Why doesn't gold go up much during times of crisis?
raylopez99
goes up when there is a "wall of worry".
Below is an article along these lines.
You can also see it yourself by charting the price of gold during the
October 1987 crash. It barely went up. In fact, gold went up more
during the spring of 1987 than during the crisis ridden fall.
I suspect gold needs a 'constant' background of worry, rather than a
sudden anxiety attack, to make it move steadily upwards.
RL
MARK HULBERT
What's up with gold?
Commentary: Why gold didn't profit more from the stock market's
difficulties
By Mark Hulbert, MarketWatch
Last Update: 11:12 PM ET Jul 30, 2007
ANNANDALE, Va. (MarketWatch) -- Why didn't gold perform better last
week?
You would have thought that it would do quite well, of course. It was
a week in which the stock market finally succumbed to the accumulated
weight of the mess in the subprime mortgage market a mess to which the
monetary authorities will inevitably respond by flooding the markets
with even more liquidity.
But far from gold jumping on the news, it fell.
Consider: On the day that the Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU :
13,422.44, +64.13, +0.5% ) closed marginally above the 14,000 level,
for example, the London P.M. fixing price for gold (38099902 : 0.00,
0.00, 0.0% ) stood at $674.50. On
Monday of this week, bullion closed at $661.50, or 1.9% lower.
To be sure, that 1.9% loss is better than the 4.6% loss over the
comparable period for the Dow. But it's still a disappointment to
those who have placed their faith in gold to perform better during
periods in which financial assets such as stocks are doing so poorly.
There no doubt are lots of factors that let to gold's lackluster
performance. But I wonder if one of them is that gold traders had
become too bullish. As contrarians constantly remind us, bull markets
like to climb a wall of worry.
And the gold timers I track have not, on balance, been exhibiting much
anxiety.
Consider the latest readings from the Hulbert Gold Newsletter
Sentiment Index (HGNSI), which reflects the average recommended
exposure to the gold market among a subset of short-term gold timing
newsletters tracked by the Hulbert Financial Digest. As of Monday
night, the HGNSI stood at 51.8%.
The reason that this level is worrisome, from a contrarian point of
view, is not just that it is a relatively high number - though it is.
What is of particular cause for concern is how quickly the HGNSI has
risen over the last month, despite gold's difficulties.
As recently as July 3, for example, when gold bullion stood at
$654.25, the HGNSI stood at precisely zero. So over the last several
weeks, during which gold shot up to over $680 and then settled back to
a level that is around $7 higher now than then, the HGNSI has jumped
by nearly 52 percentage points.
That is not a wall of worry.
raylopez99
fact, ironically, the dollar rallied today).
RL
GLD 4:16PM ET 65.46 1.31 Down 1.96% (8/9/07)
Bill Reid
raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186696740.0...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Confirmed that gold is not an investment of first resort in crisis (in
> fact, ironically, the dollar rallied today).
>
> GLD 4:16PM ET 65.46 1.31 Down 1.96% (8/9/07)
Depends on the "crisis", and it's always debatable whether
gold is really much good for anything except jewelry and electronic
connectors (though I do have some of the stuff as an "investment").
Remember, this current "crisis" is the potential popping of a
credit bubble, which is a DEFLATIONARY event (dollars you
thought you had suddenly are gone and everybody has to scramble
to get more of them to replace what they never really had in the
first place). DEFLATION means LESS dollars, and that means
less dollars for anything denominated in dollars (which is just
about EVERYTHING) including gold...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 728
Don Tiberone
> raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Must be why gold went UP during 2001-2002 while the Fed was babbling
about deflation. And during the depression, the gold price was fixed,
but because people couldn't buy gold, they bought gold stocks instead
and gold stocks soared during the depression. In the event of a
deflationary collapse, the Fed will cut interest rates, which means
the dollar goes down, which means gold goes up. In 2000, rates
dropped from about 6% to eventually about 1%. During the depression,
it went from 6% down to 1.5%. During the "Great Depression" of 1873,
rates went from a high of 9% eventually down to 2%. Gold outperformed
during each bubble period.
Blash
Tiberone at s_kn...@my-Deja.com wrote on 8/9/07 11:08 PM:
It's also very possible that some holders of sub-prime garbage are selling
gold because:
1. They have a profit and are using the sale to partially offset the
sub-prime losses......
2. They need actual cash for redemptions......
Don Tiberone
> in article 1186715328.771553.292...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Don
> Tiberone at s_knig...@my-Deja.com wrote on 8/9/07 11:08 PM:
The specs are usually the ones who get flushed out. Last week's COT
report suggests as much.
http://www.321gold.com/cot_gold.html
Unfortunately, the COT reports are 3 days delayed so we won't get the
next report until tomorrow. Usually, when there is a massive long
position by the specs, gold is in danger of being liquidated by
panicky specs. Right now, long positions are pretty low. For example,
back in May of last year, there were about double the long positions
there are today.
raylopez99
> On Aug 9, 6:52 pm, "Bill Reid" <hormelf...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
Thanks to Bill Reid, Blash and Don Tiberone (both posts) to replying.
I have, like Don says, heard that gold slightly outperforms during
deflation more so than inflation.
Nevertheless I think the global panic in liquidity for certain bank
loans may indeed create a "need for cash", like Bill Reid says.
To me it shows how "subjective", in the short term, investment
decisions are. Right now gold is 'subjectively' (and wrongly IMO)
considered the same as a stock. The dollar (due to psychological and
historical reasons) is considered "King", even though it is suspect as
a store of value long term. Only Au is king long term.
Another example of this "subjective" view of investments: I've read
that during a panic, (but I just found this out, even during other
times, see below*), the exact same bonds (yield, maturity) are traded
at a higher level if they are "on-the-run" or just issued, rather than
"off the run". It shows that lots of money is traded by institutions
that need liquidity--and it shows how our bank system, with the bogus
AAA/AA etc credit schemes are inferior to a constantly risk adjusted,
non-FDIA insured "free bank" system, backed by gold. Why not simply
lower the FDIC insurance to say $25k and tell all retail and
commercial people to do your own due diligence before putting your
money in a bank? Besides raising the price of gold, it will result in
a more robust "bank loan rating system" (because real money is at
stake, not just rating agency reputation).
I hope this contagion gets really bad and teaches people a lesson
about debt--but I'm afraid the only real end result will be more
congressional hearings and more ineffectual laws passed, along the
lines of the Glass-Seagall Act.
