Jump to content
G0ldfinger

G0ldfinger's GOLD Thread: Longer Term Aspects

Recommended Posts

http://www.businessinsider.com/roubini-i-d...in-gold-2009-10

 

From the hpc newsblog.

 

He was right on the crash, but has he now become a mouthpiece for the us gov, in relation to gold?

From that article:

 

"I don’t believe in gold. Gold can go up for only two reasons. [One is] inflation, "

 

"The only other case in which gold can go higher with deflation is if you have Armageddon"

 

I am surprised someone supposedly so learned can come out with this. Inflation all the way from 1980 to 2000 and gold went down. We had inflation 2000 till recently and gold quadrupled. The inflation link does not hold up.

 

Neither does the only goes up if we have armageddon. It went up 2000 till 2007 with no armageddon.

 

I would use the rollseyes icon but RH has used this boards rollseyes icon quota out till 2014...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said on the "other" thread: Roubini has no clue. He hasn't done his gold homework. Otherwise he would take into account that monetary inflation has gone 10x or so since 1980. Don't listen to him on the topic of gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone interested in gold, what happened in 1980, and what could happen in the future, should possibly read this here:

 

http://gold.approximity.com/gold_price_models_sinclair.html

Jim Sinclair's Model: The Federal External Debt Equilibrium Gold Price

...

How could Sinclair call this top, a price level gold would not see for another 28 years, with such precision and confidence? On the radio show Financial Sense Newshour, Sinclair himself said in 2002 that

 

[...] although you would like to claim to be a genius, I personally think I just got sober one day before everyone else. But for the grace of God, I might also have gotten myself caught.

 

However, there is more to it: Sinclair had a model.

...

Oz’s of Gold Held by US x $ Price of Gold = External Debt

...

As the bottom right chart illustrates, within the rationale of Sinclair's model, gold is at the time of writing (October 23, 2009) twenty-two times cheaper than it was in January 21, 1980, when Sinclair sold out. No surprise then that he advises to buy and hold gold.

...

Gold_Price_to_External_Debt_Equilibrium_Price_231009.png

...

The equilibrium price according to Sinclair's model on January 21, 1980, was around $470 per ounce, while Sinclair sold at a premium of 80% over this level. So, what had happened?

...

Sinclair's prediction had almost been overtaken by the reality of the market price by the time he decided to sell, while the actual model price had stayed behind. This can be explained by the left chart in log-format below, that clearly shows that the rate of increase in Federal external debt substantially fell (in fact: went to zero) around or shortly after Sinclair's 1977 prediction. Similarly, the Federal External Debt Equilibrium Gold Price levelled out, and only reached Sinclair's $900 target towards the middle of the decade (right chart below).

...

External_Debt_Equilibrium_Gold_Price_LOG_231009_Sinclair.png

...

Sinclair's model has a track record, as can be seen by the fact that at least during the years from 1970 to 1980, the market price got very close to (or outperformed) the model price on at least four different occasions.

 

From the viewpoint of Sinclair's model, gold is very cheap today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from that article, 11 ways to cash in on gold, one of which is "send your gold to Cash4gold". Highly suspisious.

 

How do I get spell checker to work on firefox? I need it badly!

 

Addon: "British English Dictionary"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone interested in gold, what happened in 1980, and what could happen in the future, should possibly read this here:

 

http://gold.approximity.com/gold_price_models_sinclair.html

This model is very interesting; doing some simple calculations:

 

US values it's gold at $42/Oz (!)

Declared value of gold as $11,000,000,000 ($11 Bn)

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/

=> Ounces of gold held: 261,904,762

 

External debt ~ $12,000,000,000,000 ($12 Tr) <<<< this number seems higher than GF's article, it could be wrong.

 

 

So....working thru:

12,000,000,000,000 / 261,904,762 = $45,818 per Ounce. wow. Hope these numbers are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
External debt ~ $12,000,000,000,000 ($12 Tr) <<<< this number seems higher than GF's article, it could be wrong.

