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: ahhaha who wrote (33790)	5/13/1999 11:46:00 AM
From: Brad Bolen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116764

Ahhaha, Nice post. But I don't understand your point. Are you denying the existence of manipulation as a concept, or as a reality, both, or neither? On the one hand, it sounds like you just think it is just impossible to prove: "It is impossible to prove that a manipulation occurred." On the other you sound like there isn't any such thing: " gold price can't be manipulated" The Hunts were not trying to corner the market? That isn't against the law, that isn't manipulation? Sorry, I don't get it. And BTW, I wasn't collecting silver, just coins. Confirmed beginner. B. P.S. I heard CNBC will have a piece on this non event in gold.

To: ahhaha who wrote (33790)	5/13/1999 2:12:00 PM
From: donald martin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116764

Good post. I can't help but tweak the noses of the conspiracy subscribers...I was thinking, and posted, why don't people who take long positions insist on taking physical delivery? I mean, by not taking physical delivery, do they not undermine their own positions by allowing it to be lent to short sellers? Fast forward (speculatively) to a period where gold is trading MUCH higher. And the shorts are margin called out of their positions with tremendous losses. Won't they be able to make the argument that the people who bought and then lent gold manipulated the markets by lending out so much of their gold? resulting in a massive short squeeze? that resulted in their receiving "grossly unfair and manipulated" profits as a result of that massive short squeeze? and if/when this short squeeze occurs, by it's sheer magnitude, it could ONLY have been caused by the collusion of gold lenders seeking to rip off short sellers? This is why I don't like the precedent GATA sets. Now suddenly any market gain is subject to confiscation if enough people cry, "MANIPULATION!" Just seems to me that there are too many people out there who are geniuses when the market moves with them, and victims of manipulation when it moves against them.