RL
*Secondary trading in Treasuries occurs in the over-the-counter (OTC)
market. In the secondary market, the most recently auctioned Treasury
issue is considered current or on-the-run. Issues auctioned before
current issues are typically referred to as off-the-run securities. In
general, current issues are much more actively traded and have much
more liquidity than off-the-run securities. This often results in off-
the-run securities trading at a higher yield than similar maturity
current issues.
raylopez99
RL
PETER BRIMELOW
What's up with gold?
Commentary: Tandem movement downward with stocks raises suspicions
By Peter Brimelow, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Aug 10, 2007
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- A triple-digit down day on financial system
fears, but gold gaps down, too. What gives?
A service which absolutely doesn't like it is Bill Murphy's Web site,
Le Metropole Cafe. Murphy and his writers argue that the financial
markets in general and gold in particular are being manipulated by the
central banks to sustain an inflationary boom. See www.lemetropolecafe.com/
See Oct. 12 column
Thursday's paradoxical combination of subprime-triggered financial
system risk, overt central bank intervention and sudden massive
selling in the gold market was right up their street. Thursday night,
Murphy published this comment:
"Barely an hour after gold's plunge, the European Central Bank was
asserting its willingness to inject liquidity, which it subsequently
announced it had done on an unprecedented scale. There was a time when
liquidity injections in a situation of financial stress stimulated
gold - most notably in the great reversal in August 1982. Now the
relationship appears directly inverted. Many will be inclined to join
the dotted lines."
But the Café remains confident, partly because its research indicates
that booming India continues to gobble gold. See John Brimelow's Feb.
16, 2004 column
It writes: "MKS (the Geneva-based gold dealer) observes in its daily
comment that physical demand "was significant" this afternoon and
gold, unlike the stock market, moved sideways in the final hours.
These are dream conditions for the Indian public and its agents."
And then there's Richard Russell. As I wrote, the Dow Theory Letters
veteran is on the rack, having finally abandoned his bearishness only
to see the market apparently give a Dow Theory sell signal. See Aug. 6
column
Russell is intensely jumpy. But Thursday night he wrote that the Dow
Theory sell signal had not been confirmed: "The good news: the July
lows are still intact and the new lows are contracting. The bad news
Selling Pressure is rising to new highs, and an increasing number of
people want "OUT" of this market. Tomorrow is Friday, and by
tomorrow's close we'll see how many traders are willing to hold stocks
over the weekend. Fridays are always significant in rotten markets."
Bill Reid
Ah, who would have guessed it, "Don Tiberone" reads gold
bug newsletters just like all those other stupid newsletters he reads
that keep him so hilariously misinformed and underperforming in
group contests. Is this even worth it? Not really for "Don"'s
sake, but the underlying issues are critical, so for the sake of
general information let's review history OBJECTIVELY...
Don Tiberone <s_kn...@my-Deja.com> wrote in message
news:1186715328.7...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 9, 6:52 pm, "Bill Reid" <hormelf...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
> > raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1186696740.0...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Confirmed that gold is not an investment of first resort in crisis (in
> > > fact, ironically, the dollar rallied today).
> >
> > > GLD 4:16PM ET 65.46 1.31 Down 1.96% (8/9/07)
> >
> > Depends on the "crisis", and it's always debatable whether
> > gold is really much good for anything except jewelry and electronic
> > connectors (though I do have some of the stuff as an "investment").
> >
> > Remember, this current "crisis" is the potential popping of a
> > credit bubble, which is a DEFLATIONARY event (dollars you
> > thought you had suddenly are gone and everybody has to scramble
> > to get more of them to replace what they never really had in the
> > first place). DEFLATION means LESS dollars, and that means
> > less dollars for anything denominated in dollars (which is just
> > about EVERYTHING) including gold...
>
> Must be why gold went UP during 2001-2002 while the Fed was babbling
> about deflation.
I don't remember the Fed "babbling" about deflation, because unlike
you they tend to use words precisely and thoughtfully. But the really
important thing is that there was absolutely NO deflation in that time
period.
For example, looking at non-adjusted M3 (RIP) for the time frame,
it rose from $4989billion to $5841billion, a 17% increase (though with
some fairly typical but still always thought-provoking occasional
monthly jabs down by a dozen $billion or so). And how much did
gold rise? Well from about $270 to $340, admittedly a superior
rise at about 26%, but no support for what appears to be your
"argument" (which you are clearly parroting from gold bug newsletters)
that gold out-performs during periods of ACTUAL
deflation as well as inflation as well as just about any time IT'S
ALWAYS GOLD GOLD LOVERLY GOLD I LOVE GOLD!!!
For that, the gold bugs have to go to the way-back machine, back
to a very different time...let's watch...
> And during the depression, the gold price was fixed,
> but because people couldn't buy gold, they bought gold stocks instead
> and gold stocks soared during the depression.
Yes, this is a standard gold bug newsletter "fact". I'll just provide
the executive summary for you right now, so you don't have to read
the rest of this "diatribe" as "Lowbrow" would call it:
THE UNITED STATES CURRENCY, AS WELL AS THE
CURRENCY OF MOST ALL OTHER NATIONS, WAS
VALUED BY THE AMOUNT OF GOLD RESERVES IN
THE COUNTRY BY LAW DURING THE DEPRESSION.
THIS IS NO LONGER TRUE, NOW CURRENCIES ARE
FREE "FLOATING" AND ARE VALUED BY FACTORS
SUCH AS TRADE IMBALANCES AND RELATIVE
INTEREST RATES BETWEEN COUNTRIES.
You're comparing two entirely different economic domains
concerning gold if you try desperately to relate today's situation
with the days when gold WAS money, BY LAW. This is the
single biggest lie promulgated by the gold bug newsletters,
something they always just seem to skip right over while
they paradoxically acknowlege it by demonizing the current
system of "fiat currencies".
In light of this, maybe I should backtrack just a little, and reprint
something that actually isn't dispostive about your attempted claim
that gold performs well during deflation as evidenced by the
history of the Depression, but actually is an economic analysis
of gold being the potential CAUSE of the Depression.
So here's a little sumpin' sumpin' for you to read; it's by the now Fed
Chairman, then Fed Governor Ben Bernanke:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm
"The fact that, under the gold standard, the value of each currency was
fixed in terms of gold implied that the rate of exchange between any two
currencies within the gold standard system was likewise fixed. As with any
system of fixed exchange rates, the gold standard was subject to speculative
attack if investors doubted the ability of a country to maintain the value
of its currency at the legally specified parity."
---end of excerpt
He then goes on to describe what he calls "speculative attacks" on
first the pound, then the dollar, as evidenced by purchases of gold.
