Gold Sales Up Dramatically
fed...@halifax.com
TORONTO - Fearing havoc from the so-called Y2K problem, Canadians are stocking
up on gold bars and coins as protection against a meltdown of the global
financial system.
INDEPTH:Y2K
LINKS: Websites related to this story
The gold standard may be long gone, but that's not stopping sales of the
precious metal from skyrocketing. The Royal Canadian Mint reports that sales
of Maple Leaf gold coins are up more than 20 per cent. They've sold 650,000
ounces so far this year, up from 1997's total sales of 538,000 ounces. The
Y2K problem means some computers programmed to read dates as two-digit codes
will be unable to recognize the switch to the new millennium. Many fear this
could cause serious disruptions in everything from phone systems to PCs.
Some people believe that 2000 will also bring big problems for regular
financial instruments such as money and bank cards and so have turned to gold
as a precautionary measure.
David Madge, who supervises gold bullion sales for the Mint says he even know
of one U.S. resident who has bought $15 million worth of gold coins. That
sale, he says, was directly related to Y2K. ===================
The smart money moves in. The laggards will weep and gnash their teeth when
the prices have doubled and tripled. It is always this way. The smart people
get in at the get go. The losers are all jammed in the door frame willing to
pay five times the price, gladly, when it is already too late.
http://www.cbcnews.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/1998/12/18/gold981218
--
Paul Milne
"A prudent man sees evil and hides himself; the naive proceed and pay
the penalty." (Proverbs 22.3; 27.12)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The Goobers
>
> Gold sales soar with Y2K fears
>
> TORONTO - Fearing havoc from the so-called Y2K problem, Canadians are stocking
> up on gold bars and coins as protection against a meltdown of the global
> financial system.
Hmmmmm... demand is up, supply is constant... yup, everything about
supply-and-demand tells us that the price should be going down!
DD
Geraldo Tse Tung
This is probably the premier example of how they can hold the price down
artificially.
The Goobers
Oh no... you mean we're *not* dealing with markets but with the
dreaded... They? Which 'They' is it this week?
DD
Joseph E. McIsaac
It's the same 'They' that forces *all* companies to lie about their Y2K readiness. In
reality, nobody is working on Y2K, but 'They' have a grand scheme to dupe the world. It
really is quite a vast conspiracy.
> DD
The Goobers
Oh, pshoo, *that* ol' They? I thought there was a *new* one to worry
about!
DD
Geraldo Tse Tung
>
> Geraldo Tse Tung wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is probably the premier example of how they can hold the price down
> > artificially.
>
> Oh no... you mean we're *not* dealing with markets but with the
> dreaded... They? Which 'They' is it this week?
>
I was going to ask *you* that, but I'll take a guess: It's that Gold Finger
guy.
The Goobers
Leaving aside the fruitfulness of asking *me* which They *you* refer
to... nope, it ain't ol' Auric; he swore off precious metals after the
Hunt brothers fiasco and deals only in frozen orange-juice concentrate
contracts now.
DD
Chris Odom
The Goobers wrote in message <367BDC54...@home.com>...
>Oh no... you mean we're *not* dealing with markets but with the
>dreaded... They? Which 'They' is it this week?
>
>DD
This discussion is obviously centered around the apparent manipulation of
the gold market?
The facts of the case are that demand for gold has gone up 300% this year
and the price has not changed at all. Furthermore, I don't need to remind
people that $300/oz price today is equivilant to $150/oz price in 1980,
since the dollar has lost about half of its value in that time frame.
So even as the dollar has lost half its value, gold has stayed at nearly
exactly $300 per ounce. Has anyone ever looked at a normal price chart?
Does it ever appear like a flat line? Something is rotten in the state of
Denmark.
Alan Greenspan recently testified before Congress to say that the central
banks stand ready to increase gold leasing in the event that the price
starts to move up. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's on record. Why
should the Fed care what price gold is? Imagine if he had made the same
statement about spare ribs or pork bellies, or indeed any other commodity.
What is his motivation here?
There is a massive short position in the gold market. Estimates range from
7000 to 14000 tons. There is a lot of nonexistent gold being traded today
in paper form. This gold derivatives market is a new one, but it's been
very profitable as long as the price continues to go down. Look at Long
Term Capital Management, the Hedge Fund that recently was bailed out by the
Fed "to prevent a systemic breakdown". The news stories were careful to
point out that LTCM wasn't "holding" any gold. That's right, they weren't
holding the gold. But they had sold short some 300 tons of it. If they had
been forced to cover that short sale, everyone else would have been forced
to cover as well.
That short squeeze is yet to occur, my specific prediction is sometime soon
after the introduction of the Euro currency. Y2K or no Y2K, the dollar will
collapse and gold will skyrocket within the next few months as a result of
this unprecedented, massive short position in gold. This market HAS been
manipulated to a high degree. If you doubt that, I can only assume that you
missed recent news reports that the Clinton Administration is quietly
assembling a task force to investigate the apparent manipulation of gold
prices by wall street insiders and international bankers. I assume he is
doing this because he knows it's going to come out anyway and he wants to
cover his ass.
In any case, there is quite a bit of evidence in this area, I could post a
few articles on the topic since I don't think you've done any research into
it yourself. The manipulation of gold is not a "black helicopter" theory,
as the world shall soon painfully discover.
Good luck.
Tim May
(Jacques Bernier) wrote:
> Cinton has been a marked man because he is trying with all his might
> to slow down or stop the One World Cabal. This task force could blow
> them to kingdom come.
>
> Anyone remember the speech in which Clinton refers to Carrol Quigley?
> Who was he? What did he wrote and how many of you read it?
"Tragedy and Hope." (And, no, I did _not_ have to consult the Web for this
answer.) Quigley was a Georgetown professor, one of Clinton's.
You should bear in mind that many consider Quigley intimately linked with
the New World Order. Clinton of course is a full-fledged member of the
Trilateral Commission, and so on. (Some would point to the drug operations
run out of Mena, Arkansas during his tenure as evidence of his own
complicity in the "cowboy and yankee war.")
>
> How many of you would like to erase the word conspiracy from the
> dictionnary?
A perfectly fine word, so why erase it?
> Let see some historical erudition here. Student DD will refrain its
> witty quips from distracting the class until the answers are in :=]
>
Do I pass?
--Tim May
--
We would go to their homes, and we'd kill their wives and
their children. We would kill their families
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
The Goobers
>
> The Goobers wrote in message <367BDC54...@home.com>...
> >Oh no... you mean we're *not* dealing with markets but with the
> >dreaded... They? Which 'They' is it this week?
> >
> >DD
>
> This discussion is obviously centered around the apparent manipulation of
> the gold market?
>
> The facts of the case are that demand for gold has gone up 300% this year
> and the price has not changed at all.
First of all, it would be interesting to see whence came this 300%
figure; if you'd be so kind as to support this assertion it might be
something to consider. Secondly, were it to be true then the
supply-demand relationship can be explained as the result of increased
production (also easily verified) and/or the release of previously
'hidden' gold into the market... such as is done by, say, small holders
such as the former USSR.
But first things first, of course... please document this 300%
demand-increase figure.
[snippage]
> This market HAS been
> manipulated to a high degree. If you doubt that, I can only assume that you
> missed recent news reports that the Clinton Administration is quietly
> assembling a task force to investigate the apparent manipulation of gold
> prices by wall street insiders and international bankers.
You're quite right, I missed those recent news reports... might you be
able to substantiate them as well? A URL is all that is needed.
[snippage]
> In any case, there is quite a bit of evidence in this area, I could post a
> few articles on the topic since I don't think you've done any research into
> it yourself.
There is always more research to be done on many matters; please be so
kind as to point in the appropriate directions.
DD
Jacques Bernier
to slow down or stop the One World Cabal. This task force could blow
them to kingdom come.
Anyone remember the speech in which Clinton refers to Carrol Quigley?
Who was he? What did he wrote and how many of you read it?
How many of you would like to erase the word conspiracy from the
dictionnary?
Otherwise what were the *real* historical conspiracies compare to the
conspiracy *theory*?
Let see some historical erudition here. Student DD will refrain its
witty quips from distracting the class until the answers are in :=]
JB
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:28:32 -0600, "Chris Odom"
<my_email...@enteract.com> wrote:
snip
If you doubt that, I can only assume that you
>missed recent news reports that the Clinton Administration is quietly
>assembling a task force to investigate the apparent manipulation of gold
>prices by wall street insiders and international bankers. I assume he is
>doing this because he knows it's going to come out anyway and he wants to
>cover his ass.
snip
Tom Beckner
I agree with the points you raise, and in addition thought the dollar
was weak in 1980. I know at the time mine was.
Tom Beckner
tbeckner at erols dot com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goobers wrote:
>
> Chris Odom wrote:
> >
> > The Goobers wrote in message <367BDC54...@home.com>...
> > >Oh no... you mean we're *not* dealing with markets but with the
> > >dreaded... They? Which 'They' is it this week?
> > >
> > >DD
> >
> > This discussion is obviously centered around the apparent manipulation of
> > the gold market?
> >
> > The facts of the case are that demand for gold has gone up 300% this year
> > and the price has not changed at all.
>
> First of all, it would be interesting to see whence came this 300%
> figure; if you'd be so kind as to support this assertion it might be
> something to consider. Secondly, were it to be true then the
> supply-demand relationship can be explained as the result of increased
> production (also easily verified) and/or the release of previously
> 'hidden' gold into the market... such as is done by, say, small holders
> such as the former USSR.
>
> But first things first, of course... please document this 300%
> demand-increase figure.
>
> [snippage]
>
> > This market HAS been
> > manipulated to a high degree. If you doubt that, I can only assume that you
> > missed recent news reports that the Clinton Administration is quietly
> > assembling a task force to investigate the apparent manipulation of gold
> > prices by wall street insiders and international bankers.
>
The Goobers
>
> DD:
>
> I agree with the points you raise, and in addition thought the dollar
> was weak in 1980. I know at the time mine was.
Pfoo, I didn't do all *that* much... just ask for the verification of
some assertions and recalled a bit of economic theory from my Kollidj
Daze. I didn't use the useless rhetorical devices of 'I thought not!'
and 'I'm waiting...', though; perhaps that is why it seems so
'reasonable'.
DD
The Goobers
>
> Cinton has been a marked man because he is trying with all his might
> to slow down or stop the One World Cabal. This task force could blow
> them to kingdom come.
Oh, Mr Bernier, now I am *very* confused... aren't a goodly number of
folks out there lambasting President Clinton because they say he *is* a
One Worlder, looking to render the United States of America a
non-soveriegn member of this Horrid Group?
[snippage]
> Let see some historical erudition here. Student DD will refrain its
> witty quips from distracting the class until the answers are in :=]
Oops.
DD
>
> On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 21:28:32 -0600, "Chris Odom"
> <my_email...@enteract.com> wrote:
> snip
>
> If you doubt that, I can only assume that you
> >missed recent news reports that the Clinton Administration is quietly
> >assembling a task force to investigate the apparent manipulation of gold
Jacques Bernier
Quigley approved of the goals but not the methods.
>"Tragedy and Hope." (And, no, I did _not_ have to consult the Web for this
>answer.) Quigley was a Georgetown professor, one of Clinton's.
The Mesa business was under Bush and North's watch. I find it amazing
that people blame Clinton for it. Fact is, I think Americans are
scared shitless of Lord Bush and sons.
>
>Do I pass?
You get a B+.
>
>--Tim May
>
Jacques Bernier
Clinton was brought to England on a Rhodes scholarship. I guess he
managed to retain its sanity nevertheless. Is idol was Kennedy.
Since he has been elected, he has refused to play the game, namely, to
surrender the soveriegnty of the USA by refusing to adopt *austerity
measures* and being dependant on the UN diktats.
He also declared that from now on, Germany would enjoy the *special
relationship". They were not amused!
Why would England orchestrate such attacks on him if he was there man?
Remember the White House's "blow-back" report? Lord Rees-Moog and
Ambrose Pritchard-Evans are the operatives in this.
What are the indicators that Clinton is a One World proponent? I do
not think that trade policies totally qualify.
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:20:39 GMT, The Goobers <docd...@home.com>
wrote:
snip
>Oh, Mr Bernier, now I am *very* confused... aren't a goodly number of
>folks out there lambasting President Clinton because they say he *is* a
>One Worlder, looking to render the United States of America a
>non-soveriegn member of this Horrid Group?
snip
SB
There is only one party in Washington, they all are one big family,
fighting among themselves and protecting each other from outsiders.
--------------------------------------
"Justice will not be served until those unaffected are as
outraged as those who are." -Benjamin Franklin
docd...@clark.net
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>
>Clinton was brought to England on a Rhodes scholarship. I guess he
>managed to retain its sanity nevertheless. Is idol was Kennedy.
How very nice.
>
>Since he has been elected, he has refused to play the game, namely, to
>surrender the soveriegnty of the USA by refusing to adopt *austerity
>measures* and being dependant on the UN diktats.
Since he was elected... *when*, Mr Bernier? Are you saying that the great
They are so weak that They cannot deal with a thorn-in-their-sides for
*six* years?
>
>He also declared that from now on, Germany would enjoy the *special
>relationship". They were not amused!
I am confused again... which 'they' are the not-amused ones here?
>
>Why would England orchestrate such attacks on him if he was there man?
Which 'such' attacks? I thought that England and the United States were
acting in concert recently
>Remember the White House's "blow-back" report?
No.
>Lord Rees-Moog and
>Ambrose Pritchard-Evans are the operatives in this.
How nice for them, as well.
>
>What are the indicators that Clinton is a One World proponent? I do
>not think that trade policies totally qualify.
I am not sure of such things, Mr Benier, as I give them the credence and
attention which I deem they deserve. I would suggest that you ask the
folks on misc.survivalism or alt.conspiracy for the indicators of
President Clinton's One World leanings... I am sure the arguments will be
as persuasive and forceful as the ones you've brought forward here.
DD
SB
Oh boy! Clinton is the greatest thing.
Say no to Independent Quebec!
--------------------------------------
"Justice will not be served until those unaffected are as
outraged as those who are." -Benjamin Franklin
Jacques Bernier wrote in message <367e63de...@news.microtec.net>...
>
>Clinton was brought to England on a Rhodes scholarship. I guess he
>managed to retain its sanity nevertheless. Is idol was Kennedy.
>
>Since he has been elected, he has refused to play the game, namely, to
>surrender the soveriegnty of the USA by refusing to adopt *austerity
>measures* and being dependant on the UN diktats.
>
>He also declared that from now on, Germany would enjoy the *special
>relationship". They were not amused!
>
>Why would England orchestrate such attacks on him if he was there man?
>Remember the White House's "blow-back" report? Lord Rees-Moog and
>Ambrose Pritchard-Evans are the operatives in this.
>
>What are the indicators that Clinton is a One World proponent? I do
>not think that trade policies totally qualify.
>
SB
--------------------------------------
"Justice will not be served until those unaffected are as
outraged as those who are." -Benjamin Franklin
docd...@clark.net wrote in message <75ltkv$h99$1...@callisto.clark.net>...
>In article <367e63de...@news.microtec.net>,
>Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>>
>>Clinton was brought to England on a Rhodes scholarship. I guess he
>>managed to retain its sanity nevertheless. Is idol was Kennedy.
>
>How very nice.
>
>>
>>Since he has been elected, he has refused to play the game, namely, to
>>surrender the soveriegnty of the USA by refusing to adopt *austerity
>>measures* and being dependant on the UN diktats.
>
>Since he was elected... *when*, Mr Bernier? Are you saying that the great
>They are so weak that They cannot deal with a thorn-in-their-sides for
>*six* years?
>
>>
>>He also declared that from now on, Germany would enjoy the *special
>>relationship". They were not amused!
>
>I am confused again... which 'they' are the not-amused ones here?
>
>>
>>Why would England orchestrate such attacks on him if he was there man?
>
>Which 'such' attacks? I thought that England and the United States were
>acting in concert recently
>
>>Remember the White House's "blow-back" report?
>
>No.
>
>>Lord Rees-Moog and
>>Ambrose Pritchard-Evans are the operatives in this.
>
>How nice for them, as well.
>
>>
>>What are the indicators that Clinton is a One World proponent? I do
>>not think that trade policies totally qualify.
>
>I am not sure of such things, Mr Benier, as I give them the credence and
>attention which I deem they deserve. I would suggest that you ask the
>folks on misc.survivalism or alt.conspiracy for the indicators of
>President Clinton's One World leanings... I am sure the arguments will be
>as persuasive and forceful as the ones you've brought forward here.
>
>DD
SB
President Clinton is a part of ultra conservative conspiracy to take over
the US government. Since his political beginnings he masqueraded himself as
a liberal/socialist to advance his conservative agenda.
His secret goals of bringing prayer back to schools, illegalize abortion
and having everyone pay for their own insurance can only be reached when he
becomes a dictator in 2000.
Think about it, it soon all be clear. Gingrich will be his advisor and Jesse
Helms
will be named the US Preacher General.
I will be moving to Moscow soon.
Take care and fight the ultra conservatives!
Jacques Bernier
there.
To help you get your bearings, do some Web research on the White House
report called "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce". But I
think it is hopeless since anything coming out of there must be by
definition useless.
Again Mr. Goobers, what were real conspiracies? I do visit
alt.conspiracy and find pearls in the chaff. Fact is, that contrary to
what seems is your view of history that things just happen, I believe
that history is thick with conspiracies. Plots and counter-plots as we
speak Mr. Naive.
Now, what do you make of the following? Who is right and how do you
know it? A clear answer would be appreciated.
JB
========================================================
http://www.assumption.edu/WebVAX/ETnew/wclin08Jan97.html
British press accused of Clinton conspiracy
By Hugh Davies in Washington
THE Clinton administration has hit back at the American press over its
focus on the potential for scandal to overwhelm the President during
his second term.
The legal office issued a 331-page tome blaming a "media frenzy" -
orchestrated by "Right-wing" think-tanks and abetted by British
newspapers - for the leader's troubles. The report claimed that
activists in the think-tanks fed "conspiracy theories and innuendo" to
receptive US correspondents of London newspapers and, in a "blow-back"
effect, the "mainstream" press of America picked up the British
reports, which were then covered as "real" stories.
The White House singled out Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of The Sunday
Telegraph as a participant in what it said was a well-organised "media
food chain" of events.
The correspondent was described as being on the staff of a British
"tabloid". The document said that in his reporting of incidents such
as the mysterious death of Vincent Foster, a lawyer in the executive
mansion who allegedly shot himself, Mr Evans-Pritchard had even
accused the dead man of being a spy.
Mr Evans-Pritchard said: "I have never written that. I specifically
said I doubted the story. The White House seems to be displaying a
standard of accuracy that would not pass muster at any of the
newspapers they are attacking."
The report also scorns Richard Scaife, the conservative
philanthropist, for using a Ł485 million fortune to fund the Western
Journalism Centre and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper, which
have questioned the official versions of episodes such as the Foster
shooting. The White House bolstered its argument by re-printing a
column by Mike Royko, a usually witty Chicago newspaperman, who wrote
that it was always jarring for him to look at the British press and
find that its journalists seemed to be "a bunch of scumbags".
He singled out for mention William Rees-Mogg of The Times, saying: "I
can't resist calling a scumbag a scumbag, even if he takes high tea
and had a hyphenated name." The invective was prompted by a Rees-Mogg
article on Whitewater and "corruption" in Arkansas.
The high anxiety being displayed by the White House is understandable.
Newsweek has just admitted to a change of heart in its treatment of a
claim by Paula Jones that Clinton sexually harassed her at a hotel. It
now finds some merit in her case, as does the highly-respected
American Lawyer magazine.
In addition, The New Republic has accused the "establishment" Press of
America of "passivity" in covering Clinton ethics or scandal stories
in 1996, saying that reporters were "culturally sympathetic" to the
leader.
On 21 Dec 1998 16:39:59 GMT, docd...@clark.net () wrote:
>In article <367e63de...@news.microtec.net>,
>Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
snip
docd...@clark.net
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>It seems that you are easily confused. Well, it is a tough world out
>there.
Hey, if it were easy then everyone would just be breezing through, now
sweat, neh?
>
>To help you get your bearings, do some Web research on the White House
>report called "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce". But I
>think it is hopeless since anything coming out of there must be by
>definition useless.
Let me get this straight... 'To help you get your bearings, do some
reasearch on... since anything coming out of there must be by definition
useless'.
Well, I'll not let that deter me... but if I come to a similar conclusion
one shouldn't be surprised.
>
>Again Mr. Goobers, what were real conspiracies?
Ones which don't let the likes o' you and me find out about them, of
course.
>I do visit
>alt.conspiracy and find pearls in the chaff. Fact is, that contrary to
>what seems is your view of history that things just happen, I believe
>that history is thick with conspiracies. Plots and counter-plots as we
>speak Mr. Naive.
How very... nice for you to live in a world with such richnesses in it, Mr
Bernier.
>
>Now, what do you make of the following? Who is right and how do you
>know it? A clear answer would be appreciated.
I think, Mr Bernier, that the fare which you offer is *far* too rich for
one whose tastes are as simple as mine; rather than risk my health trying
to consume such delicacies i shall stick with my simple gruel of Thesis,
Hypothesis and Synthesis, *occaisionally* livened and leavened by the odd
Leap of Faith.
DD
Linda
>
> Chris Odom wrote:
> >
> > The Goobers wrote in message <367BDC54...@home.com>...
> > >Oh no... you mean we're *not* dealing with markets but with the
> > >dreaded... They? Which 'They' is it this week?
> > >
> > >DD
> >
> > This discussion is obviously centered around the apparent manipulation of
> > the gold market?
> >
> > The facts of the case are that demand for gold has gone up 300% this year
> > and the price has not changed at all.
> First of all, it would be interesting to see whence came this 300%
> figure; if you'd be so kind as to support this assertion it might be
> something to consider. Secondly, were it to be true then the
> supply-demand relationship can be explained as the result of increased
> production (also easily verified) and/or the release of previously
> 'hidden' gold into the market... such as is done by, say, small holders
> such as the former USSR.
>
> But first things first, of course... please document this 300%
> demand-increase figure.
>
> [snippage]
>
> > This market HAS been
> > manipulated to a high degree. If you doubt that, I can only assume that you
> > missed recent news reports that the Clinton Administration is quietly
> > assembling a task force to investigate the apparent manipulation of gold
> > prices by wall street insiders and international bankers.
>
> You're quite right, I missed those recent news reports... might you be
> able to substantiate them as well? A URL is all that is needed.
A few articles are below. But in another post Chris Odom wrote:
> In any case, there is quite a bit of evidence in this area, I could post a
> few articles on the topic since I don't think you've done any research into
> it yourself. The manipulation of gold is not a "black helicopter" theory,
> as the world shall soon painfully discover.
I would be interested in seeing more articles on the manipulation of
gold prices.
Linda
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/3343
Date: 1998-12-18 09:04:19
Subject: Gold Coin Sales in the U.S. Are up Over 100%
Link: http://www.gold.org/Gedt/Gdt25/Usa.htm
Comment: Gold coin sales by the various mints have more than doubled
the 1997 sales in the U.S. (Click
through to see chart.) Third quarter sales were up 300% over third
quarter, 1997.
