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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IceShark who wrote (5514)	7/25/2000 12:46:56 AM
From: UnBelievable	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

It Won't Be A Problem Much Longer All the lambs are being led to the slaughter.

To: IceShark who wrote (5514)	7/25/2000 5:02:35 AM
From: Eric K.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Hi thread-- Why do you all post so damn much? I try to follow this thread, but every time I don't check in for a couple of days, I find 500 new posts. I have a question about the gold bear market. Specifically, I look at the 30-year chart and see the following very ugly picture: chart.bigcharts.com I realize gold was fixed at $35 an ounce for a few decades, but in looking at this chart and adding in what was happening with inflation and stock market performance in the 70s, I see a financial instrument that went from some variant of undervalued to grossly overvalued (I believe collectibles were all the rage at the time too). I then think about Japan, which has basically had a ten-year bear market and remains arguably overvalued. What's your basis for asserting that gold is undervalued? Given that it's only fallen about 67% from an orgasmic speculative peak, it seems like it's just as probable that gold is still overvalued than that its true value is being suppressed. I've read gold-eagle a bit, and found some of its material interesting, but not truly convincing. The academic paper you linked to on the New Economy Internet “miracle” was interesting, as was the Grant’s issue on making fudge (though I already read it a few months ago). If you have some more links in that vein, I’d be interested…I don’t necessarily feel like scouring the faculty pages of all of Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Northwestern etc.’s economics departments. Anyway, happy posting to you all. btw, you guys are cruel to LG-- though he does come off as kind of an ass based on the unflattering posts you have chosen to link him to and his rather feeble, high-pitched responses. -Eric