He then basically concludes that the gold standard ITSELF was a
large factor in the Great Depression (a not unheard-of basic theory
and long-running debate that had been discussed for many decades
BEFORE the Great Depression).
"If declines in the money supply induced by adherence to the gold standard
were a principal reason for economic depression, then countries leaving gold
earlier should have been able to avoid the worst of the Depression and begin
an earlier process of recovery. The evidence strongly supports this
implication. For example, Great Britain and Scandinavia, which left the
gold standard in 1931, recovered much earlier than France and Belgium,
which stubbornly remained on gold. As Friedman and Schwartz noted in
their book, countries such as China--which used a silver standard rather
than a gold standard--avoided the Depression almost entirely. The finding
that the time at which a country left the gold standard is the key
determinant
of the severity of its depression and the timing of its recovery has been
shown to hold for literally dozens of countries, including developing
countries."
---end of excerpt
Don't you think this is interesting to read in retrospect now that the man
is "in charge" of the Fed? He actually failed to provide another fact to
support the widely-held notion that the gold standard actually causes
depressions, which is that the US has not gone into a deflationary
depression since it left the gold standard.
In any event, the US WAS on the gold standard when it went into
depression in the early 1930s, as it was during all the other deflationary
periods in the 1800s. However, I myself believe that although it has
never happened YET, it WOULD be possible for the world to be
plunged into another "Great(er) Depression" even WITHOUT the
overall obvious deflationary drag of the gold standard.
> In the event of a
> deflationary collapse, the Fed will cut interest rates, which means
> the dollar goes down, which means gold goes up.
Whether or not the dollar goes down will depend on more than
just the Fed cutting interest rates. Not only that but the Fed actually
notoriously RAISED interest rates as the country was going into the
Great Depression (again, this is blamed on the gold standard by some).
> In 2000, rates
> dropped from about 6% to eventually about 1%. During the depression,
> it went from 6% down to 1.5%.
Whatever the actual interest rates leading up to and during the
Great Depression (and the nominal rate was actually just an RCH
above 0% for most of the Depression), this is just a big non-sequitur,
as the country did NOT go into a depression (with deflation) in 2000,
nor are interest rates equivalent to DEFLATION except in your mind...
> During the "Great Depression" of 1873,
> rates went from a high of 9% eventually down to 2%. Gold outperformed
> during each bubble period.
When your currency is directly linked to gold by law, it should not
be surprising that like today's floating exchange rate currency pairs,
there is a zero-sum differential between the two (if one goes up, by
definition the other goes down by the EXACT SAME AMOUNT).
This financial tautology of course is not relevant today since currencies
are NOT linked to gold. But gold bug newsletter writers tend to
downplay that and try to have it both ways: they point to times of
actual deflation in the US (which may have actually been caused by
the gold-dollar linkage) with no actual market-based gold prices (only
central bank currency revaluations) as support, but rather misdirect you
to look at mining stocks instead (of course, under the gold standard
mining for gold was literally like mining for MONEY, which people
were in desperate need of), then dredge up the gold bubble during
the 70s after currencies were allowed to float freely to "prove" that gold
outperforms during periods of inflation as well (conveniently ignoring all
the inflation of the 80s and 90s that saw only DECLINING gold prices
overall).
Here's a teensy fact that you never read in any of your gold bug
newsletters, if not a "bottom line", then certainly something to ponder.
At the end of 1933, with gold at its previous fixed rate to the
dollar (before FDR devalued the dollar), to today, flying as high as it
wants according to supply and demand free of the burden of the
greenback, gold has risen about 30-fold.
Not bad. But the DJIA has risen over 130-fold in the same time
frame, trouncing gold over four times not even including dividends...
We can also do the same thing with inflation, which I think is gold's
best bet for a comparison, but better yet, why not drop an email to
one of those newsletter writers and ask them for the long-term
comparison...
Now I always like to disclose when discussing gold that I do own
some of the stuff as an "investment", but I do not write the facts about
gold out of anger or use as a data point my own horrible gold
portfolio under-performance with inflation...as always, I try to
just analyze markets objectively. Seems to be working well,
how's it goin' with you?
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 731
raylopez99
> Ah, who would have guessed it, "Don Tiberone" reads gold
> bug newsletters just like all those other stupid newsletters he reads
> that keep him so hilariously misinformed and underperforming in
> group contests. Is this even worth it? Not really for "Don"'s
> sake, but the underlying issues are critical, so for the sake of
> general information let's review history OBJECTIVELY...
You, Bill, and Don have some sort of flame war I take it.
>
> In light of this, maybe I should backtrack just a little, and reprint
> something that actually isn't dispostive about your attempted claim
> that gold performs well during deflation as evidenced by the
> history of the Depression, but actually is an economic analysis
> of gold being the potential CAUSE of the Depression.
Good points made about the gold standard and fixed exchange rates.
Have you read "Gold Fetters" by Barry Eichengreen (he's a
distinquished Berkeley economist, not a popular writer)? It's quite
good, though I disagree with the thesis that the gold standard caused
the Great Depression--I would say the Fed prolonged a severe recession
in 1920 and made it into a depression. I still maintain, going back
to the 19th century, that gold does well during deflation as well as
inflation (by faith, admittedly, but I've seen this so many times it
must be true).
> > During the "Great Depression" of 1873,
> > rates went from a high of 9% eventually down to 2%. Gold outperformed
> > during each bubble period.
>
> When your currency is directly linked to gold by law, it should not
> be surprising that like today's floating exchange rate currency pairs,
> there is a zero-sum differential between the two (if one goes up, by
> definition the other goes down by the EXACT SAME AMOUNT).
I personally think the US Great Depression was prolonged by FDR style
mismanagement of the economy, which was actually started by his
predecessor, Herbert Hoover! And I have two books from the Cato
Institute (published in the last few years) to prove it.
>
> Now I always like to disclose when discussing gold that I do own
> some of the stuff as an "investment", but I do not write the facts about
> gold out of anger or use as a data point my own horrible gold
> portfolio under-performance with inflation...as always, I try to
> just analyze markets objectively. Seems to be working well,
> how's it goin' with you?
I made good money long in Au in 2003 to now--but I admit, it was pure,
dumb luck. You are right: Au historically sucks.
Check out this headline today (goes to show don't believe headlines):
Metals Stocks: Gold rallies on safe-haven buying amid credit turmoil
at MarketWatch (Fri 11:18am)
RL
Don Tiberone
> bug newsletters just like all those other stupid newsletters he reads
> that keep him so hilariously misinformed and underperforming in
> group contests. Is this even worth it? Not really for "Don"'s
> sake, but the underlying issues are critical, so for the sake of
> general information let's review history OBJECTIVELY...
