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 : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Northern Marlin who wrote (23943)	12/20/2002 12:37:18 PM
From: nspolar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

Philip, I disagree with you in that there has been excessive cheering over here. Sure when gold jumps damned near 20 bucks in one evening you see a little ... but that is to be expected. In general however I think I sense a bunch of very nervous PM investors, watching their backside very closely, trying to find a reason to believe. GC isn't even in for example, except with a few pennies. SDII hasn't been that high up on the hot list. What seems to be of more interest is the for sure gen market dump, coming up. That probably means a better gen market rally, than expected.

To: Northern Marlin who wrote (23943)	12/20/2002 3:19:02 PM
From: Canuck Dave	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 36161

I've read the Sinclair article 3 times now. It does seem to portend a watershed event is upon us. In fact, I have turned off my trading screens today to think about the ramifications of the unfolding events. I don't listen to CNBC (All noise. All the time) but apparently the announcers are changing their tone. A little gold price increase might be good to stave off deflation. Now Greenspan is saying nice things about gold. He's hinting at them using some of the tricks used in the depression to reflate the dollar. LOL! We're not in Kansas anymore. Roosevelt confiscated all the private holdings of gold at 22$ per ounce and then revalued it at 35$. By law, you couldn't open up a safety deposit box without a Treasury agent present. Why do you think those mansions in the 40's movies all had wall safes? In 1933, the US was self sufficient in resources and ever other sense, owed no money to anybody, hence could indulge in any internal shuffling without major ramifications. Today, will foreign owners of US debt put up with having 33% of their wealth confiscated via a much lower dollar and 500$ gold? It was their secret dumping of gold after 1995 to artificially prop up the dollar that has led to the mess we're in today. The amount of US dollars has doubled in that time. Fact. Gold mines have been closing or hedging and high grading to survive. Fact. The reality is that if the FED lets the lid off gold, they'll have no control left. Counterparties short gold may default and the Treasury wouldn't get its leased supply back. Gold's going back up. Greenspan is just making a virtue of necessity. Talking about a higher price for gold in benign terms as a prescription for deflation is balderdash. Economists like to talk about pent up consumer demand after a recession. Once it gets rolling, the investment cycle improves dramatically and the economy does well. Wel, there's another pent up demand out there right now: Dollar inflation. What we are seeing is no less than the end of dollar ascendancy into who knows what, but the next economic leader won't be the US consumer, or US business, or the US at all. Who will lead the next wave? I think Japan and the former tiger economies given their net creditor positions. In many ways, the situation is like the 1930's where the US was becoming ascendant over Britain. Now, it's the US's turn to be the crumbling empire. CD

To: Northern Marlin who wrote (23943)	12/20/2002 3:41:17 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36161

Does anyone actually understand any of the details of the new "gold included" system that some are speculating will be introduced?

To: Northern Marlin who wrote (23943)	12/21/2002 8:03:47 PM
From: augieboo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 36161

Phil, IMHO Sinclair's claims about gold are not supported by the text of Greenspan's remarks. Sinclair's thesis rests for support on the fact that the word "gold" appears in the first paragraph of Greenie's speech. This is just silly. Greenie mentions gold at the beginning of his speech because he is giving a history of monetary policy, beginning with the 1920s/30s. There is nothing further in Greenie's remarks which even hints, IMHO, that gold is or will be a part of his monetary tool kit. augie