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: Rarebird who wrote (64325)	2/23/2001 2:34:37 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116764

While I can't find were he stated an exact dollar target you might find this (very recent) quote note worthy: "I attach particular priority to a transparent and accountable IMF. I also look forward to further progress on the principles laid out by the G-7 for reform of the multilateral development banks through more efficient allocation of and better accountability for their resources. And finally, I want to emphasize the important role that the United States and the G-7 believe both the IMF and World Bank need to play in the ongoing international effort to fight financial abuse." We saw NOTHING about a transparent & accountable IMF when there was the Clinton Gore Rubin Summers team! You can ask any gold investor about prior financial abuse & they will all be glad it is dying.

To: Rarebird who wrote (64325)	2/23/2001 4:48:51 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

OT(?) Wasn't "A manipulated gold price is in their collective best interest" given as justification for Clinton's actions? Modern Liberal Idealism Religion or Self Interest? by Jack Wenders In the age of sound-bites and photo-ops, most political and popular debate is carried out in slogans. In this arena it is easy for classical liberals to get out-sloganed by modern liberals. The purpose of this essay is to analyze the meaning and implications of the modern liberals' view of the world—a view that, unfortunately, has widespread current appeal, not only among modern liberals. Supra-Human Values To understand the modern liberal position you must get behind the slogans to the value basis of their ideas. The essence of their position is that something is better in their world. What is that something? What exactly is better? And, more to the point, where is it? When put this way, modern liberals inevitably respond with the slogan that "people are better off". This sounds reasonable, and is intended to end discussion. But note that they always speak of people in the plural; never do they clarify or analyze what this plural view of humans implies. We cannot let them get away with that. You cannot merely nod your head in agreement with the plural view of humans. Simply put, the modern liberal's measure and standard of value is collectivist. By always speaking of humans in the plural, modern liberals implicitly say that (a) one can add-up the well-being of different individuals and get something higher—something supra-human—to use to judge human well-being, and (b) there is some optimal standard against which this measure can be compared. Thus, their view of well-being is really not human. It is something viewed from above that ascribes value to a collective abstraction about humans that replaces the individual well-being of the humans that lie below. This view endlessly cites summarizing statistics, and other collective measures of the plural world, as if there were some operational hand purposely producing the evidence cited.[1] Except where force is employed, all human behavior, no matter how collectivized, aggregated, summarized, and observed from above, is the result of individual decisions and choices made by individuals, each in the pursuit of his value and well-being. What is observed from on-high is merely an artificially collectivized view of the result of all these individual actions. And this view necessarily is the creation of the viewer, not the actors, because the actors each had their own objectives in mind, not those created by the observer from above. In short, when one uses a summarizing measure, what one observes about society misses the atom of human activity that produces the results. What one observes from above is the result of human action, but is not of human design, as emphasized by Hayek.[2] Adam Smith understood this long ago: "The man of system . . . seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess- board; he does not consider that the pieces on the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it."[3] In a diverse and pluralistic society, where people have different values and talents, people make different choices, and collectivized and artificial measures of these choices produce results that may not appeal to various collectivized "standards". These standards, with an emphasis on "equality", which in operation means "sameness", are necessarily inconsistent (cont) zolatimes.com