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: Hawkmoon who wrote (67334)	4/8/2001 7:02:20 AM
From: d:oug	Respond to of 116764

Yes Virginia there really exist an anti-ron. Contact between these two should not be attempted, as the poof of bon-ron replaces a minus with a zero the poof of an anti-ron is a huge lost to existance itself. While contact with the cut & pastes literature of ron-ron do require a mental dose of an anti-diarrhea type serum, none yet exist in bottle form to serve as an antitoxin, but the following may help. Questions & Answer Summary About Money, By Lawrence Parks February 12, 2001 Question: What is the purpose of money? Note: the folllowing url has this question/answer in table format. Very easy to read. fame.org Commodity money such as gold or silver (versus) Fiat, irredeemable paper ticket-token or electronic-checkbook money The following are the questions. ======================= Where does money come from; how does it originate? How is money defined? Is there a limit as to how much money exists? Why do people accept money in exchange for their goods and services? Is there an historical moral issue with regard to which kind of money we have? Are different types of money indicative of different societal organization? Is there an implication for property rights? Is there a connection between the type of money we have and government deficits? Is there a connection between taxation levels and the type of money we have? How does the type of money we have affect real wages? How does the type of money we have affect long-term interest rates? What effect does the type of money have on long-term investments? Is there a connection between the type of money we have and economic growth? How does the type of money affect price levels? How does the type of money affect the propensity to save? How is job security affected by the type of money we have? Number of manufacturing jobs. Research & Development and Science Education. Interest rate volatility and foreign exchange volatility. Levels of debt. Boom & bust in the economy. Effect on the banking system. Likelihood, duration, and size of wars. Social mobility: the ability to improve one’s lot in society. Social engineering (the redistribution of wealth). Who gets the wealth of society? Special privileges for banks and other financial players. CONTACT INFORMATION Larry Parks, Executive Director FAME fame.org fame.org

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (67334)	4/8/2001 7:26:30 AM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116764

Ron: This is a post from Michael Collings which was sent to me via PM. He asked me to post this on GPM because he was not able "to get it to post": "Rarebird: Could you post this for me to the GPM thread as I cannot seem to get it to post. Thanks. Michael Ron: Missing in your analysis is a confidence indicator in currencies. Bull markets are a confidence builder. Bear Markets destroy confidence. It is the destruction of confidence that destroys currencies and economies. We are still a long way from the bottom in these markets. The public, at large, still, is convinced that in the long run everything will be fine, i.e., their investments will come back, their jobs will be there tomorrow, and they can continue to spend and acquire more debt while not saving a dime. Gold is a vote of "no" confidence. No confidence in the Government's or the Federal Reserve's ability to save us from losing our wealth. It is a "lack of trust" indicator that the ability of the Government to protect the interests of its citizens is inadequate. We as a people and country are familiar with this kind of distrust. In fact, it is precisely that lack of trust that this country was founded on. We have separation of powers because we do not trust power in any sole entity. Removing the gold standard was a very difficult task that was tried by many governments over the centuries and was met by much distrust. People hoard because they lose confidence and do not trust. With no standard to base a currency on, a fiat system will work only when there is confidence in the system and the economy is working. Remove that, and people will look to preserve their wealth in something that is intrinsic. Gold has always filled that role." PS You can direct your reply here to Michael if you choose to respond.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (67334)	4/8/2001 3:45:27 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

Ron, The reality is that gold has been the most stable currency of all. Do not confuse stability and volatility. After all, in the 1950's one could buy a small house with $10K or 10K grams of gold. Today, one can still buy the same house with 10K grams of gold but needs almost $100K for the same small house. Gold became volatile because the gold standard was removed. Bring it back with some decent rules to allow local expansion and contraction, and gold will lose its volatility. But even with continuing volatility, gold long term stablity will be maintained. The reason is simple. The growth rate in the supply of gold is more or less the same as the growth rate in the world population and the average growth rate the production of goods and services. As for the US being in the best shape financialy, I don't read it the same way. The problems is that non-AAA corporate debts are too large, individual debts are exploding, long term growth in GNP on per per capita basis is slowing down from an average rate of 2.7% in the 1950-70 period to less than 1.13% now on an annual basis. USD production is growing much slower now, but still its money stocks are expanding like crazy (8-10%), debt is expanding and savings are at all times low. Beside public debt is 5.7T on a GDP of what $10.5T or so, that is 55%. Sincerely Claude

