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: Mark Bartlett who wrote (27759)	2/4/1999 10:13:00 PM
From: Alex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116795

2/04/99 - Crash in Gold Prices Halts Investment in Mining Projects <Picture> MEXICO CITY, Feb. 4 (El Universal/Infolatina)-- The director of mining for the Secretary of Economic Development said that the crisis on metal markets is causing the cancellation of metal mining projects and investment in Mexico. The functionary pointed out that while the price of gold, for example, was 400 dollars an ounce in 1996, today it costs only 285 dollars. According to the Gold Institute, Mexico will be the largest producer of this metal within a few years. The country is also the largest producer of silver in the world. -0- Copyright Infolatina, all rights reserved.

To: Mark Bartlett who wrote (27759)	2/4/1999 10:38:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116795

Have you ever thought what may happen if all of the electronic trades that we all take for granted now, were suddenly thrown into chaos.... who own what and how much .... and what if you could not sort out the mess? Electrons are hard to count ... gold is relatively simple in comparison. And neither would your gold go far in such an instance. Most of all gold trades are done electronically less you forgot. An electronic collapse of this society would make even your gold worthless. You'd better off having a couple of years of supplies to barter with. Hmmm.... not to be rude Mark, but you really should think your arguments through a little better before you try to use my words out of context. I clearly stated that our founding fathers were dealing with the matter of individual and geographically separated banks in early America who were issuing their own currency with few reserves to back it, and thus making it difficult to determine the solvency of the banks. Gold served as a binding "currency" at that time, BEFORE there was a single currency in the US. That is BEFORE THERE WAS A SINGLE BINDING CURRENCY in the US. They obviously weren't opposed to inflationary spending since they did enough it on their own during the revolution and afterward. But they were against banks, not under US gov't control or supervision, pumping out huge quantities of cash and leaving the US gov't on the hook for their activities. Before there was a strong rule of law and nationwide ability to uphold that law, there was gold. Gold kept people honest as to the actual solvency of their institutions and their reserve maintenance requirements (they were still lending money that wasn't fully backed by gold, one for one). I appreciate and understand your emotional fervency for gold, but I certainly won't participate nor pay homage at it's shiny altar. For me it is a business decision, that's all. Regards, Ron