-----
Investment demand, as measured by coin sales from the issuing mints,
rose strongly in the third quarter. At 23.5 tonnes, this was almost
three times the previous record for a third quarter (8.7 tonnes in 1997)
since the WGC started to collect quarterly data.
=====================================
=====================================
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/3352
Canadian Gold Coin Sales Rise
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/docs/news/19981218/ROBFront/RGOLD.html
snippet...
Mr. Madge reports that consumers are swarming for the small fractional
Maple Leaf coins -- particularly a 1/10th of an ounce coin retailing for
$38 (U.S.).
Still, he knows of one U.S. resident who plunked down $15-million for
50,000 ounces of Maple Leaf gold coins. "That sale was directly related
to Y2K," he said. "It's pretty serious [business]." ....
============================
============================
and an old one.. from Sept.24:
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/2742
U.S. Gold Eagle Coins: Sales Are Booming
Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/fun/bbco/cmdspot/cmdspot1_01.html
Chicago, Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Dennis Forgue, a grey-
haired, bespectacled coin dealer who weathered the inflation-
fueled gold crazes of the 1970s and '80s, has never seen a coin
market quite like today's.
Though gold's waning value as a hedge against inflation sent
bullion prices to 19-year lows in August, that hasn't stopped
people from scooping up coins like candy.
<snip>
Demand isn't limited to the U.S. Last year, 99 metric tons of
gold was used to fabricate official coins worldwide, according to
London-based consultants Gold Fields Mineral Services, up 58
percent from the year before. At today's prices, that's about
$900 million in coins minted from gold.
Coins from other countries are just as popular as the Eagle,
Forgue said. British gold sovereigns can fetch 10 percent
above the current price of gold and demand for the Chinese
Panda and Canadian Maple Leaf is also growing, Forgue said.
Soaring Eagles
Several of Forgue's customers are first-time gold buyers who
will spend up to $10,000 coins, most of them American Eagles.
Sales of the Eagles are soaring. The one-ounce coin
commands a 7 percent premium to the current gold price, or
about $20, meaning the coins fetch $315 an ounce compared
with bullion prices of about $295 an ounce. American Eagles
comes in one-tenth of an ounce, a quarter of an ounce and in
one ounce coins.
In August, the U.S. said Eagles were selling at their fastest rate
since sales began in 1986, and for the month, more coins were
sold than in all of 1991, said Jack Szcerban, program manager
for bullion coins at the U.S. Mint in Washington.
The coins are especially valued by Americans because they are
legal tender, backed by the U.S. government.
Demand for Eagles has been so great that employees at the
U.S. Treasury's minting facilities at West Point, New York, are
working overtime and Sundays.
It's not just concern about a computer meltdown at the turn of
the century that's driving demand for hard assets likes coins,
dealers say. . . . more....
Jacques Bernier
thinking of Plato's Higher Hypothesis. Confused again?
In any case, it seems that you did not answered the questions even if
there was plenty of "They" in the article.
If you can not stand the heat...
JB
On 21 Dec 1998 19:16:03 GMT, docd...@clark.net () wrote:
snip
The Goobers
>
> I thought it was Thesis - Anti-thesis - Synthesis or maybe you were
> thinking of Plato's Higher Hypothesis. Confused again?
Not at all... I already admitted the clarity, neh?
>
> In any case, it seems that you did not answered the questions even if
> there was plenty of "They" in the article.
Yes, I have noticed that travelogues are frequently filled with detailed
descriptions of the activities of the They; the specimen you gave was,
indeed, a perfect example of this.
>
> If you can not stand the heat...
Travelogues are chock-full of heat, certainly, Mr Bernier, and
descriptions of drones re-labelling trays of gold are *most* convincing.
Now, what question did I miss answering?
DD
The Goobers
How odd... perhaps I am not reading it correctly but this graph also
shows a 3Q price of about US$440/oz? At any rate the page's lead line
reads 'offtake was 19.5% higher', with jewellery demand 3% and
'investment demand, *as measured by coin sales from the issuing
mints*... (a)t 23.5 tonnes... likely to challenge previous record years
such as 1986 and 1978.'
But now I see where the figure came from, at least... that 300% increase
is in sales of gold coins by issuing mints, the smallest segment of the
market (jewellery up 3%, total market up 17%).
In other words, the number of gold coins sold by mints, to dealers and
individuals combined, was some 1,770,520oz.
DD
Chris Odom
The Goobers wrote in message <367DC2CA...@home.com>...
>Chris Odom wrote:
>>
>> The Goobers wrote in message <367BDC54...@home.com>...
>> >Oh no... you mean we're *not* dealing with markets but with the
>> >dreaded... They? Which 'They' is it this week?
>>
>> This discussion is obviously centered around the apparent manipulation of
>> the gold market?
>>
>> The facts of the case are that demand for gold has gone up 300% this year
>> and the price has not changed at all.
>
>First of all, it would be interesting to see whence came this 300%
>figure; if you'd be so kind as to support this assertion it might be
>something to consider. Secondly, were it to be true then the
>supply-demand relationship can be explained as the result of increased
>production (also easily verified) and/or the release of previously
>'hidden' gold into the market... such as is done by, say, small holders
>such as the former USSR.
>
>But first things first, of course... please document this 300%
>demand-increase figure.
Isn't the topic of this thread "Gold Sales Up Dramatically" ?? I figured
you couldn't miss this one since it's all over the news. Very well. It's
important that you keep one thing in mind...there are many different forms
of gold. Gold futures, gold stocks, gold bullion, gold options, etc. I was
specifically referring to gold bullion, and that is where I will "back up my
assertions" so to speak. However, I would also like to note that sales have
gone literally through the roof on options for Dec 1999 gold at $390 per
ounce.
You might ask yourself, how is it possible that physical gold demand can
triple without a noticeable effect on the price? Simple, we'll just flood
the market with more paper gold and hope no one takes delivery on it (since
there isn't enough gold in existence to cover that kind of squeeze.) Your
theory was that the supply must be going up? Perhaps the paper supply...
But there are MANY more factors in the equation than that simplistic
assumption. Consider that the yearly production is miniscule compared to
the overall supply. It's not like oranges or spare ribs, where the yearly
production IS the total supply. On the contrary, most of the gold above
ground has been that way for a long time, thus yearly production has little
effect on overall price! Furthermore, the price of gold is down so low
these days that 70% of the world's gold mines are non-profitable and
are/will be shutting down unless something changes quick (which it will!)
To give you an example of the skyrocketing PHYSICAL GOLD demand, all you
have to do is go check out the US Mint web site. Easy research.
Total number of ounces sold in 1997: 564,250
http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1997.cfm
Total number of ounces sold in 1998: 1,624,500
http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1998.cfm
A 300% increase. Also, note this article (August) on the same site:
http://www.usmint.gov/reading_room/press_release.cfm?id=66
AMERICAN EAGLE GOLD BULLION SALES TOP ONE MILLION
OUNCES
- Strongest Demand for Gold Eagles in Eleven Years -
Washington, D.C. -The U.S. Mint today announced that total sales of Gold
American Eagle Bullion Coins have crossed the one million-ounce mark for
Fiscal Year 1998. This marks the first time the Mint has sold one million
ounces of gold in less than twelve months since the program began in
Fiscal
Year 1987.
One more thing. Your theory about the release of gold by national
governments, I think, is far off base. Yes, CNBC will periodically trot out
the "swiss bank gold sale" scare story whenever the price approaches $300,
but that only affects the naive. Firstly, nations today such as USSR,
Japan, China, etc are quietly and surreptitously accumulating gold, not
selling it. Secondly, the London Bullion Marketing Association trades
several thousand tons of bullion DAILY, within a few days they have traded
the equivilant of the entire world's supply of gold. Some might say that
only a conspiracy theory (involving oil) could possibly account for this,
but the numbers are public record so what else can we do? Suffice to say,
160 ton sale by the Swiss or anyone else is negligible at best.
So if thousands of tons are traded daily, how can an increase in bullion
sales domestically have an affect on the price? Simple. As I said before,
the gold markets today are trading paper, and there is not (nearly) enough
physical to cover that "fiat gold". But when you buy bullion, you take
delivery every time. This is an historic opportunity. You can always sell
the gold later, eh? This is why Alan Greenspan testified before Congress
(as I noted in my previous post) that the CB's stand ready to dump more
paper gold on the market in the event that the price starts to edge up. And
again I ask: Why the hell would he have any motivation to do that? If it's
just an insignificant commodity...
>> This market HAS been
>> manipulated to a high degree. If you doubt that, I can only assume that
you
>> missed recent news reports that the Clinton Administration is quietly
>> assembling a task force to investigate the apparent manipulation of gold
>> prices by wall street insiders and international bankers.
>
>You're quite right, I missed those recent news reports... might you be
>able to substantiate them as well? A URL is all that is needed.
I don't have the URL offhand, but I'm sure you could look it up with LITTLE
EFFORT. Here is the article itself:
By Martin Mann --The Spotlight
New York City, New York - The White House is quietly assembling a task force
of federal investigators to look into reports that a back-room syndicate of
Wall Street’s largest banks and hedge funds has been engaged in vast and
risky speculative maneuvers that involved, among other tactics, rigging the
market value and global supply of gold.
This vital precious metal has been bought and sold for more than a year in
large quantities at unnaturally low and stagnant price levels in both of the
world’s principal gold trading centers, London and New York, sources noted.
When Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan engineered an emergency bailout
worth billions last September for a foundering East Coast hedge fund, known
as Long Term Capital Management ( LTCM ) , regulators found that this
private investment firm had assumed large hidden trading positions in gold.
That was a disturbing discovery, sources say. LTCM was known for wheeling
and dealing in the securities and currency markets, but not in commodities.
“They made enormous bets on stocks, bonds and even Asian currencies,” says
veteran financial analyst Ron Welker. “When they suddenly went bust in late
August, they were in danger of defaulting on speculative forward contracts
worth a staggering $200 billion. But gold was never supposed to be part of
LTCM’s portfolio.
“LTCM used gold merely as an instrument to finance its gambles,” says
Welker. “They found that they could borrow gold in any quantity at
dirt-cheap interest rates, often amounting to no more that one and one-half
percent. They immediately sold their borrowed bullion, and thus acquired
funding on which they paid only minimal interest, far below the prevailing
loan rates.”
There was a catch, of course. “Gold prices had to be kept stagnant,
otherwise LTCM would have incurred a loss, instead of a profit, when its
gold-borrowing contracts expired and it had to buy back the bullion it had
sold in order to return it to the lenders,” Welker explained.
But LTCM was not alone in making mammoth speculative bets in the financial
markets, regulators found.
“Wall Street’s largest commercial and investment banks are increasingly
acting like hedge funds themselves,” says Tracy Corrigan, who covers U.S.
money markets for The Financial Times, the prestigious business daily based
in England.
Behind the scenes were the Rockefeller dynasty’s flagship, Chase Manhattan
conglomerate, Citigroup, the largest U.S. financial services corporation,
and Bankers Trust. They were all found to have turned to the sort of
high-risk speculation characteristic of hedge funds.
”They all reported losses running into the billions after LTCM’s collapse”,
says Welker. “Many of these megabanks were apparently also involved in
borrowing and manipulating vast amounts of gold to finance their betting
streaks.”
SPECULATIVE RAIDS?
Was gold used to help fuel the speculative raids that wrecked the economies
of half-a-dozen Asian countries last
year? A group of regional leaders, led by Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir
Mohamad, Malaysia’s long-ruling nationalist strongman, wants to know.
Moreover, as this issue of The Spotlight went to press, it was learned that
at the Clinton White House, a recently
formed and mysterious authority known as the President’s Working Group on
Financial Markets is moving to coordinate its own broad investigation of
these speculative excesses that have roiled the worlds financial and
commodity markets in recent months.
Exclusive to the Spotlight
ET
<snip excellent research on gold sales>
> One more thing. Your theory about the release of gold by national
> governments, I think, is far off base. Yes, CNBC will periodically trot out
> the "swiss bank gold sale" scare story whenever the price approaches $300,
> but that only affects the naive. Firstly, nations today such as USSR,
> Japan, China, etc are quietly and surreptitously accumulating gold, not
> selling it. Secondly, the London Bullion Marketing Association trades
> several thousand tons of bullion DAILY, within a few days they have traded
> the equivilant of the entire world's supply of gold.
It sounds like a monetary system to me. Somebody thinks it's money, DD.
> Some might say that
> only a conspiracy theory (involving oil) could possibly account for this,
> but the numbers are public record so what else can we do? Suffice to say,
> 160 ton sale by the Swiss or anyone else is negligible at best.
> So if thousands of tons are traded daily, how can an increase in bullion
> sales domestically have an affect on the price? Simple. As I said before,
> the gold markets today are trading paper, and there is not (nearly) enough
> physical to cover that "fiat gold". But when you buy bullion, you take
> delivery every time. This is an historic opportunity. You can always sell
> the gold later, eh? This is why Alan Greenspan testified before Congress
> (as I noted in my previous post) that the CB's stand ready to dump more
> paper gold on the market in the event that the price starts to edge up. And
> again I ask: Why the hell would he have any motivation to do that? If it's
> just an insignificant commodity...
Yes, it is being traded as money daily. I suspect that 'those' out
there with the ability are trying to maintain a strong dollar value in
gold. The Euro is being pegged to gold in a few days and it's in the
US's interest to keep the value of the dollar strong in gold, at least
until this time. The physical amount of gold to back both the dollar
and the Euro would be less in this case. The amount of gold in the ECB
is close to fixed and the Euro will be introduced in parity to the
dollar, thereby assigning a given amount of gold to each Euro. By
default, the same will happen to the dollar. If through manipulation of
the paper gold market, the dollar is kept strong in gold, a smaller
amount of US physical gold will be required to 'back' each dollar. If
gold were trading at $600 per ounce, twice as much physical would be
needed for this backing.
> >> This market HAS been
> >> manipulated to a high degree. If you doubt that, I can only assume that
> you
> >> missed recent news reports that the Clinton Administration is quietly
> >> assembling a task force to investigate the apparent manipulation of gold
> >> prices by wall street insiders and international bankers.
As if the Clinton administration wasn't run by the aforementioned
groups. I'm sure they will get to the bottom of this conspiracy. <g>
<snip>
Thanks for an interesting article, Mr. Odom. I guess we'll see what
happens in 1999 as this squeeze is unwound. Do you suppose we will see
an accounting of gold in the US government's vaults? They must have an
equal amount as the ECB for the dollar to remain equal to the Euro. It
does make you wonder how much gold they actually have. It makes sense
to me that Greenspan knows exactly what dollar/gold price is needed to
prevent an initial run on the dollar post Jan 1, 1999. The paper gold
chart has flatlined recently, so I guess we can assume that the price
needs to fall into this current trading range to prevent huge shifts out
of the dollar. I won't be surprised to see them attempt to push the
price down even further next week. I wouldn't want to be one of those
people who has leased gold from these central banks. This seemed to be
the problem with the hedge funds recently. Hedge funds as sacrificial
lambs come 1999?
ET
Jacques Bernier
JB
ET
>
> Chris Odom <my_email...@enteract.com> wrote:
> | Assertions supported below (if I would be so kind...) :P
>
>
> What happens to the value of gold in a severe deflation?
If I might answer, the value of gold will not change at all. The price
of gold in dollars will change. What is likely to change is the value
of the dollar, or any other fiat currency.
> Can you present a
> plausible arguement that the present deflationary pressures will change
> soon, rather than getting worse?
The current deflationary pressures are the result of malinvestment. See
von Mises, 'The Theory of Money and Credit'. Loans made to individuals,
companies, and governments have not been invested wisely and the result
is the return on these investments is not enough to cover the principle
and interest being charged by the lender. Hence, the loans go 'bad'.
What you are seeing is the process of writing off the loans and attempts
are being made to achieve this without seriously depressing the overall
world economy. It cannot be done. The currencies are now based on
these debts, so as the loans are written off, so is the currency. The
'money' supply shrinks and economic 'growth' goes into reverse.
> If y2k turns out to be severe, what happens to the demand for most goods
> and services, outside of the limited segments of food and shelter? (I'm
> not asking for a refutation of "You can't eat gold"--I'm asking about a
> general deflation caused by people being out of work and deciding not to
> buy anything except absolute necessities.)
Much of this would depend on the governments/banks reaction to the
crisis. If no action is taken by these entities, prices for all goods
will be subject to traditional supply and demand features. No demand =
lower prices. No supply = higher prices. If 'money' becomes scarce,
this further complicates the problem. Those with 'money' in hand, given
sellers will accept it as money, will be able to purchase whatever is
available. Those without 'money' in hand will not be able to purchase
tending to knock down demand. It is a two part problem. Of course,
barter will return, as has happened in Russia.
The government/banks will unlikely pursue this policy, more likely
making 'money' available as much as possible. The Fed has already
indicated it will make currency available if electronic commerce is
effected by the computer problem. The problem for all will then be what
is this currency worth in terms of purchasing power. Since the money is
based on debt, and these debts are being written off, this new money has
questionable value. This is where gold and silver (or any other hard
asset that can be traded), become a good thing to have in your pocket.
The value of real things only change based on strict supply and demand.
What they will cost you in terms of the underlying medium of exchange is
another story, particularly if that medium of exchange is not a hard
asset. To ask today what things will be in demand and what will they
cost is impossible to answer. Certainty is not something we are blessed
with in this case. Historically, uncertainty has benefitted the price
of gold but has not been so good for intangible assets.
ET
Chris Odom
eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote in message ...
>Chris Odom <my_email...@enteract.com> wrote:
>| Assertions supported below (if I would be so kind...) :P
>
>
>What happens to the value of gold in a severe deflation? Can you present a
>plausible arguement that the present deflationary pressures will change
>soon, rather than getting worse?
I assume you ARE referring to the value of gold, and not the price,
denominated in dollars? The answer is, it goes up. That is, the purchasing
power of gold goes up in a deflation as commodity prices fall. The current
manipulation of gold should exacerbate that effect when it occurs, to our
advantage. There is plenty of data available but if you just want a quick
historical analysis, check out the last paragraph of this article (Gold in a
Deflation Part IV):
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_98/ascani121598.html
I'm not currently prepared to present a plausible argument that the present
deflationary pressures will change (rather than get worse). Why? Because I
think it WILL get worse. I think that bodes well for gold.
Also, let's not be confused by the incorrect assumption that deflation and
inflation cannot occur simultaneously. The Asian crisis proves without a
doubt the unnatural quirks of our current, artificial monetary system.
>If y2k turns out to be severe, what happens to the demand for most goods
>and services, outside of the limited segments of food and shelter? (I'm
>not asking for a refutation of "You can't eat gold"--I'm asking about a
>general deflation caused by people being out of work and deciding not to
>buy anything except absolute necessities.)
I'm glad you didn't bring out the "you can't eat gold" drivel, and just for
the sake of the rest of our readers, I'll go ahead and squish that now.
Gold is not a competitor to food. Gold is a competitor to green paper.
Anyone who owns any green paper has no place sitting around complaining that
you can't eat gold. My Y2K preparations include a hand-pumped well, rural
land, food storage, livestock, crops, ammunition, and other assorted
niceties. So this isn't a question of what I will eat. Now: what to do
with the green paper? I can have a pile of green paper in the bank, or a
pile of green paper at home, or I could buy gold and silver. Historically,
there is no argument at all. Any time, any place, any government, any
language, gold is gold. Period.
Now, to address your actual question, what happens to the demand for goods
and services in the event of a collapse? Well what happened recently in
Indonesia? Quite simply, hordes of desperate people descended upon the
stores to trade their (rapidly becoming more worthless) paper money for
something, ANYTHING. ANY hard goods that they could obtain. They didn't
even care what they were buying, they just knew that any hard goods at all
would retain value, whereas their fiat currency would not.
Good money is:
1) large value in a small space (unlike dirt)
2) fungible (every unit identical to every other unit, unlike land)
3) divisible (unlike diamonds...)
4) effective store OVER TIME, should not decay. (unlike food)
Any commodity can be used as a form of money. Food, cows, land, diamonds,
shells, have all been used in this capacity. But eventually, as trades
continue, the commodity that BEST matches the above criteria will
eventually, as a natural market flow, become the defacto currency. That is
why gold is money. It wasn't declared as such by some central bank. It
just IS, and always has been.
I will have food and shelter and everything else I need. I hope you do as
well. Now, in the meantime, accumulate gold at these ridiculously low
prices while you still can. When this short squeeze "unwinds", the action
will be so explosive that the gold markets will close. The Euro will
replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
Time is short.
I would like to submit for your consideration...what happens when China
dumps T-bonds and buys gold and euros? What about Japan? They have
threatened publicly to do just that. What about the $12 Trillion in
individual Japanese savings that will seek safety from their insolvent banks
(to the tune of 49 trillion yen it has just been revealed.) What about when
the dollar itself collapses? Or do we believe that our fake money is
somehow of inherently higher quality than any other fake money?
Historically, what ALWAYS happens, eventually, to any system of man-made
money?
Also, someone else posted this:
------
As if the Clinton administration wasn't run by the aforementioned
groups. I'm sure they will get to the bottom of this conspiracy. <g>
------
I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly. I wonder if the investigation
doesn't exist merely to demonstrate that it was investigated.
And I implore you all: don't store your wealth as green paper. Store it as
precious metals and take delivery of them. You can always convert them
later to dollars, euros, or whatever. There is essentially 0 risk. And
when this manipulation unwinds, there could be potentially huge rewards.
This doesn't mean don't prepare yourself for Y2K. This is just an
additional precaution. Where do you place your trust? In "Them"? They
don't care if you don't believe they exist. As long as you stay a pawn in
their monetary system...
Chris Odom
ET wrote in message <3683C531...@idir.net>...
<snip intelligent, thoughtful commentary>
>Thanks for an interesting article, Mr. Odom. I guess we'll see what
>happens in 1999 as this squeeze is unwound. Do you suppose we will see
>an accounting of gold in the US government's vaults?
Not an honest one.
>They must have an
>equal amount as the ECB for the dollar to remain equal to the Euro. It
>does make you wonder how much gold they actually have.
It does make me wonder how much gold they actually have.
>It makes sense
>to me that Greenspan knows exactly what dollar/gold price is needed to
>prevent an initial run on the dollar post Jan 1, 1999. The paper gold
>chart has flatlined recently, so I guess we can assume that the price
>needs to fall into this current trading range to prevent huge shifts out
>of the dollar. I won't be surprised to see them attempt to push the
>price down even further next week. I wouldn't want to be one of those
>people who has leased gold from these central banks. This seemed to be
>the problem with the hedge funds recently. Hedge funds as sacrificial
>lambs come 1999?
Ok I'd like to throw out a theoretical scenario for your consideration and
imagination. See what you think.
Fool needs some money. He can borrow it at 7% interest. OR, he can borrow
gold at 1% interest. Then sell the gold and he has his money. He DOES have
a future obligation to buy that gold again, at whatever the market rate
happens to be, and pay back his loan.
