free markets can solve the problem of
scarcity the best. Usury is contrary to all free market notions,
since it requires the use of force, to enforce the contracts when people
default. Usury also ends up enslaving people, and a slave economy is
the exact opposite of a free market economy. A slave economy is pure
communism.
I'm sure you can come out with stories about how, in the
past, farmers who sold grain at harvest time for specie of gold and silver
created all sorts of imbalances; but I think that's more of a function of
lack of available grain storage space, than anything else. Grain
stores safely for up to 20 years, and a wealthy and
productive society should have a store of grain to protect against
times of famine which can come in any year. Today, the world
has become impoverished in grain due to paper money and futures markets,
not for lack of grain storage space.
Fekete: Although it
would put you in the same boat with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of
Connecticut,
Jason: No, he and I are as far apart as
night and day. Joseph is a leftist, communist, compared to me.
We are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. The
spectrum I'm talking about is not communism on the left, and fascism on
the right. My spectrum is totalitarianism on the left (including
fascism), and free market Biblical Capitalism on the right, which is
mostly libertarian, and full of liberty and
freedom.
Fekete: (continues in mid sentence) but don't
forget, he may next propose legislation to check the activities of people
who own more than, say, 100 ounces of silver. He could blame silver
investors for the collapse of the dollar and, as such, silver hoarding
could be declared against public policy.
Jason: The only
thing that can protect you against such public policies, is hoarding
silver! Governments tend to collapse after they shut down the
markets, because then, people can't eat, and they riot, and start a
revolution which topples the government. Given that grain stores the
world over are so low, we may see this soon. And the best protection
is silver and food stores, for
yourself.
Fekete: Finally, I have just been
reading an interesting news item in a British daily, reporting that
European airlines could weather the supply-shock of aviation fuel better
than their American counterparts, because they have been trading the oil
basis. The article mentions Lufthansa by name as one airline which has put
on hedges covering 80 percent of its fuel needs, and right now is flying
its planes on oil costing only $70 per barrel, or about one half of the
going price. In comparison, American airlines have hedged an average of 20
percent of their needs only. Question: is Lufthansa guilty of
usury?
Jason: Worse! It's bad enough that they are
squeezing some helpless sap out there and paying them the less
than the free market price of oil (the spot price) through the use
of futures contracts, which have enslaved some poor supplier
to this hapless fate. But what is worse is the
poor economic understanding of Lufthansa that results in them
passing on these uneconomic and unsustainable savings on to
their customers to gain some sort of non-existent "customer loyalty",
which will quickly vanish once Lufthansa has to start
paying the true economic cost of oil, and raising fare rates
accordingly. Or what could be worse than Lufthansa than
trying the same trick, and locking in oil at $130/barrel, while oil prices
plummet? How would they get their low price seeking customers
to pay up when all their competitors would be paying less? As
it stands, the crooks have the advantage, and it is an unfair one, in
this case, and it's leading to the bankruptcy of other airlines who cannot
compete on price! But it's working to the disadvantage of
Lufthansa right now, as they are be like a nation with
tarrifs competing on an uneven field, but failing to make the necessary
increases in operating efficiency to compete on a level playing
field. So in the long run, Lufthansa will
suffer.
Fekete: I am
respectfully asking you to post this letter on your Silver Stock Report.
Thank you for your cheerful cooperation. With friendly
greetings,
Yours very sincerely,
Antal E. Fekete
Gold Standard University Live
Reference. A Bull Market Sees the Worst in Speculators, by Diana B.
Henriques, NYT June 12, 2008.
Jason:
Thank you for your response which contained
many questions. I'm sure my readers will appreciate this
exchange. Would you do me the return favor and answer the following
questions?
1. Have you changed your mind on how much
silver might be sold short naked?
2. Were you
aware that the CPM Group's statistics that show that 'On page 16, the
yearbook lists Estimated Silver Inventories in London and Zurich at about
75 million ounces for 2006."
3. Were you aware that the CPM
Group's statistics that show tha the LBMA trades 30 billion ounces of
silver per year?
4. Can you understand or explain how
they can trade 400 times more silver than they have, in a single year,
without having naked short positions?
5. Were you aware
that Ted Butler found a major brokerage house to be admitting that
"they were not doing anything unusual by charging storage on metal that
didn't exist, as this is a widespread industry
practice."
6. What would you estimate to be the risk
of default in the silver futures markets in the year 2008? 2009?
2010? Or anytime in the next 10 years?
