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 : Book Nook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (62)	3/25/2001 6:49:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 443

Let's round off world gold reserves to 1 billion and let's round off the price to $260. Let's assume that there is only one currency in the world so we don't have to worry about foreign exchange. If we decreed that tomorrow every dollar must be backed 100% by gold then tomorrow there would only be $260 billion dollars in the world. If we decided that fractional reserves were ok then there could be as much as $2,600 billion dollars in the world. That's not enough dollars. If gold has intrinsic value, its intrinsic value is $260 an ounce. That's what it sells for in the free market. Inflating the value of gold to match the world's market cap would be a scam.

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (62)	3/25/2001 7:10:32 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 443

I am a contrarian by nature, or maybe skeptic is a better term. So while I do feel odd thinking thoughts that may go against the grain, it's my nature. Right now I am playing with a couple of radical ideas. Radical idea number one - is it possible that the monetary system is too big for the Federal Reserve to influence in any meaningful way? Alan Greenspan always looks as if he knows a gigantic secret that he can never tell. I suspect that it's that the monetary system is a lot more free market than everyone realizes. Radical idea number two - is it possible that stock prices were not in a bubble in 1929? We assume they were in a bubble because they crashed. I am not aware of any actual analysis of stock prices in 1929, or if it is even possible to do so without the benefit of the type of annual report and independent audit that did not become mandatory until the 1930's. The reason I wonder is that my own observation of the recent Nasdaq bubble was that many, if not most, stocks were not in a bubble at all. Asset prices based on assumptions of future growth that must be revised downward were not wrong - the assumptions were wrong. Calculations of future value are always subject to revision. You can't lump the price of Ford or Boeing stock at its peak with the price of Dr. Koop.com or priceline.com, it is worse than comparing apples and oranges, the price paid for priceline.com was based on hallucinations, not on assumptions that needed to be revised.