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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (26115)	2/9/2005 10:08:25 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110194

He exaggerates. I lived in Kansas City and you cannot buy a mansion in Kansas City for $100,000. It is a rich town that Andy uses because he thinks of Kansas and Dorothy and corn and the ignorant stuff they're doing to their school children across the river in Jayhawk land. But Kansas City is in Missouri, where they are less ignorant, and it is a vibrant city with a lot happening. But his point about Shanghai is right. I would also ask the question of whether you'd rather live in Shanghai or London. I don't think many people would pick Shanghai.

To: ild who wrote (26115)	2/9/2005 10:42:25 AM
From: ild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Date: Wed Feb 09 2005 10:33 trotsky (morbius@self-fulfilling prophecy) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved true, but only to a very small extent. for instance, as a group, the timers are rarely bearish at tops. and yet, the tops do occur. CNBC is hardly relevant in this context. stock market advisor newsletters ( i.e., a group that is comparable to the gold timers ) often issue bearish SM calls. they never CAUSE bear markets however, and the same is true of the gold timers. had e.g. the yield curve steepened further during '04, they could have issued bearish calls until they were blue in the face, and the market would still have trecked higher. to imply a la Sinclair that the gold timers have manufactured the bearish trend is ridiculous. does anyone really believe that hedge funds trading thousands of COMEX contracts and huge share blocks allow their decisions to be influenced by a bunch of newsletter writer? c'mon. Date: Wed Feb 09 2005 10:21 trotsky (Jessica22@Greenspan) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved he sure is no dummy - but he has thrown his principles overboard a long time ago. his former role as a champion of the free market and economic liberty is not entirely compatible with being the head of a socialist central economic planning agency. still, he comes out in defense of difficult to support ( politically ) but important free market principles on occasion, but that's about the only thing i can say in his favor. his economic forecasting record is nothing to crow about, in spite of having an entire burg of statist 'economists' at his disposal. a speech like hat recent one in London is usually an attempt to cover the Fed's back, since they can always point to it at a later stage and say 'but we told you so'. Date: Wed Feb 09 2005 10:13 trotsky (Sinclair and the gold advisors) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved Sinclair is forgetting something: the gold timers/advisors still around are a battle-hardened bunch that has survived a 20 year bear market. most of them are not fools, and call them as they see them. it is of course true that negativity from this group contributes to weakness in the gold stocks, since they're a relatively illiquid sector with few participants. for instance, the Rydex pm fund has seen outflows of almost 60% from its asset peak, and one can deduce from that that other pm mutual funds have also suffered large outflows , i.e., retail investors have acted on the advice to become cautious. but the advice itself isn't as unreasonable as Sinclair portrays it. the fundamental underpinnings of the market have weakened since early '04, and the technicals look downright atrocious in many cases ( referring to individual issues here ) . why would the gold timers gloss over such facts? they'd do their subscribers a disservice. has Sinclair helped his followers with the constant banging of the drum for his $480 target, combined with the assurance that gold stocks would 'follow' ( which as we know they never do ) ? to be fair, he advocates stops, but the requisite admonishments are rather half-hearted compared to his rampant bullishness. not that he won't be right longer term - i think he will be. but why nurse a grudge against those who frankly called the market better than he did in the short term?