Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gold ready to crash?
Market Watch.com ^ | Jun 1, 2006 | Jesse Czelusta

Posted on 06/01/2006 8:10:31 AM PDT by Grampa Dave

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 361-377 next last
To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

Ah, in other words, you have no response. Back to your comic books I suppose.


301 posted on 06/06/2006 1:37:25 PM PDT by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Sic Luceat Lux
Ah, in other words, you have no response.

So you're saying that you're not engaged in speculation? Hmm, and I thought your constant harping about how silver's going to go to $20 an ounce by year's end was about your expected profit. Perhaps I was mistaken.

And, incidentally, you have devoted an enormous amount of emotional and psychic energy to demanding (and most rudely, at that) that I recalculate my rough estimate of your potential gains based on your claimed costs instead of my experience. (FYI, I was there for the Hunt brothers' effort to corner silver, and stayed off of that train wreck, and I bailed out of gold at a shade over $730, missing the peak, but locking in a large profit as opposed to eating a loss like the folks who bought my gold most likely did.) Not for you the simple "you're wrong, here's my expected (or actual) gain, so I'm making money, and you're not." No, Sic Luceat Lux has to engage in a great deal of bombast and insult, and then demands to be validated. I obviously struck a nerve.

Now, as a medically-retired cop, I can tell you that when someone has had a nerve struck over money, things are most likely going to get interesting. So, please, by all means, continue to amuse me.

302 posted on 06/06/2006 2:01:20 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
It is you Pale Horse who is obviously become unhinged/unstable in this casual conversation.
I still kindly ask (and you keep avoiding a valid response/resorting to puns)- how can you prove there are "extremely high inventories on hand" - (of silver) - when I've posted facts showing the opposite.

Where are your supporting facts Pale Horse? Produce them without feeling cornored please, thanks.

***

PaleHorse unsupported fib:
"There are extremely high inventories on hand--"

(my post #292:
"A worldwide silver shortage of 21.2 million ounces was reported last year! Private and government stockpiles are dwindling in response to this huge shortage. The U.S. Government’s silver reserve stockpile, a total of over 2 Billion Ounces, has been completely depleted!"

***

Urls/something/anything -to back up your fibs/statements- where are they?

303 posted on 06/06/2006 2:22:53 PM PDT by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Sic Luceat Lux
It is you Pale Horse who is obviously become unhinged/unstable in this casual conversation.

I'm quite hinged. I just don't care to go back over previous posts and redo them in a way that personally pleases you, unless you're willing to pay for it (and I charge very high prices). You, on the other hand, have grown increasingly unhinged. Almost as if there's something more than a mere disagreement about whether silver's going up or not.

Additionally, I generally don't accept claims of "shortages" from professional silver shills (such as the one you quoted) intent on getting people to panic and buy more silver. Those are not "facts," they are "advertising." Advertising may contain facts, but they are frequently presented in a misleading, emotional fashion. To wit:

The U.S. Government’s silver reserve stockpile, a total of over 2 Billion Ounces, has been completely depleted!

That event happened decades ago--back when I was a teenager. It's why we don't use silver coins any more. It is a "fact," but it is presented in a misleading fashion.

304 posted on 06/06/2006 2:47:17 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius


A dramatic insult? Maybe if you're an idiot. That comment is a common humorous turn of phrase on the shell game played with inflation numbers.

As for devaluing 98.5%, it may be dramatic, but a fact it is.

BTW, it's common courtesy to ping those whose comments you are discussing, I would add, particulary if you're whining about them...


305 posted on 06/06/2006 3:01:24 PM PDT by Axenolith (Got Au? Ag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Sic Luceat Lux

Unlike gold, silver is produced to a significant extent as a secondary ore product. As a result, the silver market supply is somewhat decoupled from silver market demand. Because of this, the silver price moves somewhat irrationally on the surface and with a different behavior than gold.


306 posted on 06/06/2006 3:04:54 PM PDT by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
I wasn't aware that silver was vanishing into nothingness. It isn't, of course. It's just moving from certain designated "stockpiles" to other owners.
In case you didn't know, silver is consumed in addition to be invested in. Currently it's consumed at a rate ~75-100 million ounces a year higher than it's extracted. The difference has been being made up by those stockpiles you eagerly tout as a negative toward investing in it.
307 posted on 06/06/2006 3:09:29 PM PDT by Axenolith (Got Au? Ag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Re: Silver stockpile depletion

That event happened decades ago--back when I was a teenager. It's why we don't use silver coins any more.

Decidedly untrue.

"In 1965, it appeared that in less than two years the Treasury would effectively lose control of the price of silver. If silver had been allowed to rise above $1.40 per ounce, the silver content of U.S. coins would have been worth more than their face value, causing them to disappear from circulation."

The Treasury wasn't losing control of the price because they didn't have enough of it, they were losing control of the price because currency was being issued in excess of what was there to back it.

