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.

Pastimes : All Clowns Must Be Destroyed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BGR who wrote (38467)	6/7/2000 12:42:00 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42523

tut tut. i did give you a reason. paper assets are being dumped in deflations, and gold seems to be a beneficiary. it's the best explanation i can come up with regarding its good performance during deflations. apart from which you're of course right...i don't care much why it works as long as i can be reasonably certain that it will work. let's assume it's 1929, and i just bought HM. a few years later, while you'd still be DCAing into bigger and bigger losses my investment would have appreciated ten-fold , not counting dividends (in 35 HM paid a divvie of 56 dollars...the stock could be had for 80 bucks right before the '29 BK) and you'd still be telling me "but it's not logical". <<central Banks now know how to fight deflation rather well>> it's too early for drinks. hb

To: BGR who wrote (38467)	6/7/2000 12:46:00 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42523

<So, like David, even you do not care about the logic. Works for a chart follower I guess. :-)> I hear you continue to say that, as if it makes it wrong... do you think it's coincidence or irrelavent data then, or what's your point. Is there any data to refute the assertion? Just curious. DAK