You realize, of course, that you couldn't even back up your own claim
that gold goes down during deflation. Instead, proceeded to rant
endlessly about the gold standard. Who's arguing over a gold standard?
I merely corrected your misinformation about gold going down during
deflation then you proceed to rant about something else.
> I don't remember the Fed "babbling" about deflation, because unlike
> you they tend to use words precisely and thoughtfully. But the really
> important thing is that there was absolutely NO deflation in that time
> period.
Actually, in November 2002, the Fed lowered rates because and I quote
"A failure to take an action...would increase the odds of a cumulatively
weakening economy and possibly even attendant deflation." And in
December 2002, Greenspan had an entire speech about it. Considering
you were proven wrong again, maybe you should spend another few
paragraphs writing non sequiturs about the gold standard again.
<gold standard rant snipped>
Who cares. I'm not a gold bug.
> Now I always like to disclose when discussing gold that I do own
> some of the stuff as an "investment"
That pretty much says it all. I don't own any gold, at least not
directly. A few of my mutual funds have a few percent in it but that's
it.
Lubow
> On Aug 10, 7:02 am, "Bill Reid" <hormelf...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
>
>
Hey, Don... Let take a poll...
How many people, besides "reid's" mother, want "reid" to keep his
promise and move to Antarctica?
Bill Reid
Don Tiberone <s_kn...@my-Deja.com> wrote in message
> On Aug 10, 7:02 am, "Bill Reid" <hormelf...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
> > Ah, who would have guessed it, "Don Tiberone" reads gold
> > bug newsletters just like all those other stupid newsletters he reads
> > that keep him so hilariously misinformed and underperforming in
> > group contests. Is this even worth it? Not really for "Don"'s
> > sake, but the underlying issues are critical, so for the sake of
> > general information let's review history OBJECTIVELY...
>
> You realize, of course, that you couldn't even back up your own claim
> that gold goes down during deflation.
Of course I couldn't, because the US has never experienced a true
deflationary collapse since it left the gold standard. I explained this
in simple language backed up with references to the work of actual
educated economists.
I also clearly stated at the outset that what I wrote was going to be
of no help to you, because you are quite clearly beyond help. Like
your intellectual equal "Lowbrow", you dismiss all objective facts outside
of what you read in newsletters or make up in your rich fantasy life
as "rants" or "diatribes" (and even accuse Fed officials of "babbling",
which is almost as absurd as "Lowbrow" dismissing several excerpts
I posted of Pulitzer prize-winning books proving he was wrong on
a subject as "plagiarism"!).
> Instead, proceeded to rant
> endlessly about the gold standard.
What'd I say? Facts are just "rants" and "diatribes", and if backed up
with web-site links and excerpts then they also are "plagiarism".
As I clearly stated, it's not worth it to even try to discuss anything with
senile idiots like you and "Lowbrow". You were born stupid, and soon
you will die that way. You're incapable of learning anything, and we
can only hope that you haven't reproduced, or at least much, because
as "Lowbrow" admitted, in his case his problems are clearly genetic...
> Who's arguing over a gold standard?
Nobody with a brain!
> I merely corrected your misinformation about gold going down during
> deflation then you proceed to rant about something else.
Well, you're right, of course, you got me. Gold was $21 in 1928,
$21 in 1929, $21 in 1930, $21 in 1931, $21 in 1932, etc., while the
money supply dropped as much as 30% year-over-year on a monthly
basis.
I just wanted to point out why that was so, and why assumptions
about the future price of gold absent the gold standard are erroneous,
but AGAIN, my post was targeted to intelligent people who have a
desire to learn about history and markets, not to you.
> > I don't remember the Fed "babbling" about deflation, because unlike
> > you they tend to use words precisely and thoughtfully. But the really
> > important thing is that there was absolutely NO deflation in that time
> > period.
>
> Actually, in November 2002, the Fed lowered rates because and I quote
> "A failure to take an action...would increase the odds of a cumulatively
> weakening economy and possibly even attendant deflation."
Yeah, that's "babbling", just like what I wrote was a "rant"...
You'se just a complete moron is what you is, since AGAIN there
was NO deflation in the time period, as YOUR own Fed quote even
acknowledges!
> And in
> December 2002, Greenspan had an entire speech about it.
More "babbling", eh? There are many ways I would describe
a Greenspan speech--boring, tedious, lethargic, ambiguously
tediously boring and lethargic--but if you want to use the word
"babbling", feel free to display your idiocy that way as well...
> Considering
> you were proven wrong again, maybe you should spend another few
> paragraphs writing non sequiturs about the gold standard again.
Nah, I'm pretty much done. Without the gold standard, gold is
just another commodity and/or speculative object, like beanie babies,
hot stocks, collector cars, etc. Sometimes it will go up, sometimes
it will lag for decades. Some people are always trying to pump it
like it's still the magical substance of alchemy in the Dark Ages,
and some people like you, who like to lose money in the stock
market and read and copy'n'paste newsletters to while away your
lonely days, will never be able to understand simple concepts
like supply and demand and the difference between law, custom,
and the madness of crowds.
> <gold standard rant snipped>
"rant"...what'd I say?
> Who cares. I'm not a gold bug.
You just parrot the "facts" you read in gold bug newsletters without
ever once questioning how false and misleading they are...
> > Now I always like to disclose when discussing gold that I do own
> > some of the stuff as an "investment"
>
> That pretty much says it all.
Yup, it "says it all", that's why you snipped it mid-sentence...
> I don't own any gold, at least not
> directly. A few of my mutual funds have a few percent in it but that's
> it.
Well good for you...so if we fall into a deflationary spiral and the
dollar is devalued as you said it would and gold goes way the hell
up as you said it would, you STILL won't be making a nickel in the
market...you wouldn't want to mess up your perfect record with
an actual profit...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 732
Don Tiberone
> Don Tiberone <s_knig...@my-Deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186761067.9...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 10, 7:02 am, "Bill Reid" <hormelf...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
> > > Ah, who would have guessed it, "Don Tiberone" reads gold
> > > bug newsletters just like all those other stupid newsletters he reads
> > > that keep him so hilariously misinformed and underperforming in
> > > group contests. Is this even worth it? Not really for "Don"'s
> > > sake, but the underlying issues are critical, so for the sake of
> > > general information let's review history OBJECTIVELY...
