Attention Gold Bugs

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
AynRandLuvr wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:

People who worship at the alter of gold are the pessimists who see death and destruction at every turn,or eternal bears.

Well said.

“Over the course of 600 years, five dynasties had implemented paper money and all five made frequent use of the printing press to solve problems. Economic catastrophe and political chaos inevitably followed. Time and again, officials looked to paper money for instant liquidity and the immediate transfer of wealth. But its ostensible virtues could not withstand its tragic legacy: those who held it as a store of value found that in time all they held were worthless pieces of paper.”

Fiat Paper Money, The History and Evolution of Our Currency , Ralph T. Foster 2 nd ed 2008, page 29

Good thing all the dynasties that use gold currency are still around…[/quote]

Good point! Why DO governments abandon gold anyway, given how fiat paper has such a tarnished reputation? Maybe they want to spend more than they earn, so they abandon gold?

How could wars for profit and control be initiated if spending was restricted by the ‘barbaric’ metal?

Adhering to the gold standard is reducing all value of all assets to a finite pool of metal. It creates a finite number of pieces to the pie.

Getting off the gold standard allows for there to be endless pie.

There is no getting back on the gold standard without first having a massive economic catastrophe which would wipe out most of the value of everything we have.

it’s a stupid notion supported by people with no economic knowledge.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Adhering to the gold standard is reducing all value of all assets to a finite pool of metal. It creates a finite number of pieces to the pie.

Getting off the gold standard allows for there to be endless pie.

There is no getting back on the gold standard without first having a massive economic catastrophe which would wipe out most of the value of everything we have.

it’s a stupid notion supported by people with no economic knowledge. [/quote]

This is idiotic. Infinite pie. Ummm…money is an exchange medium only. It is a means. You are too ignorant to even realize your analogy isn’t even an apt analogy.

Why would you want infinite money? Do you understand the idea of value? The more pieces of paper there are the less they are valued. Why would you want a system that allows the devaluation of money by some arbitrary notion of what the money supply should be. That is the most ill informed, stupid piece of economic dininformation I have ever heard from anyone on these forums. The amount of money in the system does not matter since all prices reflect the actual amount of money in the system. Keep printing paper and prices will rise.

You talking about people with no economic knowledge is hilarious. Do us all a favor and go post in the Get A Life forum and talk about something you understand…like COLORING.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
A bunch of incoherent bablle - which is about par for the course for someone who hasn’t a clue[/quote]

I’m not even going to waste my time with you. If you feel the need to take a break from me schooling your ass in every thread, then by all means, feel free to leave the forum. You haven’t the ability to stay on topic. You haven’t the ability to engage in any meaningful discussion. You talk the talk, but can’t walk the walk.

You are a poser. A pseudo-intellectual with no fucking clue what you are saying.

But I have come to expect that from you.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m not even going to waste my time with you.[/quote]

Apparently breathing is a waste of time for you.

[quote]
You haven’t the ability to stay on topic.[/quote]

I have the ability but choose to steer it sometimes. If you are intelligent then that shouldn’t be an issue. There is no rule that says we need to stay on topic. These forums are more advanced and for people to talk about ideas and not just events. Sometimes they sidestep to make the discussion more interesting. Maybe you should go to the Bodybuilding forums where the information is about moving heavy weights from point A to point B. That is more your speed.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Adhering to the gold standard is reducing all value of all assets to a finite pool of metal. It creates a finite number of pieces to the pie.

Getting off the gold standard allows for there to be endless pie.

There is no getting back on the gold standard without first having a massive economic catastrophe which would wipe out most of the value of everything we have.

it’s a stupid notion supported by people with no economic knowledge. [/quote]

Wasn’t the USA on a gold standard from 1789 until 1933? Even then, internationally, gold was king until 1971. The years from 1789 to 1971 were the rise of American civilization.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
on edge wrote:

Do you have a sign on you back that says “kick me”? Because you’re making yourself to be a big punching bag.

Wow, that is like, such a stupid comment. Thanks for bringing that level of intelligence to this conversation.

No, I was clearly comparing peak to peak not peak to valley. Peak to valley comparisons would be quite sobering, though.

When you get to choose your time frame, of course it will look exactly how you want it to. September 1993 to September 2000 it was up 212%. Pick October 2002 to October 2007, you have an 87% return.

Ten years the S&P has gone from 1000 to 1200. That sucks Figure ones investment life is about 30 years. That ten years practically wasted. Six years, 900 to 1200. That’s a meek “ok”. I could take it but not be thrilled.

I wasn’t calling this some wonderful exciting investment. Spend 10 years building through dollar cost averaging, then when it does go up, which it will, you will make the profit. Give it the 30 years, and it will do fine.

I am not calling this the great sophisticated investment. It is simply the starting point of a core buy and hold strategy.

Dollar cost averaging over this time really hasn’t done you that well,either. Probably around the ten year result.

It’s actually surprising at how well it actually works. Boring, but works.

You say “with the market down right now” like this may be a valley. If you are right, we should be throwing our money at the market. However, it is more likely we are just coming off a major peak. If history is any indicator, this down trend in stock values will continue for at least another year.

We have entered the valley, in November of 2007, but it has not bottomed out. You can either buy on the way down, or wait until it bottoms out. I am not psychic, so I cannot say when that bottom will occur. But a chart will often show when it has happened, and a person can respond to it.

