Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by enrieb

  1. http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/04/news/econo...sion=2007100408

    317,000 applied for unemployment benefits

    October 4 2007: 8:59 AM EDT

    Unemployment claims soar

    Federal government says 317,000 applied for unemployment benefits in most recent week, a potential sign that labor market is slowing due to housing slump.

    The "low dollar" policy being pursued by the US may not be paying off and recession not averted?

  2. A liability, in financial terms, is something that will incur you a future loss, not a past loss. Once you have given the car away you have made all your losses on the deal. You are not liable for any future losses, therefore you have no liabilities. Your inference that if someone acquires an asset on one side of a deal then the opposing party acquires a liability is utterly incorrect. By giving away your car you've divested yourself of both your assets (the car) and your liabilities (the costs of maintaining and running the car).

    In future might I suggest you spend 10 minutes on Wikipedia educating yourself on the meanings of financial terms such as 'asset' and 'liability', instead of making an ass of yourself on here.

    I would like to buy your car, I promise that I will pay you.

  3. The 'infection' at the Cadbury factory nearby where I live was apparently caused by filter problems related to using cheaper imported milk from (you guessed it) Poland.

    There's probably too many inspections in the UK for them to continue to operate, I suspect. Makes sense to move the lot to a part of the world that doesn't insist on inspecting the factory for cleanliness :(

    FWIW - I gave up on chocolate ages ago because it makes you fat and spotty, which reduces the quality of your sex life. You can market it all you like, but at the end of the day it's just sweet-tasting brown stealth fat.


    Hmm have you got a link about 'apparently' the cause being 'milk from Poland' or is it one of those my-brothers-wifes-sister-inlaw has a friend that knows-the-postman who-delivers-mail-to-a-man who-works at the-Cadburys-factory. Assuming of course that we are talking about the same infection that was a national news story resulting in the recall of a million chocolate bars.

    Its just that according to all the information I can find about it, the infection was caused by a leaking pipe, meaning that the Polish cows are being framed and here are the links that show they are innocent.


    the company admitted charges relating to the state of a drainage pipe, a roof vent, the layout of the factory and drainage and disinfection equipment.


  4. Gold has had a good run. Its up 22.56% YoY according to Kitco which is a good annual rate of return in anyone's book. Not up to UKCoal ("black gold") which managed 300% plus but good nonetheless.

    The problem with gold is the underlying fear factor that drives it. Warren Buffett suggested that ALL commodities were in a bubble state and were soon to see some corrective action. Gold may well get tarred with the same brush as Platinum and Palladium when investors see cash in a decent savings account as a good place to be after so much volatility.

    When gold crashed last time from its all time high in the $800 rnage it has taken nigh on 30 year to recover--factor in inflation and it may never recover the position it held back in the early 1980's. In a few years technology will have cracked the means to manufacture the metal cheaply and gold as an investment will be history.

    Basic food and water is the place to be. Desalination technology, coal to oil technology, solar panels.

    Could gold see sub $400 before winter sets in? More importantly, could it stagnate again as it did post 1980 taking almost 3 decades to break $700 ($134.76 after factoring in inflation compared with the historic high)?

    Well, yes theoretically it is possible at some point somebody could develop a technology to manufacture gold cheaply, however they will first have to develop a free unlimited form of energy that will make coal to oil technology, solar panels completely worthless also. Who know we may even discover a way to travel to parallel universes and get unlimited supply's of energy and gold.

    Its also true that stocks can be a much better investment than gold, though specifically 'some not all stocks' the problem is that not everyone has the knowledge to pick stocks and trade in and out at a profit. Gold has the advantage that it is cheap easy to buy and normal people can invest in it.

    Its possible that gold could go down to $400 or lower but on in a world where oil is below $40 a barrel.

  5. What are peoples thoughts on What effect will the ECB on thursday will have on Gold , bearing in mind we are using ££££££ fiat to buy ?

    Had a $20 dollar sell off today are we going to $710 or will it test $690 level ??

    Todays fixes are still lower than May06 area, when £ was a bit weaker.

    It is good to see support for a gold price over $700 though I do expect it will fall back a bit over the short term. I have been waiting to buy for the last few weeks so a drop back to $650 would be quite welcome for me. I held of buying for the last few weeks even though long term I expect gold to go above $1000. Having watched the gold market ups and downs for the last few years now, I am used to these sudden surges up and equally sudden surges down.

    So just wondering has anyone else been waiting for the price to fall before buying? if so at what price would you be happy to add to your hoard? $650-675 seems like a good price to buy now we have seen support for $700+ gold.

  6. The really strange thing about Second Life is that they also seem to have a property and land value bubble. You can buy "land" and build houses on it but apparently space is limited in the various different worlds :lol:

    They even have the BBC ramping property values for them, what next a location, location, location special all about booming online property prices. They only ever go up, you know!

    BBC NEWS Gamer buys $26,500 virtual land


    BBC NEWS Virtual property market booming


    Will the Bank of England be bailing out this online bank?

  7. LMAO-sticks and stones ey GF at least I have a HOME and a real career....what about you? Jaysus it must really stick in your throat that a young female like me could run rings around a pillock like you any day of the week but like the Murphy's you arent at all bitter are you :P Face it you might as well p1ss your money down the drain at gala bingo or somewhere else that invites idiots of your financial 'ahem' savvy to invest in them :lol::lol::lol:

    stonethecrows could you please stop being so abusive towards GF and other members of the forum in this thread, I expect you don't mean to come across as abusive, perhaps you are just trying to have fun, but it is coming across as abuse. If you have any constructive comments to make about gold I would be glad to hear them, if not could you please just tone it down a little or I will have to ask you to go and stand in the naughty corner.

  8. Thanks for all that, none of which contradicts my position at all. I am not wondering why gold has a magical value in the slightest, I can see where its value comes from. I never denied that gold has a use value, merely took the subjective theory of value point of view that it is incorrect to describe this as intrinsic. The value of any object is in my view always subjective, never absolute. So I don't like the word 'intrinsic', but nonetheless I use it sometimes in the sense you are using it of use value, rather than quibble over the subjective/objective distinction needlessly. We can both agree that gold is generally accorded high value in human society.

    Thanks for your reply, I also sometime find the 'intrinsic' word troublesome at times, I prefer to point to the benefits of Gold and other precious metals as assets that are both tangible and liquid (i.e. easily traded), unlike real estate which is tangible but not liquid, or company shares and bonds which are liquid but not tangible.

    Do you think though that it could it be correct to describe scarcity as an intrinsic quality of gold? or could it be an intrinsic quality that the free market has found gold and silver to be the most efficient moneys, given that these metals have qualities that are most desired in a medium of exchange.

    Note that even Adam Smith's definition of value contradicts Goldfinger's position. Smith distinguishes use value from exchange value, explaining why an object with less use value may have more exchange value. Goldfinger was arguing that the intrinsic (use) value completely defines the value and that when I swap my wheat for gold, the transaction is complete. This can't be true if gold's use value is lower than its exchange value which it is. I value the gold for its exchange value, not its use value.

    I think that Goldfinger's position would be more inline with with Marginal utility or Subjective Theory of Value, but its probably best for GF to judge best what his position is.

    The only thing I would add to this is that, as well as the distinction between use and exchange value, you have to bear in mind that the use of an item as money creates additional demand and therefore increases its value further. If diamonds became the most common currency tomorrow, the price would rise. Because more people would value them more highly, the exchange value would rise, due to monetary demand.

    Yes I agree the use of an item as a medium of exchange creates an additonal demand, the medium of exchange (money) becomes a commodity, best described here by Rothbard in What Has Government Done to Our Money

    A most important truth about money now emerges from our discussion: money is a commodity. Learning this simple lesson is one of the world's most important tasks. So often have people talked about money as something much more or less than this. Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a "claim on society"; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity. It differs from other commodities in being demanded mainly as a medium of exchange. But aside from this, it is a commodity?and, like all commodities, it has an existing stock, it faces demands by people to buy and hold it, etc. Like all commodities, its "price"?in terms of other goods?is determined by the interaction of its total supply, or stock, and the total demand by people to buy and hold it. (People "buy" money by selling their goods and services for it, just as they "sell" money when they buy goods and services.)


    One of the most important things about gold, something that can possibly be described as intrinsic is scarcity which would probably fit in quite well with the two conditions of Subject Theory Value, but that said I am not over keen on the 'intrinsic' word it seems to cause to many arguments.

    The theory holds that things become valuable in the economic sense (have exchange value or price) under two conditions: 1) They are useful in satisfying human wants, and are therefore desired. 2) There are not enough of them, or just enough of them, to satisfy demand. Any goods that are in unlimited supply, or in a greater supply than that demanded, would have no value. In other words, those useful items that are of insufficient quantity to satisfy demand have a price, and those that exist in numbers superfluous to demand (or that satisfy no wants) are free. The subjective theory of value was built upon to develop marginalist economics.

  9. So what do you think it is that defines the exchange value?

    Subjective views of the buyer and seller, the market. And exchange value of a good is higher when that good is being used as currency than when it is being traded merely for its 'intrinsic' value, or use value. Gold is generally recognized as valuable in its own right, but when people accept gold as currency, their valuation depends on what they can exchange it for, not on how useful it is to them as a metal.

    Well its good to see that you think that "Gold is generally recognized as valuable in its own right" and that it now has an 'intrinsic' value, or use value

    It is not always true that the exchange value of a good is higher when that good is being used as a currency then when it is traded for its 'intrinsic' value, or use value.

    2p coins that could be worth 3p each


    Your not the first person to wonder why gold has some magical value attached to it, we all have pondered it at some point. You seem to be familiar with some of the terms but to argue that gold has no intrinsic value is like denying the existence of oxygen, I mean just because you cannot see it or understand how it works does not mean that it cannot be so, it just means that you don't understand or do not see it. Here are some articles from the wiki that may help.

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations

    The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called 'value in use ;' the other, 'value in exchange.' The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce any thing; scarce any thing can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter IV)

    Subjective theory of value

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The subjective theory of value (or theory of subjective value) is an economic theory of value that holds that "to possess value an object must be both useful and scarce,"[1] with the extent of that value dependent upon the ability of an object to satisfy the wants of any given individual. "Value" here refers to exchange value or price. The theory recognizes that one thing may be more useful in satisfying the wants of one person than another, or of no use to one person and of use to another.[2] The theory contrasts with intrinsic theories of value that hold that there is an objectively correct value of an object that can be determined irrespective of individual value judgements, such as by analyzing the amount of labor incurred in producing the object (see labor theory of value).

    The theory holds that things become valuable in the economic sense (have exchange value or price) under two conditions: 1) They are useful in satisfying human wants, and are therefore desired. 2) There are not enough of them, or just enough of them, to satisfy demand. Any goods that are in unlimited supply, or in a greater supply than that demanded, would have no value. In other words, those useful items that are of insufficient quantity to satisfy demand have a price, and those that exist in numbers superfluous to demand (or that satisfy no wants) are free. The subjective theory of value was built upon to develop marginalist economics.

    Intrinsic theory of value

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    An intrinsic theory of value is any theory of value in economics which holds that the value of an object, good or service, is intrinsic or contained in the item itself. Most such theories look to the process of producing an item, and the costs involved in that process, as a measure of the item's intrinsic value.

    For instance, the labor theory of value - the most influential of the intrinsic theories - holds that the value of an item comes from the amount of labor spent producing said item. For example, if a chair is produced by two workers in 6 hours, then that chair is worth 2 x 6 = 12 man-hours (this is a simplified case; the labor theory of value takes into consideration only the "necessary" amount of labor that must go into the production of an item, which may be less than the actual expended labor due to inefficiency).

    Paradox of value

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The paradox of value (also known as the diamond-water paradox) is the apparent contradiction, or paradox, that although water is on the whole more useful, in terms of survival, than diamonds, diamonds command a higher price in the market. This would appear to be a contradiction to some only if they assume value as in usefulness of an item to equate to value as in market value. If one does not make this faulty assumption, then there cannot be a paradox. Note that value is used very differently. Nicolaus Copernicus[1], John Locke, John Law[2] and others had previously tried to explain the disparity in value between water and diamonds.

    Labor theory of value

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Adam Smith explained the paradox by arguing that value had two different meanings:

    The one may be called 'value in use ;' the other, 'value in exchange.' The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. [3]

    Furthermore, he explained the value in use as being determined by labor:

    The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.[4]

    Hence, Smith denied a necessary relationship between price and utility. Price on this view was related to a factor of production (namely, labor) and not to the point of view of the consumer.[5] Proponents of the labor theory of value saw that as the resolution of the paradox.

    The labor theory of value has lost popularity in mainstream economics and has been replaced by the theory of marginal utility.

    Marginal utility

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The theory of marginal utility, which is based on the subjective theory of value, says that the price at which an object trades in the market is determined neither by how much labor was exerted in its production, as in the labor theory of value, nor on how useful it is on a whole (total utility). Rather, its price is determined by its marginal utility. The marginal utility of a good is its least important use to a person. The reasoning goes like this. If someone possesses a good, he will use it to satisfy some need or want. Which one? Naturally, the one that takes highest-priority.

    In explaining the diamond-water paradox, marginalists explain that it is not the total usefulness of diamonds or water that matters, but the usefulness of each unit of water or diamonds. It is true that the total utility of water to people is tremendous, because they need it to survive. However, since water is in such large supply in the world, the marginal utility of water is low. In other words, each additional unit of water that becomes available can be applied to less urgent uses as more urgent uses for water are satisfied. Therefore, any particular unit of water becomes worth less to people as the supply of water increases. On the other hand, diamonds are in much lower supply. They are of such low supply that the usefulness of one diamond is greater than the usefulness of one glass of water which is in abundant supply. Thus, diamonds are worth more to people. Therefore, those who want diamonds are willing to pay a higher price for one diamond than for one glass of water, and sellers of diamonds ask a price for one diamond that is higher than for one glass of water.

  10. OK I am sorry, I hold my hands up and must admit that I was wrong in my above post where I claimed that prices in central manchester have fallen by up to 5 percent.

    Its only fair that I admit to my mistake especially when I have been critical of the thread starter for inaccurate claims. I even posted a link to support my claim, yet after looking further into the subject it turns out that prices have fallen by up to 15 percent. I just wanted to apologize for my mistake


  11. Definite fact : BBC Manchester on Oxford Road alone, will be closing completely alone which employes 1200 personnel. That doesn't even include anyone from London.

    OMG FACT teh BBC are going to close the Oxford Road building!!! Thats probably why flat prices have fallen by up to 5 percent already in central Manchester FACT.

    Link to substanicate the second FACT stated above


  12. That does not concurr with official figures given to us and many others doing transitional work for the BBC.

    Definite fact : BBC Manchester on Oxford Road alone, will be closing completely alone which employes 1200 personnel. That doesnt even include anyone from London.

    Please check your facts and repost please.

    Dear Moron, please read the link that I posted It was a link to the BBC they ran the story, they should know, please can you back any of your 'facts' up with any credible links and where is the link to these official figures you talk about, you cannot get more official than the link that I posted.

    This quote taken from the link I posted, the one that you probably still have not read.

    Around 800 staff currently based at the BBC in Manchester will also move to the new site.
  13. Fact 20,000+ BBC professionals will be either transfer or hired locally for the new BBC headquater is Manchester in 2 or 3 years time.

