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: carranza2 who wrote (70931)	1/4/2009 3:39:24 PM
From: prometheus1976	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

If you,or anyone can check my numbers and thought process,i would appreciate it.. goldsheetlinks.com I think there are 6.5 billion ounces of gold total in the entire world that has been mined since the beginning of mankind.About 2500 tons (80 million ounces) are mined each year,an increase of 1.23%.. Out of the total 6.5 billion ounces,about 50% are in jewelry,artifacts,teeth,etc...and 50% in bars, coins,and rounds. Governments,the IMF,etc own about half the bars and coins,or 1/4 of the total above ground supply..the public owns the remaining 1/4 or 1.62 billion ounces. So the conclusions drawn - If you own 100 oz. of gold you own i/65,000,000 of the entire world's above ground supply,leaving at least 6.4 billion people with less than you have. Owning 100 oz is 1/38,000,000 of all the bars and coins, and 1/19,000,000 of all that's available to public unless gov't's sell more of theirs. My point is that at just 100 ounces,you by definition are in the top 1% of gold owners in the world,and on a median basis much higher on the scale. Now ,being realistic, 95% of the world population doesn't have much anyway,so we wont consider them. Even so,out of 325 million people who probably have some decent savings,at most only 20% of them could ever have 100 ounces,and taking out gov'ts and jewelry,then only 5% of the well-off people of the world could ever amass 100 ounces. you can work the numbers out different ways,but as the price has risen from 250 $ U S to 850 $,then many more folks are unable to accumulate their 100 ounces. It just seems to me that everyone who can reasonably tuck away 100 ounces and forget about it should do so,and let the rest scramble around to get theirs. Granted this is a bit of a variation of the old sales pitch"If everyone in China wore the coats 2 inches longer look at all the cloth we could sell",but you get my point that there really isn't much gold out there if the public,or a gov't, wants some. all thoughts appreciated,P1976 P S ..Accumulating more than 100 ounces of gold is good also,it just means Mqurice won't have any ,sorry 'bout that Mqurice.

To: carranza2 who wrote (70931)	1/4/2009 7:20:21 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

We disagree C2, <a substantial core of absolutely essential money/savings/capital should be placed in it for the extreme long term. > My preference is to own productive assets rather than gold. My point was just that if I had to commit to a store of value for 30 years, without right of review, I'd opt for gold over treasuries. But I have no intention of doing either. I am considering gold for a short term storage method while I take over the world's fiat financial finangling with a real currency, the Qi. Mostly it would be just for fun. Doing weight lifting using gold would be quite fun, adding value to the gold. Playing with it on the carpet with children might be fun too and instructive. Casting some in Mq money would be fun, maybe even making the first 100 Qi gold ones as collector's items. Mqurice

To: carranza2 who wrote (70931)	1/8/2009 3:20:27 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 74559

Fail: <Logic-test this with me: Inflation, check; bad inflation, check; borrow to the prudent limit - why not if paying in inflated currency? Buy $1 worth of asset, pay with discounted and depreciated currency. Seems ....prudent? > I have considered just that in Japan where interest rates have been very low for very long and property prices were heavily depreciated and the Nikkei was too. In fact, the first time was when the yen was 89 to the dollar and MSFT was a bargain in 1995 [or maybe it was 1996] But I had no mechanism to borrow US$1 million in yen. Sure enough, I would have made a fortune. More recently, it has been tempting again. But there is a risk as you can see if you look at the graph of the Nikkei. At 14,000, nearly 20 years after the peak in 1989, you would think it was pretty much bottomed out. But borrowing US$1 million in yen a year or two ago to buy the Nikkei would not have been all that good as an investment. You could sell the Nikkei at around 8000 and convert back to US$ and the outcome would be considerable loss with not enough dividend to make the project worthwhile. Also, you would need to have a long term guarantee of 0% interest, which is not on offer. Neither can it be. It's called mud-wrestling The Fed. That's a risky activity. Best to just stay well clear unless you have a specific purpose in borrowing to earn a rate of return higher than the long run cost of borrowing. It's a great idea, but I haven't come up with a good reason to borrow yet. I am willing to borrow $10bn at 0.1% for 30 years to buy houses or mortgages in California, Hawaii and perhaps elsewhere, but that's not being offered by Big Ben. He wishes to outbid me and buy the mortgages/houses himself. Mqurice