>
> > You realize, of course, that you couldn't even back up your own claim
> > that gold goes down during deflation.
>
> Of course I couldn't,
'nuff said.
> > > I don't remember the Fed "babbling" about deflation, because unlike
> > > you they tend to use words precisely and thoughtfully. But the really
> > > important thing is that there was absolutely NO deflation in that time
> > > period.
>
> > Actually, in November 2002, the Fed lowered rates because and I quote
> > "A failure to take an action...would increase the odds of a cumulatively
> > weakening economy and possibly even attendant deflation."
>
> Yeah, that's "babbling", just like what I wrote was a "rant"...
>
> You'se just a complete moron is what you is, since AGAIN there
> was NO deflation in the time period, as YOUR own Fed quote even
> acknowledges!
The Fed lowered rates to fight deflation. Simple as that. By the way,
there was plenty of asset deflation with the markets.
> > And in
> > December 2002, Greenspan had an entire speech about it.
>
> More "babbling", eh? There are many ways I would describe
> a Greenspan speech--boring, tedious, lethargic, ambiguously
> tediously boring and lethargic--but if you want to use the word
> "babbling", feel free to display your idiocy that way as well...
Call it what you want, babble, rant, pontificate, whatever. The
bottomline is, he was worried enough that he wrote an entire speech
about it.
Oh and by the way, let's not forget Bernanke's speech in 2002 about
dropping money out of helicopters to fight deflation.
Is that enough babbling for you? Funny how no Fed governor is babbling
about deflation today. They mainly babble how inflation is "contained"
today.
> > Considering
> > you were proven wrong again, maybe you should spend another few
> > paragraphs writing non sequiturs about the gold standard again.
>
> Nah, I'm pretty much done. Without the gold standard, gold is
> just another commodity and/or speculative object, like beanie babies,
> hot stocks, collector cars, etc. Sometimes it will go up, sometimes
> it will lag for decades. Some people are always trying to pump it
> like it's still the magical substance of alchemy in the Dark Ages,
> and some people like you, who like to lose money in the stock
> market and read and copy'n'paste newsletters to while away your
> lonely days, will never be able to understand simple concepts
> like supply and demand and the difference between law, custom,
> and the madness of crowds.
Hilarious. I was the one who schooled you about supply and demand. You
were the one who foolishly claimed OPEC would increase production to
make up for lower prices. How'd that work out? Not surprisingly, not
only did I prove you wrong with facts, but OPEC backed me up by
reducing output earlier in the year when oil tanked.
> > Who cares. I'm not a gold bug.
>
> You just parrot the "facts" you read in gold bug newsletters without
> ever once questioning how false and misleading they are...
LOL. If I were to parrot gold bug newsletters, I would be repeating
what you said. That gold goes down during deflation. That gold is
protection against inflation. Yeah whatever. Instead, I go contrarian.
You repeat the conventional "wisdom" about gold going down during
deflation, that everyone else repeats. I correct you. Then you proceed
to backtrack, obfuscate, and sidetrack with the gold standard. So
who's the one parroting "facts"? I'm in the minority. You parrot
everyone else saying gold goes down with deflation. And yet you're
babbling I parrot gold bug newsletters that gold goes up all the time?
No wonder I don't own any gold, eh? Actions speak louder than words.
You're scared enough that you own gold. I don't own any. You are
obviously a closet gold bug. Although, admittedly, I do have some
anti-dollar investments.
> > I don't own any gold, at least not
> > directly. A few of my mutual funds have a few percent in it but that's
> > it.
>
> Well good for you...so if we fall into a deflationary spiral and the
> dollar is devalued as you said it would and gold goes way the hell
> up as you said it would, you STILL won't be making a nickel in the
> market...you wouldn't want to mess up your perfect record with
> an actual profit...
What's hilarious is, you claim gold goes down during deflation. Then
in your next post, argue that gold also goes down during inflation.
Then you proceed to claim you "invest" in gold, something that goes
down no matter what, during both deflation and inflation. I guess you
like losing money.
So let's recap. I proved you wrong about OPEC increasing production in
response to lower prices. Of course, I felt no need to rub it in your
face when OPEC backed me up.
You claimed gold dropped during deflation. That was obviously proven
wrong.
You were also proven wrong about the Fed and deflation in 2002. How
many more times do I have to prove you wrong?
For someone who owns gold, you sure know little about it. The next
time someone says gold goes down with deflation, you can correct them.
You don't even need to give me credit.
lubow
> For someone who owns gold, you sure know little about it. The next
> time someone says gold goes down with deflation, you can correct them.
> You don't even need to give me credit.
>
Well done, Don. It's no wonder this clown never amounted to anything other
than a professional nuisance and the creator of a forex system that predicts
the past.
I just hope he understands that in Antarctica he will not be able to fill
his Risperdal prescriptions.
--
Lubow
Bill Reid
lubow <lu...@lubow-industries.com> wrote in message
news:7cdvi.455$vC4.154@trndny01...
> >
> > For someone who owns gold, you sure know little about it. The next
> > time someone says gold goes down with deflation, you can correct them.
> > You don't even need to give me credit.
> >
> Well done, Don.
Yes, bravo! You've really outdone yourself with this latest idiotic
troll! I'm sure all the other "patients" at the rest home would give you
a standing ovation for your great accomplishment if they could only
stand up out of their wheelchairs, or even wake up...
You know what would REALLY be fun game would be to compile
a list of all the idiotic things "Don Tiberone" and "Lowbrow" have said
here...here, let me get it started:
"The United States experienced DEFLATION during the years
2001-2002." - "Don Tiberone"
"The United States Federal debt is 8.5 QUINTILLION dollars."
- "Lowbrow"
"In its entire history, OPEC has ALWAYS lowered production
when oil prices fell." - "Don Tiberone"
"If the DJIA goes down today, there is a 55% chance it will
go up tomorrow." - "Lowbrow"
"The Toronto Stock Exchange trades on Saturdays." - "Lowbrow"
"10:18 PM is the middle of the workday." - "Lowbrow"
Well, that's just a start, but sadly "Lowbrow" is already beating
the pants off "Don Tiberone" just like in the stupid stock-picking
contest...is there no competition, save possibly the Special
Olympics, that "Dumb Donnie" can win?
In any event, it'll be fun to continue to add to the list as I remember
the deluge of idiocy these two have flooded the group with...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 734
SpyderHoe...@gmail.com
SpyderHoe...@gmail.com
Lubow
> lubow<lu...@lubow-industries.com> wrote in message
> > > For someone who owns gold, you sure know little about it. The next
> > > time someone says gold goes down with deflation, you can correct them.