Sometimes Fool is a gold producer who wants to get paid for next year's gold
production before the price goes down again. Then maybe buy some Internet
Tech stocks and make a real profit :P Sometimes Fool is a Hedge Fund who
wants some cheap capital to gamble with.
Fool goes to Sinister Central Banker. (Sometimes, Bumbling Bullion Bank is
involved in this trade as well, but I'm simplifying it for sake of example.)
Sinister Central Banker gives a gold certificate to Fool. (Notice the
physical gold itself remains in the vault. ALWAYS TAKE DELIVERY.)
Fool promptly dumps his certificate onto the gold market, doing his part for
the continued reduction in the Price Of Gold. This makes life easier for
Genius, who is quietly accumulating physical gold at said price.
At some point in the future, Fool must obtain some gold to repay Sinister
Central Banker. There are many more certificates circulating around than
there is actual gold. Some of this "phantom gold" is still in the ground.
Some of it was created through Fractional Reserve.
Sinister Central Banker prints up some money and buys gold at a damn good
price! Noticing damn good price, Genius continues purchases. So do
Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Y2K hoarders, and many in between.
At some undetermined point in the very near future, the pyramid crumbles.
Lease rates go up. People take delivery. Short sellers start to cover.
Some Fools buy gold at skyrocketing prices, thus subsidizing Y2K
preparations of Genius. They then give this gold to Sinister Central
Banker. Other Fools gratefully take advantage of escape hatch provided by
Sinister Central Banker: just dump your dollars and buy Euros. We'll
accept payment in Euros.
We should make a board game!
ET
>
> ET wrote in message <3683C531...@idir.net>...
>
> <snip intelligent, thoughtful commentary>
Thanks!
> >Thanks for an interesting article, Mr. Odom. I guess we'll see what
> >happens in 1999 as this squeeze is unwound. Do you suppose we will see
> >an accounting of gold in the US government's vaults?
>
> Not an honest one.
I hope you caught the post about the guy in 1975 investigating the gold
in Ft. Knox. To here him tell it, they don't have much gold. Of
course, they may have attempted to replace much of it at these low
prices.
What is ingenious is the part about the central banks keeping the gold
in their vaults. Possession is 9/10's of the law, right? Central banks
keep the gold as well as receive Euros in payment for contracts now
impossible to repay in gold. 'Taking delivery' is likely to be
problematic for most holding paper. Another important feature of this
scenario is that mining company stocks have been driven down to very low
levels making 'nationalizing' these assets very cheap. Kind of a modern
day version of 'Monopoly'. The money involved seems to be worth about
the same.
Another interesting question all of this brings to mind is how will
governments handle the situation domestically, particularly the US?
Will they claim they have adequate gold backing? Will they attempt to
limit transactions to dollars? Will banks offer Euro denominated or
gold accounts? Many questions.
ET
redrum
credit, and change would be in silver. I'd love to get rid of all fiat
money and convert the world's monetary system to gold and silver.
(Actually, I'd love to get rid of capitalism altogether, but that's
another story.) In fact, being an anarchist who believes there should be
no government, I think gold is the best monetary value there is, since
without government there's nobody to issue fiat money or to back it.
Hopefully we can get rid of fiat money altogether in the new millenium
and get back to gold.
redrum
my_email...@enteract.com says...
>>happens in 1999 as this squeeze is unwound. Do you suppose we will
see
>>an accounting of gold in the US government's vaults?
>
>Not an honest one.
>
What do you do when you're like me and you don't have any money to buy
gold, and you're just living paycheck to paycheck on fiat money because
you have to eat? I guess it's curtains for me then. :(
Chris Odom
redrum wrote in message <76182p$jgk$2...@remarQ.com>...
I want to change your mind with respect to capitalism and anarchism. Follow
my line of logic and see where you disagree?
First, I posit that capitalism is not a form of government or society. It
simply means, "the ownership of property". To support capitalism is to
support the concept that people have a right to own property. For example,
you advocated gold. Let's say you were walking through the woods and came
upon a man who wanted to take your gold. If you do not believe in property
rights, then he has as much of a right to that gold as you do, and he should
get half, if not all of that gold.
But I'd wager that you would use force to defend yourself and your gold, as
you should. So, the concept of self-defense, and defense of property. We
believe that you have the right to use force IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. In
defense of life, liberty, and property, we have the right to use force
against others. In other situations, we do NOT have such a right.
Suppose that we live together in a small village. A group of men come to
kill us, take our property, rape our women, and put us into captivity.
Again, we have the right to use force to defend our lives, liberty, and
property. It follows naturally that we can band together to provide a
collective defense of those rights! As a matter of fact, it's better to
make a set of consistent rules that we can enforce collectively, so justice
is served and the innocent do not go wrongly punished.
So a group of men have the right to use force collectively to defend life,
liberty and property. They do NOT have the right to use force for any other
reason. As you can see, the Rule of Law is something we have a right to do,
for the same reason that you have an individual right of self-defense.
The definition of anarchy would be, the absence of such a collective defense
of rights. There would be two results of this:
1) There are bad people who do bad things. There will be no one to stop
them from killing, raping, stealing, and enslaving.
2) People would form lynch mobs when they are wronged, and sometimes
innocent people would be punished unjustly as a result.
So I advocate the rule of law, over anarchy. And I advocate the ownership
of property, over the non-ownership of property. That concept
(non-ownership) is usually advocated by people who eventually want to take
your property.
Here we have a problem: We want a defense of our rights, but if we give
that kind of power to a group of people, that power will invariably be used
to abuse our rights instead of protect them. That is why it is crucially
important that we design the government so that it will do the things it is
supposed to do, and it will NOT do the things it is not supposed to do. If
we do not deliberately design a government as such, ONE WILL ARISE
NATURALLY, ON ITS OWN, AND WE WILL NOT LIKE THE RESULT. That is why our
government is designed carefully to separate the powers of legislation
(making laws), execution (enforcing our laws), and judicial (deciding who is
guilty and who is innocent). Notice also the separation between domestic
defense (police) and foreign defense (military). Our system of government
is not perfect, there are many injustices in this country. But it's better
than any other that has occured so far in human history, especially where we
have experienced anarchy. Also, I would argue that the problems we
experience occur where we deviate from our Constitution, not where we abide
by it.
Thus, these things are necessary for a peaceful and prosperous society:
1) Capitalism
The concept of property ownership and free trade.
Which will naturally result in the evolution of Sound Money: gold and
silver.
2) The Rule of Law
The concept that we have an inherent right to collectively provide a
consistent defense of our lives, liberty, and property.
The careful design of government so it is used to protect us and not to
abuse us.
Agree? Disagree? Reasons why?
ET
>
> In article <36844...@news.globalreach.net>,
> my_email...@enteract.com says...
> >
> >
> >redrum wrote in message <76182p$jgk$2...@remarQ.com>...
> >>I agree totally. In my perfect world, one ounce of gold would equal
> one
> >>credit, and change would be in silver. I'd love to get rid of all fiat
> >>money and convert the world's monetary system to gold and silver.
> >>(Actually, I'd love to get rid of capitalism altogether, but that's
> >>another story.) In fact, being an anarchist who believes there should
> be
> >>no government, I think gold is the best monetary value there is, since
> >>without government there's nobody to issue fiat money or to back it.
> >>Hopefully we can get rid of fiat money altogether in the new millenium
> >>and get back to gold.
> >
> >
> >
> >I want to change your mind with respect to capitalism and anarchism.
> Follow
> >my line of logic and see where you disagree?
>
> >
> >First, I posit that capitalism is not a form of government or society.
> It
> >simply means, "the ownership of property". To support capitalism is to
> >support the concept that people have a right to own property. For
> example,
> >you advocated gold. Let's say you were walking through the woods and
> came
> >upon a man who wanted to take your gold. If you do not believe in
> property
> >rights, then he has as much of a right to that gold as you do, and he
> should
> >get half, if not all of that gold.
>
> SYSTEM. You are talking about a RIGHT, the right to own property (and to
> defend that property). I am not questioning anybody's right to own and
> defend property, I'm questioning a SYSTEM where some have more property
> than they could ever need and some have none.
Perhaps those that have no property have earned no property. Are you
saying they should be given property? At your expense? You say you
would defend property rights and then you turn around and say that it is
a system not worth defending. Which is it?
> >But I'd wager that you would use force to defend yourself and your
> gold, as
> >you should. So, the concept of self-defense, and defense of property.
> We
> >believe that you have the right to use force IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. In
> >defense of life, liberty, and property, we have the right to use force
> >against others. In other situations, we do NOT have such a right.
> >Suppose that we live together in a small village. A group of men come
> to
> >kill us, take our property, rape our women, and put us into captivity.
> >Again, we have the right to use force to defend our lives, liberty, and
> >property. It follows naturally that we can band together to provide a
> >collective defense of those rights! As a matter of fact, it's better
> to
> >make a set of consistent rules that we can enforce collectively, so
> justice
> >is served and the innocent do not go wrongly punished.
> >
> >So a group of men have the right to use force collectively to defend
> life,
> >liberty and property. They do NOT have the right to use force for any
> other
> >reason. As you can see, the Rule of Law is something we have a right
> to do,
> >for the same reason that you have an individual right of self-defense.
>
> You've just defined anarchy, which it's clear you know nothing about
> (except the lie that it equals absence of order). Anarchy posits that
> people have a RIGHT to defend themselves and their property, and that
> they have a right to band together into collective groups to
> collectively defend and share the property of the group.
This isn't anarchy. It's socialism.
> Anarchy says
> that law is and should be not statutes enacted by a leadership detached
> from the people, but what some would call *natural law*, ie the rules
> agreed upon by a community. If you don't understand this and the
> tendency of anarchists to refer to the word *law* as the first
> definition, you're likely to think of us as madmen, which is one reason
> why our philosophy hasn't made much gain in the US.
Your definition of anarchy is likely why it hasn't caught on.
> >The definition of anarchy would be, the absence of such a collective
> defense
> >of rights. There would be two results of this:
> >1) There are bad people who do bad things. There will be no one to
> stop
> >them from killing, raping, stealing, and enslaving.
> >2) People would form lynch mobs when they are wronged, and sometimes
> >innocent people would be punished unjustly as a result.
>
> Well, our current, much ballyhooed system of prevention and punishment
> still fails to stop people from committing crime, and in fact the
> *punishment* seems to encourage these people to commit more crime.
> Personally, I support lynch mobs and vigilante justice. So people will
> be wrongly punished, so what, they are under our current system.
Why do I feel the need to participate in this discussion?
> >So I advocate the rule of law, over anarchy. And I advocate the
> ownership
> >of property, over the non-ownership of property. That concept
> >(non-ownership) is usually advocated by people who eventually want to
> take
> >your property.
>
> I advocate the rule of natural law, the law made by the members of a
> community. If you are advocating the law that is words written in dusty
> books by lawyers schooled in ivory towers, then we will have to
> disagree. I have never advocated the non ownership of property. I have
> advocated that people pool their resources (ie property) to achieve
> greater ends than they could by standing alone. This does contradict the
> mindset of many survivalists who want to grab what they can and shoot
> anybody who suggests they share.
See, you're not an anarchist, you're a socialist, I knew it all along.
> >Here we have a problem: We want a defense of our rights, but if we
> give
> >that kind of power to a group of people, that power will invariably be
> used
> >to abuse our rights instead of protect them. That is why it is
> crucially
> >important that we design the government so that it will do the things
> it is
> >supposed to do, and it will NOT do the things it is not supposed to do.
>
> But the government will ALWAYS devolve to the point where it abuses its
> power. The solution? DO NOT give your power away! This is what Marx was
> talking about when he said that the worker should keep the fruits of his
> labors instead of surrendering them to the boss.
But apparently not to the state! Kind of confusing, how it all worked
out I mean.
> We DO NOT have to give
> our power away! If we retain this power, then we retain control over our
> lives, because we control our labor and our property.
Now you sound like you've been reading Rand. You're a confusing guy,
Mr. redrum.
> If
> >we do not deliberately design a government as such, ONE WILL ARISE
> >NATURALLY, ON ITS OWN, AND WE WILL NOT LIKE THE RESULT. That is why
> our
> >government is designed carefully to separate the powers of legislation
> >(making laws), execution (enforcing our laws), and judicial (deciding
> who is
> >guilty and who is innocent). Notice also the separation between
> domestic
> >defense (police) and foreign defense (military). Our system of
> government
> >is not perfect, there are many injustices in this country. But it's
> better
> >than any other that has occured so far in human history, especially
> where we
> >have experienced anarchy. Also, I would argue that the problems we
> >experience occur where we deviate from our Constitution, not where we
> abide
> >by it.
>
> Obviously you've never read about Spain during the Spanish Revolution of
> the 30s, where Catalonia was under the control of anarchists.
Nor have I, what are the details?
> >Thus, these things are necessary for a peaceful and prosperous society:
> >
> >1) Capitalism
> > The concept of property ownership and free trade.
> > Which will naturally result in the evolution of Sound Money: gold
> and
> >silver.
>
> Sigh. You've misdefined capitalism as a RIGHT instead of as a SYSTEM.
No, capitalism is the system of property rights and free markets.
You've already mentioned earlier you prefer socialism. You are a
second-hander, (see Rand). You are nowhere near an anarchist.
ET
Who Cares?
>
>What do you do when you're like me and you don't have any money to buy
>gold, and you're just living paycheck to paycheck on fiat money because
>you have to eat? I guess it's curtains for me then.
There are two ways to play the game. If you have no
property or savings, make this a consistent theme.
Reduce all physical property to a minimum, maximize
your mobility in order to maximize your job
opportunities
when the bomb hits.
redrum
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>redrum <na...@na.da> wrote:
>
>> What do you do when you're like me and you don't have any money to
buy
>> gold, and you're just living paycheck to paycheck on fiat money
because
>
>Nope. You are in the best position of all. Why? Because you have fewer
>hard decisions to make. It's only people who have lots of excess wealth
>that have to make the decision about what percentage of their wealth
they
>will keep in gold and what in green paper.
And they have the fear of losing it all in a depression, while my
biggest worry is completing school and finding a job to get off SSI. I
can live on grandpa's farm as long as I need to, although I may go crazy
listening to his rants. :)
>
>You, who have nothing extra, know only that you must buy extra
provisions
>with whatever little extra cash you have. Fortunately for you, a 20
pound
>bag of rice does not cost $500, but 1/100 of that. 10 pounds of beans
will
>set you back maybe $8. (These are conservative numbers, coming straight
>from a regular supermarket).
Hey, I could probably get rice for less than that at the Asian
supermarket. Problem is, somebody's gonna have to teach me how to cook
the stuff-all I know is Minute Rice. (Same goes for beans-all I know is
canned beans.)
>
>So you can buy extra food like this, and live for a good long time. You
>can live a long time on rice and beans and vitamins and water.
Rice is the basis of the Asian diet. They've survived on it for 7,000
years, so a month should be no problem. I can also trade rice and beans
for meat and bread and stuff.
(Why didn't I think of this before?)
redrum
collectively defend and share the property of the group. Anarchy says
that law is and should be not statutes enacted by a leadership detached
from the people, but what some would call *natural law*, ie the rules
agreed upon by a community. If you don't understand this and the
tendency of anarchists to refer to the word *law* as the first
definition, you're likely to think of us as madmen, which is one reason
why our philosophy hasn't made much gain in the US.
>
>The definition of anarchy would be, the absence of such a collective
defense
>of rights. There would be two results of this:
>1) There are bad people who do bad things. There will be no one to
stop
>them from killing, raping, stealing, and enslaving.
>2) People would form lynch mobs when they are wronged, and sometimes
>innocent people would be punished unjustly as a result.
Well, our current, much ballyhooed system of prevention and punishment
still fails to stop people from committing crime, and in fact the
*punishment* seems to encourage these people to commit more crime.
Personally, I support lynch mobs and vigilante justice. So people will
be wrongly punished, so what, they are under our current system.
>
>So I advocate the rule of law, over anarchy. And I advocate the
ownership
>of property, over the non-ownership of property. That concept
>(non-ownership) is usually advocated by people who eventually want to
take
>your property.
I advocate the rule of natural law, the law made by the members of a
community. If you are advocating the law that is words written in dusty
books by lawyers schooled in ivory towers, then we will have to
disagree. I have never advocated the non ownership of property. I have
advocated that people pool their resources (ie property) to achieve
greater ends than they could by standing alone. This does contradict the
mindset of many survivalists who want to grab what they can and shoot
anybody who suggests they share.
>
>Here we have a problem: We want a defense of our rights, but if we
give
>that kind of power to a group of people, that power will invariably be
used
>to abuse our rights instead of protect them. That is why it is
crucially
>important that we design the government so that it will do the things
it is
>supposed to do, and it will NOT do the things it is not supposed to do.
But the government will ALWAYS devolve to the point where it abuses its
power. The solution? DO NOT give your power away! This is what Marx was
talking about when he said that the worker should keep the fruits of his
labors instead of surrendering them to the boss. We DO NOT have to give
our power away! If we retain this power, then we retain control over our
lives, because we control our labor and our property.
If
>we do not deliberately design a government as such, ONE WILL ARISE
>NATURALLY, ON ITS OWN, AND WE WILL NOT LIKE THE RESULT. That is why
our
>government is designed carefully to separate the powers of legislation
>(making laws), execution (enforcing our laws), and judicial (deciding
who is
>guilty and who is innocent). Notice also the separation between
domestic
>defense (police) and foreign defense (military). Our system of
government
>is not perfect, there are many injustices in this country. But it's
better
>than any other that has occured so far in human history, especially
where we
>have experienced anarchy. Also, I would argue that the problems we
>experience occur where we deviate from our Constitution, not where we
abide
>by it.
Obviously you've never read about Spain during the Spanish Revolution of
the 30s, where Catalonia was under the control of anarchists.
>
>Thus, these things are necessary for a peaceful and prosperous society:
>
>1) Capitalism
> The concept of property ownership and free trade.
> Which will naturally result in the evolution of Sound Money: gold
and
>silver.
Sigh. You've misdefined capitalism as a RIGHT instead of as a SYSTEM.
>
>2) The Rule of Law
> The concept that we have an inherent right to collectively provide
a
>consistent defense of our lives, liberty, and property.
> The careful design of government so it is used to protect us and
not to
>abuse us.
>
>Agree? Disagree? Reasons why?
See above.
redrum
>
>redrum wrote:
>> The right to own property is separate from capitalism. Capitalism is
a
>> SYSTEM. You are talking about a RIGHT, the right to own property (and
to
>> defend that property). I am not questioning anybody's right to own
and
>> defend property, I'm questioning a SYSTEM where some have more
property
>> than they could ever need and some have none.
>
>Perhaps those that have no property have earned no property. Are you
>saying they should be given property? At your expense? You say you
>would defend property rights and then you turn around and say that it
is
>a system not worth defending. Which is it?
Property rights is not a system. The system is ALLOCATION of property. I
don't believe that people without property have not earned it, they've
just had it stolen from them by those (the bosses) who have appropriated
it from themselves.
>
>> You've just defined anarchy, which it's clear you know nothing about
>> (except the lie that it equals absence of order). Anarchy posits that
>> people have a RIGHT to defend themselves and their property, and that
>> they have a right to band together into collective groups to
>> collectively defend and share the property of the group.
>
>This isn't anarchy. It's socialism.
Anarchy is an outgrowth of socialist thought. Mikhail Bakunin, who was
really the first anarchist, broke from Marx after deciding that Marx's
socialist state would just produce the same inequality that exists under
capitalism. He turned out to be right.
>> I advocate the rule of natural law, the law made by the members of a
>> community. If you are advocating the law that is words written in
dusty
>> books by lawyers schooled in ivory towers, then we will have to
>> disagree. I have never advocated the non ownership of property. I
have
>> advocated that people pool their resources (ie property) to achieve
>> greater ends than they could by standing alone. This does contradict
the
>> mindset of many survivalists who want to grab what they can and shoot
>> anybody who suggests they share.
>
>See, you're not an anarchist, you're a socialist, I knew it all along.
I'm an anarcho-socialist. In effect, I'm a socialist who believes that
anarchy is the best way to achieve socialism. So what I want is a
VOLUNTARY pooling of resources, instead of a FORCED one by a state.
>
>> But the government will ALWAYS devolve to the point where it abuses
its
>> power. The solution? DO NOT give your power away! This is what Marx
was
>> talking about when he said that the worker should keep the fruits of
his
>> labors instead of surrendering them to the boss.
>
>But apparently not to the state! Kind of confusing, how it all worked
>out I mean.
That was a major oversight on Marx's part, and a major reason why
Bakunin broke with Marx. In the USSR the state turned out to play the
role of the boss, so instead of having a bunch of little bosses you had
one big boss. Same evil, same result. The solution is to get rid of the
boss.
>
>> We DO NOT have to give
>> our power away! If we retain this power, then we retain control over
our
>> lives, because we control our labor and our property.
>
>Now you sound like you've been reading Rand. You're a confusing guy,
>Mr. redrum.
Thank you. :)
>
>> Obviously you've never read about Spain during the Spanish Revolution
of
>> the 30s, where Catalonia was under the control of anarchists.
>
>Nor have I, what are the details?
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html is a very good website on
anarchy in the Spanish Revolution.
>
>> Sigh. You've misdefined capitalism as a RIGHT instead of as a SYSTEM.
>
>No, capitalism is the system of property rights and free markets.
>You've already mentioned earlier you prefer socialism. You are a
>second-hander, (see Rand). You are nowhere near an anarchist.
Socialism can occur with property rights and free markets. Capitalism is
a hierarchal system where the fruit of the worker's labor is stolen by
the boss, who uses part of it for overhead (fixed costs), gives a small
portion back to the worker as wages, and puts the rest in his pocket as
profit. Socialism is a system where the boss is dispensed with and the
hierarchy is steamrollered, where the worker keeps the fruit of his
labor and voluntarily shares it and trades it with others, thus creating
a free market.
Another good website on anarchy is
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ which is the Anarchist FAQ.
Very informative on how anarchism is related to socialism, and how the
socialist state is just another form of capitalism and not really
socialism at all.
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply
>redrum wrote:
[...]
>> Obviously you've never read about Spain during the Spanish Revolution of
>> the 30s, where Catalonia was under the control of anarchists.
>
>Nor have I, what are the details?
Call me simple-minded, but the phrase "under the control of anarchists" seems a
tad oxymoronic.
--
When they say, "Eat your spam," I say, "Drink your [purple] Koolaid".
Sender: crosscut
Domain: killtrees.com
Chris Odom
eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote in message
<4G6h2.1691$J4.3...@news.shore.net>...
>Chris Odom <my_email...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>| Now, to address your actual question, what happens to the demand for
goods
>| and services in the event of a collapse?
>
Historically, in every case of deflation, the purchasing power of gold goes
up.
>| Well what happened recently in
>| Indonesia? Quite simply, hordes of desperate people descended upon the
>| stores to trade their (rapidly becoming more worthless) paper money
>
>Doesn't paper money become more valuable in a deflation?
