Gold strategy in the current economy

[Injin]

No. I answered exactly what the demand was. Go back and re read the topic instead of being blinded by your own point of view.

Can't see it - link please.

[blackdug]

Why can't I be all three!

You can be all four you forgot the box of mad monkeys.....

[Stay Beautiful]

Can't see it - link please.

Try looking again, its not many pages back. You're a little to long in the post count for me to spoon feed you.

[Injin]

Try looking again, its not many pages back. You're a little to long in the post count for me to spoon feed you.

Can't see it - link please.

[azogar]

eureka!

i think i have finally found the soundtrack to this thread.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbFyTeHABq0

[Erewhon]

eureka!

i think i have finally found the soundtrack to this thread.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbFyTeHABq0

That's great. Just about to travel. Would you also recommend reading this as a complement to your music suggestion?

The thesis advanced in this book is that feeling and cognition actualise through a process that originates in older brain formations and develops outward through limbic and cortical fields through the self-concept and private space into (as) the world. An iteration of this transition deposits acts, objects, feelings and utterances. Value is a mode of conceptual feeling that depends on the dominant phase in this transition: from desire through interest to object worth. Among the topics covered are subjective time and change, the epochal nature of objects and their temporal extensibility and the evolution of value from inorganic matter into organic form.

The theory of microgenesis informs this work. According to this theory, acts and objects evolve in milliseconds through phases that replicate patterns in forebrain evolution. The progression in the actualisation of the mind/brain state is from archaic to recent in brain formation, from unity to diversity, from past to present and from mind to world. An account is given of the diversity of felt experience avoiding the reductionist moves characteristic of biological materialism and the inherent dualism of psychoanalytic and related theories. This book is intended for any reader interested in the psychology of the inner life and philosophy of mind, including philosophers, psychologists, psychiatrists and others with an interest in problems of value and moral feeling.

Seems a bit expensive.

Amazon link

Has anyone a copy they no longer value and are happy to dispose of?

[Stay Beautiful]

this thread reminds me of a conversation i had with the girl on the meat counter at Tesco the other week. She reckon'd she was totally fed up and felt like she had just been flogging a dead horse.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23129-bug-protects-itself-by-turning-its-environment-to-gold.html

New definition of the gold bug concept.

[Erewhon]

And NLP, yes.

I don't use it on here much. Deliberately as terse as possible to remove such effects.

NLP - A Scientology Like pseudoscience

"Characteristics of Pseudoscience in New Age 'Neurotechnology''

OR

a non-cult, non-science unfairly disparaged in a propaganda video made by a business competitor?

Can rational thinking and empiricism help?

[Injin]

NLP - A Scientology Like pseudoscience

"Characteristics of Pseudoscience in New Age 'Neurotechnology''

OR

a non-cult, non-science unfairly disparaged in a propaganda video made by a business competitor?

Can rational thinking and empiricism help?

Yes, empiricism can.

Or, another way, NLP works.

I got a few minutes into the vid - whoever made it and accuses Grinder of being pseudoscience has kind of missed the fact that he's a professor with (amongst other things) a PHD in linguistics.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Injin

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

The point is that most of your posts would be better off in their own thread - why not start a 'Debate with Injin about Gold' thread or something. It's just pointless posting here and I would have thought that your time was more valuable than that.

But by all means carry on if you like.

Because if there were no people willing to argue alternative viewpoints the thread just turns into mindless gold ramping.

Is that what you want ?

[Injin]

Because if there were no people willing to argue alternative viewpoints the thread just turns into mindless gold ramping.

Is that what you want ?

Yes, that's exactly what he wants.

A giant game of w4nky biscuit with a solid gold coaster.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Yes, that's exactly what he wants.

A giant game of w4nky biscuit with a solid gold coaster.

The problem I see is that fundamentally the gold bug has chosen gold over paper because he or she has examined the nature of paper in great detail and come to the conclusion that it is not a sound investment.

It seems somehow ironic to me to dismiss the users of paper as "unthinking sheeple" for blindly subscribing to the government controlled fiat, while wanting to discourage a similar discussion into the fundamental nature of gold*.

*The debate in this context to me is a short one and easily concluded.

[Erewhon]

Yes, empiricism can.

Or, another way, NLP works.

Evidence?

I have no "dog in this fight"/"horse in this race"/"axe to grind" in this area but I am casually interested in a resolution to the disparate views on NLP in the context of the KM wars.

You (and many others) assert NLP works.

There is apparently a long running edit war in Wikipedia but the text appearing at the top of the article is (with my added spacing and highlighting for assertion clarity):

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, USA in the 1970s. The title asserts a connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic"), and behavioural patterns learned through experience ("programming") that proponents speculate can be changed to achieve specific goals in life.[1][2]

The balance of scientific evidence reveals it to be a largely discredited pseudoscience.

Bandler and Grinder claimed that NLP addresses problems such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders.

But reviews of empirical research show that NLP has failed to produce reliable results for its core tenets.

