WORLD SILVER PRODUCTION: 3 Charts You Won’t See Anywhere Else

By the SRSrocco Report,

The rate at which global silver production increased over the past century is quite astonishing.  When Columbus arrived in America (1492), the world was only producing 7 million oz of silver a year.  Today, the world"s largest primary silver mine, Fresnillo"s Sauicto Mine, produced three times that amount in just one year (22 million oz, 2016).  Yes, we have come along way in 500 years.

Just think about that for a minute.  One silver mine last year produced three times the global amount in 1493.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines 1930 Report on Summarized Data of Silver Production, the average annual silver production in the world from 1493 to 1600 was 6.9 million oz (Moz).  If we look at the following chart, we can see how world silver production increased over the past 500+ years:

As we can see, average annual world silver production increased from 6.9 Moz during 1493-1600, to 13 Moz from 1600-1700, 18 Moz from 1700-1800, 51 Moz from 1800-1900, 274 Moz from 1900-2000 and a stunning 722 Moz from 2000-2017.  Again, these figures represent the average annual silver production for each time period.

In the current period, 2000-2017, the world has produced 103 times more silver per year than from 1493-1600.  However, the next chart shows the total silver production for each period.  From 1493-1600, the world produced a total of 747 Moz of silver, compared to 13,000 Moz (13 billion oz) in just 18 years from 2000-2017:

Now, the reason the last silver bar on the right of the chart is lower than the previous one has to do with comparing 18 years worth of silver production (2000-2017) versus 50 years (1950-2000).  It took 50 years to produce 17,061 Moz during 1950-2000 versus 13,000 Moz in the 18 years from 2000-2017.

If we compare world silver production from the different periods, here is the result:

Percentage Of World Silver Production (1493-2017)

2000-2017 = 26.4%

1950-2017 = 61%

1900-2017 = 82%

While a little more than a quarter of all world silver production (1493-2017) was produced in the past 18 years, 82% were produced since 1900.  That is a lot of silver.  It turns out that 40.4 billion oz was produced from 1900-2017 out of the total 49.3 billion oz produced since 1493.  Interestingly, more than half of that silver was consumed in industrial silver applications.  I will be writing more about that in future articles.

The last chart I find quite interesting.  If we go back a little more than a century, the United States was the largest silver producer in the world.  In 1915, the U.S. produced 75 Moz of silver out of the total 189 Moz mined in the world that year:

Thus, in 1915, the U.S. produced 40% of all world silver production.  Mexico came in second in 1915 by producing 39.3 Moz.  However, U.S. silver production in 2017 will only be 34 Moz versus the estimated 870 Moz globally.  Thus, U.S. silver production only accounts for 4% of world mine supply versus 40% back in 1915.  What a change in 100 years.

Lastly, the U.S. imports approximately 22% of world mine production each year.  That is 193 Moz of the total 870 Moz in 2017.  While domestic mine supply is only 34 Moz, the United States has to import more than a fifth of global mine production to meet its silver market demand.

If you haven"t checked out our new PRECIOUS METALS INVESTING section or our new LOWEST COST PRECIOUS METALS STORAGE page, I highly recommend you do.

Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.

Centralized "Truth" - 13 Ways To Fight Fake News (And The Big Problem With All Of Them)

Will humans or computer algorithms be the future arbiters of “truth”?

The following infographic from Futurism sums up the ideas that academics, technologists, and other experts are proposing that we implement to stop the spread of fake news.

Below the infographic, Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins raises concerns about each of these methods.

While fake news is certainly problematic, the solutions proposed to penalize articles deemed to be “untrue” are just as scary.

By centralizing fact checking, a system is created that is inherently fragile, biased, and prone for abuse. Furthermore, the idea of axing websites that are deemed to be “untrue” is an initiative that limits independent thought and discourse, while allowing legacy media to remain entrenched.

CENTRALIZING “TRUTH”

It could be argued that the best thing about the internet is that it decentralizes content, allowing for any individual, blog, or independent media company to stimulate discussion and new ideas with low barriers to entry. Millions of new entrants have changed the media landscape, and it has left traditional media flailing to find ways to adjust revenue models while keeping their influence intact.

If we say that “truth” can only be verified by a centralized mechanism – a group of people, or an algorithm written by a group of people – we are welcoming the idea that arbitrary sources will be preferred, while others will not (unless they conform to certain standards).

Based on this mechanism, it is almost certain that well-established journalistic sources like The New York Times or The Washington Post will be the most trusted. By the same token, newer sources (like independent media, or blogs written by emerging thought leaders) will not be able to get traction unless they are referencing or receiving backing from these “trusted” gatekeepers.

THE IMPACT?

This centralization is problematic – and here’s a step-by-step reasoning of why that is the case:

First, either method (human or computer) must rely on preconceived notions of what is “authoritative” and “true” to make decisions. Both will be biased in some way. Humans will lean towards a particular consensus or viewpoint, while computers must rank authority based on different factors (Pagerank, backlinks, source recognition, or headline/content analysis).

Next, there is a snowball effect involved: if only posts referencing these authoritative sources of “truth” can get traction on social media, then these sources become even more authoritative over time. This creates entrenchment that will be difficult to overcome, and new bloggers or media outlets will only be able to move up the ladder by associating their posts with an existing consensus. Grassroot movements and new ideas will suffer – especially those that conflict with mainstream beliefs, government, or corporate power.

Finally, this raises concerns about who fact checks the fact checkers. Forbes has a great post on this, showing that Snopes.com (a fact checker) could not even verify basic truths about its own operations.

Removing articles deemed to be “untrue” is a form of censorship. While it may help to remove many ridiculous articles from people’s social feeds, it will also impact the qualities of the internet that make it so great in the first place: its decentralized nature, and the ability for any one person to make a profound impact on the world.