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: Lucretius who wrote (71073)	6/3/2001 11:28:39 PM
From: Bull RidaH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

In the end, your scenario probably does come true. But I'd say you're early by a couple years, and the market will take out all the "visionaries" and shoot'em first. I'd say one more cutting in half below the prior low should do it... Then you jump on gold. This environment will never birth a bull market in gold... Where everybody panics back into gold & miners with the first 10% move in gold or the first 25% move in miners. This reeks... And I think you sense that. You may not have thought about what it will take to cure this problem, but I have... A 50% DISCOUNT!! -G- Market call... You want to be out of longs by contract switchover Thursday, with bias towards shorts for the next 6 weeks. Which of your longs will you sell first? -g-

To: Lucretius who wrote (71073)	6/4/2001 1:40:03 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

In 1929 gold was $20.67 and Harry Oakes was just starting to finance his gold mine, the Lakeshore in Kirkland Lake, Ontario. In that time there was a lot of exploration as the times were good but nobody cared a hoot about gold. After the crash and secondary crash about 9 months later, Harry's mine climbed to $65.00 a share. Gold was still $20.67. As the literature says Roosevelt watched with interest over a five year period as gold rose, unhampered by gov't interference to $35.00 an ounce. This effect was because the deflation of goods had driven the price of the monetary commodity, gold up. In other words if one ounce of gold would buy a Brooks Brother's suit in 1929, it would now buy the suit, a silk scarf, a pair of shoes and a top hat too. Gold itself did not deflate because it was a buyer of goods and dollars so it commanded a premium. In effect the price of gold had inflated or the true worth of goods had found their level against another more constant arbiter. It was then that Roosevelt acted. In order to prevent further erosion of the dollar's value, he simply tagged it to gold. He did not raise the price of gold to a certain level in order to make the dollar worth less. Why would he have done that? Gold rises to it truest value during a depressionary deflation, not a deflationary growth period as we have seen recently. Gold becomes a touchmetal because it is a last resort of value. When every commodity and thing of worth collapses against uncertain valuation of currency and overburden of unpayable debt, and goods cannot be sold, people look to a commodity that can be trusted for worth. The american dollar during the 20's and 30's was essentially still a fiat currency. It was not tied to gold except for some currency printed that were gold and silver certificates. When it was tied to gold in 1934, it became an illusory bearer currency. It could be redeemed for gold but for one catch. It was illegal to own or trade in gold without special license! It was all smoke and mirrors. The great lie was in effect. Big brother with his false promises had taken over. "Pay to the bearer on demand" ... and then put him in jail. Other more fundamental deceptions had become the currency of government. We would never be told the truth again. We should ask ourselves a question. Is it necessary for gov'ts to regulate or print currency or just to prevent it's dilution? Why is tax necessary at all? If a gov't should print money (in other words borrow from its people) to do public works, or support an army, should they be able to pay it back by taxing the public? Why don't they start a business and pay it back themselves? Don't laugh, that is what Thomas Jefferson did. He freed his citizens from income tax and just collected the revenue for government from excise taxes on imported goods. IF the US did this today it would make US goods at least 25% cheaper abroad. Isn't it ludicrous that gov'ts issue bonds to banks to get money to pay for public works, then tax the people to pay the banks? Why don't they issue bonds to the people directly, as they are borrowing from us, and pay US for their money! Why don't I get interest on my taxes? We are the gov't, we are no longer regulated by foreign kings and their allegiances, have we not got a say? Is there a better way to run this system that is less prone to the gov't bankrupting its people by overspending, and regulating money in order for it to overspend? It is the gov'ts expansion of the money supply that has got us into all our problems since Adam. If they would leave the damn thing alone and ask the people what level of borrowing is ok to do their works, then it would solve a lot of problems. EC<:-}