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: maceng2 who wrote (68787)	1/3/2007 5:31:27 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

PB, I think gold will go down in value because it doesn't cost $600 to produce an ounce of it, even with oil at $60 a barrel. Also, I think the human population is going to plummet by 2100 and the world's "limited resources" are not going to be limited in any meaningful way for a century, or three. Technology developments will continue apace, reducing fuel per passenger kilometre by a longggg way. Nor will there be a world government centred in Beijing. Centred in cyberspace is more likely, but in a diffuse kind of way. Mqurice

To: maceng2 who wrote (68787)	1/3/2007 8:21:48 AM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

The dollar has not lost 95% of its value since 1913. You assume that you kept that dollar under a mattress, like gold. But dollars are properly kept in a bank or, better, treasury bills, earning interest -- unlike gold, which not only does not earn interest, but incurs storage and insurance costs over time. If your 1913 dollar was earning the short term interest rate compounded until today, I bet it will be worth more than an equivalent amount of gold. And I don't even try to take into account the negative costs of gold ownership.