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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Caussa Capital (formerly Antares) T.CAU -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: -- who wrote (2496)	2/1/1998 11:29:00 AM
From: bill718	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4718

I guess none of us can say for certain which way gold will go or how soon, but here is some interesting food for thought from an article at: fame.org Since the Eighth Century in China, every fiat monetary system has collapsed. Why should ours be an exception? Does anyone seriously believe that our politicians and central bankers have more brains and integrity than those of the past? In recent times (since 1950) the dollar has lost 90% of its purchasing power. Why does anyone think that the last 10% is sacrosanct? A mystery. Most investors today have confidence that our system is stable. In short, they believe in the extraordinary abilities of Mr. Greenspan to keep inflation at bay and maintain price stability. But what does Mr. Greenspan have to say about the stability of our system? For the past three years at least, in virtually all of his speeches, but rarely if at all in his testimony before the Congress, Mr. Greenspan has addressed systemic risk. For example, in his January 14, 1997 speech in Belgium, he said: "... The burden of managing risk in the financial system will not lie with the private sector alone. With leveraging there will always exist a remote possibility of a chain reaction, a cascading sequence of defaults that will culminate in financial implosion if it proceeds unchecked. Only a central bank, with its unlimited power to create money, can with a high probability thwart such a process before it becomes destructive." When he says the Fed can thwart a financial implosion with a "high probability," how high is "high?" And for how long can he keep all of these balls in the air? He doesn't say. However, in a speech in June 1996 in Stockholm, he said that taxpayers must help bail out the banking system about "two or three times a century." How "remote" is that? And what is the justification for these estimates? Most important, why is he saying these things? Again, in his January 14, 1997 speech, talking about "moral hazard," i.e., that taxpayers are compelled to bail out the banking system if it loses some of its big bets, he said: "If the owners or managers of private financial institutions were to anticipate being propped up frequently by government support, it would only encourage reckless and irresponsible practices." Question: How reckless and irresponsible do banking practices need become before Mr. Greenspan considers them so? As of this writing, the banking system has outstanding more than $60 trillion worth of derivative bets. Is that "reckless and irresponsible?" (When I was growing up, these are numbers that were reserved for astronomy.) How about when the amount reaches $100 trillion, or $500 trillion? Perhaps he will one day share with us his criteria for "reckless and irresponsible practices." Also, maybe he will tell us why taxpayers should provide a safety net/subsidy to the banking system so that it may engage in this kind of gambling. In the meanwhile, it appears to this writer that Mr. Greenspan is telling us, albeit in an obtuse fashion, that there is substantial systemic risk. The only way that risk can be adequately hedged, it seems to me, is with gold. A Question of Justice: Gold people can help the nation and help themselves by emphasizing the injustice of our present fiat money system. It unjustly empowers the banking system, a small cartel of private companies, to create money out of nothing and get the interest on it. It constitutes stealing from savers who are mostly working people and seniors. It compels taxpayers to subsidize the banking system's derivative and currency trading bets and to bail out the banks when they lose their bets (but if they win, they keep the winnings). It puts all of us at fantastic and unwarranted risk that the entire monetary edifice will come crashing on our heads as with the Great Depression. It is not fair. This does not mean that you should not act to protect yourself and your families. While you may not be able to protect your purchasing power, you can preserve wealth. You can buy gold and encourage others to do the same. When should you buy gold? Better five years too early than a day late!

To: -- who wrote (2496)	2/1/1998 4:55:00 PM
From: cruncher	Respond to of 4718

Blain: Who knows when Gold will recouver! There are too many variables in my opinion to really know when gold is going to recover. These two companies you are mentioning may be good buys if they are taking such drastic steps and gold recovers sooner. I know one thing that is for sure is that gold will recover when nobody is expecting it and it will then go down the next time when nobody is expecting it. As long as people are saying it won't recover then there is a chance that it might. regards cruncher P.S. The recovery could be bought on by a country such as Japan