To: deeno who wrote (20816 ) 4/17/2012 4:03:49 PM From: ahhaha Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24758 you seem to be saying, though i'm never sure, that gold would rise as a result of the above. That's what happened in the '70s.I do not beleive gold is an inflation hedge. I bet you can't coherently define "inflation hedge". Just words, just speeches. More myths created by hacks. Over the many years you've never heard me use that terminology except maybe in derision.The idea that lots of people do, and that gold might rise because of that interest, gave rise to my lemming comment. Yes. it's a wrong assessment. Price doesn't need action to move. Hasn't this year's stock market upside given good evidence of that? "because FED was enabling them to borrow to buy" Ironically, they weren't buying gold! They were speculating in commodities, land, RE, collectibles, loans. Gold was the last to move. just gives them the means to herd. Gold is incidental or irrelevant to the discussion of how FED engineers disaster. Often, gold moves the wrong way when disaster is in flower, e.g., 2008. kicking and screaming is an understatement ,for that time..... True. AG covered up that history and the media bought into it. Milty too, but Milty, for all his knowledge didn't fully understand what was going on,. You had to be intimate with markets to get the full flavor of it, although much of it could be and still can be extracted out of a fine reading of the WSJ of the times.The fact you already said "nope" though means probably means you had someting else in mind. If so, would love another example of your thought. Since I've given many rehashes of this history and in great detail I figured the old timers here would retain it. Grace would tell you that I sound like a broken record. She knows the full story. What, in particular, would you like to know?