Are these your definitions: ?
1) Inflation is when paper money becomes less valuable.
2) Deflation is when paper money becomes more valuable.
I assume directly related to the supply.
I would say those are side effects. Why cannot these two effects occur
simultaneously? And in fact they have. The Asian Crisis has been
unanimously described as a deflation. And yet the fiat currencies lost
value, they didn't gain value. Only those with gold made out.
It seems easy to say, "in a deflation, the price of everything goes down,
including gold". But my answer is, price IN WHAT? Your standard of
denomination is a moving target. Does a million dollars have more
purchasing power than 10 dollars the day before? NO ONE CAN EVER SAY FOR
SURE.
The truth is, gold is NOT just a commodity. It is a form of money, like it
or not. It doesn't behave strictly like a commodity.
>| for
>| something, ANYTHING. ANY hard goods that they could obtain. They didn't
>| even care what they were buying, they just knew that any hard goods at
all
>| would retain value, whereas their fiat currency would not.
>
>Fiat currency losing value = inflation, does it not?
I'd say it's a side effect of inflation, not the definition of inflation
itself. I assume by "value" you actually mean "purchasing power", since the
actual value of a hundred dollar bill is identical to the value of a one
dollar bill.
And since you are referring to the Asian Crisis as a inflation, why is
everyone else referring to it as a deflation? Again, why can't these two
things occur simultaneously? Think carefully.
>| I would like to submit for your consideration...what happens when China
>| dumps T-bonds and buys gold and euros?
>
>I dunno. Maybe the price goes down for T-bills, raising the effective
>yield, maybe to a point where they become attractive enough again?
The yield on Russian bonds this year went to over 150%. How many did you
buy?
> What about Japan? They have
>| threatened publicly to do just that. What about the $12 Trillion in
>| individual Japanese savings that will seek safety from their insolvent
banks
>| (to the tune of 49 trillion yen it has just been revealed.) What about
when
>| the dollar itself collapses? Or do we believe that our fake money is
>| somehow of inherently higher quality than any other fake money?
>| Historically, what ALWAYS happens, eventually, to any system of man-made
>| money?
>
>I'd like to hear your answers more than your questions. I'm still trying
>to figure this out.
The true answer to all of this is, gold is real money. Paper is man-made
money. No matter what happens to the paper, in the long run, gold is a
guarantee. I would submit to you that holding dollars, yen or rubles is
very similar to holding stock. The "value" can go up or down, and indeed it
can easily go straight to zero. You have not actually made a profit on any
stock until you sell it for money. Likewise, you do not truly have any
wealth (in dollars) until you convert them to gold. Most of the dollars in
existence are held overseas... What I am saying to you is, global events
can occur quickly which will greatly reduce the purchasing power of any
dollars you might be holding at the time. We have watched this phenomenon
sweep across the globe in this "deflationary" period. It's like 1929 out
there! The wealth of nations has fled to U.S. markets and dollars for
safety. It doesn't mean they won't collapse, it just means that they will
collapse last. Just wait, you'll see. But what you will not see is a cry
raised up across the land to mourn wealth lost because it was stored as
gold. It simply will not happen.
Chris Odom
>Are these your definitions: ?
>1) Inflation is when paper money becomes less valuable.
>2) Deflation is when paper money becomes more valuable.
>I assume directly related to the supply.
>
>I would say those are side effects. Why cannot these two effects occur
>simultaneously? And in fact they have.
What I mean is, these are side effects of inflation and deflation, not
direct definitions. The side effects themselves cannot occur
simultaneously. Inflation and deflation can.
ET
>
> ET <gear...@idir.net> wrote:
> | eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> |>
> |> Chris Odom <my_email...@enteract.com> wrote:
> |>
> |>
> |> What happens to the value of gold in a severe deflation?
>
> | of gold in dollars will change. What is likely to change is the value
> | of the dollar, or any other fiat currency.
>
> gold? And fewer and fewer dollars to buy other non-essential commodites?
> But that gold will stay constant in value compared to most other
> commodities (except those in short supply, like fresh food)?
No, not necessarily. The reaction to the crisis by the banks/government
will determine whether prices rise or fall in terms of dollars, as I
said earlier. They hold the key as to whether prices rise or fall in
terms of their currencies. This is independent of the value of gold,
but the price of gold in those currencies will change in terms of supply
and demand of both the gold and the currencies.
> So the value of all non-essentials will plummet, taking the value of gold
> down with it?
The question would be; is gold a non-essential? If it reverts to the
popular medium of exchange, it would be quite essential. As a store of
wealth, it could be considered essential.
> | The government/banks will unlikely pursue this policy, more likely
> | making 'money' available as much as possible.
>
> Availability means nothing if people aren't taking out new loans.
Be careful here. There are many ways to take out loans. The government
can borrow from themselves, in the name of a claim on future tax
revenue; a loan, and distribute this money to the economy in the form of
'welfare' checks. Hey - that's what they do today!
> New
> loans increase the money supply, but the "availability" on new loans (and
> hence, new money) doesn't increase the money supply.
Right, the loan would have to be made to increase the money supply.
> The Fed has already
> | indicated it will make currency available if electronic commerce is
> | effected by the computer problem. The problem for all will then be what
> | is this currency worth in terms of purchasing power.
>
> We are positing a steep drop in demand for goods and services, and a
> corresponding steep drop in the demand for new money.
So it would seem. Most 'money' as the term is used today does not
consist of anything tangible. If electronic commerce fails for the most
part, electronic 'money' will be supplanted by popular demand. The
banks will attempt to change electronic money into currency to meet this
demand so some commerce can take place. Most people measure their
wealth in terms of electronic money. If this money disappears or
becomes unavailable, people will be poorer and demand for non-essentials
will drop. To keep this from happening, the banks/government will
attempt to 'monetize' electronic money. Whether this will be needed or
whether they can be successful is unknown at this time.
> Since the money is
> | based on debt, and these debts are being written off, this new money has
> | questionable value.
>
> Right. And the old money has great value?
Not necessarily. This would depend on what form it takes and whether it
had any value in the first place. If electronic money can be monetized,
then it might have some value, but it is still a promise to pay, unlike
gold. Gold is immune from these gyrations in 'value'. This is why I
said that trying to determine the value of fiat money in the above
circumstances is damn near impossible. Will electronic money have to be
converted to currency? Can it be done? Will electronic money hold it's
purchasing power? Will currency hold it's purchasing power? If you
know how this will play itself out, please let me know.
> This is where gold and silver (or any other hard
> | asset that can be traded), become a good thing to have in your pocket.
>
> Yes. If its in demand. But in a general deflation, what happens to
> demand?
It generally drops. But you seem to be confusing the value of gold with
it's price in dollars or some other fiat currency. Demand for gold may
indeed increase in a deflation, as demand for other things fall. Since
the computer problem thing is the great wild card in this scenario, it
becomes quite difficult to determine what demand (and it's corresponding
value), for anything might be, but especially the 'value' of fiat
currencies, since they seem to depend for their value on the banking
system remaining intact. Since this cannot be determined at this time,
thus creating uncertainty, the demand for physical gold is on the
increase. The law of supply and demand in action.
> | The value of real things only change based on strict supply and demand.
>
> Exactly.
>
> | What they will cost you in terms of the underlying medium of exchange is
> | another story, particularly if that medium of exchange is not a hard
> | asset.
>
> So again--won't currency go up in value, while the (non-essential) hard
> asset go down in value?
It would depend on a) the supply of currency, b) the demand for
currency, and c) the value of currency. Are you starting to see why the
answers to your questions have so many permutations as to render any
conclusion dubious at best.
> Look at real estate values in a steep deflation.
> What happens to them? Would real estate and gold change in relative
> value?
They do today according to supply and demand. Gold is a good form of
money where land is not. If money is in demand but in short supply,
money will go up in value relative to other real things, such as land.
Thanks for some interesting questions. I think in attempting to analyze
the future value of things, it is important to understand what those
things are in terms of what is required for them to hold their value
relative to each other. The fiat electronic money and the fiat
currencies present difficult problems for analysts when compounded by
the computer problem. Fiat currencies require faith in
banks/governments for their value and thus are at risk come y2k more so
than gold and other hard assets. What will be in demand come y2k is of
course also difficult to determine as the number of failures and their
ramifications on overall supply and demand is also unknown. At any
rate, at this time physical gold is in higher demand than it was last
summer. This would seem to indicate a higher preference for gold versus
fiat currencies. Uncertainty is what is driving the market, hence the
banks efforts to reassure depositors of the safety of the fiat system.
Like I said earlier, there are so many unknowns to draw any kind of
accurate conclusion concerning the value of anything except gold. That
is likely the reason it has persisted as a form of money for such a long
time.
ET
Na Kaula
(El Snippo Gargantua..)
>Mr Turner, please be so kind as to differentiate between 'being traded
>as money' and 'being traded as a commodity'; from what I see above the
>rules of commodity, not money, apply.
>
>
>DD
Far be it for me to gum up a good discussion here, but when I was trading
futures contracts, I was trading "Money" (I.E. Currency of various nations)
as a commodity. According to the futures trading books, money *is* a
commodity, and is freely traded as such. So how do *you* differentiate a
commodity and money, DD?
--
Y2K?
Y-not2K!
(Remove the underscore for e-mail)
The Goobers
>
> Assertions supported below (if I would be so kind...) :P
Most kind of you... but out of all of this two things juxtaposed...
oddly.
[snippage]
> To give you an example of the skyrocketing PHYSICAL GOLD demand, all you
> have to do is go check out the US Mint web site. Easy research.
>
> Total number of ounces sold in 1997: 564,250
> http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1997.cfm
>
> Total number of ounces sold in 1998: 1,624,500
> http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1998.cfm
>
> A 300% increase.
Yes, this was commented upon in a different posting; an increase in
demand from a single source of 300% does *not* translate into an overall
increase of 300%. Be that as it may...
[snippage]
> Suffice to say,
> 160 ton sale by the Swiss or anyone else is negligible at best.
... and this is where I get confused. How is it that '160 ton sale by
the Swiss *or anyone else* (emphasis added) is neglible at best' while a
sale of 50 tons (1.6M oz) by the US mint is worthy of note?
What am I missing here besides a bit of selective emphasis?
DD
The Goobers
>
> Chris Odom wrote:
>
> <snip excellent research on gold sales>
>
> > governments, I think, is far off base. Yes, CNBC will periodically trot out
> > the "swiss bank gold sale" scare story whenever the price approaches $300,
> > but that only affects the naive. Firstly, nations today such as USSR,
> > Japan, China, etc are quietly and surreptitously accumulating gold, not
> > selling it. Secondly, the London Bullion Marketing Association trades
> > several thousand tons of bullion DAILY, within a few days they have traded
> > the equivilant of the entire world's supply of gold.
>
Mr Turner, repetition adds no merit to your argument; please be so kind
as to recall your admission that your view of gold as a 'monetary
system' is based upon your idiosyncratic definition of 'money'.
> Somebody thinks it's money, DD.
No, Mr Turner, by the above quote nobody thinks anything is 'money'...
money circulates, remember?
>
> > Some might say that
> > only a conspiracy theory (involving oil) could possibly account for this,
> > but the numbers are public record so what else can we do? Suffice to say,
> > 160 ton sale by the Swiss or anyone else is negligible at best.
> > So if thousands of tons are traded daily, how can an increase in bullion
> > sales domestically have an affect on the price? Simple. As I said before,
> > the gold markets today are trading paper, and there is not (nearly) enough
> > physical to cover that "fiat gold". But when you buy bullion, you take
> > delivery every time. This is an historic opportunity. You can always sell
> > the gold later, eh? This is why Alan Greenspan testified before Congress
> > (as I noted in my previous post) that the CB's stand ready to dump more
> > paper gold on the market in the event that the price starts to edge up. And
> > again I ask: Why the hell would he have any motivation to do that? If it's
> > just an insignificant commodity...
>
> Yes, it is being traded as money daily.
Mr Turner, please be so kind as to differentiate between 'being traded
The Goobers
[snippage]
> The truth is, gold is NOT just a commodity. It is a form of money, like it
> or not.
Mr Odom, I *don't* like it and I had a similar discussion with Mr Turner
in earlier threads. Please be so kind as to post the definition you are
using for 'money' and the source of said definition.
DD
Chris Odom
The Goobers wrote in message <3685C411...@home.com>...
>Chris Odom wrote:
>> To give you an example of the skyrocketing PHYSICAL GOLD demand, all you
>> have to do is go check out the US Mint web site. Easy research.
>>
>> Total number of ounces sold in 1997: 564,250
>> http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1997.cfm
>>
>> Total number of ounces sold in 1998: 1,624,500
>> http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1998.cfm
>>
>> A 300% increase.
>
>demand from a single source of 300% does *not* translate into an overall
>increase of 300%. Be that as it may...
That was just an example. (As stated.)
Your request for substantiation was not important enough to warrant me
researching every supplier. However, if you look into similar news reports
about the Royal Canadian Mint, the Australian Mint, and individual coin
shops around the country, you will see they match up. And as I said before,
it's been all over the news so it's rather difficult to miss.
>> Suffice to say,
>> 160 ton sale by the Swiss or anyone else is negligible at best.
>
>... and this is where I get confused. How is it that '160 ton sale by
>the Swiss *or anyone else* (emphasis added) is neglible at best' while a
>sale of 50 tons (1.6M oz) by the US mint is worthy of note?
>
>What am I missing here besides a bit of selective emphasis?
As a matter of fact, no. If you read my full post, you will see that I
address this and explain the reason why that is the case. It has to do with
the fact that individual bullion sales invariably result in the buyer
immediately taking delivery of the metal. Unlike most other gold trades.
The Goobers
>
> In article <3685C4CB...@home.com>, The Goobers <docd...@home.com> wrote:
>
> (El Snippo Gargantua..)
>
> >as money' and 'being traded as a commodity'; from what I see above the
> >rules of commodity, not money, apply.
> >
> >
> >DD
>
> futures contracts, I was trading "Money" (I.E. Currency of various nations)
> as a commodity. According to the futures trading books, money *is* a
> commodity, and is freely traded as such. So how do *you* differentiate a
> commodity and money, DD?
Answering a question with a question is no answer at all, of course...
but it has been my contention all along that one of the criteria for
something to fit the accepted definitions of money is that it be a
medium of exchange. Such a medium does something known as
'circulate'... currencies of foreign nations (say, the ever-popular 'one
lots'), when traded as a commodity, do not circulate; exchanging a paper
(or computer-blips) about an object is not the same as setting the
object in motion.
DD
The Goobers
> >> have to do is go check out the US Mint web site. Easy research.
> >>
> >> Total number of ounces sold in 1997: 564,250
> >> http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1997.cfm
> >>
> >> Total number of ounces sold in 1998: 1,624,500
> >> http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1998.cfm
> >>
> >> A 300% increase.
> >
> >demand from a single source of 300% does *not* translate into an overall
> >increase of 300%. Be that as it may...
>
> That was just an example. (As stated.)
> Your request for substantiation was not important enough to warrant me
> researching every supplier.
Now I'm confused again... my request wasn't enough for full, complete
and authoratative documentation but for incomplete documentation which
was readily refuted?
> However, if you look into similar news reports
> about the Royal Canadian Mint, the Australian Mint, and individual coin
> shops around the country, you will see they match up. And as I said before,
> it's been all over the news so it's rather difficult to miss.
This was addressed in a separate posting in this thread, viz.
--begin quoted text
> >
> > http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/3343
> > Date: 1998-12-18 09:04:19
> > Subject: Gold Coin Sales in the U.S. Are up Over 100%
> > Link: http://www.gold.org/Gedt/Gdt25/Usa.htm
> > Comment: Gold coin sales by the various mints have more than doubled
> > the 1997 sales in the U.S. (Click
> > through to see chart.) Third quarter sales were up 300% over third
> > quarter, 1997.
> > -----
> > Investment demand, as measured by coin sales from the issuing mints,
> > rose strongly in the third quarter. At 23.5 tonnes, this was almost
> > three times the previous record for a third quarter (8.7 tonnes in 1997)
> > since the WGC started to collect quarterly data.
--end quoted text
Notice that Mr North's site contains the 300% figure you have cited but
the World Gold Council points out that this is only for US gold coinage
sales for the third quarter of 1998 compared to 1997.
>
> >> Suffice to say,
> >> 160 ton sale by the Swiss or anyone else is negligible at best.
> >
> >... and this is where I get confused. How is it that '160 ton sale by
> >the Swiss *or anyone else* (emphasis added) is neglible at best' while a
> >sale of 50 tons (1.6M oz) by the US mint is worthy of note?
> >
> >What am I missing here besides a bit of selective emphasis?
>
> As a matter of fact, no. If you read my full post, you will see that I
> address this and explain the reason why that is the case. It has to do with
> the fact that individual bullion sales invariably result in the buyer
> immediately taking delivery of the metal. Unlike most other gold trades.
Yes, and most of these other gold trades do *not* reflect a desire to
own gold (no physical possession) but a desire to make money off of
gold... a *very* different proposition.
This is disturbing... on the one hand you claim to be able to support
your argument, on the other hand you say it is of insufficient
importance. On the one hand you state that sales of a certain size are
negligible, on the other hand you claim that sales of a lesser size
support your argument.
It seems as though we are not dealing here with your arguments, but with
your convictions... and if your mind is already made up then the facts
are only confusing. I will be as ready to drop this exchange any time
you are; it seems as though we are at loggerheads over what constitutes
open and clear communication.
DD
Chris Odom
Note, this post is rather long, perhaps more than you expected. However,
there is much more to learn and I can forward you a few articles if you want
to continue your money education. By the time you finish reading this, I
think it should be clear.
The Goobers wrote in message <3685C715...@home.com>...
>Chris Odom wrote:
>> The truth is, gold is NOT just a commodity. It is a form of money, like
it
>> or not.
>
>Mr Odom, I *don't* like it and I had a similar discussion with Mr Turner
>in earlier threads. Please be so kind as to post the definition you are
>using for 'money' and the source of said definition.
Ahhhh, you do NOT like it? Now this gets juicy, where emotions are
involved. This says to me that you have a prejudice against gold. From
that may I assume that your own definition of money is "a unit of account" ?
A unit of undefined value...
Alan Greenspan has an explanation for your dislike of gold:
"An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which
unites statists [C.O. note: socialists and bureaucrats] of all persuasions,
...They seem to sense-- perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent
defenders of laissez-faire--that gold and economic freedom are inseparable,
that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each
implies and requires the other."
---------
Now, on to the definition of money!
Let us start with Websters definition (New Universal Unabridged, Second
Edition, copyright 1983):
mon'ey, n.; pl. mon'eys or mon'ies
1. (a) standard pieces of gold, silver, copper, nickel, etc., stamped by
government authority and used as a medium of exchange and measure of value.
---------
My own definition differs slightly from Webster in that true money requires
no government permission to be money. However, he is pretty much on track
when he says standard pieces of gold and silver used as a medium of exchange
and a measure of value. I would say a STORE of value. You might argue with
that by saying: how can I know what gold's purchasing power will be
tomorrow? But the truth is, gold has a track record that goes back for 5000
years, and spans society, government, culture, location, and timeframe.
Therefore, it is the standard by which any other currencies are judged.
Your only example against that would be the last 20 years that we have been
"off the gold standard" but I would argue that we have NOT been off, not by
a long shot. (More on this below.)
------- THE EVOLUTION AND SUSTAINMENT OF MONEY -------
Money is not so much a THING, as it is a set of CRITERIA. Whichever thing
best matches that criteria will AUTOMATICALLY become the defacto currency.
Many things have been used as money, including shells, cows, paper, bytes,
etc, but the thing which BEST matches the criteria of money is what has
truly been money for the past 5000 years (and is universally recognized as
such, worldwide.) As a matter of fact, if you take a society that operates
completely on barter, and watch the trades occur over a period of time, gold
will eventually become the defacto currency, as a result of natural market
forces.
Here are the criteria (posted previously.) Money must be:
1) Fungible...every unit identical to every other unit. (Unlike land.)
2) Effective store of value OVER TIME. (Unlike yogurt.)
3) Divisible. (Unlike Diamonds.)
4) Largest possible value in the smallest space. (Unlike dirt.)
You see, gold was never declared to be money by a Central Bank, or any other
authority (of man). It just matches the criteria best and so it has always
been the true money. Natural market forces brought it to that point and
natural market forces will keep it there.
We have attempted to provide substitutes for gold, and many forms of
man-made, fake money have emerged over the ages. Many of them have lasted
much longer than 20 years! But eventually, they ALWAYS, ALWAYS collapse
under the weight of their own fraudulence. I believe the Chinese invented
the first paper money. Where is that "money" now? Wasn't that less than a
mere thousand years ago? Even the most powerful paper money today, the U.S.
Dollar, has lost over 95% of its value in the past 50 years, and will soon
lose the rest. Is this your standard for money? Quite an idiosyncratic
definition if you ask me. And don't forget that paper money was first
invented as a convenient way to trade gold. Paper is but a promise to repay
in gold! Gold is not a promise to repay.
------- CIRCULATION -------
Or would you say that true money is that which circulates? In actuality,
the opposite is true! Are you familiar with Gresham's Law? It states that
when two classes of money circulate side by side, and one has more intrinsic
value than the other, the bad money will drive the good money out of
circulation and into private holdings. People always spend the paper before
they spend the gold. History has proven the accuracy of Gresham's Law, and
thus the value of gold and silver.
Another example of this in action is when the USA stopped minting their
coinage in real silver. People would go down to the bank with some cash and
trade it in for coins. Taking the coins home, they would sort out all the
silver coins from the base coins and then return for another batch. Very
quickly, the silver coins disappeared from circulation altogether and you
can now buy them in $1000 (face value) bags.
-------
So now *I* have a few questions for *you*.
So why is it that the LBMA turns over thousands of tons of gold every day?
A fact that flabbergasted analysts when it became public within the past few
years. It certainly isn't traded like an commodity! There is no logical
reason for it, unless someone is using it for money.
Why is it that Roosevelt wanted the gold, but gave paper to the people? Was
it because he knew it was a guaranteed value?
Why is it that the Nazis looted gold, and not francs? Why is it that the
Russians will be minting gold coinage to restore confidence in their
currency? Why is it that the EMU is using gold backing for the Euro? Why
is it that fighter pilots always carry a few silver pieces in case they are
shot down?
Why is it that Central Banks control the world's largest hoard of a
substance that they never cease in trying to convince us is a worthless,
insignificant commodity? Could it be that they are the most naive or would
that title be reserved for those who actually believe them?
Why is it that the Japanese Finance Minister publicly threatened to dump
T-Bonds and buy gold?
And finally, for the third time, why is it that Alan Greenspan told Congress
that the CB's stand ready to increase gold leases in the event that the POG
moves up again? Why should a bank care what the commodities do? Could you
imagine the same statement substituting "gold" with "spare ribs" or "frozen
concentrated orange juice"? You cannot.
But don't just take my word for any of this, wait and see. The time is
short.