The originators' stated aim was "finding ways to help people have better, fuller and richer lives."[3][4] They claimed that if the effective patterns of behavior of exceptional people could be modeled (for example of famous surgeons), they could be easily acquired by anyone.

NLP has been adopted by some hypnotherapists and in seminars marketed to business and government.[5][6]

Scientific reviews of NLP show it contains numerous factual errors,[5][7] and fails to produce results asserted by proponents.[8][9]

According to Devilly,[10]NLP has had a decline in prevalence since the 1970s.

Criticisms go beyond lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness, saying NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics,[10] title,[11] concepts and terminology.[12][13]

NLP serves as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level.[14][15][16]

NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.[8]

In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice,

Norcross et al. (2006) [13] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems.

Norcross et al. (2010)[17] list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions, and

Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as "certainly discredited."[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

Even taking wikipedia as an unreliable source, this sounds damning given the length of the edit war that resulted in this text being at the head of the article. Sounds to a casual wikipedia browser that the burden of proof is on NLP proponents to show that NLP is not just mystical "woo" with added "quack factor".

As stated, I don't care either way but as an outsider, I'm interested in the process that ought to convince me that "empiricism can" and "NLP just works"?

[Injin]

Evidence?

I have no "dog in this fight"/"horse in this race"/"axe to grind" in this area but I am casually interested in a resolution to the disparate views on NLP in the context of the KM wars.

You (and many others) assert NLP works.

There is apparently a long running edit war in Wikipedia but the text appearing at the top of the article is (with my added spacing and highlighting for assertion clarity):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

Even taking wikipedia as an unreliable source, this sounds damning given the length of the edit war that resulted in this text being at the head of the article. Sounds to a casual wikipedia browser that the burden of proof is on NLP proponents to show that NLP is not just mystical "woo" with added "quack factor".

As stated, I don't care either way but as an outsider, I'm interested in the process that ought to convince me that "empiricism can" and "NLP just works"?

NLP where it is quackery just takes long standing mainstream psychological ideas such as operant and classical conditioning, reponsiveness to suggestion and others, adds the transformational grammar ideas of chomsky and then renames it all and claims that they were invented by the founders of NLP.

If I relabel gravity "positronic attraction theory" but use the current physics understanding it will still work. The ******** is in claming it's a new idea, or in claiming that it's mine.

to be fair, in the published books, neither bandler nor grinder do that (some of the core NLP texts are expanded dissertation papers with proper attributation etc) however, there are a lot of hangers on that do indeed make quack claims and go for the relabelling route. Tony Robbins and his 213119 laws of power and so forth spring to mind.

[Injin]

The problem I see is that fundamentally the gold bug has chosen gold over paper because he or she has examined the nature of paper in great detail and come to the conclusion that it is not a sound investment.

It seems somehow ironic to me to dismiss the users of paper as "unthinking sheeple" for blindly subscribing to the government controlled fiat, while wanting to discourage a similar discussion into the fundamental nature of gold*.

*The debate in this context to me is a short one and easily concluded.

I agree, as far as I can tell, what the average goldbug has done is swap one token for another without changing their underlying thinking process.

They believed unthinkingly in fiat, and once woken up to the dangers inherent in fiat* they simply move their faith onto something else. It's much easier than going through the painstaking task of working out when and where one was fooled.

*here meaning paper money.

[Errol]

Because if there were no people willing to argue alternative viewpoints the thread just turns into mindless gold ramping.

Is that what you want ?

No. I don't mind a bit of debate and alternative view points. But I think my point is proved by the last 3-4 pages of nonsense that has now been going on for what feels like 4 days (to the point where I can't even be bothered to click on the thread).

There should be a different thread for 'Theoretical and psychological discussions about Gold' (or something). It doesn't belong in THIS thread - at least not to the extent it has been for the last 3+ days.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Errol

[Injin]

No. I don't mind a bit of debate and alternative view points. But I think my point is proved by the last 3-4 pages of nonsense that has now been going on for what feels like 4 days (to the point where I can't even be bothered to click on the thread).

There should be a different thread for 'Theoretical and psychological discussions about Gold' (or something). It doesn't belong in THIS thread - at least not to the extent it has been for the last 3+ days.

You do have a point, but largely the disgressions have occured because goldbugs won't admit they don't know (and don't care) about value or having a strategy. A good proportion of the digressions are people trying to stop me asking simple questions by thinly veiled ad hominem attacks or attempts to rubbish what I do for a living.

All you want is pictures of rockets, no actual thought and automatic assumptions of riches just around the corner.

Of course there are two solution, the first being you lot answering questions honestly and stop attacking the questioner or me leaving the thread.

Which do you prefer?

And what does that answer say about you?

p.s. Nothing presented here is theoretical. It all has massive imlications for practice. (In a way that pointing to a chart and *****ing yourself blind doesn't, by the by.)

Edited February 5, 2013 by Injin

[GinAndPlatonic]

All you want is pictures of rockets,

Did you say ad hominum??....I for one say leave the pi ssing thread..

