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: Rarebird who wrote (51815)	4/21/2000 3:17:00 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116972

Rarebird, I asked you to respond to my two valid points about: 1) citing 20 years history of G-7 deciding strong dollar (and weak gold) was in their best economic interest and you come back with me taking it personal? WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? 2) citing that mobilized CB gold "proceeds" do NOT always and automatically find their way into DOLLARS but into other currency reserve holdings upon which hard currency can be generate by trading schemes and profits... ...and you come back with a comment about me taking it personal? WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? That was pretty intellectual stuff/straightlines I opened for you and you patronizingly pat my entrepreneurial head and ignore my two valid straightlines? C'mon, Rarebire...surely you have had that second cup of coffee and would like to "try again, right?" Regards

To: Rarebird who wrote (51815)	4/21/2000 10:50:00 PM
From: Helios	Respond to of 116972

"Banking depends on a workable distinction between money and credit. Without it, the Fed cannot control the growth of the broad monetary and credit aggregates, and banks no longer possess a unique franchise separate and distinct from other financial intermediaries." Uh huh, what I said - the end of money.

To: Rarebird who wrote (51815)	4/21/2000 11:32:00 PM
From: d:oug	Respond to of 116972

Rarebird, Not easy to contain the essence of a complex issue in less than 1,000 words. Add to the above task that the gold issue is but a single imprint of many pressed into the soft sea shore sand affected by the large and powerful actions of the vast movements of that which determine what is and not, and where it is and how. Your less than 1,000 words has accomplished that, and I copies it at the end of this post. But first, the matter of Miss Daisy's comments to you, as follows. I asked you to... ... you come back with me taking it personal? ... WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? ... and you come back with ... WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? ... you patronizingly pat my entrepreneurial head My take is a simple one, she is unable to think "outside of the box." Or might it be a physical thing, as she is so connected with the physical stuff in the ore or on someones elses junk at flea markets, that she is unable to conceptualize non physical thoughts which sounds crazy since thoughts are not physical, but images created inside our mind from the interaction of chemical and electrical signals, and then made into awareness by us thru our consciousness into the physical world. Daisy's do have a yellow gold like disk shaped center, so this Miss Daisy's center of attention and resulting center of focus can be viewed as a travel around a circle of physical gold, no beginning or end, no way to leave that circle of thoughts which has no start and no end, just the same ole same ole... From: Richard Mazzarella ... than that scab Barrick with its paper writing, the problem is central banks that don't find value in their gold holdings and sell same. From: Enigma ... the guy who replied to you - scab? - come on lets get off the polemic for once Richard! From: Dougie AK ... ok, replace scab with anti-physical-gold or pro-paper-gold or shaft-shareholders or Barrick's power_and_control for what it's main product is, and sale of physical gold is only done to cover overhead and pay company officer's BiG PayDays. From: Dougie AK Mention of a BiG PayDay reminds me of Miss Daisy's $20/oz gold. Well, yes and no, and for sure its a miss for the Miss unless you find spending 20 hours a week going from one flea market to another as fun and something you would do already in your free time, then yes you can obtain one oz of gold thru the purchase of $20 worth of junk. But now if you do not consider the above 20 hours a week as fun and consider it as a business way to work for a single ounce of gold, then do the math, as some on this thread could contract themselves out as consultants for whatever, legal stuff ofcourse, for say $100/hour, and make $2000 in that 20 hours. So again, do the math, that 1 oz of gold cost -$2,000 of alternate wages plus -$20 payed for junk plus usage of a car plus food and gasoline to obtain 1 oz of gold worth $280. So add it up - in a business mode - your cost to obtain a single one ounce of gold cost you in overhead $2,800.00 folks. Ya, the devil is in the details. Oppsie, forgot, you need stuff to remove the gold from the junk. Follows: Rarebird's one thousand words equal to a near complete picture of a zip saw puzzel over a zillion pieces. [Start.] The CB's are acting like the new economy is the greatest productive miracle on earth ( HA HA!), financial derivatives are the generally benign stabilizers that their promoters claim, and the gold price is as sensitive as ever to monetary debasement. In the process the CB's have put themselves in the same position as their predecessors in 1927-29. Speculative imbalances, fed by outrageous excessive credit creation and abetted by dubious financial hedging strategies, are allowed to grow. At the same time, the gold market -- with British manipulation is_____ ( I'll let Richard fill in the blank again for the umpteenth time). But what is different this time is that the gold standard cannot be made the scapegoat for the Fed's errors. Domestically, of course, the CB's want us to believe that the currency is no longer tied to gold. Going off the gold standard was supposed to give the central bank greater flexibility in managing the nation's money supply. Instead, the end result has been to undercut not just its ability to regulate money and credit but also the very foundation of the banking system itself. Banking depends on a workable distinction between money and credit. Without it, the Fed cannot control the growth of the broad monetary and credit aggregates, and banks no longer possess a unique franchise separate and distinct from other financial intermediaries. I'm not sure how long this game can go on. But I do know the resolution takes the form of a sharpely higher gold price. Rarebird [End.]