SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Don Green who wrote (25070)12/30/1998
From: Enigma  Respond to of 116955
 
Don - it may be correct that Greenspan is trying to keep gold below $300 - he has certainly said in the past that he looks to gold as a leading indicator (presumably of inflation)

Maybe the Fed has learned that it is best to operate covertly. In the 70s it auctioned gold officially - 600,000 ounces at a time I think (or was this the IMF?) - anyway, far from controlling the price of gold it had the opposite effect - like pouring gasolene on the flames, the bids were several times oversubscribed each time and the price kept rising. I remember this period very well because I was in the gold mining business from 1974-81.

So, if Greespan is trying to control the price of gold he won't be repeating the mistake of the 70s by operating above board.

You wonder why people like Jack Kemp and others don't lobby to have Greenspan testify under oath about Fed actions relative to gold. E



To: Don Green who wrote (25070)12/30/1998 12:40:00 AM
From: Bob Dobbs  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116955
 
Don:
Thanks for the article. It had substance written all over it!
Bob



To: Don Green who wrote (25070)12/30/1998 7:34:00 AM
From: long-gone  Respond to of 116955
 
Don,
nice post.



To: Don Green who wrote (25070)12/30/1998 8:40:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116955
 
Thanks for the excellent article Don.

It reflected some of my thinking on gold (based upon a number of sources, of course. I'm not that bright... :0)

But I have to differ on one point about central bankers backing up their currency with gold. One of the reasons we went off the gold standard in the first place is that there wasn't enough gold to back up the expansion of the US dollar as a reserve currency and our gold reserves at 'ol Ft. Knox were being depleted.

Fiat money, based upon the full faith and credit of the country issuing it, has more flexibility relative to inflationary pressures and expansion of currency. To implement a gold-backed currency again would be equivalent to a tight money policy that contracts liquidity in the banking sector (each note having to be backed up by some percentage of gold).

I also believe it would be counter-productive to the Fed's current "loose money" policy, and bias to lower rates, should the Fed undermine the value of paper currency while creating value in gold (CB's would have to spend Fiat money to purchase Gold). More money moving into gold away from Fiat money would force CB's to raise interest rates in order to attract depositors.

I don't know, but my gut feeling tells me that the Fed/CBs is desperate to prevent gold from recovering due to the impact it would have on their current monetary policy of increasing liquidity. Returning to any percentage of a gold backed currency would have dramatic repercussions on the global financial system as well as the economy.

Can you imagine having your currency strengthen while you're in recession? Makes it hard to export your way out of that recession.

But there may be more afoot in the global power game than any of us peones can see. If the Euro increases gold backing to 30% then that would place pressure on the Fed and the Japanese to do the same.

Regards,

Ron



To: Don Green who wrote (25070)12/30/1998 11:55:00 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha  Respond to of 116955
 
And Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Into The Water?

Did ya miss something this past year Don while trading yer Rambo?

............................................ NOW HERE'S DOOM AND GLOOM!!

Happy New Years Anyway.

**********************************************************************************************

World is a far more disastrous place to be

1998: The worst year for the world

LARGE-SCALE natural disasters are three times as common as they were in the 1960s, experts said yesterday as they declared 1998 the most calamitous on record.

Damage from catastrophic storms and floods is also costing many billions of pounds more, according to Munich Re, one of the biggest reinsurance companies, which has been monitoring natural disasters for a quarter of a century.

A spokesman for the company, which advises the rest of the insurance industry, said yesterday: "Comparing the figures for the 1960s and the past ten years, we have established that the number of great natural catastrophes was three times larger. The cost to the world's economies, after adjusting for inflation, is nine times higher and for the insurance industry three times as much."

Some experts claim that the rising rate of natural catastrophes is making more parts of the globe uninsurable, especially in low-lying areas in the Pacific, Asia and the Caribbean. Figures for this year, released yesterday, show that more than 700 so-called "large-loss events", which killed an estimated 50,000 people, struck across the globe.

The most frequent natural catastrophes in 1998 were windstorms, of which 240 were significant, and floods, of which there were 170. They accounted for 85 per cent of the economic losses. In 1995, the previous most calamitous year, there were 100 fewer "large-loss events". Last year there were 538.

The most recent natural disaster was caused by Hurricane Mitch, which hit Central America and especially Honduras and Nicaragua killing an estimated 9,200 people and costing $5 billion (£3.1 billion) in uninsured and $150 million in insured losses.

Europe was also plagued with costly natural disasters, the blame being put on higher than average winter temperatures triggering extreme weather. The biggest uninsured losses in Europe in 1998 are believed to have been caused by the heatwaves and forest fires that hit Greece between June and August. These are estimated to have cost the country $675 million.

The biggest insured losses, costed at $530 million, were in The Netherlands and Belgium in September. Second, at $500 million, was the damage caused by the storms that swept Europe in January.

That loss was equalled by the floods in Britain in April which cost $500 million, triggering insurance claims of $250 million.

The big rise in natural disasters this year is being blamed on rising global temperatures aggravating changes to La Niña, a climatic cycle in the Pacific that follows El Niño and spawns heavy rains in Asia. Gerhard Berz, the head of the geoscience research centre at Munich Re, said that economic loss and human misery would rise further if global warming continued in line with scientists' forecasts.

Dr Berz, whose company has been montioring the level and cost of natural disasters since the late 1960s, said: "A further advance in man-made climate change will almost invariably bring us increasingly extreme natural events and consequently increasingly large catastrophe losses.

"The progress achieved at the fourth climate summit in Buenos Aires at the beginning of November is not enough to halt global warming and stabilise the world's climate in the long term." If the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, which cost $100 billion, is removed from the statistics, then 1998 also becomes the most expensive year on record for all kinds of natural disasters.

Most of this year's storms and floods hit poor, uninsured parts of the globe, so the loss to the insurance industry is forecast to be less, at about $15 billion. But that figure is up from $4.5 billion in 1997 and continues a rising trend.

1998: The worst year for the world

Affected Deaths
FLOODS
UK April 500m 5
China May-Sep 30,000m 3,656
Romania June 160m 31
Bangladesh,India Jul-Sep 5,000m 4,500
Netherlands,Belgium Sept 530m

HURRICANE
Caribbean,USA Jul-Sep 10,000m 4,000
Honduras,Nicaragua Oct-Nov 5,000m

TROPICAL CYCLONE
India June 1,700m 10,000

TYPHOON
Japan Sept 1,500m 18

EARTHQUAKE
Afghanistan Apr-Jun 9,100

HEAT WAVE, FOREST FIRES
Brazil,Roraima Mar-Apr
USA May-Aug 4,275m 130
Greece Jun-Aug 675m 14

WINTER STORMS
UK,France,Spain |
Portugal,Belgium |
Netherlands,Germany |Jan 500m 15
Switzerland,Austria |
Poland |

MUDSLIDES
Italy May 150

COLD WAVE
Romania,Poland |
Latvia,Lithuania |Nov 215
Russia,Moldova |
France,Italy

ICE STORM
Canada, USA Jan 2,500m 23

VOLCANO
Iceland Dec 27