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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (40591)	11/4/2005 7:59:52 AM
From: kelp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

General I watched greenspan give his final testimony to congress on thursday. He said globalization would continue, he said future investments of capital need to be made into both technology and education and re-education of citizens - this would best help the world. That we can no longer subsidize american auto workers who no longer offer any real benefit per their skills - they must be retrained in "creative destruction" Congressman Ron Paul asked him if gold was such a relic then - and we should not invest in it - why do the central banks still hold it? Greenspans answer was that basically in periods of financial crisis - in HISTORY it was deemed an easier way to restart the financial system because that was the only way to effect trade - BECAUSE that is all world gubbments would use/accept for trade. He said perhaps some central banks still share this view - but he said during President Fords administration there was serious debate about selling all the nations gold and that even the modern day european central banks are selling the old relic. So tomorrow - if/when the US currency seriously devalues - will china and all the other nations of the world not TRADE unless gold goes across borders is the REAL question you need to ask yourself - I believe most nations will agree with greenspan - it is SILLY. I provided the history of Britain and how they tried to keep their currency strong after ww1 and go back on the gold standard. You often say history keeps plugging along - very true - and Isaac Newton once told a lesser that he was GREAT becaue Isaac was on the shoulders of giants - and that lesser was not. To translate for you this means we LEARN from the past, we LEARN from history, and we get better through failure and do not necessarily repeat that failure. We LEARNED why linking to gold and not allowing trade unless gold crosses borders is SILLY. We learned why monetary systems gives liquidity and capital movements to make the world better. You must fundamentally believe that there is a chance in the future the governments of the world will enter protectionist isolationist stances and only trade if GOLD crosses borders - that is silly. I do not see china and russia and brazil to stop trading with each other unless they exchange GOLD over thier borders. It is a relic save for jewelry for your mistress maid. Tell Dictator El Mat I also read about maslow's hierarchy and agree food matters more than morals when society and gubbment breaks down in a HOBBESIAN nightmare - and that is why I watched people in Nawlins kill for food and water - not GOLD. So we get back into our same fundamental belief system - what will profit in the future - a man like mogambo guru who has gold and personal weaponry to ensure its use? Or rational beings who realize government and liquid capital make life and progress better? I am watching on CNBC right now about the nanotech conference - my capital, time, and attention will go in that direction - while you short GOOG you go horde your gold like the miser in aesop's fables. foresight.org Frost & Sullivan has issued a report titled U.S. Nanotechnology Industry: Investment Analysis and Growth Opportunities, which appears to be an analysis of 16 nanotech companies which make up their Nanotechnology Index. It costs US$4950, and is probably a useful report for high-level investors, but I’m afraid they are in for some gentle teasing — gentle from me, perhaps not from others — about the second sentence: