Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Injin

  1. A very nice and I am sure gratefully recieved gift, yes. Money, no. If they sent money that would be a gift of yen.
  2. Err no. Gold isn't insurance against TEOTWAWKI. Gold is for use after the dust has settled. TEOTWAWKI would only occur from a few select sources - massive natural disasters being one, political mistakes the other. Rickards believes that the US will go back to a gold standard. That is, his whole position is based on some politicians deciding that his favoured system is the one, them creating it for him (and not taking all his stuff off him in the process.) 3:30 at kempton, anyone? Having spent 10 minutes reading around his output, he doesn't even realise what makes something fiat money. i.e. he thinks that a gold standard is different to any other fiat system. Confused at best.
  3. The austrians want a bubble in something you can't increase the supply of. Comedians, ain't they?
  4. No. They aren;t equivalent - see the map/territory distinction I outlined earlier.
  5. Ok, so I actually engaged with the topic at hand, using facts, logic and evidence, this other poster calls me names but i'm the troll. And now you do it as well. Making a great case for being a goldbug, aren't you? You hate that i'm right.
  6. Don't go! I was feeling enlightened by your logical insights and amazed by your effortless exposition of strategy in a downturn using gold, weighing the pros and cons against a series of other options, with a keen eye on historical detail and how humans value things. oh, wait....
  7. That absolutely was honest debating. he's had three pops at me and the worst i've done in return is point out what he's done and tell him what it merits. Nowhere have I insulted him directly. I await your calling for the removal from the forum of anyone who has tried to ad hominem or who has just attacked me on this thread with baited breath, btw. Oh wait, no I don't because they are pro gold.
  8. I didn't direct my chagrin at any individual. Charts are worthless, a well proven fact. Lots of you have made stupid, assinine assumptions. And lots of you have whinged and moaned (and attacked me) when those facts have been pointed out to you.
  9. Looks like your 3rd attempt at snippy shit to me. First you tried to mock me as an amateur psychologist. Then you tried to get me to qualify myself, and then you tried to do it again. None of what you have done is honest debating and none of it merits anything but being told to ****** off.
  10. A crisis for who? The nature of the economy means one loss is usually someone elses gain. A crisis for the goldbugs would be if the politicians got their heads out of their asses and sorted out a new system to go forward with with a redistribution of incomes akin to the 1950-60 period. But while it would be a crisis for the bugs (and in such a scheme also the super rich), more or less everyone else would be in clover. If you mean a complete dislocation - an EOTWAWKI situation, then gold will get creamed, as that's not what gold is for (again, theres no organic demand) - as far as I understand the timing theory of gold, gold is useful for that brief moment just after everything goes to shit and just before everything has been put right - i.e. you trade an oz in for an austrian apartment complex or an enormous amount of shares in a major company etc and make your profits in something else once the economy is stable again. Good times - buy gold - everything turns to shit - hold gold - stuff starts to be put right again - GTFO of gold ASAP and move into something actually want before the gold price drops back to where it should be. Is, I believe, the suggested route.
  11. Is this the snippy post of someone without a leg to stand on?
  12. You certainly aren't. Wheres your logic? Your basic reasoning? Your market analysis (total market, not charts from Jim "constantly wrong about everything" Sinclair)? From what I can see your basic argument goes "gold has been used as money for thousands of years so therefore it will be used as money in the future" Problem is that gold wasn't used as money for thousands of years.
  13. So far only me is doing any strategising or thinking about the market. And boy am I getting slated for it. Every other tosser on here is posting worthless charts, making stupid assinine assumptions and whinging like a bitch when I pull it into bits using very basic logic. That's not true - the market also chooses paper money all the time. About 2 seconds after you bring a gold standard in, people get the ****** out of it because they aren't really all that interested, which is why every gold standard winds up a paper fraud standard and then crashes the economy after a variable period of being forced on people. If you let people freely choose, gold would be worth ****** all. They want ipods.
  14. Hey, it could be. You purely and simply don't know. It looks incredibly unlikely from here, but that's the nature of the future, you simply don't know. What I do know is that you'll just absorb the new situation with a schlorp sound and say it's positive for gold in the face of any and all evidence.
  15. You can't predict anything which depends on human sentiment with any degree of accuracy over any time scale. Black swans, random walks and all that. If people were using gold for the gold itself you'd be on firmer ground. But, as I've already outlined, the gold maket isn't based on organic demand. Tomorrow a solution to the debt crisis could be found - gold would be nowhere. A new medical treatment could be found solving the demographic timebomb - gold would be nowhere. You can't predict the downsides, only make a general (and flawed) case that paper money collapsing must inevitably = gold rising.
  16. I'm basing it on the link earlier provided by some bug or other. (And my bank credit is infinite.)
  17. You could look at some of that a different way - very definitely some of it is not applying abitary standards to people. I mean, if it's true that you can not do some of them, they can hardly be organic consequences for decisions, can they?
  18. It's a little like telling the starving peasantry of pre revolutionary france that they should all open cake shops.
  19. Not so. Wealth to each indidivual in a coercion free environment is stuff that you value for itself or that other people value for the thing itself. All wealth is present, a current opinion - the past is not binding and the future is not set. See hula hoops and yo yos' for details. As for "must compete"? Only if forced to. That can be environmental, but not these days, these days it's all human system designs (I suspect that psychologically many cannot let go off scarcity thinking.)
  20. Under this system of forced association, the more "wealth" you have the more ability you have to force other people to do what you want. Whereas if you remove the force, all wealth does is let you offer things to people, which they are free to refuse. Price mechanism again.
  21. Then she only needed to go there for one day and add it to her CV.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.