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

To: long-gone who wrote (25189)	1/1/1999 2:10:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116791

Richard, I hope that you're not casting me into your definition of "anti-gold:". I most certainly am not against precious metals. But what I'm trying to get across is that, according to what I'm seeing and the logic of the argument, I firmly believe that CB's do not want the price of gold to disrupt their Fiat money system. Only when there is a MAJOR systemic shock to the system, such as a run-away LTCM scenario, another major default such as Brazil, or Russian unrest, will there be enough pressure on the global financial system that Gold becomes an alternative the CB's can no longer manage to manipulate. But with all of that gold in reserve, they have quite a bit of ammunition to fight their battle against "goldbugs". And when it comes, I have a feeling that dominoes will fall rather quickly and they will fall hard. For that reason, I'm trying to find a place where gold is reaching a price equilibrium wherein for every short-seller, you have someone out there taking physical possession of gold. But be advised... Gov'ts have the ability to outlaw the physical possession of gold. It has happened before and can happen again. So for the goldbugs, the deck is constantly being stacked against them by institutions who would be facing indictment by securities regulators were they average citizens. But as recent events have displayed, the law is not always applied equally. Comments? Regards, Ron