G0ldfinger

That's why I said over $1,400.

To expert opinions - same result. Good stuff!

Such a gross understatement!!

If the exponential pattern of peaks continues, then the next peak will be over $1,400 IMO. http://gold.approximity.com/gold-silver_watch.html

Dito.

That's roughly 10,000 metric tonnes. Some people think that the US still holds 8,000 tonnes. Maybe they should hand it over quickly so that the price won't rise. :lol:

http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/goldpriceslive.html

In last weekend's KER James Turk said that gold reminded him of the Dow in the early 1980: flirting a long time with the 1,000-level, then finally getting over it and never looking back again. So, is this here the blueprint for gold (if you add 28-30 years on the time scale?). My opinion is: yes, maybe, but only if we don't get very severe inflation (which I can't see how it should be avoided), i.e. gold's ascent might be steeper and higher. http://gold.approximity.com/since1968/

Why? Don't you think the space between $900 and $1,000 is a little over-filled and too crowded already?

You would think so.

Surprise, surprise! That would be one for angry Eric. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8213504.stm Guess what? This will further tank prices, because it sounds like forced liquidation of negative equity mortgages.

Did the WGC report on this? http://jsmineset.com/2009/08/20/in-the-news-today-287/

I just think that the ratio is comparatively high at the moment anyway. I just don't bet against silver. Like Rogers, I am long only.

Is it? http://gold.approximity.com/since1968/Gold...-Ratio_LOG.html

Why shouldn't one use straight lines in a normal chart or a log-chart? It always depends on context and argument that is made. E.g. if you want to make the point that something is exponential, heck, yes, a straight line would be not appropriate in a normal chart, but very appropriate in a log-chart. If, however, you wanted to show a linear dependency of two data series, then a straight line in a log-chart would be inappropriate, and it should instead be a straight line in the normal chart.

Have you had too much beer again?

I have to differ here, too. A logarithmic Dow:Gold ratio makes sense because changes in the lower ranges otherwise get overlooked too easily. A change in the ratio from 40:1 to 10:1 is as important (for an investor) as a change from 10:1 to 2.5:1. Hence logarithmic.

I don't agree entirely. For instance, an exchange rate is such ratio, but if one currency gets systematically debased (GBP?) while the other seems largely stable (EUR??), a logscale can make sense. http://gold.approximity.com/since1968/EURGBP_LOG.html

They have a UK account, so it's free if you know how to do it.

Or for the DOW: http://gold.approximity.com/since1968/DJIA...-Ratio_LOG.html

With RB you can never be sure. Similarly cells, with his pseudo-rationalism.

DOUBLE POST. There seems to be a "line of defense" between 300/0.6 and 1000/1.6. Only once too close to 1000, the magic number takes over and dominates as defense line. The upper left line is something like gold's floor (XAUUSD vs. EURUSD).

Does anyone want to draw a few lines? http://gold.approximity.com/since1968/Gold...er_Scatter.html

The financial problem will still worsen.

Scottish delusion lasts longer. Just wait and see.