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 : Barrick Gold (ABX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russet who wrote (2395)	4/12/2002 11:03:24 PM
From: nickel61	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3558

You can't guess at the value of a horse and buggy and then make a huge leap from there that gold has deflated. Sorry that doesn't wash.. Try this one a 1964 mustang new in 1964 sold for about $2400. Which was a fair amount of money back then...in 2002 could you buy one for the same 68.57 ounces of gold(gold was $35/ounce in 1964 and at $2400 it took 67.54 ounces to buy the car) well lets see 67.54X $301=$20,324 what do you think? Not the most scientific comparisons but interesting none the less. We are after all talking about a very complex subject once we all get to the same page..It is the relative ability of governments to force a fiat currency value over time. Not an easy thing to do and one that frankly has been pulled off better than I think many of us would have expected they could...

To: russet who wrote (2395)	4/13/2002 5:59:22 AM
From: nickel61	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3558

Your $100 buggy and horse is probably not accurate. A hundred years ago we were coming off a very nasty depression in the US and the value of a laborers work for one day was $1.00 US, a steep fall from thirty years earlier by the way and a shovel was $12. I have read some diaries where the laborer who broke a shovel was not well treated and for the obvious reason the above numbers suggest. Mass production was about to revolutionize these numbers in many interesting ways, and the expansion that began in 1894 and ran up to the end of the first World War was about to improve labor rates significantly. I would guess that the comparison you are trying to make would be heavily effected by the shift that takes place over history in the relative "value" of manufactured items as they are mass produced and the relative scarcity of labor over time. YOUR $100 buggy to a $24,000 car is 5.63% compounded per year increase by the way..at $50 buggy it is 6.37% a large but not unimaginable difference. So your making comparisons over that long a time is tough to draw many conclusions from. The only thing we know for sure is that the relative values change and the thing we are measuring them in this concept called a US dollar is worth a lot lot less then it was back then. Almost all of the loss of value of the US dollar by the way has occurred in the last thirty two years since we went off of the gold convertiblitity standard..Interesting fact..

To: russet who wrote (2395)	4/15/2002 2:46:18 AM
From: FuzzFace	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3558

In post 2340 you wrote: "even if the POG falls below $100 per oz,...as the price has been in the majority of history" Yet in post 2395 you wrote: "I don't recall saying $100 current dollars is an historical average for POG" I'm confused, if you didn't mean $100 current constant dollars, did you mean nominal dollars? If the latter, that just restates my point about inflation - current dollars are worth 5% of 100 years ago dollars. Even in terms of POG, current dollars are around 7.5% of 100 years ago dollars (20/oz vs. 300/oz).