> > > You don't even need to give me credit.
>
> > Well done, Don.
>
I didn't kick your pathetic, hate filled pea-sized head enough? You
want me to kick you in the balls now? OK, here goes.
Do yourself a favor and make good on your promise to move to
Antarctica. I'm sure all that hypothetical gold and hypothetical
money you made in hypothetical forex trading with a system that
forecasts prices in your hypothetical jealousy and hate filled world
will be of great value there.
And look at all the time you will have to "entertain yourself" with
stuck-together Playboys! Since you do not spend your hypothetical
wealth on women (real or hypothetical), maybe some female penguins
will be impressed by your ability to self-entertain.
Then look at all the good you will do for the family! Mama -- the
lady who does not love poor little 'reid' (wonder why?) -- would be
spared the embarrassment of explaining why no human would want to be
at sonny boy's funeral!
So yes, a move to Antarctica is definitely a plus for the walking
misery, hate and jealousy known as 'reid.' A plus because you can
impress females for the first time in your life, even if the females
are penguins. And look at all the good you will do for the mom whom
you admit does not love you (but does anyone?).
Bill Reid
Lubow <dynami...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186896821.7...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I didn't kick your pathetic, hate filled pea-sized head enough? You
> want me to kick you in the balls now?
Yeah, this is pretty good, sputtering impotent liver-spotted anger
and all, but I was really thinking of just totally stupid statements. I'm
also deliberately excluding your actionable defamatory statements
against several individuals for legal reasons and to properly mitigate
damages, but I think your many other lies should ultimately be
included. I'll consider your current contribution, though...
But thanks in any event, your senile outburst jogged my memory a
little, so I can add a few more entries:
"If four people in a contest of eight people are below a certain level,
that means that five people are above it." - "Lowbrow"
"Canadian banks guarantee your deposits against US dollar exchange
rate risk." - "Lowbrow"
"I taught at the University of Phoenix. People who have degrees
from the University of Phoenix are poorly-educated idiots whose
statements should automatically considered to be wrong."
- "Lowbrow"
"As of April 2007, you can ONLY short stocks on an uptick."
- "Lowbrow"
"I recall the stock market crash of 1987 vividly. It occurred in
1985...or 1986...or 1988...or in 1989?" - "Lowbrow"
"The United States experienced DEFLATION during the years
2001-2002." - "Don Tiberone"
"The United States Federal debt is 8.5 QUINTILLION dollars."
- "Lowbrow"
"In its entire history, OPEC has ALWAYS lowered production
when oil prices fell." - "Don Tiberone"
"If the DJIA goes down today, there is a 55% chance it will
go up tomorrow." - "Lowbrow"
"The Toronto Stock Exchange trades on Saturdays." - "Lowbrow"
"10:18 PM is the middle of the workday." - "Lowbrow"
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 735
d.
Hehe, do you remember walking into a brokerage in 1980 with a dollar
bill in your hand and buying a share of Citibank ?
Don Tiberone
How about these?
"Gold goes down with deflation! Gold also goes down with inflation!
But I own it anyway!"
"He's bullish on gold! That must automatically make him a gold bug! I
know! I'll just rant about the gold standard and accuse him of
parroting even though I'm the one cut and pasting multiple articles
about the gold standard!"
"The more oil goes down, the more OPEC will increase production! The
faster oil drops, the faster OPEC will increase production! Afterall,
OPEC would rather sell their oil for cheap so might as well increase
production to take advantage of cheap prices before it rises again".
lubow
>> > > time someone says gold goes down with deflation, you can correct
>> > > them.
>> > > You don't even need to give me credit.
>>
>> > Well done, Don.
>>
Don, this 'reid' clown is down for the count.
I'm blocking-out this good-for-nothing character forever as I have promised
my buds in private emails. You have done a great job exposing this jealous
and miserable hate filled non-entity for what he is. What this pathetic
excuse for a person is, is a jealous, miserable, hate filled moron
suffering from diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain with a
need to get attention -- good or bad attention -- like anyone else who has
the maturity of a six year old.
Maybe Alzheimer's works like that, but I have enough to worry about without
having to add the plight of some internet cuckoo to my list.
Let's move on. There's money to be made, even in bear markets. We don't
need this 'bill reid' creep anymore (not that we ever did) nor do we need to
answer any of his lies, ramblings, rants and diatribes.
--
Lubow
OpEd
Yikes, this rant make 'reid' appear to be a paragon of sanity!
OpEd
Lubow
Yeah, reading 'reid' does that to people. Have no fear. The ''reid'
clown is blocked out for good.
-- Lubow.
Bill Reid
d. <d...@noospam.com> wrote in message news:46bf3aba....@216.168.3.70...
> bill in your hand and buying a share of Citibank ?
Noooo, is this true, did somebody here really say that (or something
like that)? If so, do you have some kind of search string so I could pull
the actual post as evidence...that's great, exactly the kind of stuff I'm
looking for!
No, wait, I did it myself; sure enough, it was "Lowbrow"! Good
catch! Here's what he LITERALLY said, actually just a few days
ago (I actually haven't read this thread since I posted in it on 8/8):
Newsgroups: misc.invest.stocks
From: "lubow"
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:33:53 GMT
Subject: Re: Bear Stearns bankruptcy
...It could be argued the US
government did not allow Citibank to go belly up either in 1982, even when
the stock when to around $1. Somehow the Saudi royals got involved with the
Citibank rescue
...
---end of archived post excerpt
Of course, this is the classic mistake made by a lot of newbies
and/or penny stock pumpers; they forget that many historical stock
prices include the effect of splits; in fact, Citi stock was between
around $26-$40/sh in 1980-1982, but adjusted for splits, it sold
for as little as around $0.60/sh.
But that's not actually the most stupid thing about that post.
Citibank's actual real brush with bankruptcy "death" came in
the early 1990s due to some extremely large foreign loans
that went bad. There WAS some power finagling within the
company and some large cash shuffling at that time (and
"Citibank" picked up a very rude but funny nickname), but
again the stock never came anywhere near trading for a dollar.
So let's add it in:
"Citibank almost went bankrupt in 1982 when its stock
traded for about a dollar." - "Lowbrow"
And from the same thread:
"Chrysler was not bailed out by the Federal government." - "Lowbrow"
"'Orientals' pronounce the word 'uncle' as 'unco' and 'Brooklyn' as
'booklin'." - "Lowbrow"
...and probably a few more just from that one thread...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 736
Bill Reid
Don Tiberone <s_kn...@my-Deja.com> wrote in message
Who said that? "Lowbrow"? Sounds like the kind of innumerate
gross generalization he would make...if this were true, gold would
be even more worthless than a "Don Tiberone" post...