7. Has
this discussion or my essay below helped your understanding of
usury? Do you understand my position on usury
better?
8. Finally, I apologize for these last
questions for how they sound, but I wonder about motives. Are
you making an apology for usury, as I thought you were against
it? Have you now, or have you ever, worked in the banking industry or
taken any money from any banking establishment or any
government?
Thank you.
Below, is my essay that
is now overdue, and relevant to this discussion:
=======
Why Banning Usury Won't Work
One of the great problems of mankind is to figure out how
governments ought to direct, or administer, proper moral guidance for
other people. While some people seem more capable of following the
universally recognized moral guideline to treat others as you yourself
want to be treated, the problem is what to do about people who are totally
selfish, and only want others to treat them as they demand.
From
the days of Israel's first king, Saul, the office of the king and the
prophet were separated--the prophet was not supposed to be the king, and
the king was not supposed to do the duties of the prophet. The
concept of an earthly King was from people who were rejecting the King in
Heaven.
As I learn more and more about the Bible, it seems every sin is
related. The action of turning to an earthly King for security is
related to adultry, in that the people reject the King of Kings, Jesus,
for an earthly king. It is also like idolatry, to idolize a king, or
government, instead of God.
It seems fairly easy for society to set up laws against murder and
theft, and to prosecute those who commit such crimes (even if they can't
catch all such criminals). Prosecution of those crimes seems to work
well. Capital punishment does deter murderers, although there is
much debate about that, too.
But it seems much harder to figure out what to do about many other
societal problems, such as excessive use of drugs & alchohol, sexual
immorality, and gambling. In those cases, prohibition and
prosecution don't seem to work. But rather, people need a strong
moral fiber in themselves to avoid such temptations.
But why does prosecution against those things seem to result in more
crime and unintended consequences? Perhaps it's because in those
"crimes," there is no real victim who can testify or press charges, since
the actions taken are consentual, or mutually agreed upon. Further,
those practices primarily hurt the ones who engage in them.
Similarly, throughout history there has been a profound difficulty in
trying to figure out what to do about the problem of usury, or lending at
an interest rate. Sometimes nations have tried to set limits on what
is "excessive" and thus "unlawful" usury.
Further, those who borrow and lend do so upon mutual agreement,
consentually, and it can be difficult to determine who is the
victim.
Since interest rates today are below the real inflation rate, then
lenders are the current victims!
Borrowers, if they think they can make money borowwing, will
borrow.
Lenders, if they think they can make money lending, will
lend.
And really, wouldn't it take the utmost hubris to try to stop them by
use of force?
Sometimes, borrowers are better off, and sometimes lenders, and even
further, sometimes they both come out ahead in the transaction.
Peculiarly, the Bible does not prohibit lending at interest. It
only prohibits lending at interest to your fellow Israelites! Even
more peculiar, the Bible is filled with directions for specific
punishments for many specific crimes, but it does not include a specific
punishment for what to do about those who violate this statute, and lend
at interest to their brothers! Even more peculiar, there appears to
be a blessing associated with those who actually do lend at interest to
other nations: they will end up ruling the nations!
Deuteronomy 15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised
thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow;
and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over
thee.
Therefore, lending at interest is a rather peculiar crime if it leads
to the blessing of "ruling many nations".
But on the other hand, for those who would rule the world, they would
merely attain the position that God has reserved for himself. Jesus
asked:
Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul?
At various times throughout history, nations have prohibited lending at
interest, and/or they have also expelled Jews from their nation. And
that never seems to work, either. If capital is treated badly, it
tends to flee. And capital flows to where it is treated best.
God says to lend money at zero interest. Thus, God's preferred,
or prescribed interest rate is zero. Why? Let's see if I can
explain it:
Today, the typical interest rate is below the true inflation
rate. In other words, "real" interest rates are negative, or below
God's rate. Thus, lenders are losing money as bonds cannot keep up
with the inflation rate.
Today, borrowers can borrow money at negative real interest rates;
thus, borrowers are literally being paid to borrow money.
Thus, money is flowing towards those who treat money best -- towards
borrowers.
Unfortunately, most borrowers put their borrowed money into overvalued
housing, so that's not working out so well for them right now,
either.
Mathmatically speaking, when gold and silver are used as money such as
they were in the United States for over 100 years from the 1800's to the
early 1900's, there was constant, mild, deflation, of about 1% per year,
or less.
The maximum compounding growth rate for the maximum amount of wealth,
the rate at which you can grow a gold coin into all the gold in all the
world if you had as much time as all of humanity, is about 1/4 of 1%.
