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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AC Flyer who wrote (16267)	3/5/2002 10:38:42 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

The problem is, it gets easier to print it (i.e. costs less to mine it) every year. Just wait until Maurice sends up his fleet of CDMA-controlled robotic satellites with photo-voltaic wings to mine the gold gravity placers of Saturn's rings. I'd hate to be holding gold when that steady stream of gold bricks comes sailing back on a gentle trajectory to earth. No wonder the central banks are selling now! <g>

To: AC Flyer who wrote (16267)	3/5/2002 10:44:41 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 74559

That's true, that average cost per ounce mined has been coming down for some time, some factors within this reduction are sustainable and others are not .... sustainable [for some time anyway] - the degree to which technology has made geophysics, transport, communications etc more cheap [yes Mq that CMDA thingamajig is among the tech used by the azteca, when you suggest Endlösung for this great nation you are cutting the throats of your customers, ahem] Unsustainable - the degree to which companies have creamed off their low-cash-cost deposits during the gold bear ... no way can this go on for long, all the majors are doing is making bigger the holes in the ground for little or no profit, they cannot easily replace those deposits [this is why the place to be in the golds is in the juniors] Not all 'bugs are doomsters, btw, i certainly am not, my largest position of all is in a company with a unique world-wide network of brokers and a subsidiary with three established MBA schools in Beijing - seglobal.com ... well that's not true, my largest position is in real estate, all stocks total rarely get to fourty per cent of net worth and are not near that now ... but i don't see why it's so necessary to kill off the only true money just so other kinds of stocks can go up, don't see the correlation there at all

To: AC Flyer who wrote (16267)	3/5/2002 10:57:08 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi Mike, There will not likely be <<someone WILL f*&k up really badly ... fiat OR political world>>. There ARE, now, plenty of entities already, in fiat AND political world. The exposure and follow-on cleansing will take some time, maybe even decades. In the nasty mean and long time, the world is already loaded up on debt and going to war, and previously willing equity and debt financing savers will now have to whilly-nilly finance the war as well, even as a 1.5% loss for Fannie and Freddie will wipe out 100% of their tier 1 capital, calling for more savings or more debt. Now, I am told that there never was a recession, and if the non-recession is so good so far, can you imagine what the actual recession will look like? I am guessing it will look pretty inflationary depressive. As to gold being 'debased', perhaps, but maybe not, because gold on ladies' ankles are not actually money, but only near-money, and when gold is needed, at all times in the past, there never seemed to be enough of it, because there is never enough true money, only enough false paper. Increasing money supply in response to a faceful of foam from bubble explosion was never the answer in the past, and will not be the solution now. I do have to admit that the wait is certainly entertaining, especially on this thread:0) I must now go for the reflexology shop near Gate 28 at this airport. Chugs, Jay