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: philv who wrote (51947)	4/26/2000 2:11:00 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

I don't know that I have anything to add, other than to comment upon the arrogance of the utterance, PhilV. Gold is a currency. Yen is a currency. Euro is a currency. Dollar is a currency, etc. Why one currency needs to be "replaced" by another currency is a mystery all of its own to start with. The world in which we live is multi-cultured, multi-languaged, multi-gendered, multi-skilled, multi-currencied. As such, convertibility should be the focus, not the annilhation thereof, of one currency over another. For example: those who live in "border towns" accumulate both kinds of "currency" for purchases of goods and services. Vancouver BC is a N/W example that comes to mind. I'm sure Niagra NY is another. And how about El Paso. It is my opinion that those who are self confessed "engaged to replace" the gold currency with another are interested in only one thing: their slice out of the middle for providing convertibility, i.e., a "transaction income generator." Nothing else makes sense to me. In point of fact, Henry Volquardson, on multiple threads, historically and now in 'luxurious?' retirement as a currency trader and backroom currency and interest rate products innovator and perpetrator, ---and who resides, much to his dismay, in my hard-drive in perpetuity for his braggadocia written responses addressing this very point--- has very publically and privately admitted to being part creating the gold leasing scam/scheme back almost 20 years ago PURELY for the simple purpose of creating transaction fee income, upon which his personal remuneration was based. Replacing one currency w/another---is it: Sinister? No, not necessarily. Diabolical? Only if reasons for replacement are obscured by subterfuge, prevarications, manipulations, outright theft, due to lack of transparancy of said exchange transaction. Necessary? Maybe in some instances, maybe not. Part of our everyday experience? Yes. Like it? No, not personally, especially if outlawing of one currency or stripping ownership rights of tangible gold currency is involved by governmentally hidden bullies and liars. Especially those who confiscate through their business practices and then hoard the very item so relic-tized and so useless-eulogized. Frankly, as members of the cyber set, we now have a front row seat to the latest fad "currency exchange:" digital cash. The last one most of us remember was the currency exchange of paper for plastic. The one before that was the currency exchange of cash for counter checks vertically displayed in little holders beside the cash registers back in the 50s and 60s. Currency will always be "replaced"...it is the transactional cost, i.e., the bid/ask spread between the currencies that should be of intense scruitiny. Outlawing, deprecating, malicious manipulation, political finaggling, the using of currency exchanged as a weapon is what isn't ethically right or financially sound for the good of all. Fortunately, finite physical gold has a rarity factor-- as do other precious metals--in its favor that cannot be matched, let alone "duplicated" by any of the phoney phfiat or digital cash, plastic credit, home equity loans, counter checks, etc., whose supply is unendinggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg