John, you are right that QUALCOMM has plenty of crowds but it is far from the riotous state of late 1999 and early Y2K. I was all set to bail out at the end of 1999 but decided to ride the rollercoaster down [I mentioned to my broker, when he wondered whether I'd like to buy more at $120, that I expected $50 to loom into view and I would certainly not be buying more until then - we have unique capital gains tax rules here which meant it might not be a great idea to sell high and buy low].
Now, the crowds are very mellow around QUALCOMM. The mania has gone and many in the crowd look more like hyenas or vultures waiting for carrion, than cult-members hailing the new messiah.
Check posts per day in late 1999 and now to see the difference. Count the number of people posting.
QUALCOMM is now mainstream and there is none of the feeling of skulking in the shadows waiting to burst forth. Q! is now on the stage and well-known and critics and analysts have pulled it apart in detail. So, it's not quite the same comparison with hanging around gold waiting for gold to be the new messiah, again, maybe. But the damn second coming for gold is sure taking a long time.... the acolytes will get impatient if there isn't some action and 2,500 tons a year keeps dropping on the market and central banks keep selling off more.
Quite right that owning gold to create cyberspace is a good idea, if demand is high enough and growth in demand high enough to make gold a good investment. But I don't think demand is that great or likely to be any time soon. It doesn't take more than an atom-thick layer to make an electrical contact. That's thin! Okay, maybe it's a few atoms thick, but you know what I mean.
My guess is that very little gold goes into cyberspace at present compared with production and other demands.
I don't think the Q is just another fiat currency as you say. The Q represents a share in the companies so it has actual redeemable value and earnings. Fiat currencies have no redeemable value and no earnings and what's worse, you get diluted if you hold a fiat currency.
The dilution by issuing more shares is different from dilution by US$ bankers because shareholders print more shares and own those shares. Central bankers print more shares [$$] and THEY own the new money, not the holders of existing shares [$$].
Mqurice |