    Non fact above, The BBC only employs 26,000 people



    The BBC will move five London-based departments, including two television channels and two radio networks, to Salford Quays. They are:


    BBC Children's (including CBBC and CBeebies television and radio)


    BBC Children's Learning


    Parts of BBC Future Media & Technology (including BBC Research & Development)


    BBC Radio Five Live (including Five Live Sports Extra)


    BBC Sport

    The move will see approximately 1,500 London-based posts will relocating to Salford Quays in 2011.


    BBC Children's (including CBBC and CBeebies television and radio)


    BBC Children's Learning


    Parts of BBC Future Media & Technology (including BBC Research & Development)


    BBC Radio Five Live (including Five Live Sports Extra)


    BBC Sport

    The move will see approximately 1,500 London-based posts will relocating to Salford Quays in 2011.

  14. Peter Schiffs Crash Proof does contain some good basic and entertaining analogies as to what is wrong with the debt based service economy of the US and why an economic model based on borrowing to consume will fail in the long term, but in the last three chapters it becomes a sales pitch for Schiffs investment phillosophy. Its a good book to introduce the problems in the current economic climate, but not great as an introduction to economics. I would advise staying away from such literary treasures as 'economic for dummies' which although can introduce some basic vocabulary if your struggling with concepts like GDP, GNP, recession, inflation, deflation, price signals and so on, but it also contains some serious bias towards the Keynesian economic model and some rather odd claims such claims as 'terrorist attacks cause recessions'

    I found a pretty good book called 'Macroeconomics' by N. Gregory Mankiw, its well written and has all the basic concepts explained in just enough detail to inform without causing to much confusion. There are quite a few e books you can read at the von Mises Institue if you would like to get away from the Keynesian point of view, I recommend reading 'What has the government done to our money?' by Murry N Rothbard its available as an e book here


    This video also gives the Austrian perpective


  15. But that is as much of a fiat decision as is anything involving money. Gold is valuable because we define it as valuable; tubular fullerenes longer than a centimeter are equally scarce, but nobody is calling for a standard based on that.

    Well no its valuble because its rare and will remain rare because it cannot be easily obtained or created unlike tubular fullerenes, which may be rare at this moment in time, yet new advances in technology can make tubular fullerenes even simpler to produce in sizable quantities. The point being that tubular fullerenes or any other type of carbon nano tube do not conform to any of the properties needed for money.

    I think that most people who call for a gold standard have a mental image of going to the bank, getting a big bag of gold coins, then dumping them in a vat and swimming around like Scrooge McDuck."

    While I believe its sensible to hedge your bets I also believe there's more to life than physical wealth and placing TOO much faith in such a highly rigged and volatile market as gold will inevitably result in the burning of ones fingers unless you REALLY know what you're doing or are fortunate enough to have inherited shite loads of it along with the silver spoon in which case you wouldnt give a toss in the first place because then it would be beneath you of course :) I do think there are other commodities at LEAST as undervalued as gold at the moment which might be good ways to diversify.

    True that gold may not be the best investment in the world, day traders and market experts will far out perform gold as an asset class, yet gold is one of the most stable and widely available asset classes. It is also a simple and popular way to store purchasing power and protect against inflation. Anyone can invest in gold, all they have to do is find a shop and buy it, gold can simply be described as money, yet many people do not even understand the most basic concepts of money. Not understanding what money is does not make gold a bad investment, it just means that when people finally realize what tangible assets hold value the demand for gold could increase quite a lot. People can look into the subject and discover this for themselves or have the reality forced upon them by inflation.

    I'm not sure how many gold investors advocate a return to a gold standard, I don't see it happening, though it would be good for the price of gold. Gold is simply a good store of value, on occasion it can also perform well as an asset class, it will probably not make an investor an overnight millionaire, yet it will always hold value and keep an investor from poverty. It is often recommended that 5% of your wealth should be in PMs, if investors returned to this ratio then it would be very bullish for the price of gold. I also agree that there are other commodities at LEAST as undervalued as gold at the moment which might be good ways to diversify.

  16. First of all apologies for not reading the full thread, but the title being One In Five Homes Relies Entirely On Benefits enrages me.

