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: Bobby Yellin who wrote (43468)	10/21/1999 11:36:00 AM
From: Alex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116759

Italy's Amato says euro has potential to challenge dlr as reserve currency PARIS (AFX) - Italian Treasury Minister Giuliano Amato said the euro has "big potential" to challenge the dollar as a reserve currency. Speaking at a European Investment Bank conference, Amato acknowledged that the euro had had a "mixed performance" against the dollar in the foreign exchange market this year, but said that in the medium term the euro's level will be increasingly based on economic fundamentals. Amato said European structural reforms have not advanced as quickly as progress in budget policies, with adverse results for growth and job creation. There is a need for "informal screening" at European level to get rid of anticompetitive state regulations, he said. "European coordination in structural reform is something we have to learn," he said. vog/cl/sw/lj For more information and to contact AFX: www.afxnews.com and www.afxpress.com ¸ Copyright 1999, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Please read our Disclaimer, Trademarks, and Privacy Statement. nasdaq.co.uk

To: Bobby Yellin who wrote (43468)	10/22/1999 1:48:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116759

I must say it bothers me when you say the central bankers are subsidizing miners.. when people take out insurance policies do you say they are subsidizing insurance companies? Bobby, I don't see where the comparison is applicable. If there were only a certain amount of insurance available and the govt came in and bought up the rights to providing 1/2 of the insurance market, AND THEN OPTED NOT TO PROVIDE THAT INSURANCE, forcing a decrease in supply of insurance, then I would say that it was subsidization. It similar to the govt or Fed printing so much money, but then not utilizing that money, being content to permit the actual reserve notes or electronic entries to languish in non-interest bearing accounts. The Fed possessing all of that gold but not loaning or leasing it, or even selling, is tantamount to stuffing it in a Federal "mattress". It results in an inability to meet temporary demand increases (such as those created by Y2K fears) that don't reflect a major increase in inflationary pressures. It's like that posting about shippers jacking up the costs per shipping container. They are doing this because shipping container costs STILL ARE LOWER than they were 5 years ago. One would think that the economy was doing rather fine 5 years ago and these folks SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY SOME INCREASE in profit margins, especially if their costs are rising (from replacing containers... etc). People are getting freaked out that inflation is about to take off on a wild rampage all of a sudden. But they conveniently opt to forget that most businesses have been under severe pricing pressures over the past 4-5 years. The same thing goes with wages. Some industries have seen wages essentially remain stagnant for a decade. Well something has to give and inflation is good so long as it is moderate and doesn't reach high single or double digit levels. A certain amount of inflation forces capital to seek higer returns from investments instead of just sitting in a low-interest bearing checking or savings account. I'm sorry if I don't understand your insurance analogy. But it is clear that when a major entity, whether it be the Fed or the Hunt Brothers form a monopoly control over a commodity that pricing excess is created. The only difference is that the Hunt brothers had every intention of selling whereas the CBs don't. That is subsidization of an industry, monopolizing of a commodity wherein supply is removed in the face of temporary demand. And it is removed at the expense of the taxpayer, who for one, loses out on the ability of the govt to extract a good profit from that commodity reserve, as well as the fact that with an increased price of gold, the perception is that inflation is higher than it really is, thus placing pressure on the US currency causing imported goods and energy to cost more. And that is not worth supporting the jobs of a specialized industry mining a specialized luxury commodity. Regards, Ron