"In the early 80’s, the U.S. government’s strategic stockpile of silver was locked in by law at 139.5 Moz. Congress has since authorized legislation to dispose of these stockpiles. In late 2000 the U.S. Defense National Stockpile Center delivered its remaining stockpile of nearly 15 Moz to the U.S. Mint for coinage programs. Since 2001, the U.S. has had to purchase silver for its coinage programs from the open market. This has boosted silver consumption by 1% annually."

Both quotes are from the Silver Users Association, a decidedly anti "silver bug" group whose primary desire is to see the price remain low.

308 posted on 06/06/2006 3:29:43 PM PDT by Axenolith (Got Au? Ag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
In the early 80’s, the U.S. government’s strategic stockpile of silver was locked in by law at 139.5 Moz

The quote I was responding to said that the stockpile was two BILLION ounces, and it hasn't been anywhere near that since I was a teenager.

309 posted on 06/06/2006 3:36:26 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
As you have just read PaleHorse, with more then just my lone fact presented (and I offered to find more) there are now others. I'm simply wanting you to stop fibbing to the reader. And now 'of course' - you'll have to.
310 posted on 06/06/2006 3:50:17 PM PDT by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Sic Luceat Lux
So now I'll let you 'slide' on the fibbing and let's 'move-on' before you become more despondent.
311 posted on 06/06/2006 3:53:51 PM PDT by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: tortoise

Good information, thank you.


312 posted on 06/06/2006 3:55:39 PM PDT by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Hell, they loaned close to that (2BY oz) to the Manhatten project alone. The strategic stockpile was one of two, the treasuries was probably greater even then. The main point is that they didn't go off circulating it because they were running out in 65, they did it because it constrained the printing of paper currency.

All things considered, there's a hell of a lot less and it's being used at a rate higher than extraction. A buy signal in and of itself aside from the precarious position of the dollar...

313 posted on 06/06/2006 3:59:59 PM PDT by Axenolith (Got Au? Ag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: TEEHEE
new gold exchange opened in Dubai in the last year. Again, not exactly a challenge to the movers and shakers in London and NYC; but it's a step in a different direction, none the less

Thanks for an informative post and I agree with what you say. There are shifts and transformations in the international monetary system - and this is inevitable. History never stands still.

To the factors you mentioned, I would add the Russian govt's policy to maintain gold reserves. Because they run a trade surplus, they are obliged to keep increasing these holdings.

314 posted on 06/06/2006 4:29:07 PM PDT by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Gold and silver up a bit on the Asian market.


315 posted on 06/07/2006 11:34:17 AM PDT by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: BlackVeil

The Russians and their gold reserves are definitely getting a lot of press lately. The Chinese are making similar noises. Worldwide gold reserve and petrocurreny adjustments make one go Hmmm.


316 posted on 06/08/2006 4:03:33 PM PDT by TEEHEE ("Likes: moonlit walks on the beach, Michael Savage, and gold.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

I furled your FReeper home page as a potential patent attorney.


317 posted on 06/09/2006 5:25:36 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (In memory of Terri Schindler (not Schiavo!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sic Luceat Lux; BeHoldAPaleHorse
Hmmm, let me see now Todd. Over the past five months I have purchased/taken delivery of - 3,000 ounces of Englehard .999 silver bars at $8.50 and another 2,000 ounces of Englehard .999 silver bars at $11.45. Then another 300 ounces of Englehard silver bars at $12.50 and lastly, another 500 ounces Englehard @ $14.75.

Todd, I still have all of my above silver bars -do the math please; how am I doing/ how ingnorant (sic!) am I?

Well, since I was tweaking goldbugs and you're talking about silver I'd say you at least have a basic reading skills problem. Beyond that it looks like you paid an average of $10.26 an ounce (before commissions?) for silver that closed at $10.27 an ounce on Friday. Yup, you're kicking some butt!!

318 posted on 06/18/2006 2:25:06 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
you paid an average of $10.26 an ounce (before commissions?) for silver that closed at $10.27 an ounce on Friday.

Well, guess what? You're incorrect again. You, as was the case with another poster, will have to redo your figures. Reason being, when silver hit that comfortable low of $9.64 a few days ago, I bought two (2) more 1000 oz silver bars. Nice huh. :)

[glad I can sit on all this silver - for a few years if need be/never put more then 15-20% of assets in one area of investment - - ya know]

319 posted on 06/18/2006 4:32:03 PM PDT by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Sic Luceat Lux
Well, guess what? You're incorrect again. You, as was the case with another poster, will have to redo your figures. Reason being, when silver hit that comfortable low of $9.64 a few days ago, I bought two (2) more 1000 oz silver bars. Nice huh. :)

Wow, you're a trading genius! You still didn't explain why my goldbug tweaking got such a brilliant silverbug's panties all in a wad?

320 posted on 06/18/2006 4:45:58 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 361-377 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson