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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (37681)	7/23/1999 8:32:00 PM
From: d:oug	Respond to of 116779

Taurus553, to me Ron Reese is the only person willing to take the time and effort to carry on a discussion in the spirit of a debate. Ron Reese has no hidden agenda, and is not afraid or lacking in resolve to not only stand behind his views, but to expand upon them no matter where that will take him. Most here have a simple agenda of "to be correct", and will present like "the soup of the day" an article and run away without any mention of why or what it represents. Others will ofcourse ignore this article and present their own "soup of the day". At times there will be a very good and excellent exchange of thoughts between threaders, as in today a Richard Mazz???? and another put out opinions about what a bank may hold as reserves. As for the man from China who sparked a very heated exchange of remarks, those on this thread "played" into his wishes exactually as he hoped and planned for. He gave this thread a sucker punch by allowing others to take it hook line and sinker. Except for Ron Reese who was either off the thread or most likely saw a trap. I have carried on this conversation about China, USA, etc with those this man would regard as his teachers, and out of wondering I had them reviewed by such, and he will in about 30 years become a "teacher", but eventho he will rise in the ranks faster than the "quiet one", the quiet one will be allowed to rise further than him. ...the beneficial results of a system of complete laissez-faire money, as most of the world used in the 19th century... ... that era, private banks issued gold-convertible currency at a fixed rate. Inflation was non-existent, and compared with today, interest rates were far lower and economic growth and employment far higher... ... a system of free banking and gold-based money is superior to a system of central banking and fiat paper money -- that is, if a nation's prosperity and protection of property rights are one's ultimate aims. These lessons are confirmed today, since the best results come from nations whose currencies -- albeit fiat paper -- have held their value v. gold. The "??? standard" is better than the standards of the Keynesians or monetarists -- but not as good as a true gold standard. Richard M. Salsman is senior economist at H.C. Wainwright & Co. Economics, Inc., an investment advisory firm based in Boston. Doug