It depends on what you call "external debt". If you mean "Federal Debt Held by Foreign & International Investors" then it is "only" $3.4 trillion.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FDHBFIN.txt

 

I think this is what Sinclair means by the "INTERNATIONAL Balance Sheet of the USA".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am surprised someone supposedly so learned can come out with this. Inflation all the way from 1980 to 2000 and gold went down. We had inflation 2000 till recently and gold quadrupled. The inflation link does not hold up.

Actually it was Inflation all the way DOWN from 1980 to 2000 and gold went CORRECTLY down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it was Inflation all the way DOWN from 1980 to 2000 and gold went CORRECTLY down.

Following this logic, it is important to know how much gold inflation i.e. how much gold mining there was. Otherwise that statement would not make sense. Expressed differently, you woukld have to claim that CPI was smaller than annual gold production in terms of the above ground stock.

 

I very much doubt this. I think gold mining is around 1.5%-2% of above ground stock, while CPI-inflation is certainly most of the time much higher.

 

If you however think that gold price growth should be the second derivative of the CPI, then I don't want to follow this logic anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it was Inflation all the way DOWN from 1980 to 2000 and gold went CORRECTLY down.

But we still had inflation. Thats the point. Gold went down while we still had inflation.

You don't need inflation or Armageddon for gold to go up.

Currency debasement can also fuel this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strawboss over on GIM on the Sinclair model:

If history rhymes, an 80% premium on the current $12900 is $23,200 - and rising fast...

He's spot on.

 

The interesting thing about Sinclair's model is that there is no need for any CPI-inflation or money velocity to explain it.

 

The people who think that it needs Joe Sixpack to be cash rich for gold to go up are dead wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOUBLE POST

Roubini touched also on the deflation argument, hinting that gold is not the answer. He said ” the only other case in which gold can go higher with deflation is if you have Armageddon, if you have another depression. But we’ve avoided that tail risk as well. So all the gold bugs who say gold is going to go to $1,500, $2,000, they’re just speaking nonsense. Without inflation, or without a depression, there’s nowhere for gold to go. Yeah, it can go above $1,000, but it can’t move up 20-30 percent unless we end up in a world of inflation or another depression. I don’t see either of those being likely for the time being. Maybe three or four years from now, yes. But not anytime soon.”

The problem with most economists like Krugman or Roubini is that their brains have been washed in the Chicago School of Econonomics and so they have not got a clue about gold. They don't even have reasonable models for it.

 

Now, here are two reasonable models, and in both, gold is extremely cheap at the moment.

 

Approximity's Model: MZM Equilibrium Gold Price

http://gold.approximity.com/gold_price_model.html

Gold_Price_to_MZM_Equilibrium_Price.png

 

Jim Sinclair's Model: Federal External Debt Equilibrium Gold Price

http://gold.approximity.com/gold_price_models_sinclair.html

Gold_Price_to_External_Debt_Equilibrium_Price_231009.png

 

None of these models are perfect in any sense. But they give a better understanding of how high the price of gold momentarily is. A better understanding at least than any sort of government CPI-adjustment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with most economists like Krugman or Roubini is that their brains have been washed in the Chicago School of Econonomics and so they have not got a clue about gold. They don't even have reasonable models for it.

 

This is a problem for all those who study 'economics'. No economics course in the world studies monetary history (a point made by Ferdinand Lips in 'Gold Wars').

 

These so called economists are simply ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a problem for all those who study 'economics'. No economics course in the world studies monetary history (a point made by Ferdinand Lips in 'Gold Wars').

 

These so called economists are simply ignorant.

 

Not sure I'd say it's 100% ignorance.

 

Maybe something to do with cognitive dissuance i.e. they hold two contractiditory views in their mind. On one hand they must realise that gold is money, yet on the other hand relaise that 'serving' the powers that be keeps them near the top of the fiat power structure, which paradoxically makes them 'wealthy'.

 

edit to add: from http://jsmineset.com/2009/10/24/in-the-news-today-349/

 

It is a cruel thought that, when we feel ourselves standing on the firmest ground in every respect, the cursed arts of our secret enemies, combining with other causes, should effect, by depreciating our money, what the open arms of a powerful enemy could not.