I enjoy reading here but you bring it down to discussions about rationality and why you believe people should dissect every word and belief down into its component parts.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

No. I don't mind a bit of debate and alternative view points. But I think my point is proved by the last 3-4 pages of nonsense that has now been going on for what feels like 4 days (to the point where I can't even be bothered to click on the thread).

There should be a different thread for 'Theoretical and psychological discussions about Gold' (or something). It doesn't belong in THIS thread - at least not to the extent it has been for the last 3+ days.

I have some sympathy for your viewpoint, in the respect that as regards to discussing many aspects of strategy wrt gold investment it is not neccessary to have a discuss of this fundamental nature of gold and maybe it defocusses this thread from at least short term investment strategy or marketplace analysis which maybe relies on certain implicit assumptions or axioms in much the way mathematics does. When you teach kids at school 1+1=2 you are not examining + in the context of being an operator and what that means in mathematics in general. And I don't think fundamentally you need to do that in order for the teaching of 1+1=2 to have some use.

However, I think IMHO the reason the thread gets defocussed is because of obscurification into different areas to try and address injins fundamental (and relevant) points re the nature of gold. If you were willing to admit that he is right in the first place there would probably be no need for the long peripheral debates that you see as barely relevant.

On the other hand if you are willing to admit he is right that may lead you to question the whole reason to hold gold in the first place. So in the long term maybe his points do have some relevance.

[Injin]

I have some sympathy for your viewpoint, in the respect that as regards to discussing many aspects of strategy wrt gold investment it is not neccessary to have a discuss of this fundamental nature of gold and maybe it defocusses this thread from at least short term investment strategy or marketplace analysis which maybe relies on certain implicit assumptions or axioms in much the way mathematics does. When you teach kids at school 1+1=2 you are not examining + in the context of being an operator and what that means in mathematics in general. And I don't think fundamentally you need to do that in order for the teaching of 1+1=2 to have some use.

However, I think IMHO the reason the thread gets defocussed is because of obscurification into different areas to try and address injins fundamental (and relevant) points re the nature of gold. If you were willing to admit that he is right in the first place there would probably be no need for the long peripheral debates that you see as barely relevant.

On the other hand if you are willing to admit he is right that may lead you to question the whole reason to hold gold in the first place. So in the long term maybe his points do have some relevance.

Bingo.

If you accept that value is a property of the human mind, you realise that gold won't help you as much as knowing about people will.

[Injin]

Did you say ad hominum??....I for one say leave the pi ssing thread..

I enjoy reading here but you bring it down to discussions about rationality and why you believe people should dissect every word and belief down into its component parts.

Ok, cheers folks.

Enjoy your pictures of rockets.

And ignorance.

[GinAndPlatonic]

Ok, cheers folks.

Enjoy your pictures of rockets.

And ignorance.

Dont take it to heart so...try to rationalise more..

[Stay Beautiful]

I have some sympathy for your viewpoint, in the respect that as regards to discussing many aspects of strategy wrt gold investment it is not neccessary to have a discuss of this fundamental nature of gold and maybe it defocusses this thread from at least short term investment strategy or marketplace analysis which maybe relies on certain implicit assumptions or axioms in much the way mathematics does. When you teach kids at school 1+1=2 you are not examining + in the context of being an operator and what that means in mathematics in general. And I don't think fundamentally you need to do that in order for the teaching of 1+1=2 to have some use.

However, I think IMHO the reason the thread gets defocussed is because of obscurification into different areas to try and address injins fundamental (and relevant) points re the nature of gold. If you were willing to admit that he is right in the first place there would probably be no need for the long peripheral debates that you see as barely relevant.

On the other hand if you are willing to admit he is right that may lead you to question the whole reason to hold gold in the first place. So in the long term maybe his points do have some relevance.

Injin hops onto this thread from time to time and bangs his drum of zen phsyco cr@p of worth, value, demand wrt gold. All utter b0ll0x in the real world.

House prices have devalued -50% upto now with my personal gold stratergy in the current economy. This may well continue or may go into reverse, who knows? Point being, i actually did something about being wholly exposed to the £.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Injin hops onto this thread from time to time and bangs his drum of zen phsyco cr@p of worth, value, demand wrt gold. All utter b0ll0x in the real world.

House prices have devalued -50% upto now with my personal gold stratergy in the current economy. This may well continue or may go into reverse, who knows? Point being, i actually did something about being wholly exposed to the £.

Well quite. As I said, injins points aren't that relevant to analysing the gold price on a daily basis or even a yearly basis probably.

In the same way it is not neccesary to understand the fundamental nature of money to get a pint by handing over 3 quid n the pub.

But ... a lot of people move into gold for the very reason that they DO make a very careful analysis of government paper money and apply a great deal of thought to why it is unsuitable and why gold might be better.

Does it not strike you as ironic that after applying such a careful analysis to paper they might not be willing to go through the same process with gold ?