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 (27246)	1/29/1999 7:14:00 AM
From: John Hunt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116901

Et tu, Greenspan? Morning Richard, At the risk of raising your blood pressure < g >, here is Fiendbear's commentary for today: << If Prudence could talk, those would have been its last words after Alan Greenspan's testimony before the U.S. Senate budget committee on Thursday. "You wouldn't get the hype working if there weren't something fundamentally potentially sound under it," said Greenspan. I'm not going to get into it right now, but this is about the dumbest thing I've heard from Greenspan. Using this logic, you could justify the zany prices of anything between Dutch Tulips and the more recent Beanie Babies. As I see it, Greenspan is probably still smarting from all of the negative press that he received following his famous "irrational exuberance" comments over two years ago when the Dow traded in the 6,000s. To compensate for his open attack on President Clinton's plan to put social security funds into stocks, Greenspan only allowed himself to make neutral comments on what will turn out to be the most speculative sector in history. His neutral comments were of course perceived as the green light for investors to continue to buy up Internet stocks (and tech stocks in general) without any regard to valuation or even common sense. The Nasdaq shot up to a new all time high just under 2,500 but most stocks in the index have been hurting months with their pain masked by a handful of large cap legends. >> The real question is ... When all this is over, and the bullsh*t has risen to the level of the fan, will the Federal Reserve survive Alan Greenspan? fiendbear.com

To: long-gone who wrote (27246)	1/29/1999 9:00:00 AM
From: donald martin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116901

<<Where is the "Federal Entitlement" to give money to the Big Boyz at LTCM?>> That is not an entitlement that LTCM enjoys. However, the Fed is entitled to get involved if THEY so decide. <<Through the MANIPULATION lower of the price of gold and silver by forces associated with LTCM and promoted by the Federal Reserve, those DIVIDEND MONEYS are being STOLEN from mining investors>> They can't steal something that hasn't been earned. (Dividends come out of retained earnings.) Call the process what you will (I still think MANIPULATION is sensationalistic and betrays a misunderstanding of how free markets work.), if the going market price is not high enough for miners to have EARNINGS then there are no dividends. It's like saying Lotus STOLE money from bookkeepers by manipulating their wage market with the introduction of spreadsheet software. <<The annual bonus paid to Merriweather was stolen through market manipulation from the dividends that would have been paid to mining investors and wages paid to miners!>> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like the bonuses paid to Microsoft employees were stolen from IBM OS/2 programmers. After all, MSFT manipulated the OS market, didn't they? <<We investors of the world have a :"Federal Entitlement" to a fair and non-manipulated market.>> Your idea of a fair, non-manipulated market still strikes me as one that only moves in your favor. <<I gave you an example where the market was manipulated through false "news". You told me to not pay attention to it. You failed to tell the rest of the world to not pay attention! You also failed to tell other news media to not support this lie by reporting it again.>> I ADVISE you not to pay attention to it. I wouldn't presume to tell you or any other market participant what they may or may not do in the market. Just as I would ignore anyone who might try to tell me what I should do in the market. (If what they told me ran counter to what I believed to be true.) <<If a company came out and told an out & out lie and convinced some member of the news media to report that lie(while being invested in such a way as to profit from it), that company would be guilty of market manipulation.>> You cannot compare a securities market to a commodities market, especially as you insist on bringing up the idea of "manipulation". Securities are instruments that are tightly controlled, with settlement through DTC (although you can cut out DTC, the exchanges and NASDAQ and the brokers, but few people do it). For better or for worse, ownership of publicly traded stocks is public information. Contrast that with gold. You and I can easily trade gold amongst ourselves. There are no legal barriers, that I'm aware of, to ECO selling its gold directly to a jewelry manufacturer, a central bank, or a private bullion investor. (Although I think I heard somewhere that in the US, gold may only be transported via USPS. There's some weird rules out there.) These calls for transparency in the gold market are not rational. You have no right to know how much gold I'm hoarding. And any push to get me to disclose how much gold I own makes the market LESS free, not more so.