–Thomas Jefferson

 

clip_image00123.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I'd say it's 100% ignorance.

 

Maybe something to do with cognitive dissuance i.e. they hold two contractiditory views in their mind. On one hand they must realise that gold is money, yet on the other hand relaise that 'serving' the powers that be keeps them near the top of the fiat power structure, which paradoxically makes them 'wealthy'.

 

You are 100 % correct good sir. This emulates through all professional fields controlled by the system,legal, medical, etc etc

I used to hope and pray that it was pure IGNORANCE as that would be more comforting than this.:-

 

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a problem for all those who study 'economics'. No economics course in the world studies monetary history (a point made by Ferdinand Lips in 'Gold Wars').

 

Berkley: Economics 210c/236a Monetary History Topics in American Economic History/Aggregate Economics

Penn State: ECON 422W Applying Monetary Theory to Monetary History

University of Chicago: 22900. Topics in Monetary History. PQ: ECON 20300

Stanford: CLASSHIS 305: Ancient Numismatics

...

 

These so called economists are simply ignorant.

 

Amazon shows 911 hits for "monetary history" published mostly by academic 'ignorant economists'.

 

Highwire scientific publication database shows 343 hits for academic papers written on monetary history. Didn't bother to try rest of the databases.

 

Where do you think Lips got his history from before he distorted it? Yup, real historians, which he surely wasn't himself.

 

I think we have asserted that the claim was wrong and one should look for other sources to rid oneself of ignorance on monetary history.

 

That took whole 10 minutes using Google. By this account Lipps appears not to be a very a trustworthy source on monetary history and his book is not a history of monetary systems wither. It's a collection of mostly quantitatively unsubstantiated opinions by a banker who used to invest in gold. Many monetary historians do not share his opinions.

 

If I wanted to wear a tinfoil ad hominem hat, I'd say he was a 'tool' for JP Morgan, a shill for Rothschild banking cabal and a pusher of gold, due to his own gold funds. But I won't, because that line of reasoning is utterly silly and void of content.

 

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Berkley: Economics 210c/236a Monetary History Topics in American Economic History/Aggregate Economics

Penn State: ECON 422W Applying Monetary Theory to Monetary History

University of Chicago: 22900. Topics in Monetary History. PQ: ECON 20300

Stanford: CLASSHIS 305: Ancient Numismatics

...

 

 

 

Amazon shows 911 hits for "monetary history" published mostly by academic 'ignorant economists'.

 

Highwire scientific publication database shows 343 hits for academic papers written on monetary history. Didn't bother to try rest of the databases.

 

Where do you think Lips got his history from before he distorted it? Yup, real historians, which he surely wasn't himself.

 

I think we have asserted that the claim was wrong and one should look for other sources to rid oneself of ignorance on monetary history.

 

That took whole 10 minutes using Google. By this account Lipps appears not to be a very a trustworthy source on monetary history and his book is not a history of monetary systems wither. It's a collection of mostly quantitatively unsubstantiated opinions by a banker who used to invest in gold. Many monetary historians do not share his opinions.

 

If I wanted to wear a tinfoil ad hominem hat, I'd say he was a 'tool' for JP Morgan, a shill for Rothschild banking cabal and a pusher of gold, due to his own gold funds. But I won't, because that line of reasoning is utterly silly and void of content.

 

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

What does your post prove other than "dont do as i do do as i say."

as per previous post:-

 

I used to hope and pray that it was pure IGNORANCE as that would be more comforting than this.:-

 

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

90% of economists are ignorant. The 90% that claimed 'that nobody could have seen it coming' are ignorant fools.

 

Whether those courses mentioned actually teach monetary history is another matter altogether. They may just teach some warped version - that would explain a lot of what is happening now!

 

:lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That took whole 10 minutes using Google. By this account Lipps appears not to be a very a trustworthy source on monetary history and his book is not a history of monetary systems wither. It's a collection of mostly quantitatively unsubstantiated opinions by a banker who used to invest in gold. Many monetary historians do not share his opinions.

