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: TobagoJack who wrote (28483)	2/5/2003 11:04:41 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

Hi Jay. I shouldn't be wasting a nice day sitting here, gawping at cyberspace. No, it doesn't surprise me that gold has doubled its production cost. That's why I was very tempted to pay a high spread at $323 to buy a large quantity. I don't think it's quite true to say it rules over all cash at any price. At its production cost plus a modest profit, yes, I'd not want to time travel with any other currency. But at $500, I wouldn't want to walk around the block with it [unless I was greedily seeing a panic-driven speculative frenzy like the dot.com mania and trying to guess an even more rabid peak]. It would very much surprise me for gold to be 100 x QCOM [in the next 10 years - or even 20 years]. I went and drooled over the latest cdma2000 gadget on sale here: Message 18542454 The Kyocera 7135 was much, much more appealing than an equivalent weight in gold. Hmmm, they are of comparable cost per ounce, even though the 7135 will last only a couple or three years whereas the gold will go on for a longgggggggg time. Selling silicon, plastic and batteries for half the price of gold is a good trick. 186 grams of 7135 for US$800 vs 186 grams of gold for US$2000 or so. That's not far apart. Input costs for the 7135 are much less than the gold. Mqurice