    Now I am annoyed about the one in five section of the community that are not working and on benefits , yet I am far more annoyed by the fact that WE are paying ever higher taxes to support the people who farm,cultivate and fully benefit from the social security system. I am not referring to the unemployed or the single mother or any other of the Tabloid acceptable targets labeled as benefit cheats.

    I am referring to the cancerous growth of civil servants who farm and cultivate this system of benefit entitlements, the real winners out of the benefit system are those who are employed in their distribution. These are the people who really benefit from the social security system and the parasitic politicians and bureaucrats that breed them. ARRRGH

  17. Low unemployment, well I suppose it depends on how unemployment is measured

    Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

    Labor force:151.4 million (includes unemployed) (2006 est.)

    Unemployment rate: 4.8% (2006 est.)

    Labor force - by occupation: farming, forestry, and fishing 0.7%, manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts 22.9%, managerial, professional, and technical 34.9%, sales and office 25%, other services 16.5%

    note: figures exclude the unemployed (2006)


    As for how much of the employment is ultimately dependent upon MEW only time will tell, but won't reducing rates have the effect of making loans less attractive to lenders? In view of the recent market turmoil are lenders as willing to lend. Will reducing rates lower the value of the US dollar, last time they began a rate lowering cycle the dollar was at 120 on the dollar index, it is currently around a key support level of 80.

  18. There are many gold threads scattered around the forum, the longest and most important has developed into more of a general discussion about gold and fiat money, given its length, it has become difficult for people to access the useful information and links posted. I thought that it would be useful to take some of the best links and condense them into one thread, hopefully I will at some point also put together a Gold FAQ.

    If you have any links you would like to add, or if I have missed any from the Gold thread please post them below and tell me what category you want them placed in. New categories will be made if needed. I would also appreciate some negative links, articles or videos about Gold, so that we can better judge the pros and cons of owning Gold.

    Please can avoid heated discussions and arguments in this thread, this is intended only as an information resource.

    Links and articles

    Capital Gains Tax

    Videos about Gold and Fiat money

    Where to buy Gold

    Other ways to own Gold

    Coin Care


    Links and articles



    Gold as an investment


    Medium of exchange


    Interesting Facts about Gold


    What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard


    The International Monetary System in the 21st Century: Could Gold Make a Comeback? 1997

    by Columbia University Professor Robert A. Mundell who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1999.


    The Case For Gold, Reprise

    The Daily Reckoning Weekend Edition December 28-29, 2002


    Solid Gold Reasons to Own Gold 2004


    The Gold Bull Market Remembers How Gordon Brown Sold Half of Britains Reserves at the Lowest Price


    200 Years - Dow/Gold Ratio


    Understanding the Gold Price


    Musing on a Gold Standard


    Why Invest in Gold Now?


    Pro gold info from the people behind BullionVault:



    Capital Gains Tax

    Gold H.M Revenue & Customs




    Notice 701/21




    Videos about Gold and Fiat money

    What is Money, Really?


    Money As Debt


    Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve







    Where to buy Gold

    Gold Sovereigns


    Tax free Gold



    Goldline Baird & Co


    ATS Bullion Ltd


    The British Numismatic Trade Association (BNTA)



    Other ways to own Gold





    Buy FTSE listed company that is just gold in a vault, symbol GBS



    Coin Care

    Fisch Fake Coin Identification Gaug


    Cleaning Gold Coins


    Red Spots on Gold Coins


    Cleaning Coins


  19. and what have we in UK produced in the past few decades? the dyson vacuum cleaner?

    Actually he copied the idea from a sawmill where he observed sawdust being sucked into a cone using a spinning column of air.

    According to @Issue: The Journal of Business and Design (vol. 8, no. 1), the source of inspiration was in the following form:

    In his usual style of seeking solutions from unexpected sources, Dyson thought of how a nearby sawmill used a cyclone—a 30-foot-high cone that spun dust out of the air by centrifugal force—to expel waste. He reasoned that a vacuum cleaner that could separate dust by cyclonic action and spin it out of the airstream would eliminate the need for both bag and filter.