Chris Odom
Chris Odom wrote in message <36864...@news.globalreach.net>...
>It has to do with
>the fact that individual bullion sales invariably result in the buyer
>immediately taking delivery of the metal. Unlike most other gold trades.
I would like to emphasize that this has been one of my major points: That
most of the gold being traded today does not actually exist. People trade
certificates and do not take delivery of the gold. And this is the reason
behind the turmoil we will soon experience.
Chris Odom
The Goobers wrote in message <36864E12...@home.com>...
>Chris Odom wrote:
>>
>> The Goobers wrote in message <3685C411...@home.com>...
>> >Chris Odom wrote:
>> >> To give you an example of the skyrocketing PHYSICAL GOLD demand, all
you
>> >> have to do is go check out the US Mint web site. Easy research.
>> >>
>> >> Total number of ounces sold in 1997: 564,250
>> >> http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1997.cfm
>> >>
>> >> Total number of ounces sold in 1998: 1,624,500
>> >> http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1998.cfm
>> >>
>> >> A 300% increase.
>> >
>> >Yes, this was commented upon in a different posting; an increase in
>> >demand from a single source of 300% does *not* translate into an overall
>> >increase of 300%. Be that as it may...
>>
>> That was just an example. (As stated.)
>> Your request for substantiation was not important enough to warrant me
>> researching every supplier.
>
>Now I'm confused again... my request wasn't enough for full, complete
>and authoratative documentation but for incomplete documentation which
>was readily refuted?
You have not refuted their sales figures, you have merely pointed out that
they are but one supplier. As I say in the below paragraph, if you look at
other mints and coin shops throughout the country, you will see the same
increase in sales. It's been all over the news, and I will have to hold you
to a standard of informing yourself in that regard. I don't have enough
time to go search them all out in order to refute your uninformed disbelief,
when I think the US Mint figures are enough to demonstrate to our readers
what I am talking about.
>> However, if you look into similar news reports
>> about the Royal Canadian Mint, the Australian Mint, and individual coin
>> shops around the country, you will see they match up. And as I said
before,
>> it's been all over the news so it's rather difficult to miss.
>
>This was addressed in a separate posting in this thread, viz.
I don't know if I believe you. Perhaps you could substantiate that
assertion with a source? "A URL is all that is necessary."
>--begin quoted text
>
>> >
>> > http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/3343
>> > Date: 1998-12-18 09:04:19
>> > Subject: Gold Coin Sales in the U.S. Are up Over 100%
>> > Link: http://www.gold.org/Gedt/Gdt25/Usa.htm
>> > Comment: Gold coin sales by the various mints have more than doubled
>> > the 1997 sales in the U.S. (Click
>> > through to see chart.) Third quarter sales were up 300% over third
>> > quarter, 1997.
>> > -----
>> > Investment demand, as measured by coin sales from the issuing mints,
>> > rose strongly in the third quarter. At 23.5 tonnes, this was almost
>> > three times the previous record for a third quarter (8.7 tonnes in
1997)
>> > since the WGC started to collect quarterly data.
>
>--end quoted text
>
>Notice that Mr North's site contains the 300% figure you have cited but
>the World Gold Council points out that this is only for US gold coinage
>sales for the third quarter of 1998 compared to 1997.
Notice that the figures *I* gave were for the entire years of 97 and 98, not
the third quarters. So your point is?
>> >> Suffice to say,
>> >> 160 ton sale by the Swiss or anyone else is negligible at best.
>> >
>> >... and this is where I get confused. How is it that '160 ton sale by
>> >the Swiss *or anyone else* (emphasis added) is neglible at best' while a
>> >sale of 50 tons (1.6M oz) by the US mint is worthy of note?
>> >
>> >What am I missing here besides a bit of selective emphasis?
>>
>> As a matter of fact, no. If you read my full post, you will see that I
>> address this and explain the reason why that is the case. It has to do
with
>> the fact that individual bullion sales invariably result in the buyer
>> immediately taking delivery of the metal. Unlike most other gold trades.
>
>Yes, and most of these other gold trades do *not* reflect a desire to
>own gold (no physical possession) but a desire to make money off of
>gold... a *very* different proposition.
Yes, a desire to make money off of it by shorting it. Exactly my point.
More below...
>This is disturbing... on the one hand you claim to be able to support
>your argument, on the other hand you say it is of insufficient
>importance. On the one hand you state that sales of a certain size are
>negligible, on the other hand you claim that sales of a lesser size
>support your argument.
As I've said numerous times, and will not bother to say again, the crux of
my argument is that most of the gold being traded today is paper gold.
There is not enough physical gold in existence to cover it. The sales of
bullion coins are important here because they are the one case where the
buyer always takes physical delivery of the metal. For this reason, the
300% increase in PHYSICAL DEMAND places a much stronger pressure on the CB's
to compensate by flooding the market with fake gold.
I understand that the current manipulation makes it appear as if things do
not make sense. If you read my previous posts carefully, you will see that
I resolve this.
A lesser amount of REAL GOLD is a more important factor in the buildup of
pressure than a "certain size" of gold certificates.
>It seems as though we are not dealing here with your arguments, but with
>your convictions... and if your mind is already made up then the facts
>are only confusing. I will be as ready to drop this exchange any time
>you are; it seems as though we are at loggerheads over what constitutes
>open and clear communication.
Here is my response to that.
Robert Sturgeon
<my_email...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>Chris Odom wrote in message <36864...@news.globalreach.net>...
>>It has to do with
>>the fact that individual bullion sales invariably result in the buyer
>>immediately taking delivery of the metal. Unlike most other gold trades.
>
>I would like to emphasize that this has been one of my major points: That
>most of the gold being traded today does not actually exist. People trade
>certificates and do not take delivery of the gold. And this is the reason
>behind the turmoil we will soon experience.
So long as the certificates represent actual gold in storage,
available upon demand, the fact that the certificates are being traded
instead of the actual gold doesn't matter. On the other hand, if the
certificates are phony, and the amount of gold doesn't match up with
the amount represented by the certificates? Uh, oh- big trouble. But
this would be true whether that being traded was gold, or wheat, or
cotton, or anything else in storage.
Robert Sturgeon-
"Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect."
After 66 years, it's still working.
redrum
says...
>
>On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 09:26:57 -0600, "Chris Odom"
><my_email...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Chris Odom wrote in message <36864...@news.globalreach.net>...
>>>It has to do with
>>>the fact that individual bullion sales invariably result in the buyer
>>>immediately taking delivery of the metal. Unlike most other gold
trades.
>>
>>I would like to emphasize that this has been one of my major points:
That
>>most of the gold being traded today does not actually exist. People
trade
>>certificates and do not take delivery of the gold. And this is the
reason
>>behind the turmoil we will soon experience.
>
>So long as the certificates represent actual gold in storage,
>available upon demand, the fact that the certificates are being traded
>instead of the actual gold doesn't matter. On the other hand, if the
>certificates are phony, and the amount of gold doesn't match up with
>the amount represented by the certificates? Uh, oh- big trouble. But
>this would be true whether that being traded was gold, or wheat, or
>cotton, or anything else in storage.
This is why the US stopped printing *silver certificates*-Federal
Reserve Notes that stated that they could be exchanged for the exact
amount in silver. It turned out that the Fed was printing more paper
money than they had silver. The US went off the gold standard in 1972.
Today the only thing that backs US money is the will of the US govt that
they are money. In fact, that's really the only thing that backs any
money-the widespread acceptance in society that it has value as money.
Despite gold being much ballyhooed as excellent money, if society
decided that it didn't have value, then all the gold in the world
wouldn't make you rich.
Chris Odom
eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote in message ...
>But you assume that this is a significant number of sales in relation to
>the market as a whole. I would assume otherwise. I see pictures of
>vaults with hundreds of thousands of gold bricks in them, and know that
>there are many such vaults worldwide. You speak of sales of what--a pound
>or two each? Yes, such little sales may be up by 300%, but so what? What
>proportion of overall sales does this constitute? My guess is that it is
>insignificant. Can you defend your assumption?
You also say, in a different post:
>I bet that if a few governments were to liquidate their bullion holdings,
>such a sale would swamp any affect that sales of bullion coins might have.
>But I don't know. If YOU know, you should tell us. If you don't then you
>have lost much credibility, as you rely upon a guess to
>prove your conclusion.
If a few governments were to liquidate large portions of their gold, their
currencies would go to pot. Such as Canada and Australia. The gold would
not flood the market, it would end up in the vaults of other, smarter
governments.
Why do you operate on the assumption that governments generally want to get
rid of their gold? Talk to China, France, USA, Russia, Japan, Germany,
Switzerland, and see if they are in "gold dump, dollar acquire" mode.
>You are saying that small sales to individuals are having a significant
>affect on the overall market. You have failed to demonstate
>that the coin market is a significant proportion of the overall market..
>You instead assume it. Unless you confirm this, then you are making
>conclusions at a time when you have insufficient facts.
The short squeeze will occur before the Y2K crisis hits, probably early next
year. Then you will see for yourself. I hope you are not holding too many
dollars when that happens.
>| As I've said numerous times, and will not bother to say again, the crux
of
>| my argument is that most of the gold being traded today is paper gold.
>| There is not enough physical gold in existence to cover it. The sales of
>| bullion coins are important here because they are the one case where the
>| buyer always takes physical delivery of the metal. For this reason, the
>| 300% increase in PHYSICAL DEMAND
>
>There you go again, but stronger this time. Here you so much as state
>that the market for coins is directly able to be translated to the market
>for physical gold. But a basic fact that is needed to make this leap is
>missing: You must show that the market for physical gold is made largely
>of the market for bullion coins.
Actually, I was referring specifically to bullion demand, I should have
stated so more clearly. I assume you are also including jewelry and
industrial uses? IE non-investment physical demand. Those go up as the
price goes down, but I don't know (I doubt) if they have gone up 300%.
However, outside of any increase in demand, yearly gold consumption already
exceeded yearly gold production...
Chris Odom
dg...@tiac.net wrote in message <765kbk$i...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>Do you know the following information:
>
>1) The total amount of physical gold currently in existence above ground.
Approximately 34,000 tons. About half of this is in the vaults of the CB's,
BIS, IMF, etc. The other half includes bullion, jewelry, industrial uses,
etc. All the gold ever mined.
>2) The total amount of certificates purporting to be gold--claims on
>gold, that are in existence.
Understand that the gold-leasing scheme is a very new phenomenon, about 10
years. There is only one purpose for someone to lease gold: to sell it for
cash. I have commented on some of the mechanisms involved in previous
posts...one important point I have not raised is that gold leases are not
under the same reporting requirements as gold sales. This sounds dangerous
for the countries involved but it really is not, as the CB's mostly retain
physical possession of the gold anyway. And as I have said, physical
possession is ALL that matters!
In response to your question, how much "phantom gold" is currently
circulating, there are only estimates available. They range from 7,000 tons
at the most conservative to 14,000 tons.
14,000 tons, as we know, is almost the total amount in CB control. The plot
sickens.
One more point to raise. Other posters have raised the question: what
happens when the governments of the world dump their gold? A MOST UNLIKELY
OCCURANCE. I have a similar question: What happens when they dump their
dollars? Especially since 80% of our dollars are not held in this country.
Other posters have referred to "inflation" as a decrease in the purchasing
power of the currency. But the truth is, inflation is when the total money
supply inflates. If I printed up 10 trillion dollars and stuck them in a
hole in the ground, would they affect (yet) any prices of goods denominated
in dollars? Figures from the FED show us that inflation for the past
several years has been MUCH higher than appears if you measure it with a
consumer price index. What happens when those dollars come home to roost?
If you are the one stuck holding the bag when the new gold market occurs
shortly, you will be the first to find out!
Chris Odom
The Goobers wrote in message <3686F1F2...@home.com>...
>Chris Odom wrote:
[snip, technical blah blah blah]
>> Now, on to the definition of money!
>>
>> Let us start with Websters definition (New Universal Unabridged, Second
>> Edition, copyright 1983):
>> mon'ey, n.; pl. mon'eys or mon'ies
>> 1. (a) standard pieces of gold, silver, copper, nickel, etc., stamped by
>> government authority and used as a medium of exchange and measure of
value.
>> ---------
>> My own definition differs slightly from Webster in that true money
requires
>> no government permission to be money.
>
>'My own definition'? Mr Odom, you cite Webster's, a good beginning
>source. *Your* definitions are idiosyncratic and as such no arguments
>can be made from or towards them but your own.
>
>No, Mr Odom, I *will* argue with that by saying 'Webster's contains
>definitions which represent more-or-less accepted usage throughout the
>American-speaking realm'. What you might supply is idiosyncratic.
>
>Now, Mr Odom, you've given Webster's definition and your own personal
>spin thereupon. While your construction might be cunning (and, just
>coincidentally, support the rest of your arguments) I would ask just
>where this definition is to be found in any source considered as
>credibly as Webster's is considered to be.
>
>I realise that you and Mr Turner are in agreement on such matters,
>certainly... but neither of you, nor the combination of the two, is a
>match for ol' Noah. If you cannot supply a source which indicates your
>usage of 'money' represents an equal, or more credible usage than that
>which is prescribed by Webster's (or similar reference volume) then I
>believe that you have no argument.
From what you've said, you seem to think that my definition is in
disagreement with Webster. Rather, the point of my post was to explain to
you why Webster is correct in what he says. Furthermore, I went ahead and
explained why your own definition is at odds with what Webster had to say.
Those sections from my post are entitled "The Evolution and Sustainment of
Money," and "Circulation," respectively. If you have an argument that I
(and Webster) are wrong, then I suggest that you respond to the substance of
my argument itself, which you have miserably failed to do.
There is only one spot where I think Webster is wrong: he implies (not
outright) that gold is money just because a government proclaims it as such.
I hold that Gold is money anyway. Can you credibly disagree with that? The
reason I say it is, whenever a government collapses, gold is still accepted
as money. Furthermore, the people accepting the gold don't really care what
government's name is stamped upon it.
In any case, your response shows a thorough lack of understanding of my
post, so I suggest that you go back and read it at LEAST twice before
attempting to respond to it. I also notice that you failed to answer any of
the questions...
Chris Odom
The Goobers wrote in message <3686F43F...@home.com>...
>And in pointing that out it refutes the assertion that gold sales have
>risen 300%; it states that gold sales from one source have done so... a
>slightly different situation, isn't it?
[blah]
>US Mint figures are enough to demonstrate what the US Mint does, Mr
>Odom, no more and no less; if you think this is sufficient demonstration
>of your point then perhaps you need a bit more training in what
>constitutes a Valid Argument. You might begin by musing upon the
>aphorism of 'One swallow doth not a summer make.'
[blah]
>The original assertion was that *demand* had increased 300%, *not* that
>demand for PHYSICAL DELIVERY from one set of sources had incerased >300%.
I pointed out that ONE source (US Mint) had bullion sales triple for a
period of a year. You then countered by pointing out that ALL SOURCES had
sales triple during a period of a quarter during that year. You have
succeeded in supporting my argument...
Furthermore, it appears from what you are saying that you will not believe
me unless I post figures from ALL SOURCES OF BULLION. Apparently news
reports about the various mints and sample coin shops are not sufficient
enough for you. The substance of my argument is irrelevant to you unless I
post sales figures for every source of bullion sales in the world? I rest
my case.
>But the sales of the bullion coins are less than 160 tons, which is
>'negligible'... how can this be now 'important'?
I have already pointed out numerous times why this is the case. Read my
previous posts. This is actually one of the main points I've been trying to
get across, I'm glad you are picking up on it.
>> >It seems as though we are not dealing here with your arguments, but with
>> >your convictions... and if your mind is already made up then the facts
>> >are only confusing. I will be as ready to drop this exchange any time
>> >you are; it seems as though we are at loggerheads over what constitutes
>> >open and clear communication.
>>
>> Here is my response to that.
>
>Glad to see that you do not attempt to deny it... it is a good start.
I was not accepting your conclusion (based apparently on psychic
mind-reading powers?) What I meant was, I refuse to respond to such a
statement because it would place me on your level. I am here to discuss
substance, not pick over trivialities and personal accusations. I have
always responded to what little substance there is in your posts, you have
never done the same in return. I believe now that it is because you have
nothing of substance to give.
Chris Odom
I think this post draws together some major points that were not as clear
before. DD: Please read it at least twice before responding.
The Goobers wrote in message <36864CF...@home.com>...
>> Far be it for me to gum up a good discussion here, but when I was trading
>> futures contracts, I was trading "Money" (I.E. Currency of various
nations)
>> as a commodity. According to the futures trading books, money *is* a
>> commodity, and is freely traded as such. So how do *you* differentiate a
>> commodity and money, DD?
>
>Answering a question with a question is no answer at all, of course...
>but it has been my contention all along that one of the criteria for
>something to fit the accepted definitions of money is that it be a
>medium of exchange. Such a medium does something known as
>'circulate'... currencies of foreign nations (say, the ever-popular 'one
>lots'), when traded as a commodity, do not circulate; exchanging a paper
>(or computer-blips) about an object is not the same as setting the
>object in motion.
>
>DD
It has been your contention? It has been your assumption? I have addressed
this issue of circulation before, in other posts along this thread. I think
I should now pursue it a little deeper so that this fallacy can be laid to
rest. I don't expect you to actually respond to the substance of my
argument, rather, you will accuse me of powerful convictions, ask for a
source on everything (even when it is stated common sense), and quibble over
technicalities. Nevertheless, the truth must be stated for the record. I
will make it clear enough that it shines like day.
Gresham's Law states that when two classes of money circulate side-by-side,
and one has more intrinsic value than the other, the bad money will drive
the good money out of circulation. People always spend the paper before
they spend the gold. This does NOT mean that paper is somehow more money
than gold is. Rather, it shows that paper is bad money.
This has proven historically to be true. A few simple examples show it as
well. Here is one. Let's say I was going to buy your car. I will pay you
paper money for it, instead of gold, because the government has said you
will be imprisoned if you do not accept their paper. See, I give you the
paper because you will accept it. I WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU DIRT OR PIG SHIT
INSTEAD, IF YOU WOULD HAVE ONLY ACCEPTED IT. Does this mean that DIRT is
the true money?
If you would accept them, I would give you sheets of blank paper before I
would give you dollars. I would give you dollars before I would give you
gold. This is Gresham's Law in action. Do you disagree with it?
In Russia, the government forces people to accept Rubles as money. Rubles,
as we all know, are about the most worthless thing on the face of the
planet. You could argue that rubles are money, more than gold is, because
they circulate more than gold does. However, I have already shown that the
same would be true of dirt, if it were in the same situation. You have gone
smack in the face of Gresham's Law.
PLEASE NOTE-----
I assume that you read the news stories this year about people using Vodka
for currency in Russia? Even without that magic stamp of government
approval, people are willing to accept Vodka more readily that they will
accept rubles!
Here is why NATURAL MARKET FORCES are resulting in Vodka as a currency: (1)
It is FUNGIBLE
(2) It is DIVISIBLE
(3) It stores a relatively large value in a small space
(4) It is an effective store OVER TIME.
Most importantly, Vodka meets those criteria better than Rubles do. Do
those four criteria seem familiar to you in any way?
Vodka works as currency because people are willing to accept it. You see, a
currency is not what people are willing to spend...rather, a currency is
what people are willing to ACCEPT AS PAYMENT! Vodka apparently has more
psychological acceptance than Rubles.
Historically and geographically, no currency has ever had more psychological
acceptance that gold. Due to this fact, and Gresham's Law, I can now point
out this crucial factor: People do not spend their gold because they would
rather spend the bad money first. The only situation where people spend
their gold is where the receiver WILL ACCEPT NOTHING LESS. And that is
where gold is being used as a form of money today: where nothing less is
accepted. If you take that in mind, and research a bit into the strange
activities of the London Bullion Marketing Association, you will begin to
see the magnitude of what will shortly occur.
Whether you believe me or not, you will soon see why I am right, especially
if you are holding dollars (or gold). Good luck.
The Goobers
>
> Note, this post is rather long, perhaps more than you expected.
As long as it contains the definition you use, well and good.
> However,
> there is much more to learn and I can forward you a few articles if you want
> to continue your money education. By the time you finish reading this, I
> think it should be clear.
That is *not* an auspicious beginning.
>
> The Goobers wrote in message <3685C715...@home.com>...
> >Chris Odom wrote:
> >> The truth is, gold is NOT just a commodity. It is a form of money, like it
> >> or not.
> >
> >Mr Odom, I *don't* like it and I had a similar discussion with Mr Turner
> >in earlier threads. Please be so kind as to post the definition you are
> >using for 'money' and the source of said definition.
>
> Ahhhh, you do NOT like it?
What I do not like, Mr Odom, is assertions without support; my apologies
if I did not make this more clear. I assumed this was made clear by the
second sentence.
> Now this gets juicy, where emotions are
> involved. This says to me that you have a prejudice against gold.
See above... the intent was to say that I did not like the unsupported
assertion without an associated definition, nothing more, nothing less.
[snippage about confusing me with an aurophobe]
Oh goodie.
> Now, on to the definition of money!
>
> Let us start with Websters definition (New Universal Unabridged, Second
> Edition, copyright 1983):
> mon'ey, n.; pl. mon'eys or mon'ies
> 1. (a) standard pieces of gold, silver, copper, nickel, etc., stamped by
> government authority and used as a medium of exchange and measure of value.
> ---------
> My own definition differs slightly from Webster in that true money requires
> no government permission to be money.
'My own definition'? Mr Odom, you cite Webster's, a good beginning
source. *Your* definitions are idiosyncratic and as such no arguments
can be made from or towards them but your own.
> However, he is pretty much on track
> when he says standard pieces of gold and silver used as a medium of exchange
> and a measure of value. I would say a STORE of value. You might argue with
> that by saying: how can I know what gold's purchasing power will be
> tomorrow?
No, Mr Odom, I *will* argue with that by saying 'Webster's contains
definitions which represent more-or-less accepted usage throughout the
American-speaking realm'. What you might supply is idiosyncratic.
[much snippage]
Now, Mr Odom, you've given Webster's definition and your own personal
spin thereupon. While your construction might be cunning (and, just
coincidentally, support the rest of your arguments) I would ask just
where this definition is to be found in any source considered as
credibly as Webster's is considered to be.
I realise that you and Mr Turner are in agreement on such matters,
certainly... but neither of you, nor the combination of the two, is a
match for ol' Noah. If you cannot supply a source which indicates your
usage of 'money' represents an equal, or more credible usage than that
which is prescribed by Webster's (or similar reference volume) then I
believe that you have no argument.
DD
The Goobers
>
> The Goobers wrote in message <36864E12...@home.com>...
> >Chris Odom wrote:
> >>
> >> The Goobers wrote in message <3685C411...@home.com>...
> >> >Chris Odom wrote:
> >> >> To give you an example of the skyrocketing PHYSICAL GOLD demand, all you
> >> >> have to do is go check out the US Mint web site. Easy research.
