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: Hawkmoon who wrote (52685)	5/13/2000 11:01:00 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116922

<In essence, oil price rises are accomplishing what repeated Fed hikes haven't, namely a slowing of the US economy?> Higher oil prices will take expenditures away from other products [ceterus parabis], so that MAY slow U.S. economy assuming it isn't only other imports that are cut back. <I think you should call AG and tell him this. > He knows already... simple economics. <And I don't think AG factors in externalities like energy prices to the extent that you believe he does> I didn't say that.... I just said it creates a higher price level in the economy, period. <But he clearly is concerned about raising wage costs and the tight labor markets. This is clearly a result of public market failure (since the government dictates how many immigrant workers are permitted into the US).> I'm sure all economists are worried about the same thing... I also believe that AG is VERY worried about an economic bubble [rapid asset inflation] and that is driving rate hikes as well. On the immigration thing, I think there are a whole host of intertwined problems too complicated [for me anyway] to address besides just immigration. If trade were had less barriers foreign labor could also more efficiently compete with our workers for instance. Of course this opens a whole host of other issues. <And increasing the money supply is not going to save gold. It didn't help gold in the pre-Y2K run-up either when the Fed boosted reserves and added liquidity. > We differ here, I believe this to be the case in the long run. Your example is just way too short term to be of use IMO. The markets knew liquidity would be drained after the new year. Printing more money is inflationary period IMO. <What would save gold would be the perception that US productivity gains have peaked and that pricing pressures have not. That would be bad for the dollar and likely good for gold.> For this to be sustainable long run there has to be more money flowing thru the system or flow @ a higher rate or both. <However, I opine that US productivity gains are just beginning. > yes, and so just think of the gains yet to come elsewhere! DAK