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: Ilaine who wrote (27071)	1/7/2003 8:09:24 PM
From: lisalisalisa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

it could go to $6000 an ounce too (not likely but possible) pretty smug article IMO, seems to resort to the PC description of gold investors as fanatical relics, and tries to discount the "high" price of gold as a temporary "spike" (going on 3 years however), a misnomer. The article seems to believe that the action of the past 22 years is "true" and "correct" action for gold, using the past bull market in paper and bear market in commodities and extrapolating it out into the future, forever…. a new era so to speak. The article even mentions that investors in gold possess "faith" as if gold is some bizarre religion-which is funny because it is the FIAT system that based on faith and promises, the loss of which will propel the price of gold even higher IMO. Besides articles like this after a 3 year bull market are bullish, right? Means there are many more buyers left, and few have actually lost faith in the status quo. The slope of DOW/Gold Ratio IMO might be due to the technical advances mentioned in the article BTW, where the ratio might make higher highs and higher lows as technology to extract gold improves.... sharelynx.net

To: Ilaine who wrote (27071)	1/7/2003 8:30:55 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 74559

I'm not one to argue with the Economist but: <<The price of gold has received support from central banks, which continue to hold the metal as a reserve.> is [I believe] actually an incorrect statement in the context of the period in question because they've been net sellers. DAK

To: Ilaine who wrote (27071)	1/7/2003 8:38:18 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

<central banks still have some 30,000 tonnes of gold in their vaults, and most have pledged to sell their stock in an orderly fashion so as not to disrupt the market.> 30,000,000 kg = 1,000,000,000 ounces [more or less] = not even an ounce per person on earth. Therefore, it cannot ever form the money supply for people. Nor should it, because it is a lot of hard work to produce it and it's far easier just to define $1 = 1 human median hour, pixelate as necessary and store the details of who owns how many $$ on swarms of servers all over the world, which cross check with each other. Wow, if central banks realize there's no more point holding gold than holding any other asset, and they decide to unload, it won't be good for the gold bugs waiting for the second coming. They'd be unloading too. There could be quite a panic. What a laugh that would be as all scramble to unload their gold at the same time. The price could fall faster than the dot.bombs. Gold is a medieval anachronism. It's now the 21st century. It's time to move on folks. Mqurice

To: Ilaine who wrote (27071)	1/8/2003 12:39:27 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Yep the Economist ROTF... Not likely phew !!! ... simmonsco-intl.com Obviously, 1999 turned out to be quite different than many were predicting a year ago. The Economist magazine gets the prize for being the furthest off as their infamous cover story “Drowning in Oil” predicted that oil would fall to $5 for the next 5-years hit the newsstands only 4 days before prices began to soar. EDIT Ag could go to 70 too... NO Maurice Not Your AG...