News Focus
News Focus
icon url

zztops

02/12/05 9:52 AM

#358044 RE: Zeev Hed #358041

I received a lot of interesting replies to my post, including this one. I just scanned your posts that you listed concerning the gold standard and I will study those posts much more closely. It is a question I have wondered about but have, at this point, no opinion on (because of my severe lack of knowledge on the subject, I am sure).

As usual, I continue to learn, almost on a minute by minute basis, from what I read in this room.
icon url

Public Heel

02/12/05 10:20 AM

#358048 RE: Zeev Hed #358041

Were you falling behind in your word-of-the-day calendar? <g> OK, obnubilation and kinephantom are easy enough, but asteisticon? Did you spell that right?
icon url

zztops

02/12/05 11:42 AM

#358070 RE: Zeev Hed #358041

Zeev, I just finished reading your listed posts; here is one sentence that you wrote in sept, 2003 that caught my eye:

<<Simply put, a major move in gold is not going to be tied to gold's fundamentals anytime soon. Gold price, IMTO, simply reflects the relative strength or weakness of the dollar. >>

That was a tad prescient of you
icon url

langostino

02/12/05 12:25 PM

#358083 RE: Zeev Hed #358041

nice one Zeev

obnubilation. sent me scurrying for a dictionary. you win the "Scrabble" award for the day. (Again, lol!)
icon url

orkrious

02/12/05 8:29 PM

#358144 RE: Zeev Hed #358041

If we stayed on the gold standard, the economic cycle would drastically amplified and we would go from massive inflation followed by depressions every decade.

good post in rebuttal

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21043233
icon url

lee kramer

02/13/05 3:01 AM

#358161 RE: Zeev Hed #358041

Hi Zeev: After wading through your few lovely and incomprehensible words; after taking three advil to ease my crashing headache, I agree with you that it would be prudent for us to have a tie, even a tenuous tie, to gold...if only to put a "limit" on the printing press capers the boys occasionally enjoy.