> >> >>
> >> >> Total number of ounces sold in 1997: 564,250
> >> >> http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1997.cfm
> >> >>
> >> >> Total number of ounces sold in 1998: 1,624,500
> >> >> http://www.usmint.gov/bullion/annualsales/sales1998.cfm
> >> >>
> >> >> A 300% increase.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, this was commented upon in a different posting; an increase in
> >> >demand from a single source of 300% does *not* translate into an overall
> >> >increase of 300%. Be that as it may...
> >>
> >> That was just an example. (As stated.)
> >> Your request for substantiation was not important enough to warrant me
> >> researching every supplier.
> >
> >Now I'm confused again... my request wasn't enough for full, complete
> >and authoratative documentation but for incomplete documentation which
> >was readily refuted?
>
> You have not refuted their sales figures, you have merely pointed out that
> they are but one supplier.
And in pointing that out it refutes the assertion that gold sales have
risen 300%; it states that gold sales from one source have done so... a
slightly different situation, isn't it?
> As I say in the below paragraph, if you look at
> other mints and coin shops throughout the country, you will see the same
> increase in sales.
Ummmmm, Mr Odom, just as an aside... why is it that you need to predict
your own statements?
> It's been all over the news, and I will have to hold you
> to a standard of informing yourself in that regard. I don't have enough
> time to go search them all out in order to refute your uninformed disbelief,
> when I think the US Mint figures are enough to demonstrate to our readers
> what I am talking about.
US Mint figures are enough to demonstrate what the US Mint does, Mr
Odom, no more and no less; if you think this is sufficient demonstration
of your point then perhaps you need a bit more training in what
constitutes a Valid Argument. You might begin by musing upon the
aphorism of 'One swallow doth not a summer make.'
>
> >> However, if you look into similar news reports
> >> about the Royal Canadian Mint, the Australian Mint, and individual coin
> >> shops around the country, you will see they match up. And as I said before,
> >> it's been all over the news so it's rather difficult to miss.
> >
> >This was addressed in a separate posting in this thread, viz.
>
> I don't know if I believe you. Perhaps you could substantiate that
> assertion with a source? "A URL is all that is necessary."
Of course I can substantiate it... look, the quoted text follows!
>
> >--begin quoted text
> >
> >> >
> >> > http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/3343
> >> > Date: 1998-12-18 09:04:19
> >> > Subject: Gold Coin Sales in the U.S. Are up Over 100%
> >> > Link: http://www.gold.org/Gedt/Gdt25/Usa.htm
> >> > Comment: Gold coin sales by the various mints have more than doubled
> >> > the 1997 sales in the U.S. (Click
> >> > through to see chart.) Third quarter sales were up 300% over third
> >> > quarter, 1997.
> >> > -----
> >> > Investment demand, as measured by coin sales from the issuing mints,
> >> > rose strongly in the third quarter. At 23.5 tonnes, this was almost
> >> > three times the previous record for a third quarter (8.7 tonnes in 1997)
> >> > since the WGC started to collect quarterly data.
> >
> >--end quoted text
> >
> >Notice that Mr North's site contains the 300% figure you have cited but
> >the World Gold Council points out that this is only for US gold coinage
> >sales for the third quarter of 1998 compared to 1997.
>
> Notice that the figures *I* gave were for the entire years of 97 and 98, not
> the third quarters. So your point is?
My point is a) that the substantion you requested followed immediately
and you've not even said 'thank you'...
... b) that the figures you have posted still show, by your own
evaluation, a 'negligible' increase (based on your description of a
Swiss sale of 160 tons as 'negligible')
My apologies if I was too obscure; in future I shall attempt greater
clarity.
>
> >> >> Suffice to say,
> >> >> 160 ton sale by the Swiss or anyone else is negligible at best.
> >> >
> >> >... and this is where I get confused. How is it that '160 ton sale by
> >> >the Swiss *or anyone else* (emphasis added) is neglible at best' while a
> >> >sale of 50 tons (1.6M oz) by the US mint is worthy of note?
> >> >
> >> >What am I missing here besides a bit of selective emphasis?
> >>
> >> As a matter of fact, no. If you read my full post, you will see that I
> >> address this and explain the reason why that is the case. It has to do with
> >> the fact that individual bullion sales invariably result in the buyer
> >> immediately taking delivery of the metal. Unlike most other gold trades.
> >
> >Yes, and most of these other gold trades do *not* reflect a desire to
> >own gold (no physical possession) but a desire to make money off of
> >gold... a *very* different proposition.
>
> Yes, a desire to make money off of it by shorting it. Exactly my point.
> More below...
Once again you predict your own responses... I wish I knew what this
meant.
>
> >This is disturbing... on the one hand you claim to be able to support
> >your argument, on the other hand you say it is of insufficient
> >importance. On the one hand you state that sales of a certain size are
> >negligible, on the other hand you claim that sales of a lesser size
> >support your argument.
>
> As I've said numerous times, and will not bother to say again, the crux of
> my argument is that most of the gold being traded today is paper gold.
Then it is *paper* which is circulating, not gold... leaving gold's
status as 'money', a circulating entity, nonexistent, as I stated
previously.
> There is not enough physical gold in existence to cover it. The sales of
> bullion coins are important here because they are the one case where the
> buyer always takes physical delivery of the metal.
But the sales of the bullion coins are less than 160 tons, which is
'negligible'... how can this be now 'important'?
> For this reason, the
> 300% increase in PHYSICAL DEMAND places a much stronger pressure on the CB's
> to compensate by flooding the market with fake gold.
The original assertion was that *demand* had increased 300%, *not* that
demand for PHYSICAL DELIVERY from one set of sources had incerased 300%.
> I understand that the current manipulation makes it appear as if things do
> not make sense. If you read my previous posts carefully, you will see that
> I resolve this.
In reading your posts I see something very, *very* different... but,
fortunately, I will not comment in public thereupon.
> A lesser amount of REAL GOLD is a more important factor in the buildup of
> pressure than a "certain size" of gold certificates.
>
> >It seems as though we are not dealing here with your arguments, but with
> >your convictions... and if your mind is already made up then the facts
> >are only confusing. I will be as ready to drop this exchange any time
> >you are; it seems as though we are at loggerheads over what constitutes
> >open and clear communication.
>
> Here is my response to that.
Glad to see that you do not attempt to deny it... it is a good start.
DD
redrum
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>redrum <na...@na.da> wrote:
>
>> Today the only thing that backs US money is the will of the US govt
that
>> they are money. In fact, that's really the only thing that backs any
>> money-the widespread acceptance in society that it has value as
money.
>> Despite gold being much ballyhooed as excellent money, if society
>> decided that it didn't have value, then all the gold in the world
>> wouldn't make you rich.
>
>"society."
>
>Yes, the US government says that green bills are lawful money, and so
they
>are accepted. But the US government doesn't say the same thing about
>French Francs. France does not say the same about US dollars. When it
>comes to pieces of paper, or pieces of copper or tin or nickel, it's
>always some government that is saying that they are "worth something."
>
>But when it comes to gold, no government needs to say "oh, gold is
worth
>something" for it to be worth something. Rather, it's everyone, all
>people, that agree that gold is worth something. No one government
going
>down is going to cause gold to become worthless, like it happens all
the
>time with other government "money."
Ok, true. But there could always be some widespread disaster that could
cause gold to become worthless. Imagine if a meteor hit the earth,
blocking out the sunlight. I suspect that soon all the gold in the world
couldn't buy a slice of bread. I am reminded of an episode fromm the
original Twilight Zone. Three crooks, after robbing a gold shipment,
have themselves put in suspended animation for 100 years so when they
wake up they can be free AND rich. Well, when they wake up they
immediately battle for the money. The winner has all the gold. The only
problem is, he finds himself in a waterless desert. Later, parched and
near death, he comes upon a man with a bucket of water. He happily gives
every last coin to the man in return for just a drink of water. See the
point I'm trying to make? Value is socially determined (I'm considering
government a social institution).
redrum
my_email...@enteract.com says...
Could you clarify: do you mean that the amount of gold certificates now
out there equals all the tonnage in CB control PLUS 14,000 tons that
doesn't really exist?
Robert Sturgeon
Interesting. The scenarios you create wouldn't place any value in any
kind of money, fiat or gold. And they rely on science fiction. But
in the actual world, sans giant meteorite strikes, planet-wide
desertification, and who knows what other disasters, your notion of
worthless gold is so unlikely as to be of no value whatsoever. Why
bother with these "you can't eat (drink, in your case) gold" themes?
They lead nowhere.
If you can't understand that paper money, made valuable by government
edict, is less likely to maintain its value through a societal crisis
than is gold, then please, by all means, stock up on paper money.
Good luck to you. Maybe human nature, after thousands of years of
constancy, will suddenly change and you'll be right.
Chris Odom
DD: This might also make clear a few more of the things I've been talking
about.
Chris Odom wrote in message <3686d...@news.globalreach.net>...
>>Do you know the following information:
>>
>>1) The total amount of physical gold currently in existence above ground.
>
>Approximately 34,000 tons. About half of this is in the vaults of the
CB's,
>BIS, IMF, etc. The other half includes bullion, jewelry, industrial uses,
>etc. All the gold ever mined.
I made a factual error here that merits correction. 34,000 tons is NOT the
total amount of gold ever mined, but I did have that number in my head for a
reason (shown below). It's a common fact that the total amount of gold ever
mined will fit inside a cube of 20 yards. This would weigh more than 34,000
tons, so I researched the issue again to verify my numbers:
100,000 tons is approximately the total amount of gold ever mined.
2/3rd's of that is in bullion form (bars, coins, etc), split evenly,
approx.:
--34,000 tons are in bullion form controlled by the CB's.
--34,000 tons are in bullion form in private hands.
Based on that alone, the majority of the world's gold is used as money. Of
course it will not be in circulation as long as there is lesser currency to
spend, in keeping with Gresham's Law. It will only be spent in situations
where nothing less than gold will be accepted as payment. And those
situations do occur, if you look carefully.
20%, or 20,000 tons, are in jewelry form, mostly in private hands.
The remaining 13% is divided between industrial uses, dentistry, lost gold,
and misc. I assume mostly in private hands.
According to some 1986 data, the annual gold production is about 1500 tons.
I have reason to believe it's a bit higher now, perhaps 2500 tons.
The annual gold CONSUMPTION is consistently about 1000 tons higher than the
annual gold production.
The price of gold, denominated in dollars, has declined for the past 20
years. Even a price of $300/oz today is half the cost of $300/oz in the
early 80's, since the dollar has lost about half of its purchasing power in
that time.
My other numbers were in reference to the total amount of gold that is
currently sold short. As I said, CB gold leasing is not reportable like
gold sales are, but estimates range from the most conservative 7,000 tons to
14,000 tons. How much of that do you think is coverable, in physical form,
on the open market?
I SUPPOSE THAT DEPENDS ON THE PRICE. Which, of course, would have to be
rather high to compensate for that short squeeze. High enough that the gold
markets would close nearly instantly as the price sliced up through the
thousands of dollars per ounce. That may sound extravagant, but keep in
mind that the 1980 gold panic brought the price to $850/oz, and when
adjusted for 1999 dollars, that approaches $2000. And of course that's not
considering the 80% of the existing dollars that are currently held overseas
and do not currently (but soon will) affect the purchasing power of the
dollar domestically.
Greenspan has admitted to taking action to hold down the price of gold. I
have to ask, why is that the case? And was the LTCM bailout related to the
fact that the fund was short 300 tons of gold? The longer that pressure
builds up, the more powerful will be the eventual movement in price when it
does occur.
One factor that affects these circumstances more than anything else is when
purchasers of gold take PHYSICAL DELIVERY of the metal. After all, the
current gold price is set assuming that the gold supply includes the paper
gold. But soon the holders of paper gold will be the ones most burned!
The time is short.
The Goobers
Oh dear... yet another inauspicious beginning. Why is it that I am
suspicious of discourses in Economics which assume the same language as
discoureses in Religion?
>
> Gresham's Law states that when two classes of money circulate side-by-side,
> and one has more intrinsic value than the other, the bad money will drive
> the good money out of circulation. People always spend the paper before
> they spend the gold. This does NOT mean that paper is somehow more money
> than gold is. Rather, it shows that paper is bad money.
This was never disputed; what was pointed out was that after it has been
'driven out' and no longer circulates that the good money is used as a
medium of exchange and therefore, according to the definition you
supplied from Webster's (and for which definition you offered none from
a source of similar credibility) is no longer 'money'.
>
> This has proven historically to be true. A few simple examples show it as
> well. Here is one. Let's say I was going to buy your car. I will pay you
> paper money for it, instead of gold, because the government has said you
> will be imprisoned if you do not accept their paper. See, I give you the
> paper because you will accept it. I WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU DIRT OR PIG SHIT
> INSTEAD, IF YOU WOULD HAVE ONLY ACCEPTED IT. Does this mean that DIRT is
> the true money?
The question I asked was *not* 'how are you defining 'true' money', Mr
Odom; this question presumes the question of 'what is truth' and is a
bit deeper than the scope of this discussion. The question I asked, Mr
Odom, is 'what is the source of your definition of 'money' and you have
not indicated any source for this except your own sense. Discussions
about things which are based on idiosyncratic definitions, Mr Odom, do
not usually go very far, as you are most ably demonstrating.
I ask once again, in case you've lost your way in the thorny woods: Mr
Odom, what is the source of your definition of 'money'? Please be so
kind as to cite it.
>
> If you would accept them, I would give you sheets of blank paper before I
> would give you dollars. I would give you dollars before I would give you
> gold. This is Gresham's Law in action. Do you disagree with it?
Mr Odom, Gresham's Law has little to do with the question I have posed
and which you have not answered; please be so kind as to cite the source
of your definition of 'money' and we might continue from there.
>
> In Russia, the government forces people to accept Rubles as money. Rubles,
> as we all know, are about the most worthless thing on the face of the
> planet. You could argue that rubles are money, more than gold is, because
> they circulate more than gold does. However, I have already shown that the
> same would be true of dirt, if it were in the same situation. You have gone
> smack in the face of Gresham's Law.
Mr Odom, gold is not money, according to the definition of money you
have cited from Webster's. According to whose definition *is* gold
money, please?
>
> PLEASE NOTE-----
> I assume that you read the news stories this year about people using Vodka
> for currency in Russia? Even without that magic stamp of government
> approval, people are willing to accept Vodka more readily that they will
> accept rubles!
> Here is why NATURAL MARKET FORCES are resulting in Vodka as a currency: (1)
> It is FUNGIBLE
> (2) It is DIVISIBLE
> (3) It stores a relatively large value in a small space
> (4) It is an effective store OVER TIME.
Mr Odom, the question was not 'what is currency?'; currency and money,
as you've pointed out, are not necessarily the same thing.
>
> Most importantly, Vodka meets those criteria better than Rubles do. Do
> those four criteria seem familiar to you in any way?
Only in that when I questioned them earlier you avoided my question.
>
> Vodka works as currency because people are willing to accept it. You see, a
> currency is not what people are willing to spend...rather, a currency is
> what people are willing to ACCEPT AS PAYMENT! Vodka apparently has more
> psychological acceptance than Rubles.
>
> Historically and geographically, no currency has ever had more psychological
> acceptance that gold. Due to this fact, and Gresham's Law, I can now point
> out this crucial factor: People do not spend their gold because they would
> rather spend the bad money first. The only situation where people spend
> their gold is where the receiver WILL ACCEPT NOTHING LESS. And that is
> where gold is being used as a form of money today: where nothing less is
> accepted. If you take that in mind, and research a bit into the strange
> activities of the London Bullion Marketing Association, you will begin to
> see the magnitude of what will shortly occur.
Mr Odom, you state above that there exists a place 'where gold is used
as a form of money today'; please be so kind as to specify a geography?
(Also note that 'being used as a form of money' is *not* the same as
'being money'; thank you for supporting my own assertions.)
>
> Whether you believe me or not, you will soon see why I am right, especially
> if you are holding dollars (or gold). Good luck.
Mr Odom, my holdings are of no concern of yours or anyone else's; my
only concern is that you supply your source of definition. The one
credible source you have cited contradicts your assertions.
DD
The Goobers
>
> The Goobers wrote in message <3686F1F2...@home.com>...
> >Chris Odom wrote:
>
> [snip, technical blah blah blah]
'Technical blah blah blah'? Not a good sign when discussing finance.
>
> >> Now, on to the definition of money!
> >>
> >> Let us start with Websters definition (New Universal Unabridged, Second
> >> Edition, copyright 1983):
> >> mon'ey, n.; pl. mon'eys or mon'ies
> >> 1. (a) standard pieces of gold, silver, copper, nickel, etc., stamped by
> >> government authority and used as a medium of exchange and measure of value.
> >> ---------
> >> My own definition differs slightly from Webster in that true money requires
> >> no government permission to be money.
> >
> >'My own definition'? Mr Odom, you cite Webster's, a good beginning
> >source. *Your* definitions are idiosyncratic and as such no arguments
> >can be made from or towards them but your own.
> >
> >No, Mr Odom, I *will* argue with that by saying 'Webster's contains
> >definitions which represent more-or-less accepted usage throughout the
> >American-speaking realm'. What you might supply is idiosyncratic.
> >
> >Now, Mr Odom, you've given Webster's definition and your own personal
> >spin thereupon. While your construction might be cunning (and, just
> >coincidentally, support the rest of your arguments) I would ask just
> >where this definition is to be found in any source considered as
> >credibly as Webster's is considered to be.
> >
> >I realise that you and Mr Turner are in agreement on such matters,
> >certainly... but neither of you, nor the combination of the two, is a
> >match for ol' Noah. If you cannot supply a source which indicates your
> >usage of 'money' represents an equal, or more credible usage than that
> >which is prescribed by Webster's (or similar reference volume) then I
> >believe that you have no argument.
>
> From what you've said, you seem to think that my definition is in
> disagreement with Webster. Rather, the point of my post was to explain to
> you why Webster is correct in what he says. Furthermore, I went ahead and
> explained why your own definition is at odds with what Webster had to say.
> Those sections from my post are entitled "The Evolution and Sustainment of
> Money," and "Circulation," respectively.
Mr Odom, in those sections you went on about something which you called
'true money', which had nothing to do with the definition you refused to
give. Once again, Mr Odom, please be so kind as to cite your sources.
> If you have an argument that I
> (and Webster) are wrong, then I suggest that you respond to the substance of
> my argument itself, which you have miserably failed to do.
Mr Odom, I have given the substance of your argument all the attention
and credit which is due to it based upon your lack of sourcing. In case
the Clear Light which you see is blinding you, rather than enlightening
you, permit me to repeat the definition from Webster's which you find
lacking:
--begin quoted text:
1. (a) standard pieces of gold, silver, copper, nickel, etc., stamped by
government authority and used as a medium of exchange and measure of
value.
--end quoted text
Now, Mr Odom, both you and Mr Turner see fit to ignore the defining
phrase '... and used as a medium of exchange' (circulated) without
citing any source outside of yourselves for doing so; it is my
distasteful duty to point out that while it is within your capabilities
to formulate such definitions that said autogenerated, idiosyncratic
Humpty-Dumptyisms do not necessarily make for the best of
communications. Please, in as clear and unambiguous a manner as you
have cited Webster's, which contradicts you, be so kind as to cite the
source which supports you.
> There is only one spot where I think Webster is wrong: he implies (not
> outright) that gold is money just because a government proclaims it as such.
I disagree, Mr Odom; the US Mint stamps out Eagles by the ton, each with
a face value, and I would say that these coins *fail* to meet Webster's
definition by not being used as a 'medium of exchange'... they do not
*circulate*, Mr Odom.
> I hold that Gold is money anyway. Can you credibly disagree with that?
I cannot disagree with what you hold, Mr Odom... I, after all, hold that
I am the King of England. What I *can*, and *do* disagree with is that
your holding such is at odds with accepted definitions and that your
doing so makes what is commonly known as 'communication' a bit...
difficult.
> The
> reason I say it is, whenever a government collapses, gold is still accepted
> as money.
I am sure you have *very* good reasons for making up your own
definitions, Mr Odom... but the fact that you can do so and insist on
doing does not mean that you are speaking the same language as I... this
is why we have dictionaries, neh?
> Furthermore, the people accepting the gold don't really care what
> government's name is stamped upon it.
> In any case, your response shows a thorough lack of understanding of my
> post, so I suggest that you go back and read it at LEAST twice before
> attempting to respond to it.
Mr Odom, repetition of idiosyncracy is still idiosyncracy; as you have
been unable to supply any reasonably credible source for your
definitions, except for yourself, I can only conclude that you enjoy
making things up to suit your own prejudices. This is not what I was
taught to be Reasoned Discourse or a Search for Knowledge... but I am
only using the definitions found in the likes of Webster's, not in
Odom's.
> I also notice that you failed to answer any of
> the questions...
I asked mine first, Mr Odom... cite the source of your definition and we
can, perhaps, go on from there. Until such time as fundamental
definitions are resolved further discourse is... difficult, to say the
least.
DD
The Goobers
>
> The Goobers wrote in message <3686F43F...@home.com>...
[snippage]
> I pointed out that ONE source (US Mint) had bullion sales triple for a
> period of a year. You then countered by pointing out that ALL SOURCES had
> sales triple during a period of a quarter during that year. You have
> succeeded in supporting my argument...
Mr Odom, I pointed out that all sources had a combined volume less than
a figure you called 'negligible'... are you saying, then, that your
argument is based on things 'less than negligible'?
> Furthermore, it appears from what you are saying that you will not believe
> me unless I post figures from ALL SOURCES OF BULLION.
It also appeared to you that I was an aurophobe, Mr Odom, and when your
error was demonstrated you dismissed it as 'technical blah blah blah'.
Perhaps paying more attention to substance than appearances would be a
fruitful thing.
> Apparently news
> reports about the various mints and sample coin shops are not sufficient
> enough for you. The substance of my argument is irrelevant to you unless I
> post sales figures for every source of bullion sales in the world?
Not in the least, Mr Odom... I'd be interested to see you post figures
which indicate, say, that quantites which agree with your assertions are
only... oh, *double* the negligible amount of 160 tons.
> I rest
> my case.
On what do you rest it, Mr Odom... your interpretations of
'appearances'?
>
> >But the sales of the bullion coins are less than 160 tons, which is
> >'negligible'... how can this be now 'important'?
>
> I have already pointed out numerous times why this is the case. Read my
> previous posts.
I have read them, Mr Odom, and found nothing which reconcilse the
following:
'A Swiss sale of 160 tons is neglible.'
'US Mint sales of 50 tons is very, very, very important and proves that
I have Truth!'
> This is actually one of the main points I've been trying to
> get across, I'm glad you are picking up on it.
You've had... questionable success, Mr Odom.
>
> >> >It seems as though we are not dealing here with your arguments, but with
> >> >your convictions... and if your mind is already made up then the facts
> >> >are only confusing. I will be as ready to drop this exchange any time
> >> >you are; it seems as though we are at loggerheads over what constitutes
> >> >open and clear communication.
> >>
> >> Here is my response to that.
> >
> >Glad to see that you do not attempt to deny it... it is a good start.
>
> I was not accepting your conclusion (based apparently on psychic
> mind-reading powers?)
