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: marcos who wrote (68802)	1/4/2007 4:51:22 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Diamonds are just a form of carbon that is in plentiful supply. Governments and environmentally concerned organizations even pay you to get rid of it. Technology is now available to make diamonds cheap, ultra pure, and as large as you like. The story is old now. bbc.co.uk Diamonds are in fact cheap to produce and would be lower in price if it weren't for the global cartel. Its aim is to maintain a strong monopoly position, an objective which it has successfully achieved for decades. In controlling the diamond market, De Beers has exploited a relatively simple idea: put a stranglehold on production, hold inventory, and limit distribution, thereby keeping prices stratospheric. What makes De Beers so special is its execution. Over the past 60 years the cartel has done for diamonds something that eluded the oil producers of OPEC and even the cocaine barons of the Medellin cartel. De Beers has the muscle and the nerve to impose its own order on the market and has built a dominate juggernaut syndicate. If De Beers were to open its vaults to the world market, diamonds would become as common as rhinestones at a circus, instantly devaluing every stone on every finger, and in every mounting, as if they all came out of crackerjack boxes.* diamondnexuslabs.com

To: marcos who wrote (68802)	1/4/2007 9:49:31 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

that stimulated me to post ... and to sneer right back - how arrogant of you to presume a thing can be measured only in your fiat currency Then, my arrogance served its purpose as it got you to come out of the underground rabbit warrens of the tiny mining stocks for a bit of fresh air and, as you readily admit, stimulation. The chart was one-sided and biased. I am not sure a proper one can be made that would reflect the truth because gold was artificially pegged at $35 per oz. for several decades while the Dow went up/down, crashed, etc. In any event, I am wary of charts which prove this or that point. Like Twain, I think there is the truth, there are lies, and there are statistics, which IMO include charts. My point, made later more explicit, is that nothing is an inherent, eternal store of value. History shows that we deposit our faith into any number of silly things, from cowrie shells to tulips. Gold falls into the same category but has simply had a longer shelf life. In many more years, when we make AI strong and are able to engage in space travel, our fascination with this blood-drenched Barbaridad Azteca will seem quaint. Of course, this is only a grand Chestertonian puff of warm wind which affects our daily lives not one bit, so I have no quarrel with those who plunk their money down on whatever they choose. Good luck to all of you. A prudent investor probably is well-advised to round out his portfolio with a taste of it, but it is equally prudent IMO not to pay too much attention to gold's siren song. Elmat and Mq are feuding, DJ has disappeared - hope he is OK - and TJ is, well, TJ.