<<<Off Topic>>> Gold Posts ---
I find your gold posts, and other non-oil posts, and the off-oil-topic posts of others very valuable. When considering a person's ideas, it helps to learn as much as possible irt what a person is paying attention to, what they see as important, and how they formulate their ideas + thoughts. Your non-oil posts make your way of seeing the world more available to the reader, and thereby make your on-topic posts fuller.
---This is true for everyone, of course. There's more than one poster here and elsewhere whose on-topic value I have privately formed an opinion about based partly on off-topic posts.
---This off-topic stuff could go too far, but I don't think we're approaching that point. Especially with the scrolling feature and posts titled as <<OT>> Heck, how much trouble is it for those who don't want to read <<OT's>> to roll on past?
---Keep on posting about anything that you want, I say.
Just mark it <<OT>> and don't call me a Democrat.
---Back to gold: I read the article you linked. I was surprised at the 24% production shortfall.
But I notice these gold bulls predict $325 for 2001.
whoopee.
<<<"...The report, written primarily by Leanne Baker, John Hill and Graeme Newing, contends that gold, on fundamentals of supply and demand, will rise above the current US$275 range. "The equilibrium gold price is well above US$300 per ounce," the report said. "We maintain our estimate of US$325 for 2001."
On the supply side, the analysts forecast there will be a 24% supply deficit this year, or a shortfall of 1,000 tonnes
...">>>
regards,
diana |
