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 : Alta Gold -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce McGaughey who wrote (596)	4/26/1998 6:21:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 749

You shouldn't be terribly anything. You should keep enough cash to be able to sleep at night. Investment money is throwaway money. Money that you might have used with which to take a trip to Disneyland. Extra money. When you start having this attitude about making the big dough or looking at your house as an investment, looking at everything as though it were an investment, you're headed for stress city. Little of the money that is added to your net worth is ever used. This is all a big psychological game about self-esteem and you pay the price in all types of personal suffering. If it isn't fun and easy, don't do it. If you don't watch your investments, you'll make far more than if you do. Even railroads will make a tremendous comeback in the 21st century when airplanes are grounded for pollution so it doesn't even matter what in which you invest. Every dog has its day. I was trading in the market all during those eras mentioned by the Privateer. Their explanations are media-like. Reminds me of how the academics write history books. They remember the commercials but none of the programs. If you want to know what happened back then, I'm about the only person left on the planet that can tell you accurate info. Even the old pros and buffs have got it all confused since they never understood the essence of the matter way back when. And the economic history professors are humorous to listen to. They have read what others have described and have put their own spin on it. If you don't believe me, get a high school text book that talks about the events of the past through which you have lived. You'll say, " but that's not quite what happened. They're emphasizing a small part of it to push some other ulterior motivated point." Specifically, in 1976 the price of gold didn't get knocked because it had been made legal to hold. That had nothing to do with it. And, they say, "Gold was bid up to its $US 195 level by foreign traders who wanted the Gold to sell to the American public. As soon as it once again became legal for Americans to own Gold, the price was blitzed by a combination of foreign selling and U.S. Treasury selling. The Treasury even bought Gold from overseas to depress the price." Those sentences are contradictory, outright false, and irrelevant. Moving averages tell you nothing. Price doesn't predict price. Even the academics know that. Why should there be a causal connection between two representations? There may be a causal connection between the phenomena represented by price, but you can't compare prices and conclude that a certain event then must occur. By the way this is also a common error in thinking in the most advanced areas of theoretical physics --- the confusion of gedanken with reality, thought experiments as a replacement of the physical universe. In logic this is sometimes referred to as the error of petitio principii. The best that can be done with respect to time series data is to understand the physical states that prices represent. Often these states are locked up in the human mind and can't be measured directly.