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 : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/11/2003 9:34:13 PM
From: jrhana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

I think of the Chinese as customers more than competition We will find ways to sell to them I also see an economic boom on the way after an unheard of amount of fiscal and monetary stimulation The non-arrival of the well heralded real estate crash may be the non news event of the decade

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/11/2003 10:14:05 PM
From: SwampDogg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39344

I have always respected your opinion and I will certainly not stop now. IMO there is just too much debt in the system to have a growth boom right here. Growth would cause the yield curve to steepen and debt holders would be crushed. The other issue that I have is that I see no possibility for new market highs without at least one more large leg down at some point. Will it begin in the next few weeks, I think the answer is that it probably will. I have gold positions in case the inflationary boom pans out. The Kondratieff sequence would be out of order if this boom occurs though. It is more likely that it occurs in the next decade. FWIW I like the full fat stuff with overproof Barbados for that extra kick

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/11/2003 10:15:36 PM
From: loantech	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39344

This may offend a lot of people Liz but I love ya for the guts and wisdom to make this statement: <such as the Catholic Church, who try to maintain power by the order of poverty> Produce more people, no birth control, follow a rigid way of thinking guided by ancient dogma, don't think for yourself, etc. People say they set up the missions on the west coast of the US as far north as points Alaska, and then points Mexico and South America for missionary purposes. Hah! They used these missions to strip indigent people of their gold and gold source areas. Sorry for the off topic but we are discussing gold in this post. Tom PS:<and then the deposit rich companies> Uh ARQ? CBD? MFl? could you supply the names for the rest of us one more time. BTW THIS HURTS IN THE WORST WAY BUT I MADE A FRIENDLY BET WITH LIZ MANY MONTHS BACK. TO THE VICTOR GOES A NICE CRISP GRANT. THAT'S RIGHT $50.00 AND THE TITLE OF GOLD GURU 2003. SHE WHIPPED ME FAIR AND SQUARE AND ASKED THAT THE PAYOFF GO TO THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY. OF COURSE I WON'T MAKE THE PAYMENT UNTIL DEC 15 THE BET DEADLINE. BUT SHE IS SO MANY LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF ME ON THE BET I NEED TO ACCEPT MY SOUND DEFEAT NOW TO GET OVER THE HUMILIATION OF BEING BEAT BY A WOMAN. <G> I am ready to line up the 2004 bet anytime my friend. <g>

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/11/2003 10:29:04 PM
From: TheSlowLane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

Excellent post, Liz. A lot of what you wrote resonates with the themes that Don Coxe has been laying out over the past few months and is the reason why I am heavily exposed to base metals. He has been recommending bank stocks as well, particularly Canadian bank stocks for US investors. Apparently the yields are quite good on them, although I haven't gone there yet myself. Not absolutely sure on the real estate thing, I hope you're right if for nothing else than purely selfish reasons (who wants to lose equity?). I did notice that a house in my neighborhood that sold recently, went for 1/3 less than where it was put on the market. Which made me a little queasy. And I'm starting to see auction notices in the paper for houses in what are considered to be wealthy communities...so...we'll see!

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/12/2003 12:25:46 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39344

Good post Liz. As long as the US can get on board the world team I agree and lean that way. Let's hope the dolts blathering on about tariffs, China and India stealing our jobs blah blah lose their voices... regards Kastel (a cute a cuddly Canadian Catholic ;o)

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/12/2003 3:18:53 AM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

"People want to be out of poverty and leaders, whatever they are called, do this. That is the bullish case and I’m onside with it. " Is that how it works???

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/12/2003 10:22:20 AM
From: Clappy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

That was the best self-authored post I've read on SI in a while. It felt to read a sunny outlook that I can't help but possibly agree with.

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/12/2003 10:51:00 AM
From: jpthoma1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39344

Nice post Elizabeth. And if chinese people succeed in their march to get out of poverty, I think Indian people will try to imitate them. So, just multiply your numbers by two! JP

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/12/2003 10:57:32 AM
From: peter snowdon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

liz, here in jerusalem the nearest equivalent we have to egg nog with barbados rum is called a da vinci. (dont ask me why.) i'm sure you're right about china in the long term: but the people i know and read who live in east asia are all worried about the present levels of bad debt and liquidity-driven expansion in the chinese economy. the ultimate direction is clear: but the next move may be down, not up.

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/12/2003 12:21:16 PM
From: John Dally	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

Before they buy the new fridge, they might buy a bit of gold, to help them feel a bit of security in a very uncertain & fast-changing environment.

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/12/2003 12:48:35 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

<An industrial boom for the USA is good for the dollar and the trade balance>. Is that a boom "for" the USA or "in" the USA?

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/13/2003 9:43:59 AM
From: el_gaviero	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 39344

Re China Liz, I think you are missing a crucial detail about Chinese industrialization --- energy. Oil consumption in USA, per capita, per annum: about 25 barrels. Oil consumption in China, per capita, per annum: about 1.5 barrels. The plain hard cold fact of the matter is that China will never be able to get anywhere in the neighborhood of our level of oil consumption. If they were to reach our level, they would add 89 million barrels to daily demand. [1.3 billion people times 25 barrels per person equals 3.25 times 10 raised to the 10th power, divided by 365, equals 89 million. This means, if China were to reach our level, they would be consuming an amount of oil equal to a little bit more than present total world production.] Even for the Chinese to reach 12 barrels per person per year, or around 45 mb/d, would require the production of SIX Saudi Arabias. Not gonna happen. If you read that post from Jay Chan, recently mentioned on this board, you can see that China is already encountering problems of energy supply. I recommend that you pour in another beaker, and think the matter through again.

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (25404)	12/13/2003 3:58:55 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

"US Savings Accounts have DEFLATED since mid-September. Consumer Borrowing from SAVINGS Institutions spiked in October, and is up +7.5% nominally since the end of the 1Q. Average Hourly Earnings have grown at a nearly NON-EXISTENT +0.3% annualized since the end of July. The year-year increase in Average Hourly Earnings plunged to +2.1%, a MAJOR new SECULAR LOW, with several 'industries' now revealing outright yr-yr earnings DEFLATION. Two million people have been looking for work longer than 27 months, a new high in terms of the 'long-term unemployed'. AND, in a somewhat shocking statistic, we note: The BLS reports that 1.024 million jobs have been lost since the "End of the Recession", with the number of Employed FALLING on a year-year basis within the November report." Greg Weldon Sounds like an industrial boom to me.....