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (67334)	4/8/2001 9:10:14 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

Gee Ron, and now you've missed your chance to show how much more you know about gold than do the stupid gold bugs.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (67334)	6/18/2001 3:05:37 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116764

India Plans Huge Weapons-Buying Program By Suryamurthy Ramachandran CNSNews.com Correspondent June 18, 2001 New Delhi (CNSNews.com) - India plans to spend $95 billion on weapons over the next 15 years, in a move analysts here Monday linked to fears Chinese nuclear proliferation could result from American plans to develop and deploy missile defense systems. "Missile defense will have an indirect impact on India for two reasons," Rakesh Sharma, a strategic analyst with Jawaharlal Nehru University said. "One, from the Chinese strategic response to it, and two, from the destabilized overall security environment in the region resulting from a renewed arms race in general that it is likely to trigger," he said. China and Russia have come out strongly against the proposals to build shields against missiles that could be launched in the future by unstable states. U.S. allies in Europe are also skeptical. India initially voiced opposition, later changed tack and expressed support for President Bush's plans, and still later said the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - which prohibits such systems - "should not be abrogated unilaterally [by the U.S.]." It's the view of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that India made the remark about the ABM Treaty to mollify Moscow, since New Delhi buys most of its military hardware from Russia. India also has traditional close ties with the Russians, and would be loathe to alienate them, it said in a current study on Indo-U.S. ties. At the same time, it added, Bush's willingness to reach out to Russia on the issue of missile defense "has given India the space for endorsing the administration's position." China's entire inter-continental ballistic missile armory, about two-dozen strong, would be nullified should the missile defense plans go ahead, Sharma said. So too would Beijing's short-range ballistic missile capability. The natural Chinese response would be to accelerate the modernization and expansion of its nuclear arsenal. Sharma said the resulting security environment would heighten the threat perception in India and the state of readiness of its small nuclear force. "This could lead to India giving up its self-imposed moratorium [on nuclear tests] and renewing testing of nuclear weapons as well as delivery systems," he predicted. Such a response could in turn prompt India's arch-foe, Pakistan to take a similar step, leading to a regional mini-arms race and a renewal of Chinese and North Korean transfer of missile technology to Pakistan. Deepak Verma, a defense analyst with Delhi University, said Chinese proliferation could push India toward a decision "to fully weaponize and deploy its nuclear forces. Such a step would entail massive expenditure on nuclear command, control, communication and intelligence." "The trouble with Washington's non-proliferation policy with regard to South Asia is that it is contradictory," he argued. "Whereas the U.S. advocates a regional [nuclear] rollback, its policy on missile defense threatens to wreck the meaningful efforts towards global disarmament." Arms deals In this uncertain climate, India is likely to spend $95 billion in arms purchases over the next 15 years, including $15 billion on nuclear weapons research and $5 billion for the development of a nuclear command and control structure. The Air Force will get the largest slice of about $30 billion, much of it going towards new combat aircraft, AWACS and missiles. The Army will spend its share on tanks, ammunition and surveillance systems, while the Navy plans to buy two aircraft carriers, surveillance aircraft, submarines and missiles, according to some reports. Since Soviet times, India has been one of the largest customers of Russian weapons, which make up about 70 percent of New Delhi's arsenal. A senior defense ministry official said the relationship with India has changed, and is no longer a simple buyer and seller one. It is now a relationship of "joint development, joint production and joint export." Defense analyst Sharma said the figure to be spent by India was not enormous if one takes its future strategic requirements into consideration. Neighboring Pakistan's defense expenditure is more than twice as much as India's in gross domestic product terms (about 6.5 percent), although it has one-fourth of India's landmass and one-sixth of its coastline. cnsnews.com\\ForeignBureaus\\archive\\200106\\For20010618e.html