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: lorne who wrote (26985)	1/25/1999 11:49:00 AM
From: donald martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

<<Why can't all the CB brains figure out a way to make use of the value of gold and prevent the collapse of paper currency.>> There is a sensible way for them to do this WITHOUT reverted to a de facto gold standard. And Greenspan has spoken about it in the past. I appreciate the concerns that some thread participants have about CB's being hamstrung by possible irrationalities (bubbles?) in the gold market that might occur merely because so many investors seem hellbent on using momentum methods to invest these days. Gold doesn't need to be the end all indicator that they watch. But, it should at least influence how they manage monetary policy. In other words, all OTHER things being equal, a gold price of $250/oz should see the Fed being more accomodating while a gold price of $500/oz should see them being less so. Doesn't mean they have to "crucify the economy on a cross of gold", just that it's a voice that shouldn't be ignored either.

To: lorne who wrote (26985)	1/25/1999 12:08:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

Seems to me its like ripping the crap out of your life jacket before you go boating so if you fall overboard that pesky lifejacket wont interfere with your death. Don't worry.. I'm a fair swimmer... <VBG> I'm not trashing gold as a metal. I agree it's shiny and my wedding band is made of it. What I've been trying to make clear is that, IMO, a gold standard for currency has a history of inflexibility and severe economic disruption in its use and is not the panacea you hardcore goldbugs think it is. Nations at war kiss it goodbye so they can deficit spend and boost economic capacity to their fullest extent. And when they try to re-establish the standard in peace, the economic contractions and high interest rates (from shrinking money supply), distort the economy to the down in a severe "hard landing" with significant social disturbances. If all currency fails to hold value against each other, then there will be two scenarios... a rush to gold/silver/diamonds... etc, as mankind reverts to ancient beliefs in the "intrinsic" value of gold, or they'll be so hungry that they revert back to a barter based system. Gold, like Fiat paper, is not very nutritious. Finally, I have also argued that until the US economy stumbles severely, the safe haven of choice and convenience is still the US dollar. As long as foreign economies are facing their problems, assets will flee and find safety, if only fleeting, here in the dollar. So to push a higher valuation on Gold TO EXTREMES above $300/ounce would shake the confidence in the dollar and people would fall back upon the next psychological storehouse of value, gold. Thus, I see no reason to exacerbate the current economic crisis by forcing a squeeze in gold. But gold, like any currency, is only valuable if the psychology focused upon it believes it is valuable. And as I said, when people are hungry enough, you won't have gold enough to convince a starving person to give up his food to you. That's when it's "Katie bar the door"... and visions of Mad Max spin in your head. Regards, Ron

To: lorne who wrote (26985)	1/25/1999 1:30:00 PM
From: Alex	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116764

Arms expert warns U.S. cities face nuclear terrorism threat Saturday, January 23, 1999 By Jack Kelly, Post-Gazette National Affairs Correspondent The odds are that an American city will be destroyed by a nuclear weapon within ten years, an architect of the U.N. weapons inspection program in Iraq predicted yesterday. Ambassador Robert Gallucci gave a chilling overview of the parlous state of nuclear proliferation at a luncheon sponsored by the World Affairs Council at the Duquesne Club. His nightmare scenario: "One of these days, one of these governments fabricates one or two nuclear weapons, gives it to a terrorism group created for this purpose. The group brings one of these bombs into Baltimore by boat, and drives another one up to Pittsburgh. "And then the message comes in to the White House: Adjust your policy in the Middle East, or on Tuesday you lose Baltimore, and on Wednesday you lose Pittsburgh. Tuesday comes, and we lose Baltimore. What does the United States do?" His estimate of the likelihood of the nightmare scenario coming true: better than 50-50. Gallucci believes the breakup of the Soviet Union and the breakdown of order in Russia and former Soviet republics has made rapid nuclear proliferation inevitable. Since the dawn of the atomic age in 1945 until last year, there were only five declared nuclear powers - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - and at least one undeclared nuclear state: Israel. Last year, India and Pakistan joined the club, each exploding devices that could kill more than a half-million people instantly. There are more to come. "Thirty years ago, we thought by the end of the century we'd be up around 100," Gallucci said. But proliferation was held in check by the Cold War standoff between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Alliances helped. When Germany and Japan chose to rely on the United States rather than on nuclear weapons for protection, for instance, nations that felt threatened by Germany or Japan didn't have to build nukes either. Also contributing were increased democratization; the weapons inspections and oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency; bilateral negotiations, and timely application of military force. "Iraq would have nuclear weapons today if we hadn't fought the Gulf War," Gallucci said. But the chief reason so few nations went nuclear was that it was extremely difficult to manufacture the "fissile material" - enriched uranium or plutonium - required to make a nuclear bomb. For years, whenever the CIA director was asked by a member of Congress how long it would take for Iran, Iraq, or North Korea to build a nuclear weapon, he would say, "about ten years," Gallucci said. "It takes about nine years to build up the facilities [required to produce fissile material] from scratch, and another year to build an implosion device." The correct answer now, Gallucci said, is: "I don't know, senator. They may have it already." Russia's economic troubles have dramatically shortened the time required to build a nuclear bomb and made it more difficult for intelligence agencies to monitor nuclear weapons programs. It takes fissile material about the size of a softball to build a nuclear bomb. There are thousands of tons of enriched uranium and plutonium in Russia, much of it poorly secured. Worse, the Russian scientists who design nuclear weapons, the engineers who build them, and the soldiers who guard them are paid only sporadically, making them open to offers. The facilities required to manufacture fissile material are large and require specialized equipment that is hard to hide from U.S. spy satellites. But once fissile material has been obtained, it's easier to conceal a bomb assembly plant. President Clinton's decision to go forward, tentatively, with a ballistic missile defense program is in part a response to the rapidly expanding nuclear threat, and in part an effort to deprive Republicans of an issue in the next presidential election, Gallucci said. But the primary threat won't come from missiles, he predicted. "Ships, planes and trucks are also good ways to deliver nuclear weapons. We don't have very good defenses against those, either. . . . If you want to sneak a nuclear weapon into the United States, hide it in a bale of marijuana." Currently dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., Gallucci also serves as U.S. special envoy on proliferation matters. He was deputy executive chairman of the U.N. inspection team in Iraq when it was created at the end of the Gulf War and chief U.S. negotiator on the Framework Agreement for dismantling North Korea's nascent nuclear weapons program. post-gazette.com