I’m saving cash, buying foreign bond funds, probably will be buying gold and, when the market gets extremely oversold like it was midweek last week, I will take some pot shots at it by buying volatile index funds and hopefully selling them with in a few weeks. I sold what I bought last week in a day and a half. The less time to get blind sided by bad news, the better.

So basically you are a day trader. No problem with that, as long as you know what your doing. (And at least 90% of the day traders don’t) Too many fall for the gambling nature involved, so it draws in a lot of compulsive gamblers who call themselves investors.

I also put lots of money in this very safe fund; HSGFX. You young guys who really aren’t sure what to do with your investment money HSGFX. Those of you who really believe in dollar cost averaging ---->HSGFX<-----.

Mage, based on your comments above, please consider HSGFX.

Looks like an interesting fund. But the S&P has beat it over the last 5 years, so I don’t see the point.[/quote]

Mage, I give you credit for figuring out how to do the line by line quoting and responding. I still haven’t figured that one out. The only thing I can think of is to open two pages and cut & paste. Seems like too much effort.

That is the only thing good about your post though, because everything you said is wrong. Except that dollar cost averaging is good, that is mostly true.

I clearly explained how I’m investing and I’m clearly not a Day Trader. There are rare occasions I engage in trading but it would not be called day trading. I think you are trying to attach that label to me because it carries a stigma of being reckless. What I decribed about my investing is obviously a very caucious approach. The equities I recently traded are equities that people like you would be suggesting to buy and hold anyway. Instead I sold them so I would have the profits but not the worry.

You are right, if you choose your time frame, you can show just about anything you want. I chose peak to peak for two reasons. One, we are just coming off a peak, and two, it shows a full market cycle. Trough to trough would work to show the full market cycle as well.

By comparing Hussman to S&P 500 over 5 years, you are the one picking your dates. Compare them peak to peak or trough to trough for a comparison that is truly meaningful. By the way, if you are comparing Hussman with the S&P 500 using a chart, it is misleading. Hussman distributes capital gains around this time every year. You will notice there is a steep drop in the share price at the end of each year. You would need to adjust for this in your comparison.

You said “We have entered the valley, in November of 2007, but it has not bottomed out. You can either buy on the way down, or wait until it bottoms out. I am not psychic, so I cannot say when that bottom will occur. But a chart will often show when it has happened, and a person can respond to it.”

None of us are psychic but as I said before, history tells us we’ve got at least a year to go before we see the bottom. Maybe for the first time ever this time will be different. I’m not going to bet my hard earned assets on it. Someone who has had the dollar cost averaging approach should continue that approach. Anyone looking to get started in the market should save their money and wait for a better time. Or see Mr. Hussman as he won’t lose your money.

[quote]on edge wrote:

Mage, I give you credit for figuring out how to do the line by line quoting and responding. I still haven’t figured that one out. The only thing I can think of is to open two pages and cut & paste. Seems like too much effort.[/quote]

When you reply, you will notice the word quote in brackets. That is used to make all the fun changes.

[ quote] (Remove the space) and you get the [quote] quote effect[/quote]
[ /quote] (Remove the space) and you end the quote effect.
[ i] (Remove the space) and you get an italicized message
[ /i] (Remove the space) and you end the italics.
[ b] (Remove the space) and you get the bold.
[ /b] (I think you get it by now) removes the bold.
[ u] starts the underline.
[ /u] ends the underline
[center] [ center] [/center]
[ /center]

[center][u][i]So
you get
the idea.
[/center][/u][/i][quote]

That is the only thing good about your post though, because everything you said is wrong. Except that dollar cost averaging is good, that is mostly true.[/quote]

I consider dollar cost averaging to be a good way to get into the market. My statements on the S&P fund are correct, but I am not saying this is the best way to invest. But it will beat the hell out of most of the people who try to play the market.

$1,000 invested annually over the past 30 years (1978-2007) in the S&P 500 would have grown to $291,949. That is better then 12%, which is enough for a brain dead investment strategy.

Am I picking and choosing the time? (No that’s the most recent data.) But what about doing this earlier?
(1977-2006) $309,714
(1976-2005) $302,800
(1975-2004) $335,129
(1974-2003) $332,776
(1973-2002) $278,522
(1972-2001) $388,400
(1971-2000) $481,155
(1970-1999) $575,684
(1969-1998) $510,415
(1968-1997) $426,885

Here is another 10, 30 year cycles. The results range from ~12 - 15% average annual return.

Another 9? $347,873; $302,968; $236,487; $252,205; $250,372; $250,248; $208,875; $233,589; $192,713.

Oops, 59-88 wasn’t so good. Now we are down to a 10% return.

Can a person do better then the 10 to 15%? Yes, but it requires work. The point is this doesn’t, and you can guess how many people that covers.

From what you wrote before, it sounded like you were doing some day trading. If your not, fine, I really do not have a problem with day trading, as there are a few that actually know what they are doing.

Now the reason I chose 5 years for Hussman’s fund was because that is a standard way of looking at mutuel funds. The fund did not have a 10 year, and I would never buy into a fund until it had at least a 5 year track record. (Although it is a good idea to rate the fund manager, not just the fund.) And yes, from what little I have seen of this fund, it does seem ok.