Goldcorp sees higher gold prices -
Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:35pm EDT
By Robert Melnbardis
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Goldcorp Inc
(G.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) (GG.N: Quote, Profile, Research)
expects the price of gold to top $1,000 an ounce and stay there
for a long time,
a development that will allow the company to improve operating
margins, Chief Executive Kevin McArthur said on Monday.
In a wide-ranging interview at the Reuters Global Mining Summit,
McArthur, who is also president of the Canadian gold producer,
said he thinks the price of gold, which was at $973 an ounce
on Monday, is not "anywhere near a bubble."
"We are not replacing the reserves that we're mining, and yet demand
continues to grow worldwide.
We're going to run out of gold," he said of the global gold industry.
Higher gold prices will be the way to greater world production
of the precious metal, he said.
For its part, Goldcorp, which is unhedged on gold,
plans to add to reserves and boost production by 50 percent
over the next five years, all while keeping
a tight rein on costs.
Capital expenditures are forecast at $1.4 billion this year
and $1.5 billion next year.
McArthur said he did not expect the company to make
large acquisitions in the near future.
"Almost our entire focus is on brownfield exploration right now.
These are properties we gathered up over the last seven years,
big properties, that are underexplored," he said.
Continued...
reuters.com
Greenspan Urges Gulf States To Abandon Dollar -
prisonplanet.com
Barron's arguing in favor of a Gold Standard! -
Despite the lack of buying in India -
after oiltanker's anchor ripping out IT-service -
the selling by central banks and the IMF, and other
manipulations of the market, gold is above $900 and
the ETF's holdings are at all time highs and growing.
And, Barron's is running a series on why the gold standard
is not such a bad idea.
Could pm's be in for another run up now that the mainstream
is getting on board?
Monday February 18. 2008
Barron's
Economic Beat
"Greenspan Was Right: The Case for Gold, Part I -
By GENE EPSTEIN
"UNDER THE GOLD STANDARD," observed Alan Greenspan in a
1966 essay, "a free banking system stands as the protector
of an economy's stability and balanced growth."
As you probably heard, a serious bout of instability caused
by major imbalances currently plagues the U.S. economy.
So a free banking system under the gold standard must be
just what the economy needs, if Greenspan had it right.
In that same essay, the future Fed chairman saw another
key advantage to a gold standard.
While taxing and borrowing against future taxes were
the conventional ways government raised revenue,
the abandonment of gold permitted a third way:
"chronic deficit spending" effectively financed by
the "unlimited expansion of credit."
A gold standard would end that abuse.
But adoption of gold is not exactly high on the world's agenda.
Accordingly, this first installment in my two-part case
for gold began with Alan Greenspan's oft-cited essay
(called "Gold and Economic Freedom") for a strategic reason.
Atlantic.com blogger Megan McCardle was wrong to call
the gold standard a "terrible idea." But she was obviously
right to point out that "so few economists [are] willing
to raise their voices in support of" any version of
a gold standard.
It might therefore help to remind readers that the most
respected Federal Reserve chairman ever raised his voice
in just this way as a seasoned economist of 40, in an
essay that was brief but mainly focused on
the right arguments.
Also, Alan Greenspan's 2007 memoir, The Age of Turbulence,
adds to the case for gold, while incidentally helping
to suggest why "so few economists" are gold advocates.
The long-standing alternative to gold is, after all,
the central banking system, in whose service more than a
few economists have found tangible career benefits.
That may help explain why The Age of Turbulence never
mentions the main point that Greenspan himself made in
"Gold and Economic Freedom":
that gold would protect the economy from the instability
of business cycles.
In fact, nowhere does he mention the essay itself.
We can only conjecture about the omission in a book that
is supposed to chronicle his intellectual development,
and which otherwise mentions gold.
I conjecture that he found the argument an affront to
his career as a central banker.
Indeed, the same essay he buries down the memory hole
aggressively indicts the Federal Reserve for playing
a destabilizing role. We can regard the 1966 essay
as representing his most recent thought to date on
this point, since nothing else is available.
The Age of Turbulence does make an additional point in favor
of gold not mentioned in that original essay:
that a gold standard would prevent price inflation.
In the most disturbing, and valuable, section of this book,
Greenspan sees an end to the era of tame price increases,
beginning around 2030.
He points out, first, that the benign
"disinflationary pressures" from economies like that of
China will have played out by then.
And at the same time, inflationary pressures could be
intensified by the fiscal "tsunami" brought on
by retiring baby boomers.
He affirms that gold would check price inflation, referring
to the "gold standard's inherent price stability."
So why not support gold for this important reason?
It turns out that, while the Greenspan of 1966 objected
to chronic deficits financed by "an unlimited expansion
of credit," the Greenspan of 2007 now accepts that
very thing.
"I have long since acquiesced in the fact that the gold
standard does not readily accommodate the widely accepted
...view of the appropriate functions of government,"
he candidly admits -- namely, the "propensity of Congress
to create benefits for constituents without specifying
the means by which they are to be funded."
But to accept the government's power "to create
benefits...without specifying the means by which they are
to be funded" is effectively to endorse the government's
right to finance its operations, not just through taxing
and borrowing, but through the unilateral creation of
money and credit.
On this point, gold advocate George Reisman observes:
"When the government need not obtain its funds from the
people, but instead can supply the people with funds, it
can no longer easily be viewed as deriving its powers
and rights from the people."
So let us repeat Alan Greenspan's three main arguments
for gold.
A gold standard will protect the economy from --
1) the business cycles that have long burdened it and
2) the rapid price inflation that Greenspan sees as
a future plague.
It also will
3) prevent the government from raising funds through
the unilateral expansion of money and credit that
Greenspan used to regard as a plague on our freedom.
What more overwhelming case can possibly be imagined?
For part 2 on this subject, read next week's column."
Thanks for those links on the Green span bob it proves
this paper shorting of the metal, and in the not to
distant future , one large default could bust this up.
I doubt they can ever make a large physical deliver
on the outside it would expose it all, but it could
happen, hope to see more people going with the gg etc -
Judge for yourself and then decide whether you wish to join the strike.
WE ARE CHANGE!!!
youtube.com
Ps.
Constitution Class taught by
The 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate,
Michael Badnarik teaches his famous class about
the Constitution....
archive.org
history often repeat itself -
Time to get your white arm bands ? -
archive.org
theforbiddenknowledge.com
theforbiddenknowledge.com
ancientamerican.com |