If so, let me clear it up for him (OK, I know that's as useless as trying
to clear stuff up with you, but anywhooo...) AGAIN. The US has not
had a true period of actual deflation since it went off the gold standard,
so we don't actually know how gold would behave if there was deflation
in the US. My PREDICTION is that gold would actually decline
overall like all dollar-denominated asset classes in that unfortunate
event (unfortunate for anybody who doesn't save money by stuffing
it in matresses). Gold did decline overall for decades during the periods
of moderating but still present inflation of the 80s and 90s, and I
correspondingly tend to believe that your best bet for gold appreciation
would be an accelerating inflation trend.
I have less than 1% of my net worth in gold that was purchased
decades ago which I believe STILL has not even kept up with inflation
in that time period, even with the sharp rise in the last few years...
> "He's bullish on gold! That must automatically make him a gold bug! I
> know! I'll just rant about the gold standard and accuse him of
> parroting even though I'm the one cut and pasting multiple articles
> about the gold standard!"
Who said that? Who did that?
Who's bullish on gold anyway, except "Rob Allen" (the original
"Lowbrow") and some others who don't really post here anymore?
I mean there's always some gold bugs, but you are clearly just a
guy who lives in a newsletter-fueled fantasy world; as I clearly
stated, you're not even smart enough to BE a gold bug (for all
I know and can predict, gold WILL go up tremendously, I'll be
profitable on my position, you'll still be the loser you are).
I posted two excerpts from a SINGLE speech by Ben Bernanke,
is that what you call a "rant" (Ben will be so hurt)? And seriously,
if you don't think that the existence of the gold standard during
the Depression made it a very different time for gold prices than
today, you need to sit down, close your eyes, meditate for about
six months to clear your mind of "informational" toxins, and never
read another newsletter until you are intellectually capable of
evaluating rhetorical arguments logically, if ever that should
occur...
> "The more oil goes down, the more OPEC will increase production! The
> faster oil drops, the faster OPEC will increase production! Afterall,
> OPEC would rather sell their oil for cheap so might as well increase
> production to take advantage of cheap prices before it rises again".
Who said that?
For the umpteenth time, just like "Lowbrow", you went beserk on
me because I merely pointed out that your statement that OPEC
ALWAYS cut production when oil prices fell was factually, historically,
easily demonstrably, and laughably false. Somewhere in your many
KBs of insano obfuscatory ad hominen diatribes, you even actually
admitted that when you said "ALWAYS", it was just something
you read in a newsletter that talked about the previous 18 months,
not the entire history of OPEC.
If like "Lowbrow", you weren't such an idiot with the resultant
reflexive inability to admit an error of any sort, you could have
just clarified your incorrect statement with that and let it go. But
instead as you admitted, you actually ENJOY trolling for idiotic
arguments on Usenet, so I guess we're stuck with your newsletter
cut'n'pastes and trolling behavior until at least the next stroke
takes away your one good hand (even then, you might try to
troll the group with your nose)...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 737
Bill Reid
> >> > > For someone who owns gold, you sure know little about it. The next
> >> > > time someone says gold goes down with deflation, you can correct
> >> > > them.
> >> > > You don't even need to give me credit.
> >>
> >> > Well done, Don.
> >>
> Don, this 'reid' clown is down for the count.
NO MAS!!!
I love "tough guy talk" from geriatrics; I get this image of like
Gabby Hayes dancing around with his face screwed up in a toothless
gurn and his gnarled fists cocked into a Gentleman Jim Corbett
stance...
> I'm blocking-out this good-for-nothing character forever as I have
promised
> my buds in private emails.
What is this, about the eighth time you've "kill-filed" me? What is it
with whacko Usenet trolls and their total inability to operate a simple
kill-file? Just do it and shut up about it you wrinkled 'tard; I don't need
your idiotic back-talk to keep making fun of your moronic posts (although
I'm not happy about the dozens of slanderous posts that are sure to
appear if the history of his last 12 threats to kill-file me are any
indication)...
> You have done a great job exposing this jealous
> and miserable hate filled non-entity for what he is.
Yes, as I've admitted, he's the hero of the Polident(TM)
generation nation-wide...
> What this pathetic
> excuse for a person is, is a jealous, miserable, hate filled moron
> suffering from diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain with a
> need to get attention -- good or bad attention -- like anyone else who has
> the maturity of a six year old.
NO MAS!!! NO MAS!!!
> Maybe Alzheimer's works like that, but I have enough to worry about
without
> having to add the plight of some internet cuckoo to my list.
Yes, it is pretty clear that IS how Alzheimer's works, but you DO
have enough to worry about, like knowing what day of the week it
is, and the difference between AM and PM, the difference between
a "billion" and a "quintillion", and how to find your way home when
you take a walker around the block...
> Let's move on. There's money to be made, even in bear markets.
Thank God we're not in one, as "Don Tiberone" has helpfully pointed
out dozens of times in the last few weeks with his newsletter
cut'n'pastes...
> We don't
> need this 'bill reid' creep anymore (not that we ever did) nor do we need
to
> answer any of his lies, ramblings, rants and diatribes.
Fixed your sentence:
"We don't need no stinkin' facts, we're on Social Security, we can
do or say whatever we want, and nobody can correct us, because
that would be like picking on Grandma! HA!!!" - "Lowbrow"
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 738
ausound
$ax1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> Without the gold standard, gold is
> just another commodity and/or speculative object, like beanie babies
http://www.gold.org/discover/news/article/2708/
When in nanoclusters, gold can be used as a catalyst to convert carbon
monoxide into carbon dioxide, explained Mr Jourdan.
Gold catalysts can be used in air purifiers to remove carbon dioxide, they
can also be used to aid the catalytic combustion of hydrocarbons and the
oxidative removal of mercury.
Lubow
> "Bill Reid" <hormelf...@happyhealthy.net> wrote in news:eH4vi.28499
> $ax1.21...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> > Without the gold standard, gold is
> > just another commodity and/or speculative object, like beanie babies
>
> http://www.gold.org/discover/news/article/2708/
>
> When in nanoclusters, gold can be used as a catalyst to convert carbon
> monoxide into carbon dioxide, explained Mr Jourdan.
>
> Gold catalysts can be used in air purifiers to remove carbon dioxide, they
> can also be used to aid the catalytic combustion of hydrocarbons and the
> oxidative removal of mercury.
