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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (46710)	2/21/2009 9:59:46 PM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 218645

Elliot Wave ?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (46710)	2/22/2009 1:51:01 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 218645

Elliot Waves - as a side comment on price of gold - Many on SI made comparison of the amount of widgets one can buy for a once of gold over human civilized history to demonstrate the validity of gold as a store of value. ( Wonder what happen over the ages to silver after it started to be a by-product of copper and major new mines where discovered in the Americas by the Spanish) But this comparison falls flat on its face because it ignores at least 3 things; 1. The advancements in efficiency of production of "widgets" 2. The continuation of gold discovery and mining 3. Population growth my response is; 1. My assertion is that to manufacture / make a decent suit to wear is substantially less costly in human work hours than let say 1000 years ago – from wool to the finished garment 2. I have no idea by how much the world supply of gold grew over the last 1000 years which in turn should lower its absolute price of gold (increase supply lowers prices) 3. If calculating the value of gold per capita - assuming that every man or woman on the globe would like to own a once of gold - I have no idea how the supply of gold compares with the population growth - what is sure both grew exponentially in the last several hundred years My take on this is that as any other commodity gold prices are depending on a supply and demand equation and perception of the buyers and sellers and has no intrinsic value the same way it was referred to in S. America before the Spanish opportunist run over this part of land. On the other hand the example of polished diamonds fits more my perception of effective portable value of wealth The reasoning is that the human unit labor cost is constant over a long period of time as it must compensate for the existence of the person and that the units of labor contained in a polished diamond which is not perishable is substantial more than the units of labor invested to produce a bar of gold. In any case if the issue of transportability is ignored there are many other valuable items / commodities which could be counted as store of value and would have a much higher appreciation when the economy recovers – copper is one example – and the chances of confiscation are minimal because human perception. (as an example copper was $.75 when gold was around $280 – copper rose above $3 per pound and 1 ounce of gold to around 800 to 900 a year ago – so which was a better investment?) Now based on the theory of buy low and sell high what would be the better choice to buy as an investment NOW? - Gold at $1000 or copper at 40% of its value of a year ago? All assuming the world will NOT come to an end – as if this would happen who needs gold or copper <GGGG>