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 : Natural Resource Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fiscally Conservative who wrote (24091)	4/22/2005 6:45:39 PM
From: isopatch	Respond to of 108702

Then, your not convinced. That's OK with me. OTOH, there may be others on the thread who have more missionary zeal than moi:o) If so, they can respond further to you if they want to do so. Have a good weekend. Isopatch

To: Fiscally Conservative who wrote (24091)	4/25/2005 4:47:04 AM
From: croesus1111	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108702

My take on the PPT is that they cannot publicly admit to their activities, because anyone who has had a short position that didn't pan out in the past eighteen years would sue the government/federal reserve. Many people more sophisticated than me have repeatedly noted suspicious market behavior that is suggestive of intervention. To prove specific intervention, you would probably need a whistle blower. Mathematical modeling could probably demonstrate the extreme statistical improbability of some of the market behavior in the absence of intervention. But you would need a whistle blower followed by confirmation from other participants to actually prove it. Or an investigation that got access to the paper trail, done by investigators that didn't just want to white wash the whole thing. The possibility that the Fed intervenes in the gold market to suppress the price of gold has been more controversial. Personally, I'm convinced of it.