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: Zardoz who wrote (55220)	6/27/2000 4:27:00 AM
From: d:oug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

To: Ron Reece, From: Hutch, Tuesday, June 27, 2000 <<... I find you a refreshing personality on the GPM who takes the time to study the material he comments on.>> Not so Hutch, in my opinion ofcourse, as to me you are a good example of one that uses the tried and true scientific method to collect data and make conclusions based on observations to arrive at a conclusion that has what we call an answer. On the other hand, the process Ron Reece uses is a mindless cut & paste of similiar views that reside on a well defined agenda that was picked by folks that want to be on the so called winning side of an argument, and they seek out a topic that is hard to prove and easy to bunk. A post today by (i forget) replied to Ron (i think) with a good one liner to identify that those like Ron use words in a manner that has an implicit truth contained in his facts, where in reality what Ron uses to support his facts is itself a doubt. "Depends what you mean by facts." Bottom line here is that Ron uses stuff that are not facts to prove his facts. Very un-math wise to build stuff. <<You don't brush off conversation, and make quick quippy remarks.>> Ofcourse Ron does not do this quicky stuff, as Ron will do a run'ish over of his aCup of cuts & pastes and fill up the void of his posts with extra voidness until the other person trying to talk sense and open Ron's eyes up gives up in frustration. <<My only problem with you is that FAR to many times I'm in agreement.>> I agree here, but in motive not objective. <<... money supply is dictated primarily by the demand for US currency. If you stifle supply by restricting money supply, it will increase the strength of that currency beyond the level that is economically healthy. Best Regards Hutch>> Now this is really a stinking pile of crap, to identify demand as a single object that has not any subjective attachments to it, as if its a need like humans have for air/oxygen to breath. B Looney. Demand is like food, very subjective to the extreme. Very much able to be manipulated for good and bad. Demand like food can be wanted when not hungry. Can be wanted even when intake is harmful. Think of everywhich way food is presented to us thru advertisments on tv commercials to get us to buy buy buy, which translates to DEMAND. Once again Hutch my observation of you is that you are a good honest person that will work hard and make good money and provide for your family at an extremely excellent level. But once again I say that you are working within a system that is well within the laws of the land, but that these laws have been created by corrupt people so that they can suck out of others as much as possible of what they produce and cannot retain because the system is corrupt and steals it from them. doug

To: Zardoz who wrote (55220)	6/27/2000 3:42:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 116753

Where would gold & inflation be had Greenspan {the Spurn of this thread} sat back and allowed the US dollar to reach 160 Yen and 82 Euro. Indeed!!! Under a strict gold standard, the US certainly would not have been able to react promptly or potently to such a situation. Rather, we would have been forced to launch an all-out industrial campaign to find and exploit more gold from our territories, or to try and buy it from other nations (who would be loath to sell it given their own dire need to back their currencies) at the artificially set price peg (since gold would not be in a free market). I can see why we don't have a gold standard any longer. Just too inflexible. <VBG> And thank you for the compliments. It annoys me as well how so many folks out here will respond with a couple of smartalacky quips to my comments rather than take the time to analysis, understand, and then intelligently debate them (as Heinz and I are currently doing). And you're right about being one of the biggest cheerleaders around for gold..... when the time is right and I see more value there than elsewhere in the market. I'm not anti-gold, but merely recognize that gold has taken more of a catastrophic insurance posture for portfolio protection. And like car insurance, I very unwilling to pay more than I should have to considering the current economic dynamics. And David Tice can take heart. Should I see a major negative event impact our markets, or perceive that we have really and truly topped out, his BEARX fund is right there in the entourage of alternative bear market funds that I would like seek a haven into, given the conditions warranted it. Regards, Ron