    Initially, all Dyson vacuum cleaners and washing machines were made in Malmesbury, Wiltshire, England. In 2002, the company transferred vacuum cleaner production to Malaysia. As Dyson was the only major manufacturer in Wiltshire, this move aroused much condemnation in the British press. Despite promises that washing machine production would continue in the UK, that portion of production was moved to Malaysia a year later. Nearly 800 British manufacturing jobs were lost; however, Dyson's research and development remains in Wiltshire.

  20. Cells forgive me for being so harsh here, but yesterday I read through the entire gold thread, so that I could get all the great links that people have contributed and put them into a new thread that I will create in the metals forum. Hopefully I will put together a gold FAQ at some point as well. Though this gold thread contains some great links, advice and discussion at least 25% of the thread is spent dealing with what can only be described as people being deliberately obtuse, in effect, trolling.

    I have read through the old arguments that you have presented and the answers you were given, you have enough information to understand what the gold is, why its valuable, what money is, what a medium of exchange is, what fiat is, what the pros and cons of fiat are and what pros and cons of gold can be over fiat.

    You are also intelligent enough to understand the answers that you have been given though you seem to be going out of your way to show the opposite. If you could contribute a bearish view on gold that has a basis in economics, stock market technical analysis, anecdotal evidence, history and market performance like the examples given by Realistbear then your input would be useful to the thread.

    However you seem to be fanatical about using bad arguments to present your case, the sort of arguments that a child would use such as 'why does this have value' 'I can't understand why this has value therefore it has no value'

    I honestly cannot put into words how distant your understanding of Gold as a monetary concept is from the subject that we are discussing in this thread. Your opinion is of no value as it is an uninformed one. You understand about as much about gold as I understand about art, the difference between us is that I do not go into an art forum thread and start arguing from an uninformed point of view why art has no value.

    1+1 = 2 now if you do not understand that why the answer is 2, then it does not make the maths incorrect, even if you do not understand the explanations as to why the answer is 2, the fact that 'you do not understand it' does not make the explanation incorrect.

    Sorry if this seems to harsh Cells but you have helped to make this thread tiresome and weary for new posters to read, I would hope the thread could be a useful resource for people interested finding out more about gold and I would welcome negative opinions on the subject so that the case for and against can be presented. Yet you are not making any attempt to understand the answers that you have been given you are just trolling the thread, You are using uninformed opinions about gold and money to present straw man arguments which you then proceed to knock down, much to your own delight.

    This video demonstrates how your arguments are coming across here.

  21. In other words what you are actually saying is that you can't think of a single quality item that was designed, engineered and built without any outside assistance by the chinese in the last fifty years. Why are you in such denial ?

    Yes of course that is what I am saying, isn't it obvious?

    However by saying that "the Chinese have not produced a single quality item that was designed, engineered and built without any outside assistance in the last fifty years" your giving the impression that the majority of other countries are designing, engineering and building lots of products without any outside assistance whatsoever.

    Also that statement suggests that the Chinese have recently in the last 50 years developed an inability to produce anything original, despite all the great inventions that they created in the past 2000 years.

    Could you name some British quality items that have been designed, engineered and built without outside assistance in the last 50 years? I have had a look here yet I cannot see anything of significance.


    China constructs 22-mile bridge Sea Bridge, longest in the world


  22. exactly, so what/who is demanding so much gold that its value is high

    Its the supply thats limited, the demand for it comes mostly as a medium of exchange.

    You could also consider the "labor theory of price" or "cost-of-production theory of value"



    Economists such as Ludwig von Mises asserted that "value," meaning exchange value, was always the result of subjective value judgements. There was no price of objects or things that could be determined without taking these judgements into account, as manifested by markets. Thus, it was false to say that the economic value of a good was equal to what it cost to produce or to its current replacement cost.

    You know, just because you do not understand why something has value, it does not mean that it has no value.

  • 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.