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: Mark Adams who wrote (75378)	3/5/2001 2:31:43 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Hi Mark, Your not so serious question deserves a serious answer: Investment, at times, is not about making absolute gains, but about preserving relative wealth. You should not step into a time machine randomly set for a time in the future (50-500 years) carrying olives, cash or the American Express card, and certainly not any equity shares. You should carry some gold, if not as money, then as commodity recognized the world over, since the dawn of recorded history. With the remaining space in the time machine allocated to platinum, palladium, rhodium ... the rarer, denser, the better. We are about to step into the Maestro's time machine. Beside it, I see that the Japanese has been stuck in their machine for a while, and that the Turks just stumbled into the machine meant for the Argentinians. The Koreans and Thai are pretty glad that they carried the right metals, at least some of them did. Chugs, Jay

To: Mark Adams who wrote (75378)	3/5/2001 1:22:32 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

wasn't what we we discussing, but I'm sure if gold ever regained a position as currency more would be mined. What's your point? Mining will continue absent such a future. And where is gold mining in terms of environmental damage as compared to the mining of energy resources and a host of other activities? First, I made no original assumption myself about whether gold supply could/should grow at a rate behind the growth in GWP -- that was Zeev's assumption and it may be a poor one. I simply sought to correct the error in his reasoning starting from his assumption of that relationship. i.e. that inflation would result -- the opposite would occur -- prices would fall in terms of gold under that scenario. In the broader context -- I have a couple of thoughts regarding a medium of exchange: 1) Governments always lack the will to be responsible concerning the monetary base. The temptation to manage is simply irresistable. 2) Hence, probably the only realistic way to enforce soem sort of discipline is to set a standard that ties to something that is fungible, relatively rare, but most assuredly not used for everyday consumption