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: GST who wrote (51521)	4/15/2000 8:30:00 AM
From: longtom	Respond to of 116764

Save your a$$. Sell on the next run-up. That's saving! Tom

To: GST who wrote (51521)	4/15/2000 9:56:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116764

where did the trillion in erased market cap go to? Where is this money "saved"??? I betcha all those suckers who bought gold at $800/ounce, or participated in the Bre-X scam are asking themselves the same thing.... <VBG> Investment equates to savings for the mere reason that it involves using income for something other than pure consumption. It is putting your money to work in a manner that you hope will cause it to appreciate. And historically it is accepted that a dollar put into the stock market will appreciate more over 25 years than a dollar put into bonds or a savings account. (Just make sure it's the right stock) Btw, that "erased" market cap is merely an unrealized gain or loss for whomever have not yet sold their stocks. Isn't that the same theory that applies to precious metals and non-perishable commodities? Regards, Ron

To: GST who wrote (51521)	4/16/2000 3:44:00 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

< If buying stock is saving -- where did the trillion in erased market cap go to? Where is this money "saved"???> Yes, to Ron R: <And historically it is accepted that a dollar put into the stock market will appreciate more over 25 years than a dollar put into bonds or a savings account. (Just make sure it's the right stock)> If stocks are 'always' the place to invest [as become the prevailing wisdom today] then why are investors in the Nikkei down 50% in 12 years???? Isn't 12 years long term enough? IMO this type of dogma makes no sense, it all depends apon price... that may have been true but will it always??? There is even the question of the data used... ie. when did investors get out of those railroad stocks that went to zero in the historical data used? Anyway, not to argue the "historical returns" used by Lynch and others, but I was always a bit confused how someone would use 200 years [if that!] as a statistical 'lock' that proves this point. Any statisticians?? DAK