I did not say you were accepting it, Mr Odom... you offered no
response. Consider the logic:
A denial is a response.
Mr Odom offered no response.
Mr Odom offered no denial.
A simple bit of play with a syllogism, Mr Odom... are you unfamiliar
with 'play'?
> What I meant was, I refuse to respond to such a
> statement because it would place me on your level.
Then *say* it, Mr Odom, lest you be mistaken. As for 'my level'... you
are quite right, Mr Odom; 'my' levels begin with acceptable sources for
definitions and you have, in *no* wise, yet placed yourself there...
care to try?
> I am here to discuss
> substance, not pick over trivialities and personal accusations.
Mr Odom, then by all means begin with the substance of definitions.
> I have
> always responded to what little substance there is in your posts, you have
> never done the same in return.
Mr Odom, I disagree; I would say that you have responded with preaching,
preconceptions and trivialities. On the one point I have been
insistent, the point of your definition, you have been notoriously
silent; please be so kind as to cite the source of your definitions and
we might continue to something else other than empty blather and
palavering.
> I believe now that it is because you have
> nothing of substance to give.
Your beliefs are your own, Mr Odom... try sharing the sources of your
definitions and you might see things move otherwise.
DD
Bradley K. Sherman
>>cause gold to become worthless. Imagine if a meteor hit the earth,
>>blocking out the sunlight. I suspect that soon all the gold in the world
>>couldn't buy a slice of bread. I am reminded of an episode fromm the
Suppose a meteor 20 yards in diameter composed of 99.99% pure gold
landed in Afghanistan? (cf. Fred Hoyle.) Imagine the poor planet
Frxtlprtr in the Bnalstrnff nebula. The Frxtlprtrians are kind,
intelligent and devoted to their children, but as there is no
gold on Frxtlprtr, they've never been able to develop an economy.
--bks
ET
>
> DD: This might also make clear a few more of the things I've been talking
> about.
>
> Chris Odom wrote in message <3686d...@news.globalreach.net>...
> >>Do you know the following information:
> >>
> >>1) The total amount of physical gold currently in existence above ground.
> >
> >Approximately 34,000 tons. About half of this is in the vaults of the
> CB's,
> >BIS, IMF, etc. The other half includes bullion, jewelry, industrial uses,
> >etc. All the gold ever mined.
>
> I made a factual error here that merits correction. 34,000 tons is NOT the
> total amount of gold ever mined, but I did have that number in my head for a
> reason (shown below). It's a common fact that the total amount of gold ever
> mined will fit inside a cube of 20 yards. This would weigh more than 34,000
> tons, so I researched the issue again to verify my numbers:
>
> 100,000 tons is approximately the total amount of gold ever mined.
> 2/3rd's of that is in bullion form (bars, coins, etc), split evenly,
> approx.:
> --34,000 tons are in bullion form controlled by the CB's.
> --34,000 tons are in bullion form in private hands.
This is from the Dec 98 'News and Views' newsletter from Centennial
Precious Metals.
Above ground stocks of gold;
Total - 134,400 tons
Jewelry - 62,600 tons or 46%
Official holdings - 31,900 tons or 24%
Private investment - 24,200 tons or 18%
Other fabrication - 14,800 tons or 11%
Unaccounted - 1,300 tons or 1%
The official holdings section is further broken down;
EMU countries - 12,900 tons or 40%
Non-EMU countries - 19,000 tons or 60%
About 3000 tons is mined annually.
ET
Chris Odom
redrum wrote in message <7670uh$2k9$1...@remarQ.com>...
>In article <3686d...@news.globalreach.net>,
>Could you clarify: do you mean that the amount of gold certificates now
>out there equals all the tonnage in CB control PLUS 14,000 tons that
>doesn't really exist?
The amount of gold certificates is only estimated. Estimates range from
7000 tons to 14,000 tons. That is NOT in addition to the gold held by the
CB's, which is approximately 34,000 tons.
**** These certificates represent the amount of gold that is OWED TO the
CB's. That gold must be purchased on the open market before it can be paid
to them.
Also, note that you are responding to a post that I have responded to
myself in order to provide some clarification.
Chris Odom
>| However, outside of any increase in demand, yearly gold consumption
already
>| exceeded yearly gold production...
>
>lack of demand, and many inefficient mines haved ceased production?
Here is what you have just said:
(I say)
1) The demand is higher than the supply
(you reply)
2) that's because the price is low.
3) that's because the demand is low.
I think that's rather circular... The demand is too high because the demand
is too low? And both of those conditions must both still be true...? I
have explained that the price is low due to the artificial supply of paper
gold. A time will come when the price will be adjusted to the supply of
actual gold.
Chris Odom
Bradley K. Sherman wrote in message ...
I'm sure the people on that planet would have ended up with a form of money.
I assume they have SOME commodities that they trade amongst themselves?
Notice these four criteria:
1) fungible
2) divisible
3) store of max value in a small space
4) effective store over time
Whichever commodity best matches those criteria will become the defacto
currency of that planet due to natural market forces. On our own planet,
that has been gold.
I suppose it's within the realm of possibility (no its not) for a 20 yard
meteor of 99.99% pure gold to land on the earth. That would cut the value
of gold in half? Of course, I am willing to take that risk. I'd even give
you a billion to one odds.
Bradley K. Sherman
> ...
>Total - 134,400 tons
> ...
>About 3000 tons is mined annually.
So the total quantity of gold mined to date represents
only 40 years of mining at today's rate? No wonder
gold prices are decreasing. Not to imply that this
discussion is on-topic.
--bks
ET
<snip>
> My other numbers were in reference to the total amount of gold that is
> currently sold short. As I said, CB gold leasing is not reportable like
> gold sales are, but estimates range from the most conservative 7,000 tons to
> 14,000 tons. How much of that do you think is coverable, in physical form,
> on the open market?
>
> I SUPPOSE THAT DEPENDS ON THE PRICE. Which, of course, would have to be
> rather high to compensate for that short squeeze. High enough that the gold
> markets would close nearly instantly as the price sliced up through the
> thousands of dollars per ounce. That may sound extravagant, but keep in
> mind that the 1980 gold panic brought the price to $850/oz, and when
> adjusted for 1999 dollars, that approaches $2000. And of course that's not
> considering the 80% of the existing dollars that are currently held overseas
> and do not currently (but soon will) affect the purchasing power of the
> dollar domestically.
I've also heard the figure of 14,000 tons has been sold short. As per
my previous post regarding above ground gold stocks, if jewelry and
other fabrication is removed from the equation, that leaves private
investment (24,200 tons) and official holdings (31,900 tons) as
available to cover these contracts. Total 56,100 tons.
Since it appears highly unlikely that central banks and governments are
going to dishoard any gold to cover these contracts, that leaves private
investment. It is interesting to note that through gold leasing, the
central banks not only retain possession of their holdings but are also
owed the 14,000 tons. An interesting state of affairs. It is also
unlikely these contracts can be covered through private investment
holdings except at a much higher price. The physical gold market
appears to be cornered. Your suggestion that the banks will accept
Euros for payment in lieu of the gold itself may or may not force the
end of this situation. Since gold must be deposited to obtain Euros,
I'm not sure if this can be worked out smoothly without upsetting the
gold market. Gold's price will have to climb in dollars as this squeeze
is unwound. As to when and how fast this might occur is the question.
> Greenspan has admitted to taking action to hold down the price of gold. I
> have to ask, why is that the case? And was the LTCM bailout related to the
> fact that the fund was short 300 tons of gold? The longer that pressure
> builds up, the more powerful will be the eventual movement in price when it
> does occur.
>
> One factor that affects these circumstances more than anything else is when
> purchasers of gold take PHYSICAL DELIVERY of the metal. After all, the
> current gold price is set assuming that the gold supply includes the paper
> gold. But soon the holders of paper gold will be the ones most burned!
Yes, it appears the same people are participating on both ends of this
leasing business. The central banks have instigated this short position
for what appear to be political purposes and at the same time are
running in to bailout the losers in this squeeze. No telling how they
expect this to work out without driving the price of gold in dollars
through the roof. This is shaping up as one hell of a currency war.
> The time is short.
But not the time to be short. <g>
ET
Chris Odom
The Goobers wrote in message <36877195...@home.com>...
>Chris Odom wrote:
>>
>> The Goobers wrote in message <3686F1F2...@home.com>...
>> >Chris Odom wrote:
>>
>> [snip, technical blah blah blah]
>
>'Technical blah blah blah'? Not a good sign when discussing finance.
It was not a discussion of finance. The part I snipped was you quibbling
over technicalities like, "why do you always say 'more below' when you
explain something below?"
Rather than waste my time biting your bait, I snipped it.
>Mr Odom, in those sections you went on about something which you called
>'true money', which had nothing to do with the definition you refused to
>give. Once again, Mr Odom, please be so kind as to cite your sources.
The definition I gave was Websters:
>1. (a) standard pieces of gold, silver, copper, nickel, etc., stamped by
>government authority and used as a medium of exchange and measure of
>value.
I also gave two explanations:
1) The reason why natural market forces result in Websters definition.
2) The reason why your circulation argument is EXACTLY WRONG.
Note what I also said:
>> If you have an argument that I
>> (and Webster) are wrong, then I suggest that you respond to the substance
of
>> my argument itself, which you have miserably failed to do.
At this point I have even begun to predict your responses before you give
them.
Back to your circulation drivel:
>Now, Mr Odom, both you and Mr Turner see fit to ignore the defining
>phrase '... and used as a medium of exchange' (circulated) without
>citing any source outside of yourselves for doing so; it is my
>distasteful duty to point out that while it is within your capabilities
>to formulate such definitions that said autogenerated, idiosyncratic
>Humpty-Dumptyisms do not necessarily make for the best of
>communications. Please, in as clear and unambiguous a manner as you
>have cited Webster's, which contradicts you, be so kind as to cite the
>source which supports you.
As I've posted before, 2/3rds of the gold in existence is used as money. It
is not actively circulating on the street because there is lesser money to
be spent, in keeping with Gresham's Law. Gold has circulated as currency
for over 5000 years, but for the last 20 years, people are forced (by legal
tender laws) to accept paper as money. As long as people will accept that,
no one will be stupid enough to spend gold.
As I have previously demonstrated, the same would be true of dirt or pig
shit that is currently true of paper, if it were in a similar situation.
>> There is only one spot where I think Webster is wrong: he implies (not
>> outright) that gold is money just because a government proclaims it as
such.
>
>I disagree, Mr Odom; the US Mint stamps out Eagles by the ton, each with
>a face value, and I would say that these coins *fail* to meet Webster's
>definition by not being used as a 'medium of exchange'... they do not
>*circulate*, Mr Odom.
If that gold were to circulate while there is lesser money available to be
spent, it would break Gresham's Law. People always spend the bad money
first. By your definition, a Ruble is a better example of money than gold
is. Is that what 5000 years of history teaches you? As I've said, even
dirt would match that definition.
>> I hold that Gold is money even with government approval.
>>Can you credibly disagree with that?
>
>I cannot disagree with what you hold, Mr Odom... I, after all, hold that
>I am the King of England.
Why do I feel like I am wasting my time on you?
Chris Odom
side-by-side,
>| and one has more intrinsic value than the other, the bad money will drive
>| the good money out of circulation. People always spend the paper before
>| they spend the gold. This does NOT mean that paper is somehow more money
>| than gold is. Rather, it shows that paper is bad money.
>
>portable? Who wants several punds of gold weighing down their pockets,
>when a few peices of paper will suffice?
Do you realize how much it costs to buy several pounds of gold?
Also, paper was invented as a convenient way to trade gold. As long as it
is used for that purpose, I am not opposed to it. The gold is there to
provide a standard of measurement, something that paper cannot do. Ever
seen a 100-million-mark note?
>| This has proven historically to be true. A few simple examples show it
as
>| well. Here is one. Let's say I was going to buy your car. I will pay
you
>| paper money for it, instead of gold, because the government has said you
>| will be imprisoned if you do not accept their paper.
>
>If this kind of bullshit is what you rely on as a fundemental point, you
>are already in big trouble. AFAIK, there is NO law, and there has never,
>ever been any law, imposing criminal penalties for anybody who "doesn't
>accept their paper". People do NOT accept paper because they fear loss
>of liberty, they do so because it is good, sound circulating money.
>
>They do NOT accept gold in payment. Period. Go into just about ANY car
>dealer and try to pay with gold eagles. They will NOT ACCEPT THEM!! Only
>a few, a very few weirdos will accept gold as payment. It is not
>currency; it does not circulate in consumer transactions.
>
>Please apply this analysis to the fact that in 99% of cases, businesses
>will NOT accept gold in payment.
Please familiarize yourself with legal tender law and then come back to this
discussion. Why do you think the government had to forcibly confiscate the
gold in the first place?
>Nope. They don't spend their gold because it is inferior to paper:
>1. No one accepts it in payment.
>2. It is heavy and awkward.
see above.
Chris Odom
The Goobers wrote in message <36876DA5...@home.com>...
>Chris Odom wrote:
>> Gresham's Law states that when two classes of money circulate
side-by-side,
>> and one has more intrinsic value than the other, the bad money will drive
>> the good money out of circulation. People always spend the paper before
>> they spend the gold. This does NOT mean that paper is somehow more
>> money than gold is. Rather, it shows that paper is bad money.
>
>This was never disputed; what was pointed out was that after it has been
>'driven out' and no longer circulates that the good money is used as a
>medium of exchange and therefore, according to the definition you
>supplied from Webster's (and for which definition you offered none from
>a source of similar credibility) is no longer 'money'.
Ahhh, now I see what you are vomiting. In other words, something is only
money during the time that it is being traded to someone. Once the trade is
over, it ceases to be money until the next trade! Therefore, nothing is
money while you hold it, only while you spend it.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Yes, money is used as a medium of exchange. Gold has served this purpose
for thousands of years and continues to do so today. Even dollars are price
in terms of gold. (And soon, Euros.)
You are not discussing here the logic of my argument, or anything that is
finance related. Rather, you are arguing over technicalities and claiming
that my definition is not my definition. But that's not a surprise, as I
predicted your response before you gave it:
>>I don't expect you to actually respond to the substance of my
>> argument, rather, you will accuse me of powerful convictions, ask for a
>> source on everything (even when it is stated common sense), and quibble
over
>> technicalities.
>I ask once again, in case you've lost your way in the thorny woods: Mr
>Odom, what is the source of your definition of 'money'? Please be so
>kind as to cite it.
Of course, I have lost my way in the thorny woods (?)
I think I have devoted reams to my definition of money at this point,
including my source and my explanation why it is true. If you have trouble
understanding it, go back and read it again, as I instructed you to.
>> If you would accept them, I would give you sheets of blank paper before I
>> would give you dollars. I would give you dollars before I would give you
>> gold. This is Gresham's Law in action. Do you disagree with it?
>
>Mr Odom, Gresham's Law has little to do with the question I have posed
>and which you have not answered; please be so kind as to cite the source
>of your definition of 'money' and we might continue from there.
Gresham's Law serves to show that people will not spend gold while there is
a lesser currency to get rid of. Outside of that, Websters definition is
exactly correct.
>> In Russia, the government forces people to accept Rubles as money.
Rubles,
>> as we all know, are about the most worthless thing on the face of the
>> planet. You could argue that rubles are money, more than gold is,
because
>> they circulate more than gold does. However, I have already shown that
the
>> same would be true of dirt, if it were in the same situation. You have
gone
>> smack in the face of Gresham's Law.
>
>Mr Odom, gold is not money, according to the definition of money you
>have cited from Webster's. According to whose definition *is* gold
>money, please?
This is the same argument at the top of this post, eh? That NOTHING is
money while it is not actively being traded. As soon as the trade is over,
it ceases to be money until the next trade? As I said before, that is utter
drivel.
YOU ARE CLAIMING that gold does not circulate at all, and therefore, it does
not meet Webster's definition of money, which must "circulate". Gold has
circulated for thousands of years, you do not have a leg to stand on!
Again, you are arguing technicalities that are certainly wrong, and you are
ignoring the substance of the argument.
At this point, responding to you will do nothing except fill this thread
with non-financial quibbling, and dilute the information posted herein. My
argument is already posted, and I think it stands for itself. You may
choose (for the first time) to create a credible response to the logic of
it, but I do not think you are capable of doing so.
Chris Odom
The Goobers wrote in message <3687742D...@home.com>...
>Chris Odom wrote:
>Mr Odom, I pointed out that all sources had a combined volume less than
>a figure you called 'negligible'... are you saying, then, that your
>argument is based on things 'less than negligible'?
I have pointed out numerous times that the quantities for which people take
delivery are more important in the sense of pressurizing this market. In
fact, as I said, this is the main point I am trying to get across. Either
you are deliberately ignoring this or you are incapable of reading the words
on your screen.
>> Furthermore, it appears from what you are saying that you will not
believe
>> me unless I post figures from ALL SOURCES OF BULLION.
>
>It also appeared to you that I was an aurophobe, Mr Odom, and when your
>error was demonstrated you dismissed it as 'technical blah blah blah'.
>Perhaps paying more attention to substance than appearances would be a
>fruitful thing.
The "technical blah blah blah" was where you had given such arguments as
"why do you say 'more below' when you explain more below". Since it had
nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I snipped it as a load of
technicalities. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE IS MORE OF THAT AT THE BOTTOM OF
THIS POST.
>> Apparently news
>> reports about the various mints and sample coin shops are not sufficient
>> enough for you. The substance of my argument is irrelevant to you unless
I
>> post sales figures for every source of bullion sales in the world?
>
>Not in the least, Mr Odom... I'd be interested to see you post figures
>which indicate, say, that quantites which agree with your assertions are
>only... oh, *double* the negligible amount of 160 tons.
I have repeated over and over the reason why a smaller quantity can be
important where a larger quantity can be negligible. As I have said, that
is the main point I am trying to get across here.
>> This is actually one of the main points I've been trying to
>> get across, I'm glad you are picking up on it.
>
>You've had... questionable success, Mr Odom.
No shit.
>> I was not accepting your conclusion (based apparently on psychic
>> mind-reading powers?)
>
>I did not say you were accepting it, Mr Odom... you offered no
>response. Consider the logic:
>
>A denial is a response.
>Mr Odom offered no response.
>Mr Odom offered no denial.
>
>A simple bit of play with a syllogism, Mr Odom... are you unfamiliar
>with 'play'?
The above is a perfect example of "technical blah blah blah". I would have
snipped it to spare our readers but I figured I might as well point it out.
I already feel rather dragged down to your level by leaving a post such as
this. In the future, you may have the last word if this is the form it will
take. I am here to discuss more important matters.
docd...@clark.net
Chris Odom <my_email...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>The Goobers wrote in message <36877195...@home.com>...
>>Chris Odom wrote:
>>>
>>> The Goobers wrote in message <3686F1F2...@home.com>...
>>> >Chris Odom wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip, technical blah blah blah]
>>
>>'Technical blah blah blah'? Not a good sign when discussing finance.
>
>
>It was not a discussion of finance. The part I snipped was you quibbling
>over technicalities like, "why do you always say 'more below' when you
>explain something below?"
>Rather than waste my time biting your bait, I snipped it.
Oh, I see.. in the same way I snipped your mis-labelling me as an
aurophobe, *now* I get it!
>
>>Mr Odom, in those sections you went on about something which you called
>>'true money', which had nothing to do with the definition you refused to
>>give. Once again, Mr Odom, please be so kind as to cite your sources.
>
>The definition I gave was Websters:
>>1. (a) standard pieces of gold, silver, copper, nickel, etc., stamped by
>>government authority and used as a medium of exchange and measure of
>>value.
>
>I also gave two explanations:
>1) The reason why natural market forces result in Websters definition.
>2) The reason why your circulation argument is EXACTLY WRONG.
Mr Odom, there is no 'circulation argument'... there is, as a portion of
an accepted definition, the criterion of 'medium of exchange'.
>
>Note what I also said:
>>> If you have an argument that I
>>> (and Webster) are wrong, then I suggest that you respond to the
>>>substance of
>>> my argument itself, which you have miserably failed to do.
>
>At this point I have even begun to predict your responses before you give
>them.
Lovely of you to do so, Mr Odom.. might you please be so kind as to attend
to the matter of the source of your definition?
>
>
>Back to your circulation drivel:
>
>>Now, Mr Odom, both you and Mr Turner see fit to ignore the defining
>>phrase '... and used as a medium of exchange' (circulated) without
>>citing any source outside of yourselves for doing so; it is my
>>distasteful duty to point out that while it is within your capabilities
>>to formulate such definitions that said autogenerated, idiosyncratic
>>Humpty-Dumptyisms do not necessarily make for the best of
>>communications. Please, in as clear and unambiguous a manner as you
>>have cited Webster's, which contradicts you, be so kind as to cite the
>>source which supports you.
>
>
>As I've posted before, 2/3rds of the gold in existence is used as money.
As you've not posted yet, Mr Odom... please cite your sources?
>It
>is not actively circulating on the street because there is lesser money to
>be spent, in keeping with Gresham's Law. Gold has circulated as currency
>for over 5000 years, but for the last 20 years, people are forced (by legal
>tender laws) to accept paper as money. As long as people will accept that,
>no one will be stupid enough to spend gold.
For whatever the reason, Mr Odom, gold does not circulate and is not used
as a medium of exchange; it does not, terefore, meet the definition you
have posted from Webster's. Please be so kind as to cite the sources
which support your definition.
>
>As I have previously demonstrated, the same would be true of dirt or pig
>shit that is currently true of paper, if it were in a similar situation.
'If it were in a smiliar situation'... what does this *mean*, Mr Odom? Is
it something like 'If my Grannie had wheels she'd be a trolley?'
>
>>> There is only one spot where I think Webster is wrong: he implies (not
>>> outright) that gold is money just because a government proclaims it as
>such.
>>
>>I disagree, Mr Odom; the US Mint stamps out Eagles by the ton, each with
>>a face value, and I would say that these coins *fail* to meet Webster's
>>definition by not being used as a 'medium of exchange'... they do not
>>*circulate*, Mr Odom.
>
>If that gold were to circulate while there is lesser money available to be
>spent, it would break Gresham's Law. People always spend the bad money
>first.
'If that gold were to circulate' means that it does *not* circulate, Mr
Odom; if that gold does *not* circulate then it is *not* used as a medium
of exchange, if it is *not* used as a medium of exchange then, according
to Webster's, it is *not* money.
That's what the dictionary says, Mr Odom, according to your own citing.
>By your definition, a Ruble is a better example of money than gold
>is. Is that what 5000 years of history teaches you?
No, Mr Odom, that is what Webster's says that the word means.. and when it
comes to credibility I believe that Webster's has it all over Odom's,
which is why I ask you to cite your sources.
>As I've said, even
>dirt would match that definition.
Yes, dirt would match that definition if my Grannie had wheels... no,
wait, I am mixing the conditionals here.
>
>
>>> I hold that Gold is money even with government approval.
>>>Can you credibly disagree with that?
>>
>>I cannot disagree with what you hold, Mr Odom... I, after all, hold that
>>I am the King of England.
