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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (28235)	2/14/1999 3:07:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116764

Taurus, How do you define value? If I had purchased gold at almost any point during the past decade, my value would have DEPRECIATED. Ie: When the time came to convert that gold into exchangable currency for the purpose of purchasing something, I would receive fewer dollars per ounce of gold now than I would have in '82. During that time I could have purchased any number of investments which would have converted into greater amounts of dollars which I could then convert back into another asset that was undevalued and appreciating. That is what storehouse of value means to me. It is something that either maintains or appreciates in value relative to other semi-liquid investments. Whatever is "hot" is what appreciates. Gold has depreciated some 60% from its '82 highs at $850/ounce. Hardly the sound storehouse of value that so many of the '80s economic doomsayers say it would be. What was a better storehouse of value over the past 15 years, Gold or Microsoft?? Or for that matter, how about comparing gold's performance versus Coca-Cola, Mobil, Exxon, Johnson & Johnson... etc. This flies in the face of most of your commentary and obvious prejudice thus far.Your saturation of the thread with non relevance would put these objectives well in the background from your stated purpose. Not at all. Gold vs Fiat is the battle of one illusion over another. It makes full sense to monitor the price of both illusions to see which is winning out. Money, the market, and the price of gold is all based upon the psychological reactions of people. Since gold directly competes for favor with the Fiat system, it stands to reason I would be interested in following it and knowing upon which "horse" to bet. Regards, Ron

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (28235)	2/14/1999 4:07:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 116764

Ref: 18.) Yet it's a fact when you cut to the foundation of exactly what really is. Money is a proxy, whether paper, gold, or those big stone wheels they used to use on Yap Island. By themselves they are no more valuable than toilet paper or the rock from which they are extracted. But backed up by the belief of human beings willing to accept and exchange goods for the particular proxy du jour. So the ultimate question in discussing which proxy is a better storehouse of value depends on human psychology, primarily the emotions of greed and fear. Q: What is your knowledge of the US position on Gold in its CB? I believe I've answered that. Since I don't work for them, they don't call me to discuss it. But the invitation would be open for them to do so at anytime.... <VBG> However, Using logic based upon the outstanding amount of debt, the fact that 1/2 the world is in recession/depression, and the systemic shocks we're seeing from unexpected events like LTCM, I would guess that they want to continue demonetizing gold. Since they can't do that overnight, they have to do it gradually by intimidating the gold market with the leverage they hold through there enourmous reserves of gold. So the smaller CBs are selling their gold, because they realize the Dollar and Euro are the global reserve currencies to which their economies and financial health are essentially and irrevocably tied. Since the Fed and ECB have more difficulty selling due to the enourmous influence they bear on the overall gold market, they let their subordinate banks do so. So the dollar is taking a greater presence in the world. I'm certainly not opposed to that. I wouldn't care if the dollar became the global curency. Then if there were a NWO, it would be based more upon OUR values, not someone elses. I certainly see less chance of the US losing sovereignty than I do other nations losing their's to the US dollar. But then again, I'm an American so I might have a bit of a bias. Regards, Ron