Thus, I suppose that those two rates cancel each other out, and God's
"zero rate" is best. IE, if you get your gold back in an era of
deflation, and charge zero interest, you actually make 1%, not to mention
helping out your fellow man.
But what happens to those who attempt to prohibit what God
allows? And remember, God allows lending, even at an interest rate
if you are lending to a stranger.
Let's look at a different example, to consider prohibition in the
context of alcohol. Jesus's first miracle was to create wine at a
wedding where they ran out of wine. If you have ever been to a party
that ran out of alcohol, you know you are at a wild party. Further,
the chief steward of the party said, "Everyone serves the good wine first,
and then the cheaper wine when the guests have become drunk. You have kept
the good wine until now!"
Now, if you are not a wine drinker, let me instruct you. Bad wine
tastes bitter, and has a strong flavor of alcohol, yet is rather "weak" at
getting you drunk. In contrast, good wine not only tastes better,
but also, is not so bitter, tastes less of alcohol, is stronger, and gets
you drunk faster, and costs a lot more. That's the kind of wine that
Jesus made. But furthermore, if you are drunk, you can't tell much
difference, and that was the point of the chief steward of the
wedding. In other words, Jesus made very strong wine for a wedding
party that had been drinking until drunk, wine that tasted good and was
easy to drink, and for people who were so drunk already that they could
hardly tell the difference between good strong wine and the bad stuff.
So, it seems that while Jesus created wine, and gave it to people who
were drunk, he does not approve of drunkenness! Very peculiar!
So, while I can't condone drunkenness, neither can I condemn or
prohibit strong wine, that Jesus, Himself, created, to give to those who
have already had too much to drink!
Alcohol prohibition in the 1920's in the U.S. didn't work.
Prohibiltion increases desire. And you cannot eliminate market
demand by a prohibition law that therefore increases it.
Prohibition increases law breaking, because while bootleggers are
breaking one law, they don't mind breaking others, such as laws against
murder and theft; the easiest laws for civilized men to agree upon.
Prohibition vastly increases the profit margins for those who are
criminally inclined, and thus economically rewards those who are
criminally inclined to commit murder and theft to retain their criminal
power.
Prohibition increases government corruption, as excess profits that
eliminate competition due to prohibition can be used to bribe judges to
avoid prosecution, and can also be used to bribe legislators who make the
laws.
Prohibition is like a government granted monopoly of a lucrative and
very profitable business to the criminally inclined!
In the aftermath of Prohibition, economist Ludwig von Mises wrote,
"Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to
protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections
can be advanced against further encroachments."
Similarly, I think that prohibition against usury cannot and will not
ever work.
Prohibition of usury would encourage and economically reward "usury
criminals" who would easily corrupt the government, who would not be
discouraged by an unjust and unBiblical law prohibiting the lending of
usury to strangers, which the Bible allows.
I'll echo Mises, "Once people use the argument that the government
needs to protect people from their own stupidity, then that same argument
can be used to justify all kinds of government tyranny."
Usury may be immoral and may lead to slavery, but it would be a crime
ten thousand times worse to try to ban usury, and if you can understand
why, then you can understand the nature of God-given freedom.
Economic freedom means the freedom to fail. If we ban people from
failing, we have communism and totalitarianism.
If usury is bad, and I think it is; then it's best to simply avoid it
voluntarily, freely. It does seem to help, however, when you can see
the fools heading towards their own folly beforehand, as it does seem to
help in making predictions about the future, which can be rather rewarding
in the business world.
See my prior articles:
Freedom from Usury Jan 23, 2004
http://www.silverstockreport.com/essays/Freedom_from_Usury.html
Usury
Enslaves Jan 19, 2004
http://www.silverstockreport.com/essays/Usury_Enslaves.html
==============
Sincerely,
Jason Hommel
In case you miss an email,
check the archives:
http://silverstockreport.com/ssrarchive.htm
www.bibleprophesy.org
You can buy silver in
lots of 100-500 oz. at my auctions at www.seekbullion.com
Auctions end M-Th, Sat, At 7PM Pacific, but you can place bids anytime, 24/7.
Wires only. USA Shipping only.
You can also buy silver at www.momsilvershop.com
Mom will
ship overseas, and also in lots of more or less than 100
ounces.
See us also at:
Rocklin Coin
Shop
4870 Granite Drive, Rocklin, CA 95677
http://rocklincoinshop.com/
|