>
>Why do I feel like I am wasting my time on you?
Because, Mr Odom, I do not let you get away with specious argument or
invalid conditionals... I return to the same point of definition, over and
over again, which you have not addressed. If you are capable of doing so
then, by all means, do so, and find us a source as credible as Webster's
which supports the definitions on which you base your arguments.
DD
Chris Odom
dg...@tiac.net wrote in message <767s8j$s...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>I agree with you 100% as to your explanation of Gresham's Law. However, I
>believe that if there is no fall of the government (which I truly hope
>does not happen) or if there is a fall, and martial law is declared, then
>green paper will continue to be mandated to be accepted as "money",
>despite people's even greater aversion to it.
You mean, as opposed to Vodka? *nod* I'm sure that dollars will be in use
as long as there is a U.S. government. However, that doesn't give a
guarantee as to their purchasing power, nor to their status as the world
reserve currency.
>In such circumstances, the question arises whether green paper might,
>under some circumstances, such as a temporary (6-12 month) shortage of
>green paper, be worth more than gold. Yes, I understand that gold Eagles
>or Krugerrands meet all the requirements of money (although there still is
>some concern about valuation--which gives rise to liquidity issues), but
>if people are used to taking green paper, and are required to do so, and
>there's a shortgage of green paper, the waters get muddy.
I'm not really concerned as to whether gold will actually supplant paper
money altogether. Obviously this would require a major shake-up in the
world of corrupt bankers and politicians. If it did happen, I'm sure gold
would work perfectly as it always has.
However, whether that occurs or not, will not change what is coming with
respect to the purchasing power of the dollar (or that of gold itself).
That is an inevitability due to the pressures in the market.
docd...@clark.net
>side-by-side,
>>> and one has more intrinsic value than the other, the bad money will drive
>>> the good money out of circulation. People always spend the paper before
>>> they spend the gold. This does NOT mean that paper is somehow more
>>> money than gold is. Rather, it shows that paper is bad money.
>>
>>This was never disputed; what was pointed out was that after it has been
>>'driven out' and no longer circulates that the good money is used as a
>>medium of exchange and therefore, according to the definition you
>>supplied from Webster's (and for which definition you offered none from
>>a source of similar credibility) is no longer 'money'.
>
>
>
Dear me... more of this again.
>In other words, something is only
>money during the time that it is being traded to someone. Once the trade is
>over, it ceases to be money until the next trade! Therefore, nothing is
>money while you hold it, only while you spend it.
>That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
That might be so, especially since it does not resemble what I typed in
the least.
>Yes, money is used as a medium of exchange. Gold has served this purpose
>for thousands of years and continues to do so today.
Where? Where can I, or Mr Turner, go, make a common, everyday purchase
and get a Dime-A-rand in change, please?
>Even dollars are price
>in terms of gold. (And soon, Euros.)
Once again, outside of the algebraic workings of an equality ($n = m oz)
where does this happen, please?
>
>You are not discussing here the logic of my argument, or anything that is
>finance related. Rather, you are arguing over technicalities and claiming
>that my definition is not my definition.
Mr Odom, you are half-right here, I am not discussing your logic, I am
questioning the validity of your definition. Your definition is at odds
with that of a credible, accepted source such as Webster's; I am willing
to consider an alternative definition... but I have a wee bit of trouble
dealing with an idiosyncratic one.
>But that's not a surprise, as I
>predicted your response before you gave it:
>>>I don't expect you to actually respond to the substance of my
>>> argument, rather, you will accuse me of powerful convictions, ask for a
>>> source on everything (even when it is stated common sense), and quibble
>over
>>> technicalities.
If dismissing your srgument as specious because your definitions are
idiosyncratic is 'technical quibbling', Mr Odom, then so be it. I was
taught that definitions were the foundations of an argument and that no
matter what manner of retorical majesty one built upon shoddy foundations
it would be shown to be worthless when the cornerstones were touched.
Your cornerstone seems *very* touched, Mr Odom, hence my repeated requests
that you cite your sources... which you have either refused to do or been
unable to do. Just as a building with shoddy foundations is
uninhabitable, Mr Odom, so an argument with idiosyncratic definitions is
likewise untenable.
>
>>I ask once again, in case you've lost your way in the thorny woods: Mr
>>Odom, what is the source of your definition of 'money'? Please be so
>>kind as to cite it.
>
>Of course, I have lost my way in the thorny woods (?)
>I think I have devoted reams to my definition of money at this point,
>including my source and my explanation why it is true.
Mr Odom, let me get this straight, then.. by calling it, here, '*my*
definition'... not Webster's, not Keyne's, not anyone else's... by calling
it '*my* definition' are you finally admitting that this definition upon
which your argument rests is completely and utterly idiosyncratic,
unsupported by other theorists and unused in this manner by others, except
you?
>If you have trouble
>understanding it, go back and read it again, as I instructed you to.
All that I ask, for, Mr Odom, is a source which supports your view.
Webster's supports the one I have given here.
>
>
>
>>> If you would accept them, I would give you sheets of blank paper before I
>>> would give you dollars. I would give you dollars before I would give you
>>> gold. This is Gresham's Law in action. Do you disagree with it?
>>
>>Mr Odom, Gresham's Law has little to do with the question I have posed
>>and which you have not answered; please be so kind as to cite the source
>>of your definition of 'money' and we might continue from there.
>
>Gresham's Law serves to show that people will not spend gold while there is
>a lesser currency to get rid of. Outside of that, Websters definition is
>exactly correct.
You have still not cited a source, Mr Odom, but you have said that
Webster's is entirely correct.. except, it seems, for the portion ('used
as a medium of exchange') with which you disagree. Is this correct? Do
you wish to take definitions and cut-n-paste them to fit your arguments?
>
>>> In Russia, the government forces people to accept Rubles as money. Rubles,
>>> as we all know, are about the most worthless thing on the face of the
>>> planet. You could argue that rubles are money, more than gold is, because
>>> they circulate more than gold does. However, I have already shown
>>> that the
>>> same would be true of dirt, if it were in the same situation. You have
>>> gone
>>> smack in the face of Gresham's Law.
>>
>>Mr Odom, gold is not money, according to the definition of money you
>>have cited from Webster's. According to whose definition *is* gold
>>money, please?
>
>This is the same argument at the top of this post, eh? That NOTHING is
>money while it is not actively being traded. As soon as the trade is over,
>it ceases to be money until the next trade? As I said before, that is utter
>drivel.
This is why I did not make this argument, Mr Odom; Webster's definition
includes 'used as a medium of exchange', remember?
>YOU ARE CLAIMING that gold does not circulate at all, and therefore, it does
>not meet Webster's definition of money, which must "circulate". Gold has
>circulated for thousands of years, you do not have a leg to stand on!
Mr Odom... are you aware that 'has circulated' does not equate to 'is
circulating'? Where might I, or Mr Turner, go in order to make a common,
everyday purchase and receive a Dime-A-Rand in change?
>Again, you are arguing technicalities that are certainly wrong, and you are
>ignoring the substance of the argument.
The substance of your argument, Mr Odom, is based upon a definition which
you have admitted to be idiosyncratic.
>
>At this point, responding to you will do nothing except fill this thread
>with non-financial quibbling, and dilute the information posted herein.
... or it might bring some Truth forward, which, it seems, is anathema to
your desires.
>My
>argument is already posted, and I think it stands for itself.
Seeing as how, Mr Odom, your argument appears to rest strictly and solely
of a definition of your own devising it is no wonder that you think that.
>You may
>choose (for the first time) to create a credible response to the logic of
>it, but I do not think you are capable of doing so.
Mr Odom, I am not capable of living in a house with rotted foundations and
so, I ask one last time, for you to cite a source, in as ready and as
facile a manner as you cited Webster's, which agrees with your
definition... without it you have presented nothing but fever-dreams.
DD
docd...@clark.net
Chris Odom <my_email...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>The Goobers wrote in message <3687742D...@home.com>...
>>Chris Odom wrote:
>>Mr Odom, I pointed out that all sources had a combined volume less than
>>a figure you called 'negligible'... are you saying, then, that your
>>argument is based on things 'less than negligible'?
>
>
>
>I have pointed out numerous times that the quantities for which people take
>delivery are more important in the sense of pressurizing this market. In
>fact, as I said, this is the main point I am trying to get across. Either
>you are deliberately ignoring this or you are incapable of reading the words
>on your screen.
I am still working on the definitions, Mr Odom... after you address that
matter we might turn to why you think the smaller part of the market is
more 'pressurizing' than the vast majority of the market is.
>
>>> Furthermore, it appears from what you are saying that you will not believe
>>> me unless I post figures from ALL SOURCES OF BULLION.
>>
>>It also appeared to you that I was an aurophobe, Mr Odom, and when your
>>error was demonstrated you dismissed it as 'technical blah blah blah'.
>>Perhaps paying more attention to substance than appearances would be a
>>fruitful thing.
>
>The "technical blah blah blah" was where you had given such arguments as
>"why do you say 'more below' when you explain more below". Since it had
>nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I snipped it as a load of
>technicalities. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE IS MORE OF THAT AT THE BOTTOM OF
>THIS POST.
Oh goodie... I can hardly wait!
>
>
>>> Apparently news
>>> reports about the various mints and sample coin shops are not sufficient
>>> enough for you. The substance of my argument is irrelevant to you
>>> unless I
>>> post sales figures for every source of bullion sales in the world?
>>
>>Not in the least, Mr Odom... I'd be interested to see you post figures
>>which indicate, say, that quantites which agree with your assertions are
>>only... oh, *double* the negligible amount of 160 tons.
>
>I have repeated over and over the reason why a smaller quantity can be
>important where a larger quantity can be negligible. As I have said, that
>is the main point I am trying to get across here.
Wait, now I'm confused... I thought the main point you were trying to get
across is that gold, even though Webster's says otherwise, is money. Are
you saying taht you are now showing why the lesser is greater than the
greater, and the greater less than the lesser? Be careful, Mr Odom... you
remember what the Athenians did to Socrates for that!
>>> This is actually one of the main points I've been trying to
>>> get across, I'm glad you are picking up on it.
>>
>>You've had... questionable success, Mr Odom.
>
>No shit.
Actually, Mr Odom, *far* too much of it... and it might be appreciated
were you to decrease production.
>
>>> I was not accepting your conclusion (based apparently on psychic
>>> mind-reading powers?)
>>
>>I did not say you were accepting it, Mr Odom... you offered no
>>response. Consider the logic:
>>
>>A denial is a response.
>>Mr Odom offered no response.
>>Mr Odom offered no denial.
>>
>>A simple bit of play with a syllogism, Mr Odom... are you unfamiliar
>>with 'play'?
>
>The above is a perfect example of "technical blah blah blah". I would have
>snipped it to spare our readers but I figured I might as well point it out.
Let's see, now... a well-constructed syllogism is 'technical blah blah
blah' but the reason as to why the lesser portion of the market is greater
than the greater portion of the market while the greater portion of the
market is lesser than the lesser portion of the market is Mr Odom's 'main
point'? Fascinating!
>
>I already feel rather dragged down to your level by leaving a post such as
>this. In the future, you may have the last word if this is the form it will
>take. I am here to discuss more important matters.
Mr Odom, if you do so in as equally... magnificent a manner I am sure the
results will be perfectly worthy of you.
DD
ET
If I might quote from von Mises', 'Human Action'.
'A medium of exchange is a good which people acquire neither for their
own consumption nor for employment in their own production activities,
but with the intention of exchanging it at a later date against those
goods which they want to use either for consumption or for production'.
Sounds like gold fits that category.
'Money is a medium of exchange. It is the most marketable good which
people acquire because they want to offer it in later acts of
interpersonal exchange. Money is the thing which serves as the
generally accepted and commonly used medium of exchange. This is its
only function. All the other functions which people ascribe to money
are merely particular aspects of its primary and sole function, that of
a medium of exchange'.
Gold is exchanged in London and Zurich daily, generally between banks,
governments, and other large holders, if not at the 7-11 by DD's place.
I suppose we could argue whether these exchanges are 'common' or not.
It seems to be 'generally accepted' by the participants.
'Every piece of money is owned by one of the members of the market
economy. The transfer of money from the control of one actor into that
of another is temporally immediate and continuous. There is no fraction
of time in between in which money is not part of an individual's or a
firm's cash holding, but just in "circulation". It is unsound to
distinquish between circulating money and hoarded money. Hoarded money
is still money and it serves in the hoards the same purposes which it
serves in cash holdings called normal'.
Well, it seems that old Ludwig thinks gold is money. Shame we can't get
him and old Daniel together to hash this money thing out for us.
ET
David
Chris Odom wrote in message <3687e...@news.globalreach.net>...
[snip of ill-advised "arguing" with the Dwarf]
>Why do I feel like I am wasting my time on you?
>
>
>
Hey, Chris, how long have you been reading this newsgroup?
Trying to have a meaningful exchange with Gooberish is like
[fill in appropriate futility analogy here].
David
Chris Odom
and since they are all practically the same, I will respond once here. I
think I have discovered your exact mistake and I detail that in this post.
Please read it carefully several times before responding.
I have cited Webster as a source for my definition of currency. For the
record, I will cite it again:
Websters definition (New Universal Unabridged, Second Edition, copyright
1983):
mon'ey, n.; pl. mon'eys or mon'ies
1. (a) standard pieces of gold, silver, copper, nickel, etc., stamped by
government authority and used as a medium of exchange and measure of value.
Do you disagree with this?
You are saying, quite repeatedly, that Webster proves that gold is not
money. Your reason being that money is a medium of exchange and "gold does
not circulate."
This, as I have pointed out, shows that you are not familiar with Gresham's
Law. For the record:
When two classes of money circulate side-by-side, and one is of higher
intrinsic value than the other, the bad money will drive the good money out
of circulation.
Do you disagree with this?
Note that Gresham doesn't state: "The good money now ceases to be money."
And as a matter of fact, the good money CONTINUES to serve as a store of
value and as a standard of measurement, and will STILL be used in
circulation in cases where bad money is not available to spend, or in cases
where bad money will not be accepted by the other party in the trade.
Do you disagree with this?
*** Here are your mistakes:
You are assuming, incorrectly, that Webster's definition is not reconcilable
with Gresham's Law. When, in fact, they are both correct simultaneously.
You are trying to force me to choose between the two of them, when in fact
they are both correct. Gold has circulated for thousands of years. It will
not circulate in cases where lesser currency can be spent. Why do you think
those two statements are mutually inconsistent? That is your first logic
gap.
You are also assuming, incorrectly, that gold does not circulate. Consider:
1) How can 20 years of floating-exchange experimentation, resulting in
massive worldwide financial havoc, possibly erase 5000 years of gold
stability and circulation?
2) How can you explain that gold had to be forcibly removed from the common
man in America?
3) How can you explain that Europe and Russia are both introducing gold
coinage?
4) How can you explain the depth of the LBMA market without describing it as
a monetary system?
If you respond with your emotions again, I will leave it at that.
Otherwise, please specify EXACTLY which of these you disagree with:
1) Webster
2) Gresham
3) Will you claim that Webster and Gresham are not simultaneously correct?
3) Gold circulates
If you disagree with any of these, please back it up with sources AND an
argument that includes a logical flow. Otherwise, my definitions are clear,
my argument is intact, and gold is money. Checkmate.
I have tried to keep this post at a level where you cannot possibly complain
about sources or wording or anything else you like to complain about,
outside of the subject matter itself.
See if you can stick to it.
ET
>
> jbo...@Nash.iupui.edu wrote:
> >
> > Geraldo Tse Tung (dave...@givs.net) wrote:
> > : The Goobers wrote:
> > : >
> > : > fed...@halifax.com wrote:
> > : > >
> > : > > Gold sales soar with Y2K fears
> > : > >
> > : > > TORONTO - Fearing havoc from the so-called Y2K problem, Canadians are stocking
> > : > > up on gold bars and coins as protection against a meltdown of the global
> > : > > financial system.
> > : >
> > : > Hmmmmm... demand is up, supply is constant... yup, everything about
> > : > supply-and-demand tells us that the price should be going down!
> > : >
> > : > DD
> >
> > : This is probably the premier example of how they can hold the price down
> > : artificially.
> >
> > oh no: it's THEM again.
>
> Not... The Giant Ants Who Ate Los Angeles!
>
> DD
No, not them. Mr. Odom has been attempting to explain why demand for
physical gold is up yet the price in paper gold is declining. They are
two different markets. One is holding it in your hand and the other
counts on the current trading system to support it. If the majority of
those trading the paper market decide they want to take physical
delivery of the gold, there is not enough available at current prices to
fill the demand. The price of gold will climb in dollars if the
contracts are denominated in dollars. To my knowledge, most of these
contracts are dollar denominated. It has the makings of a huge short
squeeze. We'll see.
ET
Who Cares?
Chris Odom wrote in message <3687f...@news.globalreach.net>...
>
>You mean, as opposed to Vodka? *nod* I'm sure that dollars will be in use
>as long as there is a U.S. government. However, that doesn't give a
>guarantee as to their purchasing power, nor to their status as the world
>reserve currency.
China announced today that they would be
fully supporting the Euro.
It was only a matter of time. We've been
dicking the world for too long, too hard.
Arabs have got their gold dinar on the way.
India already has adopted a partial gold standard.
Russia is floating the idea of a gold-backed ruble.
Japanese have threatened a gold-back yen.
Oh, well. I mean, egad, the handwriting is on
the wall.
Who Cares?
>
>David <techi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, Chris, how long have you been reading this newsgroup?
>> Trying to have a meaningful exchange with Gooberish is like
>> [fill in appropriate futility analogy here].
>
Let it go, Chris. Anyon who seriously follows gold
knows about the CB leasing game.
Let the people that want to hold paper, hold
paper. :) I mean, dang. If a 1500%
increase in E-Bay in a few months, who faces
150 on-line competitors, isn't enough to
convince someone that paper is toast,
nothing will. :)
Chris Odom
My mistake, that was not Webster's definition of currency, it was Webster's
definition of money. Please respond to the post with that in mind. As I've
said before:
Webster is correct.
Gresham is correct.
They are both correct simultaneously.
You cannot agree with those points without also agreeing that gold is money.
Terry
Chris Odom wrote in message <36866...@news.globalreach.net>...
>
>Chris Odom wrote in message <36864...@news.globalreach.net>...
>>It has to do with
>>the fact that individual bullion sales invariably result in the buyer
>>immediately taking delivery of the metal. Unlike most other gold trades.
>
>I would like to emphasize that this has been one of my major points: That
>most of the gold being traded today does not actually exist. People trade
>certificates and do not take delivery of the gold. And this is the reason
>behind the turmoil we will soon experience.
>
>
>
I have read in the past that the total quantity of gold that has been
recovered
from the ground and is in circulation would fit into a room 20 meters x 20
meters x 20 meters. This does not seem a lot to me.
Terry
who smiles when he holds a lot of gold.
dg...@tiac.net
> In article <766i0n$h...@news-central.tiac.net>, dg...@tiac.net says...
> >
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >redrum <na...@na.da> wrote:
> >
> >> Today the only thing that backs US money is the will of the US govt
> that
> >> they are money. In fact, that's really the only thing that backs any
> >> money-the widespread acceptance in society that it has value as
> money.
> >> Despite gold being much ballyhooed as excellent money, if society
> >> decided that it didn't have value, then all the gold in the world
> >> wouldn't make you rich.
> >
> >Please distinguish between "government" and your usage of the word
> >"society."
> >
> >Yes, the US government says that green bills are lawful money, and so
> they
> >are accepted. But the US government doesn't say the same thing about
> >French Francs. France does not say the same about US dollars. When it
> >comes to pieces of paper, or pieces of copper or tin or nickel, it's
> >always some government that is saying that they are "worth something."
> >
> >But when it comes to gold, no government needs to say "oh, gold is
> worth
> >something" for it to be worth something. Rather, it's everyone, all
> >people, that agree that gold is worth something. No one government
> going
> >down is going to cause gold to become worthless, like it happens all
> the
> >time with other government "money."
> Ok, true. But there could always be some widespread disaster that could
> cause gold to become worthless. Imagine if a meteor hit the earth,
> blocking out the sunlight. I suspect that soon all the gold in the world
> couldn't buy a slice of bread. I am reminded of an episode fromm the
> original Twilight Zone. Three crooks, after robbing a gold shipment,
> have themselves put in suspended animation for 100 years so when they
> wake up they can be free AND rich. Well, when they wake up they
> immediately battle for the money. The winner has all the gold. The only
> problem is, he finds himself in a waterless desert. Later, parched and
> near death, he comes upon a man with a bucket of water. He happily gives
> every last coin to the man in return for just a drink of water. See the
> point I'm trying to make? Value is socially determined (I'm considering
> government a social institution).
redrum
my_email...@enteract.com says...
>
>
>redrum wrote in message <7670uh$2k9$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>In article <3686d...@news.globalreach.net>,
>>Could you clarify: do you mean that the amount of gold certificates
now
>>out there equals all the tonnage in CB control PLUS 14,000 tons that
>>doesn't really exist?
>
>
>
>The amount of gold certificates is only estimated. Estimates range
from
>7000 tons to 14,000 tons. That is NOT in addition to the gold held by
the
>CB's, which is approximately 34,000 tons.
Ok, so if the amount of gold certificates issued by CBs is 14,000 tons,
and the amount physically held is 34,000 tons, that means that there's
enough physical gold to cover the certificates. In which case, that sort
of makes your entire argument moot, doesn't it?
>
>**** These certificates represent the amount of gold that is OWED TO
the
>CB's. That gold must be purchased on the open market before it can be
paid
>to them.
Ok, so those certificates don't represent the gold actually held by CBs,
but gold owed to them by holders. In which case the certificates do
represent phantom gold, and I retract my above statement.
SAG
> Isn't it really because citizens will accept it in payment? Are you
> really sure that people are compelled to accept currency? Why can't a
> little bodega accept pesos?
I live in the US near the Canadian border. Many (most) stores and
restaurants will accept Canadian currency. Some (like a sports bar not
far from the office) take Canadian money "at par" as an incentive to the
visitors.
SAG
jbo...@nash.iupui.edu
: The Goobers wrote:
: >
: > fed...@halifax.com wrote:
: > >
: > > Gold sales soar with Y2K fears
: > >
: > > TORONTO - Fearing havoc from the so-called Y2K problem, Canadians are stocking
: > > up on gold bars and coins as protection against a meltdown of the global
: > > financial system.
: >
: > Hmmmmm... demand is up, supply is constant... yup, everything about
: > supply-and-demand tells us that the price should be going down!
: >
: > DD
: This is probably the premier example of how they can hold the price down
: artificially.
oh no: it's THEM again.
Jim Bowden
551 North Dearborn Street
Indianapolis, IN
v: 317 263 0363
e: bow...@iquest.net, jbo...@iupui.edu
w: php.iupui.edu/~jbowden
Hostelling Information: www.hiayh.org
052498
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To get my PGP key:
Send email with:
get bowdenj in subject field, and send to: pgp-pub...@keys.pgp.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------