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: Ahda who wrote (37718)	7/24/1999 5:39:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116764

Darleen, Sorry, I'm not sure if you quite understood my question. We've been hearing discussion about how gold was such a great storehouse of value during the crash of '29, thus creating a justification for holding gold during a market crash. But I was wondering if the '29 crash was a case of the tale wagging the dog. In other words, did the gold standard, established to maintain the value of the dollar at $35/ounce, actually provide artificial market support for gold. Had gold not been linked to the dollar at $35/ounce during the crash, would it have declined in value along with all of the other commodities that we've seen examples of?? Is that why we're seeing gold continuing its downward trend and the cries of goldbugs everywhere for the resumption of the gold standard?? In sum, which is the better storehouse of value in a severe economic contraction, cash/T-bills or gold?? Your opinion please. (I trust your objectivity...:0)