 

If I wanted to wear a tinfoil ad hominem hat, I'd say he was a 'tool' for JP Morgan, a shill for Rothschild banking cabal and a pusher of gold, due to his own gold funds. But I won't, because that line of reasoning is utterly silly and void of content.

 

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

 

 

So, you have just made the attack but wriggled out of culpability by using a conditional clause. What a piece of work you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
90% of economists are ignorant. The 90% that claimed 'that nobody could have seen it coming' are ignorant fools.

 

Whether those courses mentioned actually teach monetary history is another matter altogether. They may just teach some warped version - that would explain a lot of what is happening now!

 

:lol: :lol:

 

unfortunately, halcyon's four links do not show the syllabi in enough detail to see if the courses are history or 'history'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does your post prove other than "dont do as i do do as i say."

 

Hahah, everybody can do what they want. I just point out silly arguments, if I spot them. People can then believe what they want.

 

As for cognitive dissonance, decision making is actually very close to my current line of research, but I personally prefer this:

 

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up" (1936)

 

Now that's an ideal to strive for.

 

I don't mind gold is money people, but their arguments should be based facts and not distortions. Otherwise they are no better than the people they accuse of distorting history, being ignorant and not understanding gold. Two wrongs don't make it right and that sort of thing, if you catch my drift.

 

When errors are pointed out, people interested in the truth accept them and move on while being happier about arriving an inch closer to the truth. People who have dogma blinders on just resort to emotional barrage and denial.

 

Tryon Edwards said it best:

 

"Doubt, indulged and cherished, is in danger of becoming denial; but if honest, and bent on thorough investigation, it may soon lead to full establishment of the truth. "

 

Again, I'm not against gold, I'm against fallacious pseudo-facts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only truth in the current financial circumstances is gold. I'm sticking to it.

I translate this for you, Halcyon.

 

It means that Errol sticks with gold because it is no one else's liability, and he does not believe in the levered paper games of the banksters. Especially not now that they're churning out more and more of their bits of paper. Neither can he believe in fiat currencies since they're inflated away to help the banksters with their paper games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahah, everybody can do what they want. I just point out silly arguments, if I spot them. People can then believe what they want.

 

As for cognitive dissonance, decision making is actually very close to my current line of research, but I personally prefer this:

 

 

 

Now that's an ideal to strive for.

 

I don't mind gold is money people, but their arguments should be based facts and not distortions. Otherwise they are no better than the people they accuse of distorting history, being ignorant and not understanding gold. Two wrongs don't make it right and that sort of thing, if you catch my drift.

 

When errors are pointed out, people interested in the truth accept them and move on while being happier about arriving an inch closer to the truth. People who have dogma blinders on just resort to emotional barrage and denial.

 

Tryon Edwards said it best:

 

 

 

Again, I'm not against gold, I'm against fallacious pseudo-facts.

 

 

You are deluded if you think that most posters here cannot see through your web of half-truths and pseudo-intellectual posturing. There are some pretty sharp people here and the more you post, the more you expose yourself as an attention seeking fraud. I suggest setting-up shop at HPC - there are plenty of gullible types over there who would lap it up :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahah, everybody can do what they want. I just point out silly arguments, if I spot them. People can then believe what they want.

 

As for cognitive dissonance, decision making is actually very close to my current line of research, but I personally prefer this:

 

I don't mind gold is money people, but their arguments should be based facts and not distortions. Otherwise they are no better than the people they accuse of distorting history, being ignorant and not understanding gold. Two wrongs don't make it right and that sort of thing, if you catch my drift.

 

When errors are pointed out, people interested in the truth accept them and move on while being happier about arriving an inch closer to the truth. People who have dogma blinders on just resort to emotional barrage and denial.

 

Again, I'm not against gold, I'm against fallacious pseudo-facts.

You are the only one who is constantly pointing out /making silly arguments. The history of money is clear for anyone who realy wants to see it .You are a disinformer at best dillusioned at worst i just hope that less informed individuals are not taken in by your rhetoric and lose out financially because of it GoLDEN BoY!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×