Ausound, are you implying that "reid" is nothing more than a
loudmouthed bullshit artist? BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!
His problem was that as a fat and ugly little boy, mama reid told hm
that even though he was fat and ugly, he was the smartest boy in the
world. The problem was that billy-boy believed it. As an adult,
i.e., someone whose chronological age > 18, billy-boy still thought he
was smart and tried his hand at investing.
And like almost everything else he ever did, like his forex system,
his investing was doomed. His investing just proved billy-boy to be
another moron who thought he was smart and could make money on Wall
St. And that has haunted billy-boy ever since. Just to prove billy-
boy remains a moron to this day, our stock market game produced five
out of seven contestants whose end of July results beat the S&P.
Billy-boy, everyone's favorite obnoxious moron, could only count up to
four and made a big deal out of it. The problem was billy-boy only
had four fingers available. The other six fingers were either rubbing
his body parts or were up his rectum.
People from all walks of life make money investing. In billy-boy's
retarded mind, how can anyone make money investing if billy-boy
cannot? After all, didn't mama reid tell billy-boy he's the smartest
boy around? Therefore, using billy-boy logic, anyone who claims to
make money in the stock market has to be a liar, because billy-boy is
one sore loser in investing as well as in life. Maybe one day billy-
boy will make some money investing. At least enough to get some
playboys where the pages are not stuck together for his adventures in
"self-entertainment," as he calls it.
We had asked all in MIS to join us in the stock picking game. You are
doing fantastic, Ausound, in good markets and in lousy markets. I'm
doing OK, but only as a distant second place. Billy-boy refused to
compete knowing he would not be able to show a profit, in contrast to
the rigged and obviously phony forex trades he purported in MIS as
real. You have to admit it takes one sick mind to make up phony forex
trades for the sole purpose of impressing the MISers In truth the
only thing billy-boy could pick is his nose. As soon as he makes good
on his threat to sue me, we'll have his every trade, every audit trail
subpoenaed. Then we will have documented what most of us
intrinsically knew, that billy-boy is not only an obnoxious blowhard,
but an obnoxious blowhard, a liar, a failed investor and an all around
unemployable and useless phony. And if you don't like it, sue me.
--lubow.
Bill Reid
ausound <aus...@spambog.com> wrote in message
news:Xns998CE3089D813...@216.168.3.70...
> "Bill Reid" <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote in news:eH4vi.28499
> $ax1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> > Without the gold standard, gold is
> > just another commodity and/or speculative object, like beanie babies
>
> http://www.gold.org/discover/news/article/2708/
>
> When in nanoclusters, gold can be used as a catalyst to convert carbon
> monoxide into carbon dioxide, explained Mr Jourdan.
Great. Gold can be used to create even MORE global warming!
As a commodity, it just got much more valuable to the anti-Gore
planet-haters!
> Gold catalysts can be used in air purifiers to remove carbon dioxide, they
> can also be used to aid the catalytic combustion of hydrocarbons and the
> oxidative removal of mercury.
The nice thing about this is that gold is so much cheaper than the
platinum that is currently used for these purposes. Of course, since
carbon nanotubes currently cost about a hundred billion trillion
gazillion dollars a gram to produce, catalytic converters made
with gold will only be found on a single car driven by Bill Gates,
and even HE will have to finance it on a seven-year loan...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 750
Bill Reid
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That was the best sinus-clearer that's been posted here for quite
some time!
Sue you? I should PAY you for the laughs you provide on a regular
basis here...keep up the good work!
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 751
raylopez99
> "Bill Reid" <hormelf...@happyhealthy.net> wrote in news:eH4vi.28499
> $ax1.21...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> > just another commodity and/or speculative object, like beanie babies
>
> http://www.gold.org/discover/news/article/2708/
>
> When in nanoclusters, gold can be used as a catalyst to convert carbon
> monoxide into carbon dioxide, explained Mr Jourdan.
>
> Gold catalysts can be used in air purifiers to remove carbon dioxide, they
> can also be used to aid the catalytic combustion of hydrocarbons and the
> oxidative removal of mercury.
KO (Coke) is the new gold--when the market is down, there's a "flight
to safety" that means buying KO--and the price goes up.
RL
Lubow
> KO (Coke) is the new gold--when the market is down, there's a "flight
> to safety" that means buying KO--and the price goes up.
>
> RL
Are you telling us, Ray, that nobody is investing in the Bill Reid
Charm School?
raylopez99
The bears' lair
Sep 13th 2007
>From The Economist print edition
Riddles about the gold price explained
GOLD seems like a good buy when everything else feels too risky. Most
people expect the stuff to act as a store of value over the long term.
And even if it goes down, gold can still be hammered into pretty
shapes and worn around the neck to impress the neighbours, something
that cannot be said of depreciating share certificates.
Gold has done well recently, passing the magic mark of $700 per troy
ounce last week. But it has not been much of a hedge. When the markets
started wobbling this summer it went down; when they picked up it
headed up. What has been going on?
According to an analysis by Goldman Sachs, the yellow stuff has not
been a reliable hedge against either risk or inflation. Its long
correlation with the oil price has broken down recently because of
supply constraints in the oil market. Nor does it behave much like
other metals. If it did, gold might be even higher than it is. Lead
has easily outperformed gold over the past two years, which might be
some comfort to alchemists staring at pools of molten metal that
stubbornly refuse to transmute.
A better way to think of gold may be as a currency that moves in the
opposite direction to the dollar. As the greenback weakens, Goldman
expects the price of gold to move to $725 per troy ounce over the next
year or so. If interest rates start falling, gold, which offers no
yield, may become more attractive still.
That would be a neat trick for an element that has already more than
doubled in price since its low in 1999. Then, central banks were
selling reserves indiscriminately, pushing the price down. They soon
realised that this was not clever and got together to hammer out an
agreement to limit central-bank sales to 400 tonnes a year. That
amount has since increased by 100 tonnes, but the agreement holds
until 2009.
Meanwhile new sources of demand have appeared. Central banks in the
Middle East and Russia are building their own gold reserves. Gold bugs
are watching to see if the Chinese central bank does the same,
according to Trevor Steel of Baker Steel, a fund manager. Gold
exchange-traded funds like StreetTRACKS have created an easy way for
investors to get into the metal without having to buy mining shares.
And demand for gold jewellery goes up as people get richer,
particularly in India, the world's largest consumer of gold for
adornment. The wedding season, which comes after the monsoon, is just
around the corner. Lots of shiny things will be expected as part of
the dowry