Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nicewatch who wrote (35429)	6/16/1999 5:49:00 AM
From: tshane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

"..... this guy tells it like it is." As if there were only one perspective. Mr. Armstrong states: "For these reasons we do not see a conspiracy to push gold lower just an international policy that has not been publicly expressed. " How could you come up with a better alternate definition of manipulation. Geez, I was hoping Clintonese wasn't a contagion. How is this any different than "depends on what you mean by sex" bull **. Mr. Armstrong is so brain washed with the acceptability of the intellectual-socialist-elitist crap that our institutions of lower learning are perpetuating that he doesn't even question that the gold belongs to us not "the government". How can he even consider "the government" (at this point a select few people holding secret meetings deciding how they are going to use our gold to fashion a society from their obviously superior intellect and perspective) as just another player in a "free" and open market. How in the hell is it free and open when the gold market is decided as part of "international policy that has not been publicly expressed". Policies in the hands of a select few who use OUR money and effect all of our lives to a tremendous degree and don't include us in the planning. I guess we are just too dumb and unsophisticated to understand. Oh, yeah, and by the way Mr. Armstrong while "the government" is making "international policy that has not been publicly expressed**", isn't it interesting that the Secretary of the Treasury who spent 26 years working for Goldman-Sachs was in on the decisions. No conflict of interest there and I'm sure he didn't leak a word to or confer with his old drinking buddies who head one of the,if not the largest, private investment firms in the world (which by the way, just made billions of dollars going public). I'm confused, Mr. Armstrong, if there is no chance for unfair manipulation and insider trading in the markets, why do we have SEC regulations against it. Or are those just rules that apply to us peons from which the monarchical elite are exempt. "Free market"? Mr. Armstrong you are an idiot. (Hmmm.. after reading the above I'm not sure if I expressed my feelings strongly enough.)

To: nicewatch who wrote (35429)	6/16/1999 6:57:00 AM
From: Bobby Yellin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116764

thanks so much for posting the url to armstrong's response to GATA.. it was so strange in that I thought he was expressing what most of us have been expressing..the funny part was that he appears no longer outraged..he just has become immune to it and sees it as business as usual.. but what a stretch when he didn't really want to call the Hunt fiasco not necessarily market manipulation.. also he didn't seem to want to mention how people still view gold as an indicator of inflation..and in